From: arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: PLEASE!  I need your help!  Help me keep this love alive!
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:23:39 GMT
	<1992Oct1.130720.4695@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> <22533@venera.isi.edu>
	<1992Oct2.152611.20469@umbc3.umbc.edu>
Organization: USC/Information Sciences Institute
In-reply-to: shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu's message of 2 Oct 92 15:26:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.152611.20469@umbc3.umbc.edu> shimoff@umbc4.umbc.edu (Eliot Shimoff) writes:
>
> In article <22533@venera.isi.edu> arens@ISI.EDU (Yigal Arens) writes:
> >In article <1992Oct1.130720.4695@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> saal@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (samuel.saal) writes:
> >>
> >> In article <1992Sep28.152040.14175@wam.umd.edu> aap@wam.umd.edu
> >> (Alberto Adolfo Pinkas) writes:
>
> AAP wrote:
> >> >I am sure that the basis for all the Jewish tradition is no more than the
> >> >search for happiness. So, be it.
>
> Sam Saal replied:
> >> Mr. Webb
> >>
> >> If you're reading this newsgroup for followups to your article,  please
> >> understand that Alberto's post is _entirely_ in keeping wiht his usual
> >> rationalizations of his own break with Jewish tradition (and law) and in
> >> keeping with his sentiments about his own intermarriage.
>
> And Yigal commented:
> >I'm curious as to your reasons for believing that Mr. Pinkas's views on
> >love between Jews and non-Jews are any more a "rationalization" than are
> >your views on the same subject.
>
> Perhaps Sam's comments were occasioned by the fact that no Jewish
> sources (to the best of my knowledge) see the basis for tradition
> as the search for happiness.  Sam may be guessing that AAP's asssertion
> was post hoc justification for his intermarriage.

I did, of course, direct this question at Mr. Saal, who has not replied
yet.  But if the best reply that you, Mr. Shimoff, can give is no more
than a guess concerning a guess made by Mr. Saal about Mr. Pinkas's
motives I submit that this is a pretty lousy support indeed for what is
no more than an ad hominem argument.

Let Mr. Saal respond to Mr. Pinkas's point of view directly, instead of
trying to belittle it.

> Yigal again:
> >Or do you claim that your views on Jewish/non-Jewish relations can
> >somehow logically be proven correct, independent of the fact that you
> >have been indoctrinated from infancy into what you now (unsurprisingly,
> >considering) believe to be Jewish tradition?
>
> I can imagine two good reasons for opposition to intermarriage.  First,
> there are halakhic objections; these, of course, will not be convincing
> to those who do not accept halakha.

Fine.  But as you note, this is hardly convincing to the great majority
of Jews, let alone to a non-Jew.

> The second reason may be more compelling, and is rooted in biology
> (e.g., Richard Dawkins "Selfish Gene") and anthropology (e.g., the
> cultural materialism of Marvin Harris).  Basically, if "valuing"
> Judaism means anything, it means ensuring the Judaism continues.
> Historically, intermarriage has, in the overwhelming majority of 
> cases, meant that the children or grandchildren will no longer identify
> themselves as Jews.  Those who value Judaism will thus oppose
> intermarriage.  Those who do not value Judaism (or who hold other
> values to be over-riding) will find no objection to intermarriage.

First, you are taking an analogy from biology and applying it to
something else entirely.  As others have pointed out, being Jewish is
not a genetic trait.  So I think it is safe to ignore your "references"
and address the rest of your argument, to wit:

     1. Historically, intermarriage has, in the overwhelming majority of
        cases, meant that the children or grandchildren will no longer
        identify themselves as Jews.
     2. Those who value Judaism will thus oppose intermarriage.  Those
        who do not value Judaism (or who hold other values to be
        over-riding) will find no objection to intermarriage.
	
To this I respond:

You must show that 1. is even true, and that it causes *more* of what
you consider a "loss" of Jews than in the general population that does
not intermarry.  This is by no means obvious.

As for 2., it is obviously not the case -- you are substituting your
personally favored definition of Judaism for this to work.  The
strangeness of your assertion is apparent when one just considers that
about half of Jews in the US marry non-Jews, and I would guess that many
more do not object to the idea.  Are you saying that the majority of
Jews do not value Judaism, and only you -- in a minority -- do?  Why
should your definition of Judaism and Jewish values be preferred?  Is it
not more reasonable to conclude that Judaism -- as understood by the
majority of Jews -- does not preclude marriages between Jews and
non-Jews?

> Everything I know about Sam (and about almost all other scj posters)
> suggests that he (and they) value Judaism, and want to ensure its
> continuity.

Except that this brings us, again, to the discussion of what "Judaism"
really is.  You surely realize by now that the view that it is defined
by Orthodox religious standards is held by a very small minority.
--
Yigal Arens
USC/ISI
arens@isi.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.polish