Submitted for your consideration...

[cnorman18]

Consider a religion like this:

A religion that does not tolerate snake-oil salesmen; e.g. phony "prosperity ministries", "faith healers", fake "prophets" and "seers", sellers of "miracles", millionaire "reverends" and "evangelists", or religious con men of any sort.

A religion that neither promotes nor celebrates ecstatic or "spiritual" emotional states, and regards such manipulation as a distraction, a deception, and a waste of time; that holds that study and thought are the highest and holiest mental activities, surpassing even prayer and worship.

A religion that does not believe that God can be manipulated or controlled in any way; that humans may not demand "blessings" or "miracles", and in fact should neither depend on nor expect Divine intervention of any kind--and warns that such expectations are generally doomed to failure.

A religion that does not claim to have facile, pat answers to difficult questions; e.g. the suffering and death of the innocent, the origin of evil, the mechanics of the Creation, and the nature of the Afterlife, if any exists.

A religion that tolerates, nay, expects and demands, the questioning of its most basic tenets and teachings; that encourages and honors argument and debate, even argument and debate with God Himself that questions His authority, justice and morality.

A religion that has no Creed of acceptable beliefs, and in fact forbids one; that tolerates, without harassment, wildly divergent views of theological, moral, and ethical beliefs and behavior, and encourages debate and dialogue on such matters without enforcing compliance to any arbitrary standard through religious or social sanctions.

A religion that has no central or final Authority on any matter of faith, belief, practice, or manner of living; no man, no board, no council, and no caste is permitted to make binding pronouncements on these matters, which are left to the individual's conscience and to the collective and inclusively diverse judgment of the entire community.

A religion that makes no claim to exclusive "salvation" for its adherents, nor condemns anyone, of any faith or none, to eternal punishment--and in fact does not maintain an unquestioning belief that there is an "afterlife" at all.

A religion that embraces all the sciences as essential to the understanding of reality, and regards unrestricted study and research in any field as a sacred activity.

A religion that makes no judgments about the truth or worth of any faith, the value or destiny of any person, or the morality of any interpersonal act or behavior that does no harm to others.

A religion that does not even prescribe the proper religious beliefs or practices of its own adherents, and tolerates wide diversity of same without comment or sanction.

A religion that does not expect or demand the unquestioning or unexamined acceptance of any teaching or idea, and in fact holds such acceptance in contempt--and maintains that it is the intellectual and spiritual responsibility of every person to think on and decide the truth and worth of every idea for himself.

A religion that does not seek to convert others to its way of life or thought, and in fact is reluctant to accept converts and discourages efforts to proselytize on its behalf.

Such a religion is mainstream, non-Orthodox Judaism. Though there are communities and congregations to which some of these paragraphs do not apply, by and large these are apt descriptions of Jewish practices and perceptions.

Many of these even apply to the modern Orthodox community, though the ultra-Orthodox and Chasidic groups are not generally so tolerant. I do not speak for them--and in fact, I speak for no one but myself. No Jew has the right to speak for the whole community, as ought to be obvious from the above.

(I am now donning my flameproof Nomex prayer shawl and yarmulke...)

Comments?

(Just to save some the time and effort, here are some of my anticipated replies in advance:

(1) "Perhaps you didn't know as much about Judaism as you thought you did."

(2) "You are speaking of a kind of Judaism that has not existed for more than two thousand years."

(3) "Judaism has changed since then. Before the nineteenth century, modern liberal Judaism did not exist: there was nothing but Orthodoxy."

(4) "You do not have the right to dictate to me what my religion ought to include, and then berate me for not conforming to it."

(5) "I do NOT claim that Judaism is superior to any other faith. That is not for me, or anyone else, to say. I only know that it is best for ME."

(6) "If belief in God, PER SE, is a problem for you, we have nothing to say to each other. We disagree on that point. Peace to you."

