Home  Principles & Statements  Positions of the ACJ  Articles  DonationsAbout Us  Contact Us  Links                                         

Growing Intolerance: The Real Threat to Judaism’s Future

Allan C. Brownfeld
Winter 1999

The organized Jewish community continues to speak in terms of a "crisis" of Jewish continuity. Its concern over "assimilation," intermarriage, and a dropping away from Jewish life on the part of large numbers of young people has produced something of a siege mentality. This mindset, it seems, holds that the freedom which Jews, and members of every other religious communion, have in America is a problem rather than an opportunity. Some, it seems, would like to rebuild ghetto walls lest large numbers of young people pursue their spiritual needs in the many directions which an open society provides.  

One strategy to keep young people within the Jewish community has been an effort not to deal in a positive way with their religious quest but, instead, to tie them ever more closely to the State of Israel.  

Thus, in November, a group of American Jewish philanthropists, led by Michael Steinhardt and Charles Bronfman, announced the creation of "Birthright Israel," a $300 million fund that will totally support first-time travel to Israel by Jews age 15 to 26. The New York Times (Nov. 16, 1998) described the plan as "an attempt to rebuild religious identity among Jews, who are marrying non-Jews and abandoning the faith in large numbers . . . The assumption behind Birthright Israel is that even a spring break spent in Israel can form a connection to Judaism for young people who have little or no affiliation with a synagogue or other Jewish institution."  

Israel A Substitute For God  

Ironically, Michael Steinhardt proclaims that he is an atheist and does not believe in Judaism as a religion. He admits that, for him, Israel has become a substitute for God as his object of worship: "Israel has frankly — through my life and for much of my life — been a substitute for theology. I have lived an important part of my Jewishness through associating with Israel rather than through adherence to religious law and substantial observance."  

Israelis, needless to say, are enthusiastic about this plan. The Jerusalem Post (Nov. 2, 1998) declares that, "The best possible investment in the future of Judaism is the implementation of the plan to grant every Jewish boy and girl an all-expense paid, three-week trip to Israel."  

Such a program seems to be committed to making young American Jews identify with Israel, rather than with God, with Judaism, or with Jewish religious tradition. It is, as a result, doomed to failure because it is responding to a "problem" which, in reality, does not exist. It is as if Presbyterians and Episcopalians, religious bodies which are also declining in membership, were to launch a campaign to keep young people involved by sending them for visits to Scotland or England, where these churches began. The trips might be pleasant undertakings, but would have little to do with the transmission of religious faith and values.  

A new study conducted by Professor Steven M. Cohen of the Hebrew University, "1997 Survey of American Jews," found that American Jews are experiencing declines in almost all forms of "ethnic identity," even as they seem to be maintaining levels of "religious identity."  

Changing Jewish Identity  

To examine how Jewish identity in the United States is changing, the analysis focuses on how younger adult Jews differ from their elders. The study assumes that the ways in which younger Jews differ from their elders today point to the ways in which American Jews of the future will differ from Jews of the present.  

The three religious measures were religious commitment, faith in God, and ritual observance. The eight Jewish ethnicity measures were Jewish peoplehood, tribalism, felt marginality, commitment to in-marriage, Israel attachment, Jewish friendship, institutional attachment, and social justice as a Jewish value.  

The findings indicate that younger Jews are just as religiously committed, God-oriented, and ritually observant as their elders. Yet younger Jews are less ethnically identified than their elders, pointing to a decline in Jewish ethnicity and attachment to Israel. Younger Jews are less supportive of in-marriage, are less attached to Israel, are less likely to have Jewish friends, and are less affiliated with Jewish institutions.  

The study "documents the ongoing Americanization of American Jewry," said Professor Charles Liebman of Bar-Ilan University in Israel. "Cohen’s analysis points to the extensive ways in which American Jews are re-defining their group identity in more religious terms. According to the study, only 20% of those surveyed think it is essential to support Israel.  

