Here is hj discussion on "Colloquium '95---The Unaffiliated Jew" sponsored by the Society for Humanistic Judaism. Posts included here are from: Patty Becker Bert Steinberg Jane Goldhamer Jim Harley Added posts 8/96 by: Walter Hellman Claudio Szwarcfiter (2) Bob Wolfe Jamie Zwick Mike Prival Roger Eden (2) Hans Leander Bernie Banet Gary Rothschild ........................................................................ From Patty_Becker@MTS.cc.Wayne.eduSat Oct 28 09:46:49 1995 Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 23:46:30 EDT From: Patty_Becker@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu To: hj@teleport.com, michaelw@hawaii.edu Interim report on the Colloquium: Friday evening It's pretty late and I'm tired, but here goes: l. Shoshana Cardin was magnificent last night. Her message was one of inclusion, that S&HJ is a viable choice in the panapoly of choices of how to be part of Klal Yisroel. I hope the Federation types are listening; they're the ones who need to hear the message. But it's easy to see how she has become the spokeswoman for American Jewry; she's dynamic, easy to listen to, even charismatic. 2. Felice Malkin spoke briefly about the exhibit of hidden Jewish art which opened at our Jewish Community Center. It's interesting stuff but to appreciate it fully I will have to go back there. It was too crowded for good viewing. Felix Posner also spoke; he is from England, is a major contributor to the Colloquium and to other efforts addressing the issue of Jewish continuity and is participating in the whole weekend. 3. The format which has been set up for the main presentations is that the speaker speaks, for 30-40 minutes, faculty sitting on the stage with the speaker respond, and then the audience gets its two cents worth. In the morning they were taking written questions but didn't get to very many of them. In the afternoon they switched to just calling on people. I can say this, because I'm a long time member of the Birmingham Temple. The physical setting is NOT good. The chairs are what we use for services of 90-120 minutes. They are not good for sitting all day. We are crowded and, of course, are sitting audience style rather than schoolroom style (with tables), which would be much better. The sound system is not meant for this either. They are both audio and videotaping the whole thing, and hopefully those will be better. 4. We led off with Yehuda Bauer, who sort of set a keynote for the issue of Who are the Unaffiliated Jews but was not very specific, except perhaps about what goes on in Israel which is interesting but not really relevant here. I've heard him before, and he's better when he talks about the Holocaust or modern Israeli politics or the peace process. 5. Yehuda was followed by Egon Mayer, who is a demographer, sociologist, and director of the Jewish Outreach Institute. He was excellent. He brought us a kit of materials to follow along with him, including tables from the 1990 Jewish Population Study. I am very familiar with the material he covered, because I'm also a demographer and have done Jewish demographic research here in Detroit. The audience really related to him and you can see that he is a very good teacher. 6. The first afternoon speaker was Jenna Joselit, who is a professor of religion and has a historic perspective. This, of course, was right after lunch and people were a bit logey, plus she was not an easy speaker to listen to. She did make the point that issues of disaffection with the religion, or temporary affiliation (as in just for holidays) were on the agenda a long time ago--1900 in a newspaper called the American Hebrew, and 1918 in a book by Kaplan (I did not get the complete reference). Going back to Egon Mayer for a minute, one interesting point is that in some research unaffiliated Jews were asked if they would be willing to pay for affilated Jewish services (e.g. membership in an organization or synagogue) and if so, how much. $50 was the average response. That doesn't get you membership at the Birmingham Temple, at a JCC, or hardly anywhere. Another interesting issue, at least to me, is that the National Jewish POpulation Study, and several other national studies I'm familiar with, when asking denomination give people the following choices: Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or Just Jewish. In Detroit, I always make sure that the option "humanistic or secular" appears on the questionnaire and I think it should at the national level as well. But one problem, I know, with the mainstream professional Jewish community is that they think we are a miniscule fraction of Jews, not worth noting--yes, we have a congregation in Detroit, they say, but nationally we amount to nothing. B...S... is my response. I gave him a written note about how this change should be made (he knows I'm a professional in the field). (What number am I on?) I did not stay for the final presentation of the afternoon. My tush couldn't take the seats any more, and I needed to rest. But I plan to be there bright and early tomorrow, when we take up the question of "Why be Jewish". Oh,how could I forget. I left out tonight. Our service, written especially by Sherwin for this event, was read by the graduating Madrichim. They then lit candles and spoke briefly, and it was very meaningful as each statement was personal. We graduated one spokesman (Adam Chalom), four madrichim and four madrichot, and three senior leaders (Stacey Fine, Miriam Jerris and Judith Seid of Ann Arbor)--all have completed Masters in Judaic Studies at the University of Michigan. Then we were treated to Yehuda Amichai. Yes, he IS a great poet. He is quite fluent in English and read his poems in English, mixed in with recollections of the events which inspired the poetry. He has always been a Humanist. I would agree that he deserves the Nobel Prize. Ok, folks, that's it. I need to go to sleep! Patty Becker ........................................................................ From Patty_Becker@MTS.cc.Wayne.eduSat Oct 28 09:46:49 1995 Date: Sun, 15 Oct 95 22:01:22 EDT From: Patty_Becker@MTS.cc.Wayne.edu To: hj@teleport.com Here is a summary of the Colloquium events of Saturday and Sunday. The theme on Saturday was "Why be Jewish?" I missed the first speaker, Joel Friedman of the Philosophy Dept. at Princeton, but I gather that the spoke of the continuum of affiliated...integrated...assimilated,making the point that most of the unaffiliated are really integrated, wanting some part of being Jewish to be part of their lives along with everything else. He was followed by Norman Cantor, who offered 3 bases for being Jewish: genetic, cultural and personal. He believes that there is a genetic connection among Ashkenazic Jews that accounts for the fact that we have higher average IQ scores than any other group; the Chinese are second. Obviously, we could get into a big discussion/debate on this point. My personal view is that the higher average IQ is the result of natural selection, that the Jews have had to work so hard just to continue to exist that the smarter ones were more likely to make it and the less klug less likely to survive. The cultural, according to Cantor, is the literature of the diaspora, especially Spain in the 11th-16 centuries, eastern Europe in the 19th, and Germany in the late 19th. The ancient history, the bible, he says, can be left to the Christians to preserve, because they will do it and we don't have to. (That of course, is looking at the bible as literature.) The third theme, the personal, dealt primarily with his own experiences (1) in Habonim and his choice not to make aliyah, and (2) with anti-semitism, especially in the educational system in Canada (he grew up in Winnipeg). Cantor is an iconoclastic kind of guy, enjoying stirring other people up. The third speaker was Anne Roiphe. She is a secular Jew who came to an awareness that being Jewish was important to her later in life, but she is still what might be labeled unaffiliated. She was interesting to listen to but I'm not sure what she contributed, other than her personal story of pulls and tugs in the different directions. The last speaker of the day was Andre Aicman, author of Out of Egypt. He really wants to be assimilated and unaffiliated, but says that a day does not go by that he doesn't think of his Jewishness. Again, interesting but confusing. He is French and raised in Egypt and then sent to England for further education, and it seems that he has always be on the outside looking in. I gather that he would draw comfort from being part of the American masses, undistinguishable from others, but society (and perhaps his wife and her family) will not let him. Saturday evening was to be a celebration of the film and musical arts. Joan Micklin Silver received an award and we were scheduled to see Hester Street, after she told us about how it came to be made. Unfortunately, the projector picked that time to be cranky about the film, and we just could not get to see it. (I think I'll rent it from Blockbuster and enjoy it more that way anyhow.) There was also a Klezmer band which was quite good--just three pieces, accordian, clarinet and tuba. This morning was the wrapup. I can't summarize it in a paragraph or two. It is clear that those members of the "faculty" who are not already part of the S&HJ movement were fascinated to have found this unique thing here in Detroit, a secular synagogue. They just have trouble seeing that it is Jewish. The point is also made that the movement needs a charismatic leader, and they didn't know if Sherwin Wine is that or not (he is, of course, for the older generation, but it doesn't work so well for the younger ones). Another point of consensus is that we need alternative forms of expression. Some people I talked with have trouble seeing the "Jewishness" in the Temple. This has never bothered me any--I've always viewed it as my way of being Jewish. The Temple is a very Jewish place and lives wholly within the annual and life cycle of the Jewish calendar, but the content of services is often focused more on the humanism than on the Jewishness, as is the theme song: Ayfo Oree. (need a new paragraph!) Maybe I should try to write an article about this. Much of the issue, I think,is wrapped up in the change that's taken place over time. The "older" generation--generally, people who are somewhat over 50 and up--grew up in an atmosphere where we lived and breathed being Jewish. We had Yiddishkeit around us. Our parents lived, outside of work, in primarily a Jewish world. Our neighborhoods were Jewish. We remember the Holocaust as a live event and the struggle to establish the state of Israel. Our parents, the immigrants or born soon after their parents arrived, had focused their struggle on being American,not on being Jewish. (An aside to our Canadian friends: Canada is 20 years or so behind the states, because immigration continued after it was closed off in the U.S. You have the advantage of learning from the American Jewish com- munity's mistakes and trying to avoid them!) The baby boomers, now just about to reach 50 or younger, are third and fourth generation Americans. They take for granted the existence of Israel and the Holocaust is history. As their parents became upwardly mobile, they moved out of largely Jewish neighborhoods into a more integrated, or assimilated community (and/or moved to newer sunbelt communities where that's all there was). They went to Hebrew School, or to synagogue school and had Bar (and maybe Bat) Mitzvahs, but did not take Jewishness to be a very important part of their lives. Now, as parents, they find that they have to struggle to be Jewish, while being American is taken for granted. It's the reverse of 50 years ago. The trend for the future will be a sharper version of the same. This general picture, of course, does not describe each person or family in particular. It also does not describe the Orthodox. But it's what we need to understand in order to plan for the future. It's what they organized--Federation--Jewish community is concerned about as it directs more money toward the "continuity" agenda, dealing with the questions of "will my grandchildren be Jewish." It's what we need to deal with while looking to bring in that portion of this general group which also views itself (person by person) as rational or humanistic, rather than in God and prayer. Again, I've gone on too long. In summary, the Colloquium was very stimulating but did not solve the problems of the world. We should not expect it to. We should, however, take note of what was said and use the parts that are helpful as we undertake the continuing process of strategic planning for the future. Patty Becker ........................................................................ From Mate1920@aol.comThu Nov 9 19:29:31 1995 Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 08:25:06 -0400 From: Mate1920@aol.com To: hj@teleport.com Subject: Colloquim '95 Thanks to Patty Becker for her consise reports on the Colloquium. I am sure it gave everyone who couldn't attend a feel of the event. May I add some observations? First, more than 200 were present, a good number. Most important, because about half of the featured speakers were not secular humanists, their reactions are most important. These were recognized academics, intellectuals and voices of the Jewish community. That Shoshana Cardin, Joel Feinberg, Norman Cantor, Egon Mayer and the others even agreed to be on the program is a feather in the cap of the Movement. Their closing remarks on Sunday -- and these peple did not have to be polite (including Peck's bad boy, Norman Cantor) -- gave the Movement a credibility within the traditional Jewish community which it has never yet received. Again thanks to Patty Becker. No, Patty, "we did not solve the problems of the world." But I feel strongly that it was one step forward for Secular Humanistic Judaism. It was a great start, a great event, and the Institute can be proud of its accomplishment. It bodes well for the next Colloquium '97 and for the Movement as a whole. I dare say as the Jewish press and the general press reports come out, we secular humanists will be one step closer to the pluralistic acceptance we all are searching for. Bert Steinberg ........................................................................ From goldhamr@teleport.comThu Nov 9 19:29:34 1995 Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 08:55:00 -0700 (PDT) From: "M. Michael Goldhamer" To: hj@teleport.com Subject: Thoughts after Colloquium '95 My thoughts after the Colloquium are that we can't realistically expect huge success in the growth of our movement. In all religions in the U.S., the ones that are thriving are the fundamentalist type, suggesting a bi-polar distribution religiously: the True Believers, for whom fundamentalism or New Age mysticism give their lives meaning and zest, and the more sophisticated, more emotionally mature people who have many other outlets and tend more to be skeptical of magic or of absolute truths. Within the latter grooup lies our constituency, and they aren't flocking to religious or semi-religious institutions (even rational ones) in large numbers. The Jewish population generally mirrors the larger population, and in both there may be a distribution of attitudes resembling the bell curve. At one narrow end are those who are sincerely devout believers, for whom religion is very important. Some of these are the fundamentalists, and some are members of mainstream denominations who believe in spite of the mental gymnastics which that requires in today's world. At the other narrow end are the sincerely devout disbelievers, for whom belief is important enough that we want to say and do what we believe, rather than pretending. In the big middle, with some shadings toward both ends, are the mass of people for whom religion qua religion, or belief, isn't an important issue. They don't think about what they do or don't believe, just accepting, to some degree, the conventional dogma, or at least giving lip service to it. This is easier and more comfortable than questioning. They may find synagogue membership a comfort zone, for nostalgic reasons or for its familiarity, or it's a social connection with other Jews, or it imparts a sense of virtue/probity. Their frequency of attendance and intensity of involvement may tend to correlate with the magnitude of those needs for the individual, and how well the institution satisfies those needs. The unaffiliated tend to find their needs fulfilled by other institutions, which can happen easily if the question of religion isn't a question they're interested in. For the hump of the curve, conformity outweighs caring. A frequently occurring characteristic of the baby boomers is an affinity for mysticism, with a lot of adolescent emoting and not much content. This is not our constituency either, despite their numbers. Does this suggest that there is no future for Humanistic Judaism, and that trying to grow the movement is a pointless exercise in futility? I think not. The small end of the curve for which we can provide is not all affiliated with Humanistic Judaism at this point, by a considerable number. We can afford a satisfying and rewarding and reinforcing Jewish experience to many more people than the number who presently know of our existence. Our end of the curve represents an intelligent, thinking, rational, responsible, ethical segment of the population; we're emotionally mature, in that we can live comfortably without heaven-sent Absolutes and Certainties or a sense of our own cosmic significance; we're a good part of the "cream of the crop." Our children, without the Humanistic Judaism connection, might realize very little of the Jewish experience. Even those who don't stay after they become adults will have been exposed to more than they would have been otherwise; and what they've been exposed to isn't something that their reason will cause them to reject. The alternatives to our communities would be an uncomfortable positioning of ourselves in a synagogue that we don't agree with or feel comfortable in, or else divorcing ourselves from Judaism and, often--in either case--feeling a sense of loss. To compare humanistic Jews with another group that remains small, there are perhaps 2,000 individual Unitarians in all of the Portland metropolitan area, and they have buildings, all but one of the congregations have a minister, they're a well established and recognized sect, and they draw from the entire metropolitan population. We are a new movement, not well known and without as much resources, still perceived as "mavericks," and we draw from a much smaller population pool. We are very unlikely ever to have Big congregations. BUT--SHJ has 23 affiliated groups in North America and CSJO has probably about the same number. Where and how we can and should grow, I believe, is by colonizing more cities, so that more Humanistic Jews will have a place to go, no matter where they live. Jane Goldhamer ........................................................................ Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 23:07:27 -0400 (EDT) From: James Harley Jr. To: "M. Michael Goldhamer" Subject: Re: Thoughts after Colloquium '95 I appreciated you thoughts on, say, the position of Humanistic Jews in the spectrum of Judaism. I agree we will never become BIG since we do not fill the typical perceived emotional and non-rational need of most. So many are looking to incorporeal or supernatural sources of power or hope or explanations for things they don't like or comprehend. I believe we will only become BIG if people are rational -- and then will see our philsophy as a natural, obvious choice. [I am not holding my breath (or "spirit") for the masses to be reasonable.] Many on the distinguished panel at the Colloquium had never heard of us before. I was surprised. Yet this fact solidifies my message: WE MUST LET THE WORLD KNOW WE EXIST! Many of our backgrounds find it uncomfortable or wrong to go out and show our colors, even proselytize. If we are to continue to exist, we need to let others know we are an option and what this option means. (I lived for over 20 years in the founding town of the Birmingham Temple and Secular Humanistic Judaism before I accidentally discovered SHJ!) I agree with Michael; we MUST establish groups in every major city to provide like minded Jews (and non-Jews!) a place to go. Jim H. ..................................................... (Added 8/96) From: Walter Hellman Date: Sun, 19 May 1996 22:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: HJ/ Rabbi Wine on the "Unaffiliated Jew" Recent discussion on the list...especially by Roger Eden, Hans Leander and Claudio Swarcfiter...has centered around the question of what will cause people to group as Jews in a secular society when there are so many other ways for people to group. People can gravitate towards groups at work, political action groups, neighborhood associations, etc. The most recent issue of _Humanistic Judaism_ (Winter/Spring 1996; published by SHJ), contains an article by Rabbi Sherwin Wine entitled "The Unaffiliated Jew," and was adapted from the talk he gave at last year's colloquium by that name. The article bears heavily on our current discussion. Wine describes what has also been said here: In a secular society, many if not most of the traditional reasons for Jews to group amongst themselves no longer exist. When Jews can move in any circle, work in any occupation, and travel freely without being recognized as Jews, the cultural enclave need and mentality dissolve. As Wine says, The profile of the unaffiliated Jew is not one of defiant rejection. It is one of a free citizen with a priority list that often changes daily. Most unaffiliated Jews enjoy being Jewish at some time or other. It is just that they have so many other, more important things they want to do. Simultaneously, the ethnic, or what might be viewed as cultural distinction of Judaism is much harder to maintain: Being simultaneously Jewish and secular was, at one time, easier than it is now. Seventy years ago the overwhelming majority of Jews in North America lived in the ethnic culture of Ashkenazic Eastern Europe, dominated by the living presence of the Yiddish language. To be secular was to be ethnic. To be secular was to use and value Yiddish... But Jewish ethnicity, like other European ethnicities, is not sustainable in North America. In the end, all Europeans give up their native languages, use English, and meld into the category designated as "white." Only African Americans, Hispanics and Asians remain ethnically intact because they are visibly distinct... Wine reasons that ethnicity will no longer work as a basis to organize Jews and that "Unless there is some inspirational, ideological element, Jewish identity, like Italian identity, will be absorbed into the the new white world. Now with readers on our list from non-North American countries, it would be interesting to see to what extent this analysis holds outside the U.S. Wine next describes what he sees as the crux of the problem for Judaism: In recent years ideology has been the weak point of North American Jewry. In an age in which traditional belief is no longer possible for them, many committed Jews separate their personal belief systems from their Jewishness. Prayer is seen as unconnected with what they really believe. It is simply a traditional vehicle to do something Jewish. The words become more important than the ideas. The danger in this dichotomy is that time will weaken the need to imitate the past. Either the Jewish experience provides an important message and a guide for living, or Judaism turns into a cultural potpourri of form without substance. In the absence of conviction, Jewish identity will collapse before rival ideologies that address the daily problems of assimilated Jews with conviction and integrity. Now I think this is more a problem for Humanistic Jews in particular, as opposed to theistic Jews who are much more likely to find a "guide for living" in their traditional views (there is even a Guide for the Perplexed). The bulk of Wine's article deals with what is necessary for what Wine refers to as "a truly effective campaign to recruit un-affiliated Jews for a significant community connection." He first states two premises; secularism is good for society, and Jewish identity is worth an investment of time, energy and money. Rabbi Wine then describes what he calls seven "realities" which should guide the campaign to form Jewish communities. They are too complex to summarize here (I suggest the full article for reading), but one point is, I think, particularly relevant to recent discussion on our list: The culture and civilization of the Jews must be tied to the experience of the Jewish people, and that experience must yield some profound message. Unless Jewishness is bound to a compelling philosophic conviction, it will die of insignificance.... Now I think a great deal of our list discussion has revolved around what that message should be, the question of whether the message uniquely comes from Judaism, Humanism, or both, and whether we can present this message in a compelling enough fashion to make people feel like they belong to a group with a desirable identity. Humanistic Judaism is still in the formative stages. We need to sharpen up our message. The theistic reasons that cause most people join religious groups do not apply to us. What is the compelling, "profound" message we want to deliver? How do we tie this to Judaism from a secular vantage point? While these questions are very difficult, what gives hope is that many Jews endure almost ridiculous assaults on their intellectual integrity to try to keep Judaism in their lives in some way. We have all heard the stories of how people went to shul even though they hardly believed a single word they were saying. With desires this strong to maintain a Jewish connection, surely we have something to offer. Walter Hellman ------------------------------ From: szwarc@eros.rdc.puc-rio.br (Claudio Szwarcfiter) Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 11:12:30 -0300 Subject: HJ/ teachings First of all, there was an article (which I accidentally deleted) asking whether the Jewish situation in Brazil is similar to the situation in North America. So to reassure you that our discussion is in the same "frequency", yes, the situation here is identical. All the problems or characteristics of contemporary Judaism that apply to the USA apply to Brazil too. The difference is that, maybe because of the smaller size of the community here, no "alternative" solutions to address the problem of the continuity of the existence of Judaism are being undertaken (such as Humanistic Judaism). There is no HJ group here, and I am still talking to my friends and showing them the material I have been accumulating, so I hope to form a group here soon. As Walter Hellman has pointed very wisely, I recently felt an impulse towards my "Jewish" "Roots". My first response was, following his words, to "go to shul even though I hardly believed a single word I was saying", "enduring ridiculous assaults on my intellectual integrity". Then I accidently bumped into HJ, via my daily search for Jewish material on the Internet. So I bought some books by rabbi Wine and started reading more and more about HJ (and still reading and going to talks on Judaism in general). As Walter Hellman stated, we have a complex problem ahead of us, that is, to sharpen our message and show to the people in general that it is worth it to belong to a Jewish group, in particular to HJ. Hoping to be of some help in this discussion, what attracts me and a very large part of the young Jewish community (I am 27) is the idea of us being a people who have something to say to the world. And that has nothing to do with religion. We have been around for a long time. More than any other people, we have accumulated a very large volume of teachings on moral, ethics and views of life. And since this is really missing in the contemporary world, this could be a driving force for young unaffiliated Jews to join a HJ community. Claudio Szwarcfiter Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ------------------------------ From: SVMC08A@prodigy.com (MR ROBERT D WOLFE) Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 14:43:19, -0500 Subject: HJ/ Messages I'd like to respond to Walter Hellman's call for a discussion of the "profound" message that Humanistic Judaism ought to be sending out in order to infuse our activities with greater depth and appeal. I fully agree that some such message is needed but want to make it clear that the more powerful the message, the greater the risk. On this list message advocates tend to fall into two categories, spiritual and political. From my point of view, both groups look a little wishy-washy, and I find this true of HJ in general. Some may take this as an insult but believe it or not it is not meant as such. I had plenty of experience with more extreme versions of both spirituality and politics in the 1960s, and I am painfully aware of the fact that none of these more extreme versions are still in existence. The great virtue of HJ is that it exists, grows slowly and provides the most sensible version of secular Judaism that I am aware of, at least so far as the United States is concerned. A certain degree of wishy-washiness is probably an inevitable concomitant of these virtues. However it does make it difficult to generate a "profound" message. In my experience spiritual profundity presupposes some kind of communal structure - a rural commune or an urban collective that lives or works together - capable of generating intense emotional interactions among its membership. Groups that meet only periodically may generate such emotions from time to time but not on a regular basis. By the same token, political profundity to me implies radical politics, politics that is outside the mainstream of American life. To me the United States appears to be an increasingly fascistic, imperialistic, hard-hearted country, but I find only the faintest echo of this perception expressed in the conventional debate between liberals and conservatives. I would be very glad to see HJ move closer to a radical position in both the spiritual and political realms, but I am also intensely conscious of the fact that to do so would entail risks. I think the solution to the problem is young people. A considerable proportion of the membership of HJ consists of older people such as myself or mature adults with young children. It is normal for older people to be somewhat cautious and young people to be somewhat bold. Perhaps a campaign to form HJ groups on college campuses might provide the framework in which a more profound spiritual and political message could take shape. Bob Wolfe ------------------------------ From: Jamie Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 15:32:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: HJ/ jewish identity In response to some of the recent submissions,I have formulated some of my own thoughts. As Claudio relayed As Walter Hellman has pointed very wisely, I recelntly felt an impulse towards my "Jewish Roots." My first response was, following his words, to "go to shul even though I hardly believed a single word I was saying." Through my involvement in the Hillel this past year, I met many people of various jewish upbringings and I encountered the afore-mentioned scenario in a couple different ways. As I talked with my newly made friends, I would ask them about their involvements in temples as they were growing up. Many of them read Hebrew, some are taking it as their college foreign language to understand what they are saying in the prayers, and others simply read along in the broken Hebrew they memorized for their bar/bat mitzvahs. They never understood what they were saying as they were growing up, They went because their parents took them and said what they were told to say. This troubled me, I would ask them how they could do this, it makes me uncomfortable to say things when I don't know what they mean. I suppose not understanding what you are saying and not believing in what you are saying are two completely different issues. But I found myself attending the services on Friday nights and various other holidays despite the fact that I didn't believe hardly any of what they were saying, primarily references to God and other such issues. But I kept going to the services, all year long in fact. The services weren't geared toward any specific variety of judaism(orthodox, conservative, reformed, certainly not hj) So they didn't really fit with anyones beliefs, though we were all there together. So it wasn't really the praying that we were there to do, it was the being together with other jews and spending the evening in each others company. So, I feel that as long as we continue to find other jews to spend time with and to celebrate our"jewishness" with we will keep it alive. Even though I don't agree with them on many issues, we still have a strong culture behind us that we do share. What actually makes me feel the most jewish is doing the traditions as I know them for myself as well as talking to my non-jewish friends about being jewish. Jamie Zwick ------------------------------ From: MPrival@aol.com Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 01:50:56 -0400 Subject: HJ/ Meaning/Future of Humanistic Judaism SUBJECT: Meaning/Future of Humanistic Judaism Walter Hellman cogently expresses the underlying dilemma of Humanistic Judaism by summarizing key sections from Sherwin Wine's penetrating article on the Unaffiliated Jew. Walter (5/20/96) wrote: > Wine reasons that ethnicity will no longer work as a basis >to organize Jews and that "Unless there is some inspirational, >ideological element, Jewish identity, like Italian identity, >will be absorbed into the the new white world...." >... > Wine next describes what he sees as the crux of the problem >for Judaism: >... > Either the Jewish experience provides an important message > and a guide for living, or Judaism turns into a cultural > potpourri of form without substance. In the absence of > conviction, Jewish identity will collapse before rival > ideologies that address the daily problems of assimilated > Jews with conviction and integrity. >... And Walter quotes what is really Wine's solution to the problem of "meaning" for Secular Humanistic Jews: > The culture and civilization of the Jews must be tied to the > experience of the Jewish people, and that experience must > yield some profound message. Unless Jewishness is bound to > a compelling philosophic conviction, it will die of > insignificance.... > Wine defines the compelling secular message as being: "...that Jewish history testifies to a world in which the only power that guarantees life and justice is human power." I, personally, strongly agree with this message, but I find it a very week reed upon which to hang a Movement such as ours. Will our free, assimilated, intermarried descendants of the next two or three generations really find so much meaning in the study of Jewish history that they will continue to expend their time, energy, and emotion on maintaining their Jewishness? How many American Jews even now have even the vaguest notion of Jewish history other than the migration of Jews from Europe to America and the Holocaust? How many Jews that you know can identify the Bar Kochba rebellion or the Chmielnicki uprising or other key events in Jewish history, much less draw an intelligent "message" from such events? It makes no sense to think that our grandchildren will be any more Jewishly literate than our generation is. So why go on if there is no basis for hoping that our movement will be sustained? I think that there are two reasons: (1) for ourselves in the present there is no realistic alternative that permits us to be Jewish with a sense of philosophical integrity--a value that we all value highly; and (2) the Israeli experience may be setting the groundwork for a truly viable Secular Humanistic Jewish society such as the one we envision for ourselves. The secular outpouring of emotion in Israel in the aftermath of the Rabin assassination may be a hint of what lies ahead. The Orthodox Rabbis are still complaining that they were not invited to speak at Rabin's funeral. They even go so far as to say that the only person at the funeral who gave what they consider to be a "Jewish spiritual message" was Bill Clinton. It is possible that Israelis will develop (in part by learning from us?) a national Secular Humanistic religion that expresses the true values and outlook of most Jewish Israelis and that our Diaspora Secular Humanistic Judaism will become a part of that larger movement. This is still not a complete answer to why Jewish-Americans (secular OR religious) are any more likely to survive as a group than Italian-Americans. Part of the rest of the answer may be that history, like election campaigns, takes totally unanticipated twists and turns and that we must be ready to provide a Secular Humanistic Judaism in the, perhaps unlikely, event that future conditions become ripe for its growth. An irrelevant postscript: A long time ago someone complained (Hershl Hartman I think) that we demean ourselves by abbreviating "Humanistic Judaism" in our messages with "HJ". I tend to agree, and have consistently written out the words since then. Now I see a tendency for many on this list to spell "Jew", "Jewish", and "Judaism" with a lower case "j". Except for e.e. cummings (who I don't think is a subscriber on this list-- and if he is then we'll all have to