Once upon a time, there was a young man, a third-generation American who was raised in a classical Reform temple, who in the Reform manner celebrated becoming a bar mitzvah and who was confirmed in the Reform rite. He was inspired by his temple’s rabbi to himself become a Reform rabbi. He held national office in the National Federation of Temple Youth, and he was admitted to the Reform movement’s Hebrew Union College.
Then, on the very day this young man was supposed to begin studies at Hebrew Union College, he instead entered the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, the intellectual citadel of Conservative Judaism. He agreed to give up the lobster dinners, the veal parmigiana and the BLT sandwiches that he had loved, and even to quit smoking on the Sabbath, as admission to JTS demanded.
The decision was not the result of a dramatic change of convictions. He simply thought he would get a better Jewish education at JTS than at HUC. To that goal everything else was secondary. Six years later, he was ordained by JTS as a Conservative rabbi.
That young man was me. I would go on to raise my children in the Conservative movement.
Today, however, I have returned to the convictions (if not to the cuisine) of my youth — not because they are expedient but because they are compelling. After a half-century of apostasy, I affirm Reform Judaism as the American Judaism both of my personal choice and of our communal necessity. Indeed, I have come to believe that if Reform Judaism did not exist today, American Jews would have to invent it.
To explain why I have returned to Reform Judaism, I’m not going to point to the studies that count Reform as the most popular stream of Judaism in the United States. That would merely echo the demographic triumphalism of Orthodox Jews who say that the future of American Judaism can be calculated from the number of baby carriages and coffins in each movement. Rather, I would suggest, Reform Judaism’s demographic preeminence can be explained by the appeal of its ideas to American Jews and their relevance to the circumstances in which we live.
Broadly speaking, I would suggest, there are two categories of Judaic religious systems in existence today: self-segregationist and integrationist.
Self-segregationist varieties of Judaism seek to isolate their adherents from outside cultural influences. They see Judaism as the only inherently valuable source of knowledge and do not emphasize science, literature or secular history in their yeshivas, only Midrash and Talmud. Self-segregationist Jews wear distinctive clothing specifically to set themselves apart from the world around them. Self-segregationist Judaisms include Orthodox groupings such as Hasidism and yeshivish or Mitnagdic Judaism.
By contrast, an integrationist Judaism is any Judaic religious system that takes as its urgent question the issue of how to be Jewish and something else. Integrationist Judaisms join the practice of Judaism with another cultural affinity. They make space for other commitments besides those of Judaism, teach their children something beyond Torah, for instance. By that definition, the various integrationist Judaisms include Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Renewal and so-called Modern Orthodoxy as well.
Integrationist Judaisms respond to the aspirations of the majority of American Jews. Most American Jews want to be Jewish, but also want to be Americans, not only by citizenship but also by culture. They respond to systems of Judaic thought that explain how to be both fully Jewish and fully American.
Over the past half-century, however, the integrationist Judaisms have sometimes seemed to lose sight of their convictions. Modern Orthodoxy has been under siege from its right flank, while even Reform Judaism has chosen to re-adopt some traditional rites. The outcome of this reversion to tradition has been to effectively present the integrationist Judaisms as less authentically Jewish than Orthodoxy. Rather than settle for a second-rate traditional Judaism, some among the younger generations have opted for the real thing and “returned” — via the baal teshuva movement — to Orthodoxy.
The sorry state of Conservative Judaism — once the giant of American Judaisms — proves this point. Conservative Judaism has increasingly lost the minority of its members who privilege above all else the Judaic component of its message. That group has chosen the Orthodox or even the Haredi option. Meanwhile, many more have left for the Reform movement or joined the ranks of the unaffiliated. The center has not held and will not hold.
Reform Judaism, however, has intrinsic strengths that should enable it to resist the self-defeating tendency toward reversionism. From the very beginning, Reform Judaism has presented itself as the Judaism defined by the American condition.
More recently, Reform Jews have allowed their denomination to be painted as an inferior brand of Judaism — a set of compromises of convenience. Reform Judaism needs to stop apologizing for itself. Instead, it must revert to the clarity and courage — if not to the details — of the Pittsburgh Platform and reassert in the face of contempt the right and duty of Reform. (“Reform,” as Leonard Fein noted a generation ago, is properly understood as a verb and not a noun.)
Reform Judaism has made it into the front rank of contemporary Judaisms, so it must be saying something that is true to the experience of its vast constituency. Specify what that is and build on it. I would suggest that a platform for a 21st-century Reform Judaism should have three essential planks.
The first plank would be to reaffirm the tradition of reason and criticism that has characterized Reform Judaism from its inception. Reform Judaism founded modern learning in Judaism. Its Scripture was not dictated word for word by a supernatural being from outer space. Its theology does not promise pie in the sky when you die. The power of Reform Judaism from its 19th-century origins has been its courage to say it stands for the Judaism of today.
The second plank would be to expand the realm of the secular that Reform Judaism defined as legitimate. Reform Judaism accords to Halacha a voice but not a veto. That is the first step in the formulation of a realm of secular culture of Jewishness. Reform Judaism should advance modes of Jewish cultural expression in secular media such as literature, poetry, art, music and drama.
The third plank is to affirm the tradition of individualism that Reform Judaism has fostered, to validate the individual conscience that Reform recognized. I was brought up to affirm what I found personally meaningful and to dismiss as irrelevant what did not fit.
These three commitments of Reform Judaism — reason and criticism, the secular dimension of the culture and the autonomy of the individual — secure the freedom of modern Jews. And they amount to a Judaism that has profound support in our tradition.
I find a basis for the ideals of Reform Judaism in the Torah’s conception of who and what we are as human beings — portrayed by Scripture as “in our image, after our likeness,” or “like God,” which Rashi glosses as “creators of worlds.” The way we create worlds of meaning and truth is by exercising our power of rational thought and our autonomy of judgment, our capacity to think for ourselves and our non-negotiable capacity to be free. These represent what the reformation of Judaism brings about in the contemporary setting of this ancient and enduring tradition and explain why, if there were no Reform Judaism, we should have to create it today. Happily, we don’t have to.
Rabbi Jacob Neusner is the Distinguished Service Professor of the History and Theology of Judaism and a senior fellow of the Institute of Advanced Theology at Bard College. This essay is adapted from an address that he will be delivering December 1 at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in New York for the 2009 Dr. Fritz Bamberger Memorial Lecture.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
As First Maharats Graduate, Roles for Orthodox Women Take Leap Forward
Samantha Power's Support for Israel Is Deeply Personal 
Why I Only Date Jewish Guys
Barbra Streisand Visits Western Wall After Landing in Israel With Puppy
Taking Aim at Corporate Jewish Burial Business
You've successfully signed up!
I believe, to remind Prof.Neusner, it is the Reconstructionist Movement that "gives Halacha a voice-not a veto." The Reform Movement accepts "the autonomy of the individual."
Neusner has been badmouthing the Conservative Movement since he was passed over for the position of Chancellor in favor of Gerson Cohen and denied a faculty position at the Jewish Theological Seminary.
His scholarship has been called into question by serious academicians as his prolific production has resulted in a plethora of errors in his works.
He has been the proverbial 'bad boy" for years. Now we have more of the same. Prof. Neusner-give it a rest.
The Reform counterpart to Kaplan's a voice not a veto is Freehof's guidance, not governance. Different words but the meaning is essentially the same.
Prof. Neusner might have made the transition back to the Reform movement just on the merits of the movement without the need to comment on the state of the other streams. I think he does his new/old religious home a dis-service when he conflates the position of Reform-affiliated Jews who project it as an inferior brand of Judaism (acted out every time a Reform Jew writes a check to Chabad) with the clearly proud and affirmative positions of the Reform movement. Clearly the movement with which Prof. Neusner now identifies is not the same as the movement he left "once upon a time." We are dynamic and diverse, authentic but not authoritarian, and not Reformed but Reforming, always. But in any event, welcome home.
There were no actual reasons given why the Rabbi didn't choose to go Orthodox. The fact that Reform is this or that is not explaining the justification to make a choice over lets say Orthodox which might be something else. The fact is that the Rabbi just isn't a believer, one doesn't give up on kashrut or shabbat or yom tov, my grandmother and her sisters would starve to death before a crumb of treyf would pass their lips. What with these alta yidden Nuesner and Goldstone to become such turncoats without explanation?
After a rabbincal career as a Conservative Neusner has now defected to Reform. Does he suggest all his disciples follow him? Has his personal encounter and dialogue with Benedict XVI changed his view? Does a Conservative Rabbi turn Reform at the drop of a hat ?
Brilliant Article, I have to admit that I would have build a defense of reform judaism in another way.
As a Jewish from France, I have de facto a different culture from the American one, and we have a definitly a different way of thinking.
I think that such division, and way of affiliation for our faith, is a kind of way to say, they are not really free of thinking, you need to be labeled on your faith..
In France, there is a permissiveness that make Jews that don't share a certain orthodoxy still respectful toward the unity. And times coming, the change is comming from the inside, not from a detached entity, that make lose unity.
Being Jewish is certainly being free for interpretation, by keeping a connection to the tradition. The same way, we keep the value of a variety of trends, but still keeping united. ( Epluribus unum, Shema Israel...)
Europeans choosed to be more on the unity and on the tradition, but not without innovation. Americans, choosed to be more on the independance, and in the innovation with an eye kept on tradition.
