Is there anything that Sikhs and Jews have in common...

[Boojatta]

that they don't also have in common with all the rest of the people in the world?

[foo_bar]

1. funny hats?

[Madam Mossfern]

2. I don't know, but

when I took the religious preference test in another thread I came out closest to Sikh, and I'm Jewish!

[aquart]

3. So true. Them and the Amish.

It's the willingness to be separated and distinct from the dominant culture.

Some would call it patriarchal mind control. But what do they know?

[foo_bar]

5. I hadn't thought of it that way, but it's true that only men wear the special headgarment

Even in "Reform" Judaism (reformist by 18th century Prussian standards) I can't say I've ever seen a woman wearing a yarmulke, or even a female rabbi (although "Reconstructionist" Judaism or whatever it's called nowadays permits both (along with gay marriage and gay/lesbian rabbis), but they're a tiny minority compared to the various Orthodox movements) (and "Reform" in one locale might be more conservative than "Orthodox" in other places so it's difficult to make much of the labels; there might be Reform congregations where women are allowed to wear t'fillin and whatnot, but I wonder how many women even want to dress up like 5000 year old men). Can't speak for the Sikh faith, although there's some interesting theological disputes in that vicinity:

Digambars believe that women cannot attain moksha in the same birth, while Svetambars believe that women may attain liberation and that Mallinath, a Tirthankar, was a woman. The difference is because Digambar asceticism requires nudity. As nudity is impractical for women, it follows that without it they cannot attain moksha.<53> This is based on the belief that women cannot reach perfect purity (yathakhyata), "Their lack of clothes can, therefore, be a hindrance to their leading a holy life". The earliest record of this belief is contained in the Prakrit Suttapahuda of the Digambara mendicant Kundakunda (c. second century A.D. ).<54>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

[Meshuga]

11. There are varieties of orthodox but the vast majority is non-orthodox

At one point in the 1990's the orthodox movements comprised of less than 10% of religious jews. It probably grew some but not substantially. The two big movements are the Reform and the Conservative.

And I have never seen a Reform synagogue that is more strict than orthodox. If that is the case I think they would have trouble affiliating to the movement because it would defeat the purpose of being a Reform Synagogue.

As far as wearing kippah, in old school Reform even men never wore kippah because of the rejection of some Jewish practices. Kippah was considered aesthetically offensive and were sometimes prohibited. Some Reform Synagogues, as recent as in the 1960's, would tell people to take the kippah off if they showed up wearing a kippah.

I have been a member of Reform and Conservative synagogues and in both movements there were always women who wore kippah. In Reform Synagogues they usually don't require men or women to wear kippah. The person is free to make a choice but there are exceptions. My current synagogue is a classic Reform synagogue so it would be strange for me to wear a kippah or tallit to services except for the High Holidays. They would probably say a big "WTF?" if I showed up with tefillin. :-)

In conservative synagogues, men must wear a kippah (and tallit for Torah services), and depending on the Conservative community, some women wear kippah as well if they choose to do so.

[foo_bar]

12. "I have never seen a Reform synagogue that is more strict than orthodox" ... I have.

Or more to the point, I've met "Modern Orthodox" folks who were more liberal within certain traditions (like separating the womenfolk at every opportunity) than Reform Jews I've known in the No. Philly area or parts of Connecticut, where the rabbi and laity took a harder line on some of the ritualistic rigamarole. I know it seems unlikely if you judge a congregation by its label, but that's my point: there's no universal definition of "Reform" or "Orthodox", given the absence of a strong hierarchy to enforce doctrinal differences within the spectra of reconstructionist/reform/conservative/(modern)(ultra-?)orthodox Judaism, other than the Chasidic sects with strong authority figures. Not to get all wiki, but..

Although US Reform, UK Reform, and Israeli Progressive Judaism all share an intellectual heritage, they have taken places at different ends of the non-orthodox spectrum. The US Reform movement reflects the more radical end. The UK Reform<7><8><9> and Progressive Israeli movements,<10> along with the US Conservative movement and Masorti Judaism, occupy the more conservative end of the non-orthodox Judaisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism

If that is the case I think they would have trouble affiliating to the movement because it would defeat the purpose of being a Reform Synagogue.

What is the purpose of "being a Reform Synagogue" exactly? In some places it's the liberal alternative to an Orthodox or middle of the road conservative shul, in other places and times it's the conservative alternative to more-radical strains, and within the Reform movement you can find kippah-wearing and non-kippah-wearing and willing-to-say-a-bracha-on-a-Christmas-tree versus not (as the joke goes).

My current synagogue is a classic Reform synagogue

I don't know if there's such a thing as "classic Reform", any more than "a true Scotsman"; there's many different ideas sharing the umbrella of Reform ("Reform Judaism refers to the *spectrum* (emphasis mine) of beliefs practices and organizational infrastructure associated with Reform Judaism" -lame source), and the Progressive Movement is distinct from the Reform Movement yet shares some of the same roster, so I wouldn't use your current synagogue as anecdotal evidence of what-Reform-is.

less than 10% of religious jews

Depends on your definition of "religious":

Surveys show that Orthodox Jews account for about 10 percent of the 5.2 million Jews in the United States and about 20 percent of synagogue-affiliated Jews. (There are ongoing debates about the exact figures).

http://www.religionlink.org/tip_070827.php

If you mean "affiliated with a synagogue" then the number seems a little higher, but I guess it's more like a ballpark estimate anyway.

