From: faigin@aero.org (Daniel P. Faigin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Conservative Halacha (was re: Orthodox Monopoly)
Date: 10 Sep 92 10:18:05
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
	<FAIGIN.92Sep10072948@soldan.aero.org>
	<18ns2aINNd74@agate.berkeley.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soldan.aero.org
In-reply-to: schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu's message of 10 Sep 1992 16:10:50 GMT

On 10 Sep 1992 16:10:50 GMT, schultz@garnet.berkeley.edu (Richard Schultz)
said: 
> This may be more "strict" but it is certainly not more machmer.  According to
> your description, Reform Judaism holds that any Jew can renounce his status
> by refusing to identify publicly with the religion.  

Not "any Jew". Only those that are from mixed marriages. The Patrilineal
Descent decision does not address children of two Jews.

BTW, there was some interesting discussion on Patrilineal Descent in the
recent issue of CCAR Journal. I shared it with the Liberal Judaism mailing
list; here it is for your enjoyment:

Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 12:00:36 PDT
From: Daniel Faigin <faigin@aero.org>
Subject: Patrilineal Descent

There is a very interesting discussion of the Patrilineal Descent issue in the
latest issue of the _CCAR_Journal_.  This discussion is prompted by an article
by Lawrence J. Epstein (Professor of English, Suffolk Community College, who
teaches a course of Jewish Thought) titled "The Patrilineal Principle: A Time
for Clarification". In this article, Dr. Epstein highlights the part of the
resolution that says:

   This presumption of the Jewish status of the offspring of any mixed
   marriage is to be established through appropriate and timely public and
   formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people.

He points out that this part of the resolution is often ignored by both
critics and some Reform Jews themselves. He notes that although the resolution
notes some activities that might satisfy this resolution (acquisition of a
Hebrew name, Torah study, bar/bat mitzvah, and Kabbalat Torah (Confirmation),
it does not mandate any of them. This vagueness served its political
purpose of keeping all parties pleased, and getting the resolution passed.

He then questions whether the resolution was successful. It had lofty goals --
the promise of increased Jewish population, extending a hand to the
intermarried rather than excommunicating them, getting rid of the sexism of
matrilineality (egalitarianism is important for Reform Judaism) -- but were
they met? Reform expected Conservative Judaism to follow, but it didn't, and
was indeed hostile. Not surprisingly, so was Orthodoxy. He notes that, as a
result, dissention formed within Reform instead. Part of this dissention,
according to Epstein, is from a desire to reduce inter-denominational tension,
but there are other problems that may result directly from the resolution:

o Non-Reform Jews might not consider the child of a non-Jewish mother Jewish
  for the purposes of marriage.

o Even if the child is presumed Jewish, it is still an intermarriage which can
  undermine family unity at a time when the family is already under great
  pressure. 

o Even a presumed Jewish child might bring a sense of confused religious roots
  into the next generation, bringing into question the next generation's
  Jewishness. 

o The principle might unintentionally undercut the historic Reform initiative
  of an outreach program to non-Jews for the purposes of welcoming those who
  choose to convert.

He notes that the last one is most important: Why should a prospective female
convert convert for the sake of religious unity, if the child would be
presumed Jewish anyway? After all, 24% of converts indicated that the most
important reason for conversion was to have one religion in the home. Epstein
then notes that the rate of intermarriages has increased since the resolution
was passed, while the rate of conversions has dropped. He does note that there
could be no relation, because conversions are not required under the
resolution; further, intermarriage has become more acceptable. Yet he does not
the problem, and indicates that the principle as it stands has left the Reform
movement virtually (i.e., all but Reconstuctionist) isolated. He then asks:
"what can be done?", and notes three choices: keep it, abandon it, or rethink
it. He goes on to identify four aspects of this rethinking process: (1) an
internal UAHC-CCAR committee to evaluate it, (2) an emphasized focus on
prevention of interdating and intermarriage, (3) discussion of the principle
with other denominations, and (4) more precision in the identification of the
formal acts required to be "presumed" Jewish. He specifically suggests (a) a
set course of study with a ceremony marking its completion [If done right, I
think, such a ceremony could be viewed by the other denominations as a
conversion, presuming that Reform conversions were accepted]. He indicates
that information about conversion and the patrilineal descent decision should
be part of this course, indicating that there may be potential future problems
with other denominations requiring formal conversion at a later date.

The article is followed by a response by Rabbi Herman Schallman (chair of the
committee that authored the decision). In his response, he indicates that he
can't see why Epstein chose the present time to complain, given the decision
was written eight years ago. Rabbi Schallman then addresses two of the
complaints raised by Epstein: the conflict with outreach, and the lack of
specificity. On the first, he notes that the issue was debated, but it was
felt that the "patrilineal descent" option wouldn't be used extensively; hence
the risk was worth taking [I'm not sure that I buy that as a valid reason.].
On the second, he notes that the vagueness was deliberate, in order to give
the rabbi the authority to tailor the requirements to the individuals needs,
and that the decision to apply the principle might occur a considerable time
after birth (which would result in different mitzvot requirements). Rabbi
Schallman notes that Epstein is correct in noting that they anticipated a
vigorous reaction to the resolution, but on the whole, there hasn't been much
[I guess he doesn't read soc.culture.jewish :-)] He thinks that this is
because other issues may have preempted patrilineal descent, and that other
movements were waiting to see what impact it has had on Reform. Rabbi
Schallman's impression is that the principle is little used and not very
controversial, because (Shallman feels) the same standards are established for
the child of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father (a procedure little used,
if not ignored entirely). Rabbi Shallman does feel that we need to assess the
impact of the principle, and review and assess the results of our practices in
officiating or refusing to officiate at mixed marriages.

I found the articles very interesting, but found myself leaning towards
Epstein's position. I think the Patrilineal descent position has some good
ideas in it -- we see too many kids with Jewish mothers who don't know Judaism
-- but it's not being applied. I think that all children of intermarriages
should go through a recognized program of study and conversion ceremony
equivalent (although we needn't call it that) -- in fact, wasn't that the
original purpose of the confirmation ceremony? Given the religious knowledge
of kids of both Jewish parents today, wouldn't such a course of study be good
for them too? Let's make the confirmation ceremony a real CONFIRMATION of the
individuals committment to the Jewish faith and people.

Daniel


--
[W]:The Aerospace Corp. M1/055 * POB 92957 * LA, CA 90009-2957 * 310/336-8228
[Email]:faigin@aerospace.aero.org              [Vmail]:310/336-5454 Box#13149
   "You can't be a rationalist in an irrational world. It isn't rational!"
	       Dr. Rance, in Joe Orton's "What the Butler Saw"