It's only a matter of trend, but we are at the end of the day looking for the same, and we will reach that unity. At which cost ?
I read the Rabbi's 3 planks of reform Judaism, one in particular stuck out: "Its Scripture was not dictated word for word by a supernatural being from outer space". So what does the Rabbi affirmatively believe - is there a God, did God select the Jewish people to be a light to the world, did God promise an afterlife? I'd bet his answer is no to all three questions, which is why ultimately the Reform movement will die - as nostalgia for bagels and lox and onions fade, there will be no good reason to be a Jew without a belief in God.
Paul, respectfully, as an orthodox G-d-believing Jew, I don't think that the Rabbi was denying G-d (hafs v shalom) but perhaps is alluding to a more sophisticated idea of G-d's nature. The idea that G-d is a supernatural being in the sky is Peshat. The Rambam OBM was rigorous in his commitment to only describing Hashem in the negative 'unbounded by time is His existence'. The kabbalists too have a much deeper philosophical and spiritual understanding of His nature. If the Reform movement are teaching Jews to be questioning and further understand and experience Him and His nature then that is to be applauded and I wish them every success in their endeavours. Surely this will only lead to deeper and more sincere observance.
Rabbi Neusner is a brilliant man. That is why this article truly disturbs me. Without observance of Kashruth, Shabbat, Yom Tov and other customs and ceremonies, Judaism as a viable religion will not survive.
I believe that Prof Neusner has announced the end of Jewish peoplehood. The Pittsburg Platform of 1885 declared that the Jews are "no longer" a nation. In this article, Prof Neusner noted that he doesn't accept the "details" of the Pittsburg Platform, leaving the impression that Jewish peoplehood is still part of the Jewish experience, even in America. But, alas, his definition of "American Judaism" leaves one very worried. "Most American Jews want to be Jewish, but also want to be Americans, not only by citizenship but also by culture." Yes, that's true. But raising this fact of life to an ideology is to re-define the Jewish essence. Prof Neusner is defining as an ideology "American Judaism" as a religion meaningful for people who are culturally Americans. Jews from Tel-Aviv or Jews from Buenos Aires are outsiders.
When one says "Reform Judaism", the adjective ("Reform") defines this movement of Judaism as opposed to parallel movements. So, a parallel movement would be "Orthodox Judaism". Likewise, when one says "Medieval Judaism" or "Second Temple Judaism", the adjective defines a phenomenon that has a self-evident parallel ("Modern Judaism"). However, there is no self-evident parallel for "American Judaism". There is no "Argentinian Judaism" or "French Judaism", etc. All Jews in the world see themselves as a part of a single people, creating a culture that is meaningful to all other Jews. Rashi's commentary, written in France in the 11th century, was studied in Yemen and in Iraq. It was culturally Jewish.
Prof Neusner is not the first to use the term "American Judaism". Prof Sarna of Brandeis has published a book entitled "The History of American Judaism". It's a very worrisome term. Perhaps, it indicates that the break in Jewish history is a fact of life: American Jewry has gone in its own direction to become something else. If so, the parallel term for "American Jewry" would then be "Hellenistic Judaism". That would be very sad, indeed.
Prof Neusner is always a provocative read. May I respectfully suggest: If what counts for a movement is not its hermeneutic or its official theology but the "votes" of its constitutency, I have difficulty understanding Professor Neusner's change of affiliation. Exactly how are Conservative and Reform constituencies different from one another? Observing from afar, it appears to me that the two have melded into one. If what Professor Neusner means is that he feels more comfortable among Reform Rabbis than among his former Conservative colleagues, his observations are far less significant than the headline.
>Reform Judaism founded modern learning in Judaism.
Really? Who developed modern learning, the Rapoports or the Chorins? The Zunzs or the Holdheims?
Unsurprisingly, someone who "became" conservative for reasons other than it being true has come out in defense of reverting to reform for reasons other than it being true.
If I were to pick my religion based upon broad appeal to the American masses of today, It would become a Unitarian, a non-denominational Christian. The reason people "are" Jews is because they believe in G-d and want to learn and follow the Torah, regardless of the society in which they live. Our role as Jews is not to fit into the mainstream, but to make the mainstream better and stronger. As an Orthodox Jew, when I leave early for Sabbath and eat kosher, it does not alienate me from my fellow Americans (at least in the way that I conduct myself), but rather it adds to the greatness of America in that I am helping to better the world by saying that G-d is important and I subvert my life to what He says. Rabbi Neusner, maybe you can do a little better? Just say you like BLTs and the freedom of Reform and make life a little simpler.
The Reform and the Conservatives are in a race to see who will disappear first (I'd bet on the Conservatives myself)
In the time if took Neusner to write his diatribe, lots of Orthodox Jews were born.
@Qol As a Jewish from France, I'm fortunate or unfortunate to affirm you that before the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885, in France, there was the establishment of the Franco-judaism, that was by the admission of the Jews to the French Society by the pact of the Consistoire in 1808 under Napoleon, the loss de facto, of the national dimension of the Jewish Identity, by the loss of our juridictional autonomy. Jews declared then themselves as French of israelites confessions.
My belief, is that we should be more humble on the meaning of our existence, because, indeed, if some decision in history will produce assimilation, and then a loss of identity,but it's also an opportunity to build, and to produce a deeper and stronger Jewish Identity.
@Dave or @Rabbi Dr Rosenberg even if I share the idea that Orthodox Judaism is certainly more dense, profond, it is nervertheless not enogh by itself, to reach, in my point a wider existance. Corps are necessary but not sufficient, we need also contact with other nations, as a mean to reach them, to light them.
My belief and I think this is maybe the more authentic Jewish answer, it is that G.d drive the Jewish People into decisions, that is for his good, even if it could appears bad. Our mission is certainly to learn to better understanding each other to reach a unity as a value and exemple to Nations, rather than waiting a hurban, to break our hearth and souls to then get to a unity of necessity.
Michael Amsellem - Yes, I am aware of the situation of the French Jewish community under Napolean's rule. I hope that you don't regard the actions and decisions of the French Jews under such duress to be a guiding light for "American Judaism". As noted, there is no parallel in the Jewish world for the term "American Judaism". No one speaks of "French Judaism" or of "Argentinian Judaism" or of "Israeli Judaism". No one would think of Judaism as practiced in the Netherlands, for example, to be a unique phenomenon in its own right (or meant for Dutch people). The very thought that there is now an "American Judaism" is peculiar and worrisome. Judaism is the religion of Jews (members of a particular peoplehood). If the intention is that there is now a Judaism which is the religion of Americans (members of another particular peoplehood), then this would be a severe break in Jewish history.
Here in the UK I have often heard the identification "Anglo-Jewry", and I think it is a useful and accurate description of our British Jewish culture. I fundamentally agree with the dilemma that Rabbi Neusner sets out, which is that global Judaism outside Israel must choose between being segregating themselves from the non-Jewish cultures in which they live, or integrating it with their Jewish culture.
Cultural divisions already exists in global Judaism, between Ashkenazim, Sephardim and Mizrahim. Can anyone say that any one of these are "not Jewish"? The diaspora integration that Neusner is describing has existed for thousands of years. The difference is that the Reform movement recognizes it, engages with it and grows with it, whereas the Orthodox movement is in denial and pretends it does not exist.
According to Rabbi "Dr." Rosenberg, "Without observance of Kashruth, Shabbat, Yom Tov and other customs and ceremonies, Judaism as a viable religion will not survive."
In other words: The Temple, the Temple, the Temple, ritual will save us all.
Where have we heard this narrishkiet before?
Why, in the denunciations of the prophets!
Goodmans: Respectfully, I believe you have misunderstood the prophets. Kashruth, Shabbat, Yom Tov and other customs, etc. do not take place in the Temple. They are the fabric of a Jewish home and family life. The prophets denunciated sacrifices in the face of immoral behavior. It's not the same thing, of course. Shabbat Shalom.
I omitted my doctorate so as not to attract any sarcastic quotation marks.
The Hitlers, the Arafats, the Khomenis, the Ahmenidjads, the Chavez's, the Stalins, the Taliban, the alQuaida, the Hasans, the Mumbai butchers, the Saudis, the Iranians, etc do not/did not need to differntiate among us - they just want to kill us all.
To quote Benjamin Franklin of over two centuries ago, we either all hang together or we will all hang separately.
Shabbat Shalom and a gute voche, alle Yidden.
Rivka - "The diaspora integration that Neusner is describing has existed for thousands of years". No, that's not true. Rashi was not a Frenchman. Sholom Aleikhem was not a Ukrainian. In 19th century Germany, the Jews tried to claim that they are "Germans of the Mosaic faith". It remains to be seen if this kind of Jewish identity will survive in "American Judaism". In any case, it is a new phenomenon of recent history - not thousands of years old.
I agree with you that there is "Anglo-Jewry", the collective Jewish existence in England. Similarly, there is American Jewry. But you have never heard anyone in England say "Anglo-Judaism". There is no such thing. Judaism in England is the same Judaism as in Canada or as in Argentina. "American Judaism" is a new term. The need for a new term indicates a change in essence. What is that change in America? I fear that it marks the end of a common Jewish peoplehood.
I have read all of the responses to Professor Neusner's column. They are remarkably predictable: members of each denomination defend its positions.
This is all fine but doesn't move the ball, so I would like to suggest a different way to approach the issue of denominational differences and validity. Let's use the word "Judaism" the way we use the word "Christianity", as representing a group of related religions, not one.
For example, the Orthodox view is that homosexuality is sinful. I am not a member of any religion that takes that position. And I bet that many Orthodox would take the position that they are not members of any religion that allows women to be cantors (kol nashim being the problem). OK, then, let's deal with this situation honestly.
We are bound together to some extent historically and to a lesser extent ethnically (I get a real kick out of people who think that being Jewish means being Ashkenasic). Let's retain the bond where it truly exists and stop trying to force a bond where honestly held conflict prevails.
I am a Reform Jew, but I do not recognise myself in Rabbi Neusner's article. I "wear distinctive clothing", I cover my hair in public and wore a kippah before I married, but I do not see why this should prevent me from participating in the diverse society in which I live.
I am part of the movement to 'move the Reform movement to the right' although I don't think that this is an entirely accurate way to describe what is going on. I, and many of my friends, have acted to re-evaluted some of the traditional and ritualistic practices which our Reform parents rejected: Jewish clothing, mikvah, kashrut, shabbat observance. At the same time we are shocking the older generation through our 'liberal' positions on other issues such as intermarriage, women's participation and gay, lesbian and transgender issues.
From my perspective the change is less a loss of confidence in Reform Judaism, but a debunking of post-enlightenment philosophy. As a Reform Jew I must decide for myself what I think G@d wants of me, and I cannot in good faith exclude from that thought process critiques of post enlightenment philosophy from feminism and philosophy of science and the influence of the experience of the multiculturalism I grew up within. I must reform my Judaism by asking why "reason and criticism" have mysteriously so often in the past come to the conclusion that we should act like white, middle-class, male gentiles.
I agree with Dr. Bernhard Rosenberg, Jacob Neusner is a brilliant man. I also agree with Dr. Bernhard Rosenberg that judaism will disappear without observance of Kashruth, Shabbat, Yom Tov and other customs and ceremonies. But there is no reason to be disturbed bij this development. Civilizations come and go. Judaism will be no exception.
We believe G-d made a covenant with Abraham and that the Jewish people will survive always.
When finances and intermarriage force UAHC and the United Synagogue, JTSA and HUCJIR to merge, their rich resources combined, the Reformative movement will offer the latest menu from which to pick and choose. This is the dynamic of American Judaism, democracy, popular whim.
Dr. Jack is welcome in any synagogue. Let's see how much patience he has for English responsive readings once the guitar music ends.
Anyone who has studies Neusner ,especially his Judaism: The Evidence of the Mishna, knows that he is has a deep commitment to exploring and expounding texts. Frequently his research leads him to complicated, confusing and controversial conclusions. One might hypothesize and Nuesner probably would agree, that some of the vituperative tone and polemics of this piece (witness the passionate responses he provokes) mirror the ancient arguments between the Houses of Hillel and Shammai. If readers can overcome these stylistic difficulties,they will appreciate hat Neusner raises substantive questions worth pondering.
P.S. The posting that precedes mine, like Arnold Toynbee, is anti-Semitic. I concluded with a reference to the bitter diatribes between Hillel and Shammai. I could have substituted the Geonim and the Karites, the Maimonidean Controversy, Hasidim vs Mitnagdim or the internecine polemics between traditional pre-Emancipation Judaism and Reform which are being played out in this very blog. Unlike the historic murderous unfolding of ideological differences within Islam, which until today results in Shiites and Sunnis slaughtering each other, Jews battle each other with words.
To the radical Muslim anti-semite. We Jews have survived because G-d wants us to. By attacking us you only unite us. Hitler wanted to destroy all Jews, Orthodox, conservative , reform, reconstructionist, atheist. He succeeded in destroying himself, his followers and Nazi Germany.He too wanted us all dead and seen only in in Museums. We will fight against all who come after us. Do not be confused by the fact that we fight intellectually among ourselves. We have done so for centuries and with G-d's help will continue to do so.There have been many Hitler's who wanted to destroy us, our enemies are dead and we live. Am Yisroel Chai, the nation of Israel shall live.
I have admired Rabbi Jacob Neusner as a sagacous voice of reason. I especially appreciated when he defended the Exodus from Egypt by contradicting the rabbi from California who told his congregation that Yetziat Mitzrayim never happened because we can't find any archeological evidence. I also noted how disappointed he was that he was not chosen Chancellor of JTS when he felt he was obviously the best choice . Not all orthodox Jews are there simply because of blind faith. I chose orthodoxy over conservatism as a child because it is the only movement that has long term viability. As Petuchouwski wrote a long time ago, Reform today has little to do with the original movement, they have all died out as Jews. It is like the Cheshire Cat in Alice in Wonderland, only the image is left but none of the substance. i would love to understand how an intelligent, if frustrated, scholar can chose a movement that is incresingly full of non Jews and bears so little substance . Maybe Conservative is dying, but to pick Reform, that is rediculous.
After carefully reading this speech, it does not explain any reason to leave Conservatism for Reform."Its Scripture was not dictated word for word by a supernatural being from outer space". Conservatives also don't believe in Torah Min Hashamayim. " Reform Judaism accords to Halacha a voice but not a veto. Kaplan said that when he was at the JTS and many Conseervative rabbis follow that every day. Reform Judaism should advance modes of Jewish cultural expression in secular media such as literature, poetry, art, music and drama." Louis Finkelstein started the Eternal Light and many other such programs. The third plank is to affirm the tradition of individualism that Reform Judaism has fostered, to validate the individual conscience that Reform recognized. I was brought up to affirm what I found personally meaningful and to dismiss as irrelevant what did not fit. OK, on this one, Reform does claim to be different. In practice, Conservatives also do whatever they feel like with no sanctions from their movement, even its rabbis are free to follow halacha as little or as much as they want to. So, in what way, Rabbi Neusner is Reform really different? What exactly did you leave that you are now Reform?
Good move, Jacob!
Those scholar-in-residence bookings should really pick up now.
Funny Mr Nuesner does not mention that the trend in Judaism that is "out there in the secular world" the most is Chabad. My Aunt belongs to a Reform synagogue. She had been in the hospital for 2 weeks with a broken hip. During that time a Chabad Rabbi stopped by everyday including Saturday after Shabbos to see her. She never even caught his name but said he was a sweetie. Her female Reform Rabbi came once and was on the cell phone the whole time. Nuff said.
The Reform movement has the numbers because it asks nothing of its members. Its a "do what ever you want" group. Environmentalism gets more observance than Halacha. I speak as someone who grew up in a Reform Temple and still has most of my family in the movement. The new generation celebrates holidays but does not study, does not learn, and Shabbat is 2 hours on Friday night, sometime. At Thanksgiving a young adult told her child "we don't believe in Adam and Eve, we believe in Darwin." The Reform movement has institutionalized the outlook "I could never believe in a G-d that would punish me for...." and insert the sin you are committing at the moment. It provides the illusion of faith, but in what? Sure, it may have the numbers but as far as I know its still the case that the drop out rate after high school age is huge. Its Episcapalianism without Jesus. No wonder the intermarriage rate is so high.
"it must revert to the clarity and courage — if not to the details — of the Pittsburgh Platform"
The Pittsburgh Platform?!?! Which asserted, about keeping kosher: "their observance in our days is apt rather to obstruct than to further modern spiritual elevation." Aren't we beyond that by now (by over 100 years)?
Prof. Neusner describes his intellectual path in Judaism. He affirms the 1885 Pittsburg platform as the foundation of American Reform. Drawing on that document, I would add to the planks of his American Judaism platform the belief that a full Jewish life can be lived in the Diaspora. It is essential that Reform (and all) Jews reclaim the Torah, and most of the rest of the Bible, as a creation of the Diaspora, for the Diaspora. The success of the American Jewish experiment set against the perennial source of violence that is Israel/Palestine is testimony to the vision of the founders of Reform Judaism. It is time to bring the Pittsburg platform to the Jewish community in the State of Israel. Reform Judaism is a religious and political model for Judaism and other religions around the world.
"the number of baby carriages and coffins in each movement"
No, Mr Neusner, the salient numeric complaint against Reform is not the above -- it's how many intermarry (isn't the statistic something like 70% these days), and how few (percentage-wise) of their children, and even fewer grandchildren, are Jewish.
Alan Dershowitz cites a statistic that among children of Jews, more are being raised in a non-Jewish tradition than a Jewish one. The problem is particularly acute in the Reform community. Surely you must be aware of this, no?
I am confused about Rabbo Neusner's Second Plank, to "expand the legitimate realm of the secular." Neusner's desired evolution of Reform Judaism is best justified if it would bring more affiliation from the ever-disturbing number of prominent Jews who are secular or agnostic, even atheistic. But I don't understand whether his plan would make Reform Judaism more firmly present in secular US life or will it be merely promoting an additional degree of resignation and acceptance of secularity and avoidance or denial of the religious implications of being Jewish.
Well, each to his own.
I started my Jewish involvement as a young man in the Conservative movement and 3 decades later I find myself returning to it.
After living as an Orthodox (or at least orthopraxic) Jew in Israel in my youth, after being uninvolved Jewishly in America, after belonging more recently to an unaffiliated congregation led by a Reform ordained rabbi, I find myself returning to the local Conservative schule, not for fancy ideological reasons but because there I find the Jews who are highly educated in a secular context, involved in similar professional activities as me, and who have a sense of halacha and traditional davening , and apply their traditional Jewish knowledge in a lay led egalitarian davening context.
