so right

Who cares about a website? The NY CRC is widely known for their high standards of Kashrus and is widely accepted. The Chicago is not so familiar.

Where are all these Mikvah Tales coming from? And why does everyone’s Mikvah have a different version?

fray? You must’ve meant fracas.

Both the Reform and Conservative’s have been losing members for the last 20+ years, as a result of inter-marrieds (who are 50+% of Jews and much higher within these movements) who no longer consider themselves Jewish or at least participate in Jewish life. And even of what’s left, only a small minority of Conservative Jews are even “religious” by the little remaining definition of what constitutes being religious by their own standards.

This is from Daniel J. Elazar of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs writing in 1991 already:

Take the Conservative movement, until recently recognized as the largest of the non-Orthodox movements in the United States, and, as a result, probably in the world. Charles Liebman and I have calculated that there are no more than forty to fifty thousand Conservative Jews in the world who live up to the standards of observance set by the Conservative movement. This means that when the Conservative mass is left out, the movement is only the equivalent of a fair sized Hassidic sect. It may be hard to believe, but it is important to note that at the late 1984 wedding of two scions of the Satmar dynasty, the number of Jews packed into a single Long Island stadium for the nuptials equalled the whole body of authentic Conservative Jews. There are seriously committed Conservative Jews who do no live up to those standards, but who are seriously religious in some way. It is hard to estimate how many, but a generous figure would be 36 percent of the movement’s membership. Thus, at most there are 400,000 Conservative Jews in the world…

Moreover, demographics are working for the Orthodox, since their birthrate is almost uniformly high. It has been estimated that in Israel ultra-Orthodox families are producing 5 to 10 children each, while modern Orthodox families are producing 3 to 5 each. It is likely that the same situation prevails in the Diaspora – at a time when non-Orthodox families are producing children at less than replacement level. It is said that the order of the day among ultra-Orthodox is to gain control of the Jewish community through reproduction, which is given added force by the extent of assimilation among the non-Orthodox.

Worldwide, one finds approximately 2.5 million affiliated Conservative and Reform Jews; another 1.5 million who identify with non-Orthodox Judaism but do little or nothing in an active way to express that identity; another million-plus traditional Jews who are actively connected with Orthodox congregations but not with any movement; plus two million or more who are consciously affiliated with Orthodox institutions. Thus, there are as many affiliated Orthodox as there are movement affiliated non-Orthodox, while at least half of the group in between have not really broken with Orthodoxy, but simply do not particularly identify with it as a movement…

Even in the United States there has been a radical shift in the situation. In raw demographics, the Orthodox may represent a mere 10 percent, more or less, of the American Jewish community. The fact remains, however, that no more than 50 percent of American Jews are affiliated at any given time with any of the institutions of Jewish life, while the Orthodox are affiliated all the time. Therefore, at the very least they represent 20 percent of the affiliated. If one goes beyond affiliation to activism, it becomes clear that Orthodox Jews represent about a third of the total of Jewish activists within the American Jewish community, a community in which they are demographically the weakest.

These figures suggest that, as opposed to the popular image of a tiny embattled minority seeking to impose its will on the vast majority of world Jewry (the usual figures given are 15 percent versus 85 percent), Orthodox Judaism commands the allegiance of between 33 to 45 percent of all the Jews in the world and 50 to 70 percent of those who identify as religious in some way. Conversely, the non-Orthodox religious movements account for no more than one third of world Jewry and possibly as little as 25 percent. Hence, if Orthodox claims are strong, it is not only because they control all of the religious establishment outside of the United States by law or weight of tradition, but because they have the numerical strength to retain that control. It is no wonder, then, that Orthodoxy remains the dominant voice on the “Who is a Jew?” and other such issues and claims the lion’s share of Jewish public money devoted to religious purposes.

And from another study he wrote (also in 1991):

590,000 Ex-Jews

Now the bad news: The survey also found that there were 590,000 people who were born or raised as Jews who now are either nothing or have another religion. About 210,000 of these told the interviewers that they had converted to another religion. This is a shocking statistic for American Jewry and for world Jewry as well. We had assumed some Jews were assimilating but not that people would say that literally they do not see themselves as Jews or that they see themselves as something else religiously.

One possibility is that many of these people are women who have intermarried. The survey confirmed what we know from other studies, that in intermarriages Jewish women are more likely to convert to another religion than Jewish men. Apparently in many cases, the husband still sets the religious pattern for the family. If the husband is not Jewish and wants one religion in the family, then he gets his wife to convert.

The other 380,000 of Jewish parentage or background with another religion may be examples of Milton Himmelfarb’s famous dictum which he posed as a question: “What do you call the grandchildren of intermarried Jews?” His answer: “Christians.” In American society, as a matter of course, if children are born into an intermarried family in which there is no conversion, and who are raised in neither religion, then in all likelihood they are going to marry somebody of the majority population. That person is probably going to be a member of some church and the grandchild of the Jewish partner will probably join that church. That is what happens when there is a small minority living among a large majority. It is not a deliberate act of abjuring Judaism.

Adding the 590,000 to the 5.5 million self-defined Jews brings a total of 6.1 million Jews and ex-Jews. The parallel figure for 1970 was 5.4 million, including 200,000 ex-Jews. The number of ex-Jews has just about tripled in the last 20 years from 200,000 to 590,000, the result of the second and third generations of intermarriage.

In addition, the survey found 2.1 million non-Jews living in households with Jews. We have already encountered this phenomenon in local community surveys. In Kansas City, for example, a survey done in the early 1980s showed that more than 1 out of 5 Jewish households included non-Jews. These may have been intermarried households in which there was no conversion. Some may have been households in which there had been an intermarriage with conversion but where the originally non-Jewish spouse brought in parents to live, or had non-Jewish children from a previous marriage.