Transmitting Ethnicity  

The "Birthright Israel" program seems to be an effort to transmit not Judaism, the religion, but Jewish ethnicity. Appealing to young American Jews with a program of ethnic separatism rather than religious meaning is doomed to failure. Indeed, it is programs of this kind which are driving young people away. Seeking religion and spiritual values, they find a Jewish establishment which tells them that Israel is "central" to Jewish life, a view which has little relevance to their lives as Americans.  

Perhaps even more important as an element which alienates young people from organized Jewish life is the growing religious intolerance which is manifested in Jewish institutions, both in the U.S. and in Israel.  

In an all too typical incident in February, 1999, 100 Orthodox yeshiva students surrounded a group of American Reform rabbis who went to pray at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, booing loudly and hurling insults past officers from the border police. The youths screamed that the rabbis should "go back to Germany," to be exterminated.  

What the protestors found particularly provocative was that men and women were praying together, which the Orthodox do not allow. Rabbi Amiel Hirsch, executive director of the Association of Reform Zionists of America, said: "If a group of rabbis can’t go to the Wall, then who can? Who does it bother? Who considers it provocative? It’s only provocative if you succumb to the ultra-Orthodox worldview, which sees the Western Wall and all of Israel not as the heritage of the Jewish people, but as a giant ultra-Orthodox synagogue."  

Religious Attacks  

In recent days, attacks upon Reform and Conservative Judaism have mounted in Israel. In January, the Sephardic Chief Rabbi, Eliahu Bakshi-Doron, lashed out at the Reform movement, saying that by sanctioning assimilation, it had led to the loss of more Jews than the Holocaust.  

At a convention of North American Jews in Jerusalem in November, 1998, the head of the Jewish Agency, Avram Burg, declared that the American synagogue is the "symbol of destruction," and that the new center of Jewish life should be the state of Israel.  

Intolerance seems to be built into Israel’s institutionalized state-controlled religious life, in which Reform and Conservative rabbis are not permitted to perform weddings, funerals, conversions, or other religious functions. An example of the mindset of Israel’s religious leadership can be seen in the declaration by Jerusalem Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Kolitz attacking a conference which brought together Jewish and Christian religious leaders to discuss modern challenges. He said there is "no reason to hold discussions with non-Jewish clergy. The whole concept of inter-denominational dialogue is foreign to Judaism."  

Decrying a lack of religious freedom in Israel for non-Orthodox branches of Judaism, Rabbi Michael Marmur, dean of the Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion branch in Jerusalem declared: "In today’s Israel, Judaism is a registered trademark, and anyone making use of it is expected to pay royalties . . . The decision to treat liberal Jews as carriers of an infectious disease is designed to keep the required distance between the real thing and the imitation."  

Arrogance and Ignorance  

Rabbi Marmur notes that, "The argument of Reform and Conservative Jews with this kind of thinking is that it betrays arrogance and ignorance. The idea that a certain group holds the exclusive franchise on Judaism is insupportable . . . We cannot simply succumb to the notion that for Jews in Israel, there is only one game in town — monopoly. There are many indications that Israelis are searching for new ways to express themselves as Jews. As long as the state and local authorities distribute resources to meet religious needs, we have to press our claim for diversity and choice."  

Using the power of the state to embrace one particular form of religious expression, which American Jewish groups vigorously oppose in our own country, even to the extent of opposing voluntary nonsectarian prayer in public schools, has become a way of life in Israel. Criticizing Israel’s Ministry of Religious Affairs and its one-sided support for Orthodox Judaism, Rabbi Marmur states: "The gulf between money pumped into Jewish institutions and that set aside for Christian and Moslem causes is nothing short of a scandal. If there is to be a Ministry of Religious Affairs, it should promote more than just one version of one religion. If Judaism can only be advanced through inequality, something has gone terribly wrong. The value of accountability, accessibility, transparency and democracy need to be brought to bear in the corridors of our religious establishment..."  

While Jewish organizations properly fight anti-Semitism and other forms of intolerance in the larger society, they seem strangely silent about the intolerance whichis growing within the Jewish community.  

