Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!ut-sally!seismo!cmcl2!csd2!meth
From: meth@csd2.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: The Tragedy of Assimilation
Message-ID: <3780129@csd2.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Jan-86 20:35:00 EST
Article-I.D.: csd2.3780129
Posted: Tue Jan 28 20:35:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Feb-86 10:56:15 EST
References: <3780118@csd2.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 100


This is written in response to Andrew Jonathan Fine's response to my posting.

>Concerning the letter, I must respectfully disagree with some of it's premises:

I will grant that you may disagree based on your personal opinions. But, if you
wish to base it on religious grounds, or wish to say that Judaism does not
agree with the premises offered, you must first profess to be well-versed in
Judaism. I say this not, G-d forbid, to lecture you or to profess a "holier 
than thou" attitude. Rather, to remind ourselves of a previous article you ,
posted, with the title "Beacon from a lost sheep from 11 light years away". 
Thus, as you yourself write :
>I cannot claim to be Jewish even though I was born so, because I am not capable
>of faith.  
Thus, your comments are not necessarily rooted in Judaism and should not be used
as a basis or a banner for "Jewish opinion".

As far as being a "lost sheep", we *do* 
>"want to contact and advise a castaway civilization trying to re-establish 
>contact", 
as you asked in your previous posting.

This makes it all the more difficult to respond. I dare not "shoot from the
hip" (not that I am that kind of a person) for fear of further alienating you.
Yet, I must protect my flank and refute that which may be portrayed as Jewish
ideas & Judaism, when in reality it is not. I think that my colleague Pinchas
Klahr did a fine job in his initial response to your query.

>One premise is that religious and cultural roots must be shared to make a
>successful marriage. Not so.  Marriage is built more on differences than
>likenesses.  

As far as Judaism is concerned, religious roots must be shared. If one partner
is not Jewish, how can he/she "carry on the faith"; the Jewsih partner has 
already broken serious barriers by marrying out of the faith. What about the 
children ? Judaism recognizes maternal lineage only (with respect to religion of
the child). When you play a game (such as the game of life) you have to play by
the rules. You can't adjust, change, or throw out some rules just because it is
inconvenient for you to adhere to them. Judaism places a strong emphasis on the
family structure & the home. Note that today's society has moved far from this;
the results are disastrous (broken homes, no sense of purpose, etc.).

Yes, sharing of cultural roots may not be necessary for a successful marriage;
but it can't hurt to have similar cultural backgrounds. Diversity is important,
but don't discount the advantages of similarity.

Yes, marriage is a "partnership of compromise". But isn't life the same thing ?
The only difference is that marriage is a lot "closer to home" than outside
relationships.

>So long as the partners agree to disagree and respect each other's
>differences, all will be well.

I don't know if "all will be well". It may be easier to agree *before* you get
tangled up in all the details. But once you get "into the pit" and have to
start disagreeing, it may not be that easy to give in and to "respect the
other's differences."

>Another premise is that anyone who is willing to give up a culture is beneath
>contempt.  Tell me, if *you* found an SO who was everything you wanted, needed,
>respected, and loved, with the exception of religion, would you rather stay
>single just to be faithful, or would you marry the person and hope the religion
>can be accomodated?  

As far as I am concerned, "with the exception of religion" is a contradiction
to "everything you wanted, needed, respected, and loved". If the religion isn't
there, then it is not what I want or need. I may respect the person (I respect
many people who are not religious Jews, or even Jews for that matter) for being
a human being whom I think is worhty of my respect. I may even consider that
person as one of my friends. But, what I want and need as far as a marriage
partner (a partner in life & for life) is intrinsically defined by the religion
aspect. 

The bottom line is that religion *cannot* be accomodated. Religion and
religious practice cannot be subject to my every whim and fancy. Let me repeat
that : Religion and religious practice cannot be subject to my every whim and
fancy. For if it were, it would be subject to your every whim and fancy, too;
and to his, and hers, and that one's, too. At that point, it ceases to be a
religion and becomes just another fad, to be interpretted by each individual as
(s)he sees fit.

>From my understanding of religion in general and certain advice I received on
>Judaism, there is an outer form and an inner form of being Jewish.  
> ...... The purists may consider it
>undesireable, but it is the soul that matters, not the acts, in the long run.

I am not familiar with this terminology. Assuming that it is correct (i.e., has
firm basis in religious Jewish theology), the inner & outer forms, the thought
& the acts, must be inherently & intrinsically intertwined and inter-dependent.
One without the other is incomplete and lacking.

>In terms of children, I would allow circumcision for the male baby
>to allow it the option of being Jewish upon maturity. 

Being circumcized does not a Jew make. Circumcision of all male children on the
eighth day is mandated in the Torah. If it cannot be performed on that day due
to health reasons (or, if for some reason it was not performed then), then it
is to be performed as soon thereafter as possible.

Asher Meth ....... meth@nyu-csd2.arpa ....... allegra!cmcl2!csd2!meth