Very interesting post. But I found your description of Judaism unrecognizable. (Another commentator said this about both Judaism and Buddhism, but I don't know enough about the latter to comment.) To explain why, let me take it bit by bit. I should say that, for all that our numbers are small (compared to, say, Hindus), Jews are famously quarrelsome—"two Jews, three opinions" goes the old Jewish joke—so I am sure you could dig up *someone* who would disagree with me about one point or another. But I feel confident that what I am saying is a very, very strong majority view.
"Yeah, some rabbis will supervise a conversion to Judaism"
It is (as I said) *possible* that there are some exceptions, but as far as I know, *every* Rabbi will supervise a conversion. Some might not have time or whatever, but *everyone* thinks its an important in central practice. It is true that Jews don't seek converts the way Christians and Muslims do; if someone comes to a rabbi to convert he (or she) is supposed to discourage them three times. But *if* they come back, you accept. (I don't know if most rabbis actually discourage people or not.) Not all rabbis will accept *other* rabbis conversions, especially the orthodox towards the non-orthodox. But this sentence implies a hesitation which is absolutely unwarranted.
"do you then become one of YHWH's chosen people? Are you actually included in his covenant?"
Yes, without any question or doubt. Converts are *full Jews*. It's forbidden to mention someone's conversion status lest they feel uncomfortable. The Jewish midrash (roughly, myth) that all Jews stood at Sinai and accepted the covenant includes converts as well. Jewish tradition holds that king David is descended from a convert (Ruth)——and thus that the messiah (a who is supposed to be a descendent of David) will be too. So yes: converts are fully part of the covenant, just as much as anyone born Jewish.
"And if you are, do you even want to be? Like do you actually want to be in a religion where you think you're chosen and set aside, and other people are sort of ancillary?"
Judaism does not hold that other people are ancillary in any sense. Again, yes, you can probably find the odd sentence here and there from some rabbi saying offensive things (usually, I would point out, due to rather horrific circumstances) but the overall trend of the religion is overwhelming.. Exactly what "chosenness" means is complex, but one central part of it is that through the Jews God will bless *all* nations. He says this to Abraham, the first Jew, in multiple ways, from the first time God speaks to him ("through you all families of the Earth shall be blessed", Genesis 12:03) to almost the end ("through your children all the nations of the Earth shall be blessed", Genesis 22:18). In the Talmud it says that the righteous of every nation has a share in the world to come, and at one point uses the image that all people shall point from different directions saying "this is my God". And so on. What you said is simply false (and is most common ly found in anti-Jewish propaganda, not that I am saying you meant it badly, but that could be where you heard it).
"And even if that's okay with you, then do you want your offspring subjected to the punishments YHWH periodically metes out against the Jews?!?"
This is at least slightly closer to right: one of the questions that the Talmud says to use to scare off potential converts (if memory serves, it's been a while) is something like "Don't you know that Jews are despised everywhere? Is that what you want?" But note it's the non-Jews, not God, that is the threat, (And, given Jewish history, seeing that threat is not unrealistic). It's true the bible portrays God as punishing Jews, but of course there is the opposite too, and in general, there is held to be good reason to be Jewish, should someone want to.
"As a tradition, Judaism is very old and impressive and worthy of respect, but there's just something very unappealing about it as a belief system. And you know what? That's fine. It's not meant for me!"
As for the notion it's unappealing, "de gustibus non disputandum est". But I will say this: while Judaism may be more of a belief system than Hinduism (I don't know enough about the latter to say) it is much less one than either Islam or Christianity. What you said of Hinduism is actually true of Judiasm: it's a *practice*. An atheist religious Christian seems like a contradiction in terms, but I have met atheist religious Jews, and far more agnostic ones. It's about practice. This doesn't mean, as you say it does in Hinduism, that people can't join: the practices are very learnable and (actualliy) have a lot of good points as well as plenty of bad ones. But what i would say to anyone who says it's an *unappealing* belief system (rather than, say, false, which is another issue), is that you can't really judge it until you've lived it, or at any rate experienced it. (I'm sure you could find someone to host you for a shabbat if you're curious.)
