Conference taveng::bagels

Mr. Nollet's integration into the Jewish people cannot be questioned, as
he uses much of the same slippery reasoning that is used by so many who
were born Jewish.

>           But what of the converts who are not ethnically, or biologically,
>      Jewish?   For  them,  they  can  only  be  Jewish by dint of religious
>      practice.

Mr. Nollet may know more about halacha than I, but I believe that he is
dead wrong here.  Someone who is not born Jewish can become Jewish only
by a valid conversion.  While the definition of "valid conversion" may be
disputed, it is not simply the observance of some percentage of the mitzvot.
(And I doubt that any Jew observes none of the mitzvot, or that any observes
all of them.)

>           And here is the rub:  Non-Orthodox  conversion  simply  does  not
>      RELIABLY  ensure  that  a convert will function as a religious person.

True, but neither does Orthodox conversion.  Nothing reliably ensures that
any Jew will "function as a religious person".

>      At best, the religious level of such a person will be  doubtful.   And
>      since  the biological aspect is clearly non-Jewish, that means, with a
>      considerable degree of likelihood, that the convert is not  Jewish  at
>      all.

Again, I challenge Mr. Nollet's definition of "Jewish".  I would very much
like to hear any halachic basis for the claim that the validity of a conversion
can be affected by the convert's later "religious level".

    It's often noted that a convert, to any cause including a religion,
    tends to be the most zealous in his beliefs.
    
    Likewise for Mr. Nollet, when he underwent an Orthodox conversion,
    he adopted a particular view that is not shared by most non-converts.
    Of course, his view has the property of reinforcing the validity
    of his actions, so it is psychologically very consistent.
    
    But that doesn't make it the only valid view.

     >      It's really very simple.  We live in a world of  credentials...
     >              If  you  don't  have  a  license  issued  by  the  local
     >constabulary,  you  cannot drive a taxi, no matter how able you are to
     >do so.

    I am licensed to drive in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and that
    license is recognized in every other state in the U.S. and in most
    other countries.  It is also the case that people who qualify as
    physicians and lawyers in one jurisdiction have (in many cases)
    reciprocal recognition in others.  The issue is not about having
    credentials or not having credentials, but about reciprocal recognition
    of credentials.   
    
     > Among the religions of the world, Judaism is...BOTH  ethnic...

    Religions are not ethnic.  Judaism is more than a religion, it is
    a culture.  The religious component of that culture has been very
    important in sustaining the ethnic group, but partly because it
    has been responsive to changes in the needs and circumstances of
    the group.

      >...for  "real"  Jews don't accept us
    
    I'm not sure exactly what Nollet means by "real." From the context
    it suggests something that I don't like, but I'll hold off the flames.
                                                                   
      >                                                             Israel
      >doesn't need anybody, not even George Bush.   Israel  needs  only  one
      >thing:   the  goodwill  of  the  Almighty.

    This is the kind of thinking that worries me most of all.  It is the
    kind of zealotry that led to the rebellion of 66 and the Hurban, and
    the even more disastrous war of 135.  In a slightly different form, it
    produced followers for Shabtai Tsvi. One should never rely on miracles. 
    
    (I can't help but reflect on two schools of True Believers, one of whom
    rejects the legitimacy of Medinat Yisrael because it was not created by
    a miracle, and the other, which expects that it will be preserved by
    one.  Note:  I used the term 'True Believers' and not Orthodox.  I may
    disagree with Orthodox Jews on many things, but I do not consider them
    mishuga.  The people I call 'True Believers' are ones I consider out of
    touch with reality.) 

                                           Aaron

    As I read it, by this James Nollet's way of thinking I am a "real"
    Jew.
    
    And by my way of thinking he is also a "real" Jew.  But I would
    have considered him to be just as real a Jew had he only gone through
    the non-orthodox conversion.
    
    What he ascribes to me as to what I, as one of the group of "real"
    Jews will accept is false.  In fact, I think his basic premise is
    completely wrong, and I disagree with him about the law or return
    amendment.
    
    But he's a Jew and I'm a Jew, and I'm not sure which of us is the
    Shlemeel and which the Shlemazel.
    
