Defining Ourselves Over Time

Our speaker Julie Nemeth provided an excellent and interesting overview of developmental theories in children and adolescents---appropriate if this were a psychology class.Nevertheless,I especially found learning about the research conducted by Kenny and Rice(1995) humorous.It categorized the college experience in Ainsworth's terminology, as a "strange situation".That is,once parents drop off their kid at the dorm,the child's style of forming relationships with others will depend on the attachment to the mother the child had at the age of 12-18 months old.
Is it reasonable to assume that attachment theory can be applied across developmental stages?
Do all psychologists agree that our internal models of our self and others do not change over time and are based solely on whether or not we experienced secure or insecure attachments?
I don't think so!
Here is a question Nemeth asked herself in class,"why are there so many Jewish psychologists?"The answer I offer is because Jews believe a person can change.Change is a tenant of Judaism.When a person does a wrongdoing,feels bad about it and vows never to do it again,the process of repentance takes effect.That is, where distance existed between two people,closeness can replace it.Unlike Christianity which believes a person,no matter how bad he/she is,if he/she accepts Jesus Christ,then redemption is guaranteed.Not so in Judaism.If we had a bad "attachment" with our parents,own up to it, because otherwise there will be repercussions...lack of self-esteem,psychological distress.But, if we make amends,say sorry, then what was done in the past does not necessarily need to define us now.Fostering the best possible relationship with our parents will hopefully yield a well adjusted individual no matter what environment we find ourselves in;and,more importantly,at whatever point in time.

Eric McBride Response for Dr. Nemeth

I found that Dr. Nemeth's presentation was an interesting and thought provoking. I have not taken a psychology class since freshman year, but her ideas about attachment theory and religious background seem to make sense. When one has a strong religious foundation, it can help that person in various aspects of life. Also, it is clear that stable parental relationship has a direct correlation with well-being. As Heather pointed out, it is interesting that the more decisive relationship for stability is father-daughter. In future study, I think it would be useful to also focus on alternative style households such as single-parent, same-sex couples, or extended families and see if a similar relationship exists and is relevant. While there were some limitations, I am glad that Dr. Nemeth shared the entire research process with us and asked for our feedback. While she examined Jewish religious identity, I think a good place for further analysis would be Jewish social identity and well-being. Judaism is such a community-oriented religion and there are so many different social inputs from summer camp to book groups to J-Date. I thought the lecture was appropriate and a good way to wrap-up the semester.

Dr. Nemeth

I enjoyed Dr. Nemeth's speech. However, there were many errors in her research. She was pointing them out to us which I thought was strange to poke holes in your own data. Honestly, I didn't understand why she thought the data from Jews and non-Jews would be different on a topic like separation and attachment. Maybe after the holocaust there might be some differences, but now a days I feel that it would make no difference. Especially, if her study is polling mostly conservative and reformed Jews, whom grew up in mostly secular societies.
There is really nothing else to be talked about. It wasn't a topic to be discussed, it was more like heres my hypothesis and "oh... my hypothesis was right."
Lastly, I would have to disagree with her generalization that girls who are culturally Jewish have more self confidence and self esteem than Jews who are religiously Jewish. I believe that to be a bogus statement. I have never seen Jewish girls with less confidence and no self- esteem before I came to college. I came from an orthodox area and those girls would never put up with the garbage that cultural Jewish girls would. I have done no research on the topic, that is just my personal observation.

Dr. Julie Nemeth's Talk

First of all, I thought this was a great way to end the semester. Dr. Nemeth provided the class with a very real-world example of how Jewish identity can affect us every day, and how research as to its full affects is being done even right now, at our own university. While, admittedly, there was room for a lot of error in the study that Dr. Nemeth had conducted, I think she touched upon some truly interesting points. I myself have had many personal issues focusing around separation and attachment, and I am always looking for new ways to try and understand the problems that cloud my subconscious. Never had I really looked at my Jewish identity, however, as a possible influencing factor in my difficulties.
Dr. Nemeth noted that, in her study, it ended up being that father/daughter relationships were the "most important" to young Jewish women of this day and age. In most past studies, research was done solely between the young woman and her mother, sometimes with both parents. Never, however, has a study been conducted looking solely at the relationship between the young Jewish woman and her father. This is incredibly surprising to me! As I briefly suggested to Dr. Nemeth, many of my close personal female, Jewish friends, if they have troubles at all with their parents, have troubles with their fathers. Why is it, I wonder, that in recent years a shift has occured, placing the father/daughter relationship in more prominence?
While I firmly believe that everyone's individual situation will be affected differently by a number of personal factors, I think there are some over-arching ideas that have caused this shift. In America especially, the idea of "Daddy's Little Girl" is seen everywhere. From sitting happily on a father's knee as a child to the talks that Dad will undoubtedly have with the first boyfriend, fatherly approval is incredibly influencial and craved by a little girl. Especially in generations when female independence and opportunity has become even more popular. Domestic roles, while still incredibly important, are no longer restricting to females. Women have every, if not more, opportunity than men, and are seen in traditionally male roles from astronauts to CEOs and beyond. In adopting and integrating into more traditionally male-dominated areas of society, women are more often look to their fathers for advice and support.
Obviously, I'm no psychologist, and these are just a few, broad ideas of why the father/daughter relationship is becoming more influencial in a woman's life, and therefore, more heavily affecting her dealings with separation and attachment. I definitely think that a study focusing on the link between separation, attachment, and Jewish identity, specifically focusing on how fathers affect their daughters, would open up a lot of new avenues for both learning and understanding, especially in my own life.

Monika Shafi's Talk

Professor Shafi's presentation of the life and works of Gertrud Kolmar was very interesting. As an English major and a creative writer myself, I love to find out about how the personal life of an author influenced and shaped their work. Kolmar's integration of an autobiographical element into her seemingly general poetry is genius--it enables the reader to see the bigger picture and not judge the works solely by Kolmar's personal bias, but it also weaves a strong, identifiable female voice into the text. As a female Jewish artist, Kolmar seemed to be working against all arenas of society at the time she was writing; her feelings of isolation and hopelessness were, without a doubt, not only in her head.

I think the quote that Professor Shafi included at the end of her presentation was most telling of Kolmar's true aspirations. In a letter to her sister on July 19th, 1942, Kolmar wrote: “The earlier decades when we were doing ‘very well’ were not for me, they demanded qualities of a gregarious, social kind that, for the most part, I lacked; but what the present demands—that I have in every way; I am a good match for today.” Kolmar knew that she could never fit in. Her physical appearance, her artistic inclinations, and her attachment to her Jewish identity all prohibited her from finding happiness in much of her life, even when her family was "doing very well". But, from what Professor Shafi told us and in looking at this quote, I don't believe Kolmar ever truly had a problem with this. She knew that she was meant to be an outsider, and that she was given a rare artistic gift. And, while it may have caused her some emotional strife, she also embraced it. When it came time for her to leave, she chose to stay with her elderly father, even though she knew that she was living in constant danger. As a female Jewish artist, one of the few ways that Kolmar had to preserve her legacy was through her literature, through words that could never fade away. She almost seemed to know that she was destined to a premature death, and if not completely committed to the idea of self-sacrifice, she certainly seemed to accept it.

Monika Shafi

This lecture was the most enjoyable i felt because i could connect to her topic on a more personal level than most other lecture topics. When i was younger, learning about the holocaust was just another boring history lesson to me. Not until i was older was i able to understand that this was not just another even in history that we were forced to learn about because according to my teachers it would give me a better appreciation and understanding of the world i live in today. To me it began to mean more. In highschool while having a conversation with my grandparents who live in Germany i brought up the subject and got myself into more than i asked for. I learned that people from my family were victims of Hitlers rein. I learned of many details (that are unnecessary to this post) that really made me think twice about how i viewed this event, as well as others in history. My point, is that for most an event in history is just another chapter in a book, until you hear a real life story of some ones struggles and their tragic personal experience of the event. Then you feel those peoples emotions and think of what it would have been like to be in their shoes. More on topic, to hear of her struggle as a woman jew poet should really make people realize how far we have come in this world and be thankful for the people like her who struggled and experienced the hardships to help get us where we are today. Kolmar's writings were beautiful and helped tell a storie to me. Ms. Shafi's lecture was intriguing and enjoyable for me. I have a lot of respect for her studies.

