Christian moms learn how to raise their kids in the Jewish faith
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
are not Jewish by the O standard. But they are being raised as Jews.
The article estimates that 42% of "Jewish families" are like this.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20091212/LOCAL/912120372/Christian-moms-raise-kids-in-Jewish-faith
There is a group dedicated to teaching christian mothers on how to
raise their children in a "Jewish" home.
http://motherscircle.org/
mm
I'm raising my cat as a dog.
--
Meir
"The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
Yussel
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:56:16 +0000 (UTC), "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch"
>
> >Ran across this article this evening. Yes, I know that the children
> >are not Jewish by the O standard. But they are being raised as Jews.
> >The article estimates that 42% of "Jewish families" are like this.
>
> >There is a group dedicated to teaching christian mothers on how to
> >raise their children in a "Jewish" home.
> >http://motherscircle.org/
>
> I'm raising my cat as a dog.
> --
>
> Meir
>
> "The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
And you wonder why people don't like posting here.
j
cindys
------------
If people don't like posting here, it's not because of Meir.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
sheldonlg
I hadn't read the article until this comment. After reading it, I can
say that I agree with Yussel. Cindy, you personally as and others
constantly remind me not to start an OCR way. Yet, that is EXACTLY what
Meir is doing with his comment. He should KNOW by now that
(a) those children are considered Jews by Reform, just as much as he is.
(b) a statement such as his is an open invitation to an OCR flamewar.
Here we have a couple where the husband is Jewish and the wife not,
deciding to raise their children as Jews. That, to me is much better
than "dual" religions which ends up as "no" religion. If they go
through the life cycle events as Jews, and are raised that way, then via
the father's being Jewish the ARE Jewish. That Meir doesn't think so
and wants to equate them with cats (is O-Judaism the dog in his
analogy?), is totally irrelevant.
Meir, do you _REALLY_ want to trigger an OCR war?
Giorgies E Kepipesiom
>
You want to start a flame war because some Jewish husband has a shiksa
wife, and they consider the children Jewish because they insist that
the children put horseradish instead of mustard on their ham
sandwitch?
GEK
Abe Kohen
"sheldonlg" <shel...@giganews.com> wrote in message
news:j9mdnVcqN7zmtLjW...@giganews.com...
Only a mindreader could impute that Meir was trying to trigger a war.
I know that I could not raise a child as Xian. I could play Santa Claus, I
could send him to church, but that is the extent of it. How could I infuse
the Trinity to him? It would be a tragic injustice to both of us.
The only way that I could raise a child as Xian is for me to convert to
Xianity FIRST. The only way a Xian woman could raise a child as Jewish is
for her to convert to Judaism FIRST.
This is not about OCRr. It's about transmission and infusion of a theology -
a philosophy, not about mere "practice."
Happy Hanuka,
Abe
chsw
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:56:16 +0000 (UTC), "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch"
> <omeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ran across this article this evening. Yes, I know that the children
>> are not Jewish by the O standard. But they are being raised as Jews.
>> The article estimates that 42% of "Jewish families" are like this.
>> http://www.indystar.com/article/20091212/LOCAL/912120372/Christian-moms-raise-kids-in-Jewish-faith
>>
>> There is a group dedicated to teaching christian mothers on how to
>> raise their children in a "Jewish" home.
>> http://motherscircle.org/
>
> I'm raising my cat as a dog.
I'm impressed when he catches the frisbee.
chsw
cindys
Which is irrelevant to Meir's point.
> (b) a statement such as his is an open invitation to an OCR flamewar.
No, it's not. This is not about OCR.
>
> Here we have a couple where the husband is Jewish and the wife not,
It's not that the wife is simply *not* Jewish. It's that she's
actively practicing Christianity.
> deciding to raise their children as Jews. That, to me is much better
> than "dual" religions which ends up as "no" religion.
This *is* dual religion, and the kid *does* end up with *no* religion.
The mother is still praying to Jesus, and she's still going to church,
even if she's not dragging her kid along with her. And when the kid
asks about Jesus, what's her answer? "Well, honey, he's my savior, and
my church teaches that the only way to come to God is through Jesus,
and that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus isn't going to be saved
and is going to hell. Now, how about we make some potato latkes and
play a nice game of dreidl?
> If they go
> through the life cycle events as Jews, and are raised that way, then via
> the father's being Jewish the ARE Jewish.
Is that what the article was about? About paternal descent and who is
a Jew? I don't think so.
The article is about women who are actively practicing Christianity,
who are taking a class which superficially teaches them some of the
rites and customs of a religion which they're not practicing
themselves, to enable them to go through the motions of demonstrating
these rites and customs to their children.
> That Meir doesn't think so
> and wants to equate them
Who's "them?"
>with cats (is O-Judaism the dog in his
> analogy?), is totally irrelevant.
No, O wasn't even in the analogy. Here is the analogy:
Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein move to a small town where the other
townspeople are all Catholic. They own a store, but they don't have
very many customers. So, they go to the local priest to ask him for
his advice. The priest says, "You come on Sunday, and I'll baptize
you, and you can become Catholics, and then I'll tell everyone in my
church to shop at your store. So, Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein show up at
church on Sunday, and the priest sprinkles them with holy water and he
says "Jew, Catholic, Jew, Catholic." And the Goldsteins go home, and
all the townspeople start shopping at their store.
One Friday afternoon, when Mrs. Goldstein is cooking her shabbos
dinner, the priest happens to walk by the house and smells the chicken
roasting. Frantically, he knocks on the door, and he tells the
Goldsteins, "What are you doing? Today is Friday! You can't eat
chicken on Friday. You have to eat fish!" So, Mrs. Goldstein says "Oh,
excuse me Father, and she takes some water and sprinkles it on the
chicken and says "Chicken, fish, chicken, fish."
The Christian mothers who are ostensibly raising their children to be
Jews are the Goldsteins. Get it?
>
> Meir, do you _REALLY_ want to trigger an OCR war?
He's not going to trigger an OCR war. Except for you, I don't think
anybody on SCJM really cares about OCR anymore. Not even Joel. I think
he just thought that Meir was being flippant to Shmaryahu, and that
was why he responded the way he did.
One talkback guy wrote "Dana Green is really hot." (that was the woman
in the photo who was lighting the menorah). I thought that pretty much
summarized how seriously this "Mother's circle" thing should all be
taken (in terms of the ability of these women to transmit Judaism to
their offspring).
Speaking for myself, my only concern is that Moshe Schorr hasn't left
this group.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mm
wrote:
Yes, good point.
It occurs to me on rereading that someone might think I was using dog
negatively, and they may have been offended. I wasn't. A) Dogs are
probably my favorite animal. B) That would ruin the analogy. I
didn't mean anything negative by cat either. Cat goes with dog.
Although there would be an implied preference for the second one if
one went to the trouble to raise a cat as a dog, a girl as a tomboy,
or a non-Jew as a Jew. I've gotten the impression that most tomboys
grow out of it for the most part.
I hope you all can reread the post with the assurance that I really
like dogs.
>chsw
mm
The Reform standard aiui is that the child be raised as a Jew. I don't
know how specific they were in their standards, but I think they had
in mind with mothers who didn't practice some conflicting religion.
(Even having an Xmas tree and giving xmas gifts might be considered in
the way I usually consider Halloween, "secular", if it's not part of a
religious belief.)
"Raised as", if that is the phrase they used, opens up questions.
Whatever phrase they used has the same problems.
What about someone who was "raised as" a vegetarian, in that his
parents told him not to eat meat. But his mother ate meat on a
regular basis and the child knew it. And his father never criticized
his mother either for eating it or for letting the child know about
it. Is the child really being raised not to eat meat?
That is just one question that comes to mind. Do the mothers above
tell their kids that it's wrong to eat meat but they, the mothers,
themselves do it anyhow?
>Which is irrelevant to Meir's point.
Despite my reply just now, yes.
The analogy is between a Jew and a dog**. If you don't want me
imposing on you the halacha that only the child of a Jewish woman is
born a Jew, don't expect to impose on me the idea that a Jewish father
and non-Jewish mother can create a born-Jew.)
**That does sound negative, doesn't it, when there is no mention of
cat! Especially after Moshe seemed to seriously wonder if I was
comparing my hyppothetcal Jewish neighbors to a biting arachnid. Other
than the dog who bit me and a few others like that, I really like
dogs. (That shouldn't be hard to beleive. I still like girls, even
though more than one of them "bit" me.)
>No, O wasn't even in the analogy. Here is the analogy:
>
>Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein move to a small town where the other
>townspeople are all Catholic. They own a store, but they don't have
>very many customers. So, they go to the local priest to ask him for
>his advice. The priest says, "You come on Sunday, and I'll baptize
>you, and you can become Catholics, and then I'll tell everyone in my
>church to shop at your store. So, Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein show up at
>church on Sunday, and the priest sprinkles them with holy water and he
>says "Jew, Catholic, Jew, Catholic." And the Goldsteins go home, and
>all the townspeople start shopping at their store.
>
>One Friday afternoon, when Mrs. Goldstein is cooking her shabbos
>dinner, the priest happens to walk by the house and smells the chicken
>roasting. Frantically, he knocks on the door, and he tells the
>Goldsteins, "What are you doing? Today is Friday! You can't eat
>chicken on Friday. You have to eat fish!" So, Mrs. Goldstein says "Oh,
>excuse me Father, and she takes some water and sprinkles it on the
>chicken and says "Chicken, fish, chicken, fish."
>
>The Christian mothers who are ostensibly raising their children to be
>Jews are the Goldsteins. Get it?
>
>>
>> Meir, do you _REALLY_ want to trigger an OCR war?
I think this is the second time you asked me this. Are you saying
that that nothing that relates to the difference between O and C and R
should be posted?
Was there some sort of agreement while I was gone? (I got back summer
of '07 after several years away.)
Do other people know about this? Do they agree with Shelly, if he
answers?
>He's not going to trigger an OCR war. Except for you, I don't think
>anybody on SCJM really cares about OCR anymore. Not even Joel. I think
>he just thought that Meir was being flippant to Shmaryahu, and that
>was why he responded the way he did.
>
>One talkback guy wrote "Dana Green is really hot." (that was the woman
>in the photo who was lighting the menorah). I thought that pretty much
There were other comments that were pretty nasty, but without reading
them in order, I couldn't fully or fairly evaluate them. So I changed
the order to oldest first, and then page 10 seemed to show up first.
So I gave up. But it would be embarrassing to one group or the other
if Xians nor Jews wrote some of those. I'm thinking the group was
publicised somewhere else, like alt.angry.teenager, and they're the
ones posting. No there is no such newsgroup, but it would be
interesting if there were.
>summarized how seriously this "Mother's circle" thing should all be
>taken (in terms of the ability of these women to transmit Judaism to
>their offspring).
>
>Speaking for myself, my only concern is that Moshe Schorr hasn't left
>this group.
>Best regards,
>---Cindy S.
--
sheldonlg
YOU, on Moshe's advice, I will ignore.
sheldonlg
The FATHER is Jewish and the child is being raised as Jewish. Ergo, in
Reform Judaism the child is Jewish. To say otherwise the way Meir did,
is enciting an OCR war.
cindys
> On Dec 13, 1:01 pm, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Here we have a couple where the husband is Jewish and the wife not,
>
> It's not that the wife is simply *not* Jewish. It's that she's
> actively practicing Christianity.
>
> > deciding to raise their children as Jews. That, to me is much better
> > than "dual" religions which ends up as "no" religion.
>
> This *is* dual religion, and the kid *does* end up with *no* religion.
> The mother is still praying to Jesus, and she's still going to church,
> even if she's not dragging her kid along with her. And when the kid
> asks about Jesus, what's her answer? "Well, honey, he's my savior, and
> my church teaches that the only way to come to God is through Jesus,
> and that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus isn't going to be saved
> and is going to hell. Now, how about we make some potato latkes and
> play a nice game of dreidl?
And to further support the point that these are mostly dual religion
households, here are some cites from the article:
http://www.indystar.com/article/20091212/LOCAL/912120372/Christian-mo...
This year, (unlike past years), the Green family will re-introduce
their Christmas tree:
"For Green, the mother of girls ages 7 and 4, this path of dual faiths
has meant learning to help her daughters recite Sabbath prayers in
Hebrew, learning the proper way to light Hanukkah candles and -- until
this year -- going without a Christmas tree."
Fortunately, Dana Green did her homework because her Jewish husband,
David, apparently didn't:
"She has corrected him on the proper way to light the candles of the
menorah. And she pointed out that their mezuzah -- a rolled-up
parchment inscribed with verses from the Torah and placed on the
doorposts of Jewish homes -- was on the wrong side of the door."
