- This topic has 14 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Why are they so into it? Why is it a left wing cause to want to make geirus easier?
Is it just part of looking for kulos generally? It doesn’t seem that way to me–it seems more like a cause.
I have some theories. I’ll come back and post them later, if I feel like it.
Left wing goes with liberalism. Liberalism goes with everyone being able to do what they want. When taken to an extreme a least. And if someone wants to be jewish, chas veshalom that hakacha should actually be followed! Its all about putting the peoples needs before God.
The Israeli left-wingers are fanatic zionists in the original meaning of the word (non-zionists lefties leave Eretz Yisrael as soon as they can). As good zionists they want Israel to be a normal state, which do someone whose focus is Europe, means there is a national religion in which everyone is a nominal members (note that piety isn’t a factor, this is a matter of patriotism). While they can tolerate a few non-Jews who are members of other religions, they want all non-Palestinian Israelis to be Jewish. Thus is someone wishes to be a good zionist, i.e. a patriotic Israeli, that is good enough for them to be Jewish. Their model would be the historic desire of many immigrants to join the established church, not out of a theological belief, but out of the desire to be normal. That’s good enough for them To the leftists, all the “Torah” stuff went out when Herzl and Ben Gurion replaced Avraham Aveinu and Moshe Reabbeinu, and they object to tying geirus to ideas that most Israelis have long rejected.
It’s about legitimacy. They need to assert some type of control or influence in being able to decide who is Jewish in order to feel legitimately Jewish.
Akuperma, what about in chutz laaretz?
The gerus bill would decentralize gerus, allowing local batei din (outside of the Rabbanut) to process gerim. This is how it used to be anyway, so it’s not like it’s a fundamental change. It would also benefit chassidim and other groups who prefer to use their own rabbis instead of going through the bureaucratic channels of the Rabbanut.
The left likes to make changes that would make gerus less hard because of 1) universalism — those on the left are more likely to see Yiddishkeit as something of more universal appeal to all of humanity, rather than the teachings of an insular minority that doesn’t care about the world, 2) sympathy for left-wing religious rulings (such as those of R’ Uziel and others) that allow gerus to be completed even without the ger becoming completely observant, 3) a desire to make life easier for Russian immigrants who aren’t halachically Jewish but have Jewish ancestry and a Jewish identity and served in the IDF, 4) a desire to undercut the increasing control of the Rabbanut (and thus Israeli society, in some respects) by the charedim.
Akuperma well said
The more they’re megiaer the more people they can influence about their (non)religious beliefs. They obviously don’t have a chance with us so 2nd best; bring in a new crop. They’ll have more people following their shittas, turning to their Rabbis thereby validating themselves. It helps them sleep at night.
I’m still waiting for Goq to ask what centers and defensemen think about geirus.
popa_bar_abba: “they’re uncomfortable with the ethnic/racial element of Judaism. “
I believe they are uncomfortable with the religous element of Judaism. Gairus is basically naturalization. When you become a citizen you give up your previous loyalty, adopt the culture of the new country. In “normal” countries (US, France, Britain), becoming a citizen does not require you to adopt a religion. Frum Jews regard being Jewish as a matter of religion (being Jewish is about mitsvos), and secular Diaspora Jews see Jewishness as ethnicty (being Jewish is about gefilte fish and bagels), whereas zionists see being Jewish as being about being a loyal supporter of the State of Israel which is why they want the process of becoming an Israel, which includes geirus, to focus on zionism rather than Torah.
PBA: ?
How can a religion that has any mechanism at all for conversion possibly be an ethnicity? (Or, alternatively, how can it stay an ethnicity, however it may have started out?)
Akuperma, the original German Reformers went out of their way to deny the existence of Jewish ethnicity. They defined themselves as Germans who followed the Hebrew faith. They called their synagogues temples because they denied any ethnic connection to the Jerusalem temple
I believe PBA and akuperma are both correct and their points are not mutually exclusive.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.