Talk:Reform Judaism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reform Judaism is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. Judaism Portal If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.

Project Judaism To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Jewish and Biblical Units of Measurement or some such name, to include material of Ancient Hebrew units of measurement but also Talmudic units and use in Halacha (a la the Hebrew Wikipedia article he:מידות ומשקלות תורניים) Collaboration of the week The current Orthodox Rabbinical Biography Collaboration of the Week is Rabbi Chaim Michael Dov Weissmandl. The current Judaism Collaboration of the Week is Ghetto mentality. Translate Please note that in many instances, projects related to Torah study proceed much faster in Hebrew than in English. Mikraot Gedolot (rabbinic bible) at Wikisource in English (sample) and Hebrew (sample). Mishnah at Wikisource - Hebrew text with translation and commentary; there is also a Hebrew version. Shulchan Aruch at Wikisource - Hebrew text with English translation New projects Mikraot Gedolot Project at Hebrew Wikisource Megillot Mikraot Gedolot Eikhah Copyedit: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Rival Biblical views Cleanup: Jewish mythology - needs to be rewritten to be inline with our other mythology articles. Expand: Wikiversity: School of Jewish Studies. Part of the new open content university, Wikiversity. Stubs: Category:Judaism stubs, Category:Tanakh stubs Update: Portal:Judaism is WikiProject Judaism's frequently updated portal. You can help make this the best portal on Wikipedia. Look at the talk page to see how you can help.

Contents 1 Reform in different countries 2 Polydoxy and non-theism. 3 Reform Temples and gentiles stat. 4 Patrilinealism 5 Anti-reform Links 6 Phrasing for UK Reform Judaism 7 Is British Liberal Judaism more like Reform or Conservative? 8 Intro, October 2005 9 British Reform, Liberal, Progressive, etc. 10 UK Reform Jews are less observant than Orthodox Jews 11 Intro proposal 12 Reform in Israel 13 Reform Judaism in Britain 14 Do any Reform movements teach that practices or beliefs are normative? 15 Some of British Reform does not teach that halakha is normative 15.1 Overlap between one group and another 16 Table illustrating the range of Jewish denominations 17 Two Reform movements in the UK 18 Disputed claim: Is Reform really the largest USA denomination? 19 Dispute about terminology 19.1 Halakha and Jewish law: Terminology dispute 20 "Staunchly" Zionist? 21 Anonymous edits on 9th March 22 Synonyms 23 Why all the confusion? 24 Definition in intro paragraph

[edit] Reform in different countries

Reform movements grew up very differently in the USA, the UK, and Central Europe. This page seems to deal primarily with American Reform. I think there needs to be much more about the other types - maybe even separate articles. At the very least, the entries on this page need more geographical qualification. Any thoughts? Nomist 09:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles are biased toward the background of their contributors. I imagine that UK/European/Israeli Reform aren't being 'ignored' here, but that the editors just don't have the background to write about it. Please feel free to add such information according to your knowledge - I for one would find it very interesting to read about. -Joshuapaquin 16:09, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polydoxy and non-theism.

In the list of acceptable theological positions, two terms confuse me. What exactly are "polydoxy" and "non-theism"? How is non-theism different from atheism?

Hmm. Good point. These should be described! Polydoxy is a theology (of sorts) invented by Reform Rabbi Alvin Reines, a teacher at the Reform movement's Hebrew-Union College, its primary rabbinic seminary. He defines the word "God" to mean "the enduring possibility of Being." Since there is no being without its possibility, whenever we experience Being, we experience God. In this view, anyone who admits that existence is real in fact believes in God. Even atheists believe in God. I have it on good authority that many Reform rabbis believe this to be true.

Rabbi Reines attempts to legitimize this wordplay by pointing out that in the history of philosophy and theology, there often isn't any one totally agreed upon meaning for all terms, including the word "God". Therefore, he concludes, it is fair to define this word in any way we choose. For him, all definitions by their nature are a priori propositions, and therefore cannot true or false. The problem, of course, is that this is totally meaningless, and it makes every person in the world out to be a believer in God, which is totally ridiculous.

Further, definitions of words are not a matter of true or false. For example, I can define water as "dry" and sand as "wet". Since these are definitions that I choose, they cannot be true or false. But they certainly can be misleading, especially to those who already have heard these words used in different ways. The same is true for people who make up new definitions of the word "God". Further, it is a myth that people could never agree on the meaning of the term "God". There has always been some general agreement among Jews (and Christians and Muslims) on what the word God means. Although people have envisioned God in a number of ways most of these ways had many things in common, including the fact that God is, for lack of a better term, _actual_. God has always been conceived of as a creator and a source of morality, and has the power to intervene in the world in some fashion. The term 'God' thus corresponds to an actual ontological reality, and is not merely a projection of the human psyche. Prof. David Ray Griffin and Rabbi Louis Jacobs, among many others, have addressed these points. They point out that these such redefinitions of the word "God" are not intellectually honest; because they are non-theistic beliefs garbed in theistic terminology - this phenomenon has been termed'conversion by definition'.

Non-theism is a polite euphamism that some Reform Jews use for atheism as agnosticism. Many Reform Jews see the word "atheist" or "agnostic" as dirty words, which they (rightly, in my view) reject as being non-Jewish. But many Reform Jews are atheists or agnostics, and struggle to find ways to name their beliefs without really naming them. RK

Thanks, this is very helpful. I hope at least some of this can be incorporated into the article, or even developed into a separate article on polydoxy.

[edit] Reform Temples and gentiles stat.

"88 of Reform Temples allow gentiles to count as Reform Jews by being synagogue members if they are married to Jews" or "88%"? - Jeandré, 2004-04-25t15:28z

[edit] Patrilinealism

"1983 American Reform Jews formally accept patrilineal descent, creating a new definition of who is a Jew." I believe this is misleading. See Reform Judaism Website: "Reform Jews consider children to be Jewish if they are the child of a Jewish father or mother, so long as the child is raised as a Jew." So patrilineal descent is now accepted, but matrilineal descent also continues to be accepted. Note also the condition "so long as the child is raised as a Jew" - does this apply only if the father is a Jew, or in all cases? If the latter, that would make the Reform definition of who is a Jew more restrictive than the Orthodox definition in one way. Since I am neither American nor Reform I leave the editing of the actual article to someone more knowledgeable than myself.

Your questions expose serious problems and controversies within Reform Judaism. Unlike any other form of Judiasm, Reform does not hold by any understanding of Jewish law and tradition; they hold as their highest principle something called "personal autonomy". As such, they hold as if it were a religious principle the one rule: No Reform rabbi must follow any rule or hold any belief. (This is no joke). As such, it is left to each individual Reform rabbi what to believe and how to interpret any position. Result? Anarchy. Some reform rabbis do not accept matrilineal descent! Others do. The only thing keeping the Reform community together, as has been noted in various Reform journals, is the fact that Reform Temples simply do not ask such questions of people who ask to become members. Anyone who says that they are a Jew is accepted as a member, whether they meet Reform's standard of Jewishness of not. RK 14:40, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

That's not entirely accurate, RK. The Reform movement's official bodies have always emphasised both monotheism and the truth of Jewish ethical teachings (i.e., ethical monotheism) in their official documents -- more so than the other movements, for that matter. Furthermore, members of the CCAR are required to accept those who are Jewish under the CCAR resolutions on conversion and on patrilineal descent as Jewish. (And yes, that does mean that there are people who are Jewish halachically, but not by Reform standards.) Savant1984 07:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

(A) I take exception to the claim that Reform stresses ethics more than Conservative/Masorti Judaism. Perhaps the percent of writings on the topic is greater, but that is only because Reform doesn't teach halakha to any significant degree.

(B) I believe it is an error to say that that members of members of the CCAR are required to accept those who are Jewish under the CCAR resolutions on conversion and on patrilineal descent as Jewish. Please provide a reference for this claim.

In the USA, CCAR refuses to to make any such binding rules on its members. But are you saying that there are such rules elsewhere, such as in British or Israeli Reform Judaism? RK 00:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The section has been changed and seems to address the commenter's concern. -Joshuapaquin 16:13, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

You should note that the reform definition of a jew is not accepted in the state of israel. The state also only recognizes orthodox conversions. Any one who is considering converting should be warned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.233.247.246 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 23 May 2005.