    				Paul
    

    By Nollet's reasoning:
    
    A person who attended Harvard Law (or choose your own) for his JD and
    passed the Bar exam would be an attorney.  If, on the other hand, he
    had attended Podunk Law and passed the Bar, he wouldn't.
    
    /Ed 

re: .0

The person who commented on certain convert's level of zealousness hit the nail right on
the head.  I've spent forty years on this earth as a "biological" Jew, in Israel and other
countries and I would say to Mr. Nollet big deal, so you're going to tell the rest of us
how we should live?

David 

    The problem with requiring the "halachic" approach to conversion
    is that, like many other halachic cases, it gets so hung up in detail
    and ritual that the underlying purpose is lost, or described as
    something known only to the Almighty.  But conversion is one case
    where I'm NOT going to say, "We don't know why it's so.  G-d said
    so, and that's it."  Halachic conversion is largely rabbinical in
    nature; the details are not found in Written Torah.
    
    Judaism has a very different concept of conversion from the more
    catholic (small c) religions of the world.  Specifically, Judaism,
    as a national/cultural religion, does not LOOK FOR converts; we
    begrudge them.  If you want to convert, you must be sincere and
    must earn it.  That's very different from some missionary religions
    who would go into villages with guns and order people into churches
    where they would be forced to take a mikveh dunk (baptism), at which
    point they'd be "converted".
    
    Now it's true that halachic conversion does a good job of discouraging
    the uncommitted, and that's laudatory.  And it's true that some
    non-Orthodox rabbis, and I'm led to believe (historically) Sephardic
    rabbis, allowed conversion for the convenience of marriage, even
    if the person wasn't _otherwise_ committed.  That opens up a rathole
    too.  But it's quite possible to have a non-halachic conversion
    process that is sincere, and does the job of weeding out those who
    really want to join the Jewish People from those who want an easy
    membership.  To my manner of thinking, that's what should count.
    Of course, the non-Orthodox rabbinate also seems to take that position,
    as did Ben-Gurion.

    If you're REALLY crazy enough to want to be Jewish, and you really
    demonstrate it (by study, etc.), then I, for one, won't question
    whether the rabbi who "gave you the final exam" happened to turn
    on an electric light on Friday evening.  Which would, I understand,
    invalidate a conversion per halacha.

    Here's the rathole I alluded to in .7.
    
    What if your mother's mother's mother's mother, back in Galicia or
    Germany or wherever, were a convert?  And she was converted by a Reform
    rabbi? Now you didn't know your great-grandmother, who never set foot
    in the country you now live in, and you've lived you life like any
    other member of the Jewish community. 
    
    Under the hard-core "who is a Jew" rules being suggested by some,
    and at least a common view among the Orthodox, you're a goy, no
    better than, say, Karol Wotyla or Yasser Arafat.  And you might
    not even know it, but if someone were to find records showing what
    synagogue she were converted at, you're OUT!
    
    I find this rather revolting.  It may be halachically correct, but
    in my personal definition of "who is a Jew", I allow a "grandmother
    clause".  Incidentally, if there's any truth to the Khazar mythos,
    then a large percentage of Ashkenazic Jews are descended from a
    group whose mass conversion may not have had proper halachic
    supervision.  Maybe Schneerson's great**30 grandmother was a Khazar.
    Who can prove otherwise?  Hey, I'm willing to give him credit, but
    he doesn't seem to be so flexible.  Does he want to adopt the Mormon
    policy of tracing geneology?  (They do it for a different reason.)

    Some of these "absolutes" don't work, and are selectively applied
    as a power-play.

Shalom,

I read through R. Yellin's article in a recent issue of the Jewish Advocate.
He made similar statements to those Fred makes in .8.  The validity of those
statements was not clear to me.  As I understood it, the suggested change to
the law of return is to change "converted" to "converted according to halacha".
If such is the case, then most non-halachic converts and their children would
still be allowed do to the clauses covering spouses, children and grandchildren
of Jews (since the chances are that one of these would probably apply).

Am I misunderstanding this?

