Draw the line: Should the U.S. always support Israel's policies?

This week we move from the realm of the home and family to an issue of national politics, Should the U.S. always support Israel's policies? This question addresses an issue that can be examined on many levels: state policy, the imperative to support other democracies, what it means for jews, and a host of other perspectives. Given the broadness of this question, I am sure your comments will be super interesting, so let's get a dialogue going! This has certainly been a contentious issue among our visitors.

Over 365 visitors who have responded to this issue. Here is what the results look like so far:





Here are some thoughts from our visitors:

YES
"Yes, we need to support our homeland. Not many other people can or will." -Anon.

"Israel is a symbol of freedom and wisdom. U.S. should support Israel if it supports freedom and equality in right [sic} for everyone." -Anton, St. Petersburg

NO
"What if they don't make sense? Of course nt. Each policy must be evaluated on its merits and then supported (or not) based on what is best for the world." -Anon.

"Israel is not the 51st state." - Alise, Philadelphia, PA

UM
"Sometimes Israel gets into a fight but most of the time its good and there's peace." -Eric, Parsippany, NJ

"I think that it matters if the U.S. is earning enough money. We can't always help epeople because we need to focus on our country too." -Sabrina, Monmouth Jct., NJ

What are your thoughts on the issue? Share your thoughts by commenting. Don't be shy! The whole point of this part of our exhibit is to begin a dialogue.

Looking for more information? Try these articles, which have been selected for their diversity of opinions:
New Coalition To Fight Any Jerusalem Division
New Jewish Lobby Seeks to REdefine Pro-Israel
Critics of Israel lobby gather
on Mearsheimer's home turf

Are you an intermarriage optimist or an intermarriage pessimist?

This interesting Slate article comes by way of the self-labeled "best Francophilic Zionism in the blogosphere," What would Phoebe Do. In light of this week's featured Draw The Line question, as well as the end of Passover, I thought this was a particularly relevant article.

Shuel Rosner discusses the topic that "the American Jewish community has been obsessed by," intermarriage with non-Jews. He distinguishes between "'intermarriage optimists' who think that the trend could help the Jewish community grow in numbers, and the 'intermarriage pessimists' who think that it will just lead to lowering the entry bar to Judaism, watering down the faith."

As this article highlights, this question is incredibly relevant to American Jews, especially around religious holidays when family's are confronted with family dinners and spiritual practices, the physical manifestation of their Judaism. This is particularly true at Passover, as Rosner notes, because, "Passover, more than any other Jewish holy day, is the one in which Jews celebrate not their religion but this strange concept of becoming a people."

Phoebe takes the intermarriage optimist route in her reaction piece, asking, "Isn't it far more plausible that intermarriage will de facto bring new members into the Jewish people than that it will bring about round-the-block lines for the mikvah (or in the gentile man's case, a more extreme initiation)?"

But the other camp, the so-called "intermarriage pessimists," have a plausible fear too -- that intermarriage results in fewer religiously active members of the Jewish community and a weaker understanding of Judaism as a whole.

This debate is highly provocative and I can't wait to hear your thoughts. I, myself, am an intermarriage optimist, but that is because I'm the product of an intermarriage between my Jewish mother and Chinese Poppi. I have pleasant memories of eating ginger carrot soup at Hannukah and looking at our Christmas tree lights with those cardboard glasses that turn all lights into Stars of Davids. That being said, I can totally see where the intermarriage pessimists are coming from -- out of the criteria listed in the Rosner article as a measure of faith, I fall squarely into the category of Hannukah-Passover Jews.

Draw the Line: Is intermarriage a significant threat to religious communities?

This question seems to have elicited some very personal responses, perhaps because it addresses an issue many Americans have dealt with quite intimately. NMAJH visitors have been pretty split on the issue, and I can't wait to see what comments you guys have, so please share!