Intermarriage and Genocide  

Describing a visit to Israel, the Canadian Jewish writer Mordechai Richler, in his book This Year In Jerusalem, reports: ". . . unable to sleep, I read The Jerusalem Post in bed . . . The Post paid tribute to cartoonist Noah Mordechai Birzowski, who had just turned 75. A contributor since 1940 to The Palestine Post, as it then was, and other Israeli newspapers, Birzowski signed his name Noah Bee. One of the cartoons reproduced for the tribute was in two final frames with the headnote, ‘FINAL SOLUTIONS.’ The first frame showed Jews in striped concentration-camp uniforms, lining up to be consumed in a crematorium, smoke billowing out of its tall chimney. The second frame was a drawing of a couple being married in church, standing before a crucifix, with the footnote ‘intermarriage.’ I did not wake up Florence, my Protestant bride of 33 years, mother of our five children, to show it to her. However, it did occur to me that had Bee been a cartoonist for the Catholic Herald, and had he drawn a mixed marriage couple clasping hands before a Star of David and equated it with genocide, the B’nai B’rith Anti-Defamation League would have been on the case in a jiffy, accusing him of racism."  

Intolerance of this kind is widespread within the American Jewish community as well. "If you’re married to a gentile, you can forget about working as a rabbi, teacher or executive director in a synagogue or school of the Conservative movement — no matter how good a Jew you are," reports The Forward (Oct. 3, 1998).  

That is the policy handed down by the Conservative movement’s rabbinical authorities. The new policy states that congregations and Solomon Schechter Day Schools "should not engage or employ any individual who is intermarried for a position in which he/she may serve as a role model." The positions mentioned include "rabbis, cantors, educators, teachers of all age groups and subjects, youth workers and executive directors."  

When a Jew and a non-Jew marry, they should not expect a rabbi or cantor even to attend a civil ceremony, much less officiate at the wedding, a statement issued by the Leadership Council of Conservative Judaism declares. Beyond this, says the statement, intermarriages should not even be acknowledged publicly at a service or in a synagogue newsletter.  

Respect For Religious Differences  

By taking such a position, rabbinical bodies are flying in the face of the American tradition of tolerance and respect for religious differences and, in so doing, are alienating the very young people they are so desperate to keep within the Jewish fold.  

In his book Faith Or Fear: How Jews Can Survive In A Christian America, Elliot Abrams, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C., points out that intermarriage reflects an American ideal of "individual autonomy." He argues that, "The decision to put certain marriage partners off limits requires subordinating personal attraction and autonomy to other loyalties, usually to a racial or religious group and to a family’s preferences. This is not the spirit of the age. The idea that one should sacrifice one’s personal happiness to such old-fashioned considerations is a hard sell in America today . . . Religious differences are no longer a socially acceptable barrier to marriage, any more than ethnic, national or racial differences are. Americans, and especially American liberals, have understood that America is a country where individuals must be judged as marriage partners on their individual merits, not by their group membership. In fact, intermarriage ‘signifies the fulfillment of the Jew’s demand for acceptance as an individual — a demand he has been making since the Emancipation.’"  

Jonathan Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University, states that, "Where once . . . Jews and other Americans held congruent views on intermarriage, views strongly supportive of endogamy, Jews today are all alone in their views, separated from the pro-intermarriage mainstream by a large cultural chasm." To vigorously oppose intermarriage, he declares, is for Jews to set themselves against the mainstream of American life and to place separatism and particularism, group identity and group survival, above social integration, individualism and liberal ideals.  

Elliot Abrams asks: "How can the Jewish community fight intermarriage without seeming to reject marriages with fellow citizens on grounds that may seem illiberal, even sectarian . . . How can Jews define Judaism, in this day and age, not as a belief system each individual may embrace or reject but as a covenant imposing obligations in a single community — indeed a community of birth, not of choice?"  