L'hit,
Gavriel

Disclaimer:
I do not agree with the proposed change to the Law of Return.  No matter
what the effect on the legal status of non-halachic converts, it tends
to alienate a substantial segment of the U.S. Jewish community.  This
question is aimed at understanding the possible situation should the law
be changed.

    re .8
    
    Schneerman doesn't have to worry. You only have to prove your
    jewishness ten generations back.

    A non-Jewish offspring of Jew is admitted under the Law of the
    Return, but as a non-Jew.  That includes the child of a Jewish father.
    Or of a Jewish mother whose conversion was non-Halachic.
    
    If a Halachic test, however, is made, then the definition of "child
    of a Jewish mother" can be extrapolated back any number of generations,
    since if your grand**10 mother wasn't Jewish, then you're not, unless
    you or someone closer in your matrilieage was converted "according
    to Halacha", since any non-Halachic conversion produces non-Jewish
    offspring.

    re:.10
    
    The phrase, "to the tenth generation" sometimes is interpreted to mean
    "forever".  (This was a topic a couple of months ago on the Usenet,
    since mamzerus goes "to the tenth generation".)  Now I'm sure
    Schneerson himself, being a dynast, can go back ten (literal)
    generations, but hardly any Jew _but_ a Hasidic rebbe can!
    
    (George Bush, on the other hand, has had his geneology traced back
    most of a millenium, showing him as a fifteenth cousin, or so, to
    the English Royal Family, not to mention half the "WASPs" in the US!.)

    	This business of recognizing only conversions "according to
    halacha" breaks under its own weight.  In a world where there are
    multiple overlapping kashrut certifications, and many observant people
    won't eat Hebrew National or (U) (where's the compose character for a U
    inside an O? :-)) because they don't trust the authorities running
    those certifications, how are we any more likely to get consensus on
    what constitutes a halachically valid conversion?  In other words, if
    you and I can't agree on what makes a hot dog kosher, how are we going
    to agree on what makes a conversion valid?

    			David

    re .13
    David is right, and that is the sad thing about the whole question. 
    According to (the same) halacha, once a person has converted to
    Judaism, no one is supposed to mention the subject again (and,
    considering how difficult it is to do so, no on ought to, either - it
    is also true that the first three rabbis/teachers a prospective convert
    asks are supposed to refuse to teach, on the theory that this weeds out
    the non-committed!).  However, since no one seems to agree on simpler
    matters (e.g., hotdogs), the matter is never, ever laid to rest - no
    one ever FAILS to mention that the individual is a convert!  Talk about
    ways to make a person feel alienated...  The convert is made to work
    very hard, probably alienate his/her relatives, abide by halachic rules
    that most (American) Jews have never even studied, but still is not
    welcome in the Jewish community, and is a subject of behind-the back
    conversation forever (and all her children, for at least ten
    generations, too, if the convert is a woman).  Sigh.
    
    
    Of course, by the same token, once you are satisfied that a person's
    mother is Jewish (presumably because she is not a convert, or all of
    you would never be satisfied at the same time), it does not matter
    what, if any at all, of the halacha the person follows, or even knows
    about - a real double standard!
    
    Of course, with a "national unity" government forming in Israel, this
    issue will hopefully be dropped!   

re .12
>                                                    Now I'm sure
>   Schneerson himself, being a dynast, can go back ten (literal)
>   generations, but hardly any Jew _but_ a Hasidic rebbe can!
    
    I believe many Sefardim can trace their ancestry back several centuries.

>    ...catholic (small c) religions of the world.  Specifically, Judaism,
>    as a national/cultural religion, does not LOOK FOR converts; we
>    begrudge them.  If you want to convert, you must be sincere and
>    must earn it.  That's very different from some missionary religions
>    who would go into villages with guns and order people into churches
>    where they would be forced to take a mikveh dunk (baptism), at which
>    point they'd be "converted".
    
I always _love_ this statement!  While what you say is correct today, and
I might add a recent development; the historical (as opposed to religious, and
hence most distorted) facts are *quite* different.

