Conference taveng::bagels

Marriage in a temple by a rabbi implies "a Jewish marriage".

Marriage to a non-Jew implies "not a Jewish marriage".

I don't know of any rabbis, Reform or otherwise, who ignore this dilemma.

Dave

Perhaps a compromise is possible.  Pick a non-religious building or
site for the ceremony.  Have a cantor perform the traditional Jewish
the ceremony.  They may need someone else licensed by the State to 
perform marriages in addition to the cantor to make it all legal.

This won't change the fact that one party is not Jewish, but it does
allow Jewish traditions to be followed at least in part.  Unless there
is a conversion, these types of compromises will always need to be made
in their marriage.

Leslie

    re: .0
    
    There is one other alternative, and that is a conversion on the part of
    her fiancee.  If he is truly comitted to her than this should be
    considered.
    
    I know someone will object to this option on grounds of freedom of
    choice, etc., but it is this 'freedom' which is part of what is
    destroying the American Jewish community (such as it is).
    
    --David

	Last I heard, Rabbi Alan Press in Haverhill is still performing such
	ceremonies.  I am told, however, that is fees are VERY high.  I don't
	know his phone number but I imagine he's in the Haverhill phone book.

	-ric.

Even those Reform Rabbis who will perform such a cermony do not, as far as I
know, perform them at their temples.  Instead, as mentioned in an earlier reply,
they take it to "neutral ground".

Gav
The above relays information and does not reflect my views, which are in
agreement with Dave Chersons.

    The sadness, loneliness, and problems in finding a spouse are very
    common.
    
    I want to add a few more words of advice for those who are trying to
    find their needle in the haystack.
    
    * Jewish Singles Newspapers
    
    I think running an ad is a good idea, as is answering ads.  When you
    run an ad, I think it is good to clearly state you are looking for a
    commitment.  Anyone who is scared of that word will waste your time. Be
    specific in your ad.  Mention your interests.  Avoid cliches like
    "walks on the beach" "relaxing in front of a fire" and so forth.  I
    think the most important element of an ad are the moral values and
    qualities you prize most highly, such as integrity, family values,
    adventurousness, or whatever.  If you fly a plane every weekend mention
    that.  Minor hobbies are fairly unimportant, unless they help describe
    your character.  For example, if you are a bookworm, say you like
    reading.   
    
    Don't be too specific about qualities you are looking for, unless they
    are non-negotiable.  For instance, a 30-year-old man seeks a woman
    22-32.  What's wrong with a woman of 21 or 33?  It sounds like
    nonsense.  I don't think you would be idiotic enough to ask for
    "gorgeous" or say "no fatties."  That is really disgusting to most
    women, no matter what their appearance.  Likewise, a woman who is
    looking for a man with plenty of money.  That sounds crass.  Don't be
    unrealistic about your geographic area.  For the right person, you can
    work things out.
    
    I think it is good for both men and women to run ads.  Women in
    particular can get a very good response.
    
    When you answer an ad, the same guidelines hold true.  Use nice
    stationery, never lined paper ripped from a notebook.  That's
    adolescent.  Avoid cutesey stationery, too.  It is very important to
    direct your response to the statements in the ad.  That shows you read
    it closely.  Don't go on at great length.  Between 3 and 6 paragraphs
    is enough.  It is very courteous to provide a small snapshot and say
    that it need not be returned.  Women (maybe men too) should use a post
    office box and not give their address until the second letter.
    
    * Blind dates
    
    This is one channel I didn't mention in my previous reply.  Have you
    seen the movie Crossing_Delancey?  I highly recommend it for a good
    laugh.  The Amy Irving character is so true of many of us:  Chasing a
    rainbow and ignoring the gold at our feet.
    
    Laura

    In order to make any of this work, you must know yourself.
    
    Know what you really value in life.  Know what you really enjoy.  Know
    how you want to live and what you want in the future.  Spend the time
    to work on this, perhaps using a personal journal or diary.  Keep
    refining it as you proceed.  
    
    Of course you need to be flexible and not overly restrictive in your
    search.  But a clear image is much more interesting than a fuzzy one. 
    And your clarity will help attract the right kind of people.  It will
    also help you avoid wasting time on inappropriate matches.
    
    Each time you date someone new, decide what you liked about this
    person.  What qualities do your dates have in common?  What do they
    like about you?
    
    L

    Hi,
    
    	I'm the one Ellen wrote about in the note - this is my first time
    reading this conference.  Thanks for the replies - we did find several
    Rabbis willing to perform a ceremony for us.  I wanted to comment on
    some of the responses though - I'm not sure I appreciate being thought
    of as part of the "destruction of the American Jewish community".  I'm
    not exactly an "American Jew", although I'm American and Jewish - my
    father is Israeli and my mother is an American who converted.  We lived
    in Israel when I was a child, and all of my father's family still lives
    there.  My fiance has been to Israel, and my family loved him.  They do
    not expect him to convert.  I consider myself an
    American-Israeli...that is my culture, and that is why I want to be
    married by a Rabbi.  My fiancee and I will bring both our cultures to
    our marriage, and will raise our children, if we have any, to be proud
    of both.  We plan to visit Israel frequently to maintain our ties. 
    We are very committed to each other - and he certainly doesn't need to
    convert to prove it to me.
    
    I'd be very interested in any comments anyone may have on this -
    
    								Tali 

>		  My fiancee and I will bring both our cultures to
>   our marriage, and will raise our children, if we have any, to be proud
>   of both.

You haven't said in which religion you plan to train the children. If this
statement means that you plan to raise the children in both religions, then
I think you have a problem. In my opinion, rather than giving the children
both religions, you give them NEITHER religion. Pride in heritage is one
thing, religious training is another, so maybe that isn't what you meant.

Dave

    re: .8
    
    I can appreciate your feelings, but you also expressed a detachment
    from the Jewish community at large, I'm not an American Jew, an
    American-Israeli, etc.  You are Jewish, and Israelis are Jews, and
    assimilation is a worldwide/diaspora-wide problem.  I spent many years
    in Israel, and I used to debate the national vs. religious question
    often.  If being an Israeli is just merely holding a passport like a
    citizen in any other country than why should any of us do things like
    immigrate, get drafted in Zahal, have half your salary disappear in
    taxes, etc.?  We could easily immigrate to Australia, and have an
    easier time of it if that's all it is.
    
    From another perspective another contributing factor to escalating
    assimilation is what I call the 'religionization' of Am Yisrael, i.e.,
    Judaism is the same as Catholicism or any other religion, it's just a
    religion.  More people should do more to understand that we are a
    people that is composed of many components with Judaism as the
    'backbone'.
    
    --David  

Of course, if .8's mother's conversion was not a halachic conversion, then
halachically she's not a Jew.

	I'd like to comment on two of David's replies:

.3
�    There is one other alternative, and that is a conversion on the part of
�    her fiancee.  If he is truly comitted to her than this should be
�    considered.

	On this statement, I'd disagree.  At least, I guess that I'd use caution.
Any time that one "chooses" between two things, there is an implied priority
that the one is more important than the other.  Commitment to someone in marriage
is *critical* -- I cannot disagree with that.  And in almost all respects, I
would *agree* with the above statement.  However, my own feelings are that one's
religious beliefs -- one's personal faith in an Almighty God -- are a higher
priority than anything else.  These should not be compromised for personal gain,
for satisfying other individuals, or for any other purpose.  Regardless of how
important that other person is -- and in this case, they should certainly rank
a *strong* second place 8^) -- changes in one's religious beliefs should be made
purely on the basis of a statement of personal feelings...  not "compromise".

	Having said that, I'll now *agree* with another statement of David's:

.9
� You haven't said in which religion you plan to train the children. If this
� statement means that you plan to raise the children in both religions, then
� I think you have a problem. In my opinion, rather than giving the children
� both religions, you give them NEITHER religion. Pride in heritage is one
� thing, religious training is another, so maybe that isn't what you meant.

	I've already said something similar in another reply, but the concept of
"keeping an open mind" by presenting multiple religions to a child just doesn't
work.  It may work for an adult, who is capable of sorting out, and weighing,
and deciding for themselves.  But for a young child, it only causes confusion.

	I have several friends in this situation, and they are usually proud of
the fact that they raise their children "in both religions".  Yet when I talk to
the children about what this means to them, it usually turns out that they
simply look at it as "getting Christmas *and* Hanakkuh"!  In other words, there
is no real evaluation of the two, and there is certainly no heritage with which
to identify.  In this scenario, "religion" is usually reduced to the level of
importance of any other mundane topic, such as sports.  ("I like the Dodgers."
"Well, I'm a Yankees fan."  "Oh, yeah?  Well I like the Dodgers *and* the
Yankees!")  It becomes fairly meaningless.

	In fact, these very two replies serve to support each other:  *if* your
religious beliefs are important enough not to compromise anything else, then the
way you raise your children will be obvious;  *if* you don't care about the basic
truths that you instill in your children at an early age, then I suppose anything
else is open to compromise as well.

	F

Non-intermarriage is on the same level as keeping kosher and observing
Shabbat. There are any number of biblical passages that make it clear that
Jews are commanded to marry only other Jews. The book of Ruth introduces
the possibility of conversion. The book of (Ezra? Nehemia?) says that
upon their return from the Babylonian exile, the Jewish men that had
non-Jewish wives were forced to give them up. It is clear that inter-
marriage (with or without the conversion of the non-Jewish partner) is
not just a recent issue.

Perhaps the only factor that has preserved Judaism over the centuries
is that Jewish parents raise Jewish children. Intermarriage usually
means the end of a Jewish line. The offspring may respect their Jewish
heritage, but will they "teach it diligently" to their children?

Dave

	RE: .13

� The book of (Ezra? Nehemia?) says that
� upon their return from the Babylonian exile, the Jewish men that had
� non-Jewish wives were forced to give them up.

	My point exactly in .12 -- conversion was not the issue.  Now, perhaps
if these non-Jewish wives really held no strong beliefs of their own, then
encouraging them to convert would be the answer.  But conversion has to be
measured in the light of "compromise" -- *Why* is one converting?  And how does
that affect their personal beliefs?  And what *are* their priorities?

	F

    By halacha, the conversion would not be valid anyway, if a partner only
    converted to get married to a Jew, so the point in Mr. Nicodem's(?)
    replies, is a mute point anyhow!
    
    Jake
    

    What is a "halachic" conversion?  I've never heard that term before -

Halachic: adjective. According to "halacha".

Halacha: noun. Jewish law.

The political issue here is "Who is authorized to perform conversions?" The
Orthodox position is that Reconstructionist, Reform, and (maybe) Conservative
conversions are invalid. The theological issue is that the one performing
the conversion (and the witnesses) must be an "observant" Jew: keep kosher,
observe the mitzvot, observe Shabbat, etc. Likewise, the convert promises to
be an "observant" Jew. The trouble is that the standards for "observant" vary
among the movements.

Dave

    The topic of conversions and their validity has been discussed before
    in this notesfile.  If you MUST discuss it again (and I hope you don't)
    please find a note which already goes into it.
    
    				Paul
    

    According to the Jewish Law, a convert has to be sincere about
    conversion.  Thus his/her reason for becoming Jewish has to be the belief
    in the Jewish religion, regardless of any other people.  Well then, if
    somebody really believes the religion, will they not want to learn as
    much as possible about it?  Will they not want to practice it to the T
    (interpritations of things unknown put aside)?  I would think they
    would, and thus would convert orthodox, according to the Halacha, with
    sincerety and independent of their intent to marry a Jewish person.
    
    When somebody converts to Judaism, they assume the responsibility of
    following an extra set of comandments over and beyond the 7 Noahite
    commandments that all humans should follow.  They don't convert so that
    they have more laws available for them to break.  Assuming extra
    responsibilities without any intent to perform them, is not
    appropriate for any activity, and especially not for this one. (Ask me
    why?) This is the reason that marriage and conversion decisions should
    be totally separate and have nothing to do with one another.
    