POV edits from the above anonymous editor have been reverted. Please discuss first. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:01, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The Israel-related comment is appropriate for the article, provided it is in a proper context and presented appropriately (i.e. NPOV). -Joshuapaquin 02:08, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-reform Links

There are two links "Why be Reform" and "Reform Judaism compared to other streams of Judaism" which are strongly anti-reform POV, rather than being encyclopedic in any way. I think these links should either be removed from the page, or they should have some sort of health warning. Anyone care to comment? Otherwise, I'll do something about them (probably just remove) at the end of the week. Zargulon 10:34, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the page vandalism (who would vandalize a page on Shabbat!!!) and removed those links, putting the demography issue in context.Zargulon 15:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phrasing for UK Reform Judaism

It might say In the UK, Reform denotes a more conservative approach than in the states, and shuls adopting similar policies to American Reform are generally referred to as Progressive. that's the best I can do. I pretty much agree with what you said. I don't know if it will be necessary to have 2 pages, or 2 completely distinct sections, on British and on American Reform, but they do seem to be pretty different. There is an important thing linking them though, and that is the emphasis on personal autonomy in interpreting the Bible and Oral Law. So perhaps that should be the basic defining principle at the top of the page. Your statement about distinct bodies is true in the sense of being different, but distinct also tends to imply discrete whereas I see more of a continuum. This may be related to the fact that in movements based on personal autonomy, institutional organising bodies tend naturally to be less significant. Lets keep talking, feel free to edit. Zargulon 14:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I have been doing some research on the subject and there is quite an interesting account to how the Reform movement started in the UK. The first British Synagogue Bevis Marks Synagogue in London's East end was used by Sephardi Jews all over London. The wealthier West end families wanted a separate synagogue in West London but the leadership of Bevis Marks discouraged it because they needed the financial support from the wealthier West end families. The West end Jews, nevertheless went ahead with their plans and established the West End Synagogue breaking away from Bevis Marks. With their new freedom the made minor changes to their prayers and services, but even today, the siddur of British Reform more closely resembles the Sephardi prayer book on which it was based. What is interesting though is that while most British and Irish Reform is based on Sephardic liturgy most of its adherents today are in fact Ashkenazim. I'll do a bit more googleing and see if I can find some websites on the subject. GrandfatherJoe 14:55, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I go to the synagogue they founded in the West End. It is called the West London Synagogue. It is highly notable in the history of British reform Judaism and should probably have a Wikipedia entry. I heard (can't remember source unfortunately) that they made a deliberate effort to incorporate Sephardic and Ashkenazic elements, although I'm not educated enough to give examples! Zargulon 15:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

You can find out about your congregation here. What is the synagogue like? I'm assuming that everything is grand and fancy because it's so old and the West end Jews were so rich; but I don't know. I've been to the synagogue at the Steinberg Centre but that one is quite simple. It just has the Aron Kodesh and the raised platform from where to read the Torah (it has a name, but I can't remember it now), its still nice though. If you read this you'll see that your synagogue, the West London Synagogue of British Jews certifies all the marriages performed according to the Jewish Usage in all Reform Synagogues of Great Britain (RSGB). They have changed that group's name now haven't they? It is now the Movement for the Reform of Judaism or something like that. Also, all Reform, Liberal and Masorti Rabbis in the UK train at the Leo Baeck College in London from where they receive their semicha don't they? In addition, Reform and Liberal Rabbis can function in both group's congregations. Do you think that we could use all this in the article? I don't think that there should be a separate article on British Reform, a paragraph in this article will do. And, I agree with you, there should be an article on the West London Synagogue. GrandfatherJoe 19:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Those links didn't come up.. will try again in the morning. Yes, it is quite an elaborate building.. it has a balcony and a section for the choir behind the ark, and is architecturally quite decorative. I recently started the page for Movement for Reform Judaism (RSGB now redirects there) but it is still a stub so feel free to expand. I didn't know that Leo Baeck was the only place that Ref/Lib/Mas rabbis could get a recognized semicha.. if you say so I believe you. They must at least accept foreign semichas though because WLS main rabbi is american (Mark Winer). I think they are fairly tolerant about who presides over services.. they often give trainee rabbis and even members of the congregation a chance, so I guess that would extend to liberal rabbis (and probably orthodox ones too if they wanted to). That's just speculation though. Also this Saturday morning WLS is hosting a delegation of ambassadors from the Vatican to commemorate nostra aetate, and they may well get up and say something. Zargulon 19:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

That's odd, those links should work, they are correct; maybe the server is temporarily inactive. I forgot about the anniversary of nostra aetate, I should really do my homework; I have no idea what this document says about Jews, and the local Catholic Bishop is coming to our synagogue this Shabbat to say a few words about Jews and Christians. Do you know what its main conclusion is? As for the Leo Baeck semichot, that is not the only place where Ref/Mas/Lib Rabbis can get semicha, if there were another Rabbinical training college in the UK they would no doubt accept their semichot as well, but Leo Baeck is the only one. Its just that those three Jewish movements fund Leo Baeck together and all their Rabbis just happen to train there. The Orthodox Rabbis train at the Jews' College in London, they don't recognise the Leo Baeck semichot, but Leo Baeck recognises theirs. Non Orthodox Judaism is a relatively small movement in the UK, about 20% of synagogue affiliated Jews are members of non Orthodox congregations. That is why it is necessary for all three movements to fund Leo Baeck together, its students get better education that way. I like the fact that Progressive Judaism forges links with other faiths; Orthodox Judaism doesn't do that, I doubt that there are many, if any, Catholic leaders visiting Orthodox synagogues this Shabbat. I suppose it is the difference in approach: Progressive Jews want to intergrate with the non-Jewish world while retaining their Jewish identity and Orthodox Jews (especially the Haredim) avoid being influenced by the non-Jewish world. It's a matter of personal preference really, this is one of those cases where there is no right or wrong. I find it nice that Mas/Ref.Lib Rabbis all train together and study the same syllabus and this points out that there is only difference in approach, the faith is the same, the Torah, the other books of the Tanakh and the Mishnah (Oral Torah) will always be the same. How long the Shabbat service lasts makes no difference. What I would like to know is which version of the Torah is the genuine one: the Ashkenazi or the Sephardi. Both are identical except just one letter is different (I don't know which one). In our synagogue we have three sefer Torah: two are Ashkenazi and one is Sephardi. The Sephardi one is from Bulgaria, I don't know where tho other ones are from. What happenes when whoever is reading the Torah reaches that ambiguous letter is a mystery to me. Anyway, I've been babbling for quite some time now: I've found the website for your congragation, it is http://www.wls.org.uk/. GrandfatherJoe 21:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite a nice website isn't it, understated. I also think the collaboration between movements is a good thing and have on the whole been impressed by graduates of Leo Baeck. Nostra Aetate is mainly to do with respecting Jews and explaining that modern Jews don't bear culpability for Jesus' death (it actually says everybody bears culpability for Jesus' death, but that Jews don't specifically). I didn't know about the one letter difference, hopefully it isn't an important letter. I heard that the Dead Sea Scrolls raised interesting challenges for people who thought the Torah had been immutable since its birth, but again, I don't know the specifics. Zargulon 21:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about the one letter difference either, I just heard it mentioned; I can't even remember where or who from, just that the Ashkenazi and Sephardi versions of the Torah differ only in one letter. If it is true, I'm assuming that it's a typo. The question is who made the mistake if there is one. Anyway, I glad that we now have the Nostra Aetate, we could have done with that 1,500 years ago, but better late than never. Have you seen the website of the World Union for Progressive Judaism? I don't know if it is an umbrella organisation for all Reform, Liberal and Masorti Jewish congregations or not. Masorti is not usually classed as Progressive, is it? What "Progressive" refers to here is beyond me. In its lists of affiliated synagogues it does not include the New London Synagogue, the primary Masorti synagogue in the UK. It does however include the West London Synagogue. I'm assuming now that "Progressive" does not mean "non Orthodox". GrandfatherJoe 22:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. wupj looks likes like a non-denominational, almost cultural organization. Zargulon 23:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been thinking, what do you think of saying this:

In the UK and Ireland, the Reform Judaism refers to a more conservative form of Judaism than in the USA and more correctly corresponds with what in the USA is called Conservative Judaism (British Masorti Judaism is even more conservative; eg in their synagogues, unlike in the USA, women are segregated). The branch of Judaism that corresponds with American Reform Judaism in the UK is known as Liberal Judaism and is altogether more radical. It emphasises egalitarianism and boasts some women Rabbis of note, such as the writer and broadcaster Julia Neuberger.
I know its not perfect but it can be improved on. If you like it could you please put in on the article after you have made some changes you think should be made (if any). Perhaps it could be under its own heading? GrandfatherJoe 18:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you merely mean that their prayer services are more traditional, or that they are theologically and halakhically more like Conservative Judaism? Please clarify, as this is an important distinction! RK 00:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I used a lot of your material, and improvised slightly. Couldn't work out how to put in Julia Neuberger.. actually there are a lot of women U. K. reform rabbis (including one at West London Synagogue), and there was even a famous gay reform rabbi (Lionel Blue), although one could probably argue that his affiliations were predominantly liberal.. Zargulon 19:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I see that you started a West London Synagogue article. Very good. I may be able to find some free domain pictures of some more information to add. As for the Rabbis, I don't know. It's up to you. I'll probably like what you do anyway, I liked the way you used my proposal. GrandfatherJoe 17:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is British Liberal Judaism more like Reform or Conservative?