JUDAISM was, at one time, the largest "missionary" bunch in the middle east.
In fact, the techniques were similar; namely win the war, forced conversions,
and, in some cases, subsequent beheading.  Pretty standard methods to ensure
the survival of the fittest nation.

$ Set Terminal/flame=on (no relation to .7, just general)

	I really get sick of this "we're better than them" mentality.

$ Set Terminal/flame=off

Paraphrasing Mahatma Ganhdi:

"I'm a Christian, Hindu, Jew, Moslem, Buddist; and so the hell are all of you!"

-A Non-Religio-Racist Jew

About all the above cuteness concerning
ancestors, Khazars, R. Schneerson, etc.:

Even if my great-great-...-great grandmother were not Jewish I would
still be as long as my MOTHER is. And she will be if HER mother was.
So you can tolerate quite a bit of non-Jewish ancestry-- on your
father's side, on your mother's father's side, etc... just not on
the direct matrilineal line!

-Zaitch

    re: .16
    
    Chill off a bit.  This is yet another misinterpretation of conversion
    to Judaism.  Just because converts have to "work" at their conversions
    does not imply a general air of superiority.  And while I'm at it
    show us some proof of forced conversions, beheadings, etc.
    
    David

re .-1:
>	And while I'm at it
>	show us some proof of forced conversions, beheadings, etc

As far as I know it was only in the times of the early Hasmoneans that
there were forced conversions to Judaism, and then only of the Edumeans,
erstwhile enemies of the Jews for hundreds of years.
(By the way, the famous King Herod was an Edumean and revenged
himself cruelly upon many of the people who rejected him as an Edumean
and hence unfit to rule as king.)
(But bear in mind that waking up on the wrong side of the bed was reason
enough for Herod to chop off a few hundred heads before breakfast, and
that Herod's opponents had any number of reasons to reject his right
to rule, quite apart from the issue of conversion.)

Of course there is in halachik theory the "forced conversion" of those 
Canaanites who wanted neither to flee nor to fight Joshua's army, at
least according to some rabbinical opinions (I THINK the Rambam's, but
I would have to check it out again.)
Whether there is historical evidence that this ever happened is another matter.

re .19:
>Of course there is in halachik theory the "forced conversion" of those 
>Canaanites who wanted neither to flee nor to fight Joshua's army

Are you referring to the Nesinites?  According to the Artscroll Mishna
Yevamos, "The Nesinites were descendants of the Hivite inhabitants of the
city of Gibeon in Eretz Yisrael at the time of Joshua's conquest of the
land.  They deceived Joshua into allowing them to convert to Judaism.
Having sworn to accept them, Joshua did not repudiate their conversion
but instead relegated them to wood choppers and water carriers (Joshua,
chapter 9)."  The Nesinites were forbidden to marry into the Jewish
community.

    RE: .16, .18
    
    There was a period during the reign of the Hasmonean dynasty that
    the Idumeans (Edomites) were forced to convert to Judaism, as were
    some of the Samaritans and non-Jewish Galileans.  Interestingly,
    they proved to be very loyal Jews during the War or 66-72.  There
    is also evidence that the Jews were active missionaries during this
    period as well; the Christian emphasis on proselytizing reflects,
    in part, the environment in which early Christianity developed.
    
    As far as I have been able to find out, there were a variety of
    conversion practices and ways of determining who was a Jew.  The
    evidence of the Bible is that during the Monarchy, identification
    was based on patrilineal descent.  Somewhere around the fourth century
    C.E. the Amoraim made matrilineal descent or conversion the criterion.
    In between, it is not clear what determinants were used.
    
    					Aaron

   I may be asking for it here, but I have just one simple question:
   
   What difference does it make to you whether my _mother_ was *really*
   Jewish or whether some Rabbi, be he orthodox or otherwise, has *really*
   determined whether or not I am Jewish?  Are you really going to treat
   me differently from the halachically declared "kosher" Jew?
   
   If so, how?  Do I have to sit in the back of the bus?  Do I have to
   wear an armband?  Will I not be allowed into the shul for High Holy
   Days?  (I'm not asking the government of Israel's opinion or even
   a halachic official here, I'm asking yours.)  What will change in
   our relations or our everyday living?
   