    Jake
    
                      

    
    RE .19 
    
    "I would think they would, ... convert orthodox, ..."
    
    Gee I don't know. If their exposure to the Jewish Religion were through
    a Reform Jew (later their spouse) wouldn't they tend to match the
    beliefs of their spouse? First because they (hopefully) see things in a
    common way (hence their interest in one another). Secondly would a
    reform Jew be comfortable with an Orthodox convert for a spouse?
    
    .Re. 19
    
    You asked, I am curious, so tell please tell me, "Why"?
    
    /doug

    Re.: 20
    
    I have never even heard of anybody hearing of anybody converting to
    Reform Judaism, for any reason other than marriage.  I don't see how
    anybody trully believing in Judaism, after learning about it, would not
    want to follow all the comandments, but instead would choose to ignore
    what he/she has learned, and only go thru the motions (or some small
    subset of them.)  I have heard of cases of people who after meeting
    their "reason" for conversion, began studying Judaism, and in so doing
    became incredibly observant Jews.  They then chose spouses other than
    their "reason", because they failed to comprehend how somebody could be
    Jewish, yet totally disregard all the Jewish laws. 
    
    Now that I think about it, let me correct myself on the first sentence
    I made, above.  Here are two more resons for conversion I have
    encountered (neither of which could be considered sincere):
       1. A catholic guy converts to Judaism (Reform), because he is
    homosexual, and of course the catholic church prohibits this
    uncoditionally, as does Judaism - normally.  But Reform Jews don't care
    about this, and he figures it will be easier to find sex partners.
       2. A guy converts to Judaism, because the rest of his family is Jewish.
    His father is Jewish, his mother converted after he was born, and his
    sister was born after hios mother's conversion.
    I am sure you could come up with more insincere reasons for Reform
    conversions, but I can't find a single sicere reason.  Am I wrong?
    
    As for the reason that it is especially inapropriate for somebody to
    take on the added responsibilities associated with becoming Jewish,
    without any intent to fulfill these responsibilities, here it goes the
    "official" reason, which may sound somewhat absurd to some of you:
    
    When you take on any responsibility, you generally have people depend
    on your fulfilling this responsibility.  The greater is the number of 
    people depending on you to fulfill your promise, the greater is the
    importance of your responsibility, and more devastating and
    disappointing are the results of your failure to fulfill it.  It is
    even worse if you never intend to keep the promise.
    
    When one converts to Judaism he/she assumes the responsibility of keeping
    *all* the comandments (other then the ones that are impossible to keep due
    to the unavailability of The Temple.)  The whole Jewish people depend on 
    the convert's promise, since the coming of Messiah depends not on the
    number of Jewish people, but rather on the observence of those, who are
    Jewish.  Thus we need more *observant* Jews, not more Jews.  In fact then,
    we are better of, if somebody that is not sincere about the conversion
    does not convert at all.  (This is one reason why orthodox, will not
    recognize Reform and Conservative conversions.)  (Some christian
    denominations also belive that the so called second coming, depends on
    Jews becoming more observant.  An insincere convert is letting these
    people down as well :-)
    
    Jake
    
    

re .21:

Mark Starin, who used to participate in BAGELS, was undergoing a reform
conversion.  He seemed to have no ulterior motives.  He said he was aware
that his conversion would not be recognized by orthodox Jews.  He maintained
the hope that this situation would change.

I think there are probably many sincere people who undergo non-halachic
conversions.  It's the people who do these conversions whose sincerity
I doubt.  I wonder how many of them really get across to the potential
convert the fact that they will never be recognized as Jews by orthodox Jews.

BTW, I've heard of someone who was converted three times (reform, then
conservative, then orthodox).

.21>I have never even heard of anybody hearing of anybody converting to
    Reform Judaism, for any reason other than marriage.  I don't see how
    anybody trully believing in Judaism, after learning about it, would not
    want to follow all the comandments, but instead would choose to ignore
    what he/she has learned, and only go thru the motions (or some small
    subset of them.)

Our (Reform) Temple has at least one member who converted because she wanted to
be a Reform Jew -- marriage wasn't involved. Several other members converted
*after* having been married to a Jew for a while.

We have lots of members who 
sincerely believe in the Reform version of Judaism, and do *not* believe in the 
Orthodox version. Most Reform Jews do not believe that the Torah was dictated
by God to Moses, or even that all of it is divinely inspired (I refuse to
believe that any commandmant to kill is divinely authored or inspired), but
rather that it is our responsibility to sort it out.

In our Reform synagogue I know of two mixed marriages where the
non-Jewish spouse converted after the Jewish partner died.

Dave

    I can think of several people, both in our schul and elsewhere, who
    became reform Jews for reasons other than marriage.  Most reform
    converts are examined by a bet din and go to the mikveh - our rabbi may
    even require the mikveh (not sure about this) - and the men are
    circumcised.  Quibbling about the observance level of the people making
    up the bet din, or the exactness of the performance at the mikveh, when
    deciding whose conversion is "invalid" and whose is "valid" mostly
    serves to divide our people, and embarass the by-and-large sincere
    people who have chosen to take on Jewish obligations.  So, I wish it
    did not occur!  It isn't fair to make sweeping assumptions about the
    sincerity of other people's actions as a group, or to force people to
    justify their sincerity over and over again.  The newly-Jewish converts
    are supposed to regard Abraham and Sarah as their (spiritual) ancestors,
    and so should you (in my opinion, I mean!).
    
    One of my old college friends, a lapsed Catholic married to another
    lapsed Catholic, converted to Judaism after the loss of her first baby
    late in the pregnancy.  She and her daughter, who was born a few years
    after her conversion and is now 14-15, are quite committed Jews,
    keep a kosher home, and had a terrific, and very meaningful, especially
    for the daughter, summer in Israel last year.  The husband, while he
    doesn't seem to be interested in conversion himself, is fairly active
    in their schul and is supportive of the family.
    
    I took a class once with a woman who was converting and was hoping to
    become a cantor - she did in fact have a beautiful voice, and very good
    Hebrew reading skills (better than me - I am a *terrible* language
    scholar).  She was already very active in the local synagogue,  and
    very few people there knew she was not Jewish.  I didn't keep track of
    her so I don't know how this story came out, however.
    