I am having second thoughts about adding that in the UK Reform Judaism is called Liberal Judaism. In fact American Reform, British Reform, American Conservative, British Masorti (Conservative) and British Liberal are all distinct bodies. There is no British branch of American Reform called Liberal, what I added is an inaccuracy. It is just that British Liberal seems ho have almost identical policies with American Reform. British Reform seems to be more close to American Conservative and British Masorti are more orthodox that the American Conservatives. For example in British Masorti Synagogues, women are segregated whereas in American Conservative Synagogues, they are not. Also, British Reform started off in a different way than German (and later American) Reform. So they are all distinct bodies. I am confused now, someone please comment; anything you know will be useful. GrandfatherJoe 13:31, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Please clarify! Are you claiming that British Liberal Judaism teaches that Jews must accept halakha as normative, like Conservative Judaism does? Or are you merely saying that the prayer services in British Liberal Judaism are less radical than American Reform, and more like those in Conservative prayer services? These are two totally different claims. Please clarify, and if possible, please bring sources. As I understand it, British Liberal Judaism agrees with American Reform that halakha is not binding, and that one's personal autonomy takes precedent over codes of Jewish law and the responsa. Thus, while it isn't part of American Reform Judaism, it is one type of Reform Judaism. Note that the British Liberal Movement has not joined with the UK Masorti Movement, the UK branch of Conservative Judaism. RK 00:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intro, October 2005

Hi KaiserHatner, I think your recent edits are fine. I would still prefer the structure of the introduction to be

• German-type reform is X
• British-type reform is Y, and British-type liberal is like German-type reform

whereas at the moment it is

• German-type reform is X
• British-type liberal is like German-type reform, and British-type reform is Y

But I leave it to your judgement. Zargulon 16:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I see your point; someone looking for info about "British Reform" should hear about it before an explanation of Liberal Judaism, etc. How about something like, "The term Reform Judaism can refer to two distinct denominations of modern Judaism. In the United States of America, where Reform Jews comprise approximately 45% of the Jewish population, the term refers to the first major modern branch of Judaism that originated in Germany in the 1800s, and is characterized by a....etc.... In the United Kingdom, the term describes a more traditional type of Jewish observance most closely resembling Conservative or Masorti Judaism, and the philosophy of German Reform Judaism is incorporated into Liberal Judaism. We should achieve a balance between defining "Reform Judaism" as it is most commonly known (ie ortho/conserv/reform) and listing all of the nomenclature issues, so as not to obscure the definition of the former without omitting the important references to the latter. Let me know what you think! And P.S., I'm Kaiser Shatner, not Hatner.  :) Kaisershatner 16:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine, are you related to Captain Kirk by the way Zargulon 19:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The term Reform Judaism can refer to either of two modern branches of Judaism that arose in the 1800s as a way of integrating the intellectual ideals of The Enlightenment and the cultural freedoms brought by Jewish emancipation with the demands of traditional Jewish observance. - This is not true.. British Reform started largely because of a dispute about ritual at a particular synagogue.

The first of these, and the larger - didn't understand what larger meant here.

rapidly became - I think this is subjective.

British Jewry had enjoyed comparatively greater freedom and cultural mobility than comparable communities in Europe - This is somewhat subjective even at the time, and don't forget that Jews had previously been barred from the UK for 400 years. I was also a bit confused about what were comparable communities in your mind, and what you meant by cultural mobility. This needs more discussion so perhaps it would be better off in the main body rather than the introduction (although it is already dealt with quite well there).

I also took the opportunity to re-style the introduction somewhat (basing it on your edit), keeping the words, sentences and paragraphs to a size that I thought was appropriate for readability. I suppose you will make it longer again, but please at least take note of the above points. Zargulon 08:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Zargulon, thanks for correcting my inaccuracies, you're obviously more well-versed than I in the details of UK Judaism. About the other points,

(1) by "larger" I meant that there are more adherents of American/German Reform Judaism than there are of British Reform Judaism.

(2) I can try to state it objectively if you don't like "rapidly", but Reform Judaism took hold in America as congregations were founded between 1825 (Charleston SC) through 1858 (Baltimore, NY, Albany, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, and Chicago), and "By 1880, over 90% of American Synagogues were Reform."[1] That is in my opinion FAST but instead I can write something like "within 50 years it became the dominant form..."

(3) About the different circumstances of British Jewry, I was trying to make the point that British reforming took place in a different context - the ghettoes, pogroms, and discrimination were much less severe than in Europe, so the Reform movement was different, but we don't have to debate that in the intro, for now.

Finally, we may never agree on style, and that's ok. I'll try to accommodate your preferences if you try to do the same for mine. Cheers, Kaisershatner 14:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British Reform, Liberal, Progressive, etc.

According to The Soc.Culture.Jewish FAQ

"The confusion about the terms "Reform" or "Liberal" comes from a split in England's Reform movement. In 1842 the English Reform movement split into two factions, one of which was more traditional, while the other was more liberal. The more traditional Reform Judaism faction called themselves simply 'Reform'. Their prayer services are much more traditional than the faction that split off, and their laity is in general more observant than the other faction. Thus their prayer services are much like American Conservative shuls and English Masorti shuls, but they still are what we Americans call Reform (i.e. Classical halakha is not considered binding by its rabbinate or laity.) The more liberal Reform Judasim faction seceded, and renamed their movement as "Liberal Judaism". They are are more in the mode of Classic German Reform. They generally have less Hebrew in their services, and are less observant."

Kaisershatner 14:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that this reference to an 1842 split is an error in the s.c.j faq (as noted on the Talk:Liberal Judaism page). For corrected info see Liberal Judaism.

It's perfectly valid to make the point that American Reform has more adherents than British reform (though possibly the introduction is not the best place for it; maybe the point is already made implicitly by the fact that American is described first). If you do decide to put it in the intro again, just please make sure it's clear you're talking about modern-day adherents, rather than the initial size of the movement, which is a less concrete notion and more subjective.

Yes, I vastly prefer the with 50 years.. formulation. As an aside I think the point about rapid development is not for the introduction, but I don't feel very strongly about it.

The ghettoes and pogroms were indisputably a different backdrop to the situation in England. However saying Europe also includes the Iberian Peninsula, the low countries, France Turkey (arguably) and indeed Germany itself. I'm not sure these countries really provided such a sharp contrast to Britain in their treatment of Jews at this time in history. Furthermore, the main point that is often made is that German reform arose out of the Jewish enlightenment, which was less strong in locations where Jews were severely persecuted, so I wonder if making a distinction between countries' treatment of Jews really helps to present a consistent story about the origins of the reform movements.

Re: the FAQ quotation.. I'd never heard of this, and I'm not sure it is correct.. As far as I was aware, the vast majority of British Jews at that time were Sephardi, and I wonder if what the author of this really heard was that there was a split among England's Sephardi Jews, which resulted in some breaking of to form a reform movement. I am happy to be proved wrong though. Zargulon 15:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's another detailed article about Reform Judaism that addresses the difficulty in defining the term "Reform Judaism." :[2] Let's work on the intro here; I'll paste a new idea in a moment or two. About Europe, I guess from my POV on this side of the duck pond it all seems pretty much the same... ;) ...but I see your point about over-generalizing. Kaisershatner 15:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UK Reform Jews are less observant than Orthodox Jews

I would like to point out that the link used by Kaisershatner above says that Liberal Judaism in Britain and Classic German Reform are less observant. Isn't that so from the Orthodox point of view only? From the Liberal point of view, it is an acceptable level of observance. For the size of the movements, figures show that roughly 20% of British Jews belong to what is called (in the UK at least) Progressive Judaism and can be subdivided into 13% belonging to the Movement for Reform Judaism and 7% belonging to the Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues. Given that there are roughly 326,000 Jews in the UK, that means that there are 42,380 Reform Jews and 22,820 Liberal Jews in the UK. So (in comparison th the adherants of American Reform) British Progressive Judaism is a relativly small movement. It must be emphasised that British Reform does not share a common origin with German or American Reform, whereas British Liberal Judaism does, Lily Montagu and Claude Montefiore in fact moddeled their form of Judaism on German Reform (when they founded the Jewish Religious Union in 1902 and called it Liberal Judaism in 1912), but still, British Liberal Judaism is an offshoot of British Reform. What is interesting, is that Liberal Judaism is what the less radical branch of German Reform was called. Anyway, in my opinion, given that British Reform is such a small movement within the wider movement of Progressive Judaism, it should not be given too much attention in the heading, but should be included in a separate section altogether, where it can be gone into in much more detail. GrandfatherJoe (talk • contribs) 15:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

GJoe, you are confusing two totally different claims. The FAQ is only pointing out the indisputable and measurable fact that UK Reform Jews are less observant than traditionally observant rabbinic Jews. It is not saying that they are insufficiently observant. Let's not confuse these two distinct points! (A) There is simply no doubt whatsoever that UK (and American) Reform Jews study halakha less, and observe much less than Orthodox Jews. (B) There is, however, a dispute as to whether or not this is a good thing. Reform Jews believe that Orthodox standards of study and observance are excessive, and many even believe that such observance is detrimental in some way. Orthodox Jews, in contrast, believe that such standards of study and observance are both mandatory and meritorious. RK 00:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

GrandfatherJoe, good points. I'm not endorsing their view, I just thought it was useful information. My proposed intro below avoids conflating German/American with British Reform, calling it separate and contemporaneous. This will open the way for the article to discuss all of these subjects in detail, I think. Kaisershatner 16:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

In what ways do you believe that British Reform Jews have theological beliefs that differ from their American counterparts? Can you offer any concrete examples? Other than the style of prayer services, do you believe that British Reform Jews have attitudes towards the acceptance of halakha that differ from their American counterparts? Please clarify. RK 00:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Intro proposal

Reform Judaism can refer to (1) a modern branch of Judaism that originated in 19th Century Germany as a way of liberalizing Jewish observance in conjunction with the social changes associated with The Enlightenment, Haskalah, and Jewish emancipation, (2) the American Jewish denomination derived from this movement, which is one of the world's largest denominations of Jews, or (3) a separate and contemporaneous reforming movement in the United Kingdom with a comparatively traditional style of practice.

Modern American Reform Judaism, like its German forebear, is based on the principles of:

• valuing individual autonomy over traditional Jewish law and custom
• allowing individual decisions about which Jewish practices, if any, to adopt as binding,
• employing less traditional textual analysis as well as rabbinic modes of study to learn about the Hebrew Bible and rabbinic literature,
• learning the Jewish principles of faith through non-religious methods,
• emphasizing the local language, rather than Hebrew for liturgical and ceremonial use, and
• embracing modern culture in customs, dress, and common practices.

Kaisershatner 16:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

That is basically OK.. I particularly like the fact that it is short. But, in my opinion,

• If the three definitions are to be in order of common usage, I would rather see American reform, then British Reform, then classical German Reform. Without calling GrandfatherJoe's statistics into question, British Reform is the face of Judaism to most non-Jewish people in th U.K., with significant representation in public life, and it is also the movement which American Reform Jews are most likely to turn to while they are visiting in or living in the U. K. German reform is however mainly interesting in an historical context.

I agree. In fact, we should say very little about classical German Reform in the introduction. RK

• It would be better to say learning.. through non-religious as well as religious methods.. in order not to sound rejectionist,

Well, that's polite, but not accurate. Reform Jews generally do reject classical methods of studying the Bible and rabbinic texts. In fact, most do not study them, and more than a few believe that much of rabbinic literature should not be studied. RK

• It would be better to say putting the local language on an equal footing with Hebrew for liturgical use (also remove ceremonial, since liturgical means ceremonial language).

In most places in the USA Hebrew is far from on an equal footing. Hebrew's footing is far inferior to that of English. In fact, most Reform Jews I know approve of this, and strongly reject the incorporation of more Hebrew into the services. RK

• Since British Reform shares all those principles, I think it would be ok to describe them as principles shared by American and British Reform. German reform on the other hand was based on more rejectionist principles, so perhaps it would be better not to say that American reform shares these principles with its German forebear.

In terms of their attitude towards halakha or theology, are there any differences at all between American and British Reform? If so, could these be described explicitly? RK 00:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think contemporary is a more usual word than contemporaneous, which sounds a little overdone. I don't think that any small difference in the meanings of those two words warrant using contemporaneous. Zargulon 22:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I made your two bold changes, although I toned down the bit about Hebrew. I don't think it's rejectionist to state the fact that Hebrew is used much much less in Reform services - that's objectively true, isn't it? Also, I was using "contemporaneous" in the sense of "evolving at the same time," not contemporary as in "modern," but if you hate it, delete it. Finally, I agree in principle with your view of the order of the three definitions (common usage) but I had lots of trouble finding a way to make it flow, and I thought (1) German, (2) American derived from (1), and (3) British, made the most sense. I'll think about how to restructure the sentence, or if you have an idea that's great, since I do agree that Reform Judaism most commonly refers to the American kind rather than the German/historical one. Cheers, Kaisershatner 00:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Figured out, I think, how to get them in the order you prefer, also the order of common usage. I hope you agree that's better, and welcome your feedback (genuinely). Kaisershatner 01:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• At the moment (1),(2) and (3) are still in the old order, but your last comment suggested you were going to change them to America, British, German order.. not sure what is happening with that.

See the new order. Kaisershatner 12:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't use the word rejectionist about the Hebrew issue, but I still think it should be changed. It is objectively true that Hebrew is used less in Reform services than in Orthodox services, but it is not true that Hebrew is generally used less than English in Reform services (it is true in some synagogues but not in others). It should simply say putting them on an equal footing to indicate that the vernacular is constitutes a valid liturgical language in Reform.

My mistake, I see above you used it about the prior point. Sorry. I think we should be making the point that Reform Judaism explicitly elevates the local language to the same status as Hebrew, and may use comparatively little Hebrew in prayer. Isn't that as major a point of (American) Reform as gender equality (see below)? Kaisershatner 12:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't hate contemporaneous, or anything else for that matter, although I don't agree contemporaneous contains a notion of evolving, and I don't agree that contemporary would have meant modern if it had been used instead of contemporaneous in its original position in the article. When you have finished updating the order of the first three sentences, I will propose a replacement.

I meant "Reform also refers to a contemporaneous (occurring at the same time as German reform) reform movement in Britain." Kaisershatner 12:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I think that gender equality in ritual is an important principle in Reform. It could replace one of the first two bullet points, which are redundant at the moment. Zargulon 07:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. Kaisershatner 12:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, fine. But (1) (2) and (3) still seem to be in the old order. Maybe your edit isn't getting saved right. I agree it is valid to say that Reform services may not use much Hebrew, but again, I wouldn't put it in the intro, and I don't think it constitutes a principle. The only matter of principle, in my opinion, is that the local language has equal status to Hebrew. What behaviour individual congregations take to implement this principle is an interesting topic for the later discussion. Zargulon 12:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This version [3] has (1) American (2) German historical reform, which inspired American, (3) British, which is totally different from (1),(2). Reviewing the stated principles of RJ at a few of the websites, I have to agree with you that use of the vernacular is not really a principle, and even if it typifies RJ services in general, it doesn't have to go in the intro. Kaisershatner 17:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I think there is a misunderstanding. My preference is for American-British-German order, and when you said "Figured out, I think, how to get them in the order you prefer, also the order of common usage," I thought you intended to put them in American-British-German order. Now I think we just misunderstood each other; perhaps I didn't make my preference clear enough. Zargulon 22:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reform in Israel

This article doesn't say much about Reform/Progressive Judaism in Israel. Do you think it should? Izehar 12:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Zargulon 12:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I just added something. Izehar 21:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reform Judaism in Britain

I added a new section to the article about Reform in Britain. Please comment, and feel free to edit. It needs a LOT more than what I have written. I can't find much on Reform in Israel, but I will. Izehar 17:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Great so far, keep up the good work Zargulon 19:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Added a bit more on the organisation of British Reform. Feel free to edit and comment. Izehar 16:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do any Reform movements teach that practices or beliefs are normative?

Hi.. I would just encourage you to start a new topic down here since I wasn't involved in the debate up above and can't really comment. Your point about whether or not British Reform Services are "theologically and halakhically" more like US Conservative Services.. can you specify what halakhic practises in particular you are referring to? Also I'm not sure what exactly you mean by the theological content of the service; the only thing that springs to mind is yigdal, which is theological in the sense that it is a dedicated description of God's attributes. But of course even some of the most liberal congregations say yigdal.. please clarify Zargulon 01:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I am referring to all of halakha, not just any one or two customs or rules. As far as I know, all versions of Reform, Liberal and Progressive Judaism explicitly deny that halakha is normative. That includes the laws of tzitzit, tefllin, laws of family purity, niddah, kashrut, deveining of meat, the hundreds of laws and customs pertaining to the festivals, the hundreds of laws and customs pertaining to the Jewish lifecycle events, the laws of tzedakah "charity", etc. Instead of accepting the rabbinic Jewish tradition as normative, all forms of Reform hold that each person may pick and choose which rules to follow, as described in depth in this article.

Also, I was not referring only to the theology of prayer services. I am referring to Jewish beliefs in general. That is to say "What must a Jew believe?" In America, Reform Jews teach that Judaism has no set beliefs. Rather, each individual Reform Jew must decide for themselves what one should believe. (The only rule I am aware of seems to be monotheism, but a few years ago almost half to CCAR voted to include an atheist Reform synagogue into the Union for Reform Judaism. They lost, but not by much.) For instance, CCAR President Rabbi Simeon J. Maslin wrote a pamphlet about Reform Judaism, entitled "What We Believe...What We Do...". It states that "if anyone were to attempt to answer these two questions authoritatively for all Reform Jews, that person's answers would have to be false. Why? Because one of the guiding principles of Reform Judaism is the autonomy of the individual. A Reform Jew has the right to decide whether to subscribe to this particular belief or to that particular practice."

As this article makes clear, American Reform has a suggested set of principles, but even these are subordinate to one's own personal autonomy. This is in stark contrast to Orthodox Judaism, which not only teaches that Judaism has set beliefs, but that also one can point to a specific list of said beliefs. The works of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan are instructive in learning the Orthodox point of view.