   Just how tolerant a people are we?   And if we are tolerant, (and
   I say we are, for the most part), then how can it be so important
   (to you) who my mother was, or whether I have undergone an orthodox or 
   a non-orthodox conversion?
   
   
   							Terza
   

Shalom Terza,

Some things that come to mind which would effect me based on such determination:

1) Would I be counted in a minyan?

2) Would I be allowed aliyot (to say the blessing for the reading of the Torah)
   or other honors as part of religious services?

3) Could I be a witness at a wedding (assuming I was otherwise Shomer Mitzvot)?

4) Could I be married under Orthodox auspices? (to an Orthodox Jew or the
   daughter of one who cares what her parents think).

5) If I were a woman would my children be able to not worry about the above.

It is not just a matter of day-to-day tolerance.  It is a matter real
acceptance AS A JEW by Orthodox Jews.  The treatment of gentiles in the
religious aspects of Jewish life is substantially different than the
treatment of Jews.  (This should not surprise anyone).

SET FLAME MILD

The answers to the above questions certainly make a difference to me.
If they don't make a difference to you then you don't have a problem.

SET FLAME OFF

L'hit,
Gavriel
I am speaking here as Gavriel the hot-head not Gavriel the moderator  8^{).

re .20
>Are you referring to the Nesinites?  According to the Artscroll Mishna
>Yevamos, "The Nesinites were descendants of the Hivite inhabitants of the
>city of Gibeon in Eretz Yisrael at the time of Joshua's conquest of the
>land.  They deceived Joshua into allowing them to convert to Judaism.
>Having sworn to accept them, Joshua did not repudiate their conversion
>but instead relegated them to wood choppers and water carriers (Joshua,
>chapter 9)."  The Nesinites were forbidden to marry into the Jewish
>community.

No, because according to tradition the Gibeonites never converted
to Judaism but only foreswore idolatry. Their status was certainly
NOT that of converts. I was refering to the debate amongst the rabbis
as to under what conditions Canaanites could remain in the Land of
Israel, and I was refering to the theoretical possibility that 
some Canaanites "converted" under historical duress, since, according
to this theory, their only alternatives would be to fight the
Israelites or leave Canaan. BUT NOTE: this was not intended as a 
serious historical supposition. As far as I know there is no evidence
that any Canaanites actually did this. I was just reacting to the
idea that Jews never/often/sometimes "forced others to convert".
(That we hardly ever had the POWER to do so is obvious! Maybe we
would have proved just as tyrranical and intolerant as others had
our historical circumstances been different.)

-Zaitch

    This digression on the Roman era et al kind of gets off the course
    of _my_ earlier digression which prompted it...
    
    While it _may_ be inaccurate to say that _never_ in history did
    Judaism force or even encourage conversion, our modern tradition
    clearly does not encourage it.  That alone makes us different from
    some other religious groups.  And since it's the case today, then
    I'd posit that our view of conversion should be based on a sincerity
    test, not upon one's great-great-great grandmother's yichus or the
    legitemacy (in whomever's eyes) of the rabbi(s) who performed the
    conversion.
    
    The rest is a distraction.

re .25:
    
>    While it _may_ be inaccurate to say that _never_ in history did
>    Judaism force or even encourage conversion, our modern tradition
>    clearly does not encourage it.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the current
    Reform position is that it encourages conversion of the
    non-Jewish partner in intermarriage.

    I don't know if there is an official "policy" amongst reform rabbis to
    encourage non-Jewish people who are married to Jews to convert,
    although it seems like a good percentage of them eventually do (I guess
    they like what they see?), but there definitely *is* a policy to try to
    make intermarried people feel comfortable with synagogue life and some
    kind of a part of the community.  The husband of the current chirperson
    of our ritual committee (I'm glad it's not *me* anymore - as the
    congregation grows, running that committee is getting to be a fulltime
    job) is some kind of Buddhist, but he frequently comes to events at the
    synagogue, helps out a good deal with things like carpentry and
    repairing siddurim and such stuff, and often even attends services with
    his wife - in fact, I wasn't sure he was not Jewish until very
    recently, when it happened to come up in conversation (I had wondered a
    bit since he did not have aliyahs and things like that).  I have no
    idea whether he may decide to become Jewish, but he is already a member
    of our little community (and a very pleasant fellow, too).  Programs to
    try to make intermarried people feel comfortable are usually termed
    "outreach" programs, and I guess this could be misinterpreted by some
    people as some kind of conversion drive, but that is not the way it
    works (at least, in our schul).
                                   