rethink our philosophy) or those who spell USA as "usa", I would suggest that we all make the extra effort to hit the "shift" key and capitalize "Jew", "Jewish", and "Judaism". Mike Prival Machar The Washington D.C. Area Congregation for Humanistic Judaism ------------------------------ From: eden@siftac.easynet.co.uk (Roger Eden) Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 14:36:22 +0100 Subject: HJ/ Not just the unaffiliated? When I read our literature, I do not form the impression that this is some fringe movement that appeals to the unaffiliated, to those who are today hardly Jews, to partners in mixed marriages, although I can understand why we appeal to them. In actual fact, here in the UK there seems a large ground swell of sympathy within the mainstream United Synagogue - and that compares to the Orthodox in the US, and it is the largest here. The laity contain large numbers (it seems to me) who are humanist, and would join a community - if we had one. But they won't be pioneers. Currently the shul feels Jewish, all their friends go, it's a kosher way of hatch, match and despatch (birth, marriage and death, and also bar mitzvah), whilst we cannot provide the hechsher (kosher certificate) that comes with a full community and a previous tradition. We have some interesting UK initiatives on the go, but I don't know how to tap into that mainstream. To give a specific but not unique examples when an Israeli- Palestinian MK visited here, the Embassy (as it usually does with all visiting Knesset Members) arranged for him to visit Jewish Schools, where he was subjected to bigotry and racism. Many Jewish MK's have as well, but it is less obvious. Do we counter this with a general non-racist education or do we tackle head on the religious but false interpretation of our heritage which leads them to ethnocentric views? We need both, but as HJ it is the latter which demands our attention. Our e-mail political debates would be different, if we were a recognised voice of Judaism, but then we enter the debate of what we might mean by pluralism. Certainly not that all versions are correct. Probably that we feel that we have a true ongoing tradition with the ethics of our ancestors, whilst Rabbinical Judaism has become thoroughly influenced by Christian practice. Raising ritual above idea, obedience above conscience, and using out of context extracts of ancient texts to support a non religious authoritarian and ethnocentric political agenda. Interesting that much of Christianity has broken away from this type of thinking that was prevalent in the Middle Ages, whilst the Rabbinate seems to have discovered it with fervour since W.W.II. I assume that we do see ourselves as an embryonic movement that one day will become the mainstream of Judaism, or will we always be a fringe? If our main appeal is the unaffiliated, then our survival is tenuous. I suppose I am merely seeking some reassurance of what the list members think, behind the debates. And I see nothing wrong with HJ as a shorthand in our private list. Netspeak can be used judiciously. ------------------------------ From: Hans Leander Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 10:47:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: HJ/ Jewish humanism I have barely digested the last group of messages on the topic of how we connect our Jewishness and humanism, so I will endevour to put forth some gut feelings. Sherwin Wine, in his book "Judaism Beyond God", chapter "Jewish Identity", section "Kinship", put forth the idea that what holds us together is, in the end, a feeling of belonging to a tribe. I tend to believe that this is probably as far as we will get in connecting to Judaism. I doubt that our history will inspire future generations to become humanists, or that our cultural background will inspire us to avoid influence from the larger society. And the feeling of belonging, being accepted in a group not for what you have done but just because you are a certain type of human being, is a strong feeling, a strong bond, a good feeling. It can carry us a long way. I do not believe that we will get far by trying to hold out Judaism as being the basis for moral and ethics. I think it is a question of personal motivation, that is, some of us feel that our Jewish upbringing or background provide a basis for our humanism, while others feel they have gotten impetus to this from other sources. To summarize, while we might have a bad conscious about this, and open ourselves up for criticism from within and without, I believe that our humanistic work in the long run will probably be rather disconnected from our Jewishness, but that our Jewishness will be adequately expressed and experienced in our communities. If we live like humanists, it really does not matter if the source is Judaism or our Jewishness; there is nothing saying that the two HAS TO BE linked. Hans Leander Boca Raton, Florida hleander@pbfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us ------------------------------ From: szwarc@eros.rdc.puc-rio.br (Claudio Szwarcfiter) Date: Tue, 21 May 1996 12:36:08 -0300 Subject: Re: HJ/ Meaning/Future of Humanistic Judaism It's not just history. The message could be powerful if we could focus more on Life. The celebrations, the symbols. This is what stays in a child's mind. And the lessons of moral and ethics that are related to each of the celebrations. The celebrations can be real fun and pleasant for the children, without leaving out the meaning. I'm not sure if Israel is in the right track, though. I have lived there in 1991 and I was a bit disappointed to see how they are quickly absorbing all the defects from American society and disposing the Jewishness. As the Israelis have been born in Israel, they don't care too much about keeping the Jewish tradition. Perhaps they think the Jewishness of their lives is "automatic", since they were born there. And it is not. What is secular Jewish life? Kibbutz life? Of course not, that is over. Life in cities such as Tel Aviv? I have never seen anything Jewish in that. Tel Aviv is really a mixture of Rio de Janeiro, Buffalo and Istanbul, there is nothing very Jewish about it, except that the people that live there happen to be Jewish and the arabs remind them all the time about it, despite all the