Forced to become Jewish?
-
Raskel — 18 years ago(August 17, 2007 10:59 AM)
I'm sorry you had to witness your friend being (more or less) forced into a decicion like that. That can't have been easy on her, or for you. And I really don't have much sympathy for people who force others into a situation like that either (non in fact)
But I'111cm glad we were able to discuss this is a normal fashion.
That often seems very hard on forums.
So thank you to you as well. -
lilkunta3 — 18 years ago(December 09, 2007 06:22 AM)
Kate didnt abandon her heritage 4 the unobserved.
Im not sure what Kate was born as (baptist or xtian or whatever) but she did study judaism b4 converting. She didnt just do it 2 do it. She also brought Steven closer 2 it.
IndiaArie
TESTIMONY VOL 1:LIFE&RELATIONSHIP -
ContinentalOp — 14 years ago(June 19, 2011 05:36 AM)
''Kate didnt abandon her heritage 4 the unobserved. ''
Did she abandon her heritage? Not really. Judaism is not a heritage but a religion. The culture of most European Jews is a mix of German and Slavic with minor qualities from Turkic and Hungarian. Their culture, or heritage, is not the same as that of the old Hebrews or even Semitic Jews that still exist in places like north-African (not really Israel as that is a nation of immigrants).
If you are sick of the ''I love Jesus 100% signature'', copy and paste this into your profile! -
cajayson8301 — 14 years ago(July 23, 2011 04:38 AM)
Judaism is not a heritage but a religion.
It's both.well technically the word JUDAISM itself represents the proper name of the religion. One who practices that faith is obviously deemed a Jew or is Jewish. There's also of course Jewish heritage with many Jews tracing their roots through ancestors originally hailing from Central and Eastern Europe (Ashkernazi Jew), among other places
Urology department. Can you please hold? -
ContinentalOp — 13 years ago(March 05, 2013 02:25 AM)
No, it is just a religion. Israeli and Zionist sponsored race theories do not stand a chance against even pure logic. You obviously acknowledge that the main ancestors (at least) of the Ashkenazi Jews are Eastern European and Central European. That is correct, they are mostly Slavs. But that doesn't mean they are a race as race doesn't exist and they are not really that distinct ethnically from Russians, Poles etc. They are more an identity, caste or class even, than an actual ethnic groups.
This does not mean that ''Jews'' should find kinship with eachother. They should after the Holocaust - which was caused by the idea that Jews were a race to begin with.
Haply I may remember,
And haply may forget. -
Catdubh — 18 years ago(September 27, 2007 03:40 AM)
Oh brother! And FYI, Steven is NOT "religious". Religious is Steven Hill, the actor who played Adam Schift, the DA, on Law and Order. He observes the Sabbath, to the mark! If you knew anything about the Jewish faith, I don't think you would have made such an ignorant statement. In the Jewish faith, children follow their mother's faith. That is why Steven may have wanted Kate to convert. So what is wrong with wanting your children to be raised in your own faith?
This same rule also applies to the Muslim faith, and until recently, in order to Baptize your child as a Catholic, BOTH (not just one) parents had to be Catholics, married in the Catholic Church.
You act as if Kate's conversion is unheard of or out of the ordinary. It is not, it is pretty much standard practice.
What, just for once in your life can't you be serious? -
repete66211 — 18 years ago(September 27, 2007 09:51 AM)
What is wrong with wanting your children following your own faith? Nothing really. What if kate wanted her children following her faith? I have no problem with conversion, I was question anyone who does so when getting married.
-
Catdubh — 18 years ago(September 27, 2007 03:57 PM)
What if kate wanted her children following her faith?
Pete, it is all VERY SIMPLE, if Kate wanted her children to follow HER faith, then she WOULD NOT HAVE CONVERTED to Judisim and would have married someone of her own FAITH! The point is, SHE did NOT want to raise her children in HER own faith and was NOT FORCED to convert.
You seem like a reasonable person
Cheers!
What, just for once in your life can't you be serious? -
repete66211 — 18 years ago(September 27, 2007 08:44 PM)
I understand what you are saying and I am not entirely disagreeing with you. In my original question I was wondering out loudin perhaps a provocative waywhether it were possible that Kate was coerced into conversion. It's a legitimate question. I have plenty of anecdotal evidence regarding coerced conversions to support a suspicion that perhaps the idea wasn't 100% her own. I think perhaps she was not coerced, but then one can never really know.
-
Catdubh — 18 years ago(September 27, 2007 10:47 PM)
whether it were possible that Kate was coerced into conversion. It's a legitimate question.
Fair enough. You're right, it is a legitimate question, with one exception, I would have formed the question with using the verb "Force" (forced). I see your point, I think what you said about being "Coerced" into converting, maybe a valid query. I am a big fan of Steven's and I'd like to think that he didn't engage in coercing anyone into an5b4ything. I am also old enough and wise enough to know even the nicest people are capable of "under-handed" behavior. We are all human, and humans do odd things when we really want our way (not necessarily wrong). Also, if she was coerced, perhaps from where Steven sat, it did not appear to be coercion, at all. A lot of it depends on interpretation and perspective.
