Readers of this blog must be aware by now–I am, anyway– that I have only a rudimentary understanding of religion, and the difference between religion and ideology. Here is Jack Ross, who goes "to a nice little lefty shul in Park Slope but am completely unobservant in my personal life," responding to Jeff Blankfort on the question of whether Judaism is not damaged by Zionism.
I don't want to argue religion with him, so I'll just say this: It is
hard to think of a greater asset in Zionism's ideological arsenal than
the concept of the "secular Jew", i.e., that you are still a Jew even
if you reject the Jewish religion. The idea that there is some meaning
to being a "secular Jew" if you reject Jewish nationalism (Zionism) is
little more than a pitiful old left conceit.
hard to think of a greater asset in Zionism's ideological arsenal than
the concept of the "secular Jew", i.e., that you are still a Jew even
if you reject the Jewish religion. The idea that there is some meaning
to being a "secular Jew" if you reject Jewish nationalism (Zionism) is
little more than a pitiful old left conceit.
I've told Jack I find this statement a little bit oracular. Though surely it bears study…
