What is a Jew

[Pindar]

In another thread while helping bmolsson correct some confused thinking the question of Jewish status came up. The question basically became: what is a Jew? Now this is an old and seemingly complex question. One traditional answer is: a Jew is any who is born to a Jewish mother. This of course begs the question: not explaining why the mother is Jewish save to repeat the stated refrain. Many have seen being a Jew as a racial question. The difficulty here, aside from race itself being problematic, is there are so many 'racial' groups that identify as Jewish. There are White European Jews, Brown Arab Jews, Black Ethiopian Jews, Yellow Asian Jews etc. Some label Jewishness as cultural. This again faces the difficulty of there being multiple "Jew" cultures: Ashkenazi, Sephardi, Mizrahi, Temani are some of the standard divisions though there are other more exotic varieties. Many of the stated views assume the label Jew is a fixed position: once a Jew always a Jew, regardless of the person's joining or aligning with any other category. I believe this is a flawed notion.

It is certainly the case that many discriminated minorities often begin to identify with the rhetoric of their oppressors. I think this is one of the reasons some of the above ideas have parlance even within the self labeled Jewish community. So, what is a Jew? I believe a Jew is someone who identifies with Judaism. It is therefore a religious category. Should a fellow decide to convert to Judaism they are then a Jew. Should a Jew decide to join another faith, say Catholicism the person is then a Catholic and no longer a Jew. From this perspective there is no such thing as a atheist-Jew, or Christian-Jew or Muslim-Jew any more then there could be a Christian-Muslim.

I am interested in others' thoughts.

[Don Corleone]

I agree with the religious aspect of it (all followers of the covenant of Abraham, regardless of their ancestry would be Jews).

However, you should note that in religious Judaism, there are three major sects: Reform, Conservative & Orthodox (as well as many minor ones, such as Hasidim). I'm not Jewish (but my savior is), but I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) the more liberal a Jewish branch you convert to, the less likely it will be that you will be accepted by other Jews. If you convert to Reform, many Conservatives and all Orthodox will NOT view you as Jewish. If you convert to Conservative, many Orthodox will NOT. If you convert to Orthodox, you're as Jewish as Mel Brooks.

[Goofball]

Let me start by saying that I do not propose this as any kind of rational measuring stick, but I am curious: does anybody know how the Nazis viewed Jews who had converted to Christianity? There must have been some of them. Were they rounded up and sent to the camps, or were they considered good citizens of the Third Reich because they no longer adhered to Judiasm?

[Byzantine Prince]

Let me start by saying that I do not propose this as any kind of rational measuring stick, but I am curious: does anybody know how the Nazis viewed Jews who had converted to Christianity? There must have been some of them. Were they rounded up and sent to the camps, or were they considered good citizens of the Third Reich because they no longer adhered to Judiasm?

It was more of an ethnic cleansing. They created anthropoligic theories that jews were inherently a lower race. The Nazis didn't even like their own church when it came to religious matters. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Yeah, the Nazis viewed "Jewish-Christians" as ethnic Jews, though their persecution may have started slightly later and originally with less violence. In the end, there was no difference.

Some of the [Catholic] churches originally only helped "Catholic Jews" but realized that wasn't so hot and started to help all Jews. And this is among the churches that did help.

[discovery1]

Let me start by saying that I do not propose this as any kind of rational measuring stick, but I am curious: does anybody know how the Nazis viewed Jews who had converted to Christianity? There must have been some of them. Were they rounded up and sent to the camps, or were they considered good citizens of the Third Reich because they no longer adhered to Judiasm?

I think they were killed too. The limit was I think 1/4 'Jewish'* if you wanted to live.

*in quotes b/c I don't think Jews are a race.

[Pindar]

Let me start by saying that I do not propose this as any kind of rational measuring stick, but I am curious: does anybody know how the Nazis viewed Jews who had converted to Christianity?

Nazism saw Jews as a race religious affiliation didn't matter. This was tied up with the eugenics movements that were in vogue.

[bmolsson]

Nazism saw Jews as a race religious affiliation didn't matter. This was tied up with the eugenics movements that were in vogue.