In short I find traditional Judaism without the secular ignorance and religious bigotry that I get at the Orthodox synagogue, and without the Jewish ignorance and indifference that I get at the local havura and at the reform synagogues.
People at this Conservative synagogue, in the separate lay led minyan I participate in, have been to Israel, have had experience in traditional religious settings.
Yes, at this Conservative synagogue most people drive on Shabbat. I daven with the people who like me feel bad about that, and that is comforting. We know what is right, and we're not looking for a congregation that excuses the compromises we have made... nor are we looking for one that confronts us or expels us. At least that's how I see it.
I don't know what this alleged crisis in Conservative Judaism is about. Maybe I'm isolated from all that out here in the west. This synagogue seems big, and there are lots of kids too.
I find the use of English in Reform services and the lack of a "sense of halacha", a lack of the very idea of "law", to be deeply unsettling. I find myself thinking "these folks aren't running the same operating system as me."
I really do experience Reform Judaism as a different religion, and never more so then when I meet congregants. In contrast, Conservative Judaism has always represented to me an effort at continuity in hashkafic and ideological terms, a form of "modern orthodoxy", and when I meet fellow participants I find people thinking recognizably Jewish thoughts, and struggling with recognizably Jewish problems of daily life.
That's my experience.
"the number of baby carriages and coffins in each movement"
No, Mr Neusner, the salient numeric complaint against Reform is not the above -- it's how many intermarry (isn't the statistic something like 70% these days), and how few (percentage-wise) of their children, and even fewer grandchildren, are Jewish.
Alan Dershowitz cites a statistic that among children of Jews, more are being raised in a non-Jewish tradition than a Jewish one. The problem is particularly acute in the Reform community. Surely you must be aware of this, no?
My dear fellow Jews! As important as the issue of segregation vs. integration is, let us never forget that the most orthodox of us were standing in the same gas chamber line with the most adamant atheists. No one ever questioned their beliefs and convictions, no one ever split hair about their adhrence to kashrut or else. At the very end they were just JEWS.
The reason why Reform Judaism will disappear is given by Neusner himself at the end of his article:
"The way we create worlds of meaning and truth is by exercising our power of rational thought and our autonomy of judgment, our capacity to think for ourselves and our non-negotiable capacity to be free. These represent what the reformation of Judaism brings about in the contemporary setting of this ancient and enduring tradition ..."
This is of course in one sentence the message of The Enlightment: Reason, autonomy and individuality. Jacob Neusner, like myself and most other living jews, is a child of the Enlightment. We are through and through modern, judaism has either de facto disappeared in our lifes or is reduced to a form of folklore, or as Herbert Gans calls it, symbolic Judaism.
My, there certainly is a lot of ignorance and narishkeit flying around in the commentary on Prof. Neusner's change of religious identification.
The Orthodox triumphalists neglect to mention that the huge majority of American Jews, whether they affiliate with Reform, Reconstructionist, or Conservative synagogues, or whether they choose not to affiliate at all, had Orthodox grandparents. The other movements are all reflections of the failure of Orthodoxy.
Nor does the above commentary reflect the present day state or message of the Reform movement -- which IS committed to Torah (albeit in a different way from those who see it as a law book rather than as an ethical guide), is committed to Shabbat, but in a framework of worship and relaxation, not in a framework of forbidden activities), and is committed to k'lal Yisrael -- but is not committed to the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885, having in effect repealed it in the Pittsburgh Principles of 1995.
Prof. Neusner tells us he went to JTS for what he thought would be a better Jewish education than what he envisioned at HUC -- and accepted the disciplines that Conservative Judaism demands of its clergy and calls unsuccessfully for its laity to observe. If he did not take on the ideology, his move into Reform will be lateral, and assuming he sticks with his established lifestyle, in today's Reform, it will raise no eyebrows.
There is considerable merit to Prof. Neusner's division of the Jewish people into integrationists vs. anti-integrationists -- those who choose the world vs. those who choose the ghetto. I like the Hartman distinction better -- those who are serious about their Judaism and those who are not. But being serious does not require self-segregation, or wearing costumes, or being all about ritual rules as the only way.
Meanwhile, we might learn from the two statements of Rabbi Dr. Bernhard Rosenberg how it is possible for two different beliefs to co-exist. (Eilu v'eilu...). On Thursday he told us what we needed for Judaism as a viable religion to survive, and by Saturday he had flip-flopped or something, to tell us that God made a covenant with Abraham, so we'll always survive. And, thanks to the Reform and Cosnervative Jews who have figured out how to make Judaism work in the modern world, he's right -- we moderns will survive. Whether the fossils will remains to be seen.
Rabbi Neusner's depiction of the current state of conservative Judaism is at sharp odds with both my self-identity as a conservative Jew and my experience in the conservative movement. From the birth of Magen Tzedek to a recent committment ceremony at my shul for two gay men, I find that the conservative movement is alive and well, and increasingly in tune with the world and with the human condition.
Although I do not validate conservative Judaism by invalidating other normative Jewish movements (orthodox, reform, reconstructionist) I find that Jewish self-identification and my ability to reconcile social values with Judaism is effortless in the conservative movement.
R. Neusner's depiction of conservative Judaism is myopic and, as such, highly skewed.
Most of the people I grew up who went from Conservative to Reform did so because that "temple" was more conveniently located. In any case, like me, they are still essentially ignorant of Jewish knowledge. Unfortunately, the Reform movement, led by people like the Professor, seems to encourage a naturalistic or humansitic answer to our questions. This is the opposite of what our religion needs to thrive. As the old saying goes, "there are no third-generation Reform Jews." Or, to appease the Professor, let us say, "There are indeed third-generation Reform Jews. Let's hope there are fifth-generation." Or maybe we should pray.
American JEWs are becoming rarer and rarer as their transformation continues into Jewish AMERICANS. "Jewish AMERICANS" come in a number of organized varieties - conservative, reform, orthodox - and also in a very common unorganized variety - nominally jewish by virtue of birth or ancestry. By focussing only on their religious identity and suppressing any national identity as members of the Jewish nation/people (Am Yisrael) in favor of an American national identity, Jewish Americans are disassociating themselves from the Jewish People and assimillating themselves into being Americans. But limiting jewish identity to only the religious component (of whatever variety) doesn't work in an open society - it has not proven to be stable and there is rampant assimilation into the surrounding society. The best current choice for those who want to flourish as jews is to live in the Jewish state, Israel - and here the word "Jewish" is meant in the national sense.
all these reform and conservative and reconstructionists jews make up their own religion to suit themselves. they have no structure. if its a blt that they like they'll make up a torah or talmud provision to justify it as modern. to them G-d is never right. they know better. after all His Torah is not relative in this so called modern era. one can look at the history of the jewish people to see what became became of jews who sought be like others in their society. they did become like them. it is my firm belief that arafat probably was of jewish decent. that is what happens to the decendants of apostate jews.
there is no future for jews who seeks to divorce themselves from the jewish people.
My thoughts, in a post called "'Integrationist' Reform weakened by ritual?": http://davidsaysthings.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/integrationist-reform-weakened-by-ritual/
The high level of this dialogue is a welcome change from the stupidity of many blogs. Most contributers say something that makes sense and only a few insult those who disagree. rabbi Rosenberg didn't flip flop, he is talking about two different things.Judaism will survive as we have a Covenent, but which Jews will survive? Those who take Judaism seriously and can pass it on to the next generation. Without Torah and Mitzvos, that is very hard to do. I am not a Chabad personally,but I do not think that a Reform Jew who donates to Chabad is a traitor to Reform as one person seems to say. Chabad does a great service and,whatever their faults, they actually do care and aren't just in it as a career or for the salary. How many non Chabadniks of any group will move where they move and spend their lifetimes serving non affiliated Jews meals and offering a warm and accepting hostel. Do they have an agenda? Of course and what is wrong with that agenda? If you have a good product, sell it, don't knock the other one. "The Orthodox triumphalists neglect to mention that the huge majority of American Jews, whether they affiliate with Reform, Reconstructionist, or Conservative synagogues, or whether they choose not to affiliate at all, had Orthodox grandparents. The other movements are all reflections of the failure of Orthodoxy" The people on this blog are educated enough to discern that the orthodoxy of today has reinvented itself and is no longer fighting the losing battle that it fought for a very long time. Today's orthodoxy is head and shoulders above other movements in the learning of its laity in the numbers of its members who raise Jewish grandchilden. In the end, what else matters? The shul I go to has 5 morning minyanim and three evening minyanim and hundreds of people daven there every day. They include all ages and all professions. There is no comparison to the vitality of orthodoxy today to the other movements, not by a long shot.Who are you kidding?
A DC Wonk- That's what the "if not to the details" part means.
@ Bill -I know many Reform Jews who are 3rd and 4th generations Reform. All around the country there are Reform temples who have celebrated their 150th anniversary in the last few years. It is Orthodoxy that is the newcomer, as a movement and in America. Rabbi Neusner makes a strong case that since American Reform is rooted in the political climate of the U.S. it will continue to flourish. Reform has shown its robustness through its longevity and its flexibility - much like the United States itself. It is way too early to tell what is the future of Orthodoxy. The recent population spike in Orthodoxy is dependent on many variables - both internal and external.