efforts they make in trying to discard everything Jewish from their lives. Claudio Szwarcfiter Rio de Janeiro, Brazil ------------------------------ From: bab@optimation.com (Bernie Banet) Date: Tue, 21 May 96 12:13 WET DST Subject: HJ/ unaffiliated Roger Eden wrote: >If our main appeal is the unaffiliated, then our survival is tenuous. In reply: But if half of those those born of Jewish parents decide not to unaffiliate with a congregation, and a partially overlapping half of all of the young generation are intermarried, the union of those two sets is well over half, figures that I think are in the right "ballpark" for North America. It is the survival of Jews as Jews on this continent, then, that may be tenuous, not just the continuity of Humanistic Judaism. (Is the demographic situation very different in the UK, Roger?) Because of these demographic facts, the main potential "new customers" for any brand of Judaism/Jewishness may well be the unaffiliated and the intermarried: they are, it appears, going to be the majority of the Jewish ethnic population. Since these groups are also, by their self-classification, the most dissatisfied with the historic alternatives (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist) they are a very natural "target market" for secular and humanistic Judaism. If you dismiss or disparage their (I should say "our") involvement in revitalizing Jewish identity, (and the role of not-born-ethnically-Jewish spouses and "half-Jewish" children) the secular humanistic Jewish movement just might be writing off its own best "prospects" and those on whom, clearly, the survival of a distinct Jewish personal identity and culture and institutions will depend in an important way. ===Bernie== Bernard A. Banet Phone: 313 665-7842 Fax: 313 665-7872 838 Heatherway Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104-2734 bab@optimation.com ------------------------------ From: eden@siftac.easynet.co.uk (Roger Eden) Date: Wed, 22 May 1996 07:08:08 +0100 Subject: HJ/ So what is our Jewish Offering? Hans wrote: ...not... get far by ...Judaism as being the basis for moral and ethics. I pick this quote as typical of some postings, also Bernie wrote: ...survival of Jews....may be tenuous, not just...Humanistic Judaism. (Is ..it ...different..in the UK, Roger?), Similar Bernie, but the affiliated majority are nominal members of a synagogue (mainly Orthodox). The unaffiliated have exercised a positive choice. We also have an ex-pat Israeli community almost one third the size of the Anglo-Jewish community, who are mainly Secular, and with no contact between the two communities. Do we appeal to the unaffiliated, to the exclusion of the affiliated, or because what we have to offer is more appealing to both. We are a fringe movement if we appeal only to the unaffliliated, in which case, I cannot see that we will appeal to many. What is Jewish about us, beyond ancestry and some diluted tribal bonding, what Jewishness would be widely attractive. Is our Jewish raison d'etre, a lack of interest in the opposition? Isn't this why we seem to have insufficient appeal to the young - the old like the humanism and are sustained in their Judaism by nostalgia, to the young we have surely to offer something more vibrant. I think that Israel Secular Society has much to offer, but is it possible, that some of us shy away, and indeed are HJ beacuse we want to distance ourselves, as I said previously, be Jew-ish rather than Jews? I also with agree with Titus, who thinks the West is veering towards fascism, why do we have asnwers as individuals, as Humanists, but seem to deny the Jewishness in our response - why were Jews so prevalent in social movements in the 60's - perhaps becuase there is an ethics ingrained in Jewish culture, which we seem so keen to renounce? Walter wrote....that people come to a group with "Judaism" in the title not to find their principal political involvement, but to share, at least in part, an emotional experience relating to their heritage and view of life. I am not finding much Jewish view of life in the list lately, Or is it simply an Anglo-American culture divide? Roger Eden eden@siftac.easynet.co.uk ------------------------------ From: garyny@ix.netcom.com (Gary C Rothschild) Date: Thu, 23 May 1996 08:54:13 -0700 Subject: Re: HJ/ HJ Humanism On Thu, 23 May 1996 Hans Leander wrote: > > >America! Let's rejoice! Lets ... (okay, so I am being a little >facetious, but I am looking desperately for some POSITIVE action, some >proposals for what WILL WORK; mostly, we seem to believe we can only be a >small, fringe group, something we must accept if it is true, but can't we >expand, do we have to give up on all who are not humanistic Jews >already? Come on, you all have such a tremendous amount of knowledge >and experience. GET TO WORK!) > >All the best, > >Hans Leander >Boca Raton, Florida >hleander@pbfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us > > > > > Someone else commented on Orhtodoxy in the U.S. in response to a comment about the growth of the Lubavitch movement in Brazil. Lubavitch is not the same as all Orthodoxy and is a prime example of what Hans is getting at in a round about way. Lubavitch thrived under the Grand Rebbe because he made it VISIBLE. The Ethical Humanism movement grows because it, and it's message, is VISIBLE. In order for Humanistic Judaism to become more than just a fringe movement it's message must be well defined (which according to what I read on this list it is not) and the organization must be highly visible. Judaism does not actually proselytize. As a Jewish movement HJ should not either. So how, then, do you attract people to the movement. By being VISIBLE with a message and credo that is attractive to people. Visibility can come from good works (such as with the Lubavitch), massive amounts of published material, and probably many ways that I can't even think of right now. VISIBILITY must be in a positive light. Such things as attacking government policy without a firm backing in public opinion create negative visibility which you don't want. Bottom Line is that VISIBILITY is the key to growth. Good luck. I think your ideals are worthy of being seen and understood by a much wider audience. Sincerely, Gary Rothschild Forest Hills, NY garyny@ix.netcom.com