    The issue of conversion is a bit different from the issue of
    non-Jewish spouses.
    
    If a person in a mixed-marriage is made to feel sufficiently
    uncomfortable by a shul,  there are various "Jews who belive in
    Jesus" groups out there looking for such couples.  I think there
    is one such group operating in the Shrewsbury/Worcester area.  I
    don't think it was J4J, but I don't remember the name.
    
    Some interfaith couples become Unitarians, too.  For some reason
    that doesn't bother me as much as the J4J Christianity.
    
    				Paul
    

    I just happened upon your discussion and find it most interesting.
    What would you folks call Ruth, Naomi's daughter-in-law? 
    
    I understand that the 'laws' determining 'who/what is a Jew' were
    written by men for man.  Why then may they note be 'unwritten' by
     other men?
    
    Havint lived through three US wars, and remember,weel, what we in
    the States were doing for those we managed to rescue from the ovens,
    ANYONE who wants to live and die as a Jew must be respected, and
    honored for his/her choice.  Surely they must be insane.  Me?  I
    was born a Jew, have lived as a Jew, and will die as a Jew, if the
    G_D, Rabana---lem has so defined that that is the purpose for my
    life.

    I will turn the discussion to a different aspect of this problem,
    the real problem as I see it:
    
    The object of the law is not "who is a Jew" but "who is a Rav".
    
    The change to the Law of Return (modification we call "who is a
    Jew") would only affect the ellegibility of single converses that
    come to Israel to receive special low interest mortgages and import
    tax exempts.
    
    The number of olim per year is now very low, and I doubt this law
    would change that number in any way. So as far as the implications
    for Israel of this law is absolutely "batel be-shishim" (despreciable).
    
    However it is important for the religious establishment in Israel
    to show to all the observant community wherever they are that they
    have the power to decide who can make conversions, who can marry
    people or divorce married couples. I believe some Orthodox leaders
    seeing their message is loosing atraction to the Jewish masses,
    want to justify their position and importance by showing the "power"
    and muscles they have.
    
    I would rather prefer to see representatives of different tendencies
    in Judaism come together and define an inter-tendency standard for
    those that want to join the Jewish People that would take care also
    the belonging to the Jewish "Folk" as well as rulings and procedures
    and so take care of the unity of the comunity. In my view, in that
    keeping only the procedural way, we loose the hart of Jewishness.
    We should apply, as in many other things, the teachings of the school
    of Hillel.
    
    Juan-Carlos Kiel

Copied from BUSINESS WEEK/DECEMBER 26, 1988 without permission

Who is an Indian, and Why Are They Asking?

Native American Artists want a crackdown on 'masqueraders'


"I follow the Red road," says John Redtail Freesoul, a Santa Fe 
sculptor.  "In everything I do, I am an Indian."

So it would seem.  A member of the intertribal Redtail Hawk Society, 
Freesoul is the official pipemaker of the Cheyenne-Arapahoe tribe in 
Oklahoma.  He has taken part in seven sun dances.  Freesoul has even 
been a spiritual advisor to Indians in the New Mexico state 
penitentiary.  He says: "I follow the way of earth mother and sky 
father."

But if Freesoul promotes himself as an Indian artist or even tells 
collectors he has Indian blood, the state of New Mexico can fine him 
up to $10,000.  Born in New Jersey -- he took his grandfather's name 
of Freesoul in 1974 -- he claims to be at least 1/4 Indian.  But 
Freesoul is not an enrolled member of any tribe recognized by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and thus by New Mexico's standards, 
he's not an Indian....

