Rose Is A Rose

[In a little less haste I rewrote an essay I had assembled already – The Changing Jewish Heritage http://theimperiousloudmouth.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-changing-jewish-heritage.html– because I was looking for words that better reflected my point of view. I ask your indulgence.]

Ironic, isn't it. On Halloween, just over five centuries ago, Martin Luther doffed the garments of a position in the Pope's church and donned those of his new calling. With his 95 Theses he split with Rome and opened a wound that had existed in the church for hundreds of years. Wycliffe and Hus had expressed their dissatisfaction much earlier, but no significant movement followed.

Knox, Zwingli, Calvin, and others (even Henry VIII, though he was not noted as a theologian), however, soon followed Luther's lead and the Protestant Reformation was born. And there were new religions. Each had its own churches, rituals and beliefs – its own costume. From one, many. That's not to suggest there weren't commonalities. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, Christian is a Christian is a Christian. At least in one respect. An Episcopalian is an Anglican is a Presbyterian – or, for that matter, a “Moonie” or a Mormon. They're all Christians, accepting the divinity of Jesus. They subscribe to the idea of a common heritage from which had arisen many different, but linked, religions – a common origin with a variety of different coverings. Humans wearing different costumes. Halloween. A day of sanctification.

The Jewish Reformation began toward the end of the eighteenth century and the start of the nineteenth. That was the start of Jewish protestantism. There had been “heretics” before, but no unified trend. The establishment of Reform Judaism marked the beginning of a movement to group Jews according to beliefs and rituals. It makes sense: a havura member is certain not to follow the practices Haredi Jews. But both, having Jewish mothers, are Jews.

Another irony. Neither sees the validity of the other's beliefs and (if any) rituals, but both pass the religious test. We are obsessed with the question “Who is a Jew?'” while ignoring the fact that it is not a relevant question. It was settled long ago. A Jew is the child of a Jewish mother (that excludes “patrilineal Jews) or someone who has undergone a valid conversion – whatever that means. Anyone fitting that definition is a Jew. But there are differences between a “social” Jew and one who practices “modern orthodoxy,” and it is self-deception not to recognize that they are different religions: they believe different things and their practices are different. As are their houses of worship.

It is not necessary to decide who is right – only to admit that we have different views and we worship in different ways. Jews have a common heritage. We are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But while we all believe that ours is the only “true” Judaism rather than the perspective of one of many “protestant” Jewish religions, the infighting is inevitable. We're all Jews, but we practice different religions. Ideally we'll take “Jew”out of the title of our religion and identify ourselves as Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or whatever. Better still, a “Minyanarian,” “Schechterite,” and “Egalitarian.” Costumes reflective of their beliefs.

But the Messiah will come first.

January 21, 2018

Who is a Jew?

Who is a Jew?

It's an old question. But it's a silly and meaningless one. And the Rabbis answered it long ago: it is the child of a Jewish mother, or an individual who has undergone a valid conversion. We may disagree on what constitutes a “valid” conversion, but that's the definition.

Still, it's the wrong question. Far more significant is the uncertainty about “What is a Jew?”

In 1517 Martin Luther nailed 95 theses to his church door. He protested various dogmas and practices of Christianity, triggering the Protestant Reformation. He remained a Christian but his “spin,” and that of others, resulted in the establishment of the many denominations of Christianity. We would not debate whether a Mormon was Christian, but neither he nor a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America would have the chutzpah to demand the use of the Sistine Chapel for a service of their own, or to question the Pope's standing. Even within the Roman Catholic Church there are many who are more liberal or more conservative than the Pope, but his authority is recognized. Other views are not accepted as representing “authentic” Roman Catholicism. They are teachings that differ from those of Jesus. Whether they are right or wrong is beyond the scope of this discussion. It is enough to concede that they are different.

Yet both Anglicans and Christian Scientists have equal claim on the designation of “Christian,” even though they reject the teachings of the “mother” church and practice different religions. (Similarly Sunnis, Sufis, Shias, Alawites, and Druze – among other groups – consider themselves Muslims, though they may reject the religion as practiced by the others.)

