Edward Shapiro, “The crisis of conservative Judaism” at First Things = http://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/05/the-crisis-of-conservative-judaism. Now why would I link to an article about conservative Judaism? Because I sympathize(?) with it at least as Shapiro describes it and the situation it faces. In this moderately long article Shapiro attempts to describe how conservative Judaism as a movement is dying. Twenty years ago the largest denomination within American Judaism. Overtaken by Reform Judaism and shrinking fast. Once again it seems to be a tension between “liberal” and “orthodox” approaches to Judaism. Increasingly people cannot stay in the middle(?). Note that the movement away from conservative Judaism goes in both directions. Toward Reform Judaism or toward Orthodox Judaism which apparently has been growing.
As more than one Conservative leader has somberly noted, our failures become Reform Jews and our successes become Orthodox….
The central issue for Conservative Judaism is whether it can remain faithful to Jewish tradition and intellectually honest while rejecting fundamentalism, and whether it can reconcile the individualism and personal autonomy so valued by Americans with the respect for community and rabbinic precedent central to Jewish tradition. A centrist movement that seeks to be all things to all people will certainly not flourish.
With that last paragraph I say yes. I think. Although I would not agree with that last sentence. And apparently optimistic cliches have been giving way to some tough words by leaders of conservative Judaism for their fellow conservative Jews.
In a 2007 article in Commentary, Jack Wertheimer, a professor of American Jewish history at JTS, described what he termed “The Perplexities of Conservative Judaism.” His article was prompted by the attempt that year of Conservative Judaism’s leaders to reconcile the opposition of Jewish texts and tradition to homosexuality with the growing agitation among the Conservative laity and rabbinate in support of same-sex marriage and the ordination of gays and lesbians. This attempt to square the circle has proven impossible, and the pronouncements on homosexuality emanating from the movement were, as one would expect, contradictory. This did not stop the two American Conservative seminaries from announcing that they would immediately accept homosexuals as rabbinic students or the Rabbinical Assembly from recognizing their graduates as legitimate Conservative rabbis.
Funny how that specific issue rears its head in the article. Once again… it seems that same-sex relations is the issue that divides religions and communities of faith. It almost does not matter what else someone believes or how they live… because hey doctrine does not matter only how one lives right? If people of religious faith do not agree with what seems to be the new ethic of the dominant society and culture… But what is interesting is to note that this tension between two ends of the theological spectrum is happening within Judaism. One question however is this. How much is this an issue for Jews in Western society such as in America? And how much is this an issue elsewhere? One of my critiques of progressive religion is what seems to be excessive emphasis on (post-)modern Western society. Why does the rest of the world have to follow our direction in order to thrive?
Dan Charles, “Guest Workers, Legal Yet Not Quite Free, Pick Florida’s Oranges” at National Public Radio = http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/01/28/464453958/guest-workers-legal-yet-not-quite-free-pick-floridas-oranges. Good and interesting report about the increasing role of guest workers specifically being used by Florida citrus growers. I am not trying to say anything for or against legal or illegal immigration. The handful of dear readers please remember that my ministry is primarily with people who are not American citizens. Some are immigrants who will probably never return to their home countries. And some are refugees. I work with immigrants. I am interested however in how American businesses and companies are involved in immigration policy and the effect that has on American citizens who work. About a year ago I had lunch with a journalist who talked with me about H1B(?) workers. That there are far far more guest workers than people realize. That often they replace American employees and that American companies want this because they can pay guest workers less. I forget the exact words he used but they were pretty strong. Something like “people do not know about the real scandals that are happening”. So I am not knocking the H2A guest worker program. Part of me is glad for these foreign workers. And part of me wonders how many Americans are no longer able to work picking fruit because fruit growers prefer using H2A guest workers. It is right there in the report. And finally part of me is concerned about the disadvantages of the guest worker program. Again it is right there in the report. Guest workers can only work for the business that brings them in. And there is some good reason for that. But they also lose a lot of freedom. If the business does not need them as much… and pays them less… too bad and there is nothing the guest worker can do except choose not to come next season.
This is one of the biggest criticisms of the guest worker program: That these workers are bound to work for a single employer, and are dependent on that employer for work, housing and transportation for the entire period of the contract. They can choose not to return next year. But for the term of their contract, they’re stuck.
Philip Martin, an economist at the University of California, Davis, who has spent most of his professional life studying the situation of farm workers, says that the freedom to find a better deal can be really important.
“The biggest thing that has helped farm workers has not been unions,” he says. “It’s been cell phones. Because they can call each other and say, ‘Hey this guy’s paying a little more per bin than over there,’ and workers can move.”
Martin expects the number of H-2A workers to keep growing. He thinks they already make up about 10 percent of the agricultural workforce, and could reach 20 percent, even though employers are expected to hire U.S. workers first.
Update 12.06h – Rod Dreher, “The return of eugenics” at The American Conservative = http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-return-of-eugenics/. Hard to summarize but Dreher quotes a book then an article that discuss the connection between progressives and eugenics in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. And how many people do not know the true story of the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial in 1926. Apparently the great hero Clarence Darrow used a biology textbook that in addition to teaching the theory of evolution (okay) tried to draw conclusions that today we would label a form of eugenics. What catches my attention is the way Dreher characterizes the telos of (post-)modern Western society and culture. The handful of dear readers know I am trying to figure out what makes our current society and culture tick.
Broadly speaking, the absolute telos of contemporary progressives is the Self, liberated from all bonds — especially sexual — that inhibit free choice. In its extreme popular form, we have the absurdity of people actually believing that a human being who is biologically male is rightly called female if he wishes to be. The transhumanists know what they’re doing. Our culture is sleepwalking into a world in which there is no such thing as human nature, and no such thing as humanity. Seriously, if we cannot agree on what it means to be human, aside from conscious desire, how can we agree to put limits on the individual will?
That sounds a bit harsh but seems to fit much of what I hear and see these days. Even biology is seen as a kind of limitation to be cast off.