And in exchange for Dana's efforts:
"David has tried to be flexible, too. On Easter, he's taken the family
to Dana's Catholic church for Mass. And despite growing up with the
idea that a Christmas tree in the house would be taboo, he has come to
see it as a cultural symbol that can have a place in their home
without compromising their effort to raise Jewish kids."
The Morgan family, OTOH, never stopped having a Christmas tree:
"Geist resident Susan Morgan negotiated up front with her husband,
Drew, that they would raise their kids Jewish. But she insisted the
family would have a Christmas tree in December and Easter egg hunts in
the spring. They were magical aspects of childhood she couldn't do
without.
"We celebrate it all," said Morgan..."
And then...there's the Major family:
"A more halfway approach is what Major's family does in December. Her
family celebrates the eight nights of Hanukkah at their Southside
home. But they also have a Christmas tree and outside holiday lights."
FTR, I did not see the words "Reform Judaism" mentioned even once in
the entire article, and I doubt that the majority of these children
would be considered Jewish by R standards, So, again, I would be
interested to know how Meir was starting an OCR war?
Additionally, I would be interested to know why the Jewish husbands
aren't taking an active role in their children's Jewish education? In
many cases, I would suspect it's because, like David Green, they don't
know much about Judaism and are relying on their Christian wives to
provide the information from whatever they glean from the "Mother's
Circles" group.
Even in the chareidi world, where both parents are O Jews, living
Judaism 24 hours per day, whose children all attend Orthodox day
schools, a small percentage of the offspring go OTD (off the derech).
So, what percentage of the above-mentioned households will likely end
up with Jewish grandchildren?
Like the man said, "Dana Green is hot."
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
> Reform Judaism the child is Jewish. To say otherwise the way Meir did,
------------
No, Meir didn't say that. And the article didn't even address this
subject. The article was about dual-faith households where Christian
mothers are learning to teach their children Jewish rituals. The
article never mentioned Reform Judaism, never mentioned patrilineal
descent, never discussed "who is a Jew." Apparently, you didn't read
the article.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
sheldonlg
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:35:21 +0000 (UTC), chsw <chsw...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> mm wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:56:16 +0000 (UTC), "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch"
>>> <omeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ran across this article this evening. Yes, I know that the children
>>>> are not Jewish by the O standard. But they are being raised as Jews.
>>>> The article estimates that 42% of "Jewish families" are like this.
>>>> http://www.indystar.com/article/20091212/LOCAL/912120372/Christian-moms-raise-kids-in-Jewish-faith
>>>>
>>>> There is a group dedicated to teaching christian mothers on how to
>>>> raise their children in a "Jewish" home.
>>>> http://motherscircle.org/
>>> I'm raising my cat as a dog.
>> I'm impressed when he catches the frisbee.
> I hope you all can reread the post with the assurance that I really
> like dogs.
Obviously! You just don't like cats (by your OCR analogy).
Giorgies E Kepipesiom
>
> YOU, on Moshe's advice, I will ignore.
You wish you could ignore me. Your buttons are prominently displayed,
thay are clearly marked as to function, and above each is a notice
"push me". So I oblige. Years ago, before I began posting here and was
only lurking, was a fellow who called himself Robert. He too begged
for his buttons to be pushed, and several posters (most of who are
gone from here by now because of people like you who drove them away)
often obliged him. But the results were much more fun to watch. You
are only mildly amusing at best. And you are only being contrary. I
seriously doubt that you seriously think that a child whose father is
a non-practicing Jew (so non-practicing in fact that he is married to
a shiksa), whose mother is a practicing catholic, but which mother has
studied the rudimentary outlines of some Jewish rituals which she
tells the child about, such child is really being "raised as a Jew"
and is therefore (even by your R standards) even remotely "Jewish".
But if in fact you do think so, then I have seriously overestimated
your judgement. Enjoy your fantasy world, where being Jewish is
nothing more than a joke. Merry Hannuka.
GEK
sheldonlg
So what? The point is that:
a - The father is Jewish
b - The CHILDREN are being raised Jewish (hebrew school, bat/bat
mitzvah, etc.)
Ergo, according to Reform they ARE Jewish because the TWO conditions are
being met. Therefore, Meir's statement is most definitely OCR. What
else can it possibly be?
>
>> deciding to raise their children as Jews. That, to me is much better
>> than "dual" religions which ends up as "no" religion.
>
> This *is* dual religion, and the kid *does* end up with *no* religion.
> The mother is still praying to Jesus, and she's still going to church,
> even if she's not dragging her kid along with her. And when the kid
That is ALL the difference in the world and not an "even".
> asks about Jesus, what's her answer? "Well, honey, he's my savior, and
> my church teaches that the only way to come to God is through Jesus,
> and that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus isn't going to be saved
> and is going to hell. Now, how about we make some potato latkes and
> play a nice game of dreidl?
A wee bit over-dramatization, huh?
How about, "I was brought up as a Catholic and find it hard to leave.
However, after a discussion your daddy and I have decided that it would
be best for you if we raise you as Jew.
or
"I was brought up Catholic and find it hard to convert out. However,
your daddy is much more interested in his religion than I am in mine, so
we decided it would be best for you to raise you as a Jew."?
BTW, the only ones I have come across that say that about hell are some
Baptists. Not that others may not also believe it, but those are the
only ones I have seen say it.
>
>> If they go
>> through the life cycle events as Jews, and are raised that way, then via
>> the father's being Jewish the ARE Jewish.
>
> Is that what the article was about? About paternal descent and who is
> a Jew? I don't think so.
It was about Christian women who marry Jewish men and raise their
children as Jews. What did you think it was about?
>
> The article is about women who are actively practicing Christianity,
> who are taking a class which superficially teaches them some of the
> rites and customs of a religion which they're not practicing
> themselves, to enable them to go through the motions of demonstrating
> these rites and customs to their children.
That is not what I read -- and certainly not the "superficially".
>
>> That Meir doesn't think so
>> and wants to equate them
>
> Who's "them?"
The children of the interfaith marriage.
>
>> with cats (is O-Judaism the dog in his
>> analogy?), is totally irrelevant.
>
> No, O wasn't even in the analogy. Here is the analogy:
>
> Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein move to a small town where the other
> townspeople are all Catholic. They own a store, but they don't have
> very many customers. So, they go to the local priest to ask him for
> his advice. The priest says, "You come on Sunday, and I'll baptize
> you, and you can become Catholics, and then I'll tell everyone in my
> church to shop at your store. So, Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein show up at
> church on Sunday, and the priest sprinkles them with holy water and he
> says "Jew, Catholic, Jew, Catholic." And the Goldsteins go home, and
> all the townspeople start shopping at their store.
Now it is YOU who are starting up the OCR war with this ridiculous
"analogy". You have just impugned the motives of anyone who is in a
marriage where the father is Jewish and the mother not and decide to
raise their child as a Jew. I thought better of you. I guess I will
have to take your imploring not to start an OCR war with ten grains of
salt. I also guess it is OK coming from someone who takes the O
position on this, but not from the other side on any issue.
>
> One Friday afternoon, when Mrs. Goldstein is cooking her shabbos
> dinner, the priest happens to walk by the house and smells the chicken
> roasting. Frantically, he knocks on the door, and he tells the
> Goldsteins, "What are you doing? Today is Friday! You can't eat
> chicken on Friday. You have to eat fish!" So, Mrs. Goldstein says "Oh,
> excuse me Father, and she takes some water and sprinkles it on the
> chicken and says "Chicken, fish, chicken, fish."
Now you have gotten really insulting to all those people.
>
> The Christian mothers who are ostensibly raising their children to be
> Jews are the Goldsteins. Get it?
Not in the least. The Goldsteins were lying from the start. Their
motives had nothing whatsoever with a desire to have themselves or their
children be Christian. Not so with the cases at hand. A very poor, and
insulting, attempt at an analogy.
>
>> Meir, do you _REALLY_ want to trigger an OCR war?
>
> He's not going to trigger an OCR war. Except for you, I don't think
> anybody on SCJM really cares about OCR anymore. Not even Joel. I think
> he just thought that Meir was being flippant to Shmaryahu, and that
> was why he responded the way he did.
I have stayed away. I see this one as clearly being a swipe by Meir at
Reform. What else could have possibly meant? Give me an answer if you can?
>
> One talkback guy wrote "Dana Green is really hot." (that was the woman
> in the photo who was lighting the menorah). I thought that pretty much
> summarized how seriously this "Mother's circle" thing should all be
> taken (in terms of the ability of these women to transmit Judaism to
> their offspring).
?????
>
> Speaking for myself, my only concern is that Moshe Schorr hasn't left
> this group.
Certainly not on the basis on my responses here. If anything, I am the
"peacemaker". I also doubt he will be leaving the group.
sheldonlg
No, it is very clear. One parent is Jewish and the child is raised as a
Jew. It has nothing to do with the other parent.
> (Even having an Xmas tree and giving xmas gifts might be considered in
> the way I usually consider Halloween, "secular", if it's not part of a
> religious belief.)
>
> "Raised as", if that is the phrase they used, opens up questions.
> Whatever phrase they used has the same problems.
>
> What about someone who was "raised as" a vegetarian, in that his
> parents told him not to eat meat. But his mother ate meat on a
> regular basis and the child knew it. And his father never criticized
> his mother either for eating it or for letting the child know about
> it. Is the child really being raised not to eat meat?
>
> That is just one question that comes to mind. Do the mothers above
> tell their kids that it's wrong to eat meat but they, the mothers,
> themselves do it anyhow?
"You father has strong beliefs that vegetarian is the best and
healthiest. I cannot give up meat because that is how I was raised.
Call me addicted to it if you must. We are trying to raise you in a
better way, that of a vegetarian."
"No, it wasn't. The analogy was that raising a child as a Jew doesn't
make him a Jew just as raising a cat as a dog doesn't make it a dog."
That is how it clearly came across to me and why I reacted as I did. I
seriously doubt that you were comparing Jews to dogs.
> imposing on you the halacha that only the child of a Jewish woman is
> born a Jew, don't expect to impose on me the idea that a Jewish father
> and non-Jewish mother can create a born-Jew.)
I am not. I am bringing out that you are raising THE single hottest
topic to start an OCR war. You can believe what you want. However, if
you raise it in the way you did, you are starting up the war.
Not at all. It is when you make a snide comment about that is can spark
trouble. Why the double standard? Why am I chastised for saying
something in a strong manner about a deeply held O belief, but you are
expected to be allowed to do the same about a deeply held R belief?
Fair is fair.
>
> Was there some sort of agreement while I was gone? (I got back summer
> of '07 after several years away.)
When I returned this year I was told that the OCR wars were over with
and please don't start one. I agreed to try not to do so. If you call
that an agreement, then it is an agreement. In any event, it is purely
voluntary.
>
> Do other people know about this? Do they agree with Shelly, if he
> answers?
>
>> He's not going to trigger an OCR war. Except for you, I don't think
>> anybody on SCJM really cares about OCR anymore. Not even Joel. I think
>> he just thought that Meir was being flippant to Shmaryahu, and that
>> was why he responded the way he did.
>>
>> One talkback guy wrote "Dana Green is really hot." (that was the woman
>> in the photo who was lighting the menorah). I thought that pretty much
>
> There were other comments that were pretty nasty, but without reading
> them in order, I couldn't fully or fairly evaluate them. So I changed
> the order to oldest first, and then page 10 seemed to show up first.
> So I gave up. But it would be embarrassing to one group or the other
> if Xians nor Jews wrote some of those. I'm thinking the group was
> publicised somewhere else, like alt.angry.teenager, and they're the
> ones posting. No there is no such newsgroup, but it would be
> interesting if there were.
What are you talking about?
sheldonlg
Just the first few pages. That DID mention Jewish father and DID
mention raise as a Jew. Those two together equals Jewish in Reform --
whether or not the subject was explicitly mentioned in the article.
sheldonlg
Ignored.
cindys
>
> a - The father is Jewish
> b - The CHILDREN are being raised Jewish (hebrew school, bat/bat
> mitzvah, etc.)
They're going to Hebrew School? Having a bar/bat mitzvah? Where did it
say that? Are you sure we read the same article?
>
> Ergo, according to Reform they ARE Jewish because the TWO conditions are
> being met.
I don't think these two conditions are being met.
>Therefore, Meir's statement is most definitely OCR. What
> else can it possibly be?
Again, since we don't know if the conditions are being met, and R was
never mentioned in the article (or O or C), and since it seems that we
are talking about children being raised in a dual religion households,
with Christmas trees and Easter eggs and in some cases, going to
church, I guess I really can't see how this is an OCR thing.