Anyway, that's one Jew's view (one not very observant, non-beliving Jew who nevertheless is clearly Jewish and loves Jewish texts and traditions). What you said really sounds like something said out of ignorance. To say I have only scratched the surface here is to wildly understate the matter. But that's my reaction.
Your comment is well-written and well-thought-out, but I don't think it's the whole story. I think in practice many rabbis will refuse point-blank to allow certain people to convert. Look at this story from the Jerusalem Post saying Israel's conversion authority, which is headed by a Rabbi, refuses all conversion requests by Palestine.
Secondly, my understanding is that in Holocaust theology, there are many rabbis who hold that the Holocaust was a punishment levied by God against the Jewish people, just like the break-up of Solomon's Kingdom was a punishment for idolatry. If that's true--and it is something many rabbis think is true--then it's a very strange and troubling relationship to have with the creator.
I think converting to be Jewish is one thing, but it's another thing to actually believe in Judaism and to want that kind of relationship with the creator God. It doesn't really seem like being the chosen people does the Jewish people much, if any, good. Even if you believed that the Jewish God was real and that the Jewish people are chosen (which I kind of do believe!) it seems to me that one would not actually _want_ to become part of that particular covenant, because it's such a difficult and painful path.
Well, my comment was certainly not the whole story; Judaism is a vast culture and all that was was my best attempt to explain it "on one foot", as we Jews might put it. That said, I would still gently suggest that your comment indicates a lack of familiarity with Judaism as it is lived and practiced.
As to the specifics: I said all rabbis accepted conversion as a practice, not that all rabbis accepted all potential converts. The case of Palestinians who want to convert is, clearly, political and dominated by the issues in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Whether the rabbis in those cases are right or wrong is a complex question, but it doesn't change the normality of conversion in Judaism.
The cases of Holocaust theology you mention are rare and are edge-cases—if you look at the Wikipedia article you cite, you'll note that the cite only three, and that at least one (Schneerson) took it back, and Schach sort of half-did. (Schach and Teitelbaum were also anti-Zionists, which, again, is a marginal (although continuing) view within Judaism, but it should give you some sense of where they are in relation to mainstream Jewish thought.) David Weiss Halivni and Elie Wiesel are far more representative. So while *some* Rabbis have held it, I don't think it's true that *many* have; and, again, the mainstream of Jewish thought runs very differently.
"it seems to me that one would not actually _want_ to become part of that particular covenant" Well, as I said originally, views on this differ. Obviously most people *don't* convert; but it's also true that many (in absolute numbers) do. There isn't a universal answer to that question.
All of which is to say, again, that web articles will only take you so far, and if you want to understand Judaism or Jews you need to both read more deeply and actually engage with the Jewish community. Obviously you may not be interested (or have time) in doing so, but I wanted to give you a sense of why most Jews, reading your post, will think you are way off base.
I'd like to second everything that Stephen Saperstein Frug said here.
Also, for those who aren't aware, the Chief Rabbi in Israel is not like the Pope. There is no centralized authority in Judaism, although various movements have their own leadership (elected in the case of Union of Reform Judaism, or hereditary in the case of ultra-orthodox Haredi dynasties). So the JPost article about what the Israeli Rabbinate does is not representative of global Judaism as a whole, and like Stephen pointed out, is kind of a unique situation due to politics. I have heard from a few sources that it is very hard for Muslims to convert to Judaism, because rabbis don't want them to be killed by extremists or angry family members. But as you can imagine, it's also pretty rare for Muslims to seek conversion.
One of the biggest differences between Judaism and the proselytizing religions is that Jewish theology doesn't require one to be Jewish to be saved. In fact, the "Covenant with Noah" is what non-Jews are supposed to live by in order to be righteous, and it's a lot easier than the Covenant with Moses.
In the more strict variety of mystical Judaism (Hasidism), the idea of chosenness is that Jews have it harder than everyone -- that is we are expected to perform all these mitzvot (some of which seem nonsensical) in order to mystically rectify/reconnect the shattered pieces of creation and participate in the reunion of the emanations of the Divine (sephirot) with His creation. Some liberal rabbis reject the idea of chosenness altogether. So there's a wide range.