    There is a woman in my schul now who was once a Unitarian (I think?)
    minister.  She felt herself drawn to Judaism, and converted along with
    her youngest child - the rest of the family are still Unitarians (or
    whatever that faith calls itself??).  She even sometimes participates
    in lay-led services, and is quite active in the schul.
    
    There are plenty of people around who originally were drawn to Judaism
    originally because of wanting to marry a Jewish person and then become
    more observant than their Jewish-by-birth spouse.  I think it is very
    divisive to continually single out these people as being "insincere
    converts" if they do not, or do not yet, find themselves able to commit
    to whatever level of observance you think is appropriate, while
    labelling their born-Jewish spouses simply as "imperfect and fallible
    human beings" when these people are only able to maintain the same (or
    even lower) level of observance.  Most people I know are fallible and
    imperfect - otherwise the messianic era would already be here, I guess!
    
    /Charlotte       

    As I have stated before, "I am *not* religious."  All I am doing is
    presenting my interpretation of the Halacha, which is 99.99% of the
    time the orthodox point of view, as well.  Unfortunately, however I do
    not find (and probably will never find) the strength in me to live my
    life entirely by Jewish Law.  
    
    As far as Reform conversions go; the ones I have known about involved
    *neither*  mikvah nor circumcission (where appropriate.)
    
    I do *not* agree with Reform Judaism, which basically disregards most
    of the mitzvot.  Think about it: "If the Torah was *not* given to Moses
    and the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai, then Judaism is *not* a valid
    religion."  If you don't believe that Torah was given by G*D, then there
    is no reason for you to convert to Judaism.  It is that simple (IMHO),
    or am I confused here?  Even all christians are suppose to believe that
    Jews were given the Torah.  This is what confirms Jews, as being the
    "chosen people."
    
    Jake
     

We recently had a visiting scholar at the Torah study session at our
Reform synagogue, and we asked him about the issue of divine authorship
of the Torah (in the context of "why should we spend so much time studying
it if it isn't the work of G*d). His answer was to invoke a phrase from
Buber. According to Buber, an I/It relationship is one between a person and
a thing, or between a person and another person who is treated like a thing.
An I/Thou relationship is an intimate relationship between two people. (Sorry,
I don't have a better definition -- I'm not really good at this sort of thing.)
The Torah is to be viewed as the story of an I/Thou relationship between the
Jewish people and Gd. Therefore, we study Torah to understand the way in
which our ancesters knew Gd and to come to know Gd in the same way ourselves.

Dave

    Whew!!! What a bunch of rat-holes.  Did I miss a reply somewhere in
    which the noter requested advice or opinions about intermarriage,
    conversions, etc.?  I rather thought we were just supposed to reply
    with ideas on how these two people who *love* eachother, because of
    both their similarities *and* their differences, might arrange some
    semblance of a religious marriage rite!
    
    I don't mean to sound snappish, but it's 8:30 pm West Coast time, I've
    been at work since 8:00 am, my LJ250 is printing at the speed of a
    sickly snail who's missing some vital moving parts, and I tuned in to 
    BAGELS to pleasurably kill time while I wait for the last two pages 
    to print...so I guess I *am* pretty snappish...don't mind me -- 
    flame off!! But really, does anyone else have any contact
    names/numbers for these people?
    

    
Re .27

>>Therefore, we study Torah to understand the way in
>>which our ancesters knew Gd ...

	Our ancestors based their knowledge of G-d on the assumption that 
	the Torah is Divine. If they were wrong about that, then their 
	knowledge of G-d is misconceived and controvertible.  

>> and to come to know Gd in the same way ourselves.

	What for? Why should we propogate our ancestors' misconceptions.
	
	I agree with .26. You can believe in the Torah or not, you can be a
    	practicing Jew or not, BUT a "religion" which denies the Divine origin 
    	of the Torah just can't be athentic Judaism. 

-Itzhak	

	I realize that I am probably too much of an analytic to understand many
discussions of "religion", but I'd have to agree with a number of the earlier
replies.  What is Judaism?  If it is defined by the Torah, then to disbelieve
(or even, for that matter, believe but not accept the divine authorship of)
the Torah seems to be a contradiction in terms.

	I'm going to join a club.  They have a membership code. The club is
entirely ruled by this membership code. I don't believe in this code, even
disagree with those who formulated it.  But I consider myself a member of the
club.  What's wrong with this picture?

	F

    re: .30
    
    Try this:
    
    I'm going to join a club.  One of the members tells me they have a
    membership code that everyone must follow.  Another member says that it
    used to be the case that many of the members used to follow that code,
    but that the overwhelming majority follow variants of the code that
    differ in some significant respects from the version that the first
    member told me were absolutely binding.  Whose advice should I follow,
    and why?
    
                                       Aaron

    Re.: .31
    The problem is that Judaism is not a club!  I think .29 expressed it
    best when he said that there is no Judaism without Torah.
    
    You can be
    agnostic (not know enough to know for sure) and be a Jew, but you can't
    be an Atheist (a beliver in a religion that states that there is no G*D)
    and be a Jew at the same time.
    
    By disregarding Torah and its Source,
    Reform Judaism becomes more of a club, a theatre, a gathering place for
    people of similar ethnic origins, but nothing else, certainly not a
    form of Jewish religion.  I do not like Reform services, but if I do
    attend them, I (and I believe many others) don't even pretend to be
    there to worship G*D, but am there only for social reasons.  This is my
    opinion and others may disagree.
    
    Jake
    

    Re: .32
    
    Of course Judaism is not a club, but .31 was a response to .30, which
    used the club analogy.  The important issue is--as it has been for
    millenia--"who's in charge here?"  If most Jews in the world are not
    Orthodox and do not consider Orthodox rulings as binding, why should
    the potential convert consider them as binding?
    