>
>
>
> >> deciding to raise their children as Jews. That, to me is much better
> >> than "dual" religions which ends up as "no" religion.
>
> > This *is* dual religion, and the kid *does* end up with *no* religion.
> > The mother is still praying to Jesus, and she's still going to church,
> > even if she's not dragging her kid along with her. And when the kid
>
> That is ALL the difference in the world and not an "even".
Personally, I think this entire discussion is ridiculous. And I think
everybody else here (except you) thinks so too.
>
> > asks about Jesus, what's her answer? "Well, honey, he's my savior, and
> > my church teaches that the only way to come to God is through Jesus,
> > and that anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus isn't going to be saved
> > and is going to hell. Now, how about we make some potato latkes and
> > play a nice game of dreidl?
>
> A wee bit over-dramatization, huh?
Based on what I read, I don't think so.
>
> How about, "I was brought up as a Catholic and find it hard to leave.
> However, after a discussion your daddy and I have decided that it would
> be best for you if we raise you as Jew.
And the child will be satisfied to never ask questions about mommy's
religion? And this will last until about the age of 3? 4? Especially,
when the house has a Christmas tree and Easter eggs, and in some cases
the child is being taken to church.
>
> or
>
> "I was brought up Catholic and find it hard to convert out. However,
> your daddy is much more interested in his religion than I am in mine, so
> we decided it would be best for you to raise you as a Jew."?
Except it would seem that daddy doesn't know the first thing about his
religion and expects his *Christian* wife (who apparently does care
about her religion because she goes to church) to go to "Mother's
Circle" classes so that she can be in charge of raising Jewish
children. It would be utterly laughable if it weren't so sad and
pathetic.
>
> BTW, the only ones I have come across that say that about hell are some
> Baptists. Not that others may not also believe it, but those are the
> only ones I have seen say it.
That's not the point.
>
>
>
> >> If they go
> >> through the life cycle events as Jews, and are raised that way, then via
> >> the father's being Jewish the ARE Jewish.
>
> > Is that what the article was about? About paternal descent and who is
> > a Jew? I don't think so.
>
> It was about Christian women who marry Jewish men and raise their
> children as Jews. What did you think it was about?
I know the article claimed to be about this, but if you read the
article, the homes were clearly Jewish/Christian dual religion
households where the Christian wives had agreed to learn about Jewish
rituals/customs and then try to teach these customs to their children.
How are the children being "raised as Jews" when they have Christmas
trees and Easter egg hunts and in some cases go to church?
>
>
> > The article is about women who are actively practicing Christianity,
> > who are taking a class which superficially teaches them some of the
> > rites and customs of a religion which they're not practicing
> > themselves, to enable them to go through the motions of demonstrating
> > these rites and customs to their children.
>
> That is not what I read -- and certainly not the "superficially".
How could it be anything but superficial when the women adhere to and
are actively practicing a different religion?
>
>
>
> >> That Meir doesn't think so
> >> and wants to equate them
>
> > Who's "them?"
>
> The children of the interfaith marriage.
>
>
>
> >> with cats (is O-Judaism the dog in his
> >> analogy?), is totally irrelevant.
>
> > No, O wasn't even in the analogy. Here is the analogy:
>
> > Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein move to a small town where the other
> > townspeople are all Catholic. They own a store, but they don't have
> > very many customers. So, they go to the local priest to ask him for
> > his advice. The priest says, "You come on Sunday, and I'll baptize
> > you, and you can become Catholics, and then I'll tell everyone in my
> > church to shop at your store. So, Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein show up at
> > church on Sunday, and the priest sprinkles them with holy water and he
> > says "Jew, Catholic, Jew, Catholic." And the Goldsteins go home, and
> > all the townspeople start shopping at their store.
>
> Now it is YOU who are starting up the OCR war with this ridiculous
> "analogy".
Really? I thought the analogy was about Jews not turning into
Christians just because someone sprinkles "holy water" on them. I
originally heard this story from one of my rabbis when I was a
teenager. It was about the silliness of arguing that a Jew can ever
stop being a Jew. OCR never came into the conversation.
>You have just impugned the motives of anyone who is in a
> marriage where the father is Jewish and the mother not and decide to
> raise their child as a Jew.
What parallel universe is this coming from?
> I thought better of you. I guess I will
> have to take your imploring not to start an OCR war with ten grains of
> salt. I also guess it is OK coming from someone who takes the O
> position on this, but not from the other side on any issue.
You know, Shelly, since you have been back, you have used any and
every excuse to start an OCR war. Nobody wants to play. Meir wasn't
starting one, and I'm not starting one. Personally, I don't give a
flip about any of these "movements." The R movement doesn't interest
me enough for me to waste my time criticizing it.
For the last time, the article was not about R. The people in the
article were not claiming to be R. They are dual religion households
where both Christianity and Judaism are being actively practiced in
some way, shape, or form. I would seriously question whether the R
movement would consider these children Jewish. For sure, the R
movement would not accept as Jewish a child who was periodically being
taken to church (as at least one of the children in the article was).
You are reading all kinds of things into the article that simply
aren't there, and you are unfairly accusing Meir (and now me) of
trying to start an OCR war. I repeated what was intended to be a joke
told to me by a rabbi many years ago that was about the futility of
trying to convert Jews out of Judaism, and now you claim this joke was
somehow intended to insult R.
>
>
> > One Friday afternoon, when Mrs. Goldstein is cooking her shabbos
> > dinner, the priest happens to walk by the house and smells the chicken
> > roasting. Frantically, he knocks on the door, and he tells the
> > Goldsteins, "What are you doing? Today is Friday! You can't eat
> > chicken on Friday. You have to eat fish!" So, Mrs. Goldstein says "Oh,
> > excuse me Father, and she takes some water and sprinkles it on the
> > chicken and says "Chicken, fish, chicken, fish."
>
> Now you have gotten really insulting to all those people.
It's a flippin' story. When the rabbi told the story, it was intended
to be a *joke.* I guess anyone can find an "insult" in anything.
>
>
>
> > The Christian mothers who are ostensibly raising their children to be
> > Jews are the Goldsteins. Get it?
>
> Not in the least. The Goldsteins were lying from the start. Their
> motives had nothing whatsoever with a desire to have themselves or their
> children be Christian. Not so with the cases at hand. A very poor, and
> insulting, attempt at an analogy.
Whatever.
>
>
>
> >> Meir, do you _REALLY_ want to trigger an OCR war?
>
> > He's not going to trigger an OCR war. Except for you, I don't think
> > anybody on SCJM really cares about OCR anymore. Not even Joel. I think
> > he just thought that Meir was being flippant to Shmaryahu, and that
> > was why he responded the way he did.
>
> I have stayed away. I see this one as clearly being a swipe by Meir at
> Reform. What else could have possibly meant? Give me an answer if you can?
I see it as Meir's making an off-the-cuff remark, and you're going
ballistic over imaginary insults. For the last time, this is NOT ABOUT
REFORM. Nobody in the article was Reform. The word "Reform" was never
mentioned in the article. These are Christian/Jewish households where
Christian wives are teaching their children Jewish customs. This is
not about "who is a Jew." This is not about "patrilineal descent." If
any of the families in the article belongs to a synagogue or sends
their kids to Hebrew school or identifies Reform, it wasn't ever
mentioned.
>
>
> > Speaking for myself, my only concern is that Moshe Schorr hasn't left
> > this group.
>
> Certainly not on the basis on my responses here. If anything, I am the
> "peacemaker". I also doubt he will be leaving the group.
You're the "peacemaker" ????
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
I don't think that it does. AFAIK, in order for the child to be
considered Jewish, the family would have to approach a Reform rabbi,
join the synagogue, be active members. But even if they don't need to
do all of that --- The people in the article may be saying that they
are raising their children to be Jews, but when they have Christmas
trees and Easter Egg hunts and celebrate Christian holidays, the
children are clearly being raised half Jewish, half Christian. At the
very least, being "raised Jewish" precludes celebrating Christmas,
does it not? And as long as there is a tree in the house, as long as
the children are helping to decorate it, as long as they are getting
Christmas presents, as long as they are hunting for Easter eggs they
are not being "raised Jewish" no matter how many menorahs they light.
There is no such thing as "Jewish by assertion," not even in Reform.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Giorgies E Kepipesiom
At the very least, being raised Jewish is to be taught not to marry
shiksas. I can see it now: I am catholic. your father is non-
practicing Jew, married to me, a shiksa. We want you not to be like
us. Don't be Catholic like me. Don't marry a shiksa like your father
did. Does Mr Glickler think that is what this couple is teaching the
children? I doubt he is that naive. He only likes to spout his own
contempt for Jews whose values he does not share. He goes nuts when
Meir throws the same thing back at him. I take back what I said to
him. He is not even mildly amusing. Robert was much more fun. Even if
I was only watching others push his buttons.
GEK
wishing all a happy Hannuka. Even Mr Glickler should have a merry one.
sheldonlg
I stopped reading after a couple of pages. If the going to church stuff
was later on, then they are not being raised as Jews. However, Meir's
comment was still nasty.
>
>
>>
>>> The article is about women who are actively practicing Christianity,
>>> who are taking a class which superficially teaches them some of the
>>> rites and customs of a religion which they're not practicing
>>> themselves, to enable them to go through the motions of demonstrating
>>> these rites and customs to their children.
>> That is not what I read -- and certainly not the "superficially".
>
> How could it be anything but superficial when the women adhere to and
> are actively practicing a different religion?
The CHILDREN, not the women! The women's practices don't enter this
equation.
We would not.
> movement would not accept as Jewish a child who was periodically being
> taken to church (as at least one of the children in the article was).
> You are reading all kinds of things into the article that simply
> aren't there, and you are unfairly accusing Meir (and now me) of
> trying to start an OCR war. I repeated what was intended to be a joke
> told to me by a rabbi many years ago that was about the futility of
> trying to convert Jews out of Judaism, and now you claim this joke was
> somehow intended to insult R.
Not the joke and not R. The comparison of the motives of the people.
>
>>> One Friday afternoon, when Mrs. Goldstein is cooking her shabbos
>>> dinner, the priest happens to walk by the house and smells the chicken
>>> roasting. Frantically, he knocks on the door, and he tells the
>>> Goldsteins, "What are you doing? Today is Friday! You can't eat
>>> chicken on Friday. You have to eat fish!" So, Mrs. Goldstein says "Oh,
>>> excuse me Father, and she takes some water and sprinkles it on the
>>> chicken and says "Chicken, fish, chicken, fish."
>> Now you have gotten really insulting to all those people.
>
> It's a flippin' story. When the rabbi told the story, it was intended
> to be a *joke.* I guess anyone can find an "insult" in anything.
See above.
sheldonlg
Absolutely.
> does it not? And as long as there is a tree in the house, as long as
> the children are helping to decorate it, as long as they are getting
> Christmas presents, as long as they are hunting for Easter eggs they
> are not being "raised Jewish" no matter how many menorahs they light.
> There is no such thing as "Jewish by assertion," not even in Reform.
I will disagree only about the presence of a Christmas tree. That could
be there only in respect to the mother and be *her* tree, not the family
tree. If it is the family tree, then I agree.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.
>
sheldonlg
Attempt at snide humor ignored.
Giorgies E Kepipesiom
> > For the last time, the article was not about R. The people in the
> > article were not claiming to be R. They are dual religion households
> > where both Christianity and Judaism are being actively practiced in
> > some way, shape, or form. I would seriously question whether the R
> > movement would consider these children Jewish. For sure, the R
Dual religion household? Both ch\ristianity and Judaism being
"actively practiced in some way, shape, or form"? The Jewish member of
this household is actively married to a shiksa! In what way shape or
form is he practicing Judaism. Unless he takes chrein instead of
mustard on his ham sandwitch. I suppose that in some bizzarre world of
Mr Glickler's fantasy, that could be called practicing Judaism in some
way shape or form, even while married to a shiksa. Feh and Double Feh,
to use Mr Glickler's own expression.
GEK
Giorgies E Kepipesiom
Not meant to be humourous. And you are not doing a very good job of
ignoring it if you need to keep pointing out that you are ignoring it.
Merry Hanukah to you once again.
GEK
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2009, Yussel <jshu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 12, 10:16�pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:56:16 +0000 (UTC), "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch"
> >
> > <omega....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Ran across this article this evening. �Yes, I know that the children
> > >are not Jewish by the O standard. �But they are being raised as Jews.
> > >The article estimates that 42% of "Jewish families" are like this.
> >
> >
> >
> > >>>>>>http://www.indystar.com/article/20091212/LOCAL/912120372/Christian-mo...
