It would be interesting to see if these non-believing Jews have the same rationales as Gentile atheists. One also wonders if their hope for ethical courage will lead them to Nietzsche. What does it mean to be a Jewish human being if one rejects God?

Here's my rule of thumb: an American who has a Christmas tree is Christian. I'd bet that covers 90% of this group (and most of our friendly neighborhood atheists).

Am I missing something here? What is Judaism without an acknowledgement of God? Who or what is the point? Karl Marx? Sandy Koufax?

Tom:

Jerry Seinfeld, since it's a religion about nothing.

Here's my rule of thumb:

Christmas trees have nothing to do with Christ.

In other posts, I have read that human nature is immutable. Even an Evolutionists essentially believes that, since the rate of change is so close to zero as to be unobservable over recorded history.

Yet this post seems to conclude that it is mutable, that an observant Jew has a different nature from a secular Jew from a Gentile, etc.

Which is it?

Their natuures are the same--both are prone to evil. The believer recognizes that fact,, understands that to do evil violates God's direct commands, and is therefore constrained to some greater or lesser degree. The secularist denies God, denies evil, and denies the possibility of judgment, other than by the prevailing political systems.

Actually, after reading the entire article, the questions should be even sharper. Primarily, how can individual virtues such as justice, charity, and healing have any meaning apart from God? Without a transcendant standard, one man's murderous rage is just another man's healing.

Basically these are people with little interest in Judaism. That, of course, is their privilege, but why on earth are they anxious to call themselves Jews? They won't be recognized as such by practicing Jews and the only group that will attach any validity to their claim will be the anti-Semites.

"Actually, after reading the entire article, the questions should be even sharper. Primarily, how can individual virtues such as justice, charity, and healing have any meaning apart from God? Without a transcendant standard, one man's murderous rage is just another man's healing"

Justice, charity and healing are all HUMAN qualities that any HUMAN can recognize without any reference to a transcendent standard. Why exactly do you need a transcendent standard to know the difference between healing and murder? Do you need to consult the Bible to know which shoe to put on which foot? How can you know left from right without a transcendent standard?

Robert:

Witness Rwanda

Sorry if I hit a sore spot there, Jeff.

OJ
Don't you know that the transcendent standard has always supported the tribe in their wars against the barbarians next door?

David:

You didn't. I was just astonished to see you link one with the other. Based on my limited scriptural knowledge, they are no more related than chalk and cheese.

Robert:

Which suggests that those things you spoke of are not natural qualities, right?

Jeff -- I'm not sure what else to call people who celebrate Jesus' birth but Christian.

I assume, though, that you have no problem with Christmas trees paid for with tax dollars on public property.

This is a long way from news. About 130 years ago a group of secular Jews founded the Ethical Culture Society. SSDD, only they did not want to be ethnic either. If you don't live in the New York area, you probably have never heard of them.

"Secular Humanist" (Department of Redundancy Department) Judaism (Department of Oxymorons)will have the same type of following.

A few years ago a congregation of Secular Humanist Jews in Cincinnati (B'nai Adam, IIRC) applied for membership in the UAHC, the umbrela organization of Reformed Judaism in the US. They were rejected in an absolutley astounding display of spine by an organization that tries very hard never to take a position on anything.

The Rabinic Committee that considered the issue said:

"The Congregation . . . declares itself to be a group that makes the human being the measure of all things. This concept, with its roots in Greek philosophy, has been opposed by Judaism, which has always staunchly affirmed its belief in a supernatural God and Creator who sustains the world. Reform has never wavered in its adherence to this faith and has never abandoned the central role of prayer from its belief structure. Persons of various shadings of belief or unbelief, practice or non-practice, may belong to UAHC congregations as individuals, and we respect their rights. But it is different when they come as a congregation whose declared principles are at fundamental variance with the historic God-orientation of Reform Judaism."

David:

Christmas as a holiday has become so completely secularized as to bear scarcely any relationship to celebrating Christ's birth.

If I remember correctly, Christmas trees as a tradition date back to a pagan Germanic tradition.

Whether that is right or wrong, Christmas trees themselves are as secular a symbol as you could hope to find.

Therefore, I wouldn't equate Christmas trees with celebrating Christ's birth because, believe it or not, I prefer not to insult people's religious sensibilities.

You are right, people celebrating Christ's birth are Christian. But people who are celebrating a winter holiday without giving a thought to Christ's birth are coincident in time, but not in belief.

Therefore, I don't have any particular problem (aside from whether there are better uses for the money) with spending tax money on public displays of Christmas trees, although I'll bet there are some Christian groups who do, because they view it as promoting secular religion.

And they mey well have a point.

Jeff:

Now you're making progress. All you need to do is recognize that the ubiquity of the Christmas tree is no different than the ubiquity of Judeo-Christianity and that your moral beliefs are formed by it just as surely as your late December is shaped by forgotten religious ceremony.

And thus my point: the United States is a Christian nation with an ubiquitous Christian culture.

And, by the way Jeff, I find it very interesting that you said "Christ's birth" where I said "Jesus' birth".

OJ
What we call Christmas was a pagan winter solstice celebration that was co-opted by the Church to "christianize" it. So it is with so much else that we refer to as Christian, including our morality. Does Christmas demonstrate the ubiquity of Christianity, or does it demonstrate the ubiquity of European paganism in our culture? If you can celebrate Christmas without being Christian, then Christianity is not so essential an element to that holiday. Likewise, if we can act morally without being Christian, then Christianity is not the true source of our morality. Which was Jeff's point. Co-incidence is not causality.

Robert:

Rather you are a Judeo-Christian, you just don't happen to believe in God. That's what's meant by free-loading atheism. You're welcome.

What I have recognized is that the ubiquity of the Christmas tree is utterly distinct from Judeo-Christianity, so much so that it is lamentations about the absence of Christ from Christmas is a hardy perennial.

My moral beliefs are formed most significantly by a pervasive secular civic religion that had absolutely no counterpart prior to the Enlightenment. The genius of the founders was elucidating the universal desires of human nature. They wouldn't work if they weren't universal; if they are universal, they don't rely on any sect or supreme being for validation.

David:

I said Christ's birth on purpose, ironically. You equated the Christmas tree with Christianity, not I. The irony is the adjectival presence of the word Christ attached to a symbol whose roots are pagan.

The fact that religionists get to be part of whatever sect they choose and still die of old age is sectarian free loading.

Precious little thanks we secularists get, though.