Why would anyone want to be Jehovah's Witness?

To Zev my answer to your question is because society says so. Society draws a difference between physical appearance, such as the redhead, and religion. You may fail to see this, that doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

To DocCathode

They sure will look different and are likely to not be accepted as such. Ask a balck american about this. They will tell you a white guy could never understand the amount of persecution they go through. The DWB effect, the many instances of how much harder it is to get a job, just not understanding what the black man has gone through. That is how it would weaken the american black culture (which you agree exists).

Multi-racial people often say that they feel as though they are not accepted into either culture, and are made to feel like outcasts. Since I just know you are the type who will ask me for a cite, I don’t have one, nor can I call upon any other dopers who may or may not be multi-racial to come defend me. You don’t agree with that fine.

That is the only you have come right out and said yes.

This is what you said:

Reading this again, just so you know, I do see what you mean now, at least I think. I first took it to mean that I was not calling your parents bigots therefore I was failing to follow from a general rule to a specific case which shows a lack of logic and reasoning skills. Since I took you to be saying I was A then I was also B and C. Or that because I wouldn’t call your parents bigots then I was gutless, and making you sick. You did not lay out D, that this is a public board, that what I write could have an effect on my status on this board from authority figures.

D was the only reason I was refraining. If we were having this discussion face to face it would have come out a long time ago, ask my ex-gf what I think of her parents.

As to my assumption about persecution = culture that is not at all what I meant. I could not, and still don’t, see how you accept a black american culture but not a white american culture. A major historical difference between the 2 is persecution. We all know Jewish people have been persecuted, it was the only thing I could see that they would have in common that white america wouldn’t.

As to my ‘it is, it just is’ which somehow insulted you I find bizarre. I was saying that the jewish culture is of course different from other cultures. I didn’t find it necessary to say why it was because we have established that it is, and don’t need to rehash it all over again. We all agree that yes there is a jewish culture.

Again, we are going in circles here, and are in no way talking about the OP any longer. As I said in my last post I don’t see this going anyplace except us saying the same thing in different ways. If either you or Zev ask me another question, much like Zev did then yes I will probably answer, but otherwise do you honestly think anything new or interesting is coming out of my mouth? I sure don’t from yours. Good day to you sir.

If the cost of maintaining Jewish culture is racism or a milder bigotry, is that a cause one should advocate?

Not necessarilly. Their phenotypes may very well fall within accepted variation for black Americans.

You said before you couldn’t define black American culture. Now you’re an expert?

Same objection as the last.

No, you still don’t

I never said people who do A are both B and C. I said people who do A are eitherB or C.

I previously posted exactly why I don’t think there is a White American culture. There are no universal white American foods, songs, stories, festivals, traditions etc.

That is not how the quote reads in full context

The only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from context is that you’re responding to my points on how Jewish parents refusing to let a gentile marry their kids are different from a parent objecting based soley on genetics with “It just is, of course it is.”

It isn’t racism. Race doesn’t enter into it. Is it “milder bigotry”? You bet. It’s extremely and exceedingly mild bigotry. ‘You cannot marry my children.’ That’s the extent of it.

It isn’t just Jewish culture which would die out. With no Jews, Judaism would cease to exist as a religion. All those fun tyrants who tried to wipe us out over the years would finally have their wish. If the cost of our contnued existence is disapproving of somebody our kids have long known we’d disapprove of, I’d say it’s definitely worth it. If teaching our children not to date gentiles, and disapproving when they do is the only reason you can find not to support our cause, then yes you should advocate it.