Elliot - It sounds as if you believe that Reform Judaism is the secret behind the success story of Jewish life in America, whereas the lack of Reform vision is the explanation for the ME conflict ("The success of the American Jewish experiment set against the perennial source of violence that is Israel/Palestine is testimony to the vision of the founders of Reform Judaism"). First of all, I wouldn't know what is the "experiment" of American Jewry. By and large, it is a very (Jewishly) illiterate Jewish community. What you call "success" - the total adoption of the American identity - has been essentially the abandonment of Jewish distinctiveness. Whenever I teach American (Reform) Jews, it is always self-evident that there is no assuming any prior Jewish knowledge - not the Torah, not history, not the Hebrew script, and not even a quote from the Jewish prayer book. You have to keep a straight face to avoid hurting anyone's feelings - but in your heart you understand that this is a tremendous break in the continuum of Jewish history.
You claim that the Torah is a creation of the Diaspora and for the Diaspora. It could be that the Book of Genesis was written in the Babylonian Exile. I would argue that it was written in the Land of Israel by the community that had just returned from the Exile. Surely, the Book of Deuteronomy is a pre-Exile creation. What is obvious about the Torah - whether given at Sinai or written in the Exile - is its clear focus on life in the Land of Israel. Since you claim that it was written for the Diaspora, I must assume that you too have not really read the book. Exile from the Land is - according to the Torah - punishment for not obeying the Torah. You can reject this theme (as apparently you do), but you can't pretend that the Torah was written for a Diaspora audience.
You understand the conflict in the Middle East as a Jewish "failure", in opposition to the "success" of having chosen Diaspora life. Well, I suppose living in a situation in which Jewish community life isn't responsible for any life-and-death decisions is a situation that looks "successful". However, it is the same "success" of a painter who doesn't paint, or a writer who won't write. There is nothing to criticize - but there isn't anything to praise as well. Yes, we live in conflict in the Land of Israel. It's sad. But we are a Jewish society that creates its own culture, speaks its own language and has control over its own destiny. So, we're open for criticism - and for praise.
You have surely noticed that sending Jewish youth to Israel is a very common and highly-praised educational activity in the American Jewish community. The reason is that Israel presents a Jewish world, a Jewish society (success), that doesn't exist anymore in the Diaspora (failure).
"My shul/movement is more active than yours" sounds triumphalist. The Temple with the most Jewish activities wins?
Jack deserves our vote to edit a new translation of the Reform Talmud.
Yehuda: Orthodoxy and Reform differ on what is Torah. You write:
"Whenever I teach American (Reform) Jews, it is always self-evident that there is no assuming any prior Jewish knowledge "
For you, mastery of the canon of Jewish knowledge is what makes a Jew. As you write: "the total adoption of the American identity - has been essentially the abandonment of Jewish distinctiveness."
I assume that you have mastery of part of the canon of Jewish texts. If you pray regularly, you know several dozen of the Psalms well - but not the rest. You may be very familiar with the weekly Prophetic readings but less so with other parts of the Bible. in terms of Jewish values, you may uphold different values than those cherished by Reform Judaism.
One of these is the equality of women. This is an essential value for Reform Jews. Orthodox, to the extent that this is part of Orthodox discourse, it comes from the American wing (i.e. the Americanized modern Orthodox). This is an example of the flexibility of American Judaism, led by Reform to be flexible and respond to the times. In Israel, otoh, the notion that women should be full partners in religion is a laugh line (with the notable exception of a fringe of leftwing Orthodox American Jews). Just look at that other headline on this paper's homepage.
Yehuda, I'm sorry about your frustration with your students. You might want to engage with them on their level and affirm their families' understanding of Judaism. You write:
"What is obvious about the Torah - whether given at Sinai or written in the Exile - is its clear focus on life in the Land of Israel. Since you claim that it was written for the Diaspora, I must assume that you too have not really read the book."
My point was that the Torah was written outside the Land of Israel. Much of the Bible (and, in particular, the parts that are included in the liturgical cycle) are critical of Jewish corporate life life in the Land of Israel, and upholds moral values rather than politics and tribal allegiance.
Regarding the focus of the Torah, actually, that is not the case. Since you mention the Book of Deuteronomy, you may want to compare the Tanchuma to the Midrash Rabbah on the first verse of Chapter 1. That reveals the classical debate about the centrality of the Land of Israel. This is as ancient as Judaism itself and I hope you will allow for the relevance of this debate in our generation too.
Israel has succeeded in creating on of our centers for Jewish life. Yet it still has much to learn from American Judaism led by Reform. Let's with a. the equality of women and b. affirming the humanity of all human beings, Jewish or not. Are Jewish values of kindness and decency present in the conduct of young Jewish men and women on the West Bank or in Jewish communities in the Diaspora? Finally, in terms of success, are Jews today safer in the Land of Israel or in the major Jewish centers of the Disapora.
"kindness and decency in conduct" are human values and not exclusively jewish values. Being a kind, decent human being is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being a jew. you can be kind and decent american without being a jew.
Jewish Americans who are entirely "at home" in the USA and have discarded any existential angst of living in exile from their natural homeland,the Land of Israel, are cutting themselves off from the jewish nation , both historical and present-day. So what remains for such people: either to reduce being jewish to just following universal values (a la Reform) or to reduce being jewish to a very particularistic religious observance(a la estranged-from-society Haredim). Both are unidimensional aberrations. Reform is dysfunctional as it is not even self-perpetuating and is just a waystation on the trajectory out of having any real Jewish identity in the long run. Even though isolationist Haredim do perpetuate themselves (at least so far but with increasing economic difficulty)this is at the price of societal abnormality , cutting themselves off from being productive members of society.
If "safer" for Jews means "both physically and emotionally safer to live as jews in a jewish society", then the safest Jews do in fact live in the land of Israel. Galut (diaspora)jews are at serious risk of actively or passively cutting themselves or their children out of the wonderful opportunity of being normal jews in a dynamic jewish society. Tragic how many jewish americans simply don't know what they are missing as they meander or gallop into oblivion as jews.
One of Jack's eminent professors at JTSA understood the the Pharisees in socio-economic terms. Perhaps, his intellectual evolution owes a similar debt. Historically, the movement with the highest dues structure, the wealthiest economic strata, non-sectarian, the Distinguished Professor deserves no less.
Reven - you make bold assertions while offering no evidence to back them and you provide no response to the arguments I presented.
For the sake of argument I will use your defintions.
"both physically and emotionally safer to live as jews in a jewish society"
"PHYSICALLY safer" - you gotta be kiddin'! "emotionally safer" - the toll of a small country going to war every two years and being locked in a neverending violent conflict cannot be the best medicine for good mental health. "Jewish country" - There's nothing Jewish about Israel's persecution of the non-Jewish residents of the territories (with the full backing of the Israeli Jews - as reflected in the IDF and the political system. The racism that allows Israeli Jews to not see God's image in all human beings is deeply offensive to the majority of Western Jews and violates their sense of Jewishness. As it would for past generations of Jews.
Looking at some of your other defintions:
Does "Safer" means safe from being killed for being a Jew and being sent to kill others as a representative of the Jews? "Dynamic" for whom? Religiously, the American religious scene outshines the Israeli one one the key issue of full participation for women. As for "meandering or galloping into oblivion as Jews" - when was the last time you visted a Reform community or summer camp?
burp
Elliot - No, I'm not speaking of "mastery of the Jewish canon" in order to be Jewish. There are Jewish experts and there are regular Jews. The regular Jews are people who have an acquaintance with the Jewish text, because they live in some kind of framework of Jewish life in which real Jewish education is self-evident. They are not experts, of course. In the Reform Movement, education is sub-standard. The "masses" are ignorant, even the campers. Of course, there is always the very strong core of committed Jews - but by and large, Jewish culture has become foreign.
The Bible, to a large extent, is a pro-David book. In other words, the people behind the finalizing of the text were people who sought to see the ultimate restoration of the House of David to its throne in Jerusalem. The examples are endless. The Bible is focused on Jerusalem, the House of David, and what you called "tribal allegiance" (the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob). You, as a Reform Jew, say before reading the Torah: "asher bachar banu mi-kil ha-'ammim..." The choice of Israel is an integral part of the Jewish legacy - and that is very "tribal". Moreover, you use the term "Diaspora". Anyone who uses such a term is recognizing that there is a Jewish territorial point of reference (the Land of Israel) which enables us to define "Diaspora". So, there is indeed a strong universal message in the Jewish text - but the Jewish legacy is always focused on the particular.
I don't really understand your view on safety as an indication of success. If England is attacked by Germany, and her cities are being bombed - do we conclude that England is a failure? Should we assume that English Jewry is a failed collective existence because of the dangers of the German blitz? All peoples and communities have found themselves in a position wherein they must fight. I've never heard of personal safety being an indication of a successful Jewish community. The American Jewish community is in the midst of crisis, despite its safety. Most Jews have chosen not to be part of Jewish life.
The success of Israel is in the creation of a Jewish society. The most impressive success is the Hebrew language and the entire Jewish culture that is created in our own language. There are Jewish experts in Israel - but much more importantly, there are masses of regular Jews. Your taxi driver will quote the Tanakh, and he won't even think that it's a big deal. People sing at parties popular songs, many of which have whole lines taken from the Psalms or from the prophets.
Sometimes, I come across articles in which an American Jewish sociologist defines "committed Jews" in the American Jewish sense. The definition is likely to be: (1) Sending your children to a Jewish educational framework; (2) Marrying within the Jewish community; (3) Being part of organized Jewish life; (4) Visiting Israel occasionally. Isn't it just amazing? A "committed Jew", a minority phenomenon in America, is for the Land of Israel the most self-evident aspect of life. All of our children study in "Hebrew school" where they learn Tanakh, Jewish history, Jewish traditions, etc. All of our children marry other Jews. All of us are part of organized Jewish life - and Israel is not just a 10-day vacation target for us. It's a way of life.
"Reform Judaism has made it into the front rank of contemporary Judaisms, so it must be saying something that is true to the experience of its vast constituency."
It sure is! It's saying don't worry about the inconvenience of Halacha, marry whoever you want, you don't have to undertake boring and onerous tasks like learning Hebrew, studying the Torah or praying.
There is one glaring hole in this argument about the appeal of the Reform movement to today's American Jews - and that is that it offers the extremely convenient option of being Jewish in the most nominal sense only without interfering with the vastly-appealing option of near-total cultural assimilation.
I am not saying that there is a stream of Judaism that is "right" or "more true"... but let's be honest about a huge chunk of the Reform movement's constituency - they are not people who have evaluated the merits of various movements' approach to Judaism - they are the bridge generation between a Jewish past and a non-Jewish future. They don't fit into the more halachically-concerned streams and it is extremely unlikely that they will form any part of the future of Am Yisrael.
I'm glad there is a Reform movement for Jews who genuinely search and can't find answers anywhere else, but excuse me if I don't participate in the smug celebration that Christianity's waiting room is all constructed and ready for the current onslaught generation of Jews who basically want out of anything that bears a resemblance to traditional, halachic Judaism - it represents failure, not success.
Why is Modern Orthodoxy "so-called" but not other denominations? Why is he trying to separate from the Orthodox "triumphalism" of recent years and not, say, the Conservative triumphalism of the 60s and 70s. Neusner needs to learn to veil his animosity toward Orthodoxy a bit better.
Reform is not Judaism. You can't eat pork and lobsters and still claim to be a religious Jew. You can't make a woman a Rabbi. You can't deny the link between Jews and their Land, as Pittsburgh Platform does ("We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state"). You cannot deny resurrection. You cannot "appreciate providential mission" of Islam. You just can't.
Yehuda - In an earlier post you wrote of teaching Reform Jewish children. So far, you have not offered one word of respect for the people you work with. How you are able to teach in a Reform community with your opinions on Reform Judaism?
Elliot I am not kidding. Come to Israel and see for yourself. You'll enjoy it. As for proving things to you or convincing you, this requires an agreement on a frame of reference. But this is lacking between us. You view Jews as a religious orientation hence your perspective is Judaism . I view Jews as a nation which has a religious component. I doubt whether what is said from a broader identity perspective can be properly understood from your narrow religious perspective. The proof is in the pudding. Rather than give you statistics on reform intermarriage, consider a representative piece of anecdodal evidence that exemplifies how North american Reform is just not jew-sustaining. In the preparations for celebrating an anniversary of the establishment of Holy Blossom as a reform temple in Toronto over 70 years ago, there was an attempt to include in the program descendants of the founders. The plan was scuttled when it turned out that there were so few jewish ones. Of course now Holy Blossom has thousands of members. But they are on a comfortable ride out unless there is a fundamental change in what Reform is all about. As for general morality and ethics in Israel...who are you kidding?? It just ain't so. The reality is so at odds with the clap-trap conventional wisdom that you and the agenda-driven media spout, that there is little that I can possibly say that may budge your flat-earth convictions. So, if you don't want to come here and see for yourself first-hand, at least listen to what Colonel Richard Kemp had to say to the UN Human Rights Council, 12th Special Session, 16 October 2009: http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1313923&ct=7536409
Your defamation of Israel may be due to your simply taking at face-value and parrotting what Israel bashers in the media constantly spew out. But you should ask yourself: if the media were to demonize all your family (who you know to be decent people) and to portray them as monstrous villains, would you still adopt the media line?
Reuven: "Elliot I am not kidding. Come to Israel and see for yourself. You'll enjoy it." As a Jew? As a Palestinian? Reuven - ditto my comment to Yehuda. Why do you assume that those who don't share your views are ignorant of your life and beliefs? Westernized Israelis are lining up at the consular sections of foreign embassies. Evervbody who can is making sure they have the insurance policy of a foreign passport. Even Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the US resisted giving up his American passport. Your own official representatives do not trust in the viability of your country.
Orthodoxy and Zionism began in the 19th century as movements opposing Diaspora Judaism. Fundamentally, this means affirming the humanity of all people. American Judaism (Reform, Conservative, and increasingly, modern Orthodox) accept women as full partners in religion and relate to non-Jews as creatures of God. These values are sadly absent society in general, acutely so, in Israeli Judaism. Israel and Orthodoxy are marginalizing themselves and have only themselves to blame. The world is moving on. It's time to get beyond rebellion and and live the values of Western Jews.
Eliot, repeating your disparaging mantras without firsthand experience of the Israel scene gives you no credibility. When over two thirds of Jewish Americans have not even visited Israel ( most of the tourists are non-jews), then it is not surprising that some jewish americans like you get infected with unfounded, negative notions about Israel. In fact some even get the jewflu. For a definition of the term see: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=1127159&contrassID=0&subContrassID=0
But it would seem to me thatyou not that far gone but you may have the "Newest Testament" Jews condition. For a definition of the term see: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243045268&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
As for your fantasy revisionist notions of jewish history, go and learn before you pretend that you know. And try to be honest and keep an open mind, at least with yourself. Find out where you came from, look at where things have gone, look at where things are going. And then decide whether to be actively part the Jewish people as a Jew (and please don't prattle about Judaism) or whether to de facto opt out (with a bang or a wimper) of the Jewish People as either a universalist cosmopolitan of jewish descent or as an American of the judaic persuasion (chose your own flavor).
Please note Mr. Nueusner: The grandfathers of the future reform rabbis of 2050 are currently studying in a Yeshiva. The grandchildren of the current reform rabbis will not consider themselves or not be Jewish.
Reuven. Your first sentence demolishes (yet again) your own credibility. "Eliot, repeating your disparaging mantras without firsthand experience of the Israel scene gives you no credibility" Did you read my last response to you? Please study before preaching. You may avoid your worse errors.
yes, Eliot. I of course read what you posted. But it wasn't a response. And as I said, I hold out little hope in meaningfull communication between us. Somehow Israel remains for you the forbidden fruit that is not even to be tasted. For now anyways. You don't even have a suspension/neutrality of judgement about israel even though you clearly don't know your posterior from your elbow about society in Israel. I guess the negative illusions you have about Israel make it easier not to even taste the forbidden fruit. Let me at least wish you success in finding a meaningful identity. But frankly I would be pleasantly surprised if down the line your primary identity will be as a jew.
"Reform Judaism has made it into the front rank of contemporary Judaisms, so it must be saying something that is true to the experience of its vast constituency."
It sure is! It's saying don't worry about the inconvenience of Halacha, marry whoever you want, you don't have to undertake boring and onerous tasks like learning Hebrew, studying the Torah or praying.
There is one glaring hole in this argument about the appeal of the Reform movement to today's American Jews - and that is that it offers the extremely convenient option of being Jewish in the most nominal sense only without interfering with the vastly-appealing option of near-total cultural assimilation.
I am not saying that there is a stream of Judaism that is "right" or "more true"... but let's be honest about a huge chunk of the Reform movement's constituency - they are not people who have evaluated the merits of various movements' approach to Judaism - they are the bridge generation between a Jewish past and a non-Jewish future. They don't fit into the more halachically-concerned streams and it is extremely unlikely that they will form any part of the future of Am Yisrael.
I'm glad there is a Reform movement for Jews who genuinely search and can't find answers anywhere else, but excuse me if I don't participate in the smug celebration that Christianity's waiting room is all constructed and ready for the current onslaught generation of Jews who basically want out of anything that bears a resemblance to traditional, halachic Judaism - it represents failure, not success.
I am giyerot, a member of a Reform congregation. Many Reform Jews, as I have experienced, seem to be proud to be Jews, proud to be Reform, but, sadly, have no interest in learning more about the detailed heritage and history of Judaism, particularly anything that is pre-reform. Do they know what they reject or refuse? Rabbi Neusner's pronouncement is heartening in that it indicates sincere, continuing exploration of his personal belief. And he is not without extensive education across the broader spectrum of Judaic belief. If his searching has brought him to the Reform stream, I wish him every blessing. In conversion, my intention was not only to find myself in a faith I could live with, but also one I would be willing to die for. I continue to study, on my own, in classes, and frequently attend Shabbat services at an Orthodox shul (where, I am proud to say, I have been named officially number eleven in minyan! Yes, I know it's the first ten men who really count, but I think the Rabbi was wonderfully kind to acknowledge my presence and support in this symbolic way.) In the end, it is simply, I am a Jew. Forget the devisive labels. And just do Jewish, the best way you know how. Or, maybe that's too easy. But I think Rabbi Hillel would have liked it.
