Animorphs and religion

[Kotetsu1442]

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.

[Myitt]

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. 

[Alex Oiknine]

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.

[Hylian Dan]

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.

[Kotetsu1442]

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.

[Alex Oiknine]

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.

[Tim Bruening]

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.