reformation

[bananabrain]

Today, just like Judaism, there are those Muslims who take a sort of adaptationist approach, there are those who are assimiliationists, and then there are the so called "orthodox". The problem is that the real Islam (in my opinion) lies at the heart of the Quran. And all of these parties include extra-Quranic material in their beliefs (except the assimiliationists who could care less). IMO, a proper
reading of the Quran makes it perfectly compatible with living a good life in any society, in any time.

yes, but c0de, couldn't your argument be reduced to "my interpretation is the best"? i've noticed someone pop up on the islam board just now talking about how hadith and so on need to be removed, so we can get back to the pristine Text. the thing is, we've already experienced something very similar in both christianity (the reformation) and in judaism (karaism - not, in fact, the reform movement, which was slightly different) and in both cases these reformations have foundered on the unarguable fact that the Text, in every case, requires human interpretation, thus refracting the argument into a question about the source of legitimate interpretative authority.

The silent assumption here is that a reformation is a good thing. That assumption warrants exploring.

an excellent point; the key to understanding it is to understand what the *drivers* of the desire to reform are and whether they are the same in all cases. i would posit the following:

1. dissatisfaction with power structures and those in power
2. observation of injustices and social inequity purportedly incompatible with the Text
3. identification of some kind of malevolent "foreign" influence or some other form of "admixture"
4. tension between the socio-historic conditions prevalent in the Text at the time of Revelation/redaction and those prevailing in contemporary society

it would be instructive to see whether political revolutions have the same drivers, incidentally.

The kind of reformation I am looking for is where orthodoxy or fundamentalism evolves to the next stage in mankinds development.

this presumes that mankind develops from orthodoxy or fundamentalism to, i don't know, liberal democratic religion of some sort and, indeed, this was the founding presumption of C18-C19 reform judaism, the "enlightenment" and, indeed, the more recent tenet of fukuyama's theory of "the end of history". however, it does somewhat fly in the face of actual historical fact - fundamentalism is a fundamentally modern phenomenon (read karen armstrong's "the battle for G!D") and, arguably, earlier societies were sometimes more progressive in some ways - the mirror of your view of history is that of the "rose-tinted glasses" of the "golden-agers", who believe in some version of the "decline of the generations" theory, which we certainly are not short of in judaism unfortunately.

It also means that people let go of false ideas such as the age of the earth being 6,000 years old and the occurance of ancient miracles which divide us to this day.

them's fighting words, avi - so you think peace is conditional upon my giving up miracles? i think you're going to be waiting a while.

The Protestants killed people for not going along with their progressive theological ideas. Obviously their theological update didn't make them better people.

exactly - the nazis killed people for not being sufficiently evolved into super-humans.

You might be interested in the work of Rodney Stark and the "free-rider" thesis: as a new religion becomes politically powerful new adherents attach themselves to it who might just join because of the material benefits their membership provides and this undermines the faith of the truly committed. Stark argues that Christianity for example, was actually weakened by the conversion of Constantine. The same concept applies to all other religions as well, in fact to all movements of any kind.

yeah baby, starke and finke, those guys know where it's at.

In my reading about Maimonides, the philosophers that you mentioned are listed as foundational in his thinking. It seems to me that the ancient Greek and Islamic philosophers were leaders at logic with respect to philosophy. Maimonides was a brilliant medieval Jewish philosopher best known for his Mishneh Torah, which was a codification of Talmud. He is also known for the 13 Principles of Faith.

much of maimonides is an attempt to harmonise the *best available scientific and philosophical knowledge* with the *clearest and most systemically robust* halakhic thought. this was not entirely successful, for the reason that there are some things he was mistaken about, although he did anticipate the replacement of aristotelian thought by something better and allowed for it. there were innovations that he introduced, such as introducing an idea of agreed dogmas to underpin a theology which had previously been less than systematic. this was both controversial in his lifetime (his books were periodically burnt for the next century or so) as well as largely ignored afterwards - read the work of menachem kellner. i am a great fan of the 13 principles only because i regard them as something completely different, in other words they are the 13 great unprovable, irreducible axioms of judaism, from which all else can be philosophically deduced - but they are neither comprehensive, nor are they compatible with aristotle (nor islam). maimonides was also a great opponent of the mutazilites. for more on these controversies, i also recommend that you read the work of ibn ezra, often (mistakenly in my view) claimed as the very first reform jew!