Really enjoying these essays/stories about Hinduism. Too many people think that all other religions are just Christian with different gods on the top--like corporations with different CEOs.
This story is fantastic! Several of my books are about bureaucracy, and so I thought this was just hilarious -- well, I just couldn't pull a quote without ruining the rhythm. But this, from the afterword, is almost as good/funny: " . . . because if anyone can be a hero, then what're you doing if you're not one? You see this with Christians all the time—they just feel bad that they're not perfectly self-sacrificing, like the saints and martyrs. But, like, you're not a saint or a martyr! You're an IT guy! And that's fine—the world needs IT guys—but there's just no way to make being an IT guy heroic."
Thanks for these pieces — very interesting! You’re right, Christianity is always pushing against the boundaries of incoherence by the very nature of its central claim (Jesus as wholly God and wholly human). Then again, that paradoxical incoherence nests at the heart of all the religious metaphysics I can think of (materialist ones too) — in systems or rebirth, for example, what exactly is reborn, and if it’s not of a continuity with my conscious ego, to what extent is it my concern? And push against our material explanations and all kinds of quantum weirdness results.
One of the worst things to happen to Christianity is a certain doctrine of original sin, which is in no sense common to all the earliest church philosophers. I prefer to think of it as dukkha— the obvious sense that something in our reality is fundamentally unsatisfying. Otherwise why religion at all?
Thank you for shedding some light on Hinduism, which seems like a very complex religion. With your cultural upbringing with a family whose worldview is centered around Hinduism, a critique of some of the things you like and dislike are not discriminatory and are valid. I did not grow up in a home with any religious affiliation. My mom considers herself a hippie, but I ended up gravitating toward Christianity. Jesus makes sense to me, and I believe the whole Bible is the true way. I'm sure my mom would have loved it if I became a Hindu (hence my Sanskrit name), but I don't think she really understands that growing up in America, I could never really be a Hindu. Anyway, I love Jesus, so I'm sticking with Him.
I also want to say I loved the flash story at top, and the humor in the fact that the dude was specifically tasked with writing about accommodations for executive function disorders. That's fucking hilarious!
I feel that it's not really correct to characterise Buddhism as a heroic struggle for enlightenment, or really even that distinct in its framing of 'the goal' from Hinduism.
Though of course beliefs and practices vary, for me the whole point of the middle way is to avoid such heroics and just do what you can, and I understand the precepts that way.
If you fail to achieve satori, no biggie, maybe you'll do better next time round.
Yes but in Hinduism, in practice, moksha isn't a goal at all. Dharma ends up being much more important. And certainly in the kind of Buddhism practiced by westerners, the search for Nirvana is very much the goal. I agree that in Buddhist societies the search for moksha is less emphasized than amongst western Buddhists, but I think that's mostly due to recognition of what I said, which is how unrealistic and unachievable it is
In theory Buddhism is much more egalitarian than Hinduism but in practice has very little to offer those who aren't rich or learned, can't endow temples, can't meditate or study, etc. A fact that substantially and perhaps fatally hampered the religions spread through China, Japan, and Korea. Not to say Buddhists don't have work arounds for these issues but it's a contradiction inherent in the belief system. To the extent Buddhism is different from Hinduism, it is a philosophy for the few, not for the many.
In Catholic school, the way they described it to me is that good works are not sufficient for salvation, and that no amount of good works can wipe out original sin. Even the best person is so sinful that, without Christ's sacrifice, they would be damned. Only faith can really save. Calvinism is merely the logical extension of what most Christians already believe.
Catholics believe in predestination too though! They just describe it differently. I agree that the vibe is different, but they both agree that before you're born, God already knows whether or not you're going to hell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_in_Catholicism
He does pick though, because people can only choose good through the Grace that God gives them. Both faith and the ability to do good are gifts from God, and people are only able to choose those things if God wills it. That's the essence of Thomism, which's been the Church's position for hundreds of years.
I mean I totally agree that the vibe in Catholicism is way different from Calvinism, but the theology isn't that different IMHO.
