To refer to Judaism as a religion is to misunderstand both its fragility and its strength. Religions convert or fade. Civilizations transform, regenerate, and argue with themselves — while persisting.
This is the most beautifully written and thoughtful piece on Judaism I’ve ever read. And as one of the People of the Book I have read many books from Jews, God and History to Life is With People, always searching for answers to questions: who am I, who are my ancestors, why did we survive, where are we going? My non-Jewish neighbor asked us “Why do people hate the Jews?” All I could say was “I don’t know” and I never will. There are no other words left except Mazel Tov on writing the most illuminating piece on who we are and thank you.
There is an easy way to explain Jew hatred and it is the foundation of it all: Various Christian sects and Islamic sects hate the Jews because they would not convert. And so, Jews were/are demonized for not following other religious beliefs. We still see that today from some Christians and a heck of a lot of Muslims. Keep in mind that Christians and Muslims also slaughtered each other in the past over not converting, and Christians slaughtered other Christians and Muslims still slaughter other Muslims because various sects of the same religion disagree with each other (Catholic versus Protestant, Sunni versus Shia, for instance). And Muslims are increasingly going after Christians as we see in the news. The Jews, however, have never slaughtered another group over religious differences, nor do they demonize any other religion because in Judaism, any person of any religion can be holy if they are basically good human beings.
What an extraordinary essay, Joshua. But you've written something more than an essay. It left me struggling for the right word to describe it. Then it came: "Manifesto!" It's a text that reveals something that all can see, but have never seen presented in this way before. It gave me goosebumps! Its bold truth stretches like a banner over the heads of Am Yisrael, over the nations and across the centuries, a Chuppah under which we all can stand and take pride in our Jewish inheritance. And, just as importantly, it inspires us to embrace our roles and our responsibilities in the evolution of this civilizational destiny.
Congratulations on having made your visit to the top of the mountain and many thanks for sharing with us, so eloquently, what you've seen. Kol Hakavod!
100%. One point: “A civilization, with claims to peoplehood and land, is harder to categorize.” When you point out any other ethnic group living as a minority, the double standard becomes even clearer. At the root is antizionism. An othering of only one nationality/people.
Interesting essay with much food for thought. I've always considered Judaism to be a religion, much like Christianity and Islam. But can you consider yourself a Christian if you don't believe Jesus was the Christ? No. Can you consider yourself a Muslim if you don't believe Mohammad was a prophet and in Allah? No. Can you be an atheist and at the same time be a Christian or Muslim? No. But Judaism, despite its small size compared to other major faiths, offers alternative answers. Many folk who consider themselves to be Jews, proud of such as well, do not believe in G-d and consider themselve atheists. Yet they also consider themselves to be Jews. Chabad reaches out to these Jews, tries to bring them back to G-d, but still welcomes them as Jews.
Steve, well stated. I wrote above about how i struggle with these and other questions often. And had a long conversation a few weeks ago with good friends who are Catholic.
Really sifts out my Christian take on what “ Judaism” is taught to mean.
As opposed to the civilisational , historic reality of what being Jewish means in 2026.
Just floored by it all. Reminds me of how we western Christians managed to create a “Hindu religion” for Indians . They themselves found it ludicrous and incomprehensible. But how else would a bureaucracy or political system wrestle with it all,in the complexities and policies required for them to grasp it all?
Your essay reminds me of two things. The first is Melanie Phillips' books and essays. In The Builder's Stone, she argues that Judaism provided the intellectual and moral foundation of Western civilization. Secular Western achievements, such as the concept of individual dignity, the framework for reason and science, the idea of linear time and progress, and the basis for moral responsibility, all originate from the Jewish Bible/Torah. Judaism gave rise to Hellenized Christianity, so it is the foundation for most of the West. These are widely accepted ideas, but Phillips adds the point that we are now at risk of losing the West due to growing antisemitism. She argues that removing the Jewish element would cause the entire structure of Western values, including liberal democracy, to collapse. She has a point. She describes the Gaza War as a fight between civilization (Israel) and barbarism (Hamas).