What, just for once in your life can't you be serious? -
repete66211 — 18 years ago(September 28, 2007 06:26 AM)
Cat,
I agree with you here. I asked the question quite a while ago, shortly after a friend of mine
had
been coerced into converting to Judaism by a family that was pr111cactically secular. She was the third woman I know whom that happened to and I was a bit unhappy with the whole idea of converting in order to be married. (That goes with
any
religion.) The implicit statement seems to be that the converter's cultural or religious background is inferior. -
Catdubh — 18 years ago(September 28, 2007 07:44 AM)
The implicit statement seems to be that the converter's cultural or religious background is inferior.
True but if the one asking to convert were so attached to and identified with a said faith (and perhaps culture) then the issue would be mute. People that feel strongly about their faith do not typically get seriously involved with people outside of their own faith, who may be equally as attached to their own but different faith. I am not saying it doesn't happen but it is a recipe for a mess. Also, people who do strongly identify with their faith or are perhaps semi-religious (for lack of a better definition - I don't have one. LOL), may become involved with people who really are luke warm about their faith or don't identify with a particular faith, who may be willing to explore the possibilities of their significant other's (boyfriend's/girlfriend's) faith, as a prospective convert. (Gosh, I hope I am making sense!)
The requirement of conversion to one another's faith, when two people wish to marry is very common amongst many faiths. Realize too, it isn't the mate of the prospective convert who is necessarily requiring the conversion; it is the requirement of the religious institution of which their mate is a member.
I think your point touches something much deeper than the notion of religious conversion and whether it is simply a choice. I think your friend and acquaintances might have found themselves in what sounds like heart-wrenching predicaments. It sounds as if they may have fallen in love, become so involved in their respective relationships that when it came time to "will you marry me", there were strings attached. The strings may have been, "will you marry me and convert to my faith for me". It also sounds like these women were not prepared for the second part of the proposal, "will you5b4 convert to my faith for me". That's tough because that isn't what a lot of people expect to be asked when dating outside of their faith, if the differences didnt arise while they were dating. The issue could have been dealt with (the issue of asking someone to convert) before getting to "will you marry me". That is a lot easier to say than to do! When people are in love, some issues, which really are important, are reduced and minimized when one is not forced to face the issues. We like to think, "these things will not matter or work themselves out".
I would be curious to know what you heard or have read about Kate and Steven's courtship, which led up to her converting to Judaism. As you said, you had information which backs your thoughts that Kate was "coerced" (not forced, LOL!) into converting.
What, just for once in your life can't you be serious? -
repete66211 — 18 years ago(September 28, 2007 08:09 AM)
You're correct when you say that when a certain ceremony is selected it is the requirement of that particular religion that requires the bride and groom to be of said religion, and not necessarily that of the future spouse or his/her family. You're also correct when you say that when people of strong faith date the usually address the subject of conversion. However, this isn't a perfect world, so many times people do butt heads over issues like this. In the situation I mentioned earlier, the groom honestly didn't care. It was the groom's family that insisted on the conversion.
I have not read of Kate and Steve's courtship. I do not know the events that led to her conversion. I don't believe I ever said I have information supporting the idea that Kate was coereced into converting. I'm not sure where you got that. I have been merely speculating in that direction. I think what I was really doing was asking what everyone else thinks about her conversion as well as conversions in general. -
Raskel — 18 years ago(September 28, 2007 11:28 AM)
When you read this you might get some answers:
http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11s19s158&SecId=158&AId=46401&ATypeId=1
Me? I'm the eternal optimist. The glass is always half full on this end -
Catdubh — 18 years ago(September 28, 2007 02:12 PM)
Great article! I knew Steven had it rough, and felt out of place growing up in California and Arizona because of his heritage. I had suspected the experience(s) from his youth left some bruises. From the interview, it sounds as though the marks left were far wor5b4se than bruises; apparently, there were some deep wounds that have left scars. It appears that his painful experiences have obviously contributed to the strong re-connection he has appears to have made to his roots and faith.
Steven said one of the contributing factors (not the main one) that helped him re-connect with Judaism was the filming of Schindlers List. That is interesting; Steven Hill (of Law and Order) had a similar experience, relatively early in his career. In the 1960s, while playing Sigmund Freud, in the play "A Far Country" there was a scene in which a patient screamed at Freud, "You are a Jew!". The experience caused Hill to re-connect with his faith and re-evaluate his lifestyle. He has been adhering to his Jewish faith since, and practicing within the complete Orthodox laws of Judaism.
What, just for once in your life can't you be serious? -
repete66211 — 18 years ago(September 28, 2007 02:29 PM)
http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11s19s158&SecId=158&A Id=46401&ATypeId=1
That is an interesting interview. Funny what he says about his son with Amy Irving: "I simply would have compelled Max to be barmitzvahed." -
Catdubh — 18 years ago(September 28, 2007 01:20 PM)
have not read of Kate and Steve's courtship. I do not know the events that led to her conversion. I don't believe I ever said I have information supporting the idea that Kate was coereced into converting. I'm not sure where you got that.
from the following post, you made a day ago.
was wondering out loudin perhaps a provocative waywhether it were possible that Kate was coerced into conversion. It's a legitimate question.
I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to support my suspicion.
I am a bit confused. From your most recent reply, can I assume the
Anecdotal
evidence you possess, has nothing to do with Kate?
My bad.
What, just for once in your life can't you be serious? -
repete66211 — 18 years ago(September 28, 2007 02:13 PM)
Ah, you are right. I did say that, but I was speaking not of Kate but of my own personal experiences. (I typed that response on my phone.) I will correct my previous post. Thanks for pointing that out.