Jack Ross responds to my posts about "bad Jews" reclaiming secular Jewish identity. He begins by taking on the embrace of AIPAC by the Conservative Rabbinical Assembly, which triggered my original post:
First off, the Conservatives are hemmorhaging membership, and they are clueless if
they think it's a good thing to celebrate their relationship with AIPAC,
which is a big part of the reason why it's their kids who have in such
huge numbers become disillusioned and are intermarrying. There is even
serious talk of the progressive bloc in the movement– which is
significant and disproportionately represented in groups like Rabbis
for Human Rights– bolting.
Second, it is worth making a historical point: more or less, the whole history of the official Jewish community is of the takeover by Zionists of local Jewish philanthropy, which is almost uniformly aligned with the Conservatives. Resistance to this is a major theme of the post-1948 history of the American Council for Judaism, the Reform group which opposed the creation of a Jewish state.
As to your reclaiming your identity as a "bad Jew": Why do you think I go to shul and am determined to marry a nice Jewish girl and deeply resent your more militantly leftish-atheist friends who give me grief for it? Because I know I need to be a "good Jew" in order to be taken even remotely seriously as a commenter of any kind of Jewish issue, and more importantly, I do personally feel for myself that I'm not entitled to be in any way at the ramparts if I'm truly a "bad Jew".
I agree that my generation will reshape Jewish identity in favor of universalism and that that's a good thing, but I do honestly believe that it will have a major failing to account for if it should be totally lacking in a corollary legacy in the Jewish religion.
Having said all that, if having mostly Jewish friends and things of that nature are necessary to be a "good Jew", then I want no part of it. More to the point, I'm certainly not trying to argue that you have to go to shul to be a good Jew, though I do find something awfully conceited about the idea of being a "secular Jew". On the other hand I treasure the legacy of Jewish socialism, and already look forward to one day sending a kid of mine to the Workmen's Circle summer camp in Duchess County, but at the same time I don't see how that construction of Jewish identity is relevant to today's world.
There has to be a middle way – a Jewish universalist identity, if this is indeed the promise of my generation. But it will be like the Jewish old left–it will only last a couple of generations– if it does not also lead to a revitalized progressive Judaism.
Related posts:
{ 16 comments }
In my recent studies, with the help of Lubavitch rabbis, I've learned of four relationships/descriptions of relationships to God. One is the transcendental, the ever-present that existed prior to all form, exists ever-presently, and will exist after all form dissolves. The second is God the creator that created the beginning of form and the laws that underlie the existence of form and the nature of logic that unfolds through form. That story evolves into the focal events of Torah of Abraham asserting the unity of God, Jacob in defining the lineage of the covenant (even though matrilineal rather than patrilineal), and of the exodus from slavery, the revelation at Sinai, and the elaboration of the revelation by Moses in written and oral Torah. The third is of the constant re-creation, that the construction of form is not singular but occurs in every cycle, including ever year, every month, every day, every breath, every moment. The fourth is not taught (so far that I've seen, so maybe it is taught). That is that in our independant will, we participate in the co-creation of the world. That is the significance of Tikkun Olam, in both big and "small" relationships. A "bad Jew" is not one that has different political opinions than those that are actively Jewish in all respects (parentage, community, philisophical identity, aspiration). A "bad Jew" is one that imagines that one has sufficient knowledge to judge others, that one has not and does not engage the spiritual dimensions of Jewish inquiry. There is no romantic "dissident" among real Jewish community. Real questions, real dilemmas, stated respectfully, are loved, at least by those that are mature enough to seek a real spiritual and practical life, rather than a show of one. There is no real question, stated as a question (not as a contempt), that is rejected by mature rabbis.
RE – "Jack Ross: you can't take the Judaism out of Jewishness" I just hate it when you guys use the old "good Jew, bad Jew routine". (LOL) Did you want to be police detectives when you were growing up?
Can anyone who speaks claptrap, decipher the last 2 paragraphs/sentences of Witty's post? It seems like he's taking his typical passive-aggressive jab at Phil and/or anyone here who is either anti-Zionist or just critical of Israel. Only he does so by categorizing certain beliefs as 'insufficient' and others as 'real'. So basically, according to Witty, Judaism dictates what is a legitimate criticism of apparently anything (but truthfully, just Israel since it's Witty posting this garbage) .
The point is that Phil does not ask questions towards understanding what Judaism is. He has confusions that originate early in his life.
never mind old witty, jack is right.