The issue of theology vs. religion seems to correspond to the idea of “separation of church and state”. This ideal seems to work well in the USA but I am not sure how prevalent it is in the rest of the world ?

not all that well. it depends what sort of state you have and whether it has an "established religion" or not.

Netti, I think there are many counties where church and state are not well separated. Don't you agree ? It doesn't mean it is totalitarian. The Vatican is an unusual case.

yes, you should look at the case of the establishment and generous state funding of the lutheran state churches in norway, sweden, denmark and germany. in all cases it has resulted in more or less complete religious apathy! stark and finke are very good on this: read "acts of faith" (2000). israel's a case in point, judaism, though not theocratically powerful in israel, is hugely powerful as an established religion (sharia law is also established, ironically enough) and this has caused huge controversy and arguably similar apathy or anti-religious feeling. theocratic government (netti-netti omits both pakistan, afghanistan and iran, one of the more complete examples) cannot reliably be shown to make the populace more religious. quite the reverse, in fact.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Netti-Netti]

netti-netti omits both pakistan, afghanistan and iran, one of the more complete examples) cannot reliably be shown to make the populace more religious. quite the reverse, in fact.

Hello BB,

Yes, true, we can make no inference about the population based on the style of government.

Whether Paikstan is actually a theocracy is highly debatable. Islam is the State religion there, but its laws have been largely secular. The recent concession to conservatives in rural, tribal communities of northwest Pakistan to institute Sharia is by no means a complete overhaul of Pakistan's legal system. I see it it as an evolving form of legal pluralism with a regional variation.

What evidence would we need to show that Australia and the UK have about as much Sharia as Pakistan does?

Further, it's unclear whether the recent legal triumph for the conservatives in northwest Pakistan implies that these tribal areas are given autonomy in other ways.

Btw, Pakistan's political parties are not exclusively Islamic. They include Hindus, Sikhs, and Christians - though they are probably struggling minorities.

As for Afghansistan, how many Muslim clerics are there in its government?

No, Iran was not omitted. It was the second item in the list.

 

[c0de]

yes, but c0de, couldn't your argument be reduced to "my interpretation is the best"?

lol, its like Mark Twain said dude:

"The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane!"

and in both cases these reformations have foundered on the unarguable fact that the Text, in every case, requires human interpretation, thus refracting the argument into a question about the source of legitimate interpretative authority.

Well in the case of Islam the issue is a little different, (but not much)
our current problem is not really on the interpretation of the Quran itself.
Like it may be with the Jews and Christians who disagree on the
interpretations of their primary scriptures. For us, the problem is that
some of the beliefs that the differing sects hold are not even in the Quran!
Basically, its the authority of the secondary texts which is debated.

yeah baby, starke and finke, those guys know where it's at.

LOL thats rite, BB knows whats up!

 

[Avi]

Thomas, I have been wondering for a while about whether there was a relation between the Christian and Jewish reformations. Your observations are a good starting point for me.

Well, from a Catholic perspective, 'reformation' is a continuing process, as the Church, standing in Eternal Truth, addresses the world, which is contingent and ephemeral.

From my point of view, Jewish reformation was related to acceptance of "free will". There were also issues which related to acceptance of scientific and modern concepts which, ironically, orthodox Jews have since accepted as well. There are also issues related to acceptance of miracles which in my opinion needed to be thought through more deeply.

From a secular viewpoint, this ends up with the Church being accused of not 'keeping up with the times', whereas we rather regard it as not chasing this years' chimera.

The relation between secular life and religion is an important issue. It seems like the separation between Church and State is important for all govenments. I believe that especially in a country with a majority of a single religion, like the USA, this separation is critical .

If you're talking about the Reformation (16th century) ... then that was change driven by nationalism and the emergence of geopolitical forces seeking to wrest authority from religion.

I do not believe Jewish reformation was so much political as it was an experssion of personal freedom. It wasn't until European Enlightenment that Jews were able to express this freedom. Ironically it was in Germany that this freedom first emerged.

 

[Avi]

Quote - bb - so you think peace is conditional upon my giving up miracles? i think you're going to be waiting a while.

bb, I do not think peace is conditional upon your giving up belief in miracles.

I do believe that an important part of Jewish reform is interfacing science and reality with religion. I, for example, believe the world is billions of years old, not 6,000 years old.

I also believe that the notion of a divine revelation has some logical problems that need to be considered. One of my Orthodox friends told me that she believes that miracles can be explained using deterministic explanations, but the reason that they work in that determinstic manner is miraculous in itself. Do you agree ?

If not, perhaps I can offer an example.

 

[bananabrain]

Whether Paikstan is actually a theocracy is highly debatable. Islam is the State religion there, but its laws have been largely secular.

i'm not saying it's a theocracy, but it has theocratic leanings as far as the way that the "established" religion behaves politically and that dissenting communities and minorities are discriminated against, in the same way that, in israel, the orthodox establishment discriminates against recognition of non-orthodox or secular categories as far as personal or religious status are concerned, although of course they have no problem with christian ecclesiastical jurisdiction or muslim sharia jurisdiction.

The recent concession to conservatives in rural, tribal communities of northwest Pakistan to institute Sharia is by no means a complete overhaul of Pakistan's legal system. I see it it as an evolving form of legal pluralism with a regional variation.

i'm not sure i'd agree with you. if i remember correctly general zia ul-haq was the one who made the concession to allow the hudood laws in the tribal areas (which were deemed to be in some sense islamic although they are, frankly, nothing of the sort) but that is not recent in any sense. nawaz sharif's lot have been trying to islamise the country for ages and in any case the antics of the intelligence service in colluding with the taleban would rather argue that islamists have more or less a similar relationship with the pakistani state as fundamentalist christians do in, say, some state governments in the US - i wouldn't say at federal level.

What evidence would we need to show that Australia and the UK have about as much Sharia as Pakistan does?

hmm. i don't know about australia, but in the UK we are entitled to go to arbitration in any forum that is deemed to be mutually agreed, which would include both a shari'a court, the acas conciliation service or indeed a jewish beth din. however, the civil courts may not be overruled. i don't seem to think (although i am open to persuasion) that anyone in pakistan is about to stand up to the sharia courts if they choose to be difficult.

re iran, you're quite right, i didn't notice you'd used the complete title.

From my point of view, Jewish reformation was related to acceptance of "free will".

i don't see it like that. for the traditional commentators, free will had always been paramount (remember "choose life"? the tree of knowledge of good and evil? the oven of achnai?), rather it's about the philosophical issue of the sovereignty of the autonomous individual, which was in conflict (and still is) with the idea of the covenantal community.

There were also issues which related to acceptance of scientific and modern concepts which, ironically, orthodox Jews have since accepted as well.

there's nothing ironic about it. not accepting the very latest scientific and modern knowledge was actually a historical anomaly and, generally speaking, an ashkenazi one; the sephardic communities were always interested in the very latest in science and technology, you only have to read maimonides to understand how important he thought that was. it was only when the islamic world began to fall behind with the decline of the ottoman empire that ignorance began to be an issue and, in any case, it was a long time before that decline became an issue, by which time the "enlightenment" had begun to spread its eurocentric tentacles right into the communities of the east, using the "alliance" school system.

There are also issues related to acceptance of miracles which in my opinion needed to be thought through more deeply.

i agree.

I do believe that an important part of Jewish reform is interfacing science and reality with religion. I, for example, believe the world is billions of years old, not 6,000 years old.

what has that got to do with miracles though? and why can't religion deal with reality? i too believe the world is billions of years old. read psalm 90 - "a thousand years are like a day in Your sight"; read r. kaplan on the kabbalistic age of the universe, the maths can be very easily reconciled.

One of my Orthodox friends told me that she believes that miracles can be explained using deterministic explanations, but the reason that they work in that determinstic manner is miraculous in itself. Do you agree?

no, i don't. i think she's hedging her bets. either miracles can occur, or they can't. if you don't think G!D Did miracles, you're lying every time you say the amidah, let alone on purim and hannukah. what i can accept is the idea of "plausible deniability" for all miracles except the one at sinai which was witnessed by all the people. i don't think you need deterministic miracles to go with the maimonidean presumption that the "world continues according to its usual custom", in other words, don't expect G!D to Suspend gravity if you jump off a roof saying tehillim. i don't think, however, apart from the Revelation of the Torah, that miracles are actually that important - look at the episode of the oven of achnai (BT bava metzia 59b) - we do not decide halakhah according to flying trees or voices from heaven.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Avi]

either miracles can occur, or they can't.

I tend to be more in the camp that miracles can't occur, but let me give you an example of what I mean. I told my friend that the closest thing I have ever experienced to a miracle was the birth of my children, but in fact that can be explained by what is now college level biology (that is the deterministic part). She told me that even so, it was still a miracle. And I know what she meant, in a sense.

i don't think you need deterministic miracles to go with the maimonidean presumption that the "world continues according to its usual custom", in other words, don't expect G!D to Suspend gravity if you jump off a roof saying tehillim.

That is not the kind of miracle I am talking about. Another example that I am talking about is that it almost seemed miraculous when the plane landed in the Hudson River a few weeks ago after hitting the flock of birds and no one died. Of course all of the events can be explained by the physics and engineering issues which allowed the plane to land in the river and float there until the passengers could be rescued. But I think one could argue that it was miraculous that all of those deterministic events happened in the way that they did which allowed all the passengers to be saved. Do you agree ?

i don't think, however, apart from the Revelation of the Torah, that miracles are actually that important - look at the episode of the oven of achnai (BT bava metzia 59b) - we do not decide halakhah according to flying trees or voices from heaven.

Wasn't there another miracle when the Jews crossed the Reed Sea ? Weren't there other miracles when the Jews were captive in Egypt which led the Pharoah to expell them. I think these were important miracles. Having said that, I agree that the Talmudic Rabbi's did not use miracles to create halacha.

Originally Posted by Avi1223
From my point of view, Jewish reformation was related to acceptance of "free will".

Quote - bb - i don't see it like that. for the traditional commentators, free will had always been paramount (remember "choose life"? the tree of knowledge of good and evil? the oven of achnai?), rather it's about the philosophical issue of the sovereignty of the autonomous individual, which was in conflict (and still is) with the idea of the covenantal community.

This is a good point, bb. In the traditional sense the emphasis on the covenantal community is very important. Can you explain why being an Orthodox Jew is more compatible with the covenantal community ? In my view, anyone who participates in mitzvot can be a part of this community.

 

[Netti-Netti]

BB,

i'm not saying it's a theocracy, but it has theocratic leanings as far as the way that the "established" religion behaves politically and that dissenting communities and minorities are discriminated against, in the same way that, in israel, the orthodox establishment discriminates against recognition of non-orthodox or secular categories as far as personal or religious status are concerned, although of course they have no problem with christian ecclesiastical jurisdiction or muslim sharia jurisdiction.

I understand that the Paki legal system is so corrupt that it could be said to discriminate against all Pakistanis. But I agree, it's a matter of degree. It would seem that there might not be a activist conservative Muslims group if the government were "Islamic" enough.

i'm not sure i'd agree with you. if i remember correctly general zia ul-haq was the one who made the concession to allow the hudood laws in the tribal areas (which were deemed to be in some sense islamic although they are, frankly, nothing of the sort) but that is not recent in any sense. nawaz sharif's lot have been trying to islamise the country for ages and in any case the antics of the intelligence service in colluding with the taleban would rather argue that islamists have more or less a similar relationship with the pakistani state as fundamentalist christians do in, say, some state governments in the US - i wouldn't say at federal level.

I have not seen discussions of autonomy strivings of late - maybe I shouldn't limit myself to currents news.

hmm. i don't know about australia, but in the UK we are entitled to go to arbitration in any forum that is deemed to be mutually agreed, which would include both a shari'a court, the acas conciliation service or indeed a jewish beth din. however, the civil courts may not be overruled. i don't seem to think (although i am open to persuasion) that anyone in pakistan is about to stand up to the sharia courts if they choose to be difficult.

It used to be that Sharia courts did not have absolute power in Pakistan. Appeal functions were handled by the Peshawar high court, which was a standard civil court. That changed just recently in the Swat tribal areas. As of now, the Federal Shariat Court will handle appeals. This new amendment was made with the understanding that the Taliban would abide by a "permanent ceasefire" in Swat.

I don't know how many appeals were actually resolved by the Peshawar high court. Unless it was a philosophic/symbolic issue, I suspect there was a real point of contention based on the sense that Sharia court decisions were essentially meaningless because the Peshawar high court could always override them.