In between the views of the various Reform movements and the various Orthodox movements lies the position of Conservative Judaism. Like traditional rabbinic Jews have always taught, Conservative Judaism teaches that a Jew must hold certain beliefs. However, the Conservative rabbinate also notes that the Jewish community never developed any one binding catechism. It affirms belief in God and in God's revelation of Torah to the Jews; however it also affirms the legitimacy of multiple interpretations of these issues. Atheism, Trinitarian views of God, and polytheism are all ruled out. All forms of relativism, and also of literalism and fundamentalism are also rejected. It teaches that Jewish law is both still valid and indispensable, but also holds to a more open and flexible view of how law has and should develop than the Orthodox view. RK 02:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with RK, while noting a couple of things. 1) The American Reform movement remains monotheist in a very real sense. No prayerbook of which I'm aware has CCAR imprimatur and is not liturgically monotheist. (Yes, there's that one service in the later Gates of Prayer, but it had God in the Hebrew.) An atheist Reform Jew would thus be lying every time he went to Temple. 2) Even within Orthodoxy there remains disagreement about what normative Jewish belief is. Even Rambam's articles never gained universal acceptance even among the Orthodox, much less any one interpretation of them. Compare varying views on reincarnation, mysticism, and so forth. Savant1984 07:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and our article on Jewish principle of faith agrees with you. The study and teaching of Jewish theology is just not as simple as many Orthodox Jews seem to believe. On the other hand, Jewish beliefs do exist, and it is very surprising that Reform Judaism seem to have no required beliefs other than ethical monotheism. Reform Judaism's new and revolutionary view that Jews do not have to accept any particular set of Jewish theology is why the Orthodox view them as more like Unitarian-Universalism than rabbinic Judaism, and why Conservative Judaism is continually challenged in its engagement with them. RK 15:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point savant. Anyway the original comment was about British Reform. Our Rabbis sermons always contain Halakhic material.. I have heard mentioned many of the topis you raised. RK are you really saying that most American Conservative (male) Jews wear tefillin? This is not my experience Zargulon 10:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to clairfy (A) No one disagrees that British Reform sermons and books, or even American Reform sermons and books, will often mention some halakhic material. Rather, I am asking about Reform Judaism's beliefs and teachings about such material. Do British Reform Jews teach that Jews must accept such halakhic teachings as normative, i.e. to be accepted upon oneself as binding? Or do they teach that these are options, and that the individual may choose whether or not to follow them? Do they give one's personal autonomy a veto over their own teachings, as does American Reform? (B) I never implied that every Conservative Jew lives up to all the teachings of Conservative Judaism. They don't. In fact, many Reform Jews don't live up to the teachings of Reform, and many Orthodox Jews don't live up to the teachings of Orthodoxy. Nonetheless, Conservative Judaism, in both theory and practice, does teach that the observance of halakha - including tefillin - is normative and expected. Conservative synagogues have regular minyanim where men wear tefillin. RK 15:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some of British Reform does not teach that halakha is normative

In British Reform, full observance of halakhah is encouraged and in theory expected. However, in practice, British Reform Jews are more lax over which teachings to observe and which ones not (most Orthodox in Britain behave in the same way). In British Reform, one's personal autonomy does not take precedence over those teachings. That is what Liberal Judaism does. Izehar 16:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This claim is mistaken. You seem to be describing British Reform as being identical to the UK Masorti movement, and much of UK's Modern Orthodoxy. (Most people who go to Masorti and Modern Orthodox synagogues in the UK are somewhat lax in their observance.) Nonetheless, the Union of Progressive and Liberal Synagogues (British Reform) explicitly teaches that halakha is not binding. For instance, a very large part of halakha is the large set of laws and customs pertaining to kashrut, yet the Union of Progressive and Liberal Synagogues states clearly that "Liberal Judaism recognises a religious dimension to the consumption of food and encourages blessing and thanksgiving to God before and after meals. At the public level a reasonable degree of kashrut is observed - on our Synagogue premises and at the headquarters of the ULPS - but at a personal level the Liberal Jew is free to choose observance or non-observance of kashrut in accordance with the dictates of informed conscience."

That view is identical to American Reform Judaism.

Where We Stand: Kashrut

In other areas of halakha, British Reform actively discourages Jews from observing halakha. In regards to the halakha of burial and mourning, their website states "Surrounding all these customs there are laws and traditions, and superstitions, some of which are actively discouraged by Liberal Judaism. An example is the prohibition on anyone from the priestly class (Kohanim) going to the funeral or out into the cemetery...."

Where We Stand: Death & Mourning

They also reject halakha on the issue of "Who is a Jew?" (Same wesbite.) They also reject halakha on the issue of gittin and Jewish divores. (Same website.)

As such, I think you have been misled as to what they teach and practice. RK 19:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I've been misled. According to their website:

• Do Reform Jews practice mitzvot?:

Reform Judaism attaches very great importance to the concept of covenant and the obligations, duties, commandments, mitzvot which flow. But we are not constrained by a list of 613, frozen in time. We encourage within our synagogues the study of mitzvot, the dynamic development of both the concept and its practice. We encourage individuals to deepen their Reform Jewish lives by increasing the number of mitzvot they practice and in so doing coming to hear the voice of God behind the covenant and its many obligations.

It doesn't say anywhere that they are options which can be followed if the adherent so chooses (like in American Reform). Izehar 20:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

All Reform movements teach what you quoted...yet all of them also hold that halakha is subordinate to one's own personal autonomy.

How can you keep confusing Orthodox Judaism and Reform Judaism? Not only are they non-halakhic, they actively discourage much of halakha. They teach that each person must determine for themselves which mitzvot to follow, and even their own rabbis are only partially observant of Jewish law. Here is what I see as a key quote: "Living Judaism recognises the existential truth that individuals are free to make their own choices. But authentic Jewish choice can only be exercised responsibly – in dialogue with the needs of our people, the teachings of our dynamic tradition and the promptings of God as we experience God in our individual and collective lives."

Well, that quote is the doctrine of personal autonomy which charactizes Reform Judaism as non-halakhic. That is also the view of American Reform Judaism!

You are not quoting the Movement for Reform Judaism's website, that's Liberal Judaism's website. That's a different body altogether. Izehar 20:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

See my above quote. They too reject halakha as normative, and instead substitute "responsible autonomy". In our post-enlightenment world they have every right to make this major split with traditional rabbinic Jewish understandings of halakha. But please do not paint them as if they are traditional rabbinic Jews or Orthodox. RK

RK, the Union of Progressive and Liberal Synagogues has nothing to do with British Reform (except that it is British). Izehar is looking at the correct website. The movement which represents British Reform is the Movement for Reform Judaism, up till quite recently called the RSGB (Reform Synagogues of Great Britain). I'm also still not sure about your idea of binding vs. options, since the Halakhic doctrine of free will teaches that sinning is an option, albeit one that incurs some kind of punishment (directly from God or otherwise). If your distinction is related to whether or not there is punishment, well, do non-tefillin wearing Conservative Jews really believe that they have some sort of punishment due to them for it? Yet again I invite you to clarify. Zargulon 20:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

(A) See the new quotes I just added. (B) We should not conflate the fact of free will (Of course someone can refuse to follow a law) with the teachings of a religion! Orthodox and Conservative Judaism teach that Jews must live by halakha, yet they do so in a non-coercive way. Even Orthodox Judaism holds that a person could decide not to follow a particular halakha, but Orthodox teaches that this decision would be wrong. In contrast, Reform teaches that one must decide for one's own self which halakha to follow. RK

Let's see if I can clarify the way things are (or I think they are):

Country	Traditionalist-radical axis
USA	Ultra-Orthodoxy	Modern Orthodoxy		Conservative		Reform	Reconstructionist
UK	Ultra-Orthodoxy	Modern Orthodoxy	Masorti		Reform	Liberal

I may be wrong of course... Izehar 20:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

As you can see RK, not everything is black and white. Of course British Reform is not Orthodox, but they do have a slightly more conservative approach to Halakhah than American Reform, however they are more "radical" than American Conservative. BUT, British Masorti is even more conservative, however, it is still more liberal than Orthodox Judaism. They are all different shades. You cannot fit every branch into the marked slots of Reform-Orthodox. Even each congregation is different. In turn, British Masorti is more conservative than American Conservative (women are segragated, there are no women Rabbis etc). Izehar 20:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I only mean to point out that all forms of Reform (that I have known) deny that halakha is normative. Even the Movement for Reform Judaism that you mention seems to hold this way, and allow individuals to follow Jewish law based on their own individual, personal autonomy. RK

.

I totally agree with you that there are many shades of observance. One can plot a trend from Haredi Orthodox to Modern Orthodox to Conservative to British Reform to American Reform to Classical German Reform. But that doesn't mean that there are no clear differences bewteen these groups. Some clear differences do exist, and one of them is the acceptance or rejection of halakha as normative. To accept halakha as normative, 'by definition, means accepting the inherited corpus of Jewish law and the Jewish hakkhic system as holy, necessary and something that each should strive to live by on a daily basis. RK

[[User::RK|RK]], I really think you should calm down. We are all trying to get at the truth here. Actually, although free will seems to be an obvious fact, halachically the situation is complex. Halchically, gentiles do not have free will. The optional nature of sinning is unique to Jews, by halacha. Halachically, a gentile can always use the excuse "Hashem made me do it". A Jew cannot. No-one is saying that Reform Judaism is the same as Orthodox Judaism. Izehar, I really think there is considerable overlap between British Reform and US conservative. It is hard to do a table showing that though. Zargulon 20:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

How's this?