Very interesting post. But I found your description of Judaism unrecognizable. (Another commentator said this about both Judaism and Buddhism, but I don't know enough about the latter to comment.) To explain why, let me take it bit by bit. I should say that, for all that our numbers are small (compared to, say, Hindus), Jews are famously quarrelsome—"two Jews, three opinions" goes the old Jewish joke—so I am sure you could dig up *someone* who would disagree with me about one point or another. But I feel confident that what I am saying is a very, very strong majority view.
"Yeah, some rabbis will supervise a conversion to Judaism"
It is (as I said) *possible* that there are some exceptions, but as far as I know, *every* Rabbi will supervise a conversion. Some might not have time or whatever, but *everyone* thinks its an important in central practice. It is true that Jews don't seek converts the way Christians and Muslims do; if someone comes to a rabbi to convert he (or she) is supposed to discourage them three times. But *if* they come back, you accept. (I don't know if most rabbis actually discourage people or not.) Not all rabbis will accept *other* rabbis conversions, especially the orthodox towards the non-orthodox. But this sentence implies a hesitation which is absolutely unwarranted.
"do you then become one of YHWH's chosen people? Are you actually included in his covenant?"
Yes, without any question or doubt. Converts are *full Jews*. It's forbidden to mention someone's conversion status lest they feel uncomfortable. The Jewish midrash (roughly, myth) that all Jews stood at Sinai and accepted the covenant includes converts as well. Jewish tradition holds that king David is descended from a convert (Ruth)——and thus that the messiah (a who is supposed to be a descendent of David) will be too. So yes: converts are fully part of the covenant, just as much as anyone born Jewish.
"And if you are, do you even want to be? Like do you actually want to be in a religion where you think you're chosen and set aside, and other people are sort of ancillary?"
Judaism does not hold that other people are ancillary in any sense. Again, yes, you can probably find the odd sentence here and there from some rabbi saying offensive things (usually, I would point out, due to rather horrific circumstances) but the overall trend of the religion is overwhelming.. Exactly what "chosenness" means is complex, but one central part of it is that through the Jews God will bless *all* nations. He says this to Abraham, the first Jew, in multiple ways, from the first time God speaks to him ("through you all families of the Earth shall be blessed", Genesis 12:03) to almost the end ("through your children all the nations of the Earth shall be blessed", Genesis 22:18). In the Talmud it says that the righteous of every nation has a share in the world to come, and at one point uses the image that all people shall point from different directions saying "this is my God". And so on. What you said is simply false (and is most common ly found in anti-Jewish propaganda, not that I am saying you meant it badly, but that could be where you heard it).
"And even if that's okay with you, then do you want your offspring subjected to the punishments YHWH periodically metes out against the Jews?!?"
This is at least slightly closer to right: one of the questions that the Talmud says to use to scare off potential converts (if memory serves, it's been a while) is something like "Don't you know that Jews are despised everywhere? Is that what you want?" But note it's the non-Jews, not God, that is the threat, (And, given Jewish history, seeing that threat is not unrealistic). It's true the bible portrays God as punishing Jews, but of course there is the opposite too, and in general, there is held to be good reason to be Jewish, should someone want to.
"As a tradition, Judaism is very old and impressive and worthy of respect, but there's just something very unappealing about it as a belief system. And you know what? That's fine. It's not meant for me!"
As for the notion it's unappealing, "de gustibus non disputandum est". But I will say this: while Judaism may be more of a belief system than Hinduism (I don't know enough about the latter to say) it is much less one than either Islam or Christianity. What you said of Hinduism is actually true of Judiasm: it's a *practice*. An atheist religious Christian seems like a contradiction in terms, but I have met atheist religious Jews, and far more agnostic ones. It's about practice. This doesn't mean, as you say it does in Hinduism, that people can't join: the practices are very learnable and (actualliy) have a lot of good points as well as plenty of bad ones. But what i would say to anyone who says it's an *unappealing* belief system (rather than, say, false, which is another issue), is that you can't really judge it until you've lived it, or at any rate experienced it. (I'm sure you could find someone to host you for a shabbat if you're curious.)
