Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-athena.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!mit-athena!martillo From: martillo@mit-athena.ARPA (Joaquim Martillo) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Who is a Jew Message-ID: <225@mit-athena.ARPA> Date: Thu, 2-Aug-84 07:15:56 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-athe.225 Posted: Thu Aug 2 07:15:56 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Aug-84 03:29:48 EDT References: <1438@ittvax.UUCP>, <223@fisher.UUCP> Organization: MIT, Project Athena, Cambridge, Ma. Lines: 64 >Michael Schneider believes, just as American law determines who is an >American, and French law determines who is a Frenchman, Jewish law >determines who is a Jew. The terminology is incorrect. French law does not determine who is a Frenchman but who is a citizen of France and who therefore has all the rights and responsibilities of French citizenship. >Which Jewish law? Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism are not >uniform in their requirements. Thus, we have more than one proposed >standard. With three laws, does that mean there are three distinct >Jewish peoples? Also, someone who believes all Jews are Israelis in >exile can also suggest Israeli law as a fourth possibility. Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Judaism are all basically erroneous Ashkenazi developments and should swiftly pass into oblivion. Who selects the law? Who selected the French law or the USA law? People whose primary political affiliation was the French nation or the United States of America. Likewise, people whose primary affiliation is the Jewish nation (I do not say Israeli nation) select the law. Therefor about 95% of Ashkenazim have no right in selecting the law. >Since he refers to "laws that can only be changed by G_d", it is safe >to assume Michael refers to the Orthodox variety. Certainly, appeals to >the divine origin of Mosaic Law is what sets it apart from the >Napoleonic Code. You can't have it both ways: you can claim divine >commandment, or analogy with secular law, but claiming both is a little >too much! Analogy is the often the easiest way to explain to the ignorant. >The statement that Jews of different nations have as much in common >with each other as people of different regions of the same nations is >hyperbole. An American Jew, for example, is very concerned with the >fate and status of a Jew in, say, the Soviet Union, but still has more >in common with his Gentile neighbor or even with a Baptist from West >Texas. This statement just proves my contention that Ashkenazim can no longer be genuinely considered Jewish. USA citizens use terms of national affiliation in two distinct ways. An Italian is someone with Italian citizenship who takes part in the political and cultural life of Italy. But an Italian is also an American whose ethnic roots lie in Italy. Only the former has a right to take part in the national and cultural life of Italy. The latter may now and then have Italian citizenship (just like Americans of Jewish background are sometimes accidentally Jewish) but he would have to alter his primary affiliations (lashub -- to return) before he could legitimately claim the right to affect Italian national and political and cultural institutions. Jews of different nations formed one national culture as little as two hundred and fifty years ago. For example, there are cases of a Jew starting out in Vilna and living various portions of his life in Germany, France, Italy, Algeria, Yemen and India and apparently such individuals never noticed major differences in outlook. The talmudic lifestyle promotes unity. In the 19th century Ashkenazim began to drop out of the Jewish world. The commandment ahabat Yisrael requires a Jew to feel more in common with a Russian Jew or and Israeli Jew than with a Baptist neighbor. Since David Ruben is apparently violating this most important commandment, he certainly has no right to input on the organization of the Jewish people.