Country	Traditionalist-radical axis
USA	Ultra-Orthodoxy	Modern Orthodoxy		Conservative				Reform	Reconstructionist
UK	Ultra-Orthodoxy	Modern Orthodoxy	Masorti		Reform			Liberal

I'm not sure about all this though... Izehar 20:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi RK, the idea that gentiles don't have free will is not my personal view, but it is the view of halacha. I am in total agreement with the suggestion that most Conservative and Reform Rabbis would not approve. Zargulon 21:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I was being uncharitable and hasty. RK

[edit] Overlap between one group and another

RK, you do realise that no Jews observe Halakhah in its entirety. Ultra-Orthodoxy, Modern Orthodoxy, Masorti/Conservatism and British Reform all hold that Halakhah is binding (in theory). British Reform and Masorti/Conservatism seek to interpret it in the light of modern scholarship though, THAT's the difference. American Reform, Liberalism and Reconstructionists believe that Halakhah is optional. So, as I've said, there are all different shades. We could ask the movements directly what their opinion is if you like. Izehar 21:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

No-one is saying that Reform Judaism is the same as Orthodox Judaism. Izehar, I really think there is considerable overlap between British Reform and US conservative. It is hard to do a table showing that though. Zargulon 20:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you on this. I just want to very careful with our descriptions. I want to avoid conflating the existence of overlap (which no one denies) with the existence of identity. As you say, the range of practices and beliefs among Reform Jews overlap with Conservative Jews. I don't want to hide or minimize this overlap. Yet, to me, they still appear to me substantially different groups. Let me know what you think of this analogy: Look at the far left of the political spectrum: Communists and Socialists. Look at the far right: Fascists. Comapred to these extremes, there is a significant amount of overlap between (in America) Democrats and Republicans, or in Israel, between Labor and Likud. In fact, to those on the far left, such as Ralph Nader, or on the far right, they see essentially no difference bewteen these two groups! I disagree; I would say that despite the indisputable, significant overlap, Democrats and Republicans have some significant key differences which end up defining them as separate groups.

.

Perhaps we should say that the same is true for UK Liberal and UK Reform, and for UK Reform and Conservative, and for Conservative and Orthodox. I totally agree with you in each case that signficant overlap exists between each of these. I am willing to listen to you and learn from you. Perhaps the UK Movement for Reform Judaism really doesn't fit into the same category as American Reform! RK 21:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to find sources, our POV should stay out of this. Izehar 21:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi all, how about we basically make the point that British Reform is closer to American Conservative than it is to American Reform, this doesnt contradict that American Conservative may be (as far as I know) closer to British Conservative/Masorti than to British Reform. It is saying British Reform is most like American Conservative, but not saying American Conservative is most like British Reform. Hope that made sense. I accept the need to find sources but I think it wouldn't be bad to put that in as a placeholder, after all it reflects the opinion of 3 people who take Judaism seriously. Then if any future editor thinks it is untrue, they can kick it out and say "removed POV edits". Zargulon 21:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! My major concern is that "Progressive Judaism in Israel" section. All we have now is a cross-section of its history. I really should finish the job and expand it. Izehar 22:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Should we make a slight change to the introduction? It currently says that "Reform Judaism can refer to (1) the largest denomination of Judaism in America and its sibling movements in other countries, (2) a branch of Judaism in the United Kingdom, and..." It seems that this intro should say something like "(2) two distinct branches of Judaism in the United Kingdom, and..."

[edit] Table illustrating the range of Jewish denominations

This table illustrates the range of Jewish denominations. Those denominations that are more conservative in their theoloy and understanding of Jewish law are shown on the right, while those on the right are progressively more liberal in their theoloy and understanding of Jewish law are shown on the left. However, caution must be used in reading this table. There are many Jews who have a liberal view of theology and Jewish principles of faith while having a strict understanding of halakha, and vice-versa.

Country	Radical-liberal to conservative-Traditional axis
USA	Reconstructionist	Reform		Conservative	Modern Orthodoxy	Haredi Orthodoxy
Israel		Progressive (Reform)		Masorti (Conservative)	Modern Orthodoxy and Traditional Sephardic Judaism	Haredi Orthodoxy
United Kingdom		Union of Progressive and Liberal Synagogues	Movement for Reform Judaism	UK Masorti (Conservative)	Modern Orthodoxy	Haredi Orthodoxy

[edit] Two Reform movements in the UK

RK, are you referring to the UPLS as the second British Reform movement? If so, is there any evidence that either they or anyone else calls them Reform? Zargulon 08:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The Union of Progressive and Liberal Synagogues is referred to as a version of Reform Judaism in the Soc.Culture.Jewish FAQ, which is under the editorship of an American Reform Jew, and has been built and peer-reviewed by contributions of many Jews from all denominations of Judaism. That does not mean, of course, it is without error, yet I have found it to reliable. As I curently understand it, they avoid using the name "Reform Judaism" to avoid being mistaken for the American group, but not because of any major doctrinal differences.

As far as I can tell (from the above quotes and discussions) the ULPS is more theologically liberal than the British "Movement for Reform Judaism". The official positions listed on the ULPS website seem to match the American Reform movement very closely. Unless others object, I think it is appropriate to describe ULPS Judaism as one form of "Reform Judaism"; within this article we can distinguish between (a) the Movement for Reform Judaism (which is more traditonal than the ULPS), (B) Modern day American Reform, (C) the ULPS, (D) Israeli Progressive/Reform, and (E) classsical German Reform. (Also, we should note that most of American Reform was identicial to classical German Reform up until the 1960s.) RK 20:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• SCJ FAQ: How is Reform Judaism structured in the rest of the world?

Completely agree that ULPS is very similar to Reform in the states. Don't think they avoid using "Reform" to avoid being mistaken for the American group.. rather it's because the British vocabulary for Jewish movements is different, and in Britain, they simply *aren't* Reform. (Of course they are reformers with a small 'r'.) I guess I can understand that American observers have some good reasons for calling UPLS "Reform"; but I always feel in these confusing instances, that the least confusion is caused if Wikipedia sticks with the name and categorization that the movement uses to describe itself, unless it is wilfully perverse. If Israeli Reform is different from American Reform, fine, but if it is just the same thing in another country, then no.. I don't know enough about it personally. But the subtopic "Israeli Reform" might be better called "American Reform in Israel" Zargulon 22:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree that we should use the termonology that the groups themselves uses. RK 00:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I think factual inaccuracies and original research are running wild on the article now. Perhaps it would be best to discuss Progressive Judaism in the UK; after all, that is what (British) Reform and Liberal Judaism are collectively called in the UK. We will be able to discuss the radical wing (a.k.a. the ULPS) and the conservative wing (a.k.a. the RSGB). This movement is called Progressive Judaism in Israel anyway. Also, confusingly enough, while Liberal Judaism refers to the radical Progressive wing in the UK today, in used to refer to the conservative wing of old German Reform. Izehar 14:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand! Specifically what "inaccuracies" are you talking about? And who is doing origianl research? I honestly can't follow you. In any case, you are factually wrong that the phrase Progressive Judaism refers only to Reform Judaisms in the UK. I can assure that this term is used equally often in the United States and Canada. Amonf Reform Jews in the US and Canada the terms "Reform", "Progressive" and "Liberal" Judaism are all used interchangably. This is also the useage of the reknownen Encyclopedia Judaica. I can assure that this is not original research. That is how people really use these terms. RK 16:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm sure RK is trying to make the page better, but talking about two reform Judaisms in the UK is totally original research/POV. Much of the other material added belongs properly on the Movement for Reform Judaism page, the Progressive Judaism page or the UPLS page. Let's start again. Zargulon 14:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you talkig about? I don't think you know what the term "original research" means, literally. You seem to be trying to hide the fact that the World Union of Progressive Judaism includes ther ULPS and the British Movement for Reform. Both are forms of Reform Judaism, and always have been. This is a simple fact. RK 16:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, they are both forms of Progressive Judaism. Maybe that's why the WUPJ includes both of them - it's inaccurate to say that there are two forms of Reform Judaism in the UK (Reform Judaisms). Let me quote: C. M. Pilkington in his book "Judaism" (1995):

About 20 percent of synagogue affiliated Jews in Britain belong to what is sometimes called Progressive Judaism. This includes not only Reform who number about 13 per cent but also Liberal Jews who constitute the remaining 7 per cent. The Liberal movement started in 1902...

As you can see, it is inaccurate to say that there are two "Reform Judaisms" in the UK. There is Liberal and there is Reform, who collectively can be referred to as Progressive Judaism. Izehar 16:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I am still accurate. The confusion is that many people think that "Reform" and "Progressive" are not synonyms, but in common useage they often are.

Started a ULPS page and moved stuff into it. Kept as much of RK's stuff on Reform Judaism page as I reasonably could. Tried to clarify situation about ULPS. There is still some unsourced stuff (no-one's fault).Zargulon 15:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Note that ULPS decided to rename itself "Liberal Judaism" a few years ago. The page Liberal Judaism is currently mostly about the Liberal Movement in the UK -- Jheald 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Disputed claim: Is Reform really the largest USA denomination?