    I need to make it clear that I am not attacking those who believe in
    Torah miSinai; I'm just trying to point out that the argument from
    faith only has meaning to someone who already shares the faith.  I *do*
    disagree strongly with those who would simply write off anyone who does
    not accept Orthodox assumptions, as .32 seems to do.
    
    					Aaron
    

    Yes, this is one of the traditional ratholes of BAGELS.  But since
    someone started it up again let me get in another $.02:
    
    I, like my father before me, have gone through many phases of
    observance in my life, from complete treif-eating agnostic to much more
    of an observant Jew (in relation to the prior condition).  
    
    When I turned forty a few years ago, and more importantly when my
    daughter was born, I decided to make a decision on where I stood
    vis-a-vis Torah.  I remembered that in one of his stories I. Singer
    wrote that it all comes down to a decision as to whether you accept
    that Moshe Rabeinu received Torah on Mt.Sinai or not.  I decided to
    accept it, and I haven't seen any harm since.  I'm not going to kid
    anyone, I'm not the most 'observant' Jew, i.e., keeping Mitzvot, but I
    can't doubt Torah.  The older I get the more I want to make time to
    learn more (now if business would only pick up...).
    
    The problem I have with Reform Judaism is that I have observed a more
    binding devotion to the Galut culture rather than to Am Israel.  The
    order of rituals in Reform Judaism, left-to-right prayer books, and
    services that tend to just give the congregation a "taste" and not an
    experience, and a seemingly infatuation with the environment of the
    Diaspora.
    
    Until a majority of the Jewish people decide to change Halacha then we
    can't change it.  And what's such a big deal about accepting laws such
    as those that govern Kashrut?  Is it coercion to maintain that which
    keeps us a distinct people?
    
    --David      

    Re.: .33
    
    Judaism is not a club, but Reform Judaism *is* a club.  Nothing wrong
    with having clubs, but why call them religious institutions, when they
    are not.  Since I don't consider Reform Judaism a religion (for
    the reasons I have stated in previous replies), I don't see any reason
    why somebody joining this club should be called a convert.  I would
    further state the reason why I think that the Reform Judaism exists, but I
    want to disaggre with Aaron and others like him, not offend them.
    
    Jake
      

    
    Re: .31 (Aaron)
    
    >  One of the members tells me they have a
    >membership code that everyone must follow.  Another member says that it
    >used to be the case that many of the members used to follow that code,
    >but that the overwhelming majority follow variants of the code that
    >differ in some significant respects from the version that the first
    >member told me were absolutely binding.
    
    Could you be a bit more specific? What precisely is the code 
    promulgated by the "overwhelming majority?" 
    
    If I wanted to apply for American citizenship, I'd know that 
    there were certain prerequisites and requirements. Were some-
    one to approach me and offer me citizenship papers without
    defining any such requirements, I'd be somewhat suspicious,
    even if he claimed that the "overwhelming majority" of Americans
    had voted against the established criteria. 
    
    To another analogy - if a minority of Muslims residing in
    an overwhelmingly Christian country wanted to preserve their identity
    and not be swallowed up by the surrounding culture, they'd need
    to meticulously define what they meant by "identity." Should a
    sect arise which rejected the authority of the Koran and the
    Sha'aria, one would expect that not only would pork and alcohol
    become commonplace, but that the very fiber of the community would
    soon inevitably begin to unravel as the progeny of the new liberals
    began to discard the traditions wholesale and intermarry with the
    indigenous population. 
    
    There may arise a controversy over who is indeed a Muslim, but 
    the best test would be if one's grandchildren remained Muslim.
    
    Jem
    

    Re.: .35
    
    >Judaism is not a club, but Reform Judaism *is* a club.
    
    You can make that assertion if you wish.  Other people can assert that
    Orthodoxy is nothing but superstition.  Making the assertion(s),
    however, does not make it so.
    
    						Aaron

    re: .36
    
    >Could you be a bit more specific? What precisely is the code 
    >promulgated by the "overwhelming majority?" 
    
    See .33
    
    >If I wanted to apply for American citizenship, I'd know that 
    >there were certain prerequisites and requirements. Were some-
    >one to approach me and offer me citizenship papers without
    >defining any such requirements, I'd be somewhat suspicious,
    >even if he claimed that the "overwhelming majority" of Americans
    >had voted against the established criteria. 
    
    If they had so voted, the requirements *would* have been eliminated.
    In fact, if you want to pursue that analogy, I think you'll find that
    the requirements for U. S. citizenship have changed over time.
    
    					Aaron

    
    re: .38
    
>    If they had so voted, the requirements *would* have been eliminated.
>    In fact, if you want to pursue that analogy, I think you'll find that
>    the requirements for U. S. citizenship have changed over time.
    
	The US Constitution allows for changes and amendments to laws
	provided it is done in accordance to principles which the
	Constitution itself lays down. American law (and consequently,
	society) has developed on the basis of this Constitution.  Think
	of the impact that the abolishment of the Constitution's
	authority will have on law and society.  Oh yes, an American
	citizen can advocate the abolishment of the Constitution, but his
	credo is certainly not an "American" one.
	
	The Torah allows for changes and amendments to Halacha provided
	it is done in accordance to principles which the Torah itself
	lays down. Judaism has developed during 3500 years on the basis
	of a Divinely revealed Torah. A Jew can eat pork and drive on
	Shabbat but a religion that does not accept the Divine origin of
	the Torah is not a Jewish religion. 
		
	
    

    The discussion about the divine origin of Torah has been very
    interesting.  One question that I have is
    
    	If you believe that the Torah was given by G-d to Moses and the
    	Jewish people and that because of its divine origin it is
    	unchangeable then what possible reason is there to not observe all
    	of the Mizvos?
    
    	Stated another way, if G-d provided the Torah and you believe in G-d,
    	then what reason can there be to not do what he tells you to do?
    

    
    Re: .38
    
    I said:
    
    >>Could you be a bit more specific? What precisely is the code
    >>promulgated by the "overwhelming majority?"
    
    Aaron answered:
    
    >See .33
    
    I saw nothing there that answered the question. I'm interested
    in specifics of the code.
    
    >If they had so voted, the requirements *would* have been eliminated.
    