> >
> > >There is a group dedicated to teaching christian mothers on how to
> > >raise their children in a "Jewish" home.
> > >http://motherscircle.org/
> >
> > I'm raising my cat as a dog.
> > --
> >
> > Meir
> >
> > "The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
>
> And you wonder why people don't like posting here.
Yeah - the OP was really offensive!
(Get it, yet?)
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2009, Giorgies E Kepipesiom <kepip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I hadn't read the article until this comment. �After reading it, I can
> > say that I agree with Yussel. �Cindy, you personally as and others
> > constantly remind me not to start an OCR way. �Yet, that is EXACTLY what
> > Meir is doing with his comment. �He should KNOW by now that
> >
> > (a) those children are considered Jews by Reform, just as much as he is.
> > (b) a statement such as his is an open invitation to an OCR flamewar.
> >
> > Here we have a couple where the husband is Jewish and the wife not,
> > deciding to raise their children as Jews. �That, to me is much better
> > than "dual" religions which ends up as "no" religion. �If they go
> > through the life cycle events as Jews, and are raised that way, then via
> > the father's being Jewish the ARE Jewish. �That Meir doesn't think so
> > and wants to equate them with cats (is O-Judaism the dog in his
> > analogy?), is totally irrelevant.
> >
> > Meir, do you _REALLY_ want to trigger an OCR war?- Hide quoted text -
> >
> You want to start a flame war because some Jewish husband has a shiksa
> wife, and they consider the children Jewish because they insist that
> the children put horseradish instead of mustard on their ham
> sandwitch?
I think the problemcomes in when Meir is blamed but NOT the OP.
His comment was just as wrong - but no less.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2009, Giorgies E Kepipesiom <kepip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> . I
> seriously doubt that you seriously think that a child whose father is
> a non-practicing Jew (so non-practicing in fact that he is married to
> a shiksa), whose mother is a practicing catholic, but which mother has
> studied the rudimentary outlines of some Jewish rituals which she
> tells the child about, such child is really being "raised as a Jew"
It's been known to happen.
Susan
fla...@verizon.net
On 13-Dec-2009, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> Although there would be an implied preference for the second one if
> one went to the trouble to raise a cat as a dog, a girl as a tomboy,
> or a non-Jew as a Jew. I've gotten the impression that most tomboys
> grow out of it for the most part.
No, we don't. We just grow to reject labels.
Susan
mm
I don't make an OCR analogy. I didn't make any refernce to O, C, or
R.
Cats would be analogous to non-Jews, and in general I like non-Jews.
I like all the ones I know except 3 and those I dislike for reasons
other than that they are not Jews.
cindys
I don't think the OP was offensive, but I suspect (on the basis of
ideas that he has expressed in the past) that he thinks this is a good
thing (that Christian women are teaching their children Jewish
rituals). I don't think it's good or bad. I just don't see the point
of it (seeing that the Christian mothers are simultaneously actively
practicing Christianity, and the Jewish fathers know next to nothing
about Judaism and are apparently relying on their Christian wives to
learn about it and teach it to the children). The children may retain
some warm childhood memories, but I think it's wishful thinking to
expect that this approach will result in the continuity of Judaism to
the next generation in any meaningful way.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
mm
<shel...@giganews.com> wrote:
>Abe Kohen wrote:
>> Only a mindreader could impute that Meir was trying to trigger a war.
>>
>> I know that I could not raise a child as Xian. I could play Santa Claus, I
>> could send him to church, but that is the extent of it. How could I infuse
>> the Trinity to him? It would be a tragic injustice to both of us.
>>
>> The only way that I could raise a child as Xian is for me to convert to
>> Xianity FIRST. The only way a Xian woman could raise a child as Jewish is
>> for her to convert to Judaism FIRST.
>>
>> This is not about OCRr. It's about transmission and infusion of a theology -
>> a philosophy, not about mere "practice."
>>
>> Happy Hanuka,
>> Abe
>>
>>
>
>The FATHER is Jewish and the child is being raised as Jewish. Ergo, in
>Reform Judaism the child is Jewish. To say otherwise the way Meir did,
>is enciting an OCR war.
This is something like this:
Some place in India or somewhere a man has three wives, and someone
from Italy says, "It's wrong to have more than one wife."
And the Jew says, "That's an antisemitic remark. It's permitted in
the Torah to have more than one wife.
And the Muslim says** "That's an anti-Muslim remark. It's permitted in
the Koran to have more than one wife.
Do you think the Italians sentence was antisemitic or anti-Muslim?
The Italian wasn't thinking about Jews or Muslims.
And I wasn't thinking about Reform.
mm
What I meant was is that I've gotten the impression that most tomboys
later learn to like wearing dresses and high heels some of the time,
and decorating the house, etc. in *addition* to commercial fishing,
deer hunting, baseball, etc. But I have't taken a survey with a
statiistically valid sample.
I'll say this, my cat still won't fetch unless he knows i have some
kibble to give him. He doesnt' do it just for fun. I figured by how
he'd be a lot further along.
>
>Susan
mm
Especially considering the divorce rate, which I think is about 50%
now, with the mothers getting custody what, 75, 80, 90 percent of the
time or more, how many of these kids will continue to be raised as
Jews? Especially in those cases where the divorce isn't pleasant.
(What percentage is that?) "You barely do anything, you barely
knownow anything, and you expect me to raise your kid as a Jew! You
should have been nicer to me."
Giorgies E Kepipesiom
> On 13-Dec-2009, Giorgies E Kepipesiom <kepipes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > . I
> > seriously doubt that you seriously think that a child whose father is
> > a non-practicing Jew (so non-practicing in fact that he is married to
> > a shiksa), whose mother is a practicing catholic, but which mother has
> > studied the rudimentary outlines of some Jewish rituals which she
> > tells the child about, such child is really being "raised as a Jew"
>
> It's been known to happen.
>
to be a Jew? yes, that could happen. But one could no more say that
the child was "raised as a Jew" than if the child later in life chose
to become a mohammedan could one say it was because he was raised as a
mohammedan.
GEK
Asher_N
news:_Nmdnc2HgZQqxbjW...@giganews.com:
> Abe Kohen wrote:
>> "sheldonlg" <shel...@giganews.com> wrote in message
>> news:j9mdnVcqN7zmtLjW...@giganews.com...
>>> cindys wrote:
>>>> On Dec 13, 11:29 am, Yussel <jshur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 12, 10:16 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:56:16 +0000 (UTC), "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch"
>>>>>> <omega....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ran across this article this evening. Yes, I know that the
>>>>>>> children are not Jewish by the O standard. But they are being
>>>>>>> raised as Jews. The article estimates that 42% of "Jewish
>>>>>>> families" are like this.
>>>>>>> http://www.indystar.com/article/20091212/LOCAL/912120372/Christia
>>>>>>> n-mo... There is a group dedicated to teaching christian mothers
>>>>>>> on how to raise their children in a "Jewish" home.
>>>>>>> http://motherscircle.org/
>>>>>> I'm raising my cat as a dog.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Meir
>>>>>> "The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather,
>>>>>> Scott."
>>>>> And you wonder why people don't like posting here.
>>>>>
>>>>> j
>>>> ------------
>>>> If people don't like posting here, it's not because of Meir.
>>>> Best regards,
>>> I hadn't read the article until this comment. After reading it, I
>>> can say that I agree with Yussel. Cindy, you personally as and
>>> others constantly remind me not to start an OCR way. Yet, that is
>>> EXACTLY what Meir is doing with his comment. He should KNOW by now
>>> that
>>>
>>> (a) those children are considered Jews by Reform, just as much as he
>>> is. (b) a statement such as his is an open invitation to an OCR
>>> flamewar.
>>>
>>> Here we have a couple where the husband is Jewish and the wife not,
>>> deciding to raise their children as Jews. That, to me is much
>>> better than "dual" religions which ends up as "no" religion. If
>>> they go through the life cycle events as Jews, and are raised that
>>> way, then via the father's being Jewish the ARE Jewish. That Meir
>>> doesn't think so and wants to equate them with cats (is O-Judaism
>>> the dog in his analogy?), is totally irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Meir, do you _REALLY_ want to trigger an OCR war?
>>
>> Only a mindreader could impute that Meir was trying to trigger a war.
>>
>> I know that I could not raise a child as Xian. I could play Santa
>> Claus, I could send him to church, but that is the extent of it. How
>> could I infuse the Trinity to him? It would be a tragic injustice to
>> both of us.
>>
>> The only way that I could raise a child as Xian is for me to convert
>> to Xianity FIRST. The only way a Xian woman could raise a child as
>> Jewish is for her to convert to Judaism FIRST.
>>
>> This is not about OCRr. It's about transmission and infusion of a
>> theology - a philosophy, not about mere "practice."
>>
>> Happy Hanuka,
>> Abe
>>
>>
>
> The FATHER is Jewish and the child is being raised as Jewish. Ergo,
> in Reform Judaism the child is Jewish. To say otherwise the way Meir
> did, is enciting an OCR war.
>
U.S. Reform Judaism. By Canadian Reform standards, the child is not
Jewish.
Dermot Goldstein
<kepip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 13, 1:01=A0pm, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
>> cindys wrote:
>> > On Dec 13, 11:29 am, Yussel <jshur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 12, 10:16 pm, mm <NOPSAMmm2...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:56:16 +0000 (UTC), "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch"
>> >>> <omega....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> Ran across this article this evening. =A0Yes, I know that the childr=
>en
>> >>>> are not Jewish by the O standard. =A0But they are being raised as Je=
>ws.
>> >>>> The article estimates that 42% of "Jewish families" are like this.
>> >>>>http://www.indystar.com/article/20091212/LOCAL/912120372/Christian-mo=
>...
>> >>>> There is a group dedicated to teaching christian mothers on how to
>> >>>> raise their children in a "Jewish" home.
>> >>>>http://motherscircle.org/
>> >>> I'm raising my cat as a dog.
>> >>> --
>> >>> Meir
>> >>> "The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
>> >> And you wonder why people don't like posting here.
>>
>> >> j
>>
>> > ------------
>> > If people don't like posting here, it's not because of Meir.
>> > Best regards,
>>
>> I hadn't read the article until this comment. =A0After reading it, I can
>> say that I agree with Yussel. =A0Cindy, you personally as and others
>> constantly remind me not to start an OCR way. =A0Yet, that is EXACTLY wha=
>t
>> Meir is doing with his comment. =A0He should KNOW by now that
>>
>> (a) those children are considered Jews by Reform, just as much as he is.
>> (b) a statement such as his is an open invitation to an OCR flamewar.
>>
>> Here we have a couple where the husband is Jewish and the wife not,
>> deciding to raise their children as Jews. =A0That, to me is much better
>> than "dual" religions which ends up as "no" religion. =A0If they go
>> through the life cycle events as Jews, and are raised that way, then via
>> the father's being Jewish the ARE Jewish. =A0That Meir doesn't think so
>> and wants to equate them with cats (is O-Judaism the dog in his
>> analogy?), is totally irrelevant.
>>
>> Meir, do you _REALLY_ want to trigger an OCR war?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>You want to start a flame war because some Jewish husband has a shiksa
>wife, and they consider the children Jewish because they insist that
>the children put horseradish instead of mustard on their ham
>sandwitch?
Yours is an interesting name...may I ask its origins?
Giorgies E Kepipesiom
>
> Yours is an interesting name...may I ask its origins?
That is the name on my birth certificate, isued in 1934 by what was
then the government of Estonia (a state that exists today on
approximately the same territory as then, but is not the same state as
it was then). Giorgies is a local form of George. Kepipesiom is a
badly mangled and misspelt version of whatever it might orignally have
been, of which I have heard several theories, but nothing with any
kind of historic evidence. Unfortunately, it is also an anagramme that
caused me much misery in my childhood, and continues to do so to this
very day.
GEK
if I may ask in turn, what is the origin of "Dermot"?
sheldonlg
Wrong terminology. I should have said "Noted and discarded".
Noted and discarded.
cindys
> be there only in respect to the mother and be *her* tree, not the family
> tree. If it is the family tree, then I agree.
>
> > Best regards,
> > ---Cindy S.
So, IOW, the house has a beautifully decorated Christmas tree in the
center of the living room. A visitor comments "What a beautiful
Christmas tree your family has!"
If mom says "Thank you, but actually, the tree is just for me," then
that means the children are Jewish, but if she says "Oh yes, we
decided to have a tree this year," then the children aren't Jewish?