Asaf Romirowsky

This lecture was interesting and informative. I am not previously educated on problems in the mis east dealing with both history and current events dealing with Judaism or any other religion for that matter. So this lecture taught me a lot and stimulated my mind to form my own opinions on a new topic of interest for me. From this i have gathered that Palestinians are bad news point blank. I now have a vague knowledge of the feuding and such, and the lack of a solution to a major problem. I feel that we need more people like Romirowsky getting actively involved with brainstorming logical possible solutions to this problem of the Palestinians. I personally dont feel that the 3 state solution theory presented gives enough attention to every complex detail of the problem. However, it is positive progressive thinking!! I am entirely lost about the problems involving the gaza strip, but in my opinion from what i do understand some things cannot be fixed from the outside help offered. I believe that entire populations of nations need to grow up and learn to accept and embrace differences among all types of peoples opinions and beliefs different from their own before any one can really step in and help them. I live a good portion of my life on the saying "you have to be able to help yourself before others can help you." This seems appropriate for several situations going on over there. I enjoyed the mind stumutating presentation and give Romirowsky mad props on the lecture. Thank you!

rebeca davis

I felt professor Devis' presentation was very appropriately organized. Something I admire about the Jewish religion and the leaders is their awareness of our changing society and willingness to accept, adopt, and adapt to major changes in out society over time in a very positive and civil manner. The example presented in this lecture was how Jews dealt with rising divorce rated and the decrease in religious participation during WWII. They adapted to the new social situation and the Jewish leaders (as well as other American leaders at the time) developed marriage counseling. However, apparently the counseling focused not on the couples, but on the impact the couples divorce would have on the current and uprising Jewish community. With this comes several unanswered questions for me. To me, it seemed like the leaders were more concerned with the reputation of the Jewish community and how the divorces could make them all look. I would like to know why they were more concerned with that rather than the happiness of two fellow members of the community, weather married or single so be it. Aside from all that... I was slightly disappointed that the lecture lacked any solid body. For me some of her thoughts ideas and points that she tired to present seemed like incomplete thoughts. But i still mostly enjoyed it none the less.

Amy Zitelman response to Julie Nemeth

The beginning of the lecture was really interesting.  I think it is important for people to understand the psychology behind what makes people or act the way they do.  College students are a crucial age to study.  The idea of attachment and separation in college students is significant and very interesting.

However, I do not understand why she thought that Jewish college students would be any different.  I once did a project for a Jewish History class in High School.  The project focused on immigrant generations and assimilation.  First generation Americans (most of our parents, for argument sake) are highly assimilated.  They assimilate as to escape the 'foreignness' of their parents who are immigrants.  Therefore, most of our parents raised us just as any American parents would.  Hence, there shouldn't be much difference between Jewish college students' relationships with their parents and other American college students.

I'm not really sure what else to say about this lecture due to the fact that there was not much talked about.  Everything she hypothesized turned out to be true.  And there was not much substance on the difference between Jews and non-Jews.  

I would have liked her to go into a bit more details about the fact that girls who are culturally Jewish have more self confidence and self esteem than Jews who are religiously Jewish.  This is an interesting and troubling statement.  I'm not really sure what I think about this subject other than believing that it is true.

A Response To Monika Shafi

I was really impressed by the amount of information imparted to us and the passion displayed by Monika Shafi.Her portrayal of a hidden Jewess demonstrated how, in spite of the worst humanitarian conditions,Gertrude Kolmar was able to cultivate an amazing inner Jewish spirit.Her literary work remains a living testimony that a Jewish women/poet can indeed have an impact on the course of history.
One incident though, I find confusing in Kolmar's life is the fact she had an abortion at the age of 24.We were told Kolmar had a romantic affair with a man,became pregnant and was most likely forced by her mother to abort the fetus.At the same time,Shafi made it a point to convey to us how much Kolmar understood herself as being different;whether because she was Jewish,a woman or a poet,her feelings of being different were a constant motif in her work.Yet Kolmar always seemed to circumvent these "obstacles".She produced an array of literary work when the odds were against her.So what was it about being a single mom that she could not overcome?Shafi proposed, at the time,it would have destroyed her father's lucrative,lawyer image.To me,this does not seem in line with the fortitude Kolmar displayed as an artist.Exactly the opposite!Kolmar did not value money or modernity or middle class propriety.Why then, did she succumb to the base level of the Nazis by murdering an unborn child?Shafi mentioned countless poems revealing Kolmar's sorrow and pain associated with this event.It seems she was weakened by the traumatic experience and the repercussions were far reaching.

Jewish Women's Psychological Well Being

I really enjoyed learning about the attachment and separation theory. I think it is interesting to study these behaviors and how they affect people later in life. It really shows how much parenting and the values you instill in your children carry through their entire lives. I never really thought about religion as having an affect on peoples separation and attachment issues. I was very intrigued by the study that was done where the results showed that girls who had a personal/inner Jewish identity had higher self esteem while girls who had a religious Jewish identity had lower self esteem. I wish she could have harped on this a little longer and we could have discussed more reasons for this. I felt like this discussion was a lot of buildup but nothing to really show for her study. A lot of her results were basic generalizations and didn't prove or disprove any correlation between religion and these theories. I wish a larger sample was used and more results could have been determined. Most of the results she showed were generalizations that seemed obvious to me. I was very interested in hearing more about the relationship between Judaism and college women's well being, and I don't think that her study showed anything that I wouldn't have figured obvious already. I did think that it was cool that women who had a stronger Jewish identity had lower levels of distress. I think that this speaks more to the fact that these women had a stronger sense of self and were tied to the morals and values that Judaism teaches you. It was curious that she said that if Jewish women come to her for help that she tries to get them to delve into their Jewish roots. I wouldn't think of this as a way to help others and their well-being and I'm not sure that starting to get into your religion in college necessarily would help you. If you have never felt a deep tie to the religion I'm not sure that this would be of a lot of assistance because most people just haven't had any interest in it. Overall, I liked the presentation but wished there were more conclusions that could have been drawn from her study.

i will not be posting for this week

Monika Shafi

I really enjoyed the lecture presented to us by Monika Shafi. I really enjoyed the in depth discussion about the life of Gertrud Kolmar and all the influences that really show up in her writing. I cannot fathom what it must have been like living in Nazi controlled Germany, let alone trying to be an female poet, which is extremely difficult not in war times. The fact that Kolmar was upper-middle class, she still did not let that deter her from realizing her dream is one of the great stories to come of the Holocaust. She really shows a lot of Jewish pride and the perseverance that has been exhibited through all the hardships and anti-Semitism over the years. The fact that she openly saw herself as isolated, yet didn’t let this affect her motivation is something that is truly inspiring. The fact that she was never discouraged from creating great poetry (probably more than we’ll ever know because of what was lost) is really amazing.

Laura Levitt's Talk

I find myself having a difficult time deciding what to write as a response to this week. Loss is something that I am all too familiar with. I am 20 years old, and I need more than my two hands in order to count the number losses that I consider "personal". I am 20 years old, and I have to actually sit down and almost write out a list of the number of people who have died in my recent past because there are so many that I can't readily think of them. Some died from natural causes. Some were taken prematurely. Many actually took their own life.
I guess I don't see how being Jewish has anything to do with loss. And if anyone has ever been envious or felt left out that they didn't have anyone in their past who died in the Holocaust, then I feel sorry for them. I feel sorry for them because if they even remotely have the nerve to be upset that someone in their family didn't DIE, then they obviously need to seriously re-evaluate their view of life and loss. Death is about being human; it is not about being Jewish. It is basic human nature, and while it brings relief to some, it brings grief to all.
I don't need to have someone in my family who died in the Holocaust. My papa was a doctor in WWII, and that's the closest that I have. But when I lost my papa, I cared more than I possibly could if I had never met him. Sure, he may have died in the war, he may have died a hero for his people. But he didn't die in the war--he died when he did, and he was a hero to me and everyone who knew him. I may not be able to identify with the others of current generations who lost someone in the Holocaust, but I can identify with those of the past. I can identify with those who were only 20 years old and needed more than their two hands to count the number of loses they considered "personal". I can identify with those who were only 20 years old and had to actually sit down and almost write out a list of the number of people who had died in their recent past because there were so many that they couldn't readily think of them. Some died from natural causes. Some were taken prematurely. Many actually took their own life. I can identify with them because I am one of them. Not because I'm Jewish, not because I'm not-Jewish, but because I'm human.
What have I learned from personal loss? I've learned that I need to keep going. I've learned that you only have one life, and even when all you want to do is make it end, you can't. You can't and you won't. So you say a little prayer, you go to sleep, you wake up in the morning, and you keep going. And it gets better. You will start to form a new spirituality, a new reason for living. You will start to teach others about what loss really is, so that they can be ready for it when the time comes. And you start to realize that yes, being given this position is not fair, but it's what you've got, and it was given to you for a reason, and so you make the best of it.
I don't know if this was really the response you were looking for, but I guess Laura's discussion just provoked a part of me that's been waiting to release its frustration. I don't know if I'm completely disagreeing with what she has to say, but I know that there are some areas of life which transcend any possible religious, cultural, national, or spiritual identity, and one of those areas is death.

Not All Losses Are Morally Equivalent:A Response To Dr. Levitt

How does one persons' loss,whatever it may be, enable him/her to understand the mass losses of the Holocaust when not all losses are the same? And if all losses are not the same,how can one persons' loss possibly be compared to that of someone who experienced loss from the Holocaust?These were some of the questions floating in my head after hearing Dr. Laura Levitt's lecture.

Overall, she spoke beautifully of the significance of telling stories about ordinary people.All the while she spoke, I found myself wondering about my own family's background and how little I really know.This is precisely what she wanted to ignite in us.For her, the way to "never forget" is to delve into our own losses,feel their pain,then link the events back to the Holocaust to understand .Quite far-fetched I'll say! Also,she didn't share much about her own personal familial losses-I would have like to hear the circumstances surrounding the death of her paternal grandmother. Still, she had some good insights.For example, I liked what she said about each person having their own, particular emotional response to the Holocaust.While reverence and respect are customarily the feelings attached to the Holocaust,she spoke about engaging the feelings of inner city kids who had seen Schnidler's List.