Yiddish: from Germanic keyn ‘none’ + Hebrew ‘ayin ha-ra‘ ‘the evil eye’. Meaning ‘May there be no evil eye afflicting the cute kids I’m mentioning’. Muslims too have a phrase to utter to ward off the evil eye when mentioning someone’s kids.If you want detailed proof that there is no single Indian culture, ask Johanna. She’s studied the subject, and she speaks Urdu.
[/QUOTE]
:smiley: Hey, thanks for the shout-out, Doc. I also know Hindi, Tamil, and a little Telugu and Sanskrit. If I was to start on India, it would be a huge hijack. (In a thread that’s already massively hijacked, so why not? Broadly, North India and South India are two very different cultural areas, profoundly different from their roots. Both have an overlay of shared Hinduism, though, so they’re not absolutely alien to each other. It’s like Germany and Ethiopia: the only thing they have in common is, they’re both Christian. Then, as Doc noted, there’s Urdu which is the result of a foreign overlay becoming naturalized and blended with native culture. For centuries there was a hybridization of Persian culture and North Indian Hinduism, resulting in Hindustani music, architecture like the Taj Mahal, cuisine like biryani, the Sikh religion, and the Urdu language. For that matter, Hindi has absorbed huge amounts of Arabic and Persian loanwords just like Urdu, they’re really exactly the same language. For centuries there were Hindu poets who wrote in Urdu. There were Hindus writing odes in praise of Prophet Muhammad, and there were Muslims writing odes in praise of Hindu goddesses like Kali. There are Muslims in South India too, but they arrived as traders, not conquerors, and they have not impacted the local culture the way it happened in North India.

As for marriage, whoa, what a headache. It isn’t enough to match religion, the Hindus have to marry the right caste. That system is starting to break down now in urban areas, but probably most Hindus still marry according to caste boundaries. JWs are nothing compared to the restrictions Hindus put on marriage.

Hmmm… I think we’re walking a thin line, here. Is it that “mild”? At what point does “I don’t want my child to marry X because X belongs/doesn’t belong to a given group” becomes bigotry? Which groups (cultural, socio-economical, racial, religous, etc…) are “fair game” and which aren’t? Is it equivalent to say I don’t want my daughter to marry a Jew/a black/a blue collar/a foreigner/another woman? (in none of these case the personnality/character of the potential spouse is relevant).
What level of disaproval is acceptable (I think you’d better not marry her/ You’re disowned and I’ll never ever talk to you again)?
Actually, it reminds me of the current thread about homophobia, because I suspect that the following statement “I’ve nothing against gay people, and have some gay friends, but I wouldn’t want my daughter to marry a woman” (similar to ** Zev **'s statement about non-Jews) might be labelled as homophobia in said thread.

Also, parent’s opposition to one’s marriage on the basis of the spouse not belonging to a group of choice has wreak havoc on many people’s lives. There has been many such testimonies in the past on this very board. So, once again, is it that “mild”?
It also reminds me of a friend whose marriage with a non-jew had be dissaproved by his parents. Though they didn’t give him much flak over this, when the marriage boke apart in an ugly way, they all came with the “I told you so” line, which imply that the dissaproval actually wasn’t merely “We dissaprove of such a marriage because (insert whatever argument already used in this thread)” but also included a non explicit “non-Jews aren’t worthy people”. How can you tell the diference, how can you know what are exactly the real motivations behind such a dissaproval? How can you not wonder about this?

If it’s a matter of genetics, it’s bigotry.

Can the objector identy and describe what they’re trying to preserve? Can they explain how such a marriage would damage that?

Hey, most Jews don’t want their sons marrying gentiles’ daughters anyway.

An objection based purely on genetics. What reason is there a black in-law and the grandchildren cannot participate in whatever religion or culture is being ‘protected’?

What exactly is the objection here? That the kids will be bluecollar? What culture does being a blue collar worker prevent one from participating in?

Define foreigner. Is this an objection to all foreigners? Or just those foreigners who are not already members of whatever culture the objector is trying to protect?

Last time I checked, undisputed evidence showed that sexual orientation is set by age six and cannot be altered afterward. Debate on whether that point can be set earlier, and the role of environment (even the environmental conditions in utero) and genetics is still being debated. The point is, if the daughter is a lesbian with no interest in men, that’s how she’ll be for the rest of her life. No marriage to any man will ever make her happy. To force her to marry a man, or in to a life of celibacy would be be nothing less than cruelty.