    Itzhak took the words right off my keyboard.
    
    Jem
    

    Re.: .40
    
    People have free will, and thus can do whatever they want.  It takes
    effort, determination and a lot of time to even learn what G*D wants
    us to do.  (It is not always stated in a straight forward manner in the
    Torah.)  The goal in Judaism is not to be perfect, but rather to
    improve yourself by continuos learning.  The more you learn about
    Judaism, the more you want to practice the religion, and the better
    Jew you become.
    
    The problem is finding motivation to start this learning process. 
    Knowing that the source of Torah is divine, doesn't help.  It is alot
    easier to say, "Yes the Torah was given to us by G*D.  So what?", and
    not practice Judaism, then to become an observant Jew.  This is similar
    to a child or teenager ignoring the rules dictated to him/her by
    the parents ("Yes they are the authority, but so what?")
    
    Reform Jews on the other hand go one step further, and say that there
    is no "authority."
    
    Jake
    

    
	>The goal in Judaism is not to be perfect, but rather to
    	>improve yourself by continuous learning
    
    This says it all for me, and another reason that Reform Judaism is
    unattractive to me is that it sets the premise that Torah should be
    learned our way and by our definition, and the constant theme of the
    surrounding Diaspora.  
    
    --David 

    re: .41
    
    The reason I answered by referring to .33 was that my response was to
    the use of a particular analogy.  The way the original analogy was
    framed made no reference to the *contents* of the code.
    
    					Aaron

    re: .39
    
>>    If they had so voted, the requirements *would* have been eliminated.
>>    In fact, if you want to pursue that analogy, I think you'll find that
>>    the requirements for U. S. citizenship have changed over time.
>    
>	The US Constitution allows for changes and amendments to laws
>	provided it is done in accordance to principles which the
>	Constitution itself lays down.
    
    Of course there are procedures for changing the law; I was using
    shorthand to make the point that a democracy rests on the ability of
    the members to modify even the most basic law by using that process.
    As a practical matter, it also depends on the wilingness of most people
    to accept the law.  The U.S. tried writing a prohibition against
    alcohol into its Constitution and found itself in a situation where the
    law was so widely ignored that the Constitution had to be amended to
    bring law into line with practice.
    
>                  Judaism has developed during 3500 years on the basis
>	of a Divinely revealed Torah.
    
    The assumption that the Torah was divinely revealed is an assumption
    that can neither be proven nor disproven.  One believes or one does not
    believe.  I, for one, find that I simply can't believe it.  It is not a
    matter of deciding to believe or not believe; I just don't.
    
    						Aaron

    Re.: .45
    
    Aron, your last paragraph, is exactly where I have to disagree with you
    100%.  There are plenty of reasons to believe that Torah has Divine
    Origin.  All you have to do is look for those reasons and you will
    find them.  I am sure many of the people reading this notes file will
    be happy to give you a hand in starting your search.  On the other hand,
    I don't see any non-superficial reasons for really and trully believing
    that Torah was written by common man.  Divine Torah is far more than
    just an assumption, it is a fact that has been passed down from
    generation to generation, with excruciating detail.  But of course, the
    further away we get from the *time & place* of the occurence, the more
    we tend to ignore it. 
    
    World created by G*D also makes alot more sense than people evolving from
    dust.  Yes species do evolve, some disappear entirely, new ones may even
    appear as a result of Genetic engineering, or cross-breeding, or mutations,
    but I can't exactly believe that YOU & I had dust as a forefather.  Can you?
                                                                       

    re: .46
    
    Jake,
    
    You are quite right that we disagree 100%.  You find lots of reasons to
    believe that Torah is of divine origin and I find lots of reasons why I
    don't believe that it is.  I am not going to change your mind--nor do I
    particularly want to--and you will not change mine because the way we
    interpret the world around us is mediated by our different beliefs.

    I think we are getting off the subject of the note, so if you want to
    explore this further, I'd suggest starting a new topic.
    
    Aaron

    But of course that rathole DOES relate to Intermarriage.  (I am trying
    to get back to the topic....)
    
    Judaism, per the non-Orthodox at least, is basically that which is
    believed by the Jewish People.  It's a national religion, belonging to
    one people and NOT meant to be proseletyzed to the rest of the world. 
    Thus is it not a catholic religion (like much of Christianity, and
    Islam).
    
    Thus the people themselves are the key.  We inherit our Jewishness. 
    It's essentially a tribal identity.  "Nation" is sometimes defined as
    "a group of people sharing a religion and language".  (Not "nation
    state", a different and later concept.)  That is what Jews are, that's
    what the Japanese basically are, what Serbs are, what Turks are, what
    Koreans are, etc.
    
    Widespread intermarriage reduces the vitality of the people by reducing
    its ranks.  We don't make up for it by proseletyzing.  And it's NOT
    like keeping kosher:  Reform generally takes intermarriage more
    seriously.  It's not some mystical hocus-pocus (as some see it) like
    some of the ritual mitzvot, but a clear and present danger.
    
    Be that as it may, while we don't approve of it, that doesn't mean we
    shun those who are imperfect.  Even Jews who accept the validity of
    kashrut are sometimes spotted in Chinese restaurants.

    Hi,
    
    I am disgusted by the lack of valuing differences in this note and this
    conference in general. And I am talking about the fact that some "Jews"
    in this file (CXCAD::BERZON in this string) are so intolerant of other
    Jews. Who do you people think you are?
    
    I am a Reform Jew and happy to be so. I am not a hypocrite. 
    
    I do not belong to a club. If you don't like Reform Services then do 
    us all a favor and stay home. 
    
    The trouble in this world is reflected by the attitudes of the people
    writing in this notes file. I came to this file to learn more about my 
    Religion. I have learned nothing but intolerance and hate. 
    
    This is the last I will read this file. 
    
    Ruth-Ellen

    RE:  -1
    
    I feel bad that Ruth-Ellen is hurt.
    
    I think that some of the replies have been intolerant and hostile.  I
    debated putting in a reply to say "Whoa dudes, your opinions are your
    own, but each person has to find what's right for them."  
    
