Daily Archives: June 28, 2023

Stanford professors William Barnett and Chris Field have one message to their students: Tackling the environmental crisis will require that each of us take on a leadership role, now.

Go to the web site to view the video.

Harry Gregory & Melissa De Witte

Stanford professors William Barnett and Chris Field have one message to their students: Tackling the environmental crisis will require that each of us take on a leadership role, now.

Some of those solutions from the small to the systemic were the topic of a course Barnett and Field taught in spring quarter as part of Civic, Liberal, and Global Education (COLLEGE) Stanfords newly restructured undergraduate requirement designed to deepen students critical and ethical understanding about society and the world. Their class, COLLEGE 106: Environmental Sustainability: Global Predicaments and Possible Solutions, was one of seven different courses COLLEGE students could choose from as part of the spring quarter theme, Global Perspectives.

The two professors brought to the class differing disciplinary insights: Barnett is a business school expert on organizational change, and Field is a leading climate scientist who has examined how the natural world is being impacted by climate change. Together, the pair aim to show students that sustainability requires a holistic approach.

The real key to solving important environmental problems is to take a system-wide view and to try and understand how cause and effect flows through all the different pieces, said Field, the Melvin and Joan Lane Professor of Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and the director of the Woods Institute for the Environment.

Nearly 150 Stanford frosh gathered each week to learn how to reduce and repair damage done to the environment. As the class emphasized, perspective matters; how one approaches environmental problems such as biodiversity loss, deforestation, resource depletion, and air pollution determines what the solutions are.

In addition to attending lectures, students also met weekly in small seminar sections led by COLLEGE teaching fellows that included Belinda Ramrez, who also worked closely with Barnett and Field to develop the syllabus, as well as Jennifer Daly, Caroline Daws, Mejgan Massoumi, and Sara Mrsny.

Some fellows took their students on special excursions for example, Ramrez invited students to an event she participated in about the Black Farmers Purchasing Program, a project led by Stanfords Residential & Dining Enterprises (RD&E) and the Stanford Food Institute to support Black businesses as part of their racial equity plan and sustainable food program.

Mrsny arranged a tour of The ODonohue Family Stanford Educational Farm where students learned first-hand from farm manager Patrick Archie about the important role of biodiversity in agriculture a practice that has largely been lost due to the rise of monocropping. Archie also shared the importance of the farm as a space for the community. He took students to a native plants garden he created for the Muwekma Ohlone people in the area for herbs, such as sage, that they use for religious practice.

Students were asked to consider environmental challenges and solutions from three lenses: the technical, the behavioral, and the normative. The technical lens solves problems through science and engineering. The behavioral lens tries to understand why people and institutions act the way they do and inspire change through action, while the normative lens considers the ethics surrounding these decisions and desired results.

Whenever you think about issues of environmental sustainability, it can be understood as an ethical dilemma, a behavioral challenge, and a technical problem to be solved, explained Barnett, the Thomas M. Siebel Professor of Business Leadership, Strategy, and Organizations at the Graduate School of Business and a professor at the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability (SDSS). Youre always moving between those three lenses.

For example, take mass extinction and biodiversity loss, which was a topic students examined for one week.

In their lecture that week, Field talked about some of the technical solutions to the problem, including building gene and seed banks that serve as biorepositories of genetic material of animals, plants, and wildlife. A behavioral approach considers concrete efforts to stop and reverse loss. An example came from a target set at COP15, the United Nations biodiversity conference in 2022 to protect 30% of the planet and 30% of degraded ecosystems by 2030. The normative perspective considers the moral duties to protect habitat and the responsibility we all bear to be good environmental stewards.

But, as the students discussed, each solution has its own hurdles including the ethical. They spent time in small groups discussing the different reasons why these solutions were a good or bad idea.

One theme to emerge was how protection efforts ought to be implemented particularly who shoulders the burden of these efforts. As one student asked, what would protection efforts mean to indigenous people, who have historically been disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change? If the land they live on is turned into a conservation zone, would they be forced to move away or lose their livelihood?

How then, can society solve a problem without causing new ones?

Questions like these emerged throughout the course.

Owen Jung, a Stanford first-year who took the course this past spring, was troubled to learn about the inequities that have emerged from depleting and degrading the environment, particularly the short-term gains made by a few that have come at the long-term detriment of many. One reading from class that stayed with him was Garret Hardins seminal 1968 essay Tragedy of Commons, a term economists now use to describe the collective cost of individual behavior.