You write the following : "... in France, there was the establishment of the Franco-judaism, that was by the admission of the Jews to the French Society by the pact of the Consistoire in 1808 under Napoleon, the loss de facto, of the national dimension of the Jewish Identity, by the loss of our juridictional autonomy. Jews declared then themselves as French of israelites confessions." I think that you are not right! The Jews of France actually lost their quality of a "nation" or a "people" as condition to receive the French citizenship in 1791, at the time of the French Revolution and not under Napoleon. They became as a fact only a faith just like the Catholics or the Protestants. « Il faut tout refuser aux Juifs comme nation et tout accorder aux Juifs comme individus » said the Count of Clermont-Tonnerre. In an approximative English translation that means «One should deny the Jews to be a people but and allow the Jews all (rights) as individuals » The rest ensued from this. This was the condition layed before them in order to become French citizens.
@Michael Amsellem. The preceeding post was adressed to you.
Living in the Orthodox enclave of Passaic, NJ, I know several local Orthodox women who teach in Reform Temple's Hebrew schools in the areas that surround Passaic in Northern New Jersey. I have been led to believe by them that the majority of teachers in these Hebrew Schools are either Orthodox or Israeli.
Neusner’s Jewish worldview flawed as it is, erroneously is attempting at bolstering his movement by suggesting three planks (Why is it that programmatic suggestions seems to always come in threes, like the three legged stool that Obama often times refers to when explaining the way to rebuild the economy or a country). The third plank affirms the tradition of individualism, validating the individual conscience, which fits well with his second plank that halacha should be a voice but not a veto (when was it anything else in Reform Judaism?) as he suggests “I was brought up to affirm what I found personally meaningful and to dismiss as irrelevant what did not fit”. This strikes me as though he sees his Judaism as nothing more than silly putty, fun to play with it, but when it gets messy and unmanageable get rid of it. Somehow it seems too chaotic, too convenient, too American. In that sense he is right. Reform Judaism is an American expression. It reflects the American culture, a disposable culture. When something is no longer useful or relevant dismiss it. It’s something like the sprawling American suburb, where Reform Judaism is so comfortable; with single use buildings put up overnight and dismantled when they have outlived their use. Reform Judaism-American Style.
Elliot - The American Jewish audience is generally very weak. That's a fact. That doesn't mean that one shouldn't teach them. We haven't given up on fixing the Jewish world. However, when dealing with real issues, one must define in realistic terms the problems that one faces. When meeting Reform Jews, children and their parents, it is obvious that they have a very poor background. Most do not know the Hebrew alphabet. They have never learned the Hebrew calendar. They have never received serious instruction on Biblical literature. Most couldn't recite the names of the Five Books of Moses. They have never seen a page of Talmud, and they wouldn't know what it is. Most importantly, Jewish identity is not their primary identity. The situation is sad. If anyone cares, and he wishes to fix something - then my advice is to be frank and open about things. Something has gone very wrong in the American Jewish experience. It's a disservice to pretend otherwise - even if you teach in the Reform Movement classroom.
Elliot - The phenomenon of seeking a second passport is a general Jewish phenomenon - not just an Israeli phenomenon. Don't get carried away. Israel is the only growing Jewish community in the world. Half the Jews in the world now live here, and the percentage is growing. So, although you wish to depict Israel as a failure, you should only wish such a "failure" on all Jewish communities. Are you anti-Israel? You have expressed a few typical arguments of the Israel-bashing crowd. On the other hand, you express a number of opinions of a committed Jew. It's always strange (and sad) to hear a committed Jew disowning half of his own people. We're all brethren. I want the Diaspora to succeed (that's why I criticize it - it has problems that must be addressed urgently). I hope that you, too, wish us in Israel to succeed as well.
I've found this exchange most interesting, but in discussing the merits vel non of Reform Judaism it has largely avoided discussing the merits vel non of Conservative Judaism -- which, after all, Rabbi Neusner has for some reason found unsatisfactory. I have read and re-read his essay, but I haven't found any principled objection to the Conservative movement. He complains that it holds an untenable middle position, with the more traditionally observant members moving rightwards to various strands of Orthodoxy and those otherwise inclined moving left to the Reform movement or perhaps out entirely. But this does not seem to me as much a principled objection to the Conservative movement as it is a political, or perhaps demographic objection; if Conservative Judaism cannot hold its audience, then one has to move to Orthodoxy or Reform, and Rabbi Neusner finds Reform more in keeping with his deeper beliefs.
Doesn't this assume that the Conservative movement is nothing but the one in the middle, so that there is nothing to choose between Reform and Conservative Judaism? The writings of Rabbi Neil Gillman, to name just one, point to a coherent theology behind Conservative Judaism. What about this theology does Rabbi Neusner find unacceptable? After all, just three years ago he published an op-ed piece in the Jerusalem Post about why he found Conservative Judaism "stronger and more vital" in 2006 than it was in 1956, despite -- or perhaps because of -- its relative decline in numbers. (For that essay, go to http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1137605900865&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter). Did anything happen to Jewish theology in the past three years? To Conservative and Reform practice?
No doubt Rabbi Neusner's move has occasioned some kvelling and some kvetching, and a few other things, too. This Conservative Jew (and admirer of Rabbi Neusner's work) really doesn't care. Had he given some principled reason for his move -- well, that one would have to take very seriously. But leaving because you see others leaving? Phooey. Conservative Judaism is having some structural difficulties at present, which have led to a decline in its institutional vitality and perhaps to its larger appeal. This says nothing, however, about its intellectual or spiritual vitality. I am satisfied that those are strong, and in the end that matters more than any fretting about losing some members this way and other members that. After all, as Rabbi Neusner himself pointed out a scant three years ago, a movement can be stronger and smaller at the same time. Amazing what three years can bring.
Eliot: so as not to leave the discussion on a somber note, I want to bring some encouraging news about one of your main concerns - equality of women. There has been dramatic progress in this regard even in certain ultra-orthodox circles. See for example: http://www.theknish.com/articles/hamodia-acknowledges-existence-women/
To appreciate this article you may have to do some homework to understand some of the jargon. but in the google age this is easy. I also recommend studying the additional links on the The Knish site,including : Eyes of the World on Israel as the 32nd Shmolympics Begin http://www.theknish.com/articles/eyes-world-israel-32nd-shmolympics-begin/
Vive les Juifs! Am yisrael chai! Chanukah Sameach.
Yehuda: you wrote: "The phenomenon of seeking a second passport is a general Jewish phenomenon - not just an Israeli phenomenon." Where? in the U.S.? Headline: "New York Jews Lining Up Outside the German Federal Republic's Consulate in Manhattan For 2nd Passport!" The argument about the growing Jewish population in Israel does not convince even the JEWISH population of Israel. The anxieties about dominating the Arabs are not calming down. In this race against the Arab population, the Jewish population is losing and may have already lost. Accepting the reality of sharing the land with the Palestinians is. Begin with seeing the full humanity of the non-Jew as created in God's image and not as an interloper on your God-given land.
Reuven wrote: "you clearly don't know your posterior from your elbow about society in Israel" I'd like to bring the discussion back from body parts, mine or others.
You raise an interesting question about identity. Clearly Israel is a major part of Jewish identity in the U.S.. This wasn't always the case (pre-1967) and needn't be so. The gap in values between the two societies is hidden by the geographic distance, and the many acts of censorship by the organized American Jewish community. The cost to Judaism for continuing to place Israel (that is, official israeli policies) at the forefront of Jewish identity is that we are losing young people who could care less about, what they see, as a never-ending war zone, on the other side of the world. New Israel Fund among others is trying to enlist American Jewish support for the kind of Israel that reflects American Jewish values. Their tone is one of fighting a losing battle - but one that must be fought anyway. Not a great message.
So, what alternative Jewish identity can attract young Jewish people? Reform Judaism's model of "prophetic Judaism" speaks to the idealism of youth. It resonates more strongly in a society where Jews are a small minority but have significant influence. It is rooted in the Bible and Rabbinic Judaism. Prophetic Jewish values informed the American Jewish effort in the Civil Rights movement 50 years ago. They should also serve as a model for our Israeli Jewish brethren. Coming back to the article that started this conversation, whereas Conservative Judaism is trying (futilely - just look at the numbers) to hold on to endogamy and unswerving devotion to Israeli governments, Reform is adapting to the changes and holding its own.
To end on a positive note, I have great admiration for the Jewish-Israeli human rights activists and courageous people who speak openly about the ills of their society. They are an inspiration to many Jews and non-Jews and bring honor to the Jewish people. As a community, we in America can learn from these brave Jewish souls about how to combat our country's problems.
Elliot, let me share with you a relevant dvar torah that I heard this afternoon. In this week's parsha, Yaakov and family are leaving the house of of Lavan and heading toward Esau. A question naturally arises: why go from one danger - the danger of living with Lavan - into another danger - the danger of the violent Esau. What's the point of changing one danger for another? Of course one can always say Yaakov is just carrying out divine instructions to him. But putting this aside, the deeper issue is which is worse: to stay with Lavan who continuously wants to erode your identity and integrate you to be just like him or to risk the physical danger of encountering Esau in the promised land where your identity is not threatened. This question is not one with only a biblical context. The choice is clear: better to cope with a physical danger that can be managed and can be gotten over with than an endless struggle to preserve one's identity against constant forces of assimilation to make you someone else.