The second thing your essay reminds me of is that the modern secular concept of religion as a category of human behaviour, as something to be labelled, to be scientifically classified and analyzed, is a modern invention, a construct of modernity. I studied this in grad school, so forgive the lengthy, scholarly tone of what follows.
The modern definition of religion was developed in the 19th century by sociologists, scholars of religion, and missionaries. They introduced us to the concept of "world religions" and the idea of religions as distinct, comparable systems of belief. Before that, religion was indistinguishable from cultures and civilizations. Apparently, Japan had no concept of "religion" until 1853, when American warships forced the government to sign treaties demanding "freedom of religion," requiring the creation of a Japanese word for it. In ancient and traditional societies, what we call "religion" today is just a way of life, the texture of everyday reality.
In every traditional society, some form of faith was tied to politics and government. Religion was totalizing: it carried with it an ontology, an understanding of the nature of reality. There was no conflict between science and faith. It was the lens or framework through which all activities were interpreted. Legal codes were understood as reflections of a divine order. The calendar was marked by religious festivals, fasts, and seasons. Political authority was sacralized, and kings were divinely appointed. There was no part of life in which religion was absent. This all changed with the Enlightenment and the advent of modern science, giving us an alternate ontology. Perhaps most importantly, the traditional religious worldview brought people together in community, without which faith becomes privatized and in some cases dissipates altogether. The most successful faiths are those that stressed communty, though synagogue, church, temple or mosque. Without that, every person can choose whatever faith he or she wants, giving rise to new ageism, wokeism, atheism, consumerism, environmentalism, feminism, socialism, anti-Zionism, and every other -ism you can think of.
Anthropologist of religion, Clifford Geertz, famously defined religion as "a system of symbols that acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in people by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic." In other words, a successful religion is unconsciously adopted by its adherents as "just the way things are and always have been." But with modernity, religion became an abstract intellectual construct to be observed and studied. It was seperated from culture in our minds. I would argue that this is dangerous because man is "homo religiosis" -- he cannot live without faith of some kind. If he dispenses with the old faith, a new one springs up-- and it is not always better.
What has happened in the West is that, as secularization spread and the influence of traditional religions waned, a "secular religion" or para-religion usurped it: Leftism. It has been successful in doing so because it happened on an unconscious level over decades. We are still undergoing this conversion, though some groups have fought back, hanging onto their traditions and culture. This is how fundamentalism evolved, as a reaction to secularization.
Secularization also opened the door to multiculturalism and mass migration, which has not been a successful experiment in the West (though it was necessary for the growth of Israel). As Douglas Murray points out in The Strange Death of Europe, you cannot have a concurrent loss of traditional (Judeo-Christian) faith and identity and also a mass importation of those with a strong sense of it (Islam) without the loss of the original culture. Christian Europe is being displaced by Islam, with the help of Leftism and globalism. Secularization did not bring with it a more enlightened society; it opened a Pandora's box, leading to destructive para-religions like Communism, fascism, and woke ideology.
Two final thoughts: (1) This is not to say that rejecting modern science or Enlightenment principles is wrong. Clearly, it is best to have a society that balances modernity and tradition, as Israel seems to have accomplished quite well. (2) The secular treatment of religion as a universal phenomenon that can be reduced to common elements led to religious pluralism, the mistaken idea that all faiths are equal. At least with respect to morality, they are not. Islamism (radical Islam as adopted by terrorists) is morally inferior, for example. It is evil. This has led some to embrace 'religious relativism' -- the idea that some faiths are better than others. I am a religious relativist, partial to my own tradition, which I call eccumenical non-denominational Judeo-Christianity (some people want to drop the "Judeo-" because they don't like Israel, but that's precisely why I think it should stay). We can also refer to religious exclusivism, common to fundamentalist or orthodox denominations, that view their interpretation as true and everyone else is wrong or even heretical. In Islam, this can have fatal consequences. Christians used to go to war over differences of faith, but no longer do. We had our reformations; Islam never did.
I have not read it, but thank you for referring me to it. The blurb for it (below) mentions time, which is a really interesting topic -- namely, that there can be more than one conception of it, and how viewing it differently has profound implications. Linear progressive history, as distinct from cyclic time from the East, produced different societies.