This whole environmental crisis is a tragedy of the commons situation everybody suffers just a little bit, Jung said.

For Jung, the problem of the climate crisis feels inescapable, but not insolvable, if acted upon now.

Its an all-hands-on-deck situation, because everyone is being touched by climate change, and everyone needs to do all they can to stop it, Jung said.

Stefaniya Zozulya, who took the class with Jung this past quarter, also came away from the experience with a sense or urgency for collective action. For Zozulya, Barnett and Fields class built on issues she examined in her winter quarter COLLEGE class, Citizenship in the 21st Century.

The citizenship class really tied into this course because we are looking at systems of people and how they work together, Zozulya said.

For Zozulya, living sustainability means taking into account the needs of the entire population.

Systemic change means making sure that everybody is included in the solutions not the aggregate or the average, but every group, including the most vulnerable, Zozulya said.

The course inspired first-year student Katelyn Kramer to give back to nature.

Frosh tackled some big questions about the ideals of citizenship and democracy for their second course in COLLEGE, Stanfords newly restructured undergraduate requirement program.

Stanfords newly restructured undergraduate requirement program encourages students to think critically across disciplines, reflect on their values, and consider how their education can lead them to purposeful lives.

The thing that Ive taken most out of this class is that people are meant to evolve with nature, but in American society, whats most common is evolving away from nature by building things, like cities, that are very separate from nature and disconnected, Kramer said.

Kramer said she particularly enjoyed reading excerpts of Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and the Teachings of Plants, botanist Robin Wall Kimmerers book that delves into indigenous knowledge of plants to inspire readers to reconnect with the world around them.

The class has made Kramer take a critical look at the full environmental consequences of human behavior and action.

You can never actually throw anything away, Kramer said. Nothing is ever actually gone. Its always here, its just in a different place, so thats very interesting to learn about.

One thing Kramer said she plans to act on immediately is helping raise awareness about effects like this with her friends and family back home, and to remain mindful of them moving forward in her own life and career.

I definitely want to make efforts to help future generations and be able to keep our planet healthy and able to sustain life, Kramer said.

For Barnett, seeing sustainable solutions emerge is what keeps him optimistic about the future.

For every problem you name, there are dozens, sometimes hundreds, often thousands, of innovators trying to help us cope with those problems, Barnett said. This new generation will be known as the greatest generation. I know they said that about my parents generation, but it will be the generation to come because they will be building sustainability into everything that they do.

Barnett is also a senior fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment.

Field is also the Perry L. McCarty Director of the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment, a professor of Earth system science and of biology, and a senior fellow at the Precourt Institute for Energy.

This course also satisfies either the Ethical Reasoning (ER) or Social Inquiry (SI) Way in the Ways of Thinking, Ways of Doing breadth requirement.

View post:

How to tackle the worlds biggest sustainability challenges - Stanford University News

The broken windows theoryfrom the 1980s promoted the idea that visible signs of crime and civil disorder lead to more serious crimes.The theory promotes the idea that the police should target quality-of-life crimes such as vandalism, broken windows, public drinking and drug taking, public urination, and loitering.

The theory is called broken windows, as one of its tenets is that a single unrepaired broken window in a home, store or building clearly signals that no one cares, and so more windows will be broken, and other, more serious crimes will follow, bringing the neighborhood and eventually the city down.

The broken windows theory was written in 1982 by social scientists James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling and put into practice in the 1990s by New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and New York City police commissioner William Bratton.

Although the broken windows theory has its proponents and detractors then and now, there can be no debate that Mayor Giuliani and his police commissioner cleaned up New York City. Im sure many New Yorkers would like to see a return to those good old days.

READ MORE Paul Davis: The reality of convicted leaker Reality Winner

Today in Philadelphia, we see a new take on the broken windows theory, and that is the broken windows of parked cars after thieves have broken it and stolen the car owners valuables.

A few years back, someone broke into my parked car on our South Philly street overnight. The thief or thieves took some items my wife planned to return to a store. I called the police and a police officer showed up to take a report. I told the officer there were several cameras on the block that could identify the thief or thieves.

But for such a minor crime, the officer said, shaking his head, no detective would be assigned to investigate it.

Minor crime to you, perhaps. But not to me or to the many victims of theft from auto, more commonly known as car break-ins.

Several local TV news stations have recently interviewed on camera a good number of irritated residents in various neighborhoods that have seen a spike in car break-ins.