(7) "My post has nothing whatever to do with Israel. Israeli policy is not determined on a religious basis, and liberal Judaism has little or no influence there anyway. Religious life in Israel is dominated by the Orthodox."

(8) "I have no time to address antisemitic fictions and fantasies."

(9) "What is your source for those quotes? Please post a link."

(10) "[insert name here] does not speak for the Jewish community as a whole."

Thanks for reading.)

 

[Glen.Nogami]

Well, my response is quite taken care of under number 6, though I'm not sure it's quite as dismissable as you claim.

Just the same, though, were I to have to get back into the whole believing in god thing, Judaism would probably be the way I'd go.

 

[Mashuna]

Yes, the point number six would cover the initial problem I would have with all religions. How religions choose to build upon that basic point affects how I then view them, and Judaism seems ok in this regard. Still, it's that starting premise that counts it out for me.

 

[rocketdodger]

Most educated people know that Jews, as a whole, are the least offensive and least dangerous religious group. Just my own anecdotal observations have led me to conclude many of the same points you listed.

Maybe a better strategy for getting rid of religion would be a "bad religion -> Judaism -> atheism" path as opposed to the cold turkey "bad religion -> atheism" path? Seems like its less of a leap for Jews than anyone else. In normal day to day activities I think most Jews act like atheists anyway.

 

[Upchurch]

Such a religion is mainstream, non-Orthodox Judaism.

Another is Unitarian Universalism, fwiw.


eta: which, now that I think about it, my UU church has a very close relationship with the Jewish group (don't know if the officially have a "temple") across the street and hosted their services while they were building their building.

 

[blobru]

Hi cnorman18.

What is mainstream, non-Orthodox Judaism's position (in your opinion) on the OT, or Tanakh? Does its "authority" count for more than non-canonical (from Jewish pov) works? If so, how much more?

thx

 

[Fnord]

Consider a religion like this:

A religion that does not tolerate ... religious con men of any sort.

A religion that neither promotes nor celebrates ecstatic or "spiritual" emotional states...

A religion that does not believe that God can be manipulated or controlled in any way...

A religion that does not claim to have facile, pat answers to difficult questions...

A religion that ... expects and demands the questioning of its most basic tenets and teachings...

A religion that has no Creed of acceptable beliefs...

A religion that has no central or final Authority on any matter of faith, belief, practice, or manner of living...

A religion that ... does not maintain an unquestioning belief that there is an "afterlife" at all.

A religion that embraces all the sciences as essential to the understanding of reality, and regards unrestricted study and research in any field as a sacred activity.

A religion that makes no judgments...

A religion that does not even prescribe the proper religious beliefs or practices...

A religion that does not expect or demand the unquestioning or unexamined acceptance...

A religion that does not seek to convert others...

Such a religion is...

... unlikely to survive with any semblance of homogeneity and unity in a culture based upon intolerance, emotionalism, manipulation, easy answers, lazy thinking, absolute authority, individual authority (without individual responsibility), naturalism, ignorance, judgmentalism, regulation, and an "if you're not with us, then you're against us" mentality.

This is not a religion, it's Universal Unitarianism.

 

[Glen.Nogami]

Another is Unitarian Universalism, fwiw.


eta: which, now that I think about it, my UU church has a very close relationship with the Jewish group (don't know if the officially have a "temple") across the street and hosted their services while they were building their building.

My roommate likes to joke that "UU is for atheists with kids."

I attended one service for some reason or another, and as far as I can tell, y'all are some kind of cup-worshiping cult

 

[Fnord]

... y'all are some kind of cup-worshiping cult

That's "Highball Glass Worshipping Cult!"

 

[cnorman18]

Quite true

Another is Unitarian Universalism, fwiw.


eta: which, now that I think about it, my UU church has a very close relationship with the Jewish group (don't know if the officially have a "temple") across the street and hosted their services while they were building their building.

That's very true. As I was writing this, it occurred to me that it might describe the UU community as well.

 

[Glen.Nogami]

... unlikely to survive with any semblance of homogeneity and unity in a culture based upon intolerance, emotionalism, manipulation, easy answers, lazy thinking, absolute authority, individual authority (without individual responsibility), naturalism, ignorance, judgmentalism, regulation, and an "if you're not with us, then you're against us" mentality.

This is not a religion, it's Universal Unitarianism.

According to dictionary.com, religion can be simply something one believes in and follows devotedly. Why are homogeneity and unity necessary? I tend to agree with your assessment of our culture (You are a United States-an, yes?), but contemporary Judaism has been around for quite a while, and we have laws to prevent it from being harassed out anytime soon.

 

[cnorman18]

Fnord

... unlikely to survive with any semblance of homogeneity and unity in a culture based upon intolerance, emotionalism, manipulation, easy answers, lazy thinking, absolute authority, individual authority (without individual responsibility), naturalism, ignorance, judgmentalism, regulation, and an "if you're not with us, then you're against us" mentality.

This is not a religion, it's Universal Unitarianism.

Funny you should say that, since MOST of what I wrote has applied to Judaism throughout its history, and we have survived longer than any religion on Earth--and in cultures a heluva lot more poisonous than this one.

(BTW: I, too, have seen the fnords...)

 

[Fnord]

According to dictionary.com, religion can be simply something one believes in and follows devotedly. Why are homogeneity and unity necessary? I tend to agree with your assessment of our culture (You are a United States-an, yes?), but contemporary Judaism has been around for quite a while, and we have laws to prevent it from being harassed out anytime soon.

Yes, I'm a U.S. citizen.

I'm just surprised that a religion such as you describe could survive at all, if your description is even mostly accurate. The caveat is that I am not Jewish, nor do I have much contact with any but the most obnoxious, arrogant, intolerant, and condescending of Jews.

Funny you should say that, since MOST of what I wrote has applied to Judaism throughout its history, and we have survived longer than any religion on Earth--and in cultures a heluva lot more poisonous than this one.

(BTW: I, too, have seen the fnords...)

First, I'll have to look into this a little more.

Second, if you don't see the fnords, then they can not eat you.

 

[The_Animus]

This is not a religion, it's Universal Unitarianism.

Agreed. I would not consider that a religion, nor do I consider Universal Unitarianism a religion. A religion is a set of specific beliefs. What you are refering to is called philosophy.

 

[Glen.Nogami]

Yes, I'm a U.S. citizen.

I'm just surprised that a religion such as you describe could survive at all, if your description is even mostly accurate. The caveat is that I am not Jewish, nor do I have much contact with any but the most obnoxious, arrogant, intolerant, and condescending of Jews.

To be nitpicky about antecedents, it was a religion such as he describes. I have contact with Jewish people who are actually quite far from all of the above, and quite a few of them. I wasn't aware that it was his description of the religion with which you were taking interest. From my own, meaninglessly anecdotal experience, it's quite accurate, depending on how orthodox one is, etc.

 

[cnorman18]

Short question, long answer

Hi cnorman18.

What is mainstream, non-Orthodox Judaism's position (in your opinion) on the OT, or Tanakh? Does its "authority" count for more than non-canonical (from Jewish pov) works? If so, how much more?

thx

I assume you already know much of this, but for those who don't, here's a brief primer.

"Tanakh," the Hebrew word for the Jewish Bible (called the Old Testament by Christians), comes from the acronym for Torah, Nevi'I'm, and Kethuvim, or Torah, Prophets and Writings, the three divisions of the book.

The Torah, the first five books, is traditionally said to have been given to Moses directly by God Himself, though few modern liberal Jews still hold that view. It is, of course, the most "authoritative" part of the Bible, but that issue is more complex that it would first appear; more on that later.

