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.