Matt Petrillo at CBS News interviewed several angry victims on camera. He noted that during the weekend of June 17, there were 100 reported car break-ins citywide, and according to the Philadelphia Police, there have been 5,949 car break-ins thus far this year.

I recently spoke to a veteran Philadelphia detective who said car break-ins were preventable.

Car break-ins, or smash and grabs, are crimes of opportunity, the detective told me. Many victims leave valuables in their parked cars, such as shopping bags, a briefcase, a cell phone or a laptop, and that creates an opportunity for a thief. If you must leave something in your car, hide it under the seat or under a blanket. Keep it out of plain sight.

[L]ock your car doors, activate your car alarm, and dont leave valuables in your car, not even in your trunk

The detective explained that thieves go out looking for opportunities to steal, so if they see something in a parked car, they will smash a car window to grab the item. The thieves move quickly, grabbing the item or items, and then run far away from the parked car. The detective added that when parking your car in a parking lot, ensure the lot has an attendant and the parking lot is well lit.

The detective admitted sadly that the police dont generally investigate car break-ins due to higher priorities and a shrinking police force, and the district attorneys office rarely prosecutes the thieves. So not only is the car owner out of whatever was stolen and stuck with repairing the broken window, the thief continues to operate unencumbered.

In my view, the police and the district attorneys office should crack down on this so-called minor crime, which is a quality-of-life crime that can, according to the broken window theory, lead to more serious crime, such as car theft and burglaries.

A task force of detectives should be assigned to scan home security cameras to identify the thieves who break into cars, and then go out and arrest the thieves. And the district attorneys office should prosecute them as vigorously as they can. Although the thieves will not be put in prison for long stretches, at least they will know that the city residents truly care about their cars being broken into, and that law enforcement will track them down and arrest them.

Most thieves are stupid and lazy, and drunk or high, the detective explained. So city residents should take commonsense crime prevention measures such as lock your car doors, activate your car alarm, and dont leave valuables in your car, not even in your trunk.

Paul Davis, a Philadelphia writer and frequent contributor toBroad + Liberty, also contributes toCounterterrorismmagazine and writes the On Crime column for theWashington Times.

Excerpt from:

Paul Davis: Car break-ins and another take on broken window theory - Broad + Liberty

None of the speakers I heard or attendees I met at the Re-Charging Reform Judaism conference, held at Manhattans Stephen Wise Free Synagogue on May 31 and June 1, referred to themselves as dissidents, and at no point did anyone claim to be part of an internal opposition bloc within what is still the largest American Jewish denomination. In a question-and-answer session after what was officially billed as a response to the conference, Rabbi Rick Jacobs, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, likened the more critical segments of the event to a dvar acherthe smaller and perhaps incidental other thing, as opposed to the larger and more officious main thing that Jacobs leads. The two-day event concluded with the critics and the criticized joining together in an acoustic guitar-led group singalong of the Debbie Friedman Shehechiyanu, which is about the most Reform Jewish thing one can possibly imagine.

Nearly all of the over 200 attendees were people professionally committed to the mission of the Reform movement, and to its belief that Judaisms unique practices and metaphysical claims can surviveand can perhaps only survivewithin the embrace of liberal modernity. But many of those on hand, who included major congregational rabbis and professors from the movements Hebrew Union College, were there because they now found it impossible to avoid a Jewish version of one of liberalisms great paradoxes: There is a tension between specific objectives and broad-minded principles, and unchecked tolerance can pose a danger to ones core beliefs.

In his keynote address, Ammiel Hirsch, Stephen Wises senior rabbi, laid out the rationale for the two-day event. Hirsch is a former IDF tank commander, a youthfully energetic, middle-aged pulpit savant who laces his speeches with emphatic pauses and dramatically shifting cadences. Reform Judaism is getting smaller, he warned: [O]ur institutions seem to be contracting, not expanding. Internal divisions are becoming harder to ignore. Sooner or later we will have to attend to the growing fissures in the Reform movement itself. We cannot pretend they do not exist for the sake of a false sense of unity, he said. As for the movements relationship with Israel, Hirsch said, I worrydeeplythat increasing numbers of liberal young adults, including those entering Reform leadership, express indifference to Israelor worse, opposition not to the policies of Israeli governments, but to the very legitimacy of the Zionist enterprise and the Jewish state. To turn against Israel, to join our ideological opponents and political enemies in castigating Zionism, is a sign of Jewish illness. The speech drew a standing ovation from almost everyone in Stephen Wises sanctuary.