I'll try and help, if I may. The problem is that our witty is not a Talmudic scholar, or a Rabbi, yet he tries to teach the essence of "what it is to be a Jew". So first comes the lubbavich take of relationship to god, which though it purports to be of a jewish source is so universal as to seemingly transcend any and all religions at once. Only in the fourth aspect does something jewish-sounding creep in, presumably in the form of the meaning of Tikkun olam (save one soul, save the world, etc). So far, though, if this is the essence of the lubbavicher wisdom vis-a-vis relationships to god, then we have a bit of a problem as each and every tenet can be seen to apply to almost any decent religion worthy of its purpose. But now, here comes witty to put us straight. He does so by drawing a mysterious connection from 'the 4 relationships to god' (which I'll let stand as is. Sounds good to me) to the relationship between the "bad jew" (let's call him Spinoza, for now. Or kafka?) and "other" jews. Specifically our Spinoza (the bad jew of witty's parable) errs in failing to "engage" in "spiritual dimension of jewish inquiry". Now what could our witty be possibly referring to here? does he mean the failure to practice the aforementioned "4 relationships to god"? and how were thoset to be practiced in any case? Ah, our Lubbavicher rabbis' wisdom as witnessed by witty is silent on the matter (and I can't blame them here, either. Silence at times is golden indeed). But golden silence be damned – here comes witty to clarify – with a two-by-four swing at the bad jew's "immaturity" reading between the lines (whyever not, witty did the same to the poor Lubbavich rabbis) said immaturity is conclusively proven by abject contempt – presumably towards zionism. The latter perceived, no doubt, as the epitome of maturity, seeing as it (zionism) is directly derived from the 4 tenets of relationship of [all] men [and women?] to god. So there you have it – from the 4 relationships to god to the singular relationship of the bad jews (say, Phil and spinoza) to their mature betters, ie the rabbis (be they lubbavichers or not. our witty goes mum on the matter). And if this little jump seems confusing to you, you must suffer from the same immaturity that has afflicted the baddest of all bad jews, spinoza (or was it kafka?). The beauty of witty's amazing argument is that you don't even have to be a jew to be a bad jew. It's enough to be "immature" and fail to seek a "real" spiritual/practical life (which one is worse I wonder?). No wonder poor spinoza was ostracized, and his "immature" philosophy banished from jewish thought for all eternity. A truly kafkaesque predicament, if there ever was one.
Dana! :-))))
Ask Phil if it is true. He is the one that referred to himself baitingly as the "bad Jew". Do you value the four relationships? I find them to be critical to my understanding of myself, the world, politics, inter-personal and inter-communal ethics. They are also critical in rejecting the dogmatic "critical analysis" method of dissent. Participation in the world is more personal than that. One criticism of the Zionist approach is that ignores the humanity, the ecology, of Palestinians, as if life on only a single and selective scale is relevant ethically or politically. It would be a failure for dissent to merely replace one ignorance for another, instead of replacing an incomplete thesis with a more complete one.
The first is just gibberish, dependent on the mere word "transcendental," an adjective alluding to something other than form yet takes its root as the anti-thesis of form(s). It is senseless unless one draws implicitly from form or aggregate of forms. It is, simply stated, an irrational belief in G-D, that is, the yearning of logic for a first cause, an all-powerful being–else, as Descartes pondered, who made that watch found on that island? The second repeats the first, draws its essence explicitly from it. A Ponzi scheme. Look beyond logic to any particular logical thread's assumptions–always the Achilles heel. What's the difference between many gods and one god? Efficiency? Central planning. LOL. What is the lineage of the covenant? Accidental birth from a particular woman's vagina? Exodus from slavery? There's no proof this ever happened. There's more proof though, that the ancient Hebrews did not like it when they had to exchange their status as Egyptian warrior allies for being merely, like so many other conquered peoples, manual workers in the massive Egyptian Public Works Programs (with benefits). All religions have their assortment of mythical revelations. The third is nothing but a banality, that various forms, human and otherwise, repeat themselves–like breathing. The fourth, that via our independent will we participate in the co-creation of the world means merely that while we are alive our every action and inaction has butterfly consequences–so does an ant's or cockroach's. But only humans have the power to change things by thinking they will repair the world by re-welding it in weak spots, or by deconstructing it based on new assumptions–First, Do No Harm. History is full of nasty reaction from the Haves, and nasty results of the Have-Nots guided by good intentions. A "bad Jew" is a judgmental Jew? You mean like a Jew who judges another Jew based on conflicting views of parentage, community, philosophical identity, an aspiration? Does the Torah not provide us with a G-D that is then "bad" by this standard? Who is less judgmental than an agnostic? Who should draw the fine line between good and bad discrimination? Affirmative versus negative action? Who censors the censors? What is the index of maturity? The criteria? Is it a question of popular norms, of mere quantity of adherents? History has a problem with such a posture. When is a question "real" as distinguished from "unreal"? Is it merely a matter of grammatical form, a statement as distinguished from a question? No. This belies the underlying assumptions in each form of communication. Was Socrates mature? Or Plato? Is Rush Limbaugh, or Phil Maher? Perhaps they are both like children? Immature? Jesus? Saul? Or the old order?
You mean like Phil Maher? Maher looks at what Christians have done, are doing, while they self-identify as Christians. They come in for a good scolding because of their deeds, whether it's the Crusades, Salem witch trials, The Inquisition, the fact the Pope in The Vatican lives surrounded by enormous material wealth in his expensive ridiculous costume, etc–he merely points out that there seems to be a disconnect (obviously seen by Luther). Phil does the same with Jews (Maher does not). Witty is the minor Huckabee of the Jews on this blog. LOL.
Exactly. Phil is doing his best to avoid the current status quo powers, which have replaced one ignorance with another. Your "one criticism of the Zionist approach" speaks volumes. Why don't you listen? Phil is samizdat, you are status quo. He has a small blog, you defend the party boilerplate. You say Never Again as it pertains to the jews; Phil says Never Again as it pertains to all the people of the earth. Phil says take a chance–didn't you grow up in the USA, and don't you benefit immensely from that? You say, no–in fly-over country they live for the day they can knife me in the back. Phil responds, where's your evidence here in the USA? You say, implicitly, my tribal history tells me so; a division of human nature that clearly posits the eternal battle between good and evil–you live a cowboy story while wearing a beanie; Phil has no hat. My G-D, you do need that hat, eh?
Little Phil is battling the powerful replacement ignorance; you are supporting it.
"Militantly left." That's code for someone who regards non-Jews as human beings. No Jewishness without Judaism? Lately, I am beginning to accept that perhaps this is true. I have zero interest in speaking Hebrew and the religious tenets of the Jewish faith are–as Einstein remarked–"pretty childish." I enjoy Kafka, Benjamin? Big deal. So do plenty of Navaho. Would Kafka lose his literary power if he were a Finnish protestant? That's just Jewish arrogance, exceptionlism, tribalism talking. At the end of the day, it wouldn't matter in the least. For every Arnold Schoenberg, there's a million talentless louts like Adam Sandler. No one is allowed to point this out, because it's taken as a given that Jews are a luminous race of uber-brains, who can't help creating masterpieces out of every household object we touch. What would change in my life if I woke up tomorrow to find my mother's maiden name was not Feldmann, but O'Malley? How would I be diminished through such an experience? Maybe it's time (horror of horrors!) to leave this thing called Jewishness–to surrender the field to these numbskulls who keep their noses buried in the Torah (when they're not busy punching Arab children and bombing hospitals). What is it we are really trying to preserve? The Yiddish theater? Most, if not all aspects of Jewish culture WORTH preserving are already long dead. Let it go.
Possibly it is irrelevant to the discussion of Jewish identity, but It would be perfectly possible to construct a non-Zionist Hebrew-language curriculum
food for thought: sometimes it is useful to see how other people deal with their ethnicity as a type of mirror to figure out how to deal with our jewishness. think of chris rock's "i love black people, but i hate niggers" routine. then think about lillian hellman referring to jews as kikes. read richard silverstein's ignorant comments regarding the compilation of jewish self mockery called "jewface" and then think of spike lee's film "bamboozled." obviously since many jews can pass and the intermarriage rates of jews far surpasses the intermarriage rates of black people the comparison between a race and jewish identity might be considered two different worlds. but these are things to consider. think of the "holy" trinity of freud, marx and einstein, their outsider status and revolutionary thought. think of einstien's "god doesn't play dice with the universe" and how jewish this statement is. think about all the jews who were burnt at the stake rather than give in to forced conversion and think of those who marry out and happily celebrate a secular christmas.
My goodness, Rykart — you're Jewish? And here we were all thinking you were some sort of horrible Nazi.
Comments on this entry are closed.