Well, they did hate communists as well so I don't think they really based their views on any logic......

[Pindar]

Well, they did hate communists as well so I don't think they really based their views on any logic......

Actually, Nazi hatred of communists was based on other criteria. Not along racial lines.

I believe it was/is the reversed. You deny the fact that jews are born in to their religion. Your fundamentalistic view on faith is not really in connection with the natural world......

I don't kow what you mean by fundamentalistic.

But, yes I assign religious affiliation according to belief.

[PanzerJaeger]

Ive always thought of Jews in much the same way the Nazis did - an ethnicity all their own, because they are so close nit and seem to be a community all their own. Of course I havent put much thought into it, and I suppose I agree with Pindar that Jews can only really be catagorized on religious grounds.

[caesar44]

well thank you !!!! in my worst nightmares i did not imagine my self saying that i am thinking like the nazis in any subject !
you should think again
from your name in this forum (panzer) i consider you are a german and it is very sad that you have not learned anything

[Papewaio]

So, what is a Jew? I believe a Jew is someone who identifies with Judaism. It is therefore a religious category. Should a fellow decide to convert to Judaism they are then a Jew. Should a Jew decide to join another faith, say Catholicism the person is then a Catholic and no longer a Jew. From this perspective there is no such thing as a atheist-Jew, or Christian-Jew or Muslim-Jew any more then there could be a Christian-Muslim.

I am interested in others' thoughts.

One of my best friends is a Jew as is his parents. His parents expect him to marry a good Jewish girl.

However none of them are religous. They are all Atheists, which is a good thing considering my mate loves Hungry Jacks (Burger King with a different label, same company) Bacon Burgers. However he still sees himself as Jewish as his ethnic group.

Hes sees religion as an intellectual dishonesty and a crutch for the weak. However his best friend (and my brothers who introduced us) is a Buddhist (his father was the head of the Buddhist Society, not a monk obviously just the community organisation). Our other friend is the son of an Anglican minister. Another friend is a non-practicing Catholic (son of Catholic parents, but definitly not religious), another mate is a Sri Lankan Buddhist and a mix of the spectrum for the rest. (Made our D&D group interesting).

Much like a Chinese person outside of China still identifies themselves as Chinese ethnic and whatever country citizenship.

Much like Maori who may be 3/4's Pakeha. You still will be a Maori if that is the way of life you identify with.

So Jewish people have a triple definition. Genetics, Culture and Religion. You only have to belong to one of those and identify yourself as a Jew.

My main point is that Jewish people are an ethnic group and/or religion. You don't have to belong to both to be a Jew, nor does not belonging to one of the groups disqualify yourself.

[KukriKhan]

So Jewish people have a triple definition. Genetics, Culture and Religion. You only have to belong to one of those and identify yourself as a Jew.

That almost sounds (anthropolgically speaking) like a tribe that accepts some outsiders through trials and tests. So Jews are an extended tribe?

[Papewaio]

Of course, historically speaking to be a citizen you had to belong to the state religion. After a time culture, genetics and religion become the same.

[bmolsson]

In another thread while helping bmolsson correct some confused thinking the question of Jewish status came up.

I believe it was/is the reversed. You deny the fact that jews are born in to their religion. Your fundamentalistic view on faith is not really in connection with the natural world......

[The Wizard]

The problem is that Judaism is not only a religious, but also a cultural identity. It is this character that has preserved Jewish identity in the diaspora, and this character of Judaism also came to be because of this situation. It is this that makes the matter of being a Jew a complicated thing.

Myself, I am a Jew. According to conservative and progressive Jews, that is. Orthodox Jews would not call me a Jew, because my father is a Jew and not my mother. Yet my father has a Dutch father himself, while his own mother was a "pure" (excuse the term; there is a lack of better terms so my hand is forced) Jewess, with both a Jewish mother and father. So, what is he? A full-blooded Jew or just as much a Jew as I am?

If we go with the latter, I would be less a Jew, since my father would only be 50% Jewish and my mother is Dutch, so that would make me 25% Jewish.