Hirsch could have limited the scope of his speech, and of the conference he organized, to such immediate topics as the movements fraught relationship with Zionism, its perceived overemphasis on a sharply partisan tikkun olam social justice theology, and its apparently growing unease with the idea that Jews are a distinct national unit with a particular purpose and destiny. All of these topics were discussed at the conference, but in his address, Hirsch broadened his critique even further, declaring that the movement is now snared in the liberal paradox of self-destructive openness.

Hirsch argued that Reforms egalitarian vision has the potential to alienate the movements followers from the things they are supposed to care about the most. There is something innate in the philosophy of Western Jewish liberalism that inclines us to elevate universal aspirations, not as complementary to, or a reflection of, Jewish peoplehood, but as its replacement, he told the conference.

The rabbi reminded his audience that their movement had, at the more assimilationist and anti-Zionist points in its history, threatened to lapse into the kind of Christianized pseudo-Judaism that its more traditional-minded critics still accuse it of practicing. Judaism absent Jewish peoplehood is not Judaism; it is something else, said Hirsch. Whenever Jews abandoned their ideologicalor practicalcommitment to Am Yisrael, they eventually drifted away. This was precisely the accusation leveled by Abba Hillel Silver toward his anti-Zionist colleagues in the prewar years. By continuing to insist that the Jews are no longer a nation, but a religious community, Silver contended that Reform rabbis were reconstituting Pauls insistence upon a religious creed entirely divorced from nation and land. Hirschs reference was meant to make listeners ponder whether their own Reform colleagues are the present-day version of Silvers incipient Paulitesas well as whether the speaker is a modern-day Silver, sounding the alarm.

For Hirsch, to be a conscientious Reform Jew means to be like Silver, on guard against the self-sabotaging temptations of the movements own central ideas. The question that the conference posed, but didnt quite answer, is what that vigilance should consist of in our own present day, and how far the movement should be willing to go to protect what it claims to value.

Like many American Jewish gatherings, the Re-Charge conference largely consisted of older people commenting on the mentality of the young. Ive never experienced these kids as apathetic, said Rabbi Matthew Gerwitz of the youthful anti-Israel Reform Jews hes encountered in his rabbinic work at Manhattans Bnai Jeshurun, during his speech on the conferences first day. They wanted answers that squared with the Jewish education that we gave them.

It was a 36-year-old rabbi, seemingly the youngest of the first days speakers, who most vividly laid out the movements issues. Rabbi Tarlan Rabizadeh said that as a director of student life at UCLAs Hillel, students were often in my office in tears weekly, sometimes daily. Campus antisemitism had activated their Jewish identities, but they didnt have the educational or spiritual grounding to settle their own rattled psyches, much less advocate for themselves as Jews.

Rabizadeh explained that the students confusion was downstream of even deeper failures in the movement, ones she had seen up close as a rabbinical student. She implied that the Reform movement had bred unseriousness and equivocation even into its future rabbis. Rabizadeh said she was rebuffed when she attempted to display an Israeli flag in the Hebrew Union College bet midrash during an uptick of violence in the country. (She added that her friends in the Persian Jewish community, which unlike many other subsets of American Judaism has had to flee a hostile theocracy within living memory, were shocked that the room in which she prayed and studied didnt already have an Israeli flag in it.)

Rabizadeh spoke movingly about being in Jerusalem during the death of her grandfather back in the U.S., thousands of miles away. Go to the Kotel, her mother instructed when he shared her disappointment at not being able to attend his funeral. Hes probably there already. At Judaisms most-visited holy site, Rabizadeh saw a woman explaining to her young daughter that they were in a special place, where you could pray for absolutely anything. Rabizadeh said she later told her rabbinical school classmates about this powerful convergence of self, place, and peoplehoodwhich, not incidentally, could only have happened in an Israel under Jewish political control. But: When I shared that story at HUC, I got snickered at.

After the first day of the conference wrapped up, I joined Hirsch in his office, a couple floors above the Stephen Wise sanctuary. Leaning against a wall-length bookshelf was a poster-board blowup of an article in the Jan. 26, 1898, issue of Harpers Weekly about the Second Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland. In the accompanying photo, Theodor Herzl speaks from the rostrum to a room full of half-delusional Jewish utopians, a dvar acher that would come to be a defining event in Jewish history. Rabbi Stephen Wise, namesake of Hirschs synagogue and a fierce internal critic of the Reform movements anti-Zionist mainstream in the early 20th century, is seated on the dais almost directly behind Herzl.