On the other hand, telling Jewish kids that they can’t date or marry gentiles does not eliminate the only group they can ever have romantic interest in. They can still date plenty of people, and can find the person they want to marry.

Are you asking what level of disapproval is acceptable for the parent to hold or act on?

If a parent wants to prevent some form of intermarriage, they must express disapproval to the kids strongly and frequently. As with any other action, there must be consequences.

I’ve explained the difference above.

Yes, it is mild. Havoc comes after the person has disobeyed their parents’ very clear rule and started dating somebody they knew their parents would not approve of. They knew what the consequences were.

Are you sure that’s what they were implying? Jews are a very loud and emotional people. If the gentile in question had problems with those things, then naturally the two families would not interact well and there would be added problems in the relationship. The Panamian woman I mentioned (I’ll call her Fabala to keep the pronouns clearer) did not get along well with my family. Around strangers, Fabala became very quiet and reserved. We had a fight after I met her mother. Fabala said that my questions about her childhood and life in Panama had been much to personal and prying and that she couldn’t believe my conduct. I reviewed the situation and couldn’t see what I had done wrong. When Fabala spent the day with me and my parents, I told her that without any prompting from me they would not only mention my circumcision, but tell her the whole story and offer to show her newspaper clippings when we got home. When the subject of my childhood came up, mom and dad did not let me down.

OTOH At reunions, the Italian branch of the family fits in very well. The stereotypical Italian is also loud, emotional, and deeply insulted if you visit their home and do not accept food.

I do wonder about it. I wonder why you think I do not wonder?

You can tell the reasons behind the disapproval the same way you tell the reasons behind anything people say. Is there an important clue in tone of voice or body language? What relevant situations have you observed the person in? What do you know of this person?

You have newspaper clipping about your circumcision? Is this common? I know it has nothing to do with the OP, just really wondering about that. It seems so very odd. Is this like an obit notice?

I grew up in a place with very few Jews. There was no synagogue in the area. Traditionally, any stranger who shows up for the bris is welcome to watch. The event was considered strange and novel enough that a few hundred people, including a representative of the county paper, showed up. Then, Rabbi Klears took out a series of large medical diagrams and explained the procedure. Most of the spectators left then. Here in Philadelphia, or New York, circumcisions are not news. But, in Virginia during the seventies, many people had never even met a Jew.

This is a question to the people that say they don’t want their children marrying a non-jew. Ok, I am not jewish, but say I converted to Judaism. Then I met your daughter, we proceeded to date, and get married. Would you be upset about that? If you would then it is bigotry. If it isn’t, then it is just wanting to preserve your religion, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Not at all. A person who converts to Judaism is just as Jewish as a born Jew. As converting to Judaism is intentionally a difficult process (A gentile can be righteous. But, if they convert to Judaism and keep eating pork etc, then they’ve turned from a righteous gentile to a sinning Jew. For their sake, it’s better to keep them gentiles), a convert would have to have studied Judaism and convinced a rabbi that their desire to convert was genuine.

However, Orthodox Jews do not generally recognize conversions performed by Reform rabbis as valid. Reform conversions do not include a binding promise to keep kosher and obey all the other commandments. If the conversion does include such a promise, the Orthodox will recognize it as valid.

When did the Society decide that the Internet was permissible? When I was a Witness (I was baptized but stopped attending in high school) the Internet was discouraged as it was a place that would increase access to potentially apostate literature.

What you and Blake, the raindog, seem to be missing in the whole debate is that different families and different congregations have massively different responses to the same situations. I was allowed to have worldly friends spend the night. My best friend was not. I was allowed to read whatever I pleased and listen to whatever music I wanted. My best friend could only read books, listen to music and watch movies that her parents had screened first. I was allowed to get involved with school, in plays, volunteer groups, etc, while my best friend was not. Neither of us are active Witnesses today, but her break was infinitely more public, dramatic and sadistic than mine.

