Monday, August 29, 2005
I Think This Proves There Are Stupid Questions
Can You Convert to Non-Practicing Judaism?
Okay before I even post the complete question or discuss the answer given I have to say, if you were going to convert to another religion, why would you convert as a non-practicing member of that religion. Isn't that sort of like taking a shower in a raincoat. Yeah, your in the shower, but you aren't going to get very clean.
Why is it that if a Jew does not observe Judaism they are still considered Jewish, while a convert to Judaism must observe Jewish law to be accepted into Judaism? It doesn't seem fair. There are so many born Jews (like me) who are non-practicing . Why can't someone convert to be a non-practicing Jew?
Okay this was the actual question that was asked. As I said in my title, I think this proves there are stupid questions. Here is a person who is a non-practicing Jew who would like to know why a person can't convert to a non-practicing position. I think it would be safe to guess that this person is probably dating a goyish person and feels guilty. The goyish significant other is probably a non-practicing non-Jew, and really doesn't see the point of staying a non-practicing non-Jew if it is a problem for the non-practicing Jew.
The answer that is given in the linked article is basically "no, the person isn't really accepting Judaism if they aren't going to follow the laws by which they are converting."
I am not the most religious Jew in the world, this I readily admit. (I am working on this and as things progress I will probably discuss some of those issues as they arise.) But the answer to the question should be self evident. There is a very nice analogy, which I am not completely sure I agree with in the article that goes like this: "It's like a democratically elected official using his power to state that democracy is redundant. If he's correct, then he has no position. It was democracy that gave him power; take away democracy, and you've taken away his power. Or like a judge who declares the law to be irrelevant. If so, then he is irrelevant too, because he only has a right to judge by virtue of the law - the very law that he is rejecting." As I said I think it is a very nice analogy to explain the situation. My problem though is that many times dictators use an electoral process to rise to power and then later subvert it for their own ends.
I do recommend the article, the response is written by a Rabbi and is posted on Arutz Sheva.
Okay before I even post the complete question or discuss the answer given I have to say, if you were going to convert to another religion, why would you convert as a non-practicing member of that religion. Isn't that sort of like taking a shower in a raincoat. Yeah, your in the shower, but you aren't going to get very clean.
Why is it that if a Jew does not observe Judaism they are still considered Jewish, while a convert to Judaism must observe Jewish law to be accepted into Judaism? It doesn't seem fair. There are so many born Jews (like me) who are non-practicing . Why can't someone convert to be a non-practicing Jew?
Okay this was the actual question that was asked. As I said in my title, I think this proves there are stupid questions. Here is a person who is a non-practicing Jew who would like to know why a person can't convert to a non-practicing position. I think it would be safe to guess that this person is probably dating a goyish person and feels guilty. The goyish significant other is probably a non-practicing non-Jew, and really doesn't see the point of staying a non-practicing non-Jew if it is a problem for the non-practicing Jew.
The answer that is given in the linked article is basically "no, the person isn't really accepting Judaism if they aren't going to follow the laws by which they are converting."
I am not the most religious Jew in the world, this I readily admit. (I am working on this and as things progress I will probably discuss some of those issues as they arise.) But the answer to the question should be self evident. There is a very nice analogy, which I am not completely sure I agree with in the article that goes like this: "It's like a democratically elected official using his power to state that democracy is redundant. If he's correct, then he has no position. It was democracy that gave him power; take away democracy, and you've taken away his power. Or like a judge who declares the law to be irrelevant. If so, then he is irrelevant too, because he only has a right to judge by virtue of the law - the very law that he is rejecting." As I said I think it is a very nice analogy to explain the situation. My problem though is that many times dictators use an electoral process to rise to power and then later subvert it for their own ends.
I do recommend the article, the response is written by a Rabbi and is posted on Arutz Sheva.
// posted by Little Wolf @ Monday, August 29, 2005 