The Reform movements contraction is sometimes touted as proof that liberal religion is oxymoronic, and that it simply isnt tenable or satisfying or theologically consistent to warp something as awesome and limitless as God or the Jewish people within the contours of our own modern prejudices. But the image of Stephen Wise, a few feet behind the founder of modern Zionism, undermines the traditionalist fantasy that the Reform movement is somehow easily dispensed with. The image should complicate the outlook of those who cheer the decline of the movement, which is accused of being a force for assimilation and whose failure would supposedly prove that the American Jewish future lies outside the broader societys liberal mainstream. The Reform movement isnt a deviation from some fictive strain of pure Judaism: Its history places it in the center of nearly every major Jewish debate and event since the mid-19th century, and in the modern day it is responsible for engaging some large number of people who would otherwise have no strong connection to their identity. The 2020 Pew Survey of American Jewry found that nearly half of the children of only one Jewish parent between the ages of 18 and 49 identify as Jews, while three-quarters of those raised as Jews of no religion remain Jewish today. These numbers would be far lower, and the concepts behind them less plausible, without the Reform movement, whose compromises are ones that most American Jews have already made whether they consciously realize it or not.

How much compromise is too much, though? Once such pillars of the religion as kashrut, Shabbat observance, and the traditional liturgy have been jettisoned as a matter of principle, rather than merely out of expedience, basic communal and intellectual coherence requires that some limiting principle be applied. Reform Judaism has to be more than a justification for not believing in much of anything, just as it cant be a subset of belief in a secular political agenda. In his presentation on the conferences second day, Rabbi David Woznica of the Stephen Wise Temple in Los Angeles noted that the movements advocacy arm now officially supports reparations for slavery in California. The movement needs to do a better job of distinguishing its social and political goals from those of the Democratic Party, he said: If that becomes the moral compass, then let the party decide what our Judaism will be, Woznica slyly suggested. If Jews are going to hear the same thing in their synagogue as they would on MSNBC, why would they go? And they arent going.

In his office, Hirsch hinted that the movements most successful innovations, which are based on the idea that Jews can govern their own religious life while still being authentically Jewish, can only endure as long as there are areas where the movement refuses to compromise. Theres a certain school of Western liberalism that values universalism above everything else, Hirsch said. Total universalism is a tempting dead end for any liberal-minded movement. A central objective of this conference is to set out ideological demarcation lines, explained Hirsch. If were a Zionist movement, dont we have an obligation to ordain Zionist rabbis? If we all agree on Zionism as a core principle, Hirsch continued, what are the steps we take to enshrine these values in the movement and future leaders of our movement?

One of the major questions going into the conference was whether Hirschs well-known dismay at the Reform movements supposed internal division and drift was meant to forestall some future crisis, or whether it is a reaction to a current crisis that only a senior movement figure like him is in a position to see. The conference ended with responses from Jacobs; Rabbi Hara Person, the chief executive of the Central Conference of American Rabbis; and Andrew Rehfeld, president of Hebrew Union College. Jacobs and Rehfelds speeches indicated that Hirsch may not be overstating the urgency of the situation: The current leaders of the movement would draw very different demarcation lines than Hirsch would, and their basic priorities and overall view of the movement differ sharply from his.

Jacobs appeared on the Stephen Wise bimah in a sharp blazer and no necktie, the lithe and confident leader of a large national organization. He apparently disagreed that the movement had been sucked into divisive political agendas, and proudly announced that Reform had implemented diversity, equity, and inclusion training among its staff so that we can more effectively lead our diverse movement. After all, Jacobs continued, inclusion is a moral Jewish obligation, while it is impossible to detach tikkun olam from real Judaism given that the movements commitment to justice is theological. Jacobs added a condition to the usual liberal formulation for support for Israel, a country about which he had almost nothing positive to say in his speech: Reform now believed in a secure, Jewish, just and democratic state, implying that the place might no longer be worth supporting if its democratic will proved to be unjust by the movements standards. The one apparent bright spot amid Israels intolerance and extremism was the Reform movement itself, which had organized in opposition to the right-wing governments judicial reforms and challenged the chief rabbinate on its inequitable treatment of non-Orthodox communities. Jacobs received polite applause, but no standing ovation.

It was the deep-voiced and professorial Rehfeld, sounding less like a corporate spokesperson than a principled defender of his own nonnegotiable set of ideas, who drew the most direct contrast with Hirsch. He embraced the movements role as an antagonist to the traditionalist end of the Jewish spectrum, condemning Yeshiva Universitys medieval restrictions on gay and lesbian student organizations, and suggesting a new catchall phrase for the Haredi and even yeshivish stands of Judaism: We have communities that are practicing Jewish fundamentalism, he declared. Lets name it for what it is. Rehfeld said that he found a 2021 open letter harshly critical of Israel that was signed by a significant number of HUC rabbinical students during the height of the early 2021 rocket bombardment from Gaza to be profoundly offensive and insensitive. Still, he believed that a litmus test for aspiring Reform rabbis would amount to Jewish McCarthyism. A lot of things Ive heard here frankly leave me troubled, Rehfeld continued. The idea we should refuse admissions or ordination because of political activism is abhorrent to me. He acknowledged there should be unspecified certain boundaries. Still, he said, whats being suggested is about assuaging our discomfort about a new generation.

Unlike Jacobs, Rehfeld received a standing ovation from seemingly half the audience, meaning that there are people who rose for both Hirsch and for his critic. The next phase of debate over the movements future seems likely to unfold at HUC, around the issue of what Reform professionals should be expected to believe about Zionism. But even the dvar acher, the nondissidents who are nevertheless concerned about the movements future, have yet to determine their own willingness to spark a painful self-reckoning within the already fraying institution theyve dedicated their lives to.

See more here:

