orichalcum

where did that assertion occur? I don't see it in the article.

-MJNH

Okay. :) I was very confused by your response up-thread, but that's a function of reading different articles. I didn't read the Haaretz article and was referring to the Slate article you cited.

And I agree that the two positions you cite are not inherently contradictory, although I think that taking a strong anti-intermarriage position ex ante can make it difficult to be particularly welcoming or inclusive ex post. As I tried to make clear, I have not read the underlying speech by Rabbi Yoffie (where I assume the quote you include, which the Slate author did not, comes from). My only point was that what the author seemed to indicate that his quotes from Rabbi Yoffie said was very different from what those quotes actually meant. If he had quoted other statements to support it, he might well be accurate (although I note that "not an endorsement of intermarriage," from your quote, is a far cry from "a time to forbid," which is what the Slate author attributed to Rabbi Yoffie).

On a separate note, I don't think that Orichalcum intended to say that the Haaretz article or the Slate article made the Holocaust comparison, just that it is sometimes made. There's a discussion of that comparison at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Holocaust#Referring_to_assimilation_of_Jews ; a Google search turns up many other examples, including many examples of people making the claim directly (e.g. http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/2315 or http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/IntermarriageWhyNot.htm ). I have also heard several friends say that members of their family have made similar statements. I, at least, would not attribute that to the Slate author or to anyone else who hasn't actively made that comparison. But it is a comparison that is made, and I think rightly condemned.

--Adam

Continued:


To take a non-controversial example: I hope that M. will grow up to both appreciate music and to play an instrument of some kind. I plan to foster this by playing him lots of music and when he is quite young, getting him a teacher in the instrument of his choice and insisting that he practice regularly and work to advance the quality of his playing.

Now, when he goes off to college, he may, like so many of us, stop playing his musical instrument regularly. And that will be sad. But it doesn't mean I'm going to insist he goes to a conservatory, so that he'll only be interacting with other musicians. It doesn't mean that I'll refuse to pay for tuition if he doesn't take music classes. Fundamentally, if he's no longer interested in music as an adult, that's a fault of my education, the quality of his teacher, and a community that doesn't provide enough opportunities for amateur musicians.

Now, he might have had a better chance of really being musical if A. had married someone who was as musically-inclined as the rest of his family. It may well disappoint A's parents that he married someone who doesn't sing well; they may think it's a pity that A. is unlikely to join a chorus because I never will. Certainly, they encourage me frequently to play the piano in their home and are disappointed when I demur (largely because I'm out of practice and feel self-conscious.)

But they know, because I mention it frequently, that even though I'm not a singer, I think that the fact that their whole family sings is terrific, and that I hope deeply that Mac will be a good singer. They know that I value that part of their family tradition and will foster it as much as possible, even if my own ability to sing from sheet music is sadly lacking. And they know that they're welcome to give Mac plastic recorders and keyboards and teach him solfege and do whatever they want to encourage his interest in music. And we'll do what we can, and wait and see the results when he's an adult.


So what I'm trying to say here is, no, this isn't about separating Jewish practice from morality. I don't think that any of these commentators are claiming that only people who keep Shabbat are good people. It's to say that intermarriage, at most, is a symptom of the problem of disaffection with Judaism, not a cause. And that, therefore, the solution is not to criticize and attack people's marital choices, but to work to make being an active Jew more attractive and compelling. Some of that can include fostering dating opportunities within the community, and that's terrific - Israeli dancing nights, say, or minyans of appropriately-aged people. :) But that, again, is a positive step, not a negative or coercive one.

With regards to the options for choice, this is just a point where we see the world in different ways. I think that what makes America great is precisely the unlimited availability of choices. In the same way that, even if I have my worries, I'll support Mac if he wants to become a professional snowboarder or a spelunker, I'll support him in his romantic choices - while, at the same time, having tried to educate him to look for a partner who shares his ideals and moral values.

I think that the short version of "loving Israel" is as you say, but it does seem to me that the distinction often gets elided. I've heard numerous sermons from rabbis criticizing people for disagreeing with, say, Likud policies, and that's what unnerves me. But it makes perfect sense that a close connection to Israel would be one of those active, positive steps that draws someone closer to the Jewish community, and that's terrific. (The Birthright programs, for instance - a great means of inclusion.)

Good to know about Jewry; I thought that was the case but wasn't sure.

And I see no contradiction in your sign-off. I merely hope that, if your brother's girlfriend does become a part of your family, you try to welcome and draw her into the Jewish community (to the extent possible without creating family conflicts), rather than shutting her out or giving up on the Jewish identity of hypothetical nieces and nephews. And knowing you, I'm sure that you woud be welcoming.