Orthodox Intolerance  

Intolerance is just as strong among those who are self-professed Jews as it is between the organized Jewish community and those who marry non-Jews. Orthodox rabbis, both in the U.S. and in Israel, reject the legitimacy of conversions to Judaism performed by Reform and Conservative rabbis.  

In her book, Strangers To The Tribe, Gabrielle Glaser discusses her own conversion to Judaism: "For the first time in my life, I say prayers that make sense to me, and I have a religious community to which I feel I belong. But now some Jews, both here and in Israel, are telling me I don’t."  

She points to Israeli legislation which would make conversions performed in Israel by non-Orthodox rabbis invalid and the declaration by a group of Orthodox rabbis in the U.S. declaring that every stream of Judaism other than Orthodoxy "is not Judaism at all, but another religion."  

"In the eyes of these Orthodox, who believe only they uphold the standards of Jewish law," writes Glaser, "my conversion, performed by a Reform rabbi, is null and void. That will not affect the way I practice Judaism, but it’s left me feeling angry and excluded. And I’m not the only one: about 90 per cent of the affiliated Jews in America belong to the more liberal Reform, Reconstructionist or Conservative branches of Judaism."  

Jews By Choice  

Glaser declares: "Like many other converts, I’ve gone out of my way to make our household unambiguously Jewish . . . At a meeting the other day, the rabbi asked about Jewish writers we had grown up reading. Most of us had no answer: four out of the five were Jews by choice, as the parlance goes, and had come to the literature eagerly as adults, not automatically as children. ‘I wish all Jews had to convert,’ he said. He understands that we converted because we wanted to make a commitment to Judaism. And that the commitment of converts goes beyond that of born Jews . . . It is particularly painful to me that many Orthodox rabbis both here and Israel don’t understand that. Am I a ‘real’ Jew? Am I authentic? I think I know and suspect God does too."  

More and more the most extreme and intolerant voices in Jewish life seem to be gaining influence. Jack Wertheimer, provost and professor of American Jewish history at the Jewish Theological Seminary, reports that, "Out of 5.5 million Jews in the U.S., the total number of the Orthodox is in the range of 400,000. Yet their actual impact is far greater than that number suggests, and for a simple reason: they show high rates of participation in organized Jewish life."  

Religious fundamentalists and separatists, he writes in Commentary (Feb. 1999), have replaced the "modern Orthodox" who "sought to synthesize the best of Western learning and culture with Judaism . . . Under the banner of this ideology the vast majority of American Orthodox Jews could study at secular universities, enter professions, and partake of American culture to no less a degree than their non-Orthodox counterparts."  

New Type of Immigrant  

In recent years, however, all of this has changed. "In the decades bracketing World War II," writes Wertheimer, "a new type of immigrant began to arrive on American shores, as Jews who had never considered abandoning their traditional communities in Eastern and Central Europe and were now forced to uproot themselves . . . In contrast to previous Jewish immigrants, they invested their resources less in ornate synagogues than in a network of schools . . . Almost all Orthodox children attend such schools from their earliest years all the way through high school . . . The newcomers brought with them a much more aloof conception of the proper relationship between Orthodox Jews and their non-Orthodox co-religionists. This conception, too, had its roots in the late 19th century, when Central European traditionalists, concerned lest cooperative activity with religiously liberal Jews appear to tacitly acknowledge their legitimacy, ruled that all such activities were to be eschewed."  

Dr. Wertheimer shows that, "Applied to the American scene, the ‘separatist’ strategy had consequences on the level of both clergy and laity. By 1956, a halakhic opinion devised by immigrant authorities barred Orthodox rabbis from continuing to work in concert with their non-Orthodox counterparts on local boards of rabbis or national Jewish organizations . . . social and religious interaction with other Jews, hitherto a normal facet of life, virtually came to a halt . . . Orthodox rabbis who continue to assert the modern position can find themselves castigated these days in more venomous terms even than leaders of the non-Orthodox world. Not long ago, a haredi rabbi publicly pronounced the president of Yeshiva University, Rabbi Norman Lamm, ‘a hater of God’ for failing to subscribe to the separatist ideology. