Richard's Animorphs Forum
Animorphs Section => Animorphs Forum Classic => Topic started by: Hylian Dan on February 05, 2009, 04:43:52 PM
-
Just to play Devil's Advocate to that other thread...
Isn't Animorphs irreligious to some extent? Was KAA trying to make some statement about God and Satan with the Ellimist and Crayak?
The author of that satirical article about Animorphs and Satanism actually missed a much better talking point about Animorphs and religion.
When I read this editorial (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802886.html?nav=hcmodule) by Kathleen Parker, a little red flag went up at one point, thanks to Animorphs. See if you can figure out what I'm talking about:
Meanwhile, it isn't necessary to evict the Creator from the public square, surrender Judeo-Christian values or diminish the value of faith in America. Belief in something greater than oneself has much to recommend it, including most of the world's architectural treasures, our universities and even our founding documents.
Belief in something greater than oneself...
Being part of something greater than oneself...
Hey, remember The Sharing?
On the surface it's all about family and community and brotherhood and sisterhood. It's just like the Boy Scouts, the Animorphs often say. It's about being part of something greater than yourself. But when you join them, they slip a slug into your ear that wraps itself around your brain and controls everything you do from then on.
Isn't that a metaphor?
Here's a blog post I wrote about it for a class (http://secularsacred05.blogspot.com/2009/02/mind-control.html).
-
This is such an incredibly good point that I'm amazed I never spotted it before. I'll never be able to look at church the same way again.
Do you think it's intentional that K.A. makes scarcely any direct mention of religion in the books? If she's really as anti-religion as this connection would make it seem, the neglect of religion in the main characters' lives suddenly makes a lot more sense than it ever has to me before.
Hmm. What about Ax, though? One could label him as 'religious.' What's K.A. saying there, I wonder?
-
if anything, Animorphs has a little bit of Animalism thrown into it.
-
I have noticed the great absence of religion in the series. Shouldn't Jake be going to Mass? Why is church never mentioned during the weekend? Though I'm not sure if California is part of what we in alabama call the Bible Belt.
-
Why is church never mentioned during the weekend? Though I'm not sure if California is part of what we in alabama call the Bible Belt.
Lol, not even close.
I know hardly anyone who goes to church regularly, even among the "faithful"
I thought religion was down played in the series, and I'm glad. Religion's not a big part of my world, so it seemed more real to me.
Plus I think it would invite a lot of gribbing in to "God is cruel, and how can he do this to me...." Glad that wasn't a part of it
-
Plus I think it would invite a lot of gribbing in to "God is cruel, and how can he do this to me...." Glad that wasn't a part of it
Which, now that this is mentioned, kind of surprises me that we didn't see any of this through Tobias.
-
hah. very nice post.
http://www.thesharing.org/
-
The Yeerks are among us... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology)
Hmm. What about Ax, though? One could label him as 'religious.' What's K.A. saying there, I wonder?
We could take another look at the ending of the series:
[spoiler]"You will place yourself under the command
of The One?"
Santorelli's eyebrows shot up. "The who?" he
blurted.
I looked at Jake. At Tobias. At Jeanne. There
was a sort of collective shrug.
"I command this ship," Efflit 1318 explained,
"but I serve at the pleasure of The One Who Is
Many. The One Who Is All. We are not alone,
Rakich-Four-Six-Nine-One. We are not this ship
alone. We are the seeds of a new empire that will
far outshine the old, under the leadership of The
One." Weird to see that wild, messianic glow in
the eyes of a man you knew was really just a Yeerk
slave. It was a disturbingly human expression.
Santorelli said, "Urn, who is this . . . this
One?"
"I will invoke his presence," the Yeerk said.
He closed his eyes and raised his face.
"You have done well to come this far. You
have come to find your friend. But the Andalite is
part of me now. As you will soon be."
Jake stared back at the foul thing on the
screen. I saw what he saw, and I felt as if my
brain was shutting down. In that shifting alien
face was every corruption, every evil, and such
power that it seemed impossible it could be pres-
ent in just the narrow confines of the onrushing
Blade ship.[/spoiler]
I think that KA used the Ellimist to show how even though he was this higher power, but he wasn't infallible and he was far from being all-powerful. There were rules he had to obey and maneuver around.
Do you think it's intentional that K.A. makes scarcely any direct mention of religion in the books? If she's really as anti-religion as this connection would make it seem, the neglect of religion in the main characters' lives suddenly makes a lot more sense than it ever has to me before.
Everworld tackled religion very directly. Jalil was an atheist and April a devoted Christian. Jalil was the most intelligent of the group, and in Senna's book April came across as being the least intelligent but the most compassionate. There was also the way KA treated the various religions of Everworld. Egyptian society, for instance, went into complete decay because of religion.
[spoiler]Senna loved church because that was where she was able to practice controlling other people, because of the mind-state they were in there. Senna invents her own sort of religion to try to take over Everworld. She becomes an infallible leader, and her followers are the Sennites.[/spoiler]
Remnants treated religion more favorably, though. That series was about politics and people motivated by personal gain, so the selfless aspect of religion was treated more favorably. Later in the series there were a bunch of implied comparisons of Billy to Christ, and there was a moving scene when Mo'Steel and his mom went to pray.
I would guess that KA isn't anti-religion so much as she is against people letting their minds be controlled by others. Her books emphasize individuality over collectivism (which may be why each Animorphs book starts with "My name is...") and critical thought over blind faith, and she repeatedly tears apart the notion that any being can be infallible.
-
Maybe K.A.A. avoided going too deeply into religious discussions and themes as a way of being sure to include all of her readers. Religion tends to be exclusive..."if you are a member of this particular religion, you believe this, this, and this, and not that". I'm not sure I would have liked the series as much if it had more of a religious tone. While people might believe that the Ellimist is "God" and the Crayak is "Satan", basically everyone can accept that the characters were used as a metaphor for good and evil.
Still, Animorphs isn't completely irreligious. Jake and Rachel have Jewish heritage, even if they don't practise the religion. Ax mentions that when he was posing as Jake, his (Jake's) family prayed before dinner. I imagine that Marco was brought up as Roman Catholic, though he seems to be more agnostic by the time the story takes place. The books don't say much about Cassie and Tobias ever going to Church. Actually, the Animorph who seems to be the most religious is Jake.
Whew. I started typing, and found out that I had a little more to say than I intended...
-
I think Cassie's family was actively religious too because in either #14 or #19 there was a reference to a Father Banyion (don't remember the spelling). So Cassie, Jake, and Ax were the ones who were the most religious. I get the sense Rachel and Marco were lapsed due to their family situations; their respectively absent parents were probably the ones who thought religion was important. Tobias would be the least religious because I doubt either of his guardians thought that was important. However, he did mention to Ax a few about wanting some sort of meaningful ritual, and he was excited about learning the Andalite heritage.
-
Besides the obvious Ellimist/Crayak conflict, I never really connected religion with the Animorphs series. I'm not sure if KA intended the Ellimist/Crayak story to be a symbol of God against Satan, and I wouldn't mind either way, but I actually really like how it was done.
People often say that God must see us like we see an Ant hill, that he's more than powerful enough to help us and simply chooses not to. However, the Ellimist shows that might not be the case. Maybe he does have the power to help and he does want to, but do to reasons beyond our understanding, he simply isn't allowed.
-
To me, the Ellimist/Crayak-God/Satan connection seems pretty obvious. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was intentional.
One difference that I've found interesting, though, is that Crayak has an 'avatar' that he speaks through (the Drode) whereas Ellimist does not. This is sort of the inverse of the case with God and Satan. If Crayak were the good guy, I think I would equate Drode to Jesus. But as it is . . . I dunno, it probably doesn't mean anything. It's just something I found sorta interesting.
People often say that God must see us like we see an Ant hill, that he's more than powerful enough to help us and simply chooses not to. However, the Ellimist shows that might not be the case. Maybe he does have the power to help and he does want to, but do to reasons beyond our understanding, he simply isn't allowed.
Another interesting difference. Maybe K.A. is saying that we can't really know what God is doing up there?
And as a final note, I would just like to agree with everyone who said that more religious characters would have interfered with my enjoyment of the books.
-
Good point Hylian.
In fact I think she's just atheist. Not sure, but she write like an atheist would do...
-
One big difference between Ellemist/Crayak and God/Satan, is that God is supposed to be so much more powerful than Satan. Whereas Ellemist and crayak are on equal footing. So it's more justified in Ellemist's case. I don't want to go too far into religion bashing, though.
-
To me, the Ellimist/Crayak-God/Satan connection seems pretty obvious. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it was intentional.
I agree that it was intentional. The Ellimist is caught up in a lot of the interesting themes of the overall story. His book shows that he is both an individual and a collective being, for instance, and that he is a "brilliant loser." A trapped kid who got in way too deep and couldn't get back out.
People often say that God must see us like we see an Ant hill, that he's more than powerful enough to help us and simply chooses not to. However, the Ellimist shows that might not be the case. Maybe he does have the power to help and he does want to, but do to reasons beyond our understanding, he simply isn't allowed.
The Ellimist does raise that question. If there is a God, in what ways are his power and influence limited? Aren't there rules and principles he must abide by, rules to the game that he plays? What are those rules, and what would be the consequences of violating them? Does he interfere in the same manner the Ellimist does, stacking the deck ahead of time, making slight adjustments when he can, looking for loopholes in the rules of the game? Is he an Almighty meddler? A brilliant loser? Is he really infallible? Who is he, exactly, where did he come from, who appointed him, why is he in such a position of power in the universe? Is he the pawn of some even higher power? Is he an individual with his own mind, a three-part being, or a larger collective consciousness made up of countless minds? How well do we understand him?
I don't want to go too far into religion bashing, though.
I think Animorphs plays both sides of that field, especially in Visser and The Ellimist Chronicles, and with The Sharing and The One.
The Sharing and The One both promise deliverance through the surrendering of one's individuality and freedom. Megamorphs 4 shows how vulnerable Tobias is to their promise. His own self is worthless to him. He watches Jake intensely, hoping that somehow he could have his life. Be him, not Tobias. Later he realizes that there was no escape rope, and that he could have endured.
Visser shows how The Sharing was designed to exploit human religious, cultish behavior:
It would cater to one of the most fundamental human weaknesses: the need to belong. The fear of loneliness. The hunger to be special. The craving for an exaggerated importance.
I would make a haven for the weak, the inadequate, the fearful. I would wrap it up in all the bright packaging that humans love so much.
The Sharing would never be about weak people being led to submit to a stronger will, no, no, it would be about family, virtue, righteousness, brotherhood and sisterhood. I would offer people an identity. A place to go. I would give them a new vision of themselves as part of something larger, erasing their individuality...
I studied every cult, every movement, every great, mesmerizing leader that had ever held sway over humans.
And by the time those thirty-five humans came into the rented hall, I had adorned the walls with symbols and flags and icons. All the visual nonsense that moves the susceptible human mind.
They filed in, some in small groups, but most alone. They were stirred by the inspirational music. Flattered by the attention paid them by attendants I’d hired from a temp agency. Impressed by the expensively produced booklets we handed out. Awed by the pictures and symbols that draped the walls...
Later, after it was over, I found I couldn’t recall exactly what I’d said to this first meeting of The Sharing, not the specific words. A lot of high-flown rhetoric touching on the themes humans love to hear: that they are special, superior, a chosen few. That their failures in life are all someone else’s fault. That mystical, unseen forces and secret knowledge will give them power.
The next Saturday there were more than twice the number of humans. And already I had begun to explain that there was an “Outer” Sharing, and an “Inner” one. The humans in the “Outer” Sharing were wiser, better, more moral, superior to the average human, but not as superior as those lucky few who had entered the “Inner” Sharing.
I think this quote is very critical of organized religion, identifying the need for religion as the great weakness of humanity. At the same time, however, Visser features Eva as one of its central characters. Eva is religious, and her relationship with God is a strength, not a weakness.
I think there are plenty of real organizations that can be considered the equivalent of The Sharing. The Church of Scientology is definitely the most obvious. I tend to equate Scientologists with Controllers. Their organization is frighteningly powerful and has too much control over its members. There are members, then there are full members, then there are fuller members. They go after powerful and visible celebrities, just like The Sharing. And, Scientology's founder: L. Ron Hubbard. The Sharing's founder: Lore David Altman.
There's also the Boy Scouts, which is often compared to The Sharing in the books. The Boy Scouts promise acceptance and belonging, becoming part of something larger than yourself. They can give a lonely kid a community to belong to. They indirectly give power to members who rise in their ranks. Eagle Scout status is a powerful tool in our society. But members subscribe to the beliefs of the organization or they are kicked out.
What about gay kids? They are often the ones who feel the most powerful need for a sense of acceptance and belonging. But if you're gay and you join the Boy Scouts, you stay in the closet or you lose everything they've offered you.
"Place your right hand here," Bill said.
I placed my hand in what could only be a
shackle. A handcuff. My insides were churning
now. I was placing myself totally in their power.
What was I doing? What was I doing? ...
Bill suppressed a smile. "You want to leave
The Sharing? You want to leave all of us? All your
friends? After all we've done for you? Okay, To-
bias. But what will you do, then? Where will you
go? What's your future?"
My heart was pounding. "I don't know," I said
desperately. "I just. . . I . . ."
"There is no 'I,' Tobias. What are you? One
lonely, messed-up kid. No one loves you. No one
cares. No one but us. Put your head in the har-
ness."
Hard to imagine humans welcoming seven-foot-tall goblins into their local Boy Scout troop when they couldn't even manage to tolerate some gay kid.
Are some religious organizations similar to The Sharing in certain ways? Is religion a source of strength or an exploitation of weakness? Is it both? Where is the line that divides the two?
-
I do agree, Hylian Dan. Religion can seem much like The Sharing. Sometimes it strengthens people, but sometimes it controls them. That's part of the reason I left the church. It just didn't seem to fill any voids that I felt needed filling, and over the years I found the bad parts of it.
-
to be honest i noticed the lack of religion early in the series, it wasn't until i read the elimist chronicles (right about book 10 is when i read it) that i saw the religious undertones.
i also noticed that the sharing reminded me something fierce of seven day adventist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_Church).
-
I do agree, Hylian Dan. Religion can seem much like The Sharing. Sometimes it strengthens people, but sometimes it controls them.
like communism!
-
I'm actually in favor of the ideal of communism, though it hasn't been historically successful. Capitalism seems to be the most historically successful, though it also has flaws.
-
i know how you feel.
personally i love the ideal of communism.
it just has a helluva lot of problems in practice V theory.
-
I'm actually in favor of the ideal of communism, though it hasn't been historically successful. Capitalism seems to be the most historically successful, though it also has flaws.
communism doesn't work simply because all the heads that make the decisions are all under one party and thus there is no other party to oppose them when they need to have a reality check.
-
I know it's already been said once or twice, but it's easier to write a story for all audiences if you don't put God in it. The series showed that some characters might have been religious (or at least came from religious backgrounds), which tells me topic was kind of unspoken yet implied (kind of like its romantic relations--just because makeout sessions weren't openly stated doesn't mean they didn't happen). It might have been K.A.'s idea, or it might have been Scholastic's. Either way, it worked.
-
I would like to learn about the different religions of the aliens. The hork bajir had an interesting one.
-
There was mention of a Leeran god as well. And I know the Andalites had religion and superstitions, long before their 'almighty technology'.
The Hive that the Taxxons prescribe to is almost like a religion.
-
I want KA to write like an encyclopedia with all that stuff expanded upon.
-
I want the character bible. No sense in the author wanting you to write fan-fics if you don't have the tools to do it effectively.
-
An encyclopedia would be great! Nobody made any? Nobody wanna make it?
-
I want the character bible. No sense in the author wanting you to write fan-fics if you don't have the tools to do it effectively.
Well they might have felt like there wasn't a market for it, the last book got such a bad reaction. Besides look at D&D/FR and Star Wars, their source books range from thirty to fifty US dollars apiece, battletech sourcebooks ran at an average of thirty as well . . . those are just the ones I collected and therefore know about, and Animorphs easily has enough potential to encompass a small series of source books that would have been hard on my wallet as a poor middle-school kid, and it'd be impossible to find these days if they had released it.
Now if they released one now it'd be a different story, it might be cheaper at least, but so long after the fact I don't see it happening . . . unless the rumored movie had actually happened, then that might have created enough interest to see an EU and source books provided the movie didn't totally bite, which given the TV series isn't something I'd bet money on :(
An encyclopedia would be great! Nobody made any? Nobody wanna make it?
It'd be tricky to compile one without K.A.'s support, we could take information from the books but in some places it contradicts itself so . . . yeah. Be a fun project to try though, wouldn't it?
-
SPOILER WARNING
Whoa, I was just going skimming through book 54 and I noticed this line:
Terrorism had grown as a problem. Many of the worst were religious cults convinced that the presence of alien species on Earth was delaying a hoped-for Armageddon.
Book 54, as the ending, is closing the book on the overall story and its themes. So for that reason this line has extra resonance.
And right at the very end, there is this language:
Weird to see that wild, messianic glow in the eyes of a man you knew was really just a Yeerk slave. It was a disturbingly human expression.
Animorphs was filled with commentary about human nature. That line is the last direct comment on the subject.
And then there's the description of The One:
The face that filled the screen and more was a shifting image, a slow dissolve from what might be a robot's face, a machine with a rat-trap mouth and steel eyes, into a sweet, feminine, almost elfin visage...
The appearance of The One is a trap. One form is beautiful and alluring, another is terrifying. This reminds me of a scene from Everworld book 9 involving Senna, who uses religion as a tool. Senna appears to dwarves as a beautiful goddess, and the dwarves refer to her as the Lady. She convinces the dwarves to trust her, which they do, and then her group destroys the dwarves.
Jake stared back at the foul thing on the screen. I saw what he saw, and I felt as if my brain was shutting down. In that shifting alien face was every corruption, every evil, and such power that it seemed impossible it could be present in just the narrow confines of the onrushing Blade ship.
Remember the emphasis Animorphs placed on not letting your brain shut down.
It's a little chilling, and sad, how book 54 saw the rise of religion-inspired terrorism in the Animorphs universe, and four months later 9/11 occurred.
-
When 9/11 happened I imagined and hoped it was Yeerks, alas it was only Islamo fascists.
I have said this else where but:
In peace/easy times the need to belong to a group is a terrible weakness, people use drugs, become scientologists, moonies, communists and Nazis.
War/struggle this same urge is productive, people join Irgun and Lechi, their nation's army, freedom fighting organisations etc and organised religion
btw i saw the Sharing as more of an atttack on cults rather than organised religion.
-
Shouldn't Jake be going to Mass?
Jake and possibly Rachel are Jewish
-
I would like to learn about the different religions of the aliens. The hork bajir had an interesting one.
Their religion is just standard nature worship, even more simple than aboriginal mythology. I would be very interested to find out about Yeerk religion (the Kandrona seems like a god to them) and how Andalite religion has adapted to the vast scientific knowledge.
-
I could see the Yeerks having a Sun God. Maybe even a Water God too, since they're aquatic.
-
Qoheleth does a good portrayal of Yeerk religion. The funny thing about the yeerk worship of their sun, is that it is sort of like worshipping the corn rather than the corn goddess or the potato rather than the potato goddess, i could almost yeerks as being the ultimate materialists, even their spirituality is physical rather than abstract.
Another funny thing: the Animorphs view the lion morph as unlucky/evil, and Jake rather than having the typical lion/hero association has a tiger, a solitary animal often associated with evil (rather than the kingly pack animal lion), and the lion is another symbol of Jesus (Aslan anyone)... a huge number of media often have a strong christian worldview in the western world (conversely thai movies like Nang Nak have a buddhist subtext) though Harry Potter has a secular humanist/slightly Anglican worldview. I would say that the Animorphs is largely secular humanist in world view, but if there is a religious underpinning (subconsciously) then it might be the same as 'A Series of Unfortunate Events"... possibly?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EveryoneIsJesusInPurgatory
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ASeriesOfUnfortunateEvents
-
I read the blog post and was blown away, I now understand the connection people have between Animorphs and religion now. ...Now I am going to think of yeerks whenever I think of religion...is that wrong?
-
how so? What exacly blew you away?
-
Now maybe this has been mentioned, I didn't read through the whole thread, sorry, but Father and The One reminds me a LOT of Christianity.
-
Shouldn't Jake be going to Mass?
Jake and possibly Rachel are Jewish
No they're not, or more correctly, we really have no idea if they are or aren't. Their fathers are Jewish (as noted in the MM with the messed up realty). We have no evidence they live a Jewish lifestyle, but Judaism traditionally only considers you Jewish if your mother is Jewish. Treating someone as Jewish based on the ridiculous notion of "bloodlines" -any bloodline - is what the Nazis did. Which made sense because in that book they were living in a world where the people in power were highly prejudiced, highly discriminatory, very controlling.
They could be Reconstructionist or Reform, but we have no evidence of that - in order for them to be so, they would have had to be raised in a Jewish lifestyle - classes, bar/bat mitzvah, confirmation, synagogue, etc., etc. Those movements only accept one as Jewish if a person is actively raised Jewish. There's no mention of a Jewish lifestyle, just that "My dad's Jewish, but he's a Patriot of State." It's the only reference we get, ever, and it's not enough to determine being Jewish or not. I would assume because of the lack of reference to Judaism or whatever their mothers practice that they're probably non-observant in both. Which just effectively makes them not really Jewish or anything else their parents might identify is.
Further, we don't know that for sure. Why is Jake's father Jewish? I mean, does he identify as Jewish, or is it because that skewed world has the concept that if you have "even a drop" of Jewish blood in them that a person is Jewish? For all we know, his father is Jewish five or six generations back on his father's side. We don't know because we don't have an adequate understanding of that world. I don't remember anything pinning both of his grandparents as Jewish (or even one?) so it could be that sort of reality.
Basically, we have no idea what they are.
Sorry, but this is one of my pet peeves when something that has no evidence one way or another becomes mainstream thought. My father's Jewish, but I'm not - by any movement, because I wasn't raised Jewish so even those that accept the father being Jewish don't accept me as such without conversion. I've been converting for over four years because I keep having to move before I can get to Beit Din and mikveh. It's a very long time to know more than most adults there (because I have adult education whereas they have child education) and not be able to participate in services as an actual part of the minyan and other things. :-\
--------------------------------------------------------------
Now, for the rest... You know, religious people can be scary. It really depends on how it's used, and when people think their truth has to be clear to everyone else - even those with a different truth - that's when I start getting really, really concerned. Especially when it starts getting put ahead of reality, or used to try to control or force others to do things, or values are tied in with some religions but not others.
But religion can be really helpful for others, helping them out of drug/alcohol issues, depression, anxiety... You know, DBT - a treatment for anxiety disorders - was actually based off of Buddhist concepts. I use Judaism similarly - the rituals and traditions give me a really strict order of how my day should go, which helps me remember things, stay calm, etc., etc. On a personal scale like that, it doesn't have to be a bad thing - I just don't like it when people try to make the whole world fit under one bubble of logic. Because, well, it doesn't work. And it's even worse when people think faith will solve all their problems or the world's problems. I just can never understand that mode of thought, and I think that was the issue of The Sharing and other things - it's never safe to believe that something can take away your problems. You have to know it takes patience and also being responsible for yourself.
-
Now maybe this has been mentioned, I didn't read through the whole thread, sorry, but Father and The One reminds me a LOT of Christianity.
Similar lines of thought have already been voiced in this thread, but really I disagree. Father/The One is pretty much just another take on the Borg or more generally 'assimilating races' in sci-fi, of which there are numerous examples; which races are never really regarded as a metaphor for Christianity or organized religion in general. There's more merit to the past thoughts in this thread about The Sharing as a metaphor for organized religion, but I'd rather not get into attempting to discuss that unless those who were a part of this thread before were still interested in discussing the topic.
Jake and possibly Rachel are Jewish
No they're not, or more correctly, we really have no idea if they are or aren't. Their fathers are Jewish... We have no evidence they live a Jewish lifestyle, but Judaism traditionally only considers you Jewish if your mother is Jewish. Treating someone as Jewish based on the ridiculous notion of "bloodlines" -any bloodline - is what the Nazis did. Which made sense because in that book they were living in a world where the people in power were highly prejudiced, highly discriminatory, very controlling.
...I mean, does he identify as Jewish, or is it because that skewed world has the concept that if you have "even a drop" of Jewish blood in them that a person is Jewish?
I understand that in the context of the previous conversation it is worth correcting the statement that "Jake and possibly Rachel are Jewish" and I understand, due to your statements such as They could be Reconstructionist or Reform, but we have no evidence of that
, that you were discussing the the Jewish religion, and I agree with your central idea, that
Basically, we have no idea what they are.
But while I agree with your central point, a lot of your comments treat it as though it would be incorrect to say that someone is Jewish based on their linage. That is to say, I understand your perspective that explains the traditional definitions that specify matrilineal descent, and halakhic conversions; but it is acceptable in modern secular terms to refer to someone as Jewish based on linage alone (matriarchal or not) and that this can denote a person of such descent without necessarily implying racist connotations and that Jewish identity is subjective and independent enough of religious belief that atheist or subscriber to another religion can still have Jewish identity as an ethnic heritage.
This isn't to say that I insist that everyone who has "even a drop of Jewish blood" is Jewish, but that it isn't a 'ridiculous notion' to believe someone can be Jewish strictly as a matter of descent (subject even to scientific observation of genetic evolutions independent of other ethnic groupings); that is simply another valid usage of the term, and though Jewish nationality, ethnicity and religious practice are often used with strict ties, the terms can be used independently. The ridiculous belief of the Nazis wasn't observing this descendancy, but was only in the belief that one particular ethnic descendancy was superior to others.
-
But while I agree with your central point, a lot of your comments treat it as though it would be incorrect to say that someone is Jewish based on their linage. That is to say, I understand your perspective that explains the traditional definitions that specify matrilineal descent, and halakhic conversions; but it is acceptable in modern secular terms to refer to someone as Jewish based on linage alone (matriarchal or not) and that this can detonate a person of such descent without necessarily implying racist connotations and that Jewish identity is subjective and independent enough of religious belief that atheist or subscriber to another religion can still have Jewish identity as an ethnic heritage.
This isn't to say that I insist that everyone who has "even a drop of Jewish blood" is Jewish, but that it isn't a 'ridiculous notion' to believe someone can be Jewish strictly as a matter of descent (subject even to scientific observation of genetic evolutions independent of other ethnic groupings); that is simply another valid usage of the term, and though Jewish nationality, ethnicity and religious practice are often used with strict ties, the terms can be used independently. The ridiculous belief of the Nazis wasn't observing this descendancy, but was only in the belief that one particular ethnic descendancy was superior to others.
IMO, it is incorrect to say someone is Jewish based on their lineage unless they identify as Jewish on their own. Period. Unless they say they're Jewish, or you leave the aside that they are technically Jewish by halakhic standards, they should define whether or not they are so. If a person knows about matrilineal descent or the qualifying factors of what makes one Jewish and still refers to anyone who admits to having Jewish family as Jewish, than yes, I think there is a problem with that. People I know who do not identify with Judaism but are referred to by random people as "Jewish" or "half-Jews" don't really appreciate it. Likewise, those of us who identify as Jews often have to put a lot of work into being into being identified as Jews - and will never be recognized by all denominations. The thing is, what you are describing refers to ethnic associations, and ethnic associations are very dependent on what a person is raised as and identifies as. In the MM where Jake says his father is Jewish he makes no reference to himself. Further, if someone is Jewish 2, 3, 5 generations back there is a high likeliness they do not really identify as having Jewish ethnicity. Many atheists and agnostics may identify as ethnically Jewish (I know and am a part of this general circle), but this is generally a choosing alliance.
We have no idea whether they would identify as Jewish in any way in their version of "the real world" because in the alternate timeline we don't know what the definition of "Jewish" is by that society - it could easily be they have some Jewish relative somewhere up the line on their father's side. Doesn't mean they identify that way, nor does it mean they've had any Jewish lifestyle for maybe even decades. So I think the "ethnically Jewish/background of being related to Jewish people" point is rather moot here. There is no point referring to them as Jewish even in the ethnic sense because the definition of Jewish was in a timeline where being Jewish probably just had the Nazi-definition of Jewish. Which was my (perhaps poorly stated) point.
Moving on, I don't see where the ethnic point would become relevant even if it was in their regular universe of affiliations. Fact is, most people assume they are religious Jews, or at least technically belonging to the Jewish religion. It used to be on the Wikipedia page, if it isn't still. I've encountered the attitude enough on LiveJournal. The idea of "ethnic Judaism" isn't very present in mainstream society - you usually have to explain the idea of being "ethnically Jewish." It's one thing to say a person has Jewish heritage, it's another thing to say a person's Jewish without someone saying it themselves - even if you know they have a Jewish parent or grandparent. I mean, even with a Jewish parent my knowledge in Judaism was so limited I could hardly consider myself as having had a Jewish heritage or cultural background - I had to come to it later. Was I genetically related to Jewish people? Yes. Did that make me a Jew? Clearly not. Certainly, no one who knew me ever called me Jewish, and I would have felt bad identifying as such because of my overall ignorance to the religion, culture, and history. Only someone basing my entire spiritual/religious/cultural identity off of my father's identity in those realms would ever have done so. And I mean, that would have been silly, because my mother had done a good job making sure I identified as nothing but Roman Catholic back then.
To be honest, I don't even like getting into the debate of ethnic Judaism/Jewish heritage versus being Jewish with Gentiles, I mean, unless they actually want to learn about it in at least some depth. I have to explain on a semi-frequent basis that Jesus wasn't a prophet in Judaism. You know, that Jews don't believe in Jesus as the Messiah. Or I mean, differing interpretations between Christianity and Judaism regarding the Bible because we have the Talmud and other factors interpreting how we should read those things. The "who is a Jew?" debacle is complicated enough for people who actually study Judaism. For people who aren't into that discussion? "Jewish father does not inherently make one a Jew" is enough of a statement as is, in my opinion. Otherwise, we could be here for a long, looooooong time. Let's face it - these issues are decades old among Jewish scholars.
Edit: Dang, sorry for the Wall of Text.
-
Discussing this with Dave...we'll see if he posts :)
For my part, I always saw Animorphs as distinctly non-religious, even if creatures within it had a belief in a higher power (Eva, the Hork-Bajir, The Sharing--good points on religion and mind control).
And personally, I think the Yeerks were the least religious of all. The closest that we ever get to a discussion of anything like religion for them is the Ellimist saying in #7 that the Kandrona was the center of their lives, "almost a religion"...but not quite. Their cynicism and extremely logical/scientific nature, to me, point toward atheism.
Plus they may not take away free will, but they take away the ability to act freely...kind of "where is your god now?" thing. Snarky bastards XD
-
IMO, it is incorrect to say someone is Jewish based on their lineage unless they identify as Jewish on their own. Period.
That's just it, it isn't a matter of opinion. The modern definition of the word includes three groups, converts to Judaism, those born and raised in a Jewish family and those who Jewish ancestral background or lineage; the third definition does not denote or imply any religious beliefs or affiliation, it is purely a descriptive term. In Jeaneane Fowler's World Religions: An Introduction for Students she mentioned these possible distinctions within the introduction then specified that her use of the word Jewish was limited to followers of Judaism as opposed to the other acknowledged definitions; and in his studies of ethnic psychology the rabbi and scholar Adolf Jellinek also mentioned these distinct definitions specifying that he was focusing on those who identify with the ethnicity in Der jüdische Stamm, so these different definitions were already mutually acceptable and required distinction by the mid-1800s (Der jüdische Stamm was published in 1869).
Perhaps I muddied the waters earlier by referring too much to those who identify with their Jewish heritage outside of religion as an ethnicity, and yes the first two definitions I just mentioned are open to the subjective interpretations of religious groups (or even governmental groups, such as Israel needing to define its meaning in their government for things like the Law of Return) and personal identification, but the third definition is an accepted denotation that is purely a matter of heritage. As the Jewish Encyclopedia puts it, along with traditional religious definitions:
In more modern usage the word is often applied to any person of the Hebrew race, apart from his religious creed.
Read more: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=259&letter=J#ixzz0v0gxi2or
Usage of the word Jewish in this term isn't to subscribe to ideas of race inequality and racism, as the Nazis did, but merely to classify heritage based on ancestral groups on the basis of various sets of heritable characteristics. Joseph Jacobs, the former President of the Jewish Historical Society of England and Corresponding Member of the Royal Academy of History, spent a lot of time in Studies in Jewish Statistics studying such characteristics as compared to different comparable European races.
Nor am I trying to say that such classification has never been used to racist ends, as it certainly has; even in a 20th century, post WWII society that condemns racism the use of the term Jewish has been given negative connotations, leading to people you know, as you say, to "not really appreciate" being referred to as Jewish and other derivative derogatory terms; but the point should be to remove such negative connotations not to deny a literal descriptive term.
I know what you mean from a religious and an ethnic perspective when you say:
"Jewish father does not inherently make one a Jew" is enough of a statement as is, in my opinion. Otherwise, we could be here for a long, looooooong time. Let's face it - these issues are decades old among Jewish scholars.
But while such a thing is an old and long debate from that perspective it is not "incorrect to say someone is Jewish based on their lineage."
-
This might not be my place to say, but if Alex is Jewish by heritage, and decides that being Jewish has to do with personal decisions about her background regardless of Jewish heritage and religious practice (or lack of either, even)...then just let her believe that. It is her opinion, no matter what scholars say.
-
The problem with pulling out that third definition as fact is that it is constantly under debate, constantly under attack (Just like the first two... Heh). It is under debate and attack by the movements (Some Orthodox groups fighting to remove it, liberal groups accepting it but saying "it's the way of the dinosaur" or that it will cause the inevitable extinction of Judaism and shying away from calling someone with Jewish ancestry Jewish.) There are books, articles, essays, tons of opinion systems arguing against the idea of calling anyone with Jewish heritage Jewish. It's not exactly a 100% supported concept amongst scholars. I'd argue it's far from it.
Very few texts would actually encourage calling someone a Jew as a "sole matter of description" if they do not identify as Jewish, do not practice Judaism, have no Jewish education, or anything tying themselves to Jewish lifestyle whatsoever. Here we get having Jewish ancestry versus calling anyone with Jewish ancestry Jewish. If you're amongst a bunch of people educated about Judaism, the latter isn't that problematic, because you're probably with a bunch of other people who will have that understanding. Because even though I consider someone Jewish and to have a Jewish identity, I wouldn't say so outside of Jewish discussion, most specifically with other Jewish people. I would not say it around someone not Jewish with no education of Judaism. Some of my friends who are Jew By Birth - particularly those against the concept of matrilineal heritage - might push that idea on someone and tell them it's their own problem if they don't accept that definition (which I don't know, I kind of consider that disrespectful and sort of ironic for a variety of reasons by one of them in particular, but whatever, I understand the point). I even appreciate that they don't have an issue with me identifying as Jewish even though I have not formally finished conversion and have just been undergoing Jewish education a few years. But their attitude about non-Jews doing the same thing is generally "Mind your own business." Jewish identity being determined by non-Jews? Not that appreciated. I more or less feel the same way when non-Jews try to tell someone they're not Jewish because they do not meet the standards of Jewish halakhah - not their business.
Basically, there's no such thing as a definition of "who's Jewish" that isn't under heavy debate pretty much ever, and its relevance to the statement that "Rachel and Jake are Jewish" in response to "why don't they go to church?" would be technically incorrect. The assumption that their religion is Judaism is incorrect. Because we don't have enough information to know. No one is denying he has Jewish ancestry, but there's basically no evidence of him being a practicing Jew under any movement.
@ Myitt - I identify as Jewish, so I mean, this doesn't really apply to me so much as my siblings - I'm the only one that actually embraced Judaism - or other people I know with Jewish ancestry but no personal identification as such. I've also had this issue because sometimes the reason I am expected to explain core Jewish concepts with random people is because they are told by people with Jewish ancestry (who claim to be knowledgeable in Judaism) things that are just completely incongruent to Judaism.
As a result, my attitude about this issue can get a bit complicated. But none of my views are exactly unheard of. Let alone unrepresented in Jewish movements and definitions.
-
Now maybe this has been mentioned, I didn't read through the whole thread, sorry, but Father and The One reminds me a LOT of Christianity.
Similar lines of thought have already been voiced in this thread, but really I disagree. Father/The One is pretty much just another take on the Borg or more generally 'assimilating races' in sci-fi, of which there are numerous examples; which races are never really regarded as a metaphor for Christianity or organized religion in general. There's more merit to the past thoughts in this thread about The Sharing as a metaphor for organized religion, but I'd rather not get into attempting to discuss that unless those who were a part of this thread before were still interested in discussing the topic.
Maybe not the actual beings, but the name. The name "Father" and "The One" is being said lot in Christianity. Using one of them would be a coincidence, but having both names appear in Animorphs just had to mean something.
-
Maybe not the actual beings, but the name. The name "Father" and "The One" is being said lot in Christianity. Using one of them would be a coincidence, but having both names appear in Animorphs just had to mean something.
OK, I see what you're saying there. I would say that even though assimilated by The One follow him with a fanatical devotion, there doesn't seem to be anything in the nature of The One to make it seem like allegory to religious devotion; but I do see what you are saying about the words themselves reminding you of Christianity, though 'The One' could be found in a sense in any monotheistic religion and 'Father' in many religions as both a supernatural entity the religion worships and towards human leaders in the religion.
(Although I suppose you could push the limits of symbolism and say that the situation represents a parody of what Christians want to be as physically independent lifeforms that are extensions of God; though I certainly wouldn't go so far as to claim that this is what KA intended from the limited view we get of The One's nature)
This might not be my place to say, but if Alex is Jewish by heritage, and decides that being Jewish has to do with personal decisions about her background regardless of Jewish heritage and religious practice (or lack of either, even)...then just let her believe that. It is her opinion, no matter what scholars say.
It certainly is your place to offer your thoughts. But I am not trying to tell Alex that she isn't allowed to view her personal decisions about her background and heritage as she wants to. I'm not arguing with her right to say "When I say I am Jewish, or that I identify with Jewish culture I mean this..."
Jews within the Orthodox movement are free to determine that their definition of the term Jew does not apply to a child of a Jewish father and Christian mother even if the child professes Jewish faith, and it is certainly within their right to use the term Jewish within their faith this way even though Jews of the Reform movement could say that within their use of the term the child is Jewish. Conversely, it is just as much within a Reformist Jew's right to say that within the terms of their beliefs a child of a Jewish mother and Christian father who is raised as a Christian or even professes Atheism is not a Jew though it is still within an Orthodox Jew's right to say that the same child is not a Jew by their use of the word. When Agudath Ha-Rabonim stated that the Conservative and Reform movements were "outside of Torah and outside of Judaism" this was not even meant to say that followers of those movements are not Jewish.
So you are correct, whatever Alex choses to mean when she uses the term Jewish is up to her, and I am not trying to tell her that it is not up to her. What I am trying to say is that it isn't up to her to determine that an accepted modern secular use of the term is incorrect (or that correctness is somehow a matter of opinion) when it is used within fields of science like Human genetic clustering, medicinal drug discovery, genetic expression prediction, bioinformatics and other important studies of genetics into the roles of ancestry and ethnicity in terms on health; then demonizing anyone who uses the term Jewish in this way by saying "that's what Nazis did."
@ alexoiknine: I'm not going to overly-quote your last post, but I did read and grok it fully. I agree that no single definition adequately covers all the possible meanings to what it is to be Jewish; the complex nature of the term that can involve ethnicity, nationality, race and religion in related but not all-inclusive ways means that there can be no single definition to the word and that one may use it according to one meaning while someone else uses it according to another, and when someone uses the term to mean a specific meaning they would do well to clarify that meaning if the context of the usage doesn't already make that clear (Like some of the texts I mentioned do). And when the term is used in an unclear fashion (such as the Law of Return) the question of 'Who is a Jew and who isn't a Jew?' can give rise to heavy debate and controversy before an agreement can be reached on what meaning to apply to the word in that case. That's why my whole point is that you can use the term with whatever meaning you choose to, but it isn't right to treat another acceptable use of the term as incorrect.
As I said before, I understood when you were replying to Yarin originally, your main intention was correcting the idea that a child born of someone 'Jewish' (by what society's definition we cannot know) is not necessarily Jewish in terms of the religious beliefs of Judaism, and I agree with this main point, what I was contending was the treatment of another use of the term as 'incorrect'.
I agree that very few texts that are discussing religion would encourage calling someone a Jew in terms of linage, because using the word in that way would not be very meaningful to the purpose of the material it is discussing, but I have seen plenty of texts in general that do intentionally make it clear that their use of the term Jewish is dealing with ancestry, the intention isn't to tell someone that they are not Jewish because they do not meet certain standards, or that having Jewish identity is determined in such a way; they are simply discussing an entirely different meaning that is not intended to have any bearing on Jewish discussion of religion, beliefs or culture any more than early chemists intended to do so when they used the term 'Spirits' to describe the way that liquid (alcohols) contain the essence of what they are created from.
I'm certainly not opposed to learning more from you about Judaism and what it means to be Jewish in general; my knowledge on the subject is well versed but by no means entirely comprehensive. Any links you have or descriptions of sources I could find of books,articles, essays, ect. on the subject would be appreciated.
-
Right, okay, thanks for clarifying--though I kind of agree that it's up to a person to identify with being Jewish, whether they are of Jewish biological heritage or not.
-
I'm not against talking about it in an academic setting, as I've said. Like I said - I would even agree with the descriptor "Jewish" being used in those settings.
The thing is, this isn't either of those two things. The people talking about that stuff aren't having a genetic or academic conversation regarding heritage/ethnicity versus religion. The thread is not trying to have a Jewish conversation. It's an Animorphs conversation. More specifically, a discussion of religion in Animorphs, which wasn't even supposed to become a debate about religious terms to begin with, so I was trying to avoid the more complicated stuff, but whatever, here we are.
Now, you keep talking about those two things (both academic), and I'm talking about general respect/politeness (which is a totally different discussion). Is it correct to call someone you don't know Jewish before you've met them... Well, let's see: What labels should you identify anyone with before you've met them and learned about what they identify themselves as? Not when discussing genetics, not when discussing ancestry, not when discussing varying religious definitions, but just pinning on identity tags before you've met or known someone and find out how they feel about themselves?
I'm not sure I would want to meet anyone that thought it was appropriate to actually casually stick labels on someone they hadn't met in person yet, beyond basics (what the person calls refers to themself as, or other information they've volunteered openly.) And obviously I am specifically referring to outside an academic setting and other discussions where those descriptors really aren't relevant. Someone's identity - as people that don't know them well know them - really should be based on what they release about themselves.
Let's say the person is brought up Christian, happy being Christian, identifies as Christian. If you're going to introduce them to someone else, how are you going to introduce them? Or I mean, you could replace "Christian" with "anything else" as well.
Jewish? Well, how does that correctly identify them? If they identify as Christian and don't see their Jewish heritage as relevant to their life, is that a correct descriptor? Is it relevant? Is it really polite to go to that descriptor first in discussion with strangers relating to just everyday, non-academic stuff? Would I call my employer - someone who descended from Jews-in-hiding but decided to stick with Christian practices - Jewish outside of those aforementioned settings, with random people? Even though she herself only brings it up when she feels it relevant? (No!)
You can pull out a definition all you like... that doesn't make it correct. Just because there's precedent or circumstances where this descriptor makes sense doesn't make it an appropriate descriptor everywhere (and like I said, in the academic setting? Yes, that definition is totally applicable and makes sense). This is why I say I would only do it if the person identified as Jewish already outside of those settings. Because unless you know them more intimately, if it's not a relevant part of their identity it shouldn't be any key descriptor. And uh... That would also make it a key descriptor only in that more intimate circle, not, "Oh, you're meeting 'so-and-so'? They're Jewish."
The flip is true of saying someone is not Jewish outside of relevant discussion if they identify as such openly. It's plain rude, regardless of your personal definition. And sort of annoying, when people who aren't Jewish try to tell someone else if they're Jewish or not. Is that discussion relevant outside of a religious discussion... No. Is it relevant to tell someone they're not Jewish because they're Reform and their dad was Jewish? No. I mean, not unless they were trying to perform in a Conservative/Orthodox minyan, go for an aliyah in those congregations, etc., etc. Then yes, it would be entirely relevant, correct, appropriate.
Same goes with a lot of things: If someone told someone else I was Roman Catholic now, as in, an up-front descriptor - I'd be really peeved, because I don't identify as such personally. Talking about my heritage and ancestry is a different matter from basic labels at, immediately prior to, or soon after basic introductions.
A definition existing =/= an appropriate usage of the term in all situations make. Which is my problem with calling someone Jewish unless they've identified as such, though I agree and have already agreed in other settings is true and appropriate. It feels like we're having two entirely different discussions.
As for material? You've caught me at a bad time because I'm moving in August for college (I've posted a few times, but I've had to get rid of my library and am trying to start building up an eReader). But I've had to basically get rid of my Jewish library as a result - other than the things I wouldn't use an eReader for such as siddurim, tanakhim, chumashim, and other such texts, obviously, because of wanting to avoid electronics on Shabbat - which I don't do entirely, but I mean, some basic religious etiquette I feel is a must and using an electronic chumash or siddur would be over some line, heh. However, I like Wayne Dosick, Kertzer, Anita Diamant, Kushner, Rabbi Harold Donin (I think???)... Grief, blanking out on names.
I also feel like there's a Jewish emag somewhere that is a great example of where referring to oneself as Jewish in open forums can be a Bad Idea - though in this case at the fault of the author using that assumption to push Christian idealism. The person converted to another religion but still posts in Jewish forums, and doesn't really explain this in their articles... They pass off a lot of non-Jewish idealisms as Jewish as a result >> And some people do this on purpose - not appreciated! And there's another frustration: people who have every right to refer to themselves as Jewish in every way... And they talk about Christian theology in Jewish forums without "by the way, I practice Christianity" hence passing off what they're saying as Jewish in attitude? Ugh.
Though arguably a lot of people feel this is the case of Messianic Judaism/Jews4Jesus movements, so actually, from that end I would hope someone educating themselves would already know the argument.
-
OK, I see what you're saying there. I would say that even though assimilated by The One follow him with a fanatical devotion, there doesn't seem to be anything in the nature of The One to make it seem like allegory to religious devotion; but I do see what you are saying about the words themselves reminding you of Christianity, though 'The One' could be found in a sense in any monotheistic religion and 'Father' in many religions as both a supernatural entity the religion worships and towards human leaders in the religion.
(Although I suppose you could push the limits of symbolism and say that the situation represents a parody of what Christians want to be as physically independent lifeforms that are extensions of God; though I certainly wouldn't go so far as to claim that this is what KA intended from the limited view we get of The One's nature)
Keep in mind that one of the final adjectives used in the series is the word "messianic," which appears just as The One comes into play. Here's the description:
"Weird to see that wild, messianic glow in the eyes of a man you knew was really just a Yeerk slave. It was a disturbingly human expression."
This is one of the final lines of the series. Animorphs was filled with commentary on human nature, and this is the last time the books directly tackle the subject. So it's an important line.
I would not, however, say that The One is a stand in for the Christian God, or for any specific deity. Rather, I think his purpose is to express how disturbing and frightening zealotry is, and to end the series by highlighting the danger of surrendering your mind and your free will.
-
I agree Hylian Dan, I don't think that there is anything wrong with placing a significance on it as part of the conclusion of the series; and while I will say that I would disagree with the interpretation that "The One is an allegory to religious devotion and shows that religious devotion leads to surrendering free will" I certainly agree that your more general conclusion, that the "purpose is to express how disturbing and frightening zealotry is, and to end the series by highlighting the danger of surrendering your mind and your free will" is very much a reasonable conclusion to draw from this, whether it is actually intended by the author or not.
@alexoiknine: I understand what you mean when you say:
It feels like we're having two entirely different discussions.
It feels to me that you are responding to thoughts that are not my own, but I'll admit that I may not have been sufficiently clear; please allow me to attempt to clarify:
My asserting that there are situations where using the term 'Jewish' in terms of heritage is appropriate was not meant to imply that this situation was one. I agree with you that this setting does not call for a use of the term 'Jewish' as purely one of heritage, just as I originally stated:
it is worth correcting the statement [that Yarin had made]
and later:
I understood when you were replying to Yarin originally, your main intention was correcting the idea that a child born of someone 'Jewish'... is not necessarily Jewish in terms of the religious beliefs of Judaism, and I agree with this main point
And I agree with your statement that
A definition existing =/= an appropriate usage of the term in all situations make
My original and only point of disagreement was that:
a lot of your comments treat it as though it would be incorrect to say that someone is Jewish based on their linage.
Which, again, isn't to say that this is an appropriate place for it, just that it is insulting to someone who does appropriately (i.e. in the academic settings previously discussed) use the term to say that it:
is what the Nazis did.
Just from your reply to Yarin alone, I wasn't even sure then that you were trying to say that all usage of Jewish in terms of lineage is incorrect, which is why I limited my statements by saying that you 'treat it as...' not that you actually believe it, but later you did explicitly state:
IMO, it is incorrect to say someone is Jewish based on their lineage unless they identify as Jewish on their own. Period.
Which is in disagreement with your current statement of:
though I agree and have already agreed in other settings is true and appropriate.
As simply as I can put it, my disagreement is only with the idea that it is wrong to use the term as a denotation of lineage; but I agree entirely that it can be used wrong and in this case was an inaccurate usage. Ultimately, I wish to strengthen and affirm your position in response to Yarin by allowing for correct usage of the term 'Jewish' to clarify why Yarin's use is worth correcting.
-
Kotetsu, I was not implying everyone who uses it that way is using the Nazi definition of being Jewish, just stating a lot of people seem to consider it completely adequate to overuse the term Jewish or use it outside of appropriate settings as a result. Very few people use the idea of Jewish heritage to call someone Jewish correctly - and to immediately assume someone is religiously Jewish based on bloodline is a part of that original problem. To be frank, very few people are ever in a setting where they should use it unless the person they are using it toward has already identified themselves that way, or, again, are talking within the contexts of a Jewish or academic community.
When I said it is incorrect to say someone is Jewish unless they identify as such, I was referring to outside those academic settings. Of which almost no one here is ever in those settings. Again, I find discussing those settings when 99.999% of the people who would even see this discussion are never in those settings strikes me as a waste of time, since all it does is complicate things in a way no one is ever going to need to know about unless they actually study Judaism. Though to be honest, it's fairly unusual for those discussions to turn up with actual names to the concept within academic context.
There is a big problem with using the concept outside of academic settings without a person's agreement or consent. For a variety of examples I've already provided.
And frankly, I'm not discussing it more within the context of this forum thread. Because this was not a discussion to be had in this thread in the first place, and I have already said that frankly this goes beyond what is appropriate for this particular thread, because 99.9% of people here aren't studying Judaism in any way. In other words, what people need to know - that automatically assuming one is a Jew based on ANY lineage is incorrect - let alone calling them Jewish without them doing so themselves with no other knowledge of the person or what they do or don't practice. I would guess that over 90% of people here aren't likely to ever be in a setting where calling someone Jewish unless they first call themselves Jewish is appropriate (unless they are actually practicing Judaism). And that's a very modest guess on the side of someone being in the proper situation. In this thread, who called anyone Jewish without assuming they were a religious Jew? In my watching LiveJournal, who has ever done so? No one. So who has needed to do more than understand calling someone Jewish unless they practice as or personally identify that way? No one. Because if they had needed to do more than that, they already would have known the problem with assuming one with Jewish background is a religious Jew, and (hopefully) they would not have called someone Jewish without ever meeting them or finding out how they personally identify. (Let's face it - even if they met someone who identified as Jewish, what is the likeliness they would ever be in a situation where they would have to actually bring up such a friend in a conversation of what a Jew is or isn't?)
Just as a side note, I was in a class the other day where the topic of "who is a Jew?" came up. And the (non-Jewish) students actually started having loud, verbal outbursts at the idea that someone with Jewish ethnicity may not be a practicing Jew. Something I've experienced in the LiveJournal community where people get incredibly offended at the idea that Jake may not be Jewish in a movement's technical sense or a practicing Jew. Let alone further complexities such as whether one is from eastern Europe, South America, the Middle East, or elsewhere. Even in my class the teacher had the incorrect notion that Ethiopian Jews only considered themselves Jewish as some sort of "cool" thing - not understanding that they had been practicing what was apparently non-Rabbinic Judaism and had been doing so for a very long time and that they were just people who liked practicing Judaism but wouldn't convert.
That said, when it gets so complicated and hard to discuss things in a proper academic setting... The topic of continually discussing the term "Jewish" in a context so many people here will probably never be in a situation where it's relevant beyond "You shouldn't call someone that unless they say they are themselves first" keeps striking me as just inappropriate. Also, you keep saying it would be insulting to someone who does use it appropriately, but someone who uses it appropriately would already have either specified what they meant or just not used the term in an inappropriate setting and instead have used some more specific way of identifying people without giving those less educated in this particular matter a term in a context they really needed far more explanation on. So someone who does know how to use the term properly should find the statement "is what the Nazis did" irrelevant. Because it's well known that while people do not mean it offensively, that idea of "Jewish blood" is still pretty common culturally, the assumption that Jewish heritage means someone is Jewish in more ways than it really means. I didn't say people treat the idea of being Jewish like Nazis did, only that people who use the term so freely often have that misconstrued notion without proper education about it.
Which isn't what I was saying was harmful about it. (By which I mean, even though that notion is fairly common culturally, people don't mean it or use it in a context to persecute others - the idea of someone being Jewish isn't supposed to be shameful, nor do people mean to say anything offensive or discriminatory - or at least, if they did, you would know it.) Only that the inappropriate use does have a lot of origins in that context - more often than people being educated on the "who is a Jew?" debate, or Jewish cultural heritage. In fact, most often what I hear outside of Jewish academic settings is that "Judaism is a religion, not an ethnicity" - and while I would argue that is also incorrect the point is that many people maintain that attitude... while simultaneously calling anyone with Jewish heritage Jewish regardless of the setting or education involved regarding other people. For someone who knows how to use the term... It shouldn't be a problem. If someone claims it a problem and also claims they use the term correctly and in correct settings... I would begin doubting the latter, however unintentional their possibly incorrect usage may be. I wouldn't doubt they weren't saying anything to persecute, insult, or discriminate. But if they're using the term correctly I don't see how they would get offended about what is well known to exist in a normal cultural context, however accidentally.
Dang. In this topic it is very very difficult to avoid walls of text.
-
I have noticed the great absence of religion in the series. Shouldn't Jake be going to Mass? Why is church never mentioned during the weekend? Though I'm not sure if California is part of what we in alabama call the Bible Belt.
Isn't Jake's family Jewish?
Jake certainly has a lot of reason to pray, what with fighting parasitic aliens and going to school.