There are a host of parallels in Jewish history. The protests of many Jews about the practices of their religion, and the establishment of “Reform Judaism,” marked the onset of the Jewish Reformation, resulting in the establishment of numerous denominations, sects, “chevrahs,” and other variations – Jewish protestants. Unlike Christianity, however, each considers its variation as the center, while other perspectives are, necessarily, the outliers. Although Christianity may, almost uniformly, recognize the authority of the Pope in many areas, and the sanctity of the Vatican which Roman Catholicism administers, as outside their realm, dissident Jewish groups, Jews who do not practice “normative Judaism,” whose practices vary from those of the “mother church,” demand a voice in the direction of the religion. And they demand equality in decisions about the use of Jewish holy places.

What is “normative Judaism?” Using Catholicism as a model (and many will object to this) it is the religion accepted as tradition now and through the millennia; it is the Judaism administered by the Chief Rabbinate in Israel – the Jews sacred land. That is Judaism, and the other denominations of Jews practice different religions. (I personally have some disagreements with the way normative Judaism is observed but, as the saying goes, if I deviate I know from what I am deviating.) Perhaps those other Jews should be given territory to practice their faiths, though I know of no precedent for this in Christianity.

The question then revolves around the practices of the Jews in question: what do they believe, to whom do they look for direction, and what is their religion? If they fulfill the criteria set by the Rabbis, they are Jews. But that, alone, does not entitle them to speak on behalf of Jews who practice another faith. They find nothing regarding Judaism outside their domain. But it's their heritage, not their religion. We also need to consider their spin and their choice of authorities. If they don't observe “normative Judaism,” they're Jewish protestants – even if they're holier than we and refuse to recognize a Jewish State until the time of the Messiah.

If they reject the multi-millennial traditions of their people they are protestants.

That's how the Christians started out.

Various Thoughts XVI

Today – October 31, 2017 – is the 500^th anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation. It recalls the nailing of Martin Luther's 95 theses to his church's door. What is the significance to Catholics? To Protestants? Does its appearance on Halloween indicate anything positive or negative? What was the significance of Halloween during the sixteenth century? Was Luther trying to make a point by posting his complaints on this date or was it strictly a random choice?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That was written a few days ago, but while going through old notes I found some thoughts I had written a few years ago, on November 10^th, the anniversary of Kristallnacht – much more recent, than 1517 – a time when history records numerous deaths and other evidences of vehemence rather than simply an expression of theological views. What I wrote then noted the fact that I found no mention of that more recent violent event in the New York Times. Martin Luther was an antisemite, there's no doubt about that, but he left it to others to do the dirty work.

The Times was first published in 1851 and has been owned since 1896 by a German-Jewish family. The culture of the German-Jewish community was to be American – to flount Judaism – to minimize its significance – rather than flaunt it. And though founded as a conservative organ, it is now a proudly liberal publication (it last supported a Republican for president during the Eisenhower era) and, like all good “modern liberals,” it is Pro “Palestinian” (anti-Israeli) and mildly antisemitic. That, however, isn't new. During the Holocaust the Times didn't show much interest in that historic issue. It did its own dirty work then, before, and since.

Antisemitism has existed for millennia. It wasn't started by the New York Times. But the “Gray Lady,” America's “newspaper of record,” has an obligation to be objective. It isn't.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Houston Astros won the World Series last night. It was the first time since their establishment in 1962. (That was the first year for the Mets as well.) In fact it was the first time that any Texas team has done that.

Over the years there has been a discrepancy in the fortunes of the various athletic teams – in baseball the real hero has been the New York Yankees, although other New York teams (including the Brooklyn Dodgers, the New York Giants, the New York Mets) get a lot of attention because of this city's media predominance.

But the big driver of our sports teams – college as well as professional – is money.

Sports makes money.

That's not a surprise. You knew it. And you paid the money. Ticket sales, with prices going up annually, and the profits they produce, provide the impetus for the problem. The bigger the city, the more people who fund those profits, and the more money available for the unseemly salaries earned by sports figures.

Can there be an equalization of salaries? Should there be? Or at least an equalization of talent. Should sports “scholarships” be forbidden? Right now the attitude is that we have a free society. So suck it up and pay for the ticket.

Perhaps that's the proper position. But the economics of sports might benefit from a thorough review.

November 2,2017