Dissent in the Reform Ranks - Tablet Magazine

JOSHUA SHANES College of Charleston Published: June 26, 2023

(THE CONVERSATION) As a scholar of modern Jewish history, religion and politics, I am often asked to explain the differences between Judaism's major denominations. Here is a very brief overview: Rabbinic roots Two thousand years ago, Jews were divided between competing sects all based on the Jewish scriptures, but with different interpretations. After the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem Temple in 70 C.E., one main group, who called themselves "rabbis" sages or teachers began to dominate. What we now know as "Judaism" grew out of this group, technically called "Rabbinic Judaism." Rabbinic Judaism believed that God gave Jewish teachings and scriptures to Moses at Mt. Sinai, but that they came in two parts: the "written law" or "written Torah" and the "oral law" or "oral Torah." The oral Torah is a vast body of interpretations that expands upon the written Torah and is the source for most of the rules and theology of Rabbinic Judaism. Fearful that these traditions might be lost, the early rabbis began the process of writing them down, culminating in two texts called the Mishna and the Talmud. This corpus became the foundation of rabbinic literature. The rabbis assured the Jews that although the temple's destruction was devastating, Jews could continue to serve God through study, prayer and observing God's commandments, called "mitzvot." Someday, they promised, God would send the Messiah, a descendant of King David who would rebuild the temple and return the exiled Jews to the land of Israel. Historic turning point There were tensions in Rabbinic Judaism from the outset. For example, starting in the Middle Ages, a Jewish group called the Karaites challenged the rabbis' authority by rejecting the oral Torah. Even within the rabbinic tradition, there were regular disagreements: between mysticsand rationalists, for example; debates over people claiming to be the messiah; and differences in customs between regions, from medieval Spain to Poland to Yemen. Still, Rabbinic Judaism remained a more or less united religious community for some 1,500 years until the 19th century. Around that time, Jews began to experience emancipation in many parts of Europe, acquiring equal citizenship where they had previously constituted a separate, legal community. Meanwhile, thousands eventually millions of Jews moved to the United States, which likewise offered equal citizenship. These freedoms brought opportunity, but also new challenges. Traditionally, Judaism was based on Jewish autonomy communities governed by rabbinic law and taking the truth of its beliefs for granted. Political emancipation challenged the first, while Enlightenment ideas challenged the second. Jews were now free to choose what to believe and how to practice Judaism, if at all, at a time when they were experiencing widespread exposure to competing ideas. Three major groups Competing Jewish denominations emerged, each one attempting to negotiate the relationship between Jewishness and modernity in its own way. Each group claimed that they followed the best or most authentic traditions of Judaism. The first modern denomination to organize was Reform first in Germany in the early 19th century, but soon in America as well. Reform Judaism is based on the idea that both the Bible and the laws of the oral Torah are divinely inspired, but humanly constructed, meaning they should be adapted based on contemporary moral ideals. Reform congregations tend to emphasize prophetic themes such as social justice more than Talmudic law, though in recent years many have reclaimed some rituals, such as Hebrew liturgy and stricter observance of Shabbat. Orthodox Judaism soon organized in reaction to Reform, rallying to defend the strict observance of Jewish customs and law. Orthodox leaders often blurred the distinction between these categories and put particular emphasis on the 16th-century legal code called the Shulchan Aruch. Orthodoxy insists that both the written and oral Torah have divine origins. Contrary views in pre-modern sources are often censored. Conservative Judaism, which did not arrive in the U.S. until the mid-1900s, shares many of Reform Judaism's views, such as equal religious roles for men and women. However, Conservative Jews argue that the Reform movement pulled too far away from Jewish tradition. They insist that Jewish law remains obligatory, but that the Orthodox interpretation is too rigid. In practice, most Conservative Jews tend not to be strict about even major rituals, like observing Sabbath restrictions or kosher food practices. There are also smaller but still influential Jewish movements. For example, Reconstructionism, created by Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan in the 1930s and 1940s, emphasizes community over ritual obligations. And the Jewish Renewal movement, born out of the late 1960s counterculture, seeks to incorporate insights from Jewish mysticism with an egalitarian perspective, and without necessarily following the minutiae of Jewish law. Finally, what makes Jewish identities even more complex is that for many Jewish people, being "Jewish" is more of a cultural or ethnic identity than a religious one. Over a quarter of Americans who describe themselves as Jewish say they do not identify with the Jewish religion at all, though Jewish culture or their family's Jewish background may be very important to them. From Orthodox to ultra-Orthodox Of all the Jewish denominations, the Orthodox groups are perhaps most misunderstood. They all share a commitment to Jewish law especially regarding gender roles and sexuality, food consumption and Sabbath restrictions but there are many divisions, generally categorized on a spectrum from "modern" to "ultra" Orthodox. Modern Orthodoxy celebrates secular education and integration into the modern world, yet insists on a relatively strict approach to ritual observance and traditional tenets of belief. They also tend to see Zionism the modern movement calling for Jewish national rights, today connected to support for Israel as part of their religious worldview, rather than just a political belief. The ultra-Orthodox, on the other hand sometimes called "Haredim" or Haredi Jews advocate segregation from the outside world. Many continue to speak Yiddish, the traditional language of Jews in Eastern Europe, or to dress as traditional Jews did in Europe before the Holocaust. This is especially true of Hasidic Jews, who make up about half of the ultra-Orthodox population worldwide. Hasidism is a mystical movement born in 18th-century Ukraine, but today mostly concentrated in New York and Israel. Hasidic Jews are known for being particularly strict about shunning secular culture and education, but they remain also a mystical movement focused on God's close presence. They are divided into subgroups named after cities in Eastern Europe, and they follow leaders known as "Rebbes," who wield enormous power in their communities. Haredim are particularly committed to gender segregation, separating men and women beyond what previous Jewish traditions called for, and tend toward the strictest interpretation of Jewish law, even when traditional understanding of a rule has been more lenient. Whether modern or Haredi, Orthodox Judaism sees itself as "traditional." However, it is more accurate to say it is "traditionalist." By this I mean that Orthodoxy is attempting to recreate a pre-modern religion in a modern era. Not only has Orthodox Judaism innovated many rituals and teachings, but people today have greater awareness that other types of life are available creating a firm break with the traditional world Orthodoxy claims to perpetuate. Becoming a nation Jewish groups are often described as "Zionist." What is Zionism, and where does it fit in to all these terms? The first Zionists were mostly secular Jews from Eastern Europe. Inspired by nationalist movements around them, they claimed that Jews constituted a modern nation, rather than just a religion. Traditions and prayers connected to the land often reinterpreted through a secular, nationalist lens became all-important for Zionists, while many other rituals and traditions were abandoned. Most Jews opposed Zionism for decades. Reform Jews and even some early Orthodox Jews worried that defining Jews as a "nation" would undermine their claim to equal citizenship in other countries. Orthodox Jews, meanwhile, opposed Zionists' staunch secularism and emphasized that Jews must wait for the Messiah to lead them back to the land of Israel. Within a decade or two of Israel's establishment as a modern state, however, most Jewish denominations integrated Zionism into their worldview. Still, most ultra-Orthodox Jews today continue to oppose Zionist ideology, even as they hold right-wing political views on Israel. Young liberal Jews, too, are increasingly emphasizing the distinction between Zionism and their own Jewish identity. Today, most U.S. Jews are either unaffiliated with any particular denomination or Reform. However, the percentage of Jews who are Orthodox especially ultra-Orthodox, whose members tend to have very large families is growing rapidly. Almost 10% of American Jews and nearly 25% of Israeli Jews are Orthodox today, although attrition from these communities is also rising. This trend may continue, or that sector may see mass defections, as it did a century ago. Either way, Orthodoxy is going to continue to play a very important role in Jewish life for many years to come. The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts. The Conversation is wholly responsible for the content.