 

[bananabrain]

Another example that I am talking about is that it almost seemed miraculous when the plane landed in the Hudson River a few weeks ago after hitting the flock of birds and no one died. Of course all of the events can be explained by the physics and engineering issues which allowed the plane to land in the river and float there until the passengers could be rescued. But I think one could argue that it was miraculous that all of those deterministic events happened in the way that they did which allowed all the passengers to be saved. Do you agree?

indeed one could. but for me, for there to be a miracle, you would have to be able to show that an unnatural event occurred. what this was was an *unlikely* event but one based on a massively long chain of causality and a tiny tweak here or there (like a change to the second the birds took off, or the pilot sneezing) and the entire outcome would have been different. what i have a problem with is people pointing to one event as miraculous when they know very little indeed about the entire system of causality that affected the outcome in question. for me, this is also a case of ha'olam noheg ke-minhago.. for me, miracles are easiest seen in hindsight, we have to take their existence on faith simply because they cannot be demonstrated to be taking place in an unambiguous fashion. enough complexity remains for G!D to be able to remain Hidden in the details, otherwise we'd start having a serious problem with doubt-free humans. Personally, when I cross the street and *don't* get hit by a car this could be because of some Divine intervention somewhere in the causality, but it might not be. this is what "all the miracles that are with us every day" means. similarly, you could say the same of tragic freak accidents - just because it's not nice doesn't mean it also isn't a miracle.

Wasn't there another miracle when the Jews crossed the Reed Sea ? Weren't there other miracles when the Jews were captive in Egypt which led the Pharoah to expell them. I think these were important miracles. Having said that, I agree that the Talmudic Rabbi's did not use miracles to create halacha.

all of those miracles can be explained (and have been) in other ways. the Torah itself mentions that "a strong east wind blew all night" before the sea split. plausible deniability, you see.

In the traditional sense the emphasis on the covenantal community is very important. Can you explain why being an Orthodox Jew is more compatible with the covenantal community ? In my view, anyone who participates in mitzvot can be a part of this community.

well, that's kind of the point, avi, the subsidiarity of free-will cannot be gainsaid or alienated. because of that, the decision to join it is an individual one. more to the point, you cannot, ultimately, be coerced to remain part of the community, if you are willing to take the consequences of leaving it. however, once you have taken the decision to be part of it, its terms demands certain things and amongst that is the decision to treat its norms as binding. for traditionalists, that means treating halakhah as binding and refracting more decisions through the prism of halakhic authority. to put it another way, if you want in, you have to 'oseh lecha rav and allow that authority to be the arbiter of how the mitzvot are to be kept. the essential difference (other than theological) between the orthodox and non-orthodox covenantal communities is that the authority is more formal and structured. people take less of a view that it is their personal judgement that counts, not that of a halakhic expert. however, the salient point is this - the covenantal community has a right to expect solidarity and a certain degree of alignment from its members. so, for example, there are certain things that you cannot do and remain in "communion" (as christians call it) with the covenantal community, at least not in the basic sense. that is as true for reform as it is for anyone else. i would say that being "orthodox" (and, here, the word "orthoprax" is far more appropriate) makes one far more comfortable with going along with covenantal norms. 'owevair, there is a spectrum, with, on one end, the my-rebbe's-word-is-din-Torah crowd and on the other end the i'll-make-up-my-own-damn-mind lot. somewhere along the line is the crossing point, which is ultimately about whose halakhic and theological positions are considered correct - but it's not a simple position obviously. i guess what i am saying is that participating in 3 mitzvot makes it harder than participating in 613.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Avi]

bb, many interesting points.

more to the point, you cannot, ultimately, be coerced to remain part of the community, if you are willing to take the consequences of leaving it.

That is the story of the reform movement.

however, once you have taken the decision to be part of it, its terms demands certain things and amongst that is the decision to treat its norms as binding.

This applies more to OJ. RJ casts a wide net. I know some RJs who are essentially atheists. I am not quite that far toward the end of the spectrum.

for traditionalists, that means treating halakhah as binding and refracting more decisions through the prism of halakhic authority.

to put it another way, if you want in, you have to 'oseh lecha rav and allow that authority to be the arbiter of how the mitzvot are to be kept.

the essential difference (other than theological) between the orthodox and non-orthodox covenantal communities is that the authority is more formal and structured.

Agreed.

i guess what i am saying is that participating in 3 mitzvot makes it harder than participating in 613.

And, bb, this brings us back to the very notion of "free will". Because we are differentiated by whether we follow 1 or 613 Commandments or somewhere in between. Perhaps we should start a separate thread on the observance of each of the 613 Commandments It is my understanding that many of the 613 cannot be observed after the fall of the Second Temple anyway, but I have not looked closely at that issue.

 

[bananabrain]

That is the story of the reform movement.

it's not the whole story. but realising the consequences and then deciding how to deal with them is. the words "stable door" and "horse bolted" spring to mind from both sides of this debate, unfortunately.