Finally,I do not believe all losses are or should be placed on the same level.I think a measure of morality needs to be incorporated into any loss.For example,the loss of life in a concentration camp is not morally equivalent to to the loss of life by natural cause.Yet,Dr.Levitt did not attach any moral repercussions to the losses of the "ordinary people" she spoke about.Instead, she said all losses touch at the core.Indeed Holocaust discourse is emotional,but what we must "never forget" are the senseless acts of immorality perpetrated against the Jews.Anyway,I think as the generation of the Holocaust passes away,we are less likely to remember these individual stories because as Director of the American Committee,Steve Bayme writes,"the Holocaust is no longer central to identifying as a Jew.The Holocaust occupies a rightful place as a dominant event of our time,[however]constructing a Jewish identity upon a narrative of Jewish destruction [is not]who and what the Jews are."

Monika Shafi

I always have a great interest learning about people. I felt that Shafi spoke passionately and intelligently about Gertrud Kolmar. I enjoyed learning about her life and how her isolation and differences allowed her to create poetry. 

I see a lot of strange connections in her life. The fact that she was a woman poet makes her an ousider, as well as the fact that she was a Jewish woman in Nazi Germany. She lived on the outskirts of society by never marrying and writing about women. She took a different role in society and the world saw her as a different type of person in many aspects. She wrote about animals such as vermin and rodents which is ultimately what she paralleled herself to be like. 

One of the last points that Shafi made was that Gertrud Kolmar experienced a triple burden. She was a woman, a poet, and a Jew. I found this to be interesting and somewhat unsettling. Of course in todays society a Jewish, woman, poet would not be looked at as a burden, but maybe more of a minority. 

Monika Shafi

I am skipping this week.

Gertrud Kolmar

Monika Shafi spoke about German-Jewish poet Gertrud Kolmar. Kolmar came from an assimilated, upper-class family but understood herself as being an outsider. It was very interesting to see how someone so well-off and absolutely brilliant as Kolmar would feel this way. The three main reasons she felt so different were 1. her Jewishness, 2. her Femaleness and 3. her being an artist. A Jewish presence was felt in many of her works, and this Jewish identity was always intertwined with her female identity. Kolmar, living in the time when Nazi Germany came to power, never underestimated the danger of the Nazi’s. One poem cycle of hers, “The Words of the Silenced,” (Das Wort der Stummen) was about the situation of Hitler’s victims. In it, Kolmar identifies with them and speaks as one of them. It deeply saddened me to hear how Kolmar made many references to her knowing she would die at the hands of the Nazi’s. Kolmar was published very little in her lifetime but wrote close to 800 poems. Because it was hard to women to break into the industry and because Kolmar wrote very traditionally, very few of her works made it to print. I thought the combination of hearing about Kolmar’s life and the influence of her Jewish roots on her works was very interesting.

Amy Zitelman response to Monika Shafi

Professor Shafi gave a really nice overview of the life and significance of Gertrud Kolmar.  I really enjoyed the lecture.  Kolmar's writing is really beautiful. 

However, this lecture made me quite and upset and very frustrated.  I still cannot get over how much the world has had to lose on account of the Nazi destruction.  So many with such potential and greatness were murdered.  Kolmar's poetry and writing is so beautiful, yet so much of it was lost.  So many others (doctors, lawyers, poets, singers, etc.) were taken away from the world too soon.

My mom just forwarded me an email that was very interesting.  It spoke about the fact that there are 14,000,000 Jews in the world- about 0.02% of the world's population.  And from this small, small number Jews have received 129 Nobel Prizes through the year 2000.  To put this into perspective there are 1,200,000,000 (1.2 BILLION) members of the Islamic community.  That is 20% of the world's population.  Muslims have received 7 Nobel Prizes.

The Jews have given so much to this world.  Imagine if half of our people had not been taken away.

Laura Levitt

Laura Levitt’s lecture put a heavy emphasis of understanding the Holocaust as a collection of many tales rather than one uniform story. This idea is compelling in that when you think of the Holocaust you tend to think of the struggle of the Jewish people as a whole. But, thinking about the personal struggle of a family really puts a relatable emphasis on their experiences. She said to relate this to our own family and our own personable experiences, but I’m not sure what she meant it. If it’s comparing what our families have gone through and those that experienced the Holocaust, it’s a very striking point that can really put things in perspective. Personally, my family has experience nothing on that caliber, but I’m sure analyzing you families past can give someone new direction and inspiration for the future. I did not really follow the rest of her lecture. Her stories about her family were interesting, but seemed out of place in the overall theme.

American Loss after the Holocaust

I thought the title of this lecture was very misleading. I was expecting to hear about the destruction of the Jewish people during the Holocaust in a broad sense. Instead, she focused on the Holocaust on a personal level. I'm not sure I even understood what most of what she talked about had to do with the Holocaust. I enjoyed the stories she told about her ancestors and her "ghosts" and it makes me want to do more research about the stories that are important within my own family. I agree with the speaker that we must understand and view the Holocaust as millions of individual stories instead of purely speaking of the destruction as a whole. I'm not really sure I understood the correlation between learning about our own pasts and understanding the Holocaust. When I visited the Holocaust Museum in Israel as well as Washington D.C., I saw and felt the pain of the people in the various pictures and names on the wall. I'm not completely familiar with my own family's story, but I think I do understand the meaning of "never forget." From this lecture I do want to hear stories about my ancestors and I appreciate her persistance in telling others about our family especially our future families to keep it alive. I thought it was interesting how she said that "as a minority, you must be exceptional to be okay and accepted." I can see how this can be true because if you are not extraordinary, you could be put into a stereotype unless you try your best to break out of it. It is also true that the only stories that you hear about in Jewish Studies or in any religions for that matter are exceptional stories and we should appreciate the ordinary stories as well.

Jewish Babies

Religious revival after WWII was the push from Eastern European Jews to implement Jewish traditions that were lost after decades of assimilation in the GREAT United States of America.This movement was spearheaded by NeoReform Jews and included a return to customs such as bris mila,Bar/Bat Mitzvah and wearing yarmalkes and tallisim.Our speaker this week, Rebecca Davis, gave us the erroneous impression that religious revival was due to personal investment from Reform rabbis to their intermarried congregants.She claims very little credit was given to Reform rabbis who were responsible for building Jewish identity through intermarriage counselling.
My confusion about what she said is as follows:if the rate of intermarriage which she presented in class was 7% in 1967 then how exactly does counselling such a small amount of intermarried couples constitute a religious revival?If we look at the figures today of intermarriage---close to half of American Jews are intermarried!Certainly the work involved in Jewish continuity is not all that prim and fluffy as our speaker made it seem.
The real issue of intermarriage is this:the number of Jewish people is diminishing.Whenever a Jew marries out of the faith,studies show that the children do not always identify Jewish.Furthermore,while its true that as long as the mother is Jewish then the children will be halachically Jewish, there is a risk however, whether or not these children will identify Jewish.Unlike Christianity,Jews do not proselytize.So,if we do not get our numbers through Jewish babies,we do not get them at all!Still, in the best case scenario,when both parents are Jewish,marriage is difficult enough let alone raising children with a strong Jewish identity.So there are no guarantees.American culture makes it near impossible for anyone to have an ethnoreligious identity.Nevertheless,a Jew has the responsibility to keep passing on our tradition to the next generation.

Rebecca Davis

I wasn't too thrilled about Rebecca Davis' lecture on putting family first in the 20th century. I found most of what she said very vague and I don't think she did a good job of explaining much of the reasoning behind why counseling was started and why it was more about the community than the family and the couple itself. I completely understand that there were a lot of changes during this time period with the sexual revolution, woman's rights movement, and teenagers developing new relationships with friends so there was need for some stability. I don't really get the idea of the community being the same concern. I understand that Rabbis wanted to keep their religious community in tact, but unless I'm wrong she focused more on the community as in towns. I think the idea of marriage counseling with religious leaders is important because there are usually topics that engaged peoples should discuss before marriage so that it won't become an issues later on. I'm not sure what I thought about all the case studies she showed us in class. I'm not sure whether it is just because I was raised in a Reform manner, but I would think that if converted Jews have legitimate intentions they should be accepted into the community and this should effect their children. However, in the studies she showed this was not the case. I wish she would have talked about todays society and what counseling is like now.

Davis lecture

I was looking forward to Professor Davis' lecture. Being that Iam a human services major with a jewish studies minor, this topic fit perfectly into my interests I also did an independent study with the Rabbi on Jewish identity and family. This is a topic that i have a decent amount of knowledge in and a general interest for. I was disappointed by the lack of depth and information that could have been relayed in class. This topic is one that applies to many people. With our ever changing society and issues of the 21st Century, the contruct of marriage and religion has had to adapt. Yet I found Davis' points to be somewhat empty and hypothetical. A lot of what she said were projections and assumptions. I have a great deal of interest in counseling. I want to get my MSW and become liscensed and one day be a therapist. With the issues of counseling, marriage and religion brought up, I anticipated a deeper discussion filled with development and substance. I feel as though all I got was a one dimensional history of reform Rabbis and the instituion of marriage.
The idea of psychology and religion was an interesting point to me although it was not as developed as i would have hoped for. I found it interesting as well that the most important thing in rabbincal marriage counseling was to preserve the integrity of the community. The idea of working on the Jewish identity outside of the Jewish institution is something that we ourselves are doing in college. It is fascinating to see how we as students of jewish studies relate to all different facets of Jewish history.

Eric McBride Response for Rebecca Davis

I was also disappointed by Prof. Davis' presentation. I understand that issues of religious and racial identity are complicated in our modern, changing society, but the presentation lacked substance and did not make strong points. Taking a sociological view on religion and marriage practices can strengthen one's understanding of religion, but in a class on Jewish studies, it must be tied more to Judaism than social practices in 20th century America. I think it would have been helpful for Prof. Davis to focus more on the Jewish institution of marriage on its own rather than the context of American marriage. She did begin to discuss Rabbinic marriage counseling and use of Biblical texts and languages and I would have liked her to expand on that. Her two case studies were thought provoking, but they did not seem to be resolved. She did explain some of the goals of Jewish marriage well, including the idea that stability, as opposed to the Christian notion of survival, is the purpose of marriage and personal and sexual relationships are very important. Her focus seemed to dwell on Rabbis as marriage counselors and the social aspect of Jewish marriage rather than the Jewish aspects of marriage, as I was expecting from the lecture's title.

Marriage and Family

I am sorry but Prof. Davis presentation lacked any real substance for me. She did not quote one word from any religious sources. I have a hard time believing a speaker who talks about marriage in Judaism and talks nothing about what the bible says on the topic.
Also, I really disliked the one reformed rabbi she mentioned that said it was ok for a women to marry a non-Jewish man because her happiness came first. No respectable Rabbi would ever say such a thing. That is not a belief in Judaism. The hebrew word for man and women is Eish and Eisha (I don't know the exact spelling in English of these words). When you put these two words together you can make out G-d's name and that is what makes a soul complete. That is what marriage in Judaism is all about, completing your soul. The person you marry should be the other half of your soul, and a non-Jew and a Jew can never complete each others souls.

Asaf Romirowsky

I thought Asaf Romirowsky's presentation was the first of any real substance. He knew what he was talking about and did a great job getting the information across. I liked how he stated how the Palestinians are not one united front. Different groups of Arabs hate each other, however, the one thing they do agree on is that they all hate the Jews.
Also, I really enjoyed how he spoke about Carter. Carter is a a money grubbing piece of garbage and should be made to register as a lobbyist. He gets money from the Arabs and in return spits lies at the media. The Arabs made him look like a fool in the last year of his presidency, with the hostage crisis, and there making him look like a fool now too.
I really liked Asaf's 3 state plan. However, I think its better in theory then actuality. Yes, it would be nice to put all Palestinians into a West Bank State or a Gaza State, and then when they attack or send missiles into Israeli cities attack them. But Iran and Syria will not sit by and allow that, and now we are looking at world war 3.

Amy Zitelman Response to Profes. Davis

Professor David spoke about marriage for American Jews.  More specifically, she spoke about the roles marriage counseling played in American Jewish Lives post WWII.  Marriage counseling, she said, was an under-appreciated attribute in the revival of Religion after the second world war.

After the war, aspects of relationships were different; gender roles had begun to change, and children dating were out of the eyes of their parents, and many young couple's questions were going unanswered.  But, have no fear, religious leaders (in the reform community) stepped up and learned counseling techniques to help these young couples.

Rabbis' focuses in their marriage counseling was not about the couple, but rather about the importance of advancing Jewish communities.  Their counseling was not about marriage, but about the potential JEWISH children.  It was about how the couple will affect the community.

And in these times after World War 2, the Jewish community did prosper.

My only question is- what has changed?  Why is it that Jewish divorce rate, which used to be one of the lowest in the world, has increased?  Why is there a higher rate of inter-marriage?

What were rabbi's saying back then that was apparently so productive, and not saying now?

Clearly, I don't have the answers.  Maybe Professor David does, however!

Jewish Marriage and Family

Professor Davis’ talk today centered around the focus of marriage and American Jewry in the twentieth century. American Jewish counselors of the time were less concerned about divorce and more concerned about intermarriage and the continuity of the Jewish people. During the 1930’s, synagogue memberships and religious participation were way down, while labor activism was on the rise. However, post-WWII, religious interest picked up. America was seen as an active pluralistic society.
During this time, a focus took place regarding Jewish family and marriages. Americans at this time were worried about the future of marriages: changes in gender roles were occuring, and young people had new freedoms not available to their parents’ generation. Divorce rates at this time were higher then ever before, and women, due to increased economic and educational opportunities, were more likely to divorce their husbands if they were unhappy.
To save marriages, marriage counseling developed (among many different religious groups, not just Jews.) While in Protestantism, their focus was to get savvy about discussing sexuality among members and prevent divorce, Reform Jews had a much different focus. Since laws about matters like intercourse and niddah had been in Jewish texts for many generations, this was not of prime concern. Again, survival, and not stability, was the cornerstone of Jewish marriage counseling.

Rebecca Davis' Talk

Professor Davis' talk was really interesting. I thought the structure of her presentation was very well thought out; by beginning with background information concerning the split of conservative and liberal sects of religion, new dating habits in the early 20th century, and the different revivals that occured after WWII, I was able to better understand the information concerning the Jewish community and new marriage practices. I liked the way that some rabbis decided to integrate the new social sciences into religion and discuss Jewish practical matters concerning marriage in terms of psychological and sociological developments. I definitely agree that, to a certain exent, the social sciences can help us to grow as a Jewish community. Understanding the subconscious (as God created it) can help us to lead better lives and to better understand the correct answer to our problems.

As far as the Jewish community's focus on interfaith marriages, I guess I have a different view on this issue. For so many years, and even still today, parents and the community considered it an abomination for a Jew to marry a non-Jew. You were upsetting the integrity of the community--you were betraying your culture and your family. Even my grandmother was so upset that my mother married outside of the religion that she made my parents hold two wedding parties and lied to all of the relatives on my mother's side, saying that my parents got married in a temple but that it was just a private ceremony. I personally think, however, that having parents from different backgrounds really helped shape me into the tolerant and curious person that I am today. Although my father never officially converted, I was raised Jewish, and I went through hebrew school and was bat mitzvahed just like everyone else. However, at the same time, I was able to see other people practicing differently on my father's side of the family, and by being exposed to all different kinds of religious practice, I came to appreciate the Jewish community more. I think that if Judaism was the only thing I knew, I might have rejected it--especially since I come from a small town in NH where being Jewish can feel very lonely. Instead, I learned about all different cultures but was still able to identify with the international Jewish community and its spirituality very strongly. And because of my exposure, I was able to successfully teach many others about Judaism in terms they would understand. Naturally, after going through everything they did, my parents have told me that I can marry whoever I would like. I don't have any preference to whether or not I marry someone Jewish, but I do want to raise my children Jewish. I want them to have ties to this amazing community, but I also want them to be free to learn and experience everything they want. This way, when they are older and have the chance to make a decision for themselves, they too can truly appreciate the uniqueness of Judaism.

Are We Afraid To Declare War?

I would like to start by acknowledging the speaker this week,Asaf Romirowsky, for imparting a well prepared,researched lecture.I really liked how he started off the lecture by dispelling the myth that Palestinians are one united front.When in reality many conflicts exist amongst them.
Focusing primarily on Gaza,Romirowsky gave an excellent historic overview on the terrorist group Hamas rise to power in 2006.He said,'Hamas rules and controls that small region by Islamic ideology.It provides social services,economic relief and arms to attack Israel.As long as the Gaza Palestinians stay true to religious fundamentalism than Hamas will continue to provide support to them.Hamas has no interest in being recognized by Israel or the U.S. because it receives its funding from Arab nations such as Iran.'
It was interesting to learn what the people in the West Bank think of Palestinians living in Gaza.Gazians are seen as unpolished and refer by the West Bank as dogs.Yet, despite their tribal conflicts and animosity towards each other,Hamas has succeeded in redirecting their hatred and targeting it instead to a higher cause,the destruction of Israel and its prime ally.GENIUS!!!!Why can't we agree on what to do about the Palestinians in the same way that Hamas can? Hamas has no pretense.Its agenda has always been clear.Still,it has been 2 years,Gaza is its own state and Israel has not destroyed them.Why not?

Asaf Romirowsky

I’ve always known there was no simple resolution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict plaguing the Middle East. However, I never knew the details and how deep the problems facing the region really are. Mr. Romirowsky’s lecture really highlighted the point that the Palestinians division amongst themselves is proving to be a major barrier when it comes to smoothing relations in the region. I always assumed that the people of Gaza and the people of the West Bank saw eye to eye, since they seem to have the same goals and the same motivation. I never fully grasped the tremendous difficulties facing the Palestinian people and there struggle for acceptance in the modern world. The fact that no country, not even those that share the same anti-Israel views and religious beliefs will shelter them says a lot. Terrorist organizations like Hammas and others are living evidence of the instability of Palestine and their views. Israel being blamed for Palestinian hardship instead of the numerous countries around it, which have done less to help the people, really tell the story of the bias the country faces. Like my previous posters I’m an advocate of peace in the region, yet I honestly can’t name the Israeli Prime Minister without looking it up. I really hope the 3 state plan the speaker brought up will become a reality, but the way things were described it seems very hard to negotiate with a group when that group doesn’t have any uniform organization.

Asaf Romirowsky

I found this lecture to be one of the more fascinating and applicable ones of the series. I thought that Romirowsky was well spoken, easy to understand, and brought up prominant and important issues. I must admit that while I consider myself to be pretty invovled in the news and know what is going on, i found a lot of the information about the Gaza vs. the West Bank new and fascinating.

The idea of a 3 state solution is something frightening to me. I dont think it would work and i think it would totally change the dynamic of the state of Israel. I understand that it may smooth over some of the conflict between gaza and the west bank, but it does not rectify the situation with enemies outside of Israel. I dont know what the answer is, but beacuse Jerusalem is the center of the religious world, Israel will most likely always face some sort of conflict.

Another scary factor is the insidious rise of terrorist organizations with a political front. It is understandable how the population can be persuaded to accept and believe such a group.

When i learned of Khan's topic i was excited to hear what he had prepared for us. I am very interested in the different cultures and religions of other people around the world and have taken several classes including this one to broaden my knowledge on such subjects. However i more enjoy learning the big picture and facts from all sides of the spectrum when trying to understand a different religion, and for some reason Dr. Khan struck me as rather bias and mildly bitter towards his subject matter. I respect every ones point of view especially on their own religion that i may not know a hole lot about, but i do not agree that in this day and age it is an issue or even a question that Judaism and Christianity recognize Islam. Most civil people of all religions realize that not every one around the world has the same beliefs as them and that there are many many personal beliefs that people around the world hold, and that every one is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs even if they are different from their own. His examples of peacefully interpreting the Koran were intriguing to me. Normally when the Koran is brought up the interpretations of it are usually negative and violent. I was also very interested in his use of texts to exemplify the good and bad relations connecting Jews and Islams. His examples of those relationships seemed more like the big picture i enjoy learning about than his acusations of other religions and people not recognizing Islam.

Future of Israel/Palistine Relations

I really enjoyed this talk on Israeli/Palestinian relations because I know so little about it. It is such a complex issues that I don't think I had the background knowledge for some of the issues he mentioned, but it was very interesting to me nonetheless. The whole problem is so multi-faceted because of all of the different countries and factions of people and how they deal and relate to each other. I didn’t know about the differing peoples in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and how they really dislike each other. It is very sad to me that other countries do not help out the Palestinians even when barriers into Egypt and Jordan have been broken down. If someone other than Hamas helped them perhaps they wouldn’t be quite as bitter towards Israel. It boggles my mind that the United States has different definitions of these groups as either terrorist or non-terrorist based on what they say to the public. It is very naïve to think that the PLO and other groups like Fatah would work with Israel. To say something behind closed doors and to do it are two very different things. The fact that the Palestinians aren’t unified poses an entirely different problem. How do you stop bombings, when all of these groups do not listen to the same leader. Negotiations clearly have not and will not work because of this problem. This conflict will not end unless something is done to change the schooling, media, environment, and recognition of Israel. More and more children are being brought up to hate Israel and blame them for their economic hardship. If they could see that the other countries around them aren’t helping them either maybe this problem could be more easily resolved. The speaker talked of a three state solution, but I think at this point that will not end the violence. Palestinians will still be bitter towards Israel and the violence will not end. I have been to Israel and have seen why it is so important that it keeps strong as its own nation. Hopefully other nations will see its importance as well someday.

Asaf Romirowsky's Talk

I remember sitting in the airport when I saw it announced on the news that Hamas had won the election. I remember having heard about this election when I had visited Israel so few weeks prior, and I remember knowing that this was a huge step backwards for Israel and its hopeful peace. I remember the people sitting around, some of them looking at the television, others not paying any attention. But most of all, I remember feeling like nothing was ever going to change. The fued between Israel and Palestine has existed for longer than anyone can remember, and the ups and downs have been endless. From countless attempted peace talks to hundreds of elections and every bomb in between, a solution to this conflict is getting to a point where it seems impossible. And I believe the only reason is ignorance.

So many of the worlds problems could be solved if we all just took the time to learn about them. How is it that the fued between the Palestinians and the Israelis actually began? Why is it that the Palestinians do not recognize Israel as a state? Why do they hate the United States so much? How is it that a terrorist organization came to be the majority party in Palestine? Where exactly are we now, and what are some of the solutions to this problem? Obviously, Mr. Romirowsky began to teach us about some of these issues, but there is still so much that I don't know. There is still so much that many of the people working on this issue don't know, let alone the general public. People blame one side or the other based on the easiest way of attaining information, the media, but never take time to truly find out for themselves. I'm just as guilty of this, and I don't even have a good reason for it. I'm almost embarrassed to say that I don't know so many things about Israel right now. I don't even know the name of the Prime Minister off of the top of my head. But it's true, and I bet if you asked much of the Jewish population, even just on this campus, they would find themselves in the same situation as me. Be it a 2 state solution, a 3 state solution, or even something else entirely, education is the place to start. And I know it sounds silly, but after feeling so lost during a simple one hour presentation on the current issues between Palestine and Israel, I find myself finally being frustrated enough to want to learn. It's unfortunate that sometimes frustration must act as a motivator, but whatever it takes, more and more people need to start learning about what is behind the headlines. For Palestinians, Israelites, and Americans alike--without knowledge of what we are facing, there is no hope.

Amy Zitelman response to Asaf Romirowsky

I really enjoyed this lecture.  It was really interesting to hear factual information about the Palestinians.  Not enough people understand that they are not a united entity and that the only thing they agree on is hatred for Israel and the United States (and the Western World).

NO ONE wants or likes the Palestinians.  For sure not Israel.  But more importantly, no Arab country will ever be willing to accept Palestinians and make them citizens.  They are trouble wherever they go, hence why they were kicked out of Jordan.  What bothers me most is that the world is so biased and turning the other way to how every country treats the Palestinians.  Ever country, that is, except Israel.  Israel will always be held accountable for the problems of the Palestinians even though there are many other sources for their sufferings.

Mr. Romirowsky mentioned a three state solution.  Since solutions that are impossible are being addressed and suggested, here is my solution...

1. Fix the Media.  We have to get the biased media off of Israel's back.  Israel will be destroyed as a country because they are forced to make decisions based on how they will look to the media and the world.  This needs to change.

2. Education.  The Palestinians need to be educated about their true circumstance.  That not all their problems are due to Israel, and that most of their problems are due to other Arab countries surrounding them.

It is so confusing to me that Palestinians and the world hold Israel accountable for Palestinian rights and social services, when their Arab neighbors should be held responsible for their well being.  I think its a joke that Palestinians have to rely on Israel for oil, electricity, and many other basic things.  It's sad that their own people (i.e. Egypt and Jordan) don't help them.

Asaf Romirowsky

thought Asaf Romirowsky’s talk on the relationship between Israel and the Palestinian Authority was extremely interesting. I had always believed that the Palestinians were just one united front. I was unaware that the West Bank is made up mostly of people from Jordan, with Gaza including mostly people from Egypt. There is no intermarriage between these two groups. People from the West Bank believe that their Arabic is more polished then is the Arabic spoken in Gaza. The talk of them being one cohesive unit is the work of Arafat. Romirowsky explained that Hamas is not seen as a terrorist group there, because they supply services to Palestinians which were previously not provided by the Palestinian Authority. This is the reason for their unwavering support. They also jointly hate America and Israel, because both are seen as trying to destroy the Muslim world. Numerous conspiracy theories exist of how both seek to do so. He also said that he does not believe the idea of a two state solution is viable. Romirowsky said that it will have to be a three state solution: Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. His talk was informative and fascinating.

Dr. Khan

Dr. Khans lecture really highlights the disparity between Judaism is Islam. I thought he was very vague addressing the topic of tension between Jews and followers of Islam. The topic of “ummah” was one I did not completely grasp, but from what I did gather it seems very strange. It was described as a political party (or something like it) consisting of 2 religions. I don’t really know how the Koran can be interpreted by some, like Dr. Khan, as a peaceful and torah like text, while others interpret it as a warrant to destroy Jews and others of the western world. When asked about this, I really felt that it gave Dr. Khan and opening to say something powerful and really sway the audience (one that was definitely biased towards popular Jewish views), and he completely didn’t answer the question. He contends that the Koran preaches peace, and has the same base and Judaism and Christianity. Since they all have genuine connections to the Old Testament, this is probably true. However, the fact that the modern cultures of the Jews and Muslims managed to stray to complete opposite ends so violently makes it a great mystery.

Dr. Khan

I found Dr. Khan's lecture to be a nice story, but nothing more. My Grandfather is from Syria and my Grandmother is from Egypt and I never heard either of them talk nicely about their respective countries. They would tell me that no matter how good it was for the Jews at certain times, Jews were still considered second class citizens.

Dr. Khan also talked about how Islam and Christianity recognize Judaism but neither Judaism nor Christianity recognizes Islam. Last time I checked there are many terrorist organizations, like Hamaz and Hezbollah that have a creed to destroy the Jews. Whether or not this creed came after or before the state of Israel is irrelevant to me. The state of Israel before 1948 was a barren waste land. The Muslims did not take care of the land or develop the land. (For example, the Temple Mount, where the Palestinians now have a Mosque to pray at because they believe it was holy to them was a garbage dump pre-Jewish occupation of Israel. Doesn’t everyone put there garbage in really holy places?)

He also spoke about interpretations of the Koran and how you can see words of peace in it. The fact that there are many Islamic groups that can interpret the Koran to speak words of hate is disgusting to me. The Torah can be interpreted many ways, but I never heard a Jewish source interpret the Torah to kill people.

I’d really like to comment on his attitude and how he responded to me after class, but I was told you are not allowed to comment on that aspect.

Dr. Khan's lecture

I have a great respect and interest for diverse religions and cultures. So when Dr. Khan came in to speak I was eager to hear what he had to say. I found his lecture interesting and thought provoking although I'm not sure Iagree with all the points he made. They were pretty general when it came to the interpretation of the Koran. I think that because with the inherent tension between Jews and Muslims, he may have held back on certain things, maybe some personal feelings. I suppose I get suspicious when a representative of a group that publicly displays hatred and terror comes and tries to smooth things over.
I had trouble following some of Khans points just because he spoke so soft and quickly. The point that Islam recognizes Judaism but Judaism does not recognize Islam is a strange one to me. The way i view religion, which is completely my own opinion, is that it isn't there for everyone. Its a belief and beliefs have boundaries therefore cannot encompass the masses. The idea that Judaism does not recognize Islam is almost irrelevant in my eyes because we have our views and they have theirs. It is not a matter of everyones prophet coming together in a story.
I thought that the connection between theology and politics was a very strong and interesting point. We often blur the boundaries between religion and politics and to pull them apart becomes difficult. It is true that it depends on the way you look at things.
This brings me back to the beginning when Dr. Khan spoke about the way you interpret the Koran is dependent on who you are. I agree with that point and think that it holds true for the Torah, the bible, and anything you encounter in life. Religion is what you make of it and inevitably becomes who you are, and how you project your beliefs into your everyday life.

Eric McBride Response for Dr. Khan

Dr. Khan's lecture was informative and interesting. The relationship between Islam and Judaism has been quite an interesting one throughout the ages and at present. I am not sure if I accept that idea that this relationship is asymmetric. Religion is not a software program that can be debugged and upgraded. Whole belief systems and ways of life are based on the fundamentals of religion and I feel that describing the relationship as asymmetric undermines its importance. The fact that Islam chronologically developed after Judaism and incorporated its choices of Judaism's teachings is misrepresented by this term. 

Dr. Khan's recognition of the fundamental connection between politics and theology is important to note. While we do have the "myth of secularism" in the West, this allows us to avoid a defined religious majority and helps us to work around religious differences and divides within the polity. Religion can and should have a role in the choices of our leaders, but secular government exists because religion should be a private choice, not a state action. The fact that the connection between theology and politics is real and open in the Muslim world is somewhat disturbing. I realize that this can have positive or negative consequences, but when a religious leader controls a state, those in the religious minority are put at risk politically. 

Finally, Dr. Khan's use of religious texts to promote a both a positive and negative relationship between Judaism and Islam showed the power of these texts and persons who interpret them. I liked how he showed that one can find what they are looking for either way, but this also shows that one should be very careful when basing decisions on texts. I hope to learn more about this at the lecture "An Imam and a Rabbi" tonight and that I will see some of you there! 

Amy Zitelman response to Dr. Khan

I found it very interesting that Dr. Khan mentioned that Islam recognizes Judaism and Christianity, but Judaism does not recognize either.

I have always been intrigued by Christianity and Islam.  They both admit that they believe in the old testament.  Yet, I find that hypocritical and contradictory towards their beliefs.

The old testament says that the prophet has to be a descendant from David.  Neither Jesus or Muhammad were descendants from David, hence, they cannot be the so-called prophet destined to come.  (Jesus was a descendent from David, but on his mother's side, which is irrelevant since in Judaism religion comes from the mother and lineage from the father.)

How can Islam and Christianity justify their religion and belief in their prophets if they also believe in the Old Testament?

I was most confused, however, by the fact that Dr. Khan was showing examples of how the Koran could be interpreted to teach peace amongst different religions, but many Imams and spiritual leaders of the religion have very violent interpretations of the text.  I just wished that more Muslims could interpret the text in a peaceful way, and not use it as examples for violence against Jews and Westerners (infidels).

Dr. Khan

Studying similarities, differences, and interactions between religions has always been interesting to me. I'm amazed that so many people can coexist with such an array of different beliefs. I have never been to a lecture specifically concerning Islam and Judaism, and was surprised at some of Dr. Khan's comments. He talked about the symmetry amidst the religions and how, for example, Islam and Christianity recognize Judaism but neither Judaism nor Christianity recognize Islam. Regardless, Judaism and Islam share one "Ummah" or one political community consisting of two religions. It is fascinating that Muslims would be willing to accept a religion that in turn does not accept them back. I was also intrigued by Dr. Khan's idea that all of the religions may be equal but that does not make them the same and they are, effectively, competing doing good deeds. I felt his point was that it is ok, even good, to have differing opinions and separate ideas and beliefs, and that's what makes us all get along, as long as we follow our own set of rules while accepting that others may live by differing standards.

Elliot Ratzman

Throughtout Mr. Ratzman's speech, I was impressed with the way he alluded to different religions, races, and groups and managed to portray everyone as equals and talk about each with the same tone and sense of familiarity. I thought everything tied in well to his argument that Jews as a group may not be directly involved in any one world problem or service group, but we do fight in many areas against prosecuting other minorities. For example, concerning the issues with Darfur, we realize that a minority is in need of help and so we do what we can to better the situation, regardless of the fact that the minority does not consist of Jews. Ratzman commented on Manuel Levinas' idea that human responsibility to one another is "infinite," same as our "infinite" relationship to God. I thought that was a great connection and an interesting theory. Lastly, I was intrigued by his opinion that, traditionally, Jews offer a "twist" for dealing with issues and rescuing others: we concentrate on both the social and material aspects in dealing with problems.

Islam & Judaism

I was looking forward to this discussion because I have always been interested in the relationship between these two religions. Dr. Kahn showed us that Islam like many religions, extremists take the Koran too literally and this is how extremist viewpoints start. I always believed that the origins of Antisemitism stemmed from the Koran but I was surprised to hear that with a few exceptions the problem is mostly political. I was also surprised to see many stanzas in the Koran that point to Judaism as a religion of the "best people of the book" and that combined with Muslims are of one "Ummah" or community. It is really sad to me that Islamic scholars misinterpret the Koran in order to prove a point. I wish that people could see the positives in the Koran instead of looking for reasons to hate different groups of people. I was intrigued by the story Dr. Kahn told about adultery and Muhammad telling Jewish people to stay with their own rules in the Torah instead of trying to find punishment within the Koran. The misinterpreted line of "Who so judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are disbelievers," is misconstrued so much that it is used in the opposite light of how the Koran meant it. This line was supposed to show the Islamic idea that each religion sticks with their own rules because that is what God has shown them. One particular phrase that Dr. Kahn said was "Diversity is divine." I like this phrase because I think this illustrates the liberal way of thinking in many religions. Extremists want to make this fallacy and I wish that this could be the accepted view around the world so that people could just accept others for who they are.

Rebekah Klein-Pejsova

Though I tried to follow what Dr. Klein was saying, I found it hard to concentrate and pay attention when all of the material covered in her lecture was well above my level of understanding due to a lack of background knowledge of the subject. She assumed we knew more about her topic, which from what I was able to gather was about Jewish relations with Slovakia. However, considering it was really an introduction to the subject, at least for me, I was not able to follow the lecture. Even the handout proved confusing. I was able to pick up her point that Judaism was not just a religion within interwar Slovakia but also a “nationality” or what seemed to be a sense of identity. It was interesting to learn that depending on ones physical location within the country would determine their treatment. She noted that the Slovs were not anti-Semitic, but I was curious because it seemed that some of their actions were definitely discriminatory due to their religion, like many countries of the time. I would be interested in learning, in more detail, how life was different for Jews in the post WWII time, as well as during the beginning of the war, in comparison with other nations around them.

Judaism/Islam

When I first heard about Dr. Khan’s lecture, I was excited, believing that it would touch on how Judaism and Islam differ, in addition to their similiarities. I was especially hoping to examine how both groups examine sources differently. However, the angle of Dr. Khan’s talk seemed more focused on discussing Islam with the mindframe that the Koran was a valid text, that is separated with differing views. (Perhaps this was just my general sentiment.) Dr. Khan discussed how Islam recognizes Judaism ie. Moses, but Judaism does not recognize Islam, ie. Mohammed. He then spent a good portion of the talk about how there are different interpretations and translations of the Koran, and that a traditional Conservative view maybe be completely different then a more liberal stance. Different passages of the Koran were looked at, showing how Jews are recognized as being a good nation, or destined to be losers in the afterlife (Quran 3:85 vs. Quaran 2:62). Admittedly, I am an extremely biased observer of all this. However, I did find it interesting that at the end of the lecture he mentioned how Jews and Muslims do have some similar interests, one of which is keeping the US as a secular country.

Elliot Ratzman

I thoroughly enjoyed Mr. Ratzmans lecture. It was the kind of presentation that has the ability to open ones eyes to things you may not have ever thought twice about. I was particularly interested in the theologists ideas of our responsibility to strangers that he discusses. He elaborated on a few things that i always has in the back of my mind, but never really thought too thoroughly about. Its usually not enjoyable to listen to people speaking on such topics because you often leave with feelings of guilt, but Mt. Ratzman really discussed the topics with care and much optimism with very encouraging points. I was always uneasy about "giving back." I often felt my charity was insignificant and didn't really see how i was truly making a difference or where my money was going. I often found that time was a more valuable resource to give. But with both resources i was always unsure of how much i should have been responsible for giving (regarding church and non-church activities). Some of what Elliot spoke about cleared or opened different doors for questions i had. I myself am not Jewish but i really enjoyed learning some of the points of view on topics like this from the religion.

Messianic Politics

I truly enjoyed Elliot Ratzman's lecture.He brought out an important philosophical discussion,one already inherent in Judaism.How much should one give,monetarily or physically to tzeddaka?
I agree with Ratzman that Americans in general and Jews in particular need to be re-educated about how the poor are viewed.Our sages' answer to the question," why does poverty exists?" offers a unique perspective.They say that the very existence of the poor or the needy is so they could help us!Their deprivation is meant to evoke in us and teach us about compassion and love of our fellow Jew.
So many of us in America are so concerned about our own material welfare,that we hardly have the time to think about the 'other'.As a result much of our world remains in dire need of being rescued.Ratzmans' choice of how to go about saving the world, based on Levinas' radical ethics,is a step in the right direction.Levinas believes we all have an infinite responsibility to the other.I would like to submit,however, that living a life entirely devoted to the other would render us slaves.Infinitely beholden to the other is endless and possibly destructive.Only few individuals in unique circumstances, have ever been so compelled as to sacrifice themselves to that extent.
For the rest of us ,the answer to the question of how much to give lies in the Torah.The Torah gives a Jew clear guidelines delineating to what extent a Jew is responsible to help others. Ten percent of our earnings but no more than 20% is expected towards a worthy cause.In doing so,our spiritual connection to G-d is reinforced as well as our connection to the other.
Finally I would like to add,while I was listening to the radio yesterday,I heard Apartheid activist Desmond Tutu say about his efforts in South Africa,"we are all instruments for the use in G-d's hands...to help another."Thankfully there are people who commit their lives to the other.As for Jews, our focus should be Israel.Let's not lose sight that this is G-d's world,we can do so much,the Messiah will do the rest.

Week of 4/8/08

I will not be posting this week.

Elliot Ratzman

I really liked how down to earth this speaker and the topic were. It was very refreshing to hear a proponent of inding an organization that you care about, and working with them to make contributions. This would msocial action talk to you who understands the common trials and tribulations of giving back. I like how he proposed a fake it worthwhile to some people who are otherwise cautious to donate time and money. Identifying with who you’re giving valuable resources to would definitely make giving back much more meaningful. Mr. Ratzman also reminded us that this plight is not nearly limited to Jews, but Jews approach social action differently than other religions. It has balance and a sense of realism that is not found in other faiths. The point he made that really hit close to home was the fact that peoples lives could be saved if more attention was paid to Tikun Olam. But that just goes to show the power social action could have if more effort and initiative was taken towards charitable causes.

Elliot Ratzman

I was very insipered and captivated by Elliot Ratzman's lecture. I have always learned that charity, or tzedukah is a big part of our religion. I liked learning about the connection it had to judaism and history.
Ratzman's lecture illustrated the aspect of humanity present in judaism. that is something that i am very proud of and appreciate. I found the connection between G-d and humans and us and the unknown one to be powerful and relateable.
I also enjoyed learning about the views and ideas of Levinas, Peter Singer, and Hillel Cook. These important figures exemplified the ideals that Ratzman spoke about.

Elliot Ratzman's Talk

I really enjoyed this speaker. He was very down-to-earth and spoke to us on an equal level, which is really important when presenting information such as his. Too often speakers on community service and social action talk down and make you feel like a terrible person, and guilty attacking is often not the most affective way to convince an audience to change. I really liked the points that Elliot Ratzman made, and I thought he had some fresh viewpoints and ideas on how we can affectively make a change.

For me, one of the hardest parts about giving is that I always felt like I couldn't truly make a difference. I was only a young member of society who no one really took seriously, and how was I supposed to convinve any one of what to do. How did I know my money was going to a good cause? How did I know if my action or donation would ever really touch someone's life? Recently, I have found inspiration in a good friend of mine, Hilary. She is a fellow students of mine here at UD, and it was she who organized the STAND at UD group on campus. This group works with the national STAND foundation to help stop the genocide in Darfur. Over the course of only two years, I have watched this organization grow from the ground up, to the point where they are now part of a network of thousands who help to fight this injustice. Hilary' s chapter was named "STAND chapter of the month" recently; they attend rallies, help promote awareness on campus, make phone calls and send countless letters to politicians and other local officials urging them to take action, and even help raise money in the community. Hilary leads a message board in which she encourages and helps countless people our age to find ways in which they can really help change the situation in Darfur. Before this, I really don't think I ever had an example of someone who I could identify with that truly made a difference. It is incredibly inspiring to see someone you consider a friend take such leaps to help people who are suffering at the hands of injustice. And finally seeing someone close to me have success has truly made me realize that I can do something concrete to help.

I also really liked that Elliot Ratzman gave me some points on how to affectively pick a cause that is right for you. He said to pick something I am passionate about, because then I will want more and more to help out. He also advised that I find somewhere where I can do more than just donate money occasionally, because then I will feel more mentally and emotionally involved. Most of all I like that he suggested I find something specific and possibly even solvable. By really honing in one one issue and using all available resources to make a change in it, then a concrete solution may result in the time you are working with that organization. Seeing an end finally put to the injustice that you have been working to stop is a really motivating factor to keep pushing and keep fighting for everyone in the world.

Rebekah Klein-Pejsova's talk

First and foremost, I'll agree with most of the other blog participants that this lecture was a bit over my head. I think there was too much crammed into one hour, and with little to no background in the subject area, I found myself lost for the most part. As far as the politics were concerned, I tried to follow along but found myself just getting more and more confused. When I asked Rebekah for a recap of "why this study of Slovakia helps us understand larger ideas," I was given four responses that I could almost understand. I guess I'm going to just try and talk about the one thing that I did get out of her lecture, and I hope that it was one of the things that she intended for me to understand: how Jews and their struggles with identity in Slovakia can provide a case study for how Jews struggle to maintain their own cultural identity and still have a national identity within the country that they live.

As far as I understood, Jews within Slovakia were put in a difficult situation when it came to the creation of Hungary's "Heroes Temple Memorial". On the one hand, this memorial was being created for the Jewish soldiers who lost their lives in the war. However, on the other hand, this was a Hungarian war memorial, and many of the Jews who were being asked to participate were part of the Slovak territory that now belonged to Czech Republic. The Czech repulic wanted to see that the Jews in Slovakia were really loyal to their new borders, and their fears were not unreasonable, given the delicate situation that these Jewish people were in. After conducting an investigation in 1931, they found that Slovak Jews really didn't participate in the Hungarian project. Why is this? The Slovak Jews, while they wanted to commemorate their dead, did recognize their loyalty to their new borders. They liked the higher standards of living that Slovakia provided, and were through dealing with the anti-semetic political platforms in Hungary. So, as a compromise, Slovak Jews began to commemorate their soldiers locally. The created plaques in local cemetaries, etc... They were able to maintain their Jewish identity and their duty to their lost loved ones while still operating within the boundaries of their new nation. It was not so much about assimilation, since for the most part these Jews kept a separate cultural identity; it was about respect for the land that, at the moment, they called home.

I can understand this scenario. Jewish people are scattered all around the world today, and they have been for as far back as I can recall. The concepts of Jewish identity and national identity have always been questioned; can the two be different and still exist harmoniously? It is a question that is difficult to answer, and for all of us who don't have the fortune to live in a Jewish nation, it is a problem that we struggle with daily. This goes back to when I talked about, in another post, whether I was a Jewish-American or an American-Jew. If I call myself a Jewish-American, then I am recognizing myself as nationally American, but culturally Jewish. In this conversation, I think this identification makes me most sense. At the end of the day, I am Jewish, and that culture comes with certain responsiblities that I refuse to ignore. However, I am also a citizen of the United States of America, and for better or worse, I do feel a sense of national identity to this place I have called home for my entire life. And so, when I make decisions, I try to still maintain my responsibilities to my Jewish culture, even if I have to accomodate them a little in order to stay loyal to my national identity. It's a confusing mix of labels, but throughout Jewish history there have been tons ofquestions surrounding Jews and their true loyalties, many times to the point that it lead to their destruction. It is unfortunate, too, that so often the Jewish people were persecuted, because I almost can bet that if you actually took time to ask the Jewish people living in those nations, they would give you an answer similar to that of mine and the Slovak Jews.

Elliot Ratzman

I thought Elliot Ratzman's speech was enlightening. I was especially drawn to his explanation of some theologists ideas about our responsibility to strangers. I like the idea of treating the relationship as holy, and essentially treating everyone as equals and with a blank slate. It is hard to imagine taking this idea to its fullest extent, because of basic human nature, but I like the ideal. A common thread of Judaism is the idea of the mitzvah and I thought this falls in that category. To be able to give to people you most likely will never meet is the ultimate mitzvah. Every day people get caught up in their own problems and don't consider how truly lucky they really are. Knowing that by donating a very insignificant amount of money could help cure children of a life-threatening disease is saddening to me because so few people actually do that. It is very honorable that many Jewish groups have stood up against other genocides not only because of the Holocaust but because of the injustices and atrocities that take place. I liked Ratzman's ideas of how to give as much as you can by using donations as wedding presents. In my own family during the holidays we give small presents to one person and donate the money we would have spent on everyone else to a specific charity. From this lecture I will definitely try to be a better person and Jew, trying to remember how fortunate I am and that I can always give something whether it be time or money to helping those who need it most.

Elliot Ratzman

I really enjoyed Elliot Ratzman’s lecture this week. The talk raised many thought provoking questions, such as “where does the responsibility lay in battling injustices in other countries?”, “why aren’t more people today outraged?” and “how do we manage concern of suffering?” I found two aspects of his lecturing very important. 1. He didn’t encourage all of us to go home, throw out all our wordly possessions, and start a brigade to save the world. Rather, he suggested that if one does want to help, they could start by picking a cause they feel very strongly for, and maybe setting aside part of their income to champion it. 2. He noted that the Jewish community as a whole puts a strong emphasis on helping others, but this of course is not simply limited to Jews. Ratzman mentioned Peter Singer’s views on how we let atrocities be committed around us everyday. Singer calls our indifference “letting children drown,” which I find to be a painful, and sadly true fact of society. Ratzman mentioned that we have a responsibility to help those in need, and with today’s technology, our actual proximity to the problems is inconsequential. I found Ratzman’s lecture to be encouraging for us to make a difference, and not berating us for not doing enough.

Elliot Ratzman- Amy Zitelman

Mr. Ratzman's lecture was really interesting.  During his lecture I was thinking about my sister.  My sister, Jackie, is a really caring and giving person; so much so that most of her everyday thoughts revolve around giving to others.  She completely believes in an unending and infinite responsibility to others.  I really appreciate her and others like her who encourage people to make an extra effort to "click" on the breast cancer site, do freerice on the internet, and participate in other giving products such as those.  I really admire my sister and others that think and act like her, since I do not.  I appreciate their constant and sincere worry and obligation to others because, I admit, I am not that kind of person.  I am willing and happy to be able to give when I can, but I definitely need others to point me in the correct direction.

I appreciated the fact that Ratzman mentioned that Jews should not look at the demand of giving to others as a Christian view of Saints.  It is not our way to give completely of ourselves in order to provide for the other.  Rather there should be a balance; such as the Tzadik that still lives with his family and community.

This lecture was really inspirational to me.  It really made me want to make more of an effort to give when I can, and to live my life with the "others" in mind. 

Dr. Klein

I feel that this lecture was not for a Jewish studies student of my knowledge level. I did not posses the background knowledge assumed by Dr. Klein to understand the depth of her lecture. Although i was quite lost from the majority of the presentation i did find a few details she discussed interesting. I was fascinated by the tactics (or rather the lack there of) used to establish the boarders used to represent the new Jewish community. From what i gathered her main points were on citizenship in inter war Slovakia, Jewish loyalty and nationality. I am interested in her area of studies and would definitely like to expand my knowledge on the history like topics Dr. Klein discussed, but her lecture was just a bit too complex and advanced for someone with my level of experience in Jewish studies. Some pears agree with me on the idea that it would have been possible for her to make her information more understandable and clear as well as more interesting. One thing that i may have been a little more interested in hearing and better able to follow and relate to would have been more about the individual challenges of the Jewish family in the time period and settings she discussed. Again, good discussion but unfortunately for me just not any thing i could really grasp.

Dr. Klein-Pejsova

Having no previous knowledge of the subject, Dr. Klein-Pejsova’s lecture was very confusing and vague. Prior experience with the topic of Judaism in Hungary, Slovakia, and Czechoslovakia would have greatly helped understanding this lecture. Her main point of connecting Jews to their national identity seemed unfounded by her lecture and the slides she showed. I don’t understand how a synagogue being built in a country really relates to those Jews feeling a sense of national identity. That point seemed to be unjust in that there was really no national pride evidence in what she showed us. I thought the point about the borders being randomly selected and the effect that had on people’s lives was very interesting. It was good to know that the Jews in Europe did feel a great sense of belonging to there homelands before Israel came about. The Slovakian Jews were not tormented like other countries after the First World War, which comes as sort of a surprise to me. But the fact that this innovative Jewish nationalistic lifestyle would fall only years later highlights the importance of that time.

Dr. KIein - Pejsova

For this lecture, I thought that we needed previous background of the Jews in Hungary before World War I. I was unclear about how the lines were drawn and what the treaty put in place for Jewish citizens. I did think that it was very interesting how Slovakia became a breeding place for Jewish culture and tradition when Jews previously had been ostracized by their peers. I wish we could have learned more individually what life was like for Jews in each community. I felt that she talked a lot about Jewish life as a whole and even she pointed out that in various parts of the nation, life was extremely different. It's crazy to think that borders that were drawn fairly randomly decided how Jewish citizens would be treated and how much their treatment differed from the neighboring countries. It was interesting the story she told about the Memorial for Jewish Soldiers in Budapest because this could have been an opportunity for Slovakia's government to use the Jewish people as a scapegoat and turn the other Slovakians against them but instead they placed a ban that interfered with Jewish people talking to the Hungarians but did not place harm on the citizens' views on Jews. It was sad knowing that the culture that she talked about so excitedly would be destroyed in World War II. However, t was refreshing to hear of a place that wasn't filled with antisemitism as so many other countries of that time.

Dr. Klein-Pesova

I am not often one to be critical, but I too was dissatisfied with this presentation. The topic of Judaism in inter-war Slovakia could be interesting, but the discussion was too jumbled and did not mesh properly.  In contrast to our other lectures, this one was overly specific and not able to be broadened or applied to other topics. However, Dr. Klein-Pesova did have some interesting points and ideas. The idea of Judaism as a nationality and its ties to the Jewish identity within post-war developing states is an interesting perspective. In thinking of European Jewry, one tends to think of independent Jewish communities, not a collective identity. With the rampant effects of nationalism in Europe, it is no surprise that Judaism arose as a sudo-nationality. I was surprised at the information that Jews were very quick to disassociate with the Magyars and realign with the Slovakians as the transition from empire occurred. In the fall of an empire into different states, I would have thought that a strong, established Jewish community may have pushed for a region or area of their own. This was all taking place at the same time as a main push of Zionism was developing, yet there was no mention of Zionist activity in this region. The rise of religious community, i.e. the synagogues, mikvahs, and kosher slaughterhouses, didn't lead to any sort of push for autonomy. This lecture had some interesting topics and points, but it was difficult to understand and process. 

Dr. Klein

I did not feel Dr. Klein adequately explained how the Jews of Hungry,Slovakia or Czechoslovakia identified nationally with their respective country.
The photographs she presented to the class were of Orthodox and Hasidic synagogues.This implies that Jews were at a higher level of observance,but what was their connection to national identity?How does a Hasidic Jew,with his Hasidic garb,believing in G-d and practicing an Orthodox way of life,possibly care to identify with a nation in which he is incidentally born into?The only nation a Jew can have an intrinsic connection to is the land of Israel.Dr. Klein was not clear about how the building of synagogues created a national identity for Czechoslovak Jews.Building synagogues creates a Jewish identity, not a national one!
Dr.Klein assumed way too much from her audience.For instance,we could have all benefited from a map depicting the shift of borders before and after WWII.The map she used was confusing and not everyone is familiar with European geography.
Finally,I did not find Dr. Klein receptive to related questions nor could she answer them confidently without the use of her notes.When asked,"Why did the Jews have German names that did not correspond to their Hebrew names?" her answer was,"a persons' German name has no correlation to their Hebrew name." WRONG!!!!The German names referred to those written on the gravestone in a Reform (Neolog) cemetery.Oftentimes Reform Jews were the ones most willing to accommodate their Jewish lifestyles to that of the host nation.If Dr. Klein had done her research she would have known that Reform Jews used their German names as a way to assimilate to the nation they were living under.This was their way of identifying with their nation---but she did not say that.
Overall,I would have liked to hear less of what she discussed and more of the daily challenges and struggles a Slovakian Jew experienced,how their life differed from mine,and what hopes and dreams they envisioned for the future.