[Meshuga]

14. The Reform movement has a set of principles

The most current is the 1999 Pittsburgh Platform (which welcomes more Jewish tradition than past statements of principles but it is not anywhere near being halakhic like a modern orthodox synagogue requires) so I would disagree with you when you say "there's no universal definition of 'Reform'". There is no governance in the Reform movement but this doesn't mean the movement does not have characteristics that sets Reform synagogues apart from other movements. Especially from the orthodox moments of any stripe that see Jewish law as binding. The Reform movement preaches autonomy over a law that is not seen as binding so a Reform Jew will follow only the traditions they find to be meaningful.

People who affiliate to orthodox synagogues who don't follow tradition and Jewish law are easy to find but this fact does not make a Reform Synagogue more traditional than some of the modern orthodox synagogues. I mean, I have friends who don't follow tradition, who consider themselves Reform Jews but affiliate to orthodox shuls for the sake of proximity.

But in order to affiliate to the Reform movement our own congregation had to go through a process which included showing what we were all about an how we fit. Judaism may not have a vatican but the Reform movement has leadership for its own movement just like the conservative and Reconstrucionalist have for their movements. The Reform movement has the URJ in the US and the WUPJ as its world wide branch. The Conservative movement has the Rabbinical Assembly, the USCJ, JTS, Masorti Olami. The Reconstructionist movement has the JRF, and in some cases, they also affiliate to the WUPJ.

Sure, Reform Judaism has a spectrum but this spectrum is within the different sets of principles defined by the CCAR and the URJ. Some Reform synagogues are more traditional than others but they are nothing like the modern orthodox.

The movements have their own standards set by their leadership and like the Reconstructionist movement, the Reform movement has ordained women rabbis and gay rabbis. The Conservative movement has women rabbis and a couple of years ago they changed their rules to allow the ordination of gay rabbis. Orthodox synagogues (modern or not) do not allow gay rabbis, do not allow women rabbis, do not allow women to sit with men in services, do not allow women to have Torah honors, etc.

Now, could you name a Reform congregation that is a halakhic congregation therefore more traditional than orthodox? And can you also name a modern Orthodox synagogue that is not a halakhic synagogue? What are the names of these Reform synagogues in Philly and Connecticut? And the rabbis? I could be wrong so it would be interesting to learn the facts but even if they exist they are exceptions. It would be very bizarre seeing an orthodox rabbi wanting to affiliate to the Reform movement.

The Conservative movement, on the other hand, allows for a larger spectrum. So, while the Conservative movement has very liberal rabbis it also allows more orthodox rabbis.

don't know if there's such a thing as "classic Reform", any more than "a true Scotsman";

I meant "Classical Reform" but wrongly wrote "Classic Reform".

"Classical Reform" is merely a label used for the communities that hold the old school Reform principles (which are closer to the Pittsburgh platform of 1885 than the most current of 1999 statement of principles) when the movement was more "radical" as far as not following tradition. And my synagogue is closer to the first set of principles set in the beginning as opposed to a synagogue that identifies with the modern (but still not halakhic) set of principles from 1999 platform.

willing-to-say-a-bracha-on-a-Christmas-tree versus not (as the joke goes).

Saying that "willing-to-say-a-bracha-on-a-Christmas-tree" is legitimate form of Reform judaism is bullshit and a stupid stereotype enjoyed by orthodox to belittle the Reform movement since the orthodox like to question the legitimacy of non-orthodox movements. The joke is based on pure ignorance about the principles of the Reform movement.

If you mean "affiliated with a synagogue" then the number seems a little higher, but I guess it's more like a ballpark estimate anyway.

Yes, I meant affiliated Jews.


And to go back to the original argument, women do wear kippah (if they wish) in Reform and Conservative synagogues. I personally don't see why they can't and plenty of them do wear them funny hats:

[foo_bar]

15. talk about the golden ratio of two Jews : three synagogues

The Reform movement preaches autonomy over a law that is not seen as binding so a Reform Jew will follow only the traditions they find to be meaningful.

You could as well be describing the (oft-ignored) Reconstructionist movement:

Halakha is not considered binding, but is treated as a valuable cultural remnant that should be upheld unless there is reason for the contrary. The movement emphasizes positive views towards modernism, and considers religious custom to be subservient to personal autonomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstructionist_Judaism

Compare and contrast:

In 1825, lay members of Beth Elohim in Charleston, South Carolina founded the Reformed Society of Israelites as a breakaway ground seeking mild reforms.<9> In America, while the Charleston effort "was only slightly influenced by the German model," this soon changed: "the classical Reform ideology in America was almost fully developed in Europe and transplanted to the United States."<10>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_movement_in_Judaism

I mean, I have friends who don't follow tradition, who consider themselves Reform Jews but affiliate to orthodox shuls for the sake of proximity.

And they weren't struck by lightning? Seriously, I have (ex-)friends/family who followed "tradition" in the Tevye sense ("on the one hand..."), who considered themselves Reform Jews, but were religiously/traditionally quite conservative relative to my (anecdotally) Orthodox stepfamily in Washington Heights, who observed the letter of halakhic tradition but not the oppressive spirit that subsequent generations appended to the relatively progressive ideas of Maimonides and the Talmudic hair-splitters (although you can always find textual justification for being a tyrant if you read between the lines, in any religion).

Some Reform synagogues are more traditional than others but they are nothing like the modern orthodox.

I think the latter part of this statement is based on a false assumption, given my experience of the overlapping spectra of the many congregations within Reform vs. the many flavors of Orthodox, but it might be a necessary assumption in order to feel like you aren't wasting your time on a G-d who only listens to Hindu or ultra-Orthodox prayers, Pascal's Wager being what it is. I'm not preaching a particular faith or set of customs, just pointing out that the labels are fairly counterproductive once you wander outside your burg (such as UK "Reform" being more (lower case c) conservative than its Reform counterparts in other diasporic Reform movements).

And can you also name a modern Orthodox synagogue that is not a halakhic synagogue?
Now, could you name a Reform congregation that is a halakhic congregation therefore more traditional than orthodox?

No, I'm saying that the "halakhic" label is about as useful a distinction as a K symbol on a rancid hot dog; my extended Orthodox German family treats women like human beings, whereas my Reform in-laws in Trumbull Connecticut relegated all the women in the family to chattel status using pseudo-religious justification, so textual halakhic traditions alone don't determine their eventual interpretation and application, and Orthodox isn't a synonym for fundamentalist, although it certainly can be. In fact, the people who actually read Talmud cover to cover seem more likely to understand the traditions they dispense (and I'm speaking as an agnostic) than the Reform/Conservatives who only experienced the second-hand interpretations of the primary texts, and thus could rationalize many oppressive not-quite-halakhically-defined beliefs (as is the case with fundamentalist Christianity, for instance, where artifacts of King James's translation take precedence over what's actually written in Hebrew/Aramaic; to me, fundamentalist means utter belief in a document you haven't yet read, which places my anecdotal Connecticut Reform in-laws in that category but not my letter-of-the-law Orthodox family branch who somehow knew better than to say "God wants you to do X").

Saying that "willing-to-say-a-bracha-on-a-Christmas-tree" is legitimate form of Reform judaism is bullshit and a stupid stereotype enjoyed by orthodox to belittle the Reform movement since the orthodox like to question the legitimacy of non-orthodox movements. The joke is based on pure ignorance about the principles of the Reform movement.

Humorlessness is a symptom of insecurity in one's faith, IMO, but you're entitled to your gut reaction. I first encountered the joke in "The Big Book of Jewish Humor", more of a bible for secular-humanist-agnostic Jews than true believers, and admittedly the contents are hoary chestnuts, but I've discovered that jokes are an effective way of bridging taboo subjects that aren't otherwise deemed proper conversation. I was actually making the opposite point of the joke-as-written: within Reform you can find rabbis who might seem Reconstructionist from the outside (like the guy who oversaw my bar mitzvah at Temple Emanuel in Cherry Hill, who used a wireless microphone on shabbos and whatnot), and you can find folks like my "Reform" Connecticut ex-relatives who would sooner die than mix milk and meat or men and women, and then you have everything in between. Yes, there's a codified set of principles that are supposed to guide membership in a Reform congregation (as distinct from the Progressive Movement), but you can say the same of Catholicism yet you have liberal Jesuits and dogmatic Dominicans all nominally following the word of the same Church hierarchy/scripture, so the devil is apparently in the details.

[Meshuga]

17. The Reconstructionist movement is not often ignored either

It is a small movement but very influential in American non-orthodox Judaism and more influential in orthodoxy than orthodox Jews would like to admit. It is my opinion that Mordechai Kaplan allowed Reform Judaism to welcome tradition and he has influence in the evolution of the Reform movement and its newer set of principles. He obviously has a lot of influence on the Conservative movement as well.

I think the latter part of this statement is based on a false assumption

It is not based on assumptions but experience.

The labels are not about belief or how Jews deal with belief in God. If you read jewish history and see how Jews reacted to their own emancipation you will see that the different movements were about the different opinions on how to act in how to make Judaism survive now that Jews were given full citizenship in Europe and US and not how Jews should believe. The Classical Reform rejected tradition (not belief) because they believed the tradition would lead to assimilation. Orthodoxy was a reaction to the extreme ways of the Reform movement since in their opinion Reform would lead to more assimilation since Reform abandoned tradition.

The labels are there to distinguish the different ways to go about Judaism and the existence of the different official movements is a consequence of that. If a movement is no longer halakhic it can no longer be considered orthodox by definition. Modern orthodox sees halakhah as binding so they are orthodox movement. The reform movement doesn't see halakhah as binding and rejects all the governance that the orthodox movements see as sacred.

Again, just because members of an orthodox synagogue are not observant it doesn't mean the movement is not halakhic. In the same way that if a UK Reform movement embraces more tradition than the Reform movement in the US it doesn't mean the UK movement is halakhic either.

I think the disconnect in our "debate" is not a case of "where there are two Jews there are three opinions" but a consequence of my argument being about the movements and your argument being about individual Jews and personal relationship to those who claim to be a label.

You know, some reform Jews might like having sex with chickens but that doesn't make the movement condone bestiality or the practice be an offical practice of the Reform movement. Same goes with the orthodox.

No, I'm saying that the "halakhic" label is about as useful a distinction as a K symbol on a rancid hot dog

I agree with you if we are talking about individuals but that's a false comparison in regards to movements. Again, you are arguing individual when I am arguing principles of movements. Halakhic means nothing to an individual unless he makes an effort to follow Jewish law and there are plenty of self-labeled orthodox Jews who are not observant. So yes, applying "halakhic" to an individual is pretty meaningless. But a movement can be halakhic in its principles whereas the law is taken into consideration for every congregational decision. The Reform principles originally rejected ritual laws and made ethical laws binding. Now they no longer reject ritual law but make it optional in case the individual Jew finds a particular practice to be meaningful.