Therein lies a nasty controversy that has split Santa Fe, home of a 
lucrative art market that is the nation's third largest.... 

Under pressure from the NAAA (Native American Artists Assn.), Randall 
Childress, asst. attorney general in New Mexico, has been sending 
investigators posing as art collectors into Santa Fe galleries to 
track down artists who say they're Indians but don't have registration 
numbers issued by a BIA-recognized tribe....

Since 1929, it has been illegal in New Mexico to sell non-Indian goods 
as Indian.  The law was passed to protect Indian artisans from 
non-Indian competition and to safeguard tourists from imitations.  
Than, a decade ago, as prices for Native American paintings 
skyrocketed, "a large amount of people decided magically to become 
Indians,"....  They demanded to be included in shows open only to Native 
Americans, such as Santa Fe's Indian Market, which generates about 
$140 million in added business for the city annually....

Few disagree with the law's spirit.  The dispute is over its letter, 
specifically over how it determines who is an Indian.  Tribes set 
their own rules, and they vary widely.  To be a Navajo, for example, 
one must have 1/4th Navajo blood, while Cherokees require only 1/16th. 
Making matters stickier, ancestry can be tough to prove, since family 
records often were oral.  Freesoul says he can't enroll because his 
grandparents were not married.  Others choose not to enroll for 
political or personal reasons.

Freesoul wants the law changed so that a registration number alone 
won't determine who is an Indian.  But it's unlikely the state will 
usurp the tribes' rights.  "It's between themselves and their tribe," 
says Alfred C. Harris, deputy director of New Mexico's Office of 
Indian Affairs.  In fact, a report from his office ... will recommend 
tightening that definition by excluding members of tribes that no 
longer exist.  The legislature is expected to act on that as well as a 
recommendation for better enforcement of the law in its next session.  
Yet more likely than not, those measures will only serve to divide 
Santa Fe's art community even more.

           
    re: < Note 609.31 by COGMK::MALMBERG >
         
    Shalom,
    
    Thanks for .31. As one who is neither Indian nor Jewish, I
    find the parallels interesting, and the solutions elusive.
    I agree there can be no disagreement with the spirit of the
    law...
                                                 
    >a report from his office (Alfred C. Harris, deputy director of 
    >New Mexico's Office of Indian Affairs) ... will recommend 
    >tightening that definition by excluding members of tribes that no 
    >longer exist.  The legislature is expected to act on that
    
     This is just the kind of thing I'd expect the government to
     recommend. Am I misreading it? How can the phrase "members of 
     tribes that no longer exist" make any sense? If members exist, 
     tribes exist [even if they're scattered], no? Is my brain slow 
     [after all the holidays and vacation time?]
    
    >Tribes set their own rules, and they vary widely.  To be a Navajo, 
    >for example, one must have 1/4th Navajo blood, while Cherokees 
    >require only 1/16th
    
    Interesting. The great grandmother of my new daughter-in-law was
    a full blooded Cherokee. That would make my daughter-in-law a
    Cherokee. Would that mean that my grandchildren [when then come
    along] will be Cherokee? 
    
    And, since my son is the offspring of two Latvian born people,
    he's an American born Latvian. That means his children would
    be American Indian Latvians? I could carry that farther...but 
    it boggles my mind today. ;^)
                          
    
    I'm glad I don't really have to worry about it and that it's nothing
    more than interesting speculation...                   
    
    I'd much rather be Jewish anyway. [My definition, of course ;^)]
    
    Irena
    
    
    
    
                             
    

    While a digression, .31 is certainly an interesting one, with a
    degree of relevance.  HOW relevant, however, depends on perspective.
    
    I think "member of a tribe that no longer exists" refers to the
    fact that a tribe can be _legally_ dissolved by the Federales when
    it is determined that the members have assimilated!  For example,
    the Mashpee Wanpanoag lost their reservation (Town of Mashpee) because
    they became English-speaking Christians and didn't maintain an active
    tribal government.  During the Eisenhower administration, the BIA
    practiced active genocide, encouraging assimilation and causing
    numerous tribes to no longer legally exist.  A survivor (who doesn't
    want to pretend to be white) is thus excluded under the New Mexico
    proposal.
    
