From The Jewish Week to Ha’aretz, from many pulpits and all over the blogosphere, people have been talking about Daniel Gordis’ “requiem” for Conservative Judaism. We continue this lively, instructive conversation with seven responses from some of the movement’s most thoughtful teachers and rabbis, along with a response from Jonathan D. Sarna, one of the leading historians of American Jewry.
- Noah Bickart of The Jewish Theological Seminary teaches Jews who are passionate about “an egalitarian, halakhic, yet non-fundamentalist Judaism,“ even though they may not call themselves Conservative Jews.
- Elliot N. Dorff argues that numbers don’t dictate the strength of a movement; the power of its ideas does.
- Susan Grossman acknowledges the movement’s failings, but sees more reason for hope than despair.
- For Judith Hauptman, the Conservative push for women’s rights holds the key to its future—and the future of Judaism as a whole.
- Moving to Israel has clouded Gordis’ ability to understand the American Jewish scene, argues Jeremy Kalmanofsky.
- Whether it’s 18 percent or eight families, Gordon Tucker maintains “patience and tenaciousness change the world,” a fact that is lost when we focus on numbers.
- David B. Starr says that Gordis asked the right question, but the answer may be harder than he thinks.
- Plus Jonathan D. Sarna looks back at a time when both Reform and Orthodox Judaism in America seemed imperiled.
Daniel Gordis replies to his critics and outlines his positive vision for the future. His proposal may surprise you.
From the Brandeis Book Stall to the sands of Iwo Jima (and halakhic flexibility).
Denial is more than a slick courtroom drama about Holocaust denial; it is also a defense of objective truth against nihilistic relativism, a call to arms by the establishment against self-proclaimed outsiders who deny all sorts of truths.
In the spring of 1942—which, as Mel Brooks noted, was “winter for Poland and France”—Salo Baron published a boldly revisionist article. He was thinking of present-day Europe, a 12th-century Jewish woman named Polcelina, and perhaps also his colleagues.
A new book points out just how elusive Spinoza's ideas on politics were and raises serious questions about his "secularism."