Confusing, no? Nevertheless, I have learned Hebrew and have been accepted as a Jew by the American (and Israeli) Jews at the synagogue on Aruba. I've not done my Bar Mitsvah yet, and not sure if I ever will (or even if I still can).



~Wiz

[Sigurd]

I’ll just butt in here since I seemed to have fuelled this discussion. It is my experience that when two opposing sides are at Remi, it calls for mediation with a third party.

I asked for a definition of fundamentalism because the wording of the statement that I first quoted sparked my interest (the notion that a religious stance is fundamentalistic because it does not evolve).
Historically the notion fundamentalism was first used in Protestantism early in the 20th century by a group of conservative members of a few protestant denominations as a counter to a modernisation tendency of the denominations in question.
In this bmolsson is somewhat right.
They published a publication called “The Fundamentals“, where they laid down 5 doctrines that they considered fundamental to their faith.
They were: The virgin birth, the physical resurrection of Jesus, the infallibility of the Bible, the substitutional atonement and the literal and physical second coming of Christ.
Today this term is used in a derogatory way to describe a fringe religious group or extremists.
It does however have a precise denotation: The returning to the defining or founding principles of the religion.
This is consequently a reaction to modernism which bmolsson calls evolve.
Hence fundamentalism is an active movement and implies taking action against an attempt at modernising a religion.

I would say Fundamentalism is a sign of a dead religion (I might take some FLAK for that statement).
The Deist religions out there, which are many, do not believe in revelation and hence is left to their own judgements with their only point of reference; a book compiled by the enemy.
The only choice they have is making this book infallible, because with out it they have nothing. They have hamstrung their other supporting pillars by deeming them heretic.
Originally Christianity was based on the revelatory element which encompassed change at a moments notice (ref. Peter and converting gentiles).
Often heavenly messengers brought the new doctrines and rites. Whenever a change occurred confirmation was required and given. Hence a religion based on the revelatory element is in fact not dead and could evolve at any moments notice.
It can not sustain any fundamentalists or modernists as these would be in opposition with the current status.


I believe in the question of religious vs. religion, Pindar is right in his assertion that the first is an adjective (ref. -ous) and requires a faith element. If one asks: are you religious? The follow up question would naturally be: what do you believe?

bmolsson does however have a point in saying that if asked many people will swear allegiance to a religion without having a clue to what they are supposed to believe in. One classical example would be the hordes of Scottish people claiming to be Protestants without knowing a fiddle about their supposed beliefs.
Here in Norway 90% of the population is Lutheran. A very large percentage have not the faintest clue what that involves. They faithfully baptise their children, send their youth to confirmation, their young adults to church for marriage and burry their old in sanctified Lutheran ground. Very few know what they are supposed to believe in; the trinity, the virgin birth etc…

Jews being proud of what they are and follow an ultra modernist view (atheism) can only be referencing their heritage which is again a question of race (what a tainted word).

[Pindar]

I believe in the question of religious vs. religion, Pindar is right in his assertion that the first is an adjective (ref. -ous) and requires a faith element. If one asks: are you religious? The follow up question would naturally be: what do you believe?

bmolsson does however have a point in saying that if asked many people will swear allegiance to a religion without having a clue to what they are supposed to believe in. One classical example would be the hordes of Scottish people claiming to be Protestants without knowing a fiddle about their supposed beliefs.

Jews being proud of what they are and follow an ultra modernist view (atheism) can only be referencing their heritage which is again a question of race (what a tainted word).

I agree many may identify with a particular faith without knowing anything about that faith. This may very well be due to a cultural inheritance or tradition. My point is: it is improper to apply the label Jew, Christian or any other faith to a person if there is no belief. If some belief exists: i.e. Muhammad was God's prophet or Jesus is the Christ or Jews are the Covenant people etc. then even without a formal adherence or devout practice the label still has some meaning. Without any supporting belief the label is void.

[Pindar]

The problem is that Judaism is not only a religious, but also a cultural identity.

As I noted in my initial post: I think this is one common way of claiming Jewish identity. The problem as I see it is there isn't one single Jewish culture. Ethiopian and Russian ethnicity is different for example.