Humorlessness is a symptom of insecurity in one's faith, IMO

Who here is talking about faith or defending belief? And just because you took your joke from the Big Book Of Jewish Humor it doesn't excuse it from being a stereotype based on ignorance about the principles of a movement. Besides, The joke not being funny has more to do with your delivery of the joke and not with the joke itself. I would laugh at it as a joke. But you were using it to support a stereotype to prove a ridiculous point.

And who is saying that Reform Rabbis could not be close to Reconstructionist from the outside?

And it is laughable to say that a Reform rabbi who would allow a wireless microphone on shabbos "seems Reconstructionist". That's a ridiculous claim since it assumes that such Reform rabbi would be an exception. Usage of any kind of microphone, musical instruments, electronic devices, etc. are probably the most criticized practices used by the orthodox when when they charge Reform rabbis for desecrating shabbat. I mean, what are you talking about? Go to your closest JCC and take an intro to Judaism class to learn more about the movements. They are great and it will help this stuff make sense.

I think you need to study the principles instead of relying on personal stories. Perhaps it would help you rid of some myths. Also, call reform rabbis of different stripes and you will be surprised. I can give you some direct numbers of different rabbis from different stripes who can fill you in so you don't have to take my word for all this.

[foo_bar]

19. as a non-believer, I admit it all sounds rather meshuge

I think you need to study the principles instead of relying on personal stories.

I think you need to see how people actually practice Judaism instead of relying on what you're told second-hand; initially you shared your personal anecdotes, so I shared mine. Perhaps it would help you rid of some myths, such as "Classic Reform" or the notion that the "Reform" label magically confers a liberal/modern outlook that may or may not be there in practice.

But you were using it to support a stereotype to prove a ridiculous point.

Sorry it was your ox being gored (and mine, as I was raised "Reform" at the aforementioned Temple Emanuel, but found the whole experience of discussing the joys of Leviticus by breaking every Levitical law somewhat hypocritical, whereas Orthodoxy in any religion or movement has no appeal to me, be it the hypocrisy of Orthodox Judaism with shabbos goys and self-motivated shabbos elevators, or the orthodoxy of Reform/Conservative believers who insist that I just haven't been to the right Reform synagogue yet (edit: or spoken to the right rabbi), at which point I realize organized religion probably isn't for me).

Go to your closest JCC and take an intro to Judaism class to learn more about the movements

Go to your nearest library; I've been to plenty of JCCs, and didn't discover much difference with the Catholic or even secular municipal versions other than the particulars of the swimming pool and which concepts you can safely discuss without being kicked out the club (and yes, non-believers can be just as bad when it comes to orthodoxy, but for whatever reason I have more interesting arguments with non-believers-in-a-particular-sect-or-denomination).

You know, some reform Jews might like having sex with chickens but that doesn't make the movement condone bestiality or the practice be an offical practice of the Reform movement. Same goes with the orthodox.

At least you read Portnoy's Complaint (or knew the reference), so you aren't completely sheltered from approaching taboos in the guise of humor (poor delivery notwithstanding). I wouldn't extrapolate the personal practices of every Jew I've met into the guidelines of their (at one time, our) respective movements, but I also wouldn't pretend that the movements exist in some sort of theoretical vacuum where the daily application of these sometimes-codified principles is necessarily consistent or even internally consistent.

[Meshuga]

20. I do practice Judaism

I am a practicing Jew who up to this past spring was affiliated to two synagogues. And I am an active member. So the information I get is not second hand. And don't worry, I use the library and have a growing library myself. There is never enough material to study.

And what does the fact that you are a non-believer have to do with anything? And why would someone get kicked out of JCC? This exchange is getting ridiculous.

There is nothing wrong with you telling me your personal anecdotes but given the ignorant stuff you posted here I have reasons to believe at least some of them are bullshit. Some of the stuff you claim is so crazy I don't even know how to respond. Like, for example, when you say that "Classical Reform is a myth". What the hell does that mean? Are you saying this is a myth? Is the URJ a myth as well and the massive number of synagogues affiliated to the URJ that adhere to these Reform principles?

You have said so much crazy and uninformed shit that I am starting to think you are fucking with me and having fun at my expense.

You originally said women never wore kippah and since you digressed to more silliness to put it mildly.

[foo_bar]

21. "Classic(al) Reform" is meaningful, "my synagogue is... classic Reform" is not (to my knowledge)

My current synagogue is a classic Reform

I pointed out that there's no such movement as little-c "classic Reform" (to my knowledge of Judaica, limited to first-hand experience, personal vignettes, and primary/secondary texts pertaining to the subject, which doesn't include novelists and skeptics like Roth and Bellow, survivors asking "God why hast thou forsaken me?" as Elie Wiesel or Primo Levi (and the Book of Job can hardly be canonical for raising these questions), philosophers like Spinoza, or anybody else who might inadvertently insert their humanist bias into the proper deconstruction of Torah), while there is a historical context for something called "Classic(al) Reform":

This freedom can be broken into two periods. The first period, sometimes called "Classic Reform", runs from the start of Reform Judaism until around the 1960s.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/judaism/FAQ/10-Reform/section-11.html

Just to make things more confusing, at least in terms of the relationship between geography and local custom:

The foundations of Classical Reform Judaism were first enunciated in 1885 in a document known as The Pittsburgh Platform of Reform Judaism.

http://www.chicagosinai.org/liberal_reform_judaism/what_is_classical_reform.cfm

Writing "my synagogue is *classic* Reform" (emphasis mine) seemed like a circular definition, like saying "this is *classic* hip-hop not the new school stuff" (as opposed to big-C Classic(al), like the music and architecture and Reform movements that actually existed), and came across as slightly chauvinistic and a "True Scotsman fallacy" in the implication that encounters concerning Reform Jews behaving badly were merely examples of non-classic Reform, just as a criminal Scotsman must be an untrue one, if you believe all Scotsmen are perfection/angels, or all Reform Jews are more liberal/tolerant/respectful-of-the-other than all Orthodox Jews (which doesn't appear to be the case in either case).