    I also debated saying. "We can argue forever about whether Torah is
    divinely provided, or not, and other points of belief.  But in the end
    it is a matter of personal belief.  Such arguments get to be like the
    monkey chasing his tail after awhile."
    
    Under a heavy schedule, I just scanned and didn't say anything.  But
    now that someone is hurt, I must intervene.
    
    May we all call a truce to the hostilities?  Recognize that we are all
    Jews, and G-d judges us by our love for our people Israel?
    
    I will forward this reply to Ruth-Ellen and hope that she continues
    noting here.
    
    Laura

    Re.: .49
    
    Nobody that ever knew me considered me intolerant of other people's
    views, or hatefull towards others.  Opinionated?  Yes, for sure.
    Opinionated and willing to express my views, but that's were it stops. 
    I can't and don't want to change anybody's mind, but I will argue my
    point to the bitter end.  You don't have to like my point of view, you
    can disagree with me, you can even ignore my replies by skipping over
    them.  But one thing you can't do is shut me up, just because you don't
    like what I am saying - that would after all be "intolerant [and
    contrary to the spirit of] valuing differences."
    
    I am sorry that you felt so strongly moved by my replies, that you decide
    to stop reading this conference...  Instead, I would have liked to have
    seen your reasons for disagreeing with my opinions.  I can feel a lot of
    hate in your reply, you must have been very angry when you wrote it.  Trust
    me, it was not my intent to get Reform Jews angry at me.  I personally
    try not to reply to any notes when I am upset by something somebody
    just said...  That is by no means constructive!
    
    I would certainly like to see you come back to this conference, after
    all I have to have people I can disagree with.  :-)
    
    Jake
    

    Dear Jake,
    
    In scanning back through previous replies in this string, I found the
    following statements (marked with >)  My responses follow.
    
    .21  BERZON
    
    >I have never even heard of anybody hearing of anybody converting to
    >Reform Judaism, for any reason other than marriage.  
    
    Just because you haven't heard of converts to Reform for reasons other
    than marriage, doesn't mean they don't exist.  This is a highly
    rhetorical statement with no factual basis.
    
    >I don't see how anybody trully believing in Judaism, after learning
    >about it, would not want to follow all the comandments, but instead
    >would choose to ignore what he/she has learned, and only go thru the
    >motions (or some small subset of them.)
    
    To say that anyone who converts but does not follow all commandmants is
    only going through the motions, means that their heart is not in it. 
    It implies that they are not sincere (as you more clearly state at the
    end of this reply).  It ascribes motivations to another person's
    outward actions.  
    
    You said in reply .26 about yourself,
    
    >Unfortunately, however I do not find (and probably will never find)
    >the strength in me to live my life entirely by Jewish Law. 
    
    Why do you have one standard for yourself and a different, much more
    demanding standard for others?  Your argument is that,
    
    >When you take on any responsibility, you generally have people depend
    >on your fulfilling this responsibility.  
    
    According to your beliefs, you were born to this responsibility.  To
    make my own analogy, this is like Prince Charles who was born to become
    the king.  You are harsh in your condemnation of non-Orthodox converts,
    but somehow your own case is different.  You seem to be able to shrug
    it off.  Why is your standard different for others than for yourself?
    
    I infer from your notes that you are angry and disappointed with
    yourself.  I think you are projecting those feelings outwards onto
    Reform converts.  In another note you asked, (I paraphrase), "Well, why
    not intermarry?"  You seem willing to entertain the notion of
    intermarrying and yet at the same time condemn converts who do not
    follow the Orthodox way.  You must be quite unhappy with yourself right
    now...
    
    In notes .22 (SACKS), .23 and .24 (GROSS), and .25 (RICHARDSON). people
    gave examples of Reform converts which contradicted your assertions. 
    You never responded to them.  Your noting style is to simply repeat
    yourself forcefully and repeatedly and to give scant regard to the
    statements of those who disagree with you.  A conversation needs some
    give and take.  It certainly is nurtured by one's willingness to weigh
    and consider the other persons statements.  Without this, people get
    hurt.  I hope you will consider this.
    
    Laura
    
    
    

    Dear Laura,
    
    I wrote a very long reply (it took my whole lunch hour to write) answering
    to every point that you made.  Unfortunately when I went to enter it,
    the link got lost and with it my hour of labour.  Perhaps it wasn't
    that impoprtant anyway.  I will try re-entering the reply at a later
    time (although it is never as good the second time around.)  Now, I
    I would just like to thank you for taking the time and caring enough to
    write your reply.  I will take what you have said seriously into
    consideration and will try to tone down my future opinions.   After all
    it was not my purpouse to hurt anyone, but rather to discuss issues I
    felt a need to discuss.
    
    Jake
    

    Hi Jake,
    
    You know it's funny - the same thing happened to me.  I was composing
    this long reply and the link got dropped so I lost it.
    
    What I wanted to say is that I, and many readers of BAGELS, come from a
    Reform background.  I don't have any problems with criticisms of the
    Reform liturgy, beliefs, or practices in general.  I myself don't care
    for or agree with much about Reform, and have leaned more toward
    Conservative.
    
    Where I have a problem is with ad hominem arguments, even those
    directed at groups of people like Reform Jews.  While we may not like
    or agree with this branch of Judaism, it is wrong to criticize the
    motivations, intent, sincerity, or morality of Reform Jews.
    
    When I read such ad hominem statements, my defenses go up.  Remember,
    you are talking about real people - my parents in this case.  My
    parents are two of the most moral, upstanding, generous, kind,
    forgiving people you could ever hope to meet.  They embody the best of
    Jewish morality, dignity, and lovingkindness.  They also sincerely
    believe in Reform Judaism.
    
    Furthermore, using JEM's standard - are the grandchildren Jewish - I am
    the grandchild of a Reform grandmother and parents, and my daughter is
    being raised Jewish too, and I hope she carries on.  
    