Over 280 visitors who have responded to this issue. Here is what the results look like so far:




Here are some thoughts from our visitors:

YES
"Intermarriage is a serious threat to Jews, especially in the United States. As people intermarry, they raise their children with less and less Jewish values and soon their descendants don't place any value on their Jewish roots. As numbers decrease, the communities are threatened." -Lisa, Atlanta, GA

"Jews who intermarry are generally unable to pass on strong Judaism to future generations. If the children's mother is not Jewish, the children's Jewish status is questionable without speaking to Orthodox Rabbinic authorities -- even if they are educated Jewish." - Nicole, Queens

NO
"Intermarriage is not a significant threat, instead it enriches religious communities. While some people may be married away from religion, just as many are married into it. As people come into Judaism from other religions it enriches the thought and expands the horizons of a community." -A., New York, NY

"How the Jewish community RESPONDS (sic.) to intermarried couples (and their children) is the greatest threat. Those who make the choice that Moses and David chose need to be embraced by the community." -Beth, Chicago, Il.

UM
"Intermarriage is occuring but in the families I know predominantely the spouse [marries] into Judaism is embracing Judaism ande the chidlren are being raised as Jewish. Thus, in a sense, individuals are being brought 'into the fold' of Judaism. For me, the question is whether Jewish identity is being passed on." - Kate, Hillsdale, NJ

"It depends on their reception by the Jewish community. If they are rejected by their fellow Jews their children will not be raised as Jes." -Anon.

Looking for more information? Try these articles, which have been selected for their diversity of opinions:
A Holiday Medley, Off Key
To officiate or not? Mixed marriage source of debate at Reform rabbis’ parley
OP-ED:Stop looking at intermarriage through rose-colored glasses
Made in China, Growing up in America

Not Only a Question for Our Time

The recently posted question question, "Should religious tradition be changed to fit contemporary American life?", provokes many different responses. The responses of museum visitors show that this question can be and is provocative. Every individual brings a lifetime of beliefs and experiences to this question. In order to accurately evaluate the question then, we must have a thorough understanding of its historical ramifications.

This question is not a new one. People of many religious traditions have struggled with this question for hundreds of years. The enduring nature of this question comes from the fact that there is no correct answer. As visitors have pointed out, there are both positive and negative aspects to fitting religious beliefs to contemporary society. What I would like to do now, is to take a step back in time to the late 18th century, to a time when the Jewish community was facing this question in a very real way. I want to step back to the time of the Haskalah, or Jewish Enlightenment.

The Haskalah was a movement within Judaism that had its roots in the general European Enlightenment and stretched from the 1770s to the 1880s. It began in Germany under the direct impact of the German-Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelssohn, who is often called the "Father of the Haskalah". The Haskalah ushered in a period of modernization of Jewish life and learning and pushed the Jews to adopt the German language. The purpose of the modernizing nature of the Haskalah was to improve the status of Jews in Germany and elsewhere. Mendelssohn believed that Haskalah would help integrate Jews into the non-Jewish communities in which they lived. This, Mendelssohn hoped, would lead to the granting of more civil rights to the Jews and also to their eventual emancipation. This modernization would involve integrating secular studies into the Jewish education curriculum, the adoption of the German language, and even a change in Jewish dress. This said, Mendelssohn was a great supporter of the Jewish faith and was often torn between the drive toward modernization and adherence to the traditional Judaism with which he grew up.

Today, visitors to the National Museum of American Jewish History and everyone who reads this blog will have a chance to weigh in on the same issues that Mendelssohn and his contemporaries struggled with many years ago. As I have said, there are both positive and negative aspects of changing religious traditions to fit contemporary life. What worked well in the late 18th and early 19th centuries may not work well today. Conversely, the modern world offers many opportunities to educate not only adherents of a particular faith, but also those who are not part of the faith. Today we have technological avenues not open to people of Mendelssohn's time.

Whether you believe religious tradition should or should not be changed to fit contemporary American life, it is important to understand the historical answers to this question and the contextualized reasons for these answers. Only then can we decide on what is best for both the members of religious communities and for the society as a whole.

Draw the Line: Should religious tradition be changed to fit contemporary American life?

This is the first attempt to bring the Draw The Line part of the exhibition to a broader, web-based audience. We are posing the question to you.