And why would someone get kicked out of JCC?

I haven't been physically escorted from anyone's premises except in the case of bars, "kicked out of the club" is an expression which means disinvited from future participation in a particular granfalloon. Of course I wasn't excommunicated, as the concept is (mostly) strange to Judaism, but "the club" doesn't tend to invite skepticism by perceived outsiders whether that club is Judaic or secular or Catholic or even a book club, in my experience including this subthread. But I'm sure my critical nature or upbringing has something to do with the difficulty fitting into social hierarchies.

And what does the fact that you are a non-believer have to do with anything?

You seemed to labor under the impression that I was borrowing Orthodox criticism of the Reform movement, when in fact I find most Orthodox teachings far more hypocritical and baroque than their Reform counterparts (to which I subscribed until I left Brandeis (what does Brandeis have to do with anything? nothing, just burnishing my secular Jew cred)), thus my exposure to "The Big Book of Jewish Humor" had more to do with the Brucha-on-a-christmas-tree-joke than religious zeal, of which I try to have little (perhaps not always successfully, but I can still marvel at the guys wearing 19th century furry hats in Williamsburg, because it is like witnessing the Amish if you were born a semi-modern secular American).

You originally said women never wore kippah

I wrote, "I can't say I've ever seen a woman wearing a yarmulke", which is true. I also wrote "it's true that only men wear the special headgarment", which might be false, if your photographs are credible evidence, although historically true until the 20th century, to my selective and potentially biased knowledge. Can we agree on a revised statement, such as "it's true that historically the special headgarment was reserved for men in Judaism until modern times, and perhaps in the Sikh faith as well, but it's an arbitrary distinction anyway because there was actually a sect of ancient Sikhs that believed nudity was the proper expression of patriarchal dominance over women, sans headgear?"

adhere to these Reform principles?

Again, codified principles are at the core of every organized religion, but the principles tend to be subsumed by the extant beliefs of the practitioner, such that "Reform" in one place and time can end up being more oppressive and strict (and has, in my experience) than a halakhically bound Orthodox believer who chooses not to shove his unique neuroses down everyone's throat in the guise of spirituality. Of course schtupping a chicken doesn't make it Jewish law, but making Jewish law doesn't make it commonly enforced or understood law (even Mt. Sinai raised more questions than answers), so there's always a discrepancy between the idea on paper and the eventual practice thereof.

I apologise for making you think I'm fucking with you, it's only the case if "fucking with" means "hoping to get a meaningful answer out of".

[Meshuga]

23. I already made the correction in an earlier post to show my point

See post #14 where I even used bold font to make the correction from "classic" to "classical". I believe that your insistence in using "classic" is just an attempt to create a strawman. And I didn't even mean "Classical Reform" as a movement but the ways of a specific congregation. It is not meant to say that my Reform synagogue is "The True Reform Synagogue" and the others aren't. I was merely saying my current synagogue chooses to follow practices closer to the 1885 principles than practices form the 1999 principles. Not that it is better or a more legitimate form. It's just a choice and a group of people who identify with that choice.

But if this works for you in order to continue the strawman with you charge of "no true Scotsman" fallacy then go right ahead.

"kicked out of the club" is an expression which means dis-invited from future participation in a particular granfalloon.

Okay, I will rephrase my question. You said, "which concepts you can safely discuss without being kicked out the club (and yes, non-believers can be just as bad when it comes to orthodoxy, but for whatever reason I have more interesting arguments with non-believers-in-a-particular-sect-or-denomination)" in regards to the JCC. So which concepts would those be?

The JCC is open to everyone in the community from the atheist Jew to the believing Jew. Besides the pool, recreational facilities, social club, etc. they also have a variety of classes from all across the Jewish spectrum. The concept of the JCC was created by Mordechai Kaplan (founder of Reconstructionist Jewish idea) whose theology was not of a conventional believer. So what would be the taboo non-belief that would make one feel like an outsider?

The idea in Reconstructionist Judaism is that Judaism is an evolving civilization and what some Jews believe to be commandments from God are just Jewish folkways. Jewish identity and/or following Jewish folkways that you find meaningful are ways of participating in this particular granfalloon. So good luck getting dis-invited! Unless you choose not to self-identify as a Jew or follow any folkway but in this case you are choosing to dis-invite yourself and that is a valid choice.

You seemed to labor under the impression that I was borrowing Orthodox criticism of the Reform movement, when in fact I find most Orthodox teachings far more hypocritical and baroque than their Reform counterparts ... my exposure to "The Big Book of Jewish Humor" had more to do with the Brucha-on-a-christmas-tree-joke than religious zeal, of which I try to have little (perhaps not always successfully, but I can still marvel at the guys wearing 19th century furry hats in Williamsburg, because it is like witnessing the Amish if you were born a semi-modern secular American).

When I point out that "Brucha-on-a-christmas-tree-joke" is rooted from the orthodox attempt to demean and disqualify Reform Judaism as a legitimate form of Judaism it did not say anything about your own personal beliefs or lack of beliefs. Or what I think of them. I would not know your beliefs or lack of beliefs until you tell me what they are. So yes, beliefs are irrelevant to me when talking about this particular point. Ignorance about the principles of a Jewish movement is what is relevant here.