    While demographic studies indicate that children's Jewish drop-out rate
    is inversely related to the Orthodoxy of the parents, this is on a very
    broad level, across large population groups.  There are many devout,
    sincere Reform Jews whose children absorb their values.  There are also
    many shallow, mechanical Orthodox Jews whose children can see no value
    in the religion.  I would say to anyone from the more halachic brances
    who critizes Reform Jews, "Clean your own house first."
    
    L
    

     >Remember,
     >you are talking about real people - my parents in this case.  My
     >parents are two of the most moral, upstanding, generous, kind,
     >forgiving people you could ever hope to meet.  They embody the best of
     >Jewish morality, dignity, and lovingkindness.  They also sincerely
     >believe in Reform Judaism.
    
    Of course, my intent was not to put down Reform Jews, but rather to
    discredit the Reform Jewish movement itself, because it tries to
    assymilate what I see as "non-Jewish" ideas and practices within the
    Jewish community.  I see myself as a not completely observant Jew,
    rather than as an observant Reform Jew.  I think that Reform Judaism
    tries to fill the need for non-observant Jews to legitamize their
    non-observance.  As an example, my parents are among the least
    observant Jews I have ever met, that will still admit that they are
    Jewish.  My father can't stand any services other than Reform.  The
    reason he likes Reform services is beacause "everyone dresses up, they
    speak a language he can understand, they play an organ, there is a
    chorus and you just sit back and enjoy an hour or two show."  This is
    exactly why I called Reform Judaism a nice club.  BTW, I love my
    parents, as well.
    
    I really think we should start a new topic on this subject, and try to
    keep a bit more civil, so that we can learn from each other instead of
    fighting one another.
    
    Jake
    

    Laura and Jake,  re your losing replies.  When you want to write long
    replies, why not create a text file and then just use the text file
    when you want to reply.  That way you will not lose it if the link
    drops.  Either that or keep your answers short, which will have the
    added advantage of making them easier to read.  :-)
    
    From my point of view, the question of day-to-day observance (or
    non-observance) is far less important than the question of whether we
    maintain one religion or diverge into two or more due to not following
    one set of rules (halacha) for conversion and marriage.  Many Reform
    Jews maintain more of the mitzvot than many of those who align
    themselves with orthodox synagogues.
    
    Rule one must be for all of us to try and respect the beliefs and
    observances of everyone else, but that does not mean that we should not
    try and find a way to be "one people".
    
    Shalom
    Baruch                                             

>   Jewish.  My father can't stand any services other than Reform.  The
>   reason he likes Reform services is beacause "everyone dresses up, they
>   speak a language he can understand, they play an organ, there is a
>   chorus and you just sit back and enjoy an hour or two show."  This is

It's not like that everywhere. In Sudbury, no one dresses up (except the
out-of-town guests for the bar/bat mitzvot), at least 1/2 the service is
in Hebrew, there is no organ, there is no chorus, and everyone chants the
melodies.

Dave

ps. Check out REPLY/LAST. If NOTES loses the connection while you are composing
a reply, the text of the reply is saved in a file. You recover the text with
the REPLY/LAST command (or its Decwindows equivalent).

    Our schul is similar to Dave Gross's (which I have only been to a
    couple of times for bar mitzvahs and weddings).  I think the
    congregation there tends to chant even more than we do, but our rabbi
    has a better singing voice (imho).  An organ would provoke a major
    revolt.  We tend to be a very participatory group - the people who only
    want to see a "show" only turn up for High Holidays and don't figure in
    to the normal minyan.  If the usual experience was more like a
    performance, most of the usual minyan would join some other schul
    (Dave's is actually a bit closer to where we live than our own schul
    is).  Since we are the only schul in town, people come from a wide
    variety of backgrounds, leaving toward the more conservative.  Maybe
    the people who come from a "classical Reform" tradition all drive in
    to the big schuls in Worcester?
    
    Paul was right (often is! - one of the reasons I married him!) that
    talking about this would rathole this topic.  We were originally
    talking about intermarriage, remember?
    
    /Charlotte

    I can only speak of the two Reform PALACES I know about.  One in Denver
    and one in Minneapolis.  Both have an organ and a chorus (made up of
    some non-Jews.)  Both have membership, which is mostly intermarried or
    converted for marriage.  By the way many conservative synagogues (here,
    were the concentration of Jews is not large) also have either an organ
    or a chorus or both (especially for High Holydays.) 
    
    So maybe I am stereotyping and you "guys" can tell me what is it that
    you really believe in.  Why is it that you need a seperate type of
    synagogue?
    
    Jake
     

>    Why is it that you need a seperate type of
>    synagogue?

For about the same reason that the Lubavitch and Young Israel need separate
synagogues.  Everyone needs a shul they go to and a shul they wouldn't
set foot in (even the Jew, alone on a desert island, built 2 shuls  8^{).

Gav

>   I think the
>   congregation there tends to chant even more than we do, but our rabbi
>   has a better singing voice (imho).

Charlotte and I see eye-to-eye on this (and not just because we're both
6 feet tall :-). One of the main objectives of the chanting was to drown
out the rabbi. But just over a year ago we acquired a female cantor so that
motivation is gone, yet the chanting continues. All the other factors Charlotte
mentions are present in my shul too.

The nearest Conservative shul is in Framingham where they DO have an organ.
It makes me uncomfortable there.

Dave

p.s. Aren't rat-holes fun?

    Re.: .60 
    
    I was afraid somebody would use that joke to answer my question. :-)
    
    Re.: .61
    
    How about another rat hole: "Role of women in services."
    Is it appropriate for a woman to be Bat Mitzvahed?  How about Aliyahot?
    What about becoming a Cantor or a Rabbi (doesn't this word have "father" as
    its root?)  What about Mehitza, where did this idea come from?
    
    Jake
    

    Re: .62, "Role of women in services"
    
    You forgot one - Should women be allowed to sit where they can be seen
    by men during prayer?
    
    Seriously, this is so far off the subject that it deserves its own
    note.  If you really want to discuss the role of women in worship
    you should either create a new note or continue an old one on this
    subject if one already exists.
    
    Discussing the question in this note will only serve to convince all
    non-Jews that they would be out of their minds to even think about
    converting to Judiasm!
    
    				Paul