So far we've had great visitor participation here at the museum. Since the exhibition opened on December 17, 2007 over 260 people have participated. The results so far are:



Here are some thoughts from our visitors:

YES
"SOME (sic) traditions may be changed, provided that they DO NOT COMPROMISE our Jewish Identity, nor THREATEN the existence of Judaism as we know it. Also, only what NEEDS to be changed so as not to cause CONFLICT with contemporary culture (not just because it is inconvenient)." - Gerald, High Point, NC

"Not a question of should -- If does. Any culture will respond to its environment and time. Fusion is a hallmark of living culture." -Alisa, Philadelphia, PA


NO
"The world has changed many, many times in 3200 years, yet the Jews remain. Doing away with tradition is the first step in casting aside that 3200 year history." - Steve, Detroit MI

"Absolutely No! G-d (sic.) Forbid. We won't live on if we do." - J., Spring Vally, NY


UM
"It is a threat to static traditionalism but not to dynamic living communities. There is a danger to a community that might disappear via dilution, but a greater danger to one that doesn't embrace (and influence) the world within which it exists." - Mitch, New York City, NY

"We must be flexible to some extent but not so much as to lose identity and TRADITION (sic)." -E., Gullway, NJ


What are your thoughts on the issue? Share your thoughts by commenting. Don't be shy! The whole point of this part of our exhibit is to begin a dialogue.

Looking for more information? Try these articles, which have been selected for their diversity of opinions:
Challenging Tradition, Young Jews Worship on Their Terms
For Kosher Emergencies, Manna From a Machine
Conservatives may rethink stance on gays, but change won’t be quick
Uncovering the Un-Movement

NYTimes Special Museums Section

Is it odd that at the sight of the recent New York Times special Museums section I started to salivate like one of Pavlov's dogs? If I had a tail, it would have been wagging uncontrollably. No chew toy, frisbee or treat could have distracted me.

The section included articles about museum expansion, curating, and new and innovative trends, but one article in particular stood out to me as especially relevant to this blog in its first week: Julia M. Klein's "Oldfangled Interaction Gains Steam". The article discusses the new ways museums are finding to spur interaction and dialogue among visitors, from online exhibitions and to discussion sections incorporated into exhibitions. Shaping Spaces, Making Meaning does this through the various interactive sections of the exhibit and (hopefully!) through this blog.

But what this article really speaks to is what the exhibition designer for the upcoming Newseum museum, Ralph Appelbaum, is quoted as saying, that, "Museums are now starting to find a real role for themselves in encouraging social dialogue."

Perhaps what I love most about historical museums is their ability to make the past part of the present, to make it relevant to contemporary issues, to "encourage social dialogue." Its really a romantic notion isn't it? The museum as both the gatekeeper of cultural patrimony and the inspiration for discussion and change?

Now that's something to wag a tail over.

Draw the Line

Where does history stop and the present begin? This is one of the more difficult questions that come up in any discussion of modern history, and it is certainly an issue here. So to address those issues of contemporary American Jewish life, Shaping Space, Making Meaning has included a section titled "Draw the Line," which is an interactive forum for contemporary issues.

This part of the exhibit poses six controversial questions about Jewish life in America today and asks visitors to share their thoughts. The questions are:
1. Should religious tradition be changed to fit contemporary American life?
2. Is intermarriage a significant threat to religious communities?
3. Are Jews white?
4. Is personal heritage more important than fitting into mainstream society?
5. Should the US always support Israel's policies?
6. Does anti-Semitism exist in the United States?

Visitors are given the opportunity to read a variety of opinion articles, reflect, and post their opinion and comments on the exhibition wall. The designers came up with a way to visually represent public opinions. There are three categories of response cards for visitors to choose from (Yes, No, and Um). Visitors pick cards, write comments if they wish, and hang them on the wall. The result? Every day we get a bar graph representing their thoughts.

While we're all big fans of the physical exhibition, this blog is about opening up the forum to a wider audience, to people who unfortunately can't stop by and give their opinion in person. So we thought that each week we'd take a look at how people are responding to a specific question, and share a couple of their thoughts. You can comment with your own opinion. There is no such thing as a right or wrong answer; indeed what makes this aspect of the exhibit interesting is the diversity of opinions. So please, tell us what you think!