What if the children decorated the tree? Jewish or not Jewish? What if
the children decorated "mom's tree?" Jewish or not Jewish? What if the
children didn't decorate the tree but only put the star on top? Jewish
or not Jewish? What if they didn't decorate the tree but sang
Christmas carols? Jewish or not Jewish? What if no one sang carols,
but mom was listening to Christmas music in the house and baking
Christmas cookies? Jewish or not Jewish? What if the children ate the
cookies? Jewish or not Jewish? Where exactly do you draw the line to
determine how much Christmas is allowed in the house before it's no
longer considered that the children are being "raised as Jews?"
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Dermit Goldstein
<kepip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ah, thank you, most interesting. I believe Estonian is of the same
language group as Finnish and Hungarian.
>GEK
>if I may ask in turn, what is the origin of "Dermot"?
It's a common name in Ireland.
Giorgies E Kepipesiom
My dear Mr Glickler
Having noted it, you can no longer claim to ignore it. Having dealt
with it, you can no longer claim to discard it. What are we, four
years old? In that case, as my four year old nighgbour would put it,
"no backsies, no taxis".
This forum group is for discussion of Jewish culture. It is not for
you to express your personal approval of other people's religions with
terms such as feh. It is not for release of excess intestinal gas
(yes, my dear Hannies, you are right as usual; I should NOT have eaten
that second latkie).
You left this group years ago in indignation because you were not
afforded free reign to spew your hatred of other forms of Judaism than
the one you approve of, and other ideas than the ones you hold. Now,
you are back, itching for fights. Ready to pounce in disgust upon the
utterances of others, but rising up once again with indignation when
others put it to you.
Sorry, Mr Glickler, this forum is no longer about the OCR wars you are
so anxious to start, wiggling your thighs like the four year old who
so badly needs to go to the toilet for number one. I suspect that the
retirement colony where you live is populated by folks just like you,
affording you little opportunity to engage in the flames you are
looking for, so you come here instead looking for it. Most of us are
not playing.
Why not move somewhere where you can readily indulge your desires for
the flames. Meash Shearim comes to mind. Folks there would be only too
happy to oblige you. But perhaps that is toom extreme. how about
places where there is a mix of secular and far right? Maalot Dafna?
Ramot? No, those will not do. They are "settlements" and you will not
set foot in them for fear that the paleostinians will be shooting at
you. So, we are back to Meah Sha\earim. Or you can remain in USA, and
move to Williamsburg. There are plenty of folks there with nothing
else to do all day. You can spout your disapproval of their lifestyle
and beliefs all you want. But scjm is not the place for it.
Yes, I know. Noted, ignored, discarded. No need to tell me. And I
grant you your backsies and Taxi's. And if nothing else will do but
you must have the last words, I grant that too. I'm done here.
Gershon Eliyahu ben David, hamechune Giorgies E. Kepipesiom
Giorgies E Kepipesiom
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:30:54 +0000 (UTC), Giorgies E Kepipesiom
>
> >On Dec 14, 8:16=A0am, dgoldst...@charter.net (Dermot Goldstein) wrote:
>
> >> Yours is an interesting name...may I ask its origins?
>
> >That is the name on my birth certificate, isued in 1934 by what was
> >then the government of Estonia (a state that exists today on
> >approximately the same territory as then, but is not the same state as
> >it was then). Giorgies is a local form of George. Kepipesiom is a
> >badly mangled and misspelt version of whatever it might orignally have
> >been, of which I have heard several theories, but nothing with any
> >kind of historic evidence. Unfortunately, it is also an anagramme that
> >caused me much misery in my childhood, and continues to do so to this
> >very day.
>
> Ah, thank you, most interesting. I believe Estonian is of the same
> language group as Finnish and Hungarian.
>
Rumania. Two years later we moved to Rhodesia, then to South Africa
before finally settling in USA. My parents spoke hardly any Estonian,
their usual languages being German and Yiddish. I myself know not a
word.
> >if I may ask in turn, what is the origin of "Dermot"?
>
> It's a common name in Ireland.
Are ye then a son of the auld sod?
GEK
sheldonlg
There is no blanket rule. It is enough to say that if it is CLEARLY
understood WITHIN THE FAMILY (children included) that the tree is there
for _mom_, and that the children are going for a Jewish education, etc.
and being raised as Jews, then helping mom decorate, eating her cookies,
etc. become non-issues.
Let's reverse the scenario. Suppose it was the mom who is Jewish and
the dad who isn't. I know that you say the children are Jewish.
However, at what point in your above statements would it be over the
line? What if the tree were only for _dad_ and clearly understood as
such. What if the mom didn't care about religion at all, but the dad
brought in the tree? What if he had them going to Christian schools?
IOW, Cindy, taking as a GIVEN that there are interfaith marriages, how
do YOU propose to handle the situation? Give up on half of them (mother
not Jewish)?
sheldonlg
> On Dec 14, 8:59 am, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
>> Giorgies E Kepipesiom wrote:
>>> On Dec 13, 8:35 pm, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>> Attempt at snide humor ignored.
>>> Not meant to be humourous. And you are not doing a very good job of
>>> ignoring it if you need to keep pointing out that you are ignoring it.
>>> Merry Hanukah to you once again.
>>> GEK
>> Wrong terminology. I should have said "Noted and discarded".
>>
>> Noted and discarded.
>
You have absolutely NO idea why I left this news group years ago.
Hint: It had NOTHING to do with Judaism of any stripe, nor discussion
of any of them in any manner. It also had NOTHING to do with opinions
expressed except on one subject which, again, had NOTHING to do with
Judaism.
Discarded as I am using it here means that
(a) I saw it
(b) I evaluated your comments
(c) I chose to not respond to those comments
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 18:35:21 +0000 (UTC), chsw <chsw10...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >mm wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:56:16 +0000 (UTC), "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch"
> >> <omega....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The article estimates that 42% of "Jewish families" are like this.
>
> >>> There is a group dedicated to teaching christian mothers on how to
> >>> raise their children in a "Jewish" home.
> >>>http://motherscircle.org/
>
> >> I'm raising my cat as a dog.
>
>
>
> It occurs to me on rereading that someone might think I was using dog
> negatively, and they may have been offended. I wasn't. A) Dogs are
> probably my favorite animal. B) That would ruin the analogy. I
> didn't mean anything negative by cat either. Cat goes with dog.
> Although there would be an implied preference for the second one if
> one went to the trouble to raise a cat as a dog, a girl as a tomboy,
> or a non-Jew as a Jew. I've gotten the impression that most tomboys
> grow out of it for the most part.
>
> like dogs.
>
>
> --
>
> Meir
I owned Basenjis. They are often referred to as cats in dog suits.
Clean themselves like a cat, can climb trees (as do foxes) and do not
bark (however they can be "vocal" in other ways including calling
their lawyers if they disagree with what you want them to do).
Dermot Goldstein
On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:30:54 +0000 (UTC), Giorgies E Kepipesiom
<kepip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ah, thank you, most interesting. I believe Estonian is of the same
language group as Finnish and Hungarian.
>GEK
>if I may ask in turn, what is the origin of "Dermot"?
It's a common name in Ireland.
Yussel
> On Dec 13, 11:29 am, Yussel <jshur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:56:16 +0000 (UTC), "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch"
>
> > > <omega....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >Ran across this article this evening. Yes, I know that the children
> > > >are not Jewish by the O standard. But they are being raised as Jews.
> > > >The article estimates that 42% of "Jewish families" are like this.
> > > >http://www.indystar.com/article/20091212/LOCAL/912120372/Christian-mo...
>
> > > >There is a group dedicated to teaching christian mothers on how to
> > > >raise their children in a "Jewish" home.
> > > >http://motherscircle.org/
>
> > > I'm raising my cat as a dog.
>
> > > Meir
>
> > > "The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
>
> > And you wonder why people don't like posting here.
>
> > j
>
> ------------
> If people don't like posting here, it's not because of Meir.
> Best regards,
It is because of a gratuitous insult. Everyone on this list, including
the person posting the message, knows the Orthodox would not consider
most of these kids Jewish. In many cases, neither would the
Conservatives. But he could not resist himself.
j
Don Levey
How so? Here's the original post:
"Ran across this article this evening. Yes, I know that the children
are not Jewish by the O standard. But they are being raised as Jews.
The article estimates that 42% of "Jewish families" are like this.
http://www.indystar.com/article/20091212/LOCAL/912120372/Christian-moms-raise-kids-in-Jewish-faith
"There is a group dedicated to teaching christian mothers on how to
raise their children in a "Jewish" home.
http://motherscircle.org/"
The original poster made clear the difference in criteria for O vs
non-O, and didn't seem to make any value judgment one way or another.
That's in stark contrast to Meir's comment, or Giorgies' comment above.
--
Don Levey, Framingam MA If knowledge is power,
(email address in header works) and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: Don't send mail to to sal...@the-leveys.us
GnuPG public key: http://www.the-leveys.us:6080/keys/don-dsakey.asc
cindys
Oh please. Now, you're just making things up as you go. I don't know
what the R position is on all of this, but I find it hard to believe
that R considers as being Jewish children who are being raised in a
dual religion household as long as they pay lip service to "These are
mom's cookies, this is mom's tree, etc."
>
> Let's reverse the scenario. Suppose it was the mom who is Jewish and
> the dad who isn't. I know that you say the children are Jewish.
> However, at what point in your above statements would it be over the
> line? What if the tree were only for _dad_ and clearly understood as
> such. What if the mom didn't care about religion at all, but the dad
> brought in the tree? What if he had them going to Christian schools?
I would say the children are halachically Jewish, but they certainly
won't be passing Judaism on to their children, so what good is it? I
guess I don't understand why it is so all-fired important to much of
the secular Jewish world to want to claim as many people as being
"Jewish" as possible just for the sake of it. I don't understand why
so much time and energy is being wasted on playing antics with
semantics over "who is a Jew" when the "Judaism" of these children
isn't going to be passed to the next generation anyway
The only purpose I can see to having the children lighting menorahs
etc in a dual religion household (such as the ones described in the
article) is to fulfill an emotional need in the Jewish parent. The
Jewish father wants to see a part of himself reflected in his
children, and it makes him feel better to see his children lighting a
menorah. But the father doesn't want it enough to educate himself and
provide the education himself. That would involve a real commitment.
So, he pushes it off on his Christian wife. But at any rate, he's just
spitting in the wind because the reality is that his grandchildren
aren't going to be lighting any menorahs. And the same applies in a
situation with a halachically Jewish child whose "Jewish education" is
pretty much limited to learning a few rites and customs.
I know you are very focused on "who is a Jew," and you're looking to
start a flame war with some O Jew who doesn't recognize patrilineal
descent or whatever. But, you see, not everybody sees that "who is a
Jew" is an issue at all. I don't think it really matters "who is a
Jew." Because any child who isn't provided with a bona fide Jewish
education, whose claim to Jewishness is limited to a few holiday
rituals, is not going to be passing Judaism onto his or her children,
whether he/she is halachically a Jew or isn't a Jew. If it's so
important to you to insist that all of these children in the article
are "Jewish" because the father is Jewish and the Christian mother is
teaching them to light a menorah, great! If you think there is nothing
more to being Jewish than lighting a menorah, then great have it your
way. Let them be "Jewish"!!!!
There may be one or two of them who later in life become enamored with
Judaism and decide to educate themselves and become practicing Jews,
but for 99% of them, their "Jewishness" will die with them.
>
> IOW, Cindy, taking as a GIVEN that there are interfaith marriages, how
> do YOU propose to handle the situation? Give up on half of them (mother
> not Jewish)?
Yes. Because they're not really Jewish anyway. And I'm not talking
about the halachic issue. I'm talking about the facts on-the-ground
issue.
If the father were actually willing to invest time and energy in
Judaically educating himself and his children. If the mother were to
walk away from Christianity and either convert or at least commit
herself along with the father to having a Jewish-only household, if
the parents were to commit to providing their children with a bonafide
Jewish education, I might say otherwise, but even at that,
statistically-speaking, the odds are against them.
But the people in the article are not doing any of these things. All
that's happening there is that the father feels guilty, so he asks his
Christian wife to learn a few Jewish customs and teach them to the
children. This maintains his fantasy that his children are being
"raised Jewish," and then he doesn't have to face the reality that he
is the last link in the chain of the torah that is supposed link the
generations one to the other. He doesn't want to be the last link in
the chain, but he doesn't have the motivation to take meaningful
action in a direction that could actually change the situation. So, he
sends his wife off to "the Mother's Circle" and tells himself that his
children are "being raised Jewish."
So, you can start all the OCR wars you want, from now until doomsday,
getting all puffed up and offended every time you think some O Jew on
SCJM has even hinted that children of non-Jewish mothers are not
Jewish. But in the end, it's just a war of semantics, and that's why
this discussion is totally ridiculous.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
sheldonlg
Thank you. You said it well.