I wrote, "I can't say I've ever seen a woman wearing a yarmulke", which is true. I also wrote "it's true that only men wear the special headgarment", which might be false

Fair enough, I was being snarky. My bad. But I reinforce that although Reconstructionist Judaism is a minority it is not the only movement that allows gay marriage and gay/lesbian rabbis. The Reform movement (probably the largest Jewish movement) has gay/lesbian rabbis and not accepting them goes with what the CCAR in its own responsum sees as infringement on the civil liberties of a discriminated group.

A Reform synagogue that is more strict in observance than orthodox could very well exist (and I still would love to know more details about the ones you claim to exist) but such synagogue would be an exception to the norm of Reform and it would be a waste of their time affiliating to a non-Halakhic organization. If anything, they would find themselves aligned with the Conservative Movement, but now that the Conservative are allowing gay ordination and gay marriages the so called "Reform" synagogue might think twice and be just another independent orthodox congregation.

Again, codified principles are at the core of every organized religion, but the principles tend to be subsumed by the extant beliefs of the practitioner, such that "Reform" in one place and time can end up being more oppressive and strict (and has, in my experience) than a halakhically bound Orthodox believer who chooses not to shove his unique neuroses down everyone's throat in the guise of spirituality. Of course schtupping a chicken doesn't make it Jewish law, but making Jewish law doesn't make it commonly enforced or understood law (even Mt. Sinai raised more questions than answers), so there's always a discrepancy between the idea on paper and the eventual practice thereof"

The set of principles in the Reform Judaism is meant to be guidance (not governance) so there is a spectrum of observance, obviously. But if you want to claim that Reform Judaism "can end up being more oppressive and strict" you will have to give concrete evidence than vague personal anecdotes. I am not willing to take your word for it. The core of Reform Movement (according to its principles) is personal autonomy with a person following Judaism that is meaningful to him/herself in mind. Why would a synagogue or a rabbi want to affiliate to such movement if they don't agree with its principles? It makes no sense.

[foo_bar]

25. "concrete evidence" of my uber Archie Bunker-esque Reform relatives?

And the Reform congregation with which they found safe harbor for their extant oppressive tendencies? I'll see what I can do. Videotaped confessions are probably out of the question, as these anecdotes concern people with whom I'm not on a speaking basis, and their place of worship (where I witnessed their rabbi deliver a spectacularly dull exposition, but the monsters in question behaved like somewhat normal, non-sociopathic monsters inside of a synagogue, no beatings until the wife and two daughters got home and I left the house, so I guess it's not the schmucky rabbi's fault that this monster worshipped him (somewhat literally; the "god of Israel" was more of a middleman), donated lots of money, brought his bruise-covered wife and daughters into shul every week with nary a peep (the younger daughter became a drug addict and prostitute, not that that's proof of anything), and somehow found spiritual justification for his "spare the rod" mentality using the myriad examples of violence in the Torah as pretext, or so he said at the dinner table after kiddush (the sort of kiddush where women had to place an opaque rag in front of their face (no headshaving/wigs to my knowledge, though) before saying hamotzi/kiddush so as not to besmirch the kiddush mitzvah (collect 'em all! not so fast, ladies), which may have been a modern tradition compared to the separate-but-equal "meta-halakhic"* sentiment in many self-identified Orthodox communities) (he also told me that we shouldn't have liberated the concentration camps, because it wasn't in America's interest at the time, so what we might be discussing is an extreme GOP assimilationist)). Anyway:

Ignorance about the principles of a Jewish movement is what is relevant here.

I thought the issue was not finding a joke funny, on account of it skewering a sacred cow (namely poking fun at the assimilationist archetype/stereotype(?) of the Reform movement relative to the more tradition-obsessed movements). It's my cow too, my dad brought home a christmas tree every year and called it a "Hanukkah bush", and it never struck me as any zanier than eating Chinese takeout on christmas eve, just an artifact of life in the melting pot.

And I didn't even mean "Classical Reform" as a movement but the ways of a specific congregation.

I believe you called it (the congregation) "classic Reform", so the true Scots' fallacy would seem to apply. But I'm willing to split the difference in light of your newfound discovery of Hillel's rule, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow" (also: "Trust not thyself till the day of thy death"). So back to the discrepancy between what the sectarian movements within Judaism represent on paper, and their practice in the field:

The overall goal of a feminist-sensitive educational program for boys is to help bring an awareness to young men that the Jewish experience for women is profoundly different from their own, that in many instances those differences are experienced negatively by women, and that there is room, both within the halakhic system and within social structures, to enhance the experience of women.

http://www.jofa.org/social_htm.php?bib_id=424 (the "Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance")

Even when matters are not halakhically problematic, there is often emotional and visceral resistance to change.

http://www.jofa.org/social_htm.php?bib_id=424

You'd think "Orthodox Feminist" was an oxymoron, but there's evidently movements within the Orthodox movement(s) to reinterpret "the law" in a more modern light, just as Justice Souter can look at the same US Constitution as Scalia and reach the exact opposite interpretation most times. Obviously an Orthodox Feminist faces obstacles, but the major one could be "emotional and visceral resistance to change", which is what's faced by all minorities-within-minorities in all communities to varying extents. I just happened to meet some bad apples with the Reform brand, but you shouldn't rely on a stranger on the internet for a revelation as reality-bending as the notion of a lousy Reform synagogue. But here, this is a couple (I guess) on Yelp who gave a bad review to a Reform synagogue, just so you know there's at least two internet strangers with a similar complaint, without the universe collapsing into pre-B'raisheet state:

If you don't have young kids and don't use the day school, it seems to be a very expensive synagogue that doesn't value its members. We joined last year and never felt a part of the community even though we were involved in classes and services. Too bad because it is a nice building. Spoke to the executive director and rabbi and they were not very helpful or particularly interested in feedback.

http://www.yelp.com/biz/temple-israel-of-hollywood-los-angeles

Wait, someone didn't feel part of a reform community, but that's... impossible! There's a pool, recreational facilities, social club? Non-believers are welcome as long as they don't rock the boat? (to reiterate: I wasn't physically escorted from the JCC or Temple premises for asking too many dumb questions, I was made to feel unwelcome, but unless my darker adolescent moments were captured on security cam, I'm afraid you'll have to disbelieve these disembodied internet scribblings, per "I am not willing to take your word for it", which might be concrete evidence of an allegedly Reform Jew discarding Hillel's guidelines and the spirit of Tikkun Olam in a somewhat closed-minded fashion). Okay, I don't know if the Yelp reviewer had any poolside theological disputes, maybe they just didn't "fit in", but my point remains: shit happens, and it's distributed fairly evenly across sect and creed.

It makes no sense.

it would be a waste of their time affiliating to a non-Halakhic organization

Unless the frummy Reform synagogue was using its autonomy to construct an even weirder vision, one to which republicans trapped in the 1950s felt most comfortable. I'll try to figure out the exact location of this temple for your peace of mind (or lack thereof), but all I can say from recollection is it's in the general area of Trumbull/Milford/New Haven, CT (the North Philly shul consisted of people my grandparents' age, and there weren't enough of them left to make a minyan ten years ago, so I assume it's defunct or absorbed into a Conservative congregation), and it had a fairly typical name for a Reform synagogue (try "Beth El" if you're cold calling farbissen rabbis).

This kind of discussion is a pilpul. It is an examination of a problem which we already know the answer. The answer to the question would be that the Rabbis who made up the prayer built in the default that one is not yotzeh with tefilah, i.e. it is the minhag (custom) for the man to say kiddush. <...>

The Jews do what they do. The Rabbis get around to analysing the details centuries later.

<...>

I often have to make kiddush for my children, all of whom are under bar mitzvah, while my husband is away (it happens frequently, due to his position); however, I know that we would not ever have me make kiddush for my husband or for my oldest when he hits bar mitzvah. I know that it's 'just not done'. This is a man's obligation, not his wife's.

http://forums.globalyeshiva.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/904606335/m/978105036 ("A woman making kiddush question.")

Which brings us back to using halakha as merely a cover story for pre-existing prejudices:

Millen, Rochelle L.
"Social Attitudes Disguised as Halakhah: Zila Milta, Ein Havrutan Na'ah, Kevod Hatzibbur," Millen, Rochelle L.. Nashim, 4, 2001, 178-193.

Synopsis: Professor Millen discusses several meta-halakhic social values that are used at times to limit women's participation in ritual. Among the rituals that these concepts affect is kiddush, as women are obligated and halakhically can fulfill the obligation on behalf of both men and women, and yet the concept of zila milta, a term of denigration, has been used to discourage such a practice.

http://www.jofa.org/social.php/ritual/tablerituals/kiddush

By "meta-halakhic" I'm thinking "pre-halakhic" (assuming the prejudice predates the codification thereof), but the meaning is essentially the same: halakha doesn't cause the subjugation of women, halakha is a consequence of (presumably) men making up rules as they go along, not unlike sharia law or selective reading or just plain old tradition in parts of Afghanistan. That's the theory anyway, according to Professor Millen:



"The notion of woman as secondary is ... no longer an acceptable component of halakhic argumentation." Easier said than done, of course, but you can't say that the virtues of equality or egalitarianism are strictly reserved to one particular movement and off-limits to the others. Given the widening gulf between Orthodox and non-Orthodox (especially in the mutual recognition department), and evidently "classic" vs. non-Classic(al) Reform(s), I have to wonder if this sectarian mentality isn't causing a Tower of Babel situation with mutually unintelligible systems of shibboleths; while I give the Reform movement(s) credit for being the most accessible and ecumenical (and accepting of Orthodoxy in a way the Orthodox movement(s) can't reciprocate), it's impossible for me to pretend that "the club" can't possess a different set of (perhaps bourgeois) standards that tend to resist inquiry and exclude outsiders. In Jersey it probably had more to do with socioeconomic disparity: I was "bussed in" from Camden County, and my peers tended to be fairly wealthy on the whole and educated in private institutions to which I wasn't privileged, so we might have already been speaking different languages by the time I arrived. As for The Bunkers, well, you can always find a club that will have you as a member, the vast Reform movement(s) are no exception in my intangible experience.

[Meshuga]

26. You wrote and wrote and said absolutely nothing

And I noticed (in all the incoherence of your last post) that you chose to stick to the strawman.

"frummy Reform synagogue" -- :rofl:

[foo_bar]

27. if anyone understood my preceding rant, feel free to chime in (so I know I'm not meshuga)

If you're making the case that (lower case) orthodoxy in the Reform movement(s) is a strawman, you won't accomplish it by screaming "heresy!" and folding your arms. Let's start small:

"frummy Reform synagogue" -- :rofl:

How can this madeleh be so confused as to believe she can be both reform and frum? For now, as a starting point, I'll keep it simple. <...>

I am committed to the ideal and action of Tikkun Olam. I believe that maintaining these traditions, adhereing to the mitzvot to the best of my understanding, motivates me to act ethically in a way that helps to repair the world, making it a better place. Until 1999, the autonomy of the individual in interpreting the Torah and determining which mitzvot one still needed to adhere to was a guiding principle of Reform Judaism. The spirit of that principle, though excised from the Principles of Pittsburgh, is still a hallmark of the movement, and it is what keeps me so bound to identifying as Reform.

http://reformfrum.blogspot.com/2008/09/reform-frum.html

That's pretty close to your synagogue's position, isn't it? You write:

I was merely saying my current synagogue chooses to follow practices closer to the 1885 principles than practices form the 1999 principles.

[Meshuga]

28. I'm sorry, but

The mental picture of a "frum Reform synagogue" in the common understanding of the term (as opposed to the context that "frum" was used in the blog you cited) is hillarious.

"That's pretty close to your synagogue's position, isn't it?"

I don't know. The blogger didn't define what she meant by observance. Some say they are observant just because they don't eat pork and don't mix dairy with meat even if they don't really follow kashrut as prescribed in Jewish law. All I know is that my synagogue pretty much ignores ritual law. And that would be "observant" if the standard is the Pittsbugh Platform of 1885. But by orthodox standards my synagogue is not observant at all. The blogger is saying that she is observant but what does that mean when she embraces the Reform principles? Until knowing her I would not know what "observance" means to her. But I think there is a huge change it compares like apples and oranges to what the orthodox means by "observance".

[TZ]

22. OT...but....

Thats an interesting new screenname you picked! :rofl:

[Meshuga]

24. Now I feel more like myself

MrWiggles never felt right. :-)

[Richard D]

4. That's funny.

[Occam Bandage]

6. Scattergories. They fucking love Scattergories. Everybody else thinks it's lame. nt

[Azooz]

7. I don't think so -

Hi Boojatta, been a while since one of your posts here :)

Sikhs were a sect of Islam before they left a few centureis ago, so I doubt that they share anything uniquely with Jews that other religions do not share in - I am sure that the two have many things in common but they will be shared by one or many other religions and sects.

I have no way to be absolutely sure and would not mind being proven wrong.

[foo_bar]

8. more of a "new" religion than a schism, but if anything they share Hindu observances

Festivals in Sikhism mostly centre around the lives of the Gurus and Sikh martyrs. The SGPC, the Sikh organisation in charge of upkeep of the gurdwaras, organises celebrations based on the new Nanakshahi calendar. This calendar is highly controversial among Sikhs and is not universally accepted. Several festivals (Hola Mohalla, Diwali and Nanak's birthday) continue to be celebrated using the Hindu calendar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism#Observances (sorry for using Wiki)

Are Sikhs Hindus?

After over a decade, the Sikh religio-political scenario is torrid again. This time it's the Hindu-Sikh divide caused by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) - the fundamentalist Hindu faction of the ruling Baharatiya Jananta Party (BJP) - which is trying to press the fact that Sikhs are actually Hindus.

RSS activists proclaim that since Sikhism came into existence as the sword arm of Hindus against the Muslim invaders, and since such a situation no longer exists, the community should return to the Hindu fold. In fact a group of RSS leaders want to assimilate the Sikh community into the fold of Hinduism and disperse its religious identity.

http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa061000a.htm

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. Sikhs are actually more Hindu than Islamic

Sikhism is classed as a Dharmic religion, the same category that includes Jainism, Hinduism and Buddhism, rather than as an Abrahamic religion like Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Their view of God derives from the Hindu concept of Brahman, the all-encompassing worldmind; their personal religious practices are more akin to yoga and meditation than to the western concept of prayer.

You may find the Wikipedia article for Sikhism to be of interest.

[PassingFair]

29. They respect and honor their gurus... I don't think they define or worship "god".

They are a young (500 years old) religion.

If someone said I had to pick a religion
or be burned at the stake, I'd go Sikh
or Buddhist.

Less hypocrisy.

I don't care for religions with "revealed truth".

[TechBear_Seattle]

30. Service to God is at the foundation of Sikhism

However, it is not the same god concept that is found in the Abrahamic religions.

[Madam Mossfern]

9. Can someone post a photo

so we can see which funny hats you're referring to. There are so many types of funny hats in Judaism.
It appears that Sikhs wear turbans

[foo_bar]

10. oy vey, it was a head-covering joke.

[aquart]

16. I'm guessing your religion has men take off their hats in church.

While women put them on. Hair had magical properties conferring great power. That's why women had to cut their hair on marriage in Judaism and why nuns had their hair cut off in Catholicism. Muslims do it one better and just cover the whole woman. Scary powerful creatures, women.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. They are the 2 religions that are also held under British law to be ethnic groups as well

and thus have protection under the Race Relations Act:

The law was defined in 1983, when the House of Lords (in Mandla v. Dowell Lee <1983> 2 AC 548) held that the Sikh community could be described as having an "ethnic origin" under s. 3(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 and that, therefore, in seeking to prevent a pupil from wearing his turban a school was acting contrary to the race relations legislation. The Jewish community have since been treated as having the same protection because the House of Lords, in seeking a meaning for "ethnic origin", relied on a New Zealand decision on the same point under similar legislation, concerning a pamphlet published with the intent to incite ill-will against the Jews (King-Ansell v. Police <1979> 2 NZLR 531).

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldrelof/95/9504.htm

The footnote also points out that "gypsies/travellers/Romanies" have a similar status, but it's not so easy to define them as a religion, in my opinion.