The second section, the Prophets, is traditionally those books which were written by the prophets themselves; the third, the Writings, contains books supposedly written down at second hand by those who heard the prophets in question speak, and also contains miscellaneous court documents (e.g., I and II Chronicles) and liturgical works (Psalms). Those books are proportionately less often studied and are considered less "authoritative" than the Torah. All, of course, are considered sacred and worthy of reverence and study. Note that the latter two sections are not considered the "Word of God", but the words of men; divinely inspired men, to be sure, but not on the same level as the books of Moses, the Torah.

There is, of course, another set of books, the Talmud (actually, there are two Talmuds, the Babylonian and the less-often cited Palestinian), which are also considered sacred, authoritative, and worthy of study; for more on that, see my post on the "Has Anyone Read the Talmud?" thread.

The whole question of "authority" is complicated by the issue of the "Oral Torah". Traditionally, this is a set of teachings given to Moses by God orally, and was not to be written down, but to be passed down from generation to generation in person. It is believed by traditional Jews that the Torah cannot be understood without the guidance of these teachings. These teachings were finally written down around 100 CE by order of Rabbi Judah the Prince, who determined at that time that the teachings were in danger of being lost forever. That document was the Mishnah, a record of discussions that became the core of the Talmud.

This mix of authority, between Scripture and Tradition with Tradition playing the dominant role, is actually common to all religions. Though Protestants often claim that their faith is determined by Scripture alone, that is clearly nonsense. The Bible is often, even mostly, rather cryptic; ambiguous or obscure events are related, and never does the Bible say, "Now this means..." the characters in the Bible themselves often don't know what is going on, and they, like we, must figure it out for themselves. Without some kind of tradition of interpretation, the book is pretty opaque, as most first-time readers have noticed. The Catholics, at least, say it straight out: their authorities are Scripture and Holy Mother Church.

In Judaism, too, tradition generally has the last word; but then, one must bear in mind that that tradition is still being formed, because the corpus of sacred literature has never been considered complete. The canon was never closed, in a manner of speaking; commentaries on the Talmud are still being written, volumes of rabbinical works (called Responsa, because they are usually compendia of answers to questions) are still being edited and published, and the work of interpretation goes on even as we speak. All Torah study (a term which includes study of ALL these books) is considered sacred, and the thoughts and words of your own rabbi--and you yourself--are considered as worthy of consideration as anything written by the rabbis of old, by the Prophets, or by Moses himself, though the ancient authorities are never to be disregarded or ignored.

To answer your question, then, the degree of authority of any portion of Jewish sacred literature varies by generation and from one congregation or believer to another. The Torah is always supreme; but its meaning is still being worked out, and that process will never end.

To the Orthodox, of course, the process ended sometime around the beginning of the nineteenth century or earlier; for some, even concerning matters of dress, social interaction, and personal habits. That is why you can go to a Chasid neighborhood in New York today and see people dressed as if they still lived in Poland in 1850. The "Modern Orthodox" fall somewhere in the middle, with many practices modernized--Joe Lieberman does not wear a beard or earlocks--and some remaining traditional; he does not drive or answer the phone on the Sabbath (though many Conservative Jews don't, either).

I hope this helps. Sorry about taking so long to answer your question, but I knew it would take a while.

 

[cnorman18]

If you don't know, you don't know...

I assumed that allusions to "fnords" refer to Robert Anton Wilson's "Illuminatus!" trilogy--a kind of religious initiation document in its own right, and one of the funniest and most profound books ever written. If there's another meaning, I don't know what it might be.

 

[blobru]

Thanks very much for your reply, cnorman; very educational for this atheist goy.

Y'know I adore, if that's not too silly a word, the Jewish tradition of scholarship and annotation of their sacred texts: the bible sort of as raw material. And the encouragement, the necessity even, of debate -- remarkable! Whereas most religions transmit Truth top-down; Judaism works with a democratic, bottom-up approach. Great way to keep the faithful involved and the faith relevant, it seems to me (why some Jews may even take the trouble to read their 'bible').