    Jewish identity is relatiavely clear in religious terms.  If your
    rabbi says you're Jewish, then you're Jewish to that rabbi!  The
    Orthodox rabbinate follows halachic rules, which are purely
    matrilineal, plus their own conversions.  (The BIA refuses to allow
    conversion to "Indian", though.  I think that's discrimination.)
    What the State of Israel accepts as basis for citizenship is the
    political issue, though.  Whose rabbis are acceptable for conversion?
    If the fellow in .30 thinks he's Indian, but tribal records don't
    list him (being bar sinister), then it's analogous to the case of
    the Hungarian-Jewish immigrant to Israel who was refused the right
    to marry since a) his fiancee' was clearly Jewish and there was
    a questionable (not Orthodox enough) rabbi who converted him or
    a matrilineal ancestor, and b) he was about to enter the Army and
    couldn't leave the country to marry in Cyprus, which is pretty common
    among Israelis!
    
    Religion and politics mix as well as sodium and water.

< Note 609.33 by DELNI::GOLDSTEIN "Room 101, Ministry of Love" >
                      -< Indian situation is even worse >-

>During the Eisenhower administration, the BIA practiced active
>genocide, encouraging assimilation and causing numerous tribes to no
>longer legally exist.  

    Genocide doesn't mean "encouraging assimilation". It means
"deliberate extermination of a race or group", where extermination
means murder (-cide means killing, as in patricide). 

    re:.-1
    While it is true that the Eisenhower administration policy of
    assimilation was not literally genocide, it was in effect the follow-up
    to many previous administrations' (esp. Jackson and Grant) policies
    of literal genocide.  The survivors were to be mopped up via
    assimilation, to complete the effect of the genocide.
    
    Sloppy wording on my part.  Now back to whatever the topic was.

    Re: -.1
    
    I still think that "literal genocide" is also meaningless.  If you
    make a new definition, please specify it.  At least you owe us an
    explanation of the term.
    
    Regards,
    Leo

    I have replied to this and other notes on this topic before, and expect
    that after this I will no longer. This discussion has gotten out of hand.
    We're now talking about Indians and "literal genocide".

    The problem here is not whether non-orthodox conversions are valid
    or not, but one of EMOTION and basic beliefs. These are the types
    of things that reasoned argument will never change, because the
    basic assumptions are different.
    
    About a month ago, my wifes aunt and uncle were visiting us. They
    live in Jerusalem and are Orthodox. While they are orthodox they
    were willing to stay with us, eat off our plates(I insisted they
    use paper instead) although we are a non-kosher as you can get without
    keeping pork products in the house, which was to me somewhat of
    a contradiction to being Orthodox. Anyway I had this discussion
    with my wife's uncle. We got nowhere. We'd repeat ourselves, he'd
    throw Halacha at me. I'd throw what Halacha I know and "reason"
    and compassion at him. It was to no avail. He was convinced he was
    right and I was (still am) convinced I was right. It reminded me
    of the arguments between the Right-to-Life and Pro-abortion movements.
    You cannot win the argument, at best you remain calm and understand
    that the other side is not evil, but just doesn't hold the same
    values as you do.
    
    My wife was terrified they'd never speak to us again, but they are
    really good people, and an argumemnt to a Jew is just a good way to 
    have fun anyway.

    re:.36,.34 and let's end this digression.
    
    By "literal genocide", I mean literally, per the definition in .34,
    "deliberate extermination of a race or group".  This was the policy of
    many white Americans (in power) towards the Native American population.
    Specifics are beyond the scope of this conference, but suffice to say
    that it was pretty horrible, and not something for Americans to be
    proud of. 

    .37>  You are correct, an 'argument' among Jews is not an argument,
    but
    an intellectual discussion.......AND the origin of the Talmud, Mishna,
    etc.  each 'argument' being mothing more than the considered opinions
    of two or more people who could not agree on a given term or
    interpretation of a term, and having been recorded for others to
    see and agree with or not and to literally 'chooose up sides'...
    we
    tend to forget that these days.