There certainly were families in my old congregation that wholly shunned DF family members - no phone calls, no greetings, no nothing. One family that eventually reestablished contact with their daughter (who had also been kicked out of the house for dating a worldly boy) was the subject of much gossip - their decision was viewed as incorrect. My father likes to justify his decision to sever all contact with me for the past five years on my being ‘apostate’ - AFAIK, I am ‘inactive’, but since I have never sent a letter declaring my break with the JW, I was never disfellowshipped.

Now, all of these decisions may seem small and intimate - personal decisions on how to raise one’s child and how to define one’s family…but these choices build up. We don’t know what kind of upbringing the girl in the OP had - were her parents restrictive, like my best friend’s, or more open, like mine? While Blake is trying to paint the girl’s decision as a simple one of dis/obey, if this girl (yes, I am making an assumption here) led a life similar to those children also born into the religion that I grew up in, she very well might have been jumping at a chance for any freedom. While it is just my anecdotal experience, of the children born into the religion that I grew up with, the overwhelming majority lived a ‘double life’ as teenagers (as the Witnesses called it) and eventually left.

Ahh, thank you for the information. Still, to me, it would seem an odd thing to report, but your explanation is more then satisfactory.

I have to say that I’m not a big fan of parental disapproval of suitors based solely on religion, all other things being equal. However, I believe that

  1. parents have the right and authority to restrict the dating habits of their minor children for any or no reason at all
  2. any parent that goes overboard in this control had better be prepared for a BIG surprise when the child becomes an adult.

I’m also a little concern over the Jewish response to this thread, though I guess I should have known better (having grown up and gone to school with a sizable Jewish population). I do wonder how deep this disapproval goes, and whether it rises to the level of disowning a child that finds a non-Jewish partner. I imagine it depends on the family. But, while I’d be willing to put my life up to defend the Jews’ right to exist and practice their religion in peace, I don’t know that I’d care if it died out naturally. All cultures change, die out, and are replaced- if the Jewish ‘message’ isn’t strong enough, it goes away. No hard feelings, okay?

My great grandfather was a Ukranian named Izzy Kalchinski. During one of those fun pogroms that the Czars liked to have, Izzy was nearly killed by a soldier. Izzy survived only because he killed the soldier. At that point, Izzy decided it would be wise to flee the country. He came to America where he was free to be a Jew. If one day his descendants should cease to be Jewish, than Izzy could simply have let the soldier kill him.

The idea of Judaism becoming extinct isn’t some hypothetical for us. You may recall a certain German fellow who killed about six million of us. He thought ahead and had a torah and other objects preserved in a museum of extinct cultures.

Have you heard of the Lost Tribes? The torah says that there were once twelve tribes of Israel. Nebuchednezzar scattered the Jews. Ten of the tribes vanished. For centuries, explorers would point to some practice or another as proof that any group they found was descended from the Lost Tribes. But the most likely outcome is that the Lost Tribes never went anywhere. They stayed with other groups already in the area, and completely lost their Jewish identity.

I can’t really think of a situation in which Judaism would ‘die out naturally’. History has shown that if we are few and we cannot defend ourselves, somebody will be happy to come along and kill us.

Pardon me for saying so, but this is quite boggling to this Catholic-cum-atheist, and fairly depressing. It implies that there is no other purpose to a Jew’s life than to 1)be Jewish and 2)breed more Jews. Is there not joy or purpose to be found outside of being a Jew? There are very few things I can imagine my descendants doing that would make me wish for the end of my line- and all of those things involve hurting others.

I imagine we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I understand your point about the pogroms that have been perpetrated on the Jewish people, but I don’t see how these follow directly from a natural reduction in population. I do see, however, how this past persecution might make you automatically resentful, and wary of, any sort of decline- natural or forced.