Don Levey
>
> I see it as Meir's making an off-the-cuff remark, and you're going
> ballistic over imaginary insults. For the last time, this is NOT ABOUT
> REFORM. Nobody in the article was Reform. The word "Reform" was never
> mentioned in the article. These are Christian/Jewish households where
> Christian wives are teaching their children Jewish customs. This is
> not about "who is a Jew." This is not about "patrilineal descent." If
> any of the families in the article belongs to a synagogue or sends
> their kids to Hebrew school or identifies Reform, it wasn't ever
> mentioned.
>
For what it's worth, Cindy, I was insulted when I saw that comment.
Micha Berger
> It is because of a gratuitous insult. Everyone on this list, including
> the person posting the message, knows the Orthodox would not consider
O would consider half of them Jewish, those with Jewish mothers.
BTW, a friend of mine who works for NCSY told me it's gotten to the
point where he's more comfortable when the new kid is a Cunningham than
a Weiss. A Cunningham who shows up at NCSY almost certainly has a Jewish
mother -- why else would he come? A Weiss -- it's a 50:50 the child is
halachically Jewish.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507
sheldonlg
You asked me several questions about what *I* considered. I answered my
opinions. I am not the official spokesman for Reform.
<snip the rest>
Comments on the snipped part:
(1) Yes, you make a very good point that the statistics are strong
against the children continuing on with Judaism where the father isn't
committed.
(2) Dual religion households (where the children are taught both and
"raised both") is a bad idea IMO. Pick one.
(3) You are wrong about _ME_ starting OCR. Read Don's excellent reply
to Susan C. Yes, *I* was the one who pointed out what Meir did, but Don
saw it that way as well. Berate the proper person here, please, with
respect to OCR.
(4) Am I sensitive to such derogatory remarks as Meir made? Coming from
most people, yes. From several others here, no.
sheldonlg
> cindys wrote:
>> I see it as Meir's making an off-the-cuff remark, and you're going
>> ballistic over imaginary insults. For the last time, this is NOT ABOUT
>> REFORM. Nobody in the article was Reform. The word "Reform" was never
>> mentioned in the article. These are Christian/Jewish households where
>> Christian wives are teaching their children Jewish customs. This is
>> not about "who is a Jew." This is not about "patrilineal descent." If
>> any of the families in the article belongs to a synagogue or sends
>> their kids to Hebrew school or identifies Reform, it wasn't ever
>> mentioned.
>>
>
> For what it's worth, Cindy, I was insulted when I saw that comment.
>
It is worth a lot to me.
sheldonlg
> Yussel <jshu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It is because of a gratuitous insult. Everyone on this list, including
>> the person posting the message, knows the Orthodox would not consider
>> most of these kids Jewish...
>
> O would consider half of them Jewish, those with Jewish mothers.
Actually, Micha, O would consider none of them Jewish. The article was
about Christian mothers.
cindys
And again, Meir's comment was NOT about OCR, since the article never
mentioned anything about OCR. The children are being raised in Jewish/
Christian homes. Nothing about R at all. And as you have already
admitted, it's questionable that R would consider these children
Jewish, if they go to church etc.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Don Levey
>
> And again, Meir's comment was NOT about OCR, since the article never
> mentioned anything about OCR. The children are being raised in Jewish/
> Christian homes. Nothing about R at all. And as you have already
> admitted, it's questionable that R would consider these children
> Jewish, if they go to church etc.
Cindy, if I made an obnoxious comment about someone not recognising a
dog for what it is, simply because it isn't the right shade of brown,
would it matter that I didn't use the word "Orthodox"?
Dermot Goldstein
<kepip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 14, 9:51=A0am, dgoldst...@charter.net (Dermit Goldstein) wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:30:54 +0000 (UTC), Giorgies E Kepipesiom
>>
>> <kepipes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 14, 8:16=3DA0am, dgoldst...@charter.net (Dermot Goldstein) wrote:
>>
>> >> Yours is an interesting name...may I ask its origins?
>>
>> >That is the name on my birth certificate, isued in 1934 by what was
>> >then the government of Estonia (a state that exists today on
>> >approximately the same territory as then, but is not the same state as
>> >it was then). Giorgies is a local form of George. Kepipesiom is a
>> >badly mangled and misspelt version of whatever it might orignally have
>> >been, of which I have heard several theories, but nothing with any
>> >kind of historic evidence. Unfortunately, it is also an anagramme that
>> >caused me much misery in my childhood, and continues to do so to this
>> >very day.
>>
>> Ah, thank you, most interesting. =A0I believe Estonian is of the same
>> language group as Finnish and Hungarian. =A0
>>
>That may be. I was less than a half year old when the family moved to
>Rumania.
In fact, I originally thought your first name (Giorgies) was Romanian.
>Two years later we moved to Rhodesia, then to South Africa
>before finally settling in USA. My parents spoke hardly any Estonian,
>their usual languages being German and Yiddish. I myself know not a
>word.
That's quite an itinerary! Did Rhodesia ever have a sizeable Jewish
community? I know South Africa did/does.
>> >if I may ask in turn, what is the origin of "Dermot"?
>>
>> It's a common name in Ireland.
>
>Are ye then a son of the auld sod?
On my mother's side, but going back a few generations.
cindys
> cindys wrote:
>
> > And again, Meir's comment was NOT about OCR, since the article never
> > mentioned anything about OCR. The children are being raised in Jewish/
> > Christian homes. Nothing about R at all. And as you have already
> > admitted, it's questionable that R would consider these children
> > Jewish, if they go to church etc.
>
> Cindy, if I made an obnoxious comment about someone not recognising a
> dog for what it is, simply because it isn't the right shade of brown,
> would it matter that I didn't use the word "Orthodox"?
What isn't being recognized Don? Meir is saying that if you have a
child who is born to and being raised by a practicing Christian
mother, and if the child is celebrating Christian holidays (which on
the basis of what the article said, they clearly were), if you light a
menorah in addition, it doesn't make the child Jewish, no matter what
the father claims. So, what is not being recognized? That the child is
actually Jewish? Do you honestly believe these children are Jewish
(halachically or patrilineally?)
I'm sure you are familiar with the picture which to some people looks
like an old lady and to other people looks like a young woman, and you
can flip back and forth sometimes seeing one and sometimes seeing the
other. I think you (and Shelly) are really projecting into what Meir
meant. Shelly was essentially insisting that there is an underlying
assumption that these are R Jewish families, being recognized as such
by their respective R synagogues and that the children are going to
Hebrew school, having bar/bat mitzvah, etc, but the article never said
that, never even hinted at it. It was pure speculation on Shelly's
part.
All Meir was saying was that a kid who isn't being raised Jewish
doesn't become Jewish by assertion. You can call these children
"Jewish" 'til the cows come home, but they're still being raised by
Christian mothers and celebrating Christian holidays.
I understand that the article purported to be about "children being
raised Jewish by Christian mothers," and maybe that's the sticking
point. On the basis of what the article actually said, these children
are clearly being raised with two religions.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Herman Rubin
>> On Dec 13, 5:45=A0pm, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
>> > cindys wrote:
>> > > On Dec 13, 4:23 pm, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
>> > > snip
>> > >> The FATHER is Jewish and the child is being raised as Jewish. =A0Erg=
>o, in
>> > >> Reform Judaism the child is Jewish. =A0To say otherwise the way Meir=
> did,
>> > >> is inciting an OCR war.
------------
>> > > No, Meir didn't say that. And the article didn't even address this
>> > > subject. The article was about dual-faith households where Christian
>> > > mothers are learning to teach their children Jewish rituals. The
>> > > article never mentioned Reform Judaism, never mentioned patrilineal
>> > > descent, never discussed "who is a Jew." =A0Apparently, you didn't re=
>ad
>> > > the article.
>> > > Best regards,
>> > Just the first few pages. =A0That DID mention Jewish father and DID
>> > mention raise as a Jew. =A0Those two together equals Jewish in Reform -=
-
>> > whether or not the subject was explicitly mentioned in the article.
-------
>> I don't think that it does. AFAIK, in order for the child to be
>> considered Jewish, the family would have to approach a Reform rabbi,
>> join the synagogue, be active members. But even if they don't need to
>> do all of that
They do not need to do all of that. In bact, they might not
need anything more.
..............
>At the very least, being raised Jewish is to be taught not to marry
>shiksas.
Reform would certainly accept them as appropriate marriage
partners. Whether Conservative would is less clear.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
cindys
> >On Dec 13, 6:16=A0pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> I don't think that it does. AFAIK, in order for the child to be
> >> considered Jewish, the family would have to approach a Reform rabbi,
> >> join the synagogue, be active members. But even if they don't need to
> >> do all of that
>
> They do not need to do all of that. In fact, they might not
> need anything more.
------------
Then maybe I don't know what the R standard is, but I don't understand
how a halachic non-Jew who is actively celebrating Christian holidays
can be considered Jewish by any definition.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
>
> > Just the first few pages. That DID mention Jewish father and DID
> > mention raise as a Jew. Those two together equals Jewish in Reform --
> > whether or not the subject was explicitly mentioned in the article.
>
> -------
> I don't think that it does. AFAIK, in order for the child to be
> considered Jewish, the family would have to approach a Reform rabbi,
> join the synagogue, be active members. But even if they don't need to
> do all of that --- The people in the article may be saying that they
> are raising their children to be Jews, but when they have Christmas
> trees and Easter Egg hunts and celebrate Christian holidays, the
> children are clearly being raised half Jewish, half Christian. At the
> very least, being "raised Jewish" precludes celebrating Christmas,
> does it not? And as long as there is a tree in the house, as long as
> the children are helping to decorate it, as long as they are getting
> Christmas presents, as long as they are hunting for Easter eggs they
> are not being "raised Jewish" no matter how many menorahs they light.
> There is no such thing as "Jewish by assertion," not even in Reform.
> Best regards,
> ---Cindy S.-
Remember the movie "Driving Miss Daisy" where the son had christmas
decorations up for his goyim friends? I think this has been an issue
for a number of years within the Jewish community.
Would like to note that many christians see Santa Claus, the tree and
such as being secular and not religious. In fact many of them condemn
the increasing secularization of christmas over the religious.
Just remember that the Puritans did not celebrate christmas as they
saw it as a pagan ritual. Thanksgiving was their big holiday.
Thus I would tend to agree with them and do not see the tree or Sant
Claus as being "religious" but rather secular or pagan symbols the
deal with the winter solstice. I would also say that I do enjoy the
houses being lite up as it makes the rather dark nights these days
more bearable (the darkness does make me more into a "Bear").
mm
Very interesting, Very strange.
>(however they can be "vocal" in other ways including calling
>their lawyers if they disagree with what you want them to do).
I'd better not get one.
cindys
wrote:
Not in my community, it hasn't been. I don't know of any Jewish
families (O, C, or R) who put up Christmas decorations for their
"goyim friends" (sic).
>
> Would like to note that many christians see Santa Claus, the tree and
> such as being secular and not religious. In fact many of them condemn
> the increasing secularization of christmas over the religious.
Which is something for Christians to concern themselves about but is
irrelevant to Jews.
>
> Just remember that the Puritans did not celebrate christmas as they
> saw it as a pagan ritual. Thanksgiving was their big holiday.
Your point?
>
> Thus I would tend to agree with them and do not see the tree or Sant
> Claus as being "religious" but rather secular or pagan symbols the
> deal with the winter solstice.
Which still doesn't mean they have a place in a "Jewish" home.
> I would also say that I do enjoy the
> houses being lite up as it makes the rather dark nights these days
> more bearable (the darkness does make me more into a "Bear").
That's nice. I like Christmas lights too...on other people's houses.
Best regards,
----Cindy S.
mm
(Dermot Goldstein) wrote:
>Resent...name got mangled!
Given the combative nature of the group at times, I though this was an
instruction to start resenting something. Letter to follow. LOL
(FWIW, I couldn't figure out what got mangled)
--
Joe Bruno
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:56:16 +0000 (UTC), "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch"
>
> <omega....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Ran across this article this evening. Yes, I know that the children
> >are not Jewish by the O standard. But they are being raised as Jews.
> >The article estimates that 42% of "Jewish families" are like this.
> >http://www.indystar.com/article/20091212/LOCAL/912120372/Christian-mo...
>
> >There is a group dedicated to teaching christian mothers on how to
> >raise their children in a "Jewish" home.
> >http://motherscircle.org/
>
> I'm raising my cat as a dog.
>
> Meir
>
> "The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
I'm raising my cat as a spoiled brat.She gets whatever she wants
whenever she wants it,
She's such a comfort to me that I find myself unable to say no to her.
Steve Goldfarb
>cindys wrote:
>>
>> I see it as Meir's making an off-the-cuff remark, and you're going
>> ballistic over imaginary insults. For the last time, this is NOT ABOUT
>> REFORM. Nobody in the article was Reform. The word "Reform" was never
>> mentioned in the article. These are Christian/Jewish households where
>> Christian wives are teaching their children Jewish customs. This is
>> not about "who is a Jew." This is not about "patrilineal descent." If
>> any of the families in the article belongs to a synagogue or sends
>> their kids to Hebrew school or identifies Reform, it wasn't ever
>> mentioned.
>>
>For what it's worth, Cindy, I was insulted when I saw that comment.
Actually I would have thought that Cindy ought to be insulted, given that
she's raising dogs as cats, according to Meir. His statement wasn't
regarding the quality of the training, but it's inherent nature - he's
saying no matter how authentic the Jewish experience, nevertheless you're
raising goyim. His comment had nothing to do with mixed marriages. If I
were Cindy, I'd be extremely offended.
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>What isn't being recognized Don? Meir is saying that if you have a
>child who is born to and being raised by a practicing Christian
>mother, and if the child is celebrating Christian holidays (which on
>the basis of what the article said, they clearly were), if you light a
>menorah in addition, it doesn't make the child Jewish, no matter what
>the father claims. So, what is not being recognized? That the child is
>actually Jewish? Do you honestly believe these children are Jewish
>(halachically or patrilineally?)
Actually we don't know if Meir even read the article - the plain meaning
of what he wrote is that if a child isn't Jewish by birth, then it's
futile to try to raise him as Jewish - he's born a goy, he'll remain a
goy. Just like you can't train a cat to be a dog.
I find that incredibly offensive.
--s
--
Herman Rubin
cindys <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>On Dec 14, 12:58=A0pm, hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>> >On Dec 13, 6:16=3DA0pm, cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> I don't think that it does. AFAIK, in order for the child to be
>> >> considered Jewish, the family would have to approach a Reform rabbi,
>> >> join the synagogue, be active members. =A0But even if they don't need =
>to
>> >> do all of that
>> They do not need to do all of that. =A0In fact, they might not
>> need anything more.
------------
>Then maybe I don't know what the R standard is, but I don't understand
>how a halachic non-Jew who is actively celebrating Christian holidays
>can be considered Jewish by any definition.
>Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Nor do I, if they are celebrated as Christian holidays.
Certain things are suggested, such as circumcision for
boys, learning Reform Judaism, bnei mitzvoth, and
confirmation. Also, attending services. But not all of
those are required, and completing a confirmation course is
essentially equivalent to what is required for a Reform
conversion. But is a halakhic Jew who is actively
celebrating Christian holidays as such a real Jew?
My objection to many of the Christmas songs is that they
contain explicit prayers.
Adelle
"Giorgies E Kepipesiom" <kepip...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:68db203a-4cd7-417d...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 13, 4:22 pm, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
>
> YOU, on Moshe's advice, I will ignore.
You wish you could ignore me. Your buttons are prominently displayed,
thay are clearly marked as to function, and above each is a notice
"push me". So I oblige. Years ago, before I began posting here and was
only lurking, was a fellow who called himself Robert. He too begged
for his buttons to be pushed, and several posters (most of who are
gone from here by now because of people like you who drove them away)
often obliged him. But the results were much more fun to watch. You
are only mildly amusing at best. And you are only being contrary. I
seriously doubt that you seriously think that a child whose father is
a non-practicing Jew (so non-practicing in fact that he is married to
a shiksa), whose mother is a practicing catholic, but which mother has
studied the rudimentary outlines of some Jewish rituals which she
tells the child about, such child is really being "raised as a Jew"
and is therefore (even by your R standards) even remotely "Jewish".
But if in fact you do think so, then I have seriously overestimated
your judgement. Enjoy your fantasy world, where being Jewish is
nothing more than a joke. Merry Hannuka.
GEK
Adelle - feeling strongly outraged -
One of the dearest women in the world, whom I met through her husband at our
C synagogue, is a practicing Catholic. ALL three of their girls went through
conversion at a kosher mikvah. The children are very strongly Jewish, being
active in USY in middle school and high school and Hillel at college. All
three girls are among our best Jr. Congregation leaders. My friend has now
planned 3 Bat Mitzvah Celebrations and over the 25 years of her marriage she
has driven thousands of miles for Hebrew school, USY events and camps,
prepared countless meals for Shabbat and chaggim, and listened to the nasty
comments of people who denigrate her efforts. Her devotion to make sure her
daughters are as secure and proud of their religion as she is of hers has
been accomplished with joy and commitment, along with some hurt feelings
from being snubbed by some whose children don't make near the effort hers do
at learning what it means to be a practicing Jew.
AND she could really have used a group like this to know she was not alone
in the process.
Adelle Stavis
Joe Bruno
> On Dec 13, 11:29 am, Yussel <jshur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:56:16 +0000 (UTC), "Shmaryahu b. Chanoch"
>
> > > <omega....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >Ran across this article this evening. Yes, I know that the children
> > > >are not Jewish by the O standard. But they are being raised as Jews.
> > > >The article estimates that 42% of "Jewish families" are like this.
> > > >http://www.indystar.com/article/20091212/LOCAL/912120372/Christian-mo...
>
> > > >There is a group dedicated to teaching christian mothers on how to
> > > >raise their children in a "Jewish" home.
> > > >http://motherscircle.org/
>
> > > I'm raising my cat as a dog.
> > > --
>
> > > Meir
>
> > > "The baby's name is Shlomo. He's named after his grandfather, Scott."
>
>
> > j
>
> ------------
> If people don't like posting here, it's not because of Meir.
> Best regards,
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are times when I don't like posting here and it isn't because of
Meir.
In the interest of group harmony(cough,cough), I'll refrain from
mentioning any names.
cindys
> In <hg5o1l$gf...@news.eternal-september.org> Don Levey <Don_S...@the-leveys.us> writes:
>
> >cindys wrote:
>
> >> I see it as Meir's making an off-the-cuff remark, and you're going
> >> ballistic over imaginary insults. For the last time, this is NOT ABOUT
> >> REFORM. Nobody in the article was Reform. The word "Reform" was never
> >> mentioned in the article. These are Christian/Jewish households where
> >> Christian wives are teaching their children Jewish customs. This is
> >> not about "who is a Jew." This is not about "patrilineal descent." If
> >> any of the families in the article belongs to a synagogue or sends
> >> their kids to Hebrew school or identifies Reform, it wasn't ever
> >> mentioned.
>
> >For what it's worth, Cindy, I was insulted when I saw that comment.
>
> Actually I would have thought that Cindy ought to be insulted, given that
> she's raising dogs as cats, according to Meir.
Not anymore. I have one dog who actually did turn into a cat and
another dog who decided he'd prefer to stay a dog ;-) But despite the
fact that the dog decided to stay a dog, he sometimes still behaves
like a cat because he had many years of cat training. But the point is
that just because he sometimes behaves like a cat doesn't mean that he
is a cat. He is unequivocally still a dog, and nobody in the family is
trying to pretend otherwise, even if he does chase mice and purr on
occasion.
I have a feeling that Meir posted his remark just as a sort of knee
jerk response. I think the reason his knee jerked was because the
mothers in the article were actively practicing Christianity, and the
families were celebrating Christmas. I don't think his knee would have
jerked if the article had described that the mothers were converting
or at least had abandoned Christianity, and the children were going to
Hebrew School. I also think that if he had realized how much his
remark was going to offend other people, he might not have posted it.
Meir is generally not one of the more offensive SCJMers.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
> In <817b9721-69d4-48d5-900b-89741bfb7...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> cindys <cste...@rochester.rr.com> writes:
>
> >What isn't being recognized Don? Meir is saying that if you have a
> >child who is born to and being raised by a practicing Christian
> >mother, and if the child is celebrating Christian holidays (which on
> >the basis of what the article said, they clearly were), if you light a
> >menorah in addition, it doesn't make the child Jewish, no matter what
> >the father claims. So, what is not being recognized? That the child is
> >actually Jewish? Do you honestly believe these children are Jewish
> >(halachically or patrilineally?)
>
> Actually we don't know if Meir even read the article - the plain meaning
> of what he wrote is that if a child isn't Jewish by birth, then it's
> futile to try to raise him as Jewish - he's born a goy, he'll remain a
> goy. Just like you can't train a cat to be a dog.
Yes, that is the plain meaning of what Meir wrote, but it was still an
emotional response. I don't believe that Meir really believes that
there is no such thing as a sincere convert to Judaism.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
Well, look in the mirror then, because there are plenty of people who
don't like posting here because of (cough, cough), I'll refrain from
mentioning any names.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
sheldonlg
Was that tongue in cheek? One of Cindy's sons decided to convert. She
tried and failed with the other one. Different situation.
sheldonlg
I see. Meir is allowed emotional responses. Interesting.
sheldonlg
Adelle, can you predict the response to your beautiful post? My
prediction is that it will be something like "the exception proves the
rule".
Steve Goldfarb
>Yes, that is the plain meaning of what Meir wrote, but it was still an
>emotional response. I don't believe that Meir really believes that
>there is no such thing as a sincere convert to Judaism.
Of course it was an emotional response, and I presume that he does believe
there's such a thing as a sincere convert to Judaism.
What does that have to do with what he actually wrote, though, and whether
or not what he actually wrote is itself offensive?
He wrote something offensive, Shelly called him on it, Don was also
insulted. Why defend him? Why are our "Group A" posters not demanding he
apologize and tearing him apart, as they would had any "Group B" poster
said something similar?
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>> Actually I would have thought that Cindy ought to be insulted, given that
>> she's raising dogs as cats, according to Meir. His statement wasn't
>> regarding the quality of the training, but it's inherent nature - he's
>> saying no matter how authentic the Jewish experience, nevertheless you're
>> raising goyim. His comment had nothing to do with mixed marriages. If I
>> were Cindy, I'd be extremely offended.
>Was that tongue in cheek? One of Cindy's sons decided to convert. She
>tried and failed with the other one. Different situation.
Not at all tongue in cheek. I know Cindy's situation. What Meir said - put
aside what he may or may not have meant - was that trying to raise a
non-Jew as a Jew was like trying to raise a cat as a dog. He said nothing
nor implied anything about the manner in which one does so - he wasn't
critiquing, as Cindy implies, on the basis that this type of training
would not be effective because it was insufficiently thorough. No, he
simply says it can't be done. His comment isn't speaking to the parents at
all - it's not "it's like a cat and a dog trying to raise a rabbit" or
something like that, he's saying it's inherent in the person - born a goy,
always a goy.
I find that offensive, and am surprised, frankly, that Cindy doesn't.
--s
--
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
I do not understand how anyone, born of a Jewish mother, who practices
Buddhism or secularism would be seen as Jewish either.
cindys
> Steve Goldfarb wrote:
It wasn't tongue in cheek, but it didn't bother me nevertheless.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
sheldonlg
Grammar correction: Not "would had" but rather "did when".
cindys
I don't know who "Group A" is. I don't know who "Group B" is.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
Because I didn't take it at face value.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
sheldonlg
Group A is Orthodox, Group B is not.
Steve Goldfarb
>> He wrote something offensive, Shelly called him on it, Don was also
>> insulted. Why defend him? Why are our "Group A" posters not demanding he
>> apologize and tearing him apart, as they would had any "Group B" poster
>> said something similar?
>------------
>I don't know who "Group A" is. I don't know who "Group B" is.
I was intentionally trying to avoid the regularly-used labels, but
generally speaking it's the O-Affiliators versus the Non-O-Affiliators.
--s
--
Shmaryahu b. Chanoch
Years back, it was not uncommon for Reform and Secular Jews to have a
"cHanukkah Bush". This was illustrated within the movie "Driving Miss
Daisy". But then in the 1950s, '60s and '70s, Reform Judaism had
rejected Hebrew and was acting more like Presbyterians. We used to
refer to the Reform Temples as "Churches".
Things have changed and Reform is moving more towards Conservative.
Thanks to many kids now getting a good Jewish education.
Micha Berger
> Buddhism or secularism would be seen as Jewish either.
Yisrael, af al pi shechata, Yisrael hu.
An Israelite, even though he sinned, is an Israelite.
Even Oswald Rufejsen a/k/a Brother Daniel. He was born not far from
Oswiecim, Poland. To escape the Nazis when his town was suddently in
the shadow of the cloud rising from Auschwitz, he his in a monestray,
and ended up a Carmelite Munk. Then in the 1950s, he applied for Israeli
citizenship under the Law of Return.
The resulting ruling secularized the Law of Return, saying that Jews who
left the people for another religion would lose their special claim to
guaranteed Israeli citizenship. So, he got citizenship the usual way in
most countries -- naturalization.
Anyway...
It ain't a religion. By R rules, it's closer to a religion than by
halakhah, but not entirely defined by belief. The would agree with the
above talmudic aphorism in the case where both parents were Jewish,
or the person left Judaism later in life.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507
mm
<s...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <svSdnbipXOKDOrvW...@giganews.com> sheldonlg <shel...@giganews.com> writes:
>Steve had said:
>>> Actually I would have thought that Cindy ought to be insulted, given that
>>> she's raising dogs as cats, according to Meir. His statement wasn't
Don't say what is according to me. I"ll say what's according to me.
You can ask me if I agree with that, but don't put words in my mouth.
Furthermore, I talked about raising cats as dogs. Two posts in a row
had the order reversed, but you go back to the right order in the post
I'm replying to now, below.
>>> regarding the quality of the training, but it's inherent nature - he's
>>> saying no matter how authentic the Jewish experience, nevertheless you're
>>> raising goyim. His comment had nothing to do with mixed marriages. If I
>>> were Cindy, I'd be extremely offended.
>
>>Was that tongue in cheek? One of Cindy's sons decided to convert. She
>>tried and failed with the other one. Different situation.
Failed is a strong word and since I think she didnt' say exactly what
she was trying to do, it makes an assumption about what she was trying
to do. I think every Jew knows that his adopted child may decide not
to complete his conversion. One reason O conversions for adults take
at least a year is to give the person time to back out.
>
>Not at all tongue in cheek. I know Cindy's situation. What Meir said - put
>aside what he may or may not have meant - was that trying to raise a
>non-Jew as a Jew was like trying to raise a cat as a dog. He said nothing
What I said was that I was raising my cat as a dog. Anything more
that readers read into that were conclusions of the readers.
If my cat had had a bris and a mikvah when he was a kitten, and if I
taught him to eat only kosher kibble and not slaughter mice on
Shabbes, and he affirmed his conversion to dogdom when he turned 1
year 11 months (that's 13 in dog years), and that he would continue to
do the dog-like things I and his rabbis and teachers had taught him
and he'd continue to learn how to be a dog, he'd be as much a dog as
any other dog.
But I only had 7 words so I didn't say all that. This is what happens
when I try not to be verbose.
>nor implied anything about the manner in which one does so - he wasn't
>critiquing, as Cindy implies, on the basis that this type of training
>would not be effective because it was insufficiently thorough. No, he
>simply says it can't be done.
Simply! When RK used to post, I learned that whenever he, and
probably anyone, says "simply", there is an error nearby.
I never said it couldn't be done. I said, "I'm raising my cat as a
dog."
>His comment isn't speaking to the parents at
>all - it's not "it's like a cat and a dog trying to raise a rabbit" or
>something like that, he's saying it's inherent in the person - born a goy,
>always a goy.
>
>
>I find that offensive, and am surprised, frankly, that Cindy doesn't.
Cindy knows that those seven words didn't go into detail.
>--s
sheldonlg
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:25:31 +0000 (UTC), "Steve Goldfarb"
> <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In <svSdnbipXOKDOrvW...@giganews.com> sheldonlg <shel...@giganews.com> writes:
>> Steve had said:
>>>> Actually I would have thought that Cindy ought to be insulted, given that
>>>> she's raising dogs as cats, according to Meir. His statement wasn't
>
> Don't say what is according to me. I"ll say what's according to me.
> You can ask me if I agree with that, but don't put words in my mouth.
>
> Furthermore, I talked about raising cats as dogs. Two posts in a row
> had the order reversed, but you go back to the right order in the post
> I'm replying to now, below.
>
>>>> regarding the quality of the training, but it's inherent nature - he's
>>>> saying no matter how authentic the Jewish experience, nevertheless you're
>>>> raising goyim. His comment had nothing to do with mixed marriages. If I
>>>> were Cindy, I'd be extremely offended.
>>> Was that tongue in cheek? One of Cindy's sons decided to convert. She
>>> tried and failed with the other one. Different situation.
>
> Failed is a strong word and since I think she didnt' say exactly what
> she was trying to do, it makes an assumption about what she was trying
> to do. I think every Jew knows that his adopted child may decide not
> to complete his conversion. One reason O conversions for adults take
> at least a year is to give the person time to back out.
I don't think Cindy would agree. She raised him as a Jewish boy in the
hope that this would lead to his converting. It didn't happen. Ergo,
she failed in that attempt. Nothing wrong with that. Failing at times
is a sad part of life.
>> Not at all tongue in cheek. I know Cindy's situation. What Meir said - put
>> aside what he may or may not have meant - was that trying to raise a
>> non-Jew as a Jew was like trying to raise a cat as a dog. He said nothing
>
> What I said was that I was raising my cat as a dog. Anything more
> that readers read into that were conclusions of the readers.
Then explain WHY you posted that and EXACTLY what you meant. Quite a
few of us read it the same way and, pssst, it wasn't raising cats as dogs.
>
> If my cat had had a bris and a mikvah when he was a kitten, and if I
> taught him to eat only kosher kibble and not slaughter mice on
> Shabbes, and he affirmed his conversion to dogdom when he turned 1
> year 11 months (that's 13 in dog years), and that he would continue to
> do the dog-like things I and his rabbis and teachers had taught him
> and he'd continue to learn how to be a dog, he'd be as much a dog as
> any other dog.
>
> But I only had 7 words so I didn't say all that. This is what happens
> when I try not to be verbose.
Meir, we aren't going to be buying that bridge you are trying to sell us.
>
>> nor implied anything about the manner in which one does so - he wasn't
>> critiquing, as Cindy implies, on the basis that this type of training
>> would not be effective because it was insufficiently thorough. No, he
>> simply says it can't be done.
>
> Simply! When RK used to post, I learned that whenever he, and
> probably anyone, says "simply", there is an error nearby.
>
> I never said it couldn't be done. I said, "I'm raising my cat as a
> dog."
>
>> His comment isn't speaking to the parents at
>> all - it's not "it's like a cat and a dog trying to raise a rabbit" or
>> something like that, he's saying it's inherent in the person - born a goy,
>> always a goy.
>>
>>
>> I find that offensive, and am surprised, frankly, that Cindy doesn't.
>
> Cindy knows that those seven words didn't go into detail.
That was not what Cindy said.
cindys
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:25:31 +0000 (UTC), "Steve Goldfarb"
>
> Cindy knows that those seven words didn't go into detail.
"Dana Green is hot."
When the talkback guy said "Dana Green is hot," he may have meant that
he found her attractive, nothing more, nothing less, or he may have
meant that he found the entire "Mother's Circle" thing to be an
exercise in futility, so the time could be equally well spent
discussing Dana Green's appearance. Or maybe he meant something
entirely different. Or maybe the guy was just a nut. I don't know why,
but when I read those words, it just really made me laugh.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
cindys
> mm wrote:
> > On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 21:25:31 +0000 (UTC), "Steve Goldfarb"
> > <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> Steve had said:
> >>>> Actually I would have thought that Cindy ought to be insulted, given that
> >>>> she's raising dogs as cats, according to Meir. His statement wasn't
>
> > Don't say what is according to me. I"ll say what's according to me.
> > You can ask me if I agree with that, but don't put words in my mouth.
>
> > Furthermore, I talked about raising cats as dogs. Two posts in a row
> > had the order reversed, but you go back to the right order in the post
> > I'm replying to now, below.
>
> >>>> regarding the quality of the training, but it's inherent nature - he's
> >>>> saying no matter how authentic the Jewish experience, nevertheless you're
> >>>> raising goyim. His comment had nothing to do with mixed marriages. If I
> >>>> were Cindy, I'd be extremely offended.
> >>> Was that tongue in cheek? One of Cindy's sons decided to convert. She
> >>> tried and failed with the other one. Different situation.
>
> > Failed is a strong word and since I think she didnt' say exactly what
> > she was trying to do, it makes an assumption about what she was trying
> > to do. I think every Jew knows that his adopted child may decide not
> > to complete his conversion. One reason O conversions for adults take
> > at least a year is to give the person time to back out.
>
> I don't think Cindy would agree. She raised him as a Jewish boy in the
> hope that this would lead to his converting. It didn't happen. Ergo,
> she failed in that attempt. Nothing wrong with that. Failing at times
> is a sad part of life.
Actually, I do agree. I did raise him Jewish. I hoped he would
convert, but I always knew that he could decide not to, and he always
knew the choice was his. I don't really consider it a "failure," and
I'm really not sad. I did my best, I couldn't have done more, and I
don't have any regrets.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Adelle
"mm" <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:asmbi550j2j0u8218...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:29:21 +0000 (UTC), fla...@verizon.net wrote:
>
>>
>>On 13-Dec-2009, mm <NOPSAM...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Although there would be an implied preference for the second one if
>>> one went to the trouble to raise a cat as a dog, a girl as a tomboy,
>>> or a non-Jew as a Jew. I've gotten the impression that most tomboys
>>> grow out of it for the most part.
>>
>>No, we don't. We just grow to reject labels.
>
> What I meant was is that I've gotten the impression that most tomboys
> later learn to like wearing dresses and high heels some of the time,
> and decorating the house, etc. in *addition* to commercial fishing,
> deer hunting, baseball, etc. But I have't taken a survey with a
> statiistically valid sample.
>
Not true. I'll wear dresses when the occasion calls for them, heels less
often (mostly flats - watching me walk in heals is a source of considerable
amusement), and crocs or Uggs the rest of the time.
Am very 'decorating challenged' even though I have a great eye for color
when I do thread based crafting.
We may do it, doesn't mean we like it.
And I can catch a Frisbee, if it is thrown close enough.
Adelle
Adelle
"cindys" <cst...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ba702a68-76b6-45b8...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 13, 5:45 pm, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
> cindys wrote:
> > On Dec 13, 4:23 pm, sheldonlg <sheldo...@giganews.com> wrote:
> > snip
> >> The FATHER is Jewish and the child is being raised as Jewish. Ergo, in
> >> Reform Judaism the child is Jewish. To say otherwise the way Meir did,
> >> is inciting an OCR war.
> > ------------
> > No, Meir didn't say that. And the article didn't even address this
> > subject. The article was about dual-faith households where Christian
> > mothers are learning to teach their children Jewish rituals. The
> > article never mentioned Reform Judaism, never mentioned patrilineal
> > descent, never discussed "who is a Jew." Apparently, you didn't read
> > the article.
> > Best regards,
>
> Just the first few pages. That DID mention Jewish father and DID
> mention raise as a Jew. Those two together equals Jewish in Reform --
> whether or not the subject was explicitly mentioned in the article.
-------
I don't think that it does. AFAIK, in order for the child to be
considered Jewish, the family would have to approach a Reform rabbi,
join the synagogue, be active members. But even if they don't need to
do all of that --- The people in the article may be saying that they
are raising their children to be Jews, but when they have Christmas
trees and Easter Egg hunts and celebrate Christian holidays, the
children are clearly being raised half Jewish, half Christian. At the
very least, being "raised Jewish" precludes celebrating Christmas,
does it not? And as long as there is a tree in the house, as long as
the children are helping to decorate it, as long as they are getting
Christmas presents, as long as they are hunting for Easter eggs they
are not being "raised Jewish" no matter how many menorahs they light.
And Adelle replies -
No Cindy, it does not.
(donning asbestos everything)
My daughter, just accepted as a Maimonides Jewish Leadership Fellow, who has
studied in Israel and now spends most Shabbatot at Chabad (and even babysits
for the Rabbi), has grown up with Christmas in her own home and has dyed egs
during the springtime. As has my son. I was always a little trepidacious of
whether he was forming a Jewish identity or not, but he is now president of
his Jr. USY chapter and wants to go to Gann Acadamy, the inclusive Jewish
high school here in MA.
We celebrate because of 'kaved et avicha,' respect for thier father, my
husband, the man who does so much to facilitate rasing Jewish children. We
do so for shalom ha'bayit. He has given up so much. The very least I can
give him is being able to share with his children the few things from which
he has positive associations. It is really weird for me, but as long as we
keep it as 'secular' as possible, I will deal with it. A man who does so
much deserves a little compassion.
Adelle
sheldonlg
I don't understand. You tried everything you could to raise him in such
a way that he would decide to convert. He didn't, so that effort failed
in its goal. How else can you categorize it? Your other goal was to
raise him as a mentsch. In that you succeeded. I didn't mean to imply
in any way that you failed as a parent -- just in your effort to get him
to decide to be a Jew.