[Back]

Link:

The Akron Legal News - Akron Legal News

The USS Ronald Reagan sailed into Vietnam this week, only the third visit by an American aircraft carrier since the Vietnam war ended in 1975. The visit marks the growing strength of the Vietnam-US security partnership as China continues to assert its sovereignty in the South China Sea at Vietnams expense.

However, it would be a mistake to look at Vietnam-US relations without taking into account developments in Vietnam-China relations. On the day the Ronald Reagan arrived, Vietnams Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh visited China for the first time during his term. Chinhs visit was another example of Vietnams balancing act between the two great powers. Twin anniversaries this year underscore this effort Vietnam this year celebrates ten years since the establishment of a Comprehensive Partnership with the United States, as well as 15 years since its Comprehensive Strategic Partnership of Cooperation with China.

As a relatively small country, Vietnam lacks agency when it comes to managing relations with the great powers, especially China. And Chinas actions also have consequences for Vietnam in its relations with the United States. In a recent journal article inJournal of Contemporary China, I detailed how China has leveraged its military and economic power as well as its political ideology to drive a wedge into the Vietnam-US partnership.

The United States should recognise that Vietnam cares as much about its internal security as its external security.

My research shows that since 2013, China has adopted a dual-pronged approach to undermine Vietnam-US security cooperation. Most obviously, China has sought to coerce Vietnam in the realm of international security by issuing threats warning it not to cooperate with the United States against China. But China has also used political and economic cooperation with Vietnam in a bid to convince Hanoi the benefits of a good bilateral relationship and the dangers of a US-backed colour revolution to Vietnams internal security.

So far, China has succeeded in keeping Vietnam neutral and impeded the upgrade of the Vietnam-US relationship from a comprehensive to a strategic partnership despite Chinas assertive behaviour at sea and a relentless US push for an upgrade.

My findings have several implications for how the United States should manage its relations with Vietnam.

First, the United States should recognise that Vietnam cares as much about its internal security as its external security. There is no doubt that Chinas assertiveness has been the driving force of improvements in relations between Hanoi and Washington, but so long as Vietnam is sceptical about US intentions to meddle in its internal affairs, relations cannot move forward. Vietnamese state media repeatedly warned that the West should not exploit the growing relationship with Hanoi to incite political opposition against the government.

China understands Vietnams reservation and so has hyped up the ideological differences between Hanoi and Washington to keep the country from moving closer to the United States. The United States thus should eschew a democracy-versus-autocracy narrative to avoid alienating security partners that dont share its liberal ideology. Although the United States has shown it is willing to work with Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) officials so long as they support a rules-based order, respect for the CPVs authority is a must to improve Vietnam-US relations.

Second, the United States needs to make clear to Vietnam the extent of its commitment to the region. The tyranny of distance means that China can more credibly threaten to punish Vietnam than the United States can promise protection. When Russia invaded Ukraine last year, Chinas then foreign minister Wang Yi had a phone conversation with the Vietnamese counterpart Bui Thanh Son, warning Vietnam not to cooperate with the United States to oppose China and that both countries cant let the Cold War mentality resurge in the region and the tragedy of Ukraine be repeated.

China has also sought to deliberately exploit Vietnams uncertainty about the US promise to preserve a free and open South China Sea. Bitter experience along the 1400-kilometere China-Vietnam land border in the 1970s and 1980s is a reminder for Vietnam about the risks of moving closer to Washington. Only when Vietnam is confident that the United States is a reliable security option will it move closer to Washington to oppose Chinese coercion.

With talk of efforts to update the Vietnam-US partnership, the China factor will determine the extent of security cooperation both ways. China will keep driving a wedge to keep Vietnam and the United States apart, so a strategy to blunt this tactic is needed.

Continue reading here:

Chinas double wedge against efforts to foster Vietnam-US relations - The Interpreter