"The Gifts of the Jews reveals the critical change that made Western civilization possible. Within the matrix of ancient religions and philosophies, life was seen as part of an endless cycle of birth and death; time was like a wheel, spinning ceaselessly. Yet somehow, the ancient Jews began to see time differently. For them, time had a beginning and an end; it was a narrative whose triumphant conclusion would come in the future. From this insight came a new conception of men and women as individuals with unique destinies--a conception that would inform the Declaration of Independence--and our hopeful belief in progress and the sense that tomorrow can be better than today. As Thomas Cahill narrates this momentous shift, he also explains the real significance of such Biblical figures as Abraham and Sarah, Moses and the Pharaoh, Joshua, Isaiah, and Jeremiah."
It's a tricky one. Yes, all ancient "religions" are actually civilizations - the Egyptian, the Mesopotamian, Hinduism, Judaism. Buddhism was the first missionary religion, sending out monks to convert others. But once the concept of "religion" was invented, it's hard not to include Judaism and Hinduism, the only two surviving civilizations from the pre-misssionary era, in that category. I guess they are both civilizations as well as religions although not religions in the same way as Islam and Christianity, not based on belief alone.
Ruth, I am addressing this to you specifically because I know you think deeply about these matters and what I will say and ask below ( i welcome others to weigh in if they read this and are so disposed).
I found this post by Joshua very thought provoking because it touches on issues and questions I pose often to friends ( and that i occasionally post about). The civilization analysis set forth by Joshua ( and expanded upon by you) , together with the various references to religion go to the heart of two questions I grapple with over and over again: what is Judaism and what is a Jew? Tangential questions: where does God fit into all this , if at all ( as you and others know many jews themselves ask "what's God got yo do with it"?) ?
Regarding who is a jew, is there a standard and if so does it mean anything? Mother has Jewish blood ( a circular question?) ? How does conversion work or how should it? Is it clear what defines the civilization Joshua describes and is that civilization somehow distinct from what we might here in America call our American civilization or am I misusing the term civilization?
Who exactly is part of the civilization. Are there certain values or non-God related beliefs they must hold or it simply a matter of i consider myself to be a jew and that's enough ( this goes back to the questions related to blood and conversion). We all know plenty of famous people who are identified as Jewish, principally by birth, but whose lives, in my opinion, are not in concert with the concept of civilization Joshua discusses. Guys like Bernie Sanders or the ice cream bros from Vermont. Are they part of the Jewish civilization or not? And why?
Hopefully the foregoing makes sense to someone because I feel that these various questions and thoughts never seem to yield clear answers or standards. Or maybe there are no answers or standards. Maybe that's a good thing but I always walk away never feeling like I know how all of this fits together.
Yes, I feel you are right and there is no clear answer either for Jews or for Hindus. The similiarity in this regard is striking. I know lots of people born Hindu who would still write "Hindu" as their religion in a slot on a form, who fall into one of these two categories: 1. Indifferent to or know very little about Hindu thought or history but will engage in worship rituals at home on special occasions, a couple of times a year, and feel some pride in being Hindu. These are almost all highly educated professionals, mostly English-educated, and more of them are young people. This group generally continue some everyday Hindu civilizational practices, mostly by habit but that dies out among their kids 2. actively opposed to Hinduism and consider it backward and oppressive. A lot of these people are Islamophiles - they love poetry and architecture and music by Muslims, especially Sufis (although these are much more mixed than they realise). Do not perform worship rituals at home but do participate in the big festivals, such as Diwali, as far as eating and drinking and lighting the house go, and celebrate Christmas with equal pleasure. This lot are almost all left-wing and educated in English, either at home or abroad. They would say they have no religion and are "atheists" (they are usually unaware that four of the six schools of Hindu philosophy require no God so "atheism" is not a Hindu concept and is not contradictory to being Hindu). This group either ignores Hindu civilizational practice or actively sheds it although individuals can occasionally surprise themselves and others. I remember one Hindu Marxist who returned from England and remarked bitterly that on a drive in the countryside, he saw absolutely no animals except cattle "and they were meant to be eaten." These two groups often contain a very small third group of people born to one Hindu and one non-Hindu parent. They usually imbibe both cultures but if the second parent is Muslim or Christian they are generally named and mostly raised in that religion.
The question is whether or not to consider the second group Hindu. Unless someone converts they continue to be classified in their birth religion. And in a Hindu-Muslim conflict, such as the 1989 pogrom by Islamists in Kashmir, this lot is unlikely to be spared. The rapid growth of these two groups worldwide is worrying. However, they are counterbalanced by a new enthusiasm about Hindu history and thought, including among the young, who often have to hide this on campuses.
Personally, I tend to think of militantly anti-Hindu Hindus (the equivalent of Ben, Bernie, Judith Butler, Chomsky et al) as not Hindu because Marxism generally functions as their replacement religion. I know a lot of such Jews (anti-Israel to different degrees) as well in our local synagogue. Exrtremely depressing. On the other hand, if someone insists they are Hindu (mainly in order to acquire a right to attack Hinduism), can we really decide they are not? Ultimately, it's probably largely a matter of semantics. When push comes to shove, it won't matter much. I'll inbox you with a video that touches on these issues.
With regard to conversion, there is similarity as well. Most Hindus do not seek converts because we believe everyone is on their own path through many lifetimes and there is no point forcing the pace. The exception is ISKCON which is a largely American Christianised branch of Hinduism that used to be laughed at in India but has now become an important presence, thanks to its funding. However, if any non-Hindu decides to be a HIndu, no one objects and no ritual is required unless they seek one. They are generally welcomed and admired although certain temples (very few) will not allow non-Hindus entry, on the premise that a Hindu is born, not made. I could tell some funny stories about this last:)
Yes, there are and have been other civilizations which have been reduced to "religions" in the way that people conceptualize them. Some civilizations no longer exist, such as that of ancient Egypt and ancient Mesopotamia. Both Hinduism and Buddhism continue to thrive as civilizations, just as Judaism does. Judaism is not the only civilization! Of course not.
Absolutely brilliant. The idea that Judaism is a people rather than a religion is not a new concept. However, I have never seen it more thoughtfully expressed then you just have. Shabbat shalom.
When I was bar mitzvahed in 1980, my Synagogue gave me a gift called "The Pictoral History of the Jewish People". The very first chapter posed the question "What are the Jews?" The book was written in the 1950's I believe but the question remains and the conclusion does to, the Jews are a "people."
This is so excellent, Joshua. You capture so many beautiful nuggets and essential truths. Simply stated by a rabbi in Portland Oregon many years ago — “Jews are the people; Judaism is the religion.” This order also is clearly stated by Ruth in her declaration to Naomi: Your people shall be my people; your god, my god.” Peoplehood first; religion second. עם ישראל חי / The People Israel live.
"When Jews are attacked in Washington, D.C. or Manchester or Bondi Beach, Jews everywhere feel it. The sense of shared fate is not theological; it is civilizational. "
The 30 Jewish members of Congress felt virtually nothing on October 7th. They are still allied with their Muslim pals in Congress. Not one switched parties. Their ideology means far, far more than being Jewish. Jewish and/or Western Civilization means nothing to them. Neither does theology. Power and money are what matter.
When Christians in Africa are attacked and murdered just because they are Christians, Real Christians everywhere feel it also. The sense of shared fate is not just theological; it is civilizational here as well.
We Christians and Jews have common enemies both from the outside (Muslims for the most part) and from the inside - people who are nominally Jews and Christians but hate us, let's call them JINO's and CINO's.
This is the most beautifully written and thoughtful piece on Judaism I’ve ever read. And as one of the People of the Book I have read many books from Jews, God and History to Life is With People, always searching for answers to questions: who am I, who are my ancestors, why did we survive, where are we going? My non-Jewish neighbor asked us “Why do people hate the Jews?” All I could say was “I don’t know” and I never will. There are no other words left except Mazel Tov on writing the most illuminating piece on who we are and thank you.
You are correct, a most thoughtful and interesting article. I am sending it to our rabbi, family and friends.
Thankyou, Joshua
There is an easy way to explain Jew hatred and it is the foundation of it all: Various Christian sects and Islamic sects hate the Jews because they would not convert. And so, Jews were/are demonized for not following other religious beliefs. We still see that today from some Christians and a heck of a lot of Muslims. Keep in mind that Christians and Muslims also slaughtered each other in the past over not converting, and Christians slaughtered other Christians and Muslims still slaughter other Muslims because various sects of the same religion disagree with each other (Catholic versus Protestant, Sunni versus Shia, for instance). And Muslims are increasingly going after Christians as we see in the news. The Jews, however, have never slaughtered another group over religious differences, nor do they demonize any other religion because in Judaism, any person of any religion can be holy if they are basically good human beings.
What an extraordinary essay, Joshua. But you've written something more than an essay. It left me struggling for the right word to describe it. Then it came: "Manifesto!" It's a text that reveals something that all can see, but have never seen presented in this way before. It gave me goosebumps! Its bold truth stretches like a banner over the heads of Am Yisrael, over the nations and across the centuries, a Chuppah under which we all can stand and take pride in our Jewish inheritance. And, just as importantly, it inspires us to embrace our roles and our responsibilities in the evolution of this civilizational destiny.
Congratulations on having made your visit to the top of the mountain and many thanks for sharing with us, so eloquently, what you've seen. Kol Hakavod!
100%. One point: “A civilization, with claims to peoplehood and land, is harder to categorize.” When you point out any other ethnic group living as a minority, the double standard becomes even clearer. At the root is antizionism. An othering of only one nationality/people.
Interesting essay with much food for thought. I've always considered Judaism to be a religion, much like Christianity and Islam. But can you consider yourself a Christian if you don't believe Jesus was the Christ? No. Can you consider yourself a Muslim if you don't believe Mohammad was a prophet and in Allah? No. Can you be an atheist and at the same time be a Christian or Muslim? No. But Judaism, despite its small size compared to other major faiths, offers alternative answers. Many folk who consider themselves to be Jews, proud of such as well, do not believe in G-d and consider themselve atheists. Yet they also consider themselves to be Jews. Chabad reaches out to these Jews, tries to bring them back to G-d, but still welcomes them as Jews.
Steve, well stated. I wrote above about how i struggle with these and other questions often. And had a long conversation a few weeks ago with good friends who are Catholic.
Another 🌟 from you, Joshua. Still searching for a standing ovation emoji.
This is absolutely brilliant
Really sifts out my Christian take on what “ Judaism” is taught to mean.
As opposed to the civilisational , historic reality of what being Jewish means in 2026.
Just floored by it all. Reminds me of how we western Christians managed to create a “Hindu religion” for Indians . They themselves found it ludicrous and incomprehensible. But how else would a bureaucracy or political system wrestle with it all,in the complexities and policies required for them to grasp it all?
Simplify and box it up.
Sorry. God is way above that.
Outstanding article! I am not Jewish, but my Christian theology teaches me God is covenentally and eternally united with Israel and the Jewish people.
Thank you for writing this
Your essay reminds me of two things. The first is Melanie Phillips' books and essays. In The Builder's Stone, she argues that Judaism provided the intellectual and moral foundation of Western civilization. Secular Western achievements, such as the concept of individual dignity, the framework for reason and science, the idea of linear time and progress, and the basis for moral responsibility, all originate from the Jewish Bible/Torah. Judaism gave rise to Hellenized Christianity, so it is the foundation for most of the West. These are widely accepted ideas, but Phillips adds the point that we are now at risk of losing the West due to growing antisemitism. She argues that removing the Jewish element would cause the entire structure of Western values, including liberal democracy, to collapse. She has a point. She describes the Gaza War as a fight between civilization (Israel) and barbarism (Hamas).
The second thing your essay reminds me of is that the modern secular concept of religion as a category of human behaviour, as something to be labelled, to be scientifically classified and analyzed, is a modern invention, a construct of modernity. I studied this in grad school, so forgive the lengthy, scholarly tone of what follows.
The modern definition of religion was developed in the 19th century by sociologists, scholars of religion, and missionaries. They introduced us to the concept of "world religions" and the idea of religions as distinct, comparable systems of belief. Before that, religion was indistinguishable from cultures and civilizations. Apparently, Japan had no concept of "religion" until 1853, when American warships forced the government to sign treaties demanding "freedom of religion," requiring the creation of a Japanese word for it. In ancient and traditional societies, what we call "religion" today is just a way of life, the texture of everyday reality.
In every traditional society, some form of faith was tied to politics and government. Religion was totalizing: it carried with it an ontology, an understanding of the nature of reality. There was no conflict between science and faith. It was the lens or framework through which all activities were interpreted. Legal codes were understood as reflections of a divine order. The calendar was marked by religious festivals, fasts, and seasons. Political authority was sacralized, and kings were divinely appointed. There was no part of life in which religion was absent. This all changed with the Enlightenment and the advent of modern science, giving us an alternate ontology. Perhaps most importantly, the traditional religious worldview brought people together in community, without which faith becomes privatized and in some cases dissipates altogether. The most successful faiths are those that stressed communty, though synagogue, church, temple or mosque. Without that, every person can choose whatever faith he or she wants, giving rise to new ageism, wokeism, atheism, consumerism, environmentalism, feminism, socialism, anti-Zionism, and every other -ism you can think of.
Anthropologist of religion, Clifford Geertz, famously defined religion as "a system of symbols that acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in people by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic." In other words, a successful religion is unconsciously adopted by its adherents as "just the way things are and always have been." But with modernity, religion became an abstract intellectual construct to be observed and studied. It was seperated from culture in our minds. I would argue that this is dangerous because man is "homo religiosis" -- he cannot live without faith of some kind. If he dispenses with the old faith, a new one springs up-- and it is not always better.
What has happened in the West is that, as secularization spread and the influence of traditional religions waned, a "secular religion" or para-religion usurped it: Leftism. It has been successful in doing so because it happened on an unconscious level over decades. We are still undergoing this conversion, though some groups have fought back, hanging onto their traditions and culture. This is how fundamentalism evolved, as a reaction to secularization.
Secularization also opened the door to multiculturalism and mass migration, which has not been a successful experiment in the West (though it was necessary for the growth of Israel). As Douglas Murray points out in The Strange Death of Europe, you cannot have a concurrent loss of traditional (Judeo-Christian) faith and identity and also a mass importation of those with a strong sense of it (Islam) without the loss of the original culture. Christian Europe is being displaced by Islam, with the help of Leftism and globalism. Secularization did not bring with it a more enlightened society; it opened a Pandora's box, leading to destructive para-religions like Communism, fascism, and woke ideology.
Two final thoughts: (1) This is not to say that rejecting modern science or Enlightenment principles is wrong. Clearly, it is best to have a society that balances modernity and tradition, as Israel seems to have accomplished quite well. (2) The secular treatment of religion as a universal phenomenon that can be reduced to common elements led to religious pluralism, the mistaken idea that all faiths are equal. At least with respect to morality, they are not. Islamism (radical Islam as adopted by terrorists) is morally inferior, for example. It is evil. This has led some to embrace 'religious relativism' -- the idea that some faiths are better than others. I am a religious relativist, partial to my own tradition, which I call eccumenical non-denominational Judeo-Christianity (some people want to drop the "Judeo-" because they don't like Israel, but that's precisely why I think it should stay). We can also refer to religious exclusivism, common to fundamentalist or orthodox denominations, that view their interpretation as true and everyone else is wrong or even heretical. In Islam, this can have fatal consequences. Christians used to go to war over differences of faith, but no longer do. We had our reformations; Islam never did.
Have you read Thomas Cahill's "The Gift of the Jews"? He makes the point that the Jews represent the foundation of Western Civilization.
I have not read it, but thank you for referring me to it. The blurb for it (below) mentions time, which is a really interesting topic -- namely, that there can be more than one conception of it, and how viewing it differently has profound implications. Linear progressive history, as distinct from cyclic time from the East, produced different societies.
"The Gifts of the Jews reveals the critical change that made Western civilization possible. Within the matrix of ancient religions and philosophies, life was seen as part of an endless cycle of birth and death; time was like a wheel, spinning ceaselessly. Yet somehow, the ancient Jews began to see time differently. For them, time had a beginning and an end; it was a narrative whose triumphant conclusion would come in the future. From this insight came a new conception of men and women as individuals with unique destinies--a conception that would inform the Declaration of Independence--and our hopeful belief in progress and the sense that tomorrow can be better than today. As Thomas Cahill narrates this momentous shift, he also explains the real significance of such Biblical figures as Abraham and Sarah, Moses and the Pharaoh, Joshua, Isaiah, and Jeremiah."
Thank you for this!
Thanks for this articulate & incisive post.
It's a tricky one. Yes, all ancient "religions" are actually civilizations - the Egyptian, the Mesopotamian, Hinduism, Judaism. Buddhism was the first missionary religion, sending out monks to convert others. But once the concept of "religion" was invented, it's hard not to include Judaism and Hinduism, the only two surviving civilizations from the pre-misssionary era, in that category. I guess they are both civilizations as well as religions although not religions in the same way as Islam and Christianity, not based on belief alone.
Ruth, I am addressing this to you specifically because I know you think deeply about these matters and what I will say and ask below ( i welcome others to weigh in if they read this and are so disposed).
I found this post by Joshua very thought provoking because it touches on issues and questions I pose often to friends ( and that i occasionally post about). The civilization analysis set forth by Joshua ( and expanded upon by you) , together with the various references to religion go to the heart of two questions I grapple with over and over again: what is Judaism and what is a Jew? Tangential questions: where does God fit into all this , if at all ( as you and others know many jews themselves ask "what's God got yo do with it"?) ?
Regarding who is a jew, is there a standard and if so does it mean anything? Mother has Jewish blood ( a circular question?) ? How does conversion work or how should it? Is it clear what defines the civilization Joshua describes and is that civilization somehow distinct from what we might here in America call our American civilization or am I misusing the term civilization?
Who exactly is part of the civilization. Are there certain values or non-God related beliefs they must hold or it simply a matter of i consider myself to be a jew and that's enough ( this goes back to the questions related to blood and conversion). We all know plenty of famous people who are identified as Jewish, principally by birth, but whose lives, in my opinion, are not in concert with the concept of civilization Joshua discusses. Guys like Bernie Sanders or the ice cream bros from Vermont. Are they part of the Jewish civilization or not? And why?
Hopefully the foregoing makes sense to someone because I feel that these various questions and thoughts never seem to yield clear answers or standards. Or maybe there are no answers or standards. Maybe that's a good thing but I always walk away never feeling like I know how all of this fits together.
Yes, I feel you are right and there is no clear answer either for Jews or for Hindus. The similiarity in this regard is striking. I know lots of people born Hindu who would still write "Hindu" as their religion in a slot on a form, who fall into one of these two categories: 1. Indifferent to or know very little about Hindu thought or history but will engage in worship rituals at home on special occasions, a couple of times a year, and feel some pride in being Hindu. These are almost all highly educated professionals, mostly English-educated, and more of them are young people. This group generally continue some everyday Hindu civilizational practices, mostly by habit but that dies out among their kids 2. actively opposed to Hinduism and consider it backward and oppressive. A lot of these people are Islamophiles - they love poetry and architecture and music by Muslims, especially Sufis (although these are much more mixed than they realise). Do not perform worship rituals at home but do participate in the big festivals, such as Diwali, as far as eating and drinking and lighting the house go, and celebrate Christmas with equal pleasure. This lot are almost all left-wing and educated in English, either at home or abroad. They would say they have no religion and are "atheists" (they are usually unaware that four of the six schools of Hindu philosophy require no God so "atheism" is not a Hindu concept and is not contradictory to being Hindu). This group either ignores Hindu civilizational practice or actively sheds it although individuals can occasionally surprise themselves and others. I remember one Hindu Marxist who returned from England and remarked bitterly that on a drive in the countryside, he saw absolutely no animals except cattle "and they were meant to be eaten." These two groups often contain a very small third group of people born to one Hindu and one non-Hindu parent. They usually imbibe both cultures but if the second parent is Muslim or Christian they are generally named and mostly raised in that religion.
The question is whether or not to consider the second group Hindu. Unless someone converts they continue to be classified in their birth religion. And in a Hindu-Muslim conflict, such as the 1989 pogrom by Islamists in Kashmir, this lot is unlikely to be spared. The rapid growth of these two groups worldwide is worrying. However, they are counterbalanced by a new enthusiasm about Hindu history and thought, including among the young, who often have to hide this on campuses.
Personally, I tend to think of militantly anti-Hindu Hindus (the equivalent of Ben, Bernie, Judith Butler, Chomsky et al) as not Hindu because Marxism generally functions as their replacement religion. I know a lot of such Jews (anti-Israel to different degrees) as well in our local synagogue. Exrtremely depressing. On the other hand, if someone insists they are Hindu (mainly in order to acquire a right to attack Hinduism), can we really decide they are not? Ultimately, it's probably largely a matter of semantics. When push comes to shove, it won't matter much. I'll inbox you with a video that touches on these issues.
With regard to conversion, there is similarity as well. Most Hindus do not seek converts because we believe everyone is on their own path through many lifetimes and there is no point forcing the pace. The exception is ISKCON which is a largely American Christianised branch of Hinduism that used to be laughed at in India but has now become an important presence, thanks to its funding. However, if any non-Hindu decides to be a HIndu, no one objects and no ritual is required unless they seek one. They are generally welcomed and admired although certain temples (very few) will not allow non-Hindus entry, on the premise that a Hindu is born, not made. I could tell some funny stories about this last:)
Thank you for this. It was precisely why I reached out. Have a wonderful weekend.
Thank you. You too.
Yes, there are and have been other civilizations which have been reduced to "religions" in the way that people conceptualize them. Some civilizations no longer exist, such as that of ancient Egypt and ancient Mesopotamia. Both Hinduism and Buddhism continue to thrive as civilizations, just as Judaism does. Judaism is not the only civilization! Of course not.
i’m not religious, but I’ve always said I’m on the team or in the tribe. Great essay . gave me insights that I hadn’t thought about before.
Excellent essay on a very key issue!
Josh, thank you so much for posting this. It is an argument I encounter so frequently. You crystallize the rebuttal. Shabbat Shalom.
“It means shifting from consumer Judaism to covenantal Judaism. Not: What do I get from Jewish life? But: What do I contribute to it?”
Sounds a lot like John F. Kennedy: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
Absolutely brilliant. The idea that Judaism is a people rather than a religion is not a new concept. However, I have never seen it more thoughtfully expressed then you just have. Shabbat shalom.
When I was bar mitzvahed in 1980, my Synagogue gave me a gift called "The Pictoral History of the Jewish People". The very first chapter posed the question "What are the Jews?" The book was written in the 1950's I believe but the question remains and the conclusion does to, the Jews are a "people."
This is so excellent, Joshua. You capture so many beautiful nuggets and essential truths. Simply stated by a rabbi in Portland Oregon many years ago — “Jews are the people; Judaism is the religion.” This order also is clearly stated by Ruth in her declaration to Naomi: Your people shall be my people; your god, my god.” Peoplehood first; religion second. עם ישראל חי / The People Israel live.
"When Jews are attacked in Washington, D.C. or Manchester or Bondi Beach, Jews everywhere feel it. The sense of shared fate is not theological; it is civilizational. "
The 30 Jewish members of Congress felt virtually nothing on October 7th. They are still allied with their Muslim pals in Congress. Not one switched parties. Their ideology means far, far more than being Jewish. Jewish and/or Western Civilization means nothing to them. Neither does theology. Power and money are what matter.
When Christians in Africa are attacked and murdered just because they are Christians, Real Christians everywhere feel it also. The sense of shared fate is not just theological; it is civilizational here as well.
We Christians and Jews have common enemies both from the outside (Muslims for the most part) and from the inside - people who are nominally Jews and Christians but hate us, let's call them JINO's and CINO's.