Nowadays most Jewish Americans have a choice - at least young Jews who are not yet locked into their way by life's constraints and accummulated emotional baggage - either to continue to stay put in America while their jewish identity erodes and erodes as they become americans of jewish persuasion or descent or else to move where the jewish identity runs free in its natural environment, Israel , despite possible material and physical danger. What makes this choice even more interesting is the steady rise in the standard of living (the material benefits ) of Israel with a slow material decline in America. The physical dangers of living in Israel have declined and have become manageable. So the galut jew has very little excuse to stay put unless he/she could care less about continuing as a jew or is willing to gradually fade out his/her jewish identity by reducing being a jew to a maleable religious component.
That Orthodox demographics, Orthodox society, and discussion of Orthodox worldview dominate the comments thread, it's obvious to a disinterested reader that Torah Judaism is the most important player in everyone's assessment.
Dr. Neusner and his switcheroo seems like an excuse to discuss the merits of Orthodoxy.
The merits of the heterodoxies are either too few or too vague to occupy anyone for more than a few comments.
Let's put two and two together, please. Drew wrote, Neusner has been badmouthing the Conservative Movement since he was passed over for the position of Chancellor in favor of Gerson Cohen and denied a faculty position at the Jewish Theological Seminary. His scholarship has been called into question by serious academicians as his prolific production has resulted in a plethora of errors in his works. He has been the proverbial 'bad boy" for years. Now we have more of the same. Prof. Neusner-give it a rest. And Larry pointed out, Just three years ago he published an op-ed piece in the Jerusalem Post about why he found Conservative Judaism "stronger and more vital" in 2006 than it was in 1956, despite -- or perhaps because of -- its relative decline in numbers. (For that essay, go to http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1137605900865&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter). Did anything happen to Jewish theology in the past three years? To Conservative and Reform practice?
I absolutely agree with Bill--this is petty pique and its roots are fairly concluded to be personal grievance at being dissed at JTS--the Conservative Movement was just dandy up to then. Even the "his" in "his prolific production" would seem to be questionable on the face of it--although English commentary and translations are a good thing, how is this output in any sense above the level of scholarship and faith commitment at JTS and throughout the Conservative community? My nephew studies at JTS and he and his colleagues and friends and associates in the Conservative community are a living and vibrant continuation of Jewish values and Jewish positive energy.
@Boris
"Reform is not Judaism. ... You can't make a woman a Rabbi."
You're not making a great argument for why 50% of the Jewish population should want to be Orthodox. I'm sure it is a great movement for the men. However, many women would rather not participate in a sexist and oppressive movement, that thinks it is necessary to arrest a woman for praying at the Wall.
@Boris, you come down rather hard on Reform. But, I wonder how you personally come to grips with the teaching of our Talmudic Sages that a Jew who lives outside of Israel is regarded like someone without a God. And here there is no distinction between lobster-eating jews and glatt kosher jews.
Our Sages taught: One should always live in the Land of Israel, even in a town most of whose inhabitants are idolaters, rather than live outside the Land of Israel, even in a town most of whose inhabitants are Jews; for whoever lives in the Land of Israel is like one who has a God, but whoever lives outside the Land is like as one who has no God. ..... Masechet Ketubot 110b, Talmud Bavli
So "orthodox" jewish americans would do well to examine their own adherence to basic jewish tenets. they also have ensconced themselves in the land of the house of Lavan { in the land of the White House) and are like those who abandon God.)
Dear Rabbi Neusner,
Wonderful proposal with one exception. Please replace the word "Reform" with the word "Reconstructionist" as that is the method you are describing. Kaplan would appreciate the citation.
Neusner, as a Jew who has not yet realized the truth of Torah has fled to what he envisions is the most likely group of separatists from Judaism to challenge those who uphold Torah. This, I believe is a significant message as we enter Chanukah this Shabbos. The yetzer that drives the Jew to the views of Hellenism is very strong. Neusner makes it clear that he wishes to have the final say on all matters which affect himself and wishes for other Jews to have the same authority. He would like a world where Halacha has a voice but not a veto. However, his preference is that Halacha is always the voice in the minority, out shouted by the voice of his yetzer hara and perceived gain of whatever it is he wishes to do but knows that he shouldn't do. With apologies to Pirke Avos, one can easily make a case that such an action can be held as an attribute of a rasha. It would be appropriate over this Chanukah for all Jews, including Neusner to reflect upon the basic nature of what the Jewish future can and will be. Neusner's BLT and lobster will not be on the menu. Hellenism will lose and Torah will reign.
Neusner, as a Jew who has not yet realized the truth of Torah has fled to what he envisions is the most likely group of separatists from Judaism to challenge those who uphold Torah. This, I believe is a significant message as we enter Chanukah this Shabbos. The yetzer that drives the Jew to the views of Hellenism is very strong. Neusner makes it clear that he wishes to have the final say on all matters which affect himself and wishes for other Jews to have the same authority. He would like a world where Halacha has a voice but not a veto. However, his preference is that Halacha is always the voice in the minority, out shouted by the voice of his yetzer hara and perceived gain of whatever it is he wishes to do but knows that he shouldn't do. With apologies to Pirke Avos, one can easily make a case that such an action can be held as an attribute of a rasha. It would be appropriate over this Chanukah for all Jews, including Neusner to reflect upon the basic nature of what the Jewish future can and will be. Neusner's BLT and lobster will not be on the menu. Hellenism will lose and Torah will reign.
Reform Judaism has made it into the front ranks of contemporary Judaism at a time that it is looking to find the voice of Torah in the secular world. The progress of the Reform siddur, from the Union Prayerbook to Gates of Prayer to Shma Yisroel to Mishkenot T'fillah is an arc bending from secular to traditional. The avoidance of traditional Jewish ritual in classical reform have given way to b'nai mitzvot, kippot and even tallitot in the temple. Rabbi Neusner and most of the commentators assume that Reform Judaism is the rationalist, secularist and individualist branch, but today the direction of the movement is toward reaching for the voice or guidance, if not a veto or direction, from Torah. This reaching is compelling precisely because it comes from a rational, secular and individualistic background, as it is a thoughtful choice, and not merely rote.
Reform Judaism has become stronger by recaptureing some traditions, including more use of the Hebrew language, emphasis on Shabbat, and appreciative and frank analysis of ancient Jewish texts. You are quite right theat self segregation is counter to making Israel a light unto the nations, and is not a realistic option for many Jews. You are wrong that Reform Jews consider themselves less authentic than Orthodox. Participating Reform Jews consider themselves as authentic as any Jewish group, and certainly moreso than orthodox, particularly traditional orthodox. Throughout history, in ancient eretz Israel, in early Spain, Jews lived as openly. In other eras and places, Jews lived as Jews as openly as they could. Self segregation creats a sect. I am not even sure it is Jewish.
"Self-segregationist Judaisms include Orthodox groupings such as Hasidism and yeshivish or Mitnagdic Judaism."
This is silly statement, Chabad is Hasidic and they are happy to hang out with people like me (24 y/o who grew up reform). They actually encourage it. Also, I think there is a misconception that Chabadniks are trying to convert us secular Jews into religious Jews. Their method of selling is just good old fashioned hospitality, and to be honest, I don't feel that they even WANT me to be religious. Instead, they see every Jew as a diamond. Their job is simply to polish diamonds.
@ Jacob Silver: Those Jews in Spain and Ancient Eretz Yisroel weren't eating BLTs and lobster, and they didn't think of halacha as merely voting.
Abraham Geiger's career blossomed in the 1830s, formulating the essential ideology of Reform. In the 1930s, Reform Jews really appreciated that 100 years of 'intellectual liberation' and 'enlightened religion' had a meaningful effect on the society of their German New Jerusalem. Hitler even threw them a centennial bash!
Stop the Reform revisionism! The world was essentially 'frum' until 19th-century German Jews wanted a vehicle to take advantage of emancipation without feeling guilty. Reform Judaism is Unitarian Universalism with Jewish iconology.
May Abraham Geiger see the same fate as Anan ben David (and let us all respond, Amen.)
Rabbi Jacob Neusner, ברוך החוזר ליהדות המתקדמת/ רפורמית. I suggest you to come to Israel and to speak to us, rabbinic students of HUC Israeli Program and to all the Israeli Reform Movement, that is growing in numbers, diversity, and promoting a creative fusion between religious Judaism and secular israeli culture. May be it´s one of the arms of the future Reform Judaism for the 21st century.
"Mike in Oregon" I could have written your comment. I consider myself a Conservative Jew for the same reasons you describe.
Unfortunately most of the rabbinical students at JTS dont think of themselves as Conservative Jews, they actively sneer at the movement in whose seminary they are learning. They consider the rabbinate as a way to hang out with their buddies doing "social justice" projects, rather than - God forbid - take a pulpit in some podunk town without a kosher restaurant, ministering to congregants who arent hipsters.
if the JTS sent them all to the RRC, maybe it would be in better shape.
Wow, Elliott, one Leftist Israel-bashing cliche after another! Do you do any thinking for yourself? Is it true you've never been to Israel? Go for 2 weeks, rent a car, drive all over - the Israeli drivers arent as bad as they say and the hostels are beautiful but not as cheap as they could be (the shekel is strong over the $ right now).
I also want to say that I know a lot of 20-something Jews and most of them agree with you, unfortunately, but not all of them. So stop with the "what young Jews want" cliches as well as the "Israel is a racist apartheid state" crap. Speak for yourself.