I take exception to the claim that Reform Judaism is the largest religious Jewish denomination in the USA. Many American Reform Jewish synagogues actually count non-Jews, including active Christians, as "Reform Jews" as long as the non-Jew is married to a Reform Jew. (See the references within the Reform Judaism article) Also, many surveys identify a "Reform Jew" with any American Jew who doesn't observe Judaism. In recent years American Reform rabbis have begun complaining about these definitions themselves: Random telephone surveys were showing huge numbers of people at first identifying as "Reform Jews", but slightly more sophisticated surveys show that the term was being used by many American Jews who are not religious, and who say that they are not connected in any way with Reform Judaism. In practice, if an American Jew doesn't observe Judaism, and doesn't convert to Christianity, that American often self-identifies to surveys as a "Reform Jew", even though she/he doesn't belong to a Reform synagogue or observe Judaism as their religion. Real American Reform Judaism is large enough; if we are going to make the claim that they are the largest denomination we also need to state which surveys show this result, and explain these major controversies. RK 17:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute about terminology

There are some terminology problems with the articles on and related to Reform Judaism. In the USA, Canada and Israel, the terms "Reform Judaism", "Liberal Judaism" and "Progressive Judaism" are often (not always) used interchangably. This is also the useage in many articles in the official publications of the Central Conference of American Rabbis. Even more importantly, this identity of terms is highlighted in the reknowned Encyclopedia Judaica (Keter Publishing.) Our articles sometimes confuse the general phenomenon of Liberal Judaism (also known as Reform Judaism) with the name of a website: There happens to be a website known as Liberal Judaism, which is the website of the Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues. This group is one of the two Reform (or Progressive) Jewish groups in the United Kingdom.

The many Reform Judaism all across the world coodinate through the same group, the World Union of Progressive Judaism, and this umbrella group includes the Union of Liberal and Progressive Judaism, the British Movement for Reform, and American groups like CCAR and the Union for Reform Judaism. We need to recognize that in common useage the phrase "Progressive Judaism" and "Reform Judaism" are actually synonyms, even among Reform and Progressive rabbis. They themselves see their groups as part of the same denomination.

On the other hand, some Reform Jews (or Progressive Jews!) use these terms more restrictively. The official website of the World Union for Proressive Judaism defines "Progressive Judaism" as a larger body, and Reform Judaism as a sub-set of it. Below is an excerpt:

The World Union for Progressive Judaism, established in London in 1926 is the largest body of religious Jews in the world. Its basic aims are, first, to create common ground between its constituents and, second, to promote Progressive Judaism in places where individuals and groups are seeking authentic, yet modern ways of expressing themselves as Jews.

The World Union for Progressive Judaism serves congregations and communities in nearly 40 countries, encompassing more than 1,200 Reform, Progressive, Liberal and Reconstructionist congregations and more than 1.5 million members throughout the world. ...

So for many Reform Jews the terms Reform Judaism, Progressive Judaism and Liberal Judaism are synonyms, while for many others the term "Progressive" is the larger umbrella term! Apparently this lingusitic confusion is not our fault, and the confusion is due to real world inconsistency in terminology. Somehow our articles need to reflect this. RK 17:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

In other words, Pilkington may be right - Progressive Judaism is used to refer collectivly to both Liberal and Reform in the UK. The problem is, that in Israel, this type of Judaism is called Progressive Judaism. If you like, we could rename the Reform in the UK section to Progressive Judaism in the UK - just like Progressive Judaism in Israel, right below it. There, both types of this Judaism can be analysed. Izehar 17:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Halakha and Jewish law: Terminology dispute

RK - Jewish law is not the same as halakha.. the Karaites have Jewish Law but not halakha. That paragraph is about Jewish Law! The other changes are unacceptable.. If you would help us resolve issues here in the talk before drastically changing the page it would save both you and me a lot of time. You are right about one thing: the claim that Reform constitutes majority in the USA needs to be sourced, and can be removed until it is sourced. Zargulon 18:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

That's just silly. Do Progressive and Reform Jews really accept Jewish law and tradition as binding and normative, much like Orthodox Jews do? Obviously not, and their own literature and websites explicitly say so. They are full of rejections of the system of Jewish law, aka halakha, as normative. You are trying to get around this with an argument that Halakha is somehow not Jewish law, and that the customs of other groups, like the Samaritans and Karaites is also "Jewish law", and that the practice of Reform Jews is also "Jewish law". By such a linguistic trick one is then forced to conclude that Reform Jews are observant of Jewish law. But that is simply not so! Please note that most Reform rabbis throughly agree with me. Most Reform rabbis that I have spoken to explicitly admit that Reform teaches that Jewish law and tradition (i.e. halakha) is not normative (to be taken upon yourself as binding) - and most admit that Reform Judaism actively discourages certain elements of halakha. Please see the quotes I have added in the Progressive Judaism and Reform Judaism articles for proof! RK

For some time it has been a settled useage on Wikipedia that (a) halakha is often usefully translated as "Jewish law and tradition", or something like that, (b) the practice of Karaites and Samaritans is not usefully or accurately described as "Jewish law"; they are quite different groups! and (c) Reform Judaism does not accept that halakha is normative. Yet in the last few weeks the article has been slowly rewritten to make parts of Progressive Judaism (also often used synonomously with Reform Judaism)look as traditional as Orthodox. As I see it, this may be a diservice to both Reform Judaism and to Orthodox Judaism. It also will confuse the majority of people who read our articles. I would beg of you to stop writing about Reform using the rhetoric of Orthodoxy. That path does not lead to clarification, and only smacks of inter-denomination public relations debates. Let's allow Reform to speak for itself...and no form of Reform (other than possbily the "Movement for Reform Judaism" in the UK) teaches that its adherents must study and observe Jewish law and tradition (aka halakha) as binding. In fact, all of them explicitly and repeatedly explain why most of it is not binding, and why personal autonomy takes precedence. RK 00:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that JHeald. RK, Halakhic law is a subset of Jewish law (also called rabbinic law). Orthodox rabbis make a distinction between e.g. something that is 'biblically' forbidden or permitted (in the chumash) and something that is 'rabbinically' forbidden, (by halacha). The paragraph in question refers to Reform's position on both, not just halacha. Zargulon 08:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Halakha and "Jewish law" are synonyms; while Orthodox Rabbis might differentiate in some ways between "d'oraisa" and "d'rabbanan", they are still both part of halakha. Reform, as a movement, actively rejected halakha. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

JayJg is correct. More to the point, both early reformers and those that started the Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues (UK) used the terms "halakha" and "Jewish law" interchangably. As both JayJG and Zargulon note, there certainly are many parts of halakha, such as laws that are d'oraisa and d'rabbanan; parts that considered binding statutes as opposed to customs (minhagim), and even more distinctions have been formulated. But none of this contradicts the basic position that Jewish law is halakha. RK

I think you both should know that Reform in Britain, unlike in the USA, has not made any statements regarding their observance of halakhah - it in an extremely controversial issue, and no formal announcement has ever been made (ie no Pittsburgh platforms etc). The Reform leadership think that it's best to not take a stance and have not done so, so far. As a result, Wikipedia cannot say that they observe the halakhah fully, or completely disregard it. We should simply say that there is a Jewish movement in Britain, which calls itself Reform and has reformed certain traditional Jewish practices. It is not as radical as American Reform, but it's beliefs and practices correspond more accurately with Conservative Judaism in the US. In other words, only what is sourced. Izehar 17:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point - I agree. Zargulon 17:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both Izehar and Zargulon, and simply wish to note that if anyone finds any clarification from the UK's Movement for Reform Judaism on this issue, then we should incorporate that into this article. RK 19:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, British Reform didn't.. or can you provide a source? I disagree that they are synonyms, and so, apparently, does the author of the introduction to the Halakha page.. maybe you should start there..? Zargulon 18:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what you are talking about. It seems to me that this page explicitly does identify halakha as Jewish law. It, of course, denies that "Jewish law" is a literal translation of halakha, but the article does make clear that halakha is about Jewish laws and customs. Here are the essential quotes:

"Halakha (Hebrew: הלכה; also transliterated as Halakhah, Halacha, Halachah) is the collective corpus of Jewish rabbinic law, custom and tradition....The term Halakha may refer to a single rule, to the literary corpus of rabbinic legal texts, as well as to the overall system of religious law."

Also, note that it says "Broadly, the Halakha comprises the practical application of the commandments (each one known as a mitzvah) in the Torah, as developed in subsequent rabbinic literature".

Most forms of Reform Judaism reject the idea that Jews must accept the commandments in the Torah, and the subsequent rabbinic elaborations. RK

What does all this have to do with this article? The question was whether British Reform Jews accept halakhah as normative. The answer is... the Movement for Reform Judaism (formerly known as the RSGB) has not made it clear whether they do (like American Reform) or don't (like American Conservatism). That question cannot be answered with a single yes or no. It is a controversial issue, and it is well known that each congregation is different, so practices may vary. Izehar 19:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

RK - As you showed, the word Halacha has different meanings depending on the context. In a particular context, it can be used interchangeably with "Jewish Law". That is not called being a synonym. Could you please sign your edits? Zargulon 23:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree; it certainly is a synonym. And Reform Jews themselves often use this same terminology. I still can't understand where you are coming from. It sounds like you are trying to create an argument that Reform Jews observe Jewish law, yet don't observe halakha. I can't make anything of this other than to see it as wordplay, using Orthodox terminology to make Reform sound more traditional than it is. RK

I agree that there are situations where the terms can be used interchangeably. The passages you quoted above make clear that there are also situations where the terms may not be used interchangeably. The Reform Judaism's attitude to Jewish Law paragraph is an example of a case where it is important to make the distinction between the attitude to Halacha (Jewish Rabbinic Law as per definition on Halacha page) and the biblical law which it interprets and elaborates. Zargulon 23:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Be careful! It almost sounds as if you believe that Reform accepts biblical law as normative, but rejects assigning a normative stance rabbinic law, such as the Mishnah and Talmud? That doesn't hold. If that were true then Reform Jews would kill homosexuals and adulterers and Sabbath violators. (Without Judaism's oral law that would be the conclusion.) The Reform theology that you are quoting does exist, true, but it is part of a throughly discredited Reform theology that was born and died in the late 1800s. In the late 1800s Reform Jews tried to get away from what they saw as excessed in Talmud law, and excesses in the susequent codes of Jewish law. Fair enough.

But their early attempts at developing a theology to justify this stated that the Torah was authoritative and binding, but not later rabbinic works. Reformers themselves found the fatal flaw in this presentation - the teachings and customs that Reform Jews chose to keep actually existed within the rabbinic law, and many laws that they found immoral were found in the Torah! As such, their own theolgians today have different ways of understanding this issue.

It seems better to say that Reform Judaism assigns equal importance to both the Torah's law and the later interpretations and customs of rabbinic Jewish law, and teaches that the ultimate arbitor of what to follow and how is the individual, not the rabbi or community. RK 03:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree...seems to me that there isn't as much study of gemara as TaNaKh in the vast majority of Reform institutions. --Yodamace1 18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Izehar, I completely agree. Zargulon 23:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

RK - I am not sure why you feel it sounds like I believe that. Zargulon 08:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Staunchly" Zionist?

In the section on Zionism, someone wrote that most official Zionist groups are "staunchly Zionist." The use of the word "staunchly" is much too opinionated and should be edited.

Thank you.

• Agreed, it sounds a little strange. Zargulon 09:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous edits on 9th March

I wouldn't ordinarily have reverted but with the editor being an anonymous IP, there was no way to flag his/her talk page. Anyway I am reform and I think it is perfectly fair to mention that there were worries (among the reformers themselves) about making sure that these reforms should be consistent. The next paragraph says 'to resolve this..' there is no implication that the principle of reform is inconsistent or modern reform is inconsistent. I think that paragraph should stay, with perhaps minor modifications. Zargulon 10:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synonyms

It doesn't make sense to have different articles about things that are the same, or have very slight similarities. The ideas that the sects share should be described in an umbrella, and the differences should be voiced. Very few people know the difference, and it should be discribed within an article shared between Progressive, Reform, Liberal, etc. The distinctions are not clear.--Cocopuffberman 23:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree; I think each of the sects has enough uniqueness, and there are enough people who are interested in the differences between them, that each should have a page of its own. Zargulon 10:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why all the confusion?

Discourse about "streams" in Judaism is too complicated - perhaps on purpose. Christianity has a much more fortright view. Whereas catholics, protestants, baptists, greek orthodox, mormons, etc. are all Christians they belong to different religions. Clarity is helped even by simple things like religious leaders not all called by the same title. Reform Judaism, too, is a different religion from orthodoxy and even conservative Judaism. --LPfeffer May 30, 2006

Maybe you should inform the people at the Christianity article (which begins "Christianity is a monotheistic religion") about how sadly misled they are.

I don't quite get this ... (sarcarsm?) --LPfeffer May 30, 2006

What's not to get? You said that e.g. Catholics and Protestants belong to different religions. The Christianity page says they belong to the same religion. So why aren't you correcting them? Is it because you think this page is an easier target? Maybe you're right..time will tell. Zargulon 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggest not making this personal since that is counter-productive. --LPfeffer May 30, 2006

Agreed. So are you going to answer my question? Zargulon 22:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You perked my interest and I plan to research this - beyond the Wikipedia page on Christianity. The key issues seem to be to get a rigorous definition (from an acceptable source) of when a new "religious" innovation splits off the prior practice creating a new "religion" and, in contrast, when an innovation spawns a new "denomination"/"stream" within the origial "religion". For example, is a "liberal religion" (i.e. very open ended and open to individual interpretation and source religion) like Unitarianism a "stream" of Christianity, is it a new "religion", or a hybrid of both? Would a new practice of Christianity without baptism, Christ and a few key Christian dogmas/practices still be a Christian "denomination"? Where are the "red lines" demarking bounds of a "religion"? At a simpler level clarification is needed on whether "denomination" and "stream" are synonyms or not. I plan to post the findings on this page once I have them. --LPfeffer May 31, 2006

By the way, why do you think that the word "stream" is too complicated? Zargulon 10:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Complication is not due to the term but its semantics in this context. For rivers it is an excellent term. In the context of Judaism the term is poorly defined and is perhaps designed to blur and confuse. I never heard the term "stream" from those practicing "core Judaism" ("haredi" and orthodox). The further a group innovates away from Judaism the more it uses terms like "stream", "pluralism", "personal interpretation" - which are, in fact, no more than intellectual floats and fuzz. In recent times Judaism is especially prone to splits ("streams"?) - including the recent crop of those practicing "secular worship" and "hybrids" like "Catholic Jews", "Hindu Jews", "Buddhist Jews" ... In Israel it is even more complicated. Many of the "secular stream" (whose dogmas are atheism, multi-culturalism and deep disdain for "Judaism" and "religious Jews") feel that being an Israeli superceeds being "Jewish" in the classical sense (which one of the secular leaders calls just "old folkways") - very similar to the fundamental Christian dogma of "supercession" of Judaism.

Note: Christianity, too, started out as a "stream" of Judaism ... in fact its founder was a practicing orthodox Jew who spoke and prayed in Hebrew ... It took only a few generations for the "stream" to mutate into a "super-stream" and Jews' most vicious enemy for two millenia (which is only recently changing). The founder, Jehoshua, could not have imagined the negative future impact of his innovations on his people.

The article on Reform Judaism presemts an unstable and vaccilating fad rather than a theology, religion. Is "Reform", then, an "enlightened stream" (if instability and radical twists and turns are "enlightened")? Does "Reform" exhibit "stream switching" where the initial "streams" dried up and new "streams" are started as fads change?

--LPfeffer May 30, 2006

I'm having difficulty extracting your fundamental point from all that. -- Zargulon 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"What's not to get?" --LPfeffer May 30, 2006

People can call themselves what they like, including "Buddhist Jews". -- Zargulon 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Just because a dog calls itself a horse that doesn't make it one ... Also, just beause a cat calls itself a ZQ5DA65 it doesn't mean that is a coherent concept ... --LPfeffer May 30, 2006

If there are enough of them, they get a page on Wikipedia. -- Zargulon 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Getting a page" on Wikipedia, or in any publication does not create reality ... or make a fuzzy concept crisp. The fact that that "Reform Judaism" is documented on Wikipedia is, of course, legitimate - after all it is a social/group practice and perhaps also a religion of sorts to many. The key point is that in many ways it is distinct from what many call "Judaism" and due the way it defines "Jew" (passing of Judaism by father vs. mother) its practioners are guaranteed to be at best questionably Jewish even now and surely in a few generations. --LPfeffer May 30, 2006

Reform/Liberal/Buddhist Jews are considered Jews by Orthodox Jews, unless they were converted by someone who wasn't an orthodox rabbi, or don't have a Jewish maternal line, which is a minority. -- Zargulon 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If the terminology and basic concepts are confused anything derived from them is even more so.

A "Reform/Secular/Buddhist/Hindu/Catholic/Sunni/Antisemitic/Whatchamacallit/Mambojumbo/Postmodern/Deconstructionist/Polyreligious ... " person is considered to be a Jew (by the orthodox - due to "halakhic law") if his/her mother was Jewish. That doesn't mean that what they practice is Judaism ... An Icelander or even a Martian can "celebrate" Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day and Thanksgiving Day --- that doesn't make her/him an American ... There is only one relatively well defined set of circumstances whereby one is an "American". Not very different in Judaism.

Since "Reform" is not opposed to intermariage and since it defines "Jew" thru the father (vs. mother as in orthodoxy and even conservative) it has by definition split off from Judaism both in terms of "Who is a Jew" and religios practice (since reform innovated itself away from Judaism.) It should be noted that the Samaritan and Karaite religious groups are much closer to core Judaism than Reform, but Karaites and Samaritans are not considered to be Jews and their practice is not Judaism.

I can undersand that some groups abhor attention to detail, rigor and intellectual integrity, but they served Jews well in many other ways than religion. --LPfeffer May 30, 2006

What's the big deal? Zargulon 14:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In mathematics, science and also in Judaism (perhaps not in Reform) definitions and boundaries are "big deal". This served Jews well - both during life in Israel thru the ages and in the Diaspora. --LPfeffer May 30, 2006

I still don't understand what you are trying to say. Zargulon 22:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK --LPfeffer May 31, 2006

[edit] Definition in intro paragraph

Hello, the article starts out by defining Reform Judaism as "the largest Jewish denomination in the United States". Is this a definition of Reform or merely a current fact about it? Reform Judaism was the largest U.S denomination in 1890, but it wasn't the largest from the mid-20th century through about 1990, and who knows what it will be in 2020? Suggest defining the denomination in terms of something related to its beliefs, practices, or history that remains common to it through its various evolutions including waxing and waning from time to time. Best, --Shirahadasha 10:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. if want to mention its largestness, say "has been the largest in the period xxxx-yyyy". Zargulon 10:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)