I have to point out though what strikes me as a slight contradiction. In the OP you write of reform Judaism:

A religion that does not expect or demand the unquestioning or unexamined acceptance of any teaching or idea, and in fact holds such acceptance in contempt--and maintains that it is the intellectual and spiritual responsibility of every person to think on and decide the truth and worth of every idea for himself.

Then in response to my question about authority:

To answer your question, then, the degree of authority of any portion of Jewish sacred literature varies by generation and from one congregation or believer to another. The Torah is always supreme; but its meaning is still being worked out, and that process will never end.

Again, I like that its meaning is an ongoing process, but psychologically there must be some limits to how the community can interpret the narrative. As a ridiculous example, someone claiming the Pharaoh was a great dad and Moses was a disobedient son -- not too kosher. Isn't there always going to be pressure to conform one's opinions to the mass of tradition; aren't certain ideas almost guaranteed acceptance? Someone deciding not to observe passover say, for whatever reason; I can't imagine him being too popular with his neighbors.
It is after all only human to want to fit in. Likewise, it's this pressure to conform one's beliefs, not explicitly stated but implicitly assumed, that undermines religion as a forum for free expression for me. Since I value freedom of expression more than fitting in, I know I could never be "religious".
But that's just me. If religion were mandatory and I absolutely had to fake it, Reform Jew (if they'd have me) wouldn't be so bad I guess, or maybe Zen (cool riddles).

 

[cnorman18]

Blobru

Thanks for your response, very much. To answer your question, yes, of course, there are limits; but they are self-imposed. Few Jews are willing to dismiss the opinions and precedents of our ancestors as the work of idiots, but that is very much an individual decision--and those precedents are continually being revised. For instance, not so long ago the Conservative movement began ordaining female rabbis; the ancient sages would have been horrified. That change was very much a bottom-up kind of thing. So is the growing acceptance and affirmation of gays. (For the record, Reform Jews were ahead of us on both counts by decades--and the Orthodox are decades, perhaps centuries, behind.)

There is a very wide latitude of acceptance of divergent views in liberal Judaism, and you have to get pretty far off the reservation before you're rejected by the community. Those who make that cut have usually rejected the community themselves, though (Noam Chomsky comes to mind). There is a guy named Israel Shamir who is a flat-out, blatant antisemite, for instance. He is celebrated and quoted on neo-Nazi websites as an "authority on Judaism". Another more problematic case is that of one Yehuda Berg, who professes to be a practicing Jew, but has been roundly denounced by most other Jews; he is the only example I know of who might be called a Jewish snake-oil salesman. He runs the Kabbalah Centre, and peddles books and DVDs on fake Kabbalah. Madonna bought her red string from him, and few of his followers are actual Jews. (When I said that Judaism doesn't tolerate con men, I had him in mind. We don't. He may claim us, but we don't claim him.) There are many others.

It's notable, though, that no one says that any of these men aren't Jews. We have no warrant for THAT, but we do feel we have the right to say that they don't speak for the community, because they patently don't.

This respect for tradition rather protects Judaism from producing the enormous number of bizarre splinter sects that one finds in other religions, especially Christianity. Torah study is ALWAYS a group activity, and the tradition is ALWAYS at least acknowledged. Jews don't get to go off by themselves, light up a fattie, and read the Bible on their own while making up groovy new interpretations; that's how characters like David Koresh show up on the scene to form weird cults that are WAY off the beaten path. It does happen in Judaism, but not often. Frankly, we think that's okay.

Hope this helps.

 

[drkitten]

Funny you should say that, since MOST of what I wrote has applied to Judaism throughout its history, and we have survived longer than any religion on Earth--and in cultures a heluva lot more poisonous than this one.

This seems difficult to reconcile with your canned responses #2 and #3. Are you sure you're not involving in a double standard with respect to historical Judaism?