This applies more to OJ. RJ casts a wide net. I know some RJs who are essentially atheists. I am not quite that far toward the end of the spectrum.

that's true, but there remain a number of things even within american reform that are non-negotiable. for example, you'll not see a statue on the binah. all the sifrei Torah will be kosher at least to start with. and, nowadays, you'd never get outrageous things like you did in the C19th, like shellfish being served at a function in the shul (as far as i know). atheism is a different matter, we all pretty much concede that you can't control what goes on in someone's head, as it says in the Talmud: "everything is determined in heaven except respect for heaven itself".

Because we are differentiated by whether we follow 1 or 613 Commandments or somewhere in between.

actually, no, that's not quite right. we are differentiated by whether we accept all 613 as *binding* or not. for example, i haven't blotted out any amalekites recently nor have i given ma'aser or terumah. i still, however, accept that these are valid and eternal Torah commitments, binding on me, which have been, for some time, "ultra vires" as they say in secular law.

Perhaps we should start a separate thread on the observance of each of the 613 Commandments? It is my understanding that many of the 613 cannot be observed after the fall of the Second Temple anyway, but I have not looked closely at that issue.

actually, this process began before the fall of the second Temple; the "seven nations" law was rendered inoperative, according to the Oral Law, by sennacherib mixing up the nations.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

but there remain a number of things even within american reform that are non-negotiable.

I'd argue that in some Reform communities it's not just going against halachah that's problematic, but also abiding by it e.g. a Reform Jew wearing tzitzit katan though I think this is more true in classical Reform which seems to be dying off.

 

[Avi]

nowadays, you'd never get outrageous things like you did in the C19th, like shellfish being served at a function in the shul (as far as i know).

I'd argue that in some Reform communities it's not just going against halachah that's problematic, but also abiding by it e.g. a Reform Jew wearing tzitzit katan though I think this is more true in classical Reform which seems to be dying off.

There seems to be a swing back toward more traditional values. But it is just a matter of time until Reform moves back to the shellfish dilemma.

This is because RJs simply do not buy the argument of the "covenantal community". They want to decide for themselves.

I have only seen one exception to this rule. When the RJ Temple hires a new Rabbi, the "covenantal community" returns.

 

[bananabrain]

But it is just a matter of time until Reform moves back to the shellfish dilemma.

really? what makes you think so? i don't know, of course, just asking.

This is because RJs simply do not buy the argument of the "covenantal community". They want to decide for themselves.

agreed, but tradition will certainly get a vote, if not a trump card. when you get married, when you have a baby, when you join a shul, when you become bar or bat mitzvah, these are life points at which you must consider what covenantal community you're buying into - that is not incompatible with deciding for yourself, remember traditionalists also have to decide whose rulings they're going to follow and make all of these decisions as well.

I have only seen one exception to this rule. When the RJ Temple hires a new Rabbi, the "covenantal community" returns.

hah. well, this is kind of what i'm talking about, ethos, or "hashkafah" as we call it, is, for me, related to the covenantal community. the question is really whether there's an overarching covenantal community or not. i personally would argue that although there is, there are also subgroups within that.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[dauer]

But it is just a matter of time until Reform moves back to the shellfish dilemma.

This is because RJs simply do not buy the argument of the "covenantal community". They want to decide for themselves.

I don't know that it really is a matter of time. During the whole shellfish event and through the early stages of RJ, it was rejecting a lot of what makes Jews different and unique. And indeed, that's what its demographic wanted, to blend in, to fit in. In this generation we have a revaluation of diversity in the US which affirms earlier Jewish values related to autonomy vs conformity as a people within the host society. That's to say, it's okay to be different. So now you have Reform Jews aligning themselves again with that prior ideology, albeit they've made a spiral back rather than a circle and so, while they revisit a similar position, they're also very much informed by the past. I think it would be difficult for a future generation to find itself in the same spot as the immigrant generation. But I'm also optimistic about the development of society and think we can continue to become more pluralistic and tolerant of others despite the signs that I see to the contrary. If a situation developed that did not favor diversity and uniqueness, I think you might be right. And I think another issue is attempts at pluralism, trans and post-denomenationalism within the Jewish community which create more incentive for, at the very least, a nod kashrut at synagogues and the like. I'm not certain the issue of covenantal community plays into it as much. Could you explain the connection that you see? I do understand RJ's not keeping kosher, but that we could return to something like shellfish at a rabbinical convention seems unlikely to me.