Anyway, that's one Jew's view (one not very observant, non-beliving Jew who nevertheless is clearly Jewish and loves Jewish texts and traditions). What you said really sounds like something said out of ignorance. To say I have only scratched the surface here is to wildly understate the matter. But that's my reaction.
Your comment is well-written and well-thought-out, but I don't think it's the whole story. I think in practice many rabbis will refuse point-blank to allow certain people to convert. Look at this story from the Jerusalem Post saying Israel's conversion authority, which is headed by a Rabbi, refuses all conversion requests by Palestine.
https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/palestinian-requests-to-convert-to-judaism-rejected-automatically-449987
Secondly, my understanding is that in Holocaust theology, there are many rabbis who hold that the Holocaust was a punishment levied by God against the Jewish people, just like the break-up of Solomon's Kingdom was a punishment for idolatry. If that's true--and it is something many rabbis think is true--then it's a very strange and troubling relationship to have with the creator.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_theology
I think converting to be Jewish is one thing, but it's another thing to actually believe in Judaism and to want that kind of relationship with the creator God. It doesn't really seem like being the chosen people does the Jewish people much, if any, good. Even if you believed that the Jewish God was real and that the Jewish people are chosen (which I kind of do believe!) it seems to me that one would not actually _want_ to become part of that particular covenant, because it's such a difficult and painful path.
Well, my comment was certainly not the whole story; Judaism is a vast culture and all that was was my best attempt to explain it "on one foot", as we Jews might put it. That said, I would still gently suggest that your comment indicates a lack of familiarity with Judaism as it is lived and practiced.
As to the specifics: I said all rabbis accepted conversion as a practice, not that all rabbis accepted all potential converts. The case of Palestinians who want to convert is, clearly, political and dominated by the issues in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Whether the rabbis in those cases are right or wrong is a complex question, but it doesn't change the normality of conversion in Judaism.
The cases of Holocaust theology you mention are rare and are edge-cases—if you look at the Wikipedia article you cite, you'll note that the cite only three, and that at least one (Schneerson) took it back, and Schach sort of half-did. (Schach and Teitelbaum were also anti-Zionists, which, again, is a marginal (although continuing) view within Judaism, but it should give you some sense of where they are in relation to mainstream Jewish thought.) David Weiss Halivni and Elie Wiesel are far more representative. So while *some* Rabbis have held it, I don't think it's true that *many* have; and, again, the mainstream of Jewish thought runs very differently.
"it seems to me that one would not actually _want_ to become part of that particular covenant" Well, as I said originally, views on this differ. Obviously most people *don't* convert; but it's also true that many (in absolute numbers) do. There isn't a universal answer to that question.
All of which is to say, again, that web articles will only take you so far, and if you want to understand Judaism or Jews you need to both read more deeply and actually engage with the Jewish community. Obviously you may not be interested (or have time) in doing so, but I wanted to give you a sense of why most Jews, reading your post, will think you are way off base.
I'd like to second everything that Stephen Saperstein Frug said here.
Also, for those who aren't aware, the Chief Rabbi in Israel is not like the Pope. There is no centralized authority in Judaism, although various movements have their own leadership (elected in the case of Union of Reform Judaism, or hereditary in the case of ultra-orthodox Haredi dynasties). So the JPost article about what the Israeli Rabbinate does is not representative of global Judaism as a whole, and like Stephen pointed out, is kind of a unique situation due to politics. I have heard from a few sources that it is very hard for Muslims to convert to Judaism, because rabbis don't want them to be killed by extremists or angry family members. But as you can imagine, it's also pretty rare for Muslims to seek conversion.
One of the biggest differences between Judaism and the proselytizing religions is that Jewish theology doesn't require one to be Jewish to be saved. In fact, the "Covenant with Noah" is what non-Jews are supposed to live by in order to be righteous, and it's a lot easier than the Covenant with Moses.
In the more strict variety of mystical Judaism (Hasidism), the idea of chosenness is that Jews have it harder than everyone -- that is we are expected to perform all these mitzvot (some of which seem nonsensical) in order to mystically rectify/reconnect the shattered pieces of creation and participate in the reunion of the emanations of the Divine (sephirot) with His creation. Some liberal rabbis reject the idea of chosenness altogether. So there's a wide range.
Really enjoying these essays/stories about Hinduism. Too many people think that all other religions are just Christian with different gods on the top--like corporations with different CEOs.
This story is fantastic! Several of my books are about bureaucracy, and so I thought this was just hilarious -- well, I just couldn't pull a quote without ruining the rhythm. But this, from the afterword, is almost as good/funny: " . . . because if anyone can be a hero, then what're you doing if you're not one? You see this with Christians all the time—they just feel bad that they're not perfectly self-sacrificing, like the saints and martyrs. But, like, you're not a saint or a martyr! You're an IT guy! And that's fine—the world needs IT guys—but there's just no way to make being an IT guy heroic."
Thank you and keep up the good work!
Thanks for these pieces — very interesting! You’re right, Christianity is always pushing against the boundaries of incoherence by the very nature of its central claim (Jesus as wholly God and wholly human). Then again, that paradoxical incoherence nests at the heart of all the religious metaphysics I can think of (materialist ones too) — in systems or rebirth, for example, what exactly is reborn, and if it’s not of a continuity with my conscious ego, to what extent is it my concern? And push against our material explanations and all kinds of quantum weirdness results.
One of the worst things to happen to Christianity is a certain doctrine of original sin, which is in no sense common to all the earliest church philosophers. I prefer to think of it as dukkha— the obvious sense that something in our reality is fundamentally unsatisfying. Otherwise why religion at all?
Thank you for shedding some light on Hinduism, which seems like a very complex religion. With your cultural upbringing with a family whose worldview is centered around Hinduism, a critique of some of the things you like and dislike are not discriminatory and are valid. I did not grow up in a home with any religious affiliation. My mom considers herself a hippie, but I ended up gravitating toward Christianity. Jesus makes sense to me, and I believe the whole Bible is the true way. I'm sure my mom would have loved it if I became a Hindu (hence my Sanskrit name), but I don't think she really understands that growing up in America, I could never really be a Hindu. Anyway, I love Jesus, so I'm sticking with Him.
I also want to say I loved the flash story at top, and the humor in the fact that the dude was specifically tasked with writing about accommodations for executive function disorders. That's fucking hilarious!
I feel that it's not really correct to characterise Buddhism as a heroic struggle for enlightenment, or really even that distinct in its framing of 'the goal' from Hinduism.
Though of course beliefs and practices vary, for me the whole point of the middle way is to avoid such heroics and just do what you can, and I understand the precepts that way.
If you fail to achieve satori, no biggie, maybe you'll do better next time round.
Yes but in Hinduism, in practice, moksha isn't a goal at all. Dharma ends up being much more important. And certainly in the kind of Buddhism practiced by westerners, the search for Nirvana is very much the goal. I agree that in Buddhist societies the search for moksha is less emphasized than amongst western Buddhists, but I think that's mostly due to recognition of what I said, which is how unrealistic and unachievable it is
In theory Buddhism is much more egalitarian than Hinduism but in practice has very little to offer those who aren't rich or learned, can't endow temples, can't meditate or study, etc. A fact that substantially and perhaps fatally hampered the religions spread through China, Japan, and Korea. Not to say Buddhists don't have work arounds for these issues but it's a contradiction inherent in the belief system. To the extent Buddhism is different from Hinduism, it is a philosophy for the few, not for the many.
I loved the story, but your ignorance about Judaism and Buddhism is shocking.
How so?
In Catholic school, the way they described it to me is that good works are not sufficient for salvation, and that no amount of good works can wipe out original sin. Even the best person is so sinful that, without Christ's sacrifice, they would be damned. Only faith can really save. Calvinism is merely the logical extension of what most Christians already believe.
Catholics believe in predestination too though! They just describe it differently. I agree that the vibe is different, but they both agree that before you're born, God already knows whether or not you're going to hell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_in_Catholicism
He does pick though, because people can only choose good through the Grace that God gives them. Both faith and the ability to do good are gifts from God, and people are only able to choose those things if God wills it. That's the essence of Thomism, which's been the Church's position for hundreds of years.
I mean I totally agree that the vibe in Catholicism is way different from Calvinism, but the theology isn't that different IMHO.