Some more bad news; one-third of that 2.1 million, or 700,000, are children under 18 of Jewish descent being raised in another religion.

The Disappearance of the Traditional Jewish Family

In looking at the present state of the American Jewish family, we see the almost total disappearance of the so-called traditional family — a married couple, both first marriages, with children — the basis upon which most Jewish institutions, especially congregations, were built. Only 14 percent of American Jews fit into that model today. There are another 15 percent who do not have children at home. Some of those are probably empty nests where the children have grown and left, and some are couples who do not yet have or are not having children. Even if we put those two figures together, less than a third of the Jewish families in the United States fit the traditional model.

This has tremendous implications. In a Jerusalem Center study done a few years ago for the Conservative movement on the occasion of their centennial, one of the first things that we pointed out was that the Conservative movement was built on the premise of the nuclear Jewish family. Yet there were probably only two generations in the whole history of the Jewish people (or of the world, for that matter) where a nuclear family of that kind was the norm. Those happened to be the generations when the American non-Orthodox religious movements took form and built themselves around that reality. That base does not exist any more, as these figures show. The Reform movement has adjusted to it because it does not mind accepting all kinds of different family configurations, including mixed marriages or even homosexuals and lesbians. The Reform movement has been able to accommodate them within their ideological and structural framework. The Conservative movement is having a harder time, which is why the Reform movement now claims to have moved ahead of the Conservative movement in registered membership.

That claim is not reflected in the survey. On the contrary, 41 percent of those who claim to be synagogue members indicate that they are affiliated with Conservative congregations as against 36 percent claiming Reform. It must be remembered, however, that this, too, is a subjective response, and that not all who claim to be members actually are enrolled as such.

Intermarriage Now 50 Percent

Over 50 percent of the Jews in the United States who have married within the last decade have intermarried. In some cases the non-Jewish partner has converted, but, as we see, in many cases they have not. Of course, since the adoption of patrilineal descent by the Reform movement there is less incentive for a non-Jewish partner in a mixed marriage to convert. Prior to that decision many would go through a Reform conversion for the sake of the Jewish side. Now many people say, why convert? They will raise their children in the Reform Temple, claim patrilineal descent, and there is no reason for conversion. Again, since males tend to determine the direction of a family’s religious affiliation, this has had a substantial impact.

The number of Reform converts has dropped steadily since the adoption of patrilineal descent by the Reform movement. In essence, the Reform movement shot itself in the foot. This has led to some very strange situations such as the carefully worded constitution adopted by at least one Reform congregation in the Northeast which specifies that certain offices can be held by non-Jews, certain offices are reserved to Jews, and that the rabbi of the congregation must keep a register as to who is Jewish and who is not, the way the Ministry of Interior does in Israel, only using a different definition.

The important thing to note, is that everyone is arguing over why it is prohibited, no one is arguing over if it is prohibited.

So make the question, does he support a Jewish woman’s “right” to “choose” an abortion when the mother’s or babies life or health is not in danger.

I don’t think it will change cynical’s answer (or lack thereof).

(And lets not forget the homosexual activity permissibility question.)

Thank you whatrutalkingabt for saying what we’ve all been thinking!

cynical:

You deftly skirted answering my pretty straightforward questions.

Do you believe a woman whose life is in NOT in danger may choose to have an abortion?

Do you believe it is permissible (for a Jew) to engage in gay relations?

From your vague responses it seems your answer to both is yes.

cynical:

Do you believe a woman has the right to choose an abortion?

Do you believe it is okay to be gay? (in act, not just orientation)

Do you believe women can be rabbis?

Not to mention that the invalid conversions they perform add to their non-Jewish ranks.

I heard a maaisa that on one Succos, as many people came to give Gut Yom Tov to the Klausenberger Rebbe (?) zt”l, one Yid came to him with a bent down hat and bekeshe (i.e. mixed chasidic/non-chasidic dress) and the Rebbe, with a big smile, vintched him “Ah Freilichen Purim!”

Perhaps we can’t achieve Avrohom Avinu’s madreiga… but we should strive to come as close as possible.

You get what you ask for.

The girl should never be the one suggesting to go out. Especially if it isn’t at a very serious stage.

BPT, I said if he works and shes at home, as many many households, your logic is that HE IS THE BOSS.

When he is in Kollel, he is doing a lot more than her, BTW.

js: usually the problem is an overzealous wife.

Midwest, the difference is the Democrats coddle and tolerate anti-semites whilst the Republcans throw them out asap. As far as the evangelicals, they are Israel’s best friends. Sure we have out theological differences, but they are not trying to convert Jews like the Baptists. George W. Bush was Israel’s best friend in the Oval Office.

Don’t forget almost 24/7 Minyanim!

Think of George W. Bush’s and Ronal Reagan’s (the Republicans) strong support for Israel, compared to that of Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter (the Democrats.)

sacrilege, you will eat Hebrew National food, if offered to you?

Yet in your previous comment you referred to what “obligates” him; so I brought the other side.

arc: See between minutes 5:53 and 6:30 over HERE

(Ignore the third party description on the video. Listen to his actual words.)

HaRav Yehuda Levin shlita had the support of the gedolim (i.e. R. Miller zt”l) to support his presidential candidacy. Avi has been condemned by the Gedolim for breaching Orthodox Judaism.

Sacrilege: Are you kidding? What gives you the crazy idea the Yidden “were enjoying Egyptian music”? Something to the tune of “Pharoh and his Jewish blood bath”?