From: gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)
Subject: Re: Conversion Question
Originator: scj@israel.nysernet.org
Reply-To: <gertler@cyclone.sbi.com (Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:49:52 GMT

stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:
> Isaac Balbin writes:
> >Stan Krieger writes:

> Yes, there is a theological distinction; that's why there are O, C,
> and R.  The only problem is that O doesn't acknowledge the
> legitimacy of C and R, and to the extent that it tries to
> discredit C and R, which is what Tisha B'Av is probably all about.

I don't think C and R were around at the time of the Beit HaMikdash.
Even if they were, they probably would have built a much larger place
down the street.  :-)

> In case you forgot, we are one people, and the infighting over
> whether the child of a woman converted by a Bet Din of Conservative
> Rabbis is Jewish is just as harmful to our people as are our
> real enemies.

This begs the question.  We both agree that we are one people.  The
disagreement is on who is included in the "we."

> Let's face it; people were murdered for being Jewish who you, in
> your infinite wisdom, would exclude from our community.  That's
> why I think is repulsive in the extreme.

Not to lessen the meaning of their deaths, but I won't let Hitler
define Jew for me.  THAT is repulsive in the extreme.  That someone
is slaughtered on the mistaken impression that he/she is a Jew is
no reason for me to be compelled to include that person in my
definition of Jew.  Not every martyr is a Jew.  I'm not saying
it's better to be a Jew than a martyr (though I much prefer being
the former).  It's just that I will not have a raving anti-Semite
define Judaism for me.  I'll leave that to Halakha.

> Maintain your theological conviction all you want, but don't forget
> the REALITY that what you observe as Judaism is one of several
> LEGITIMATE interpretations of what God expects of US, the Jewish
> people.

Again, you're begging the question.  I had this discussion some time
ago on the net.  O's beliefs that R is not legitimate is implicit
in O's belief that normative Judaism was given by G-d for all Jews
to observe.  R's belief that this is not so implies that O is
completely wrong.  You can't have it both ways.  Either O is right
or R is right, but not both.  (Of course, it's still possible that
they're both wrong.  Maybe that's how C started.  :-)

It's interesting that some of our coreligionists will argue that,
while their "interpretation" of what G-d expects of us is legitimate,
G-d Himself doesn't even exist.  Sometimes it gets a bit ridiculous.

>   You seem to, very conveniently, forget that reality, and
> are willing to exclude 90% of your co-religionists from "your"
> religion.  Look it's OUR religion, and don't you for one second
> ever forget that we're in it together.

I, for one, am not excluding ANY Jews from our religion.  The number
of disputed individuals is very small relative to the number of Jews.
I question only "converts" who did not convert according to Halakha.
Observant or not, a Jew is a Jew.  It is OUR religion, I agree.  That's
why it's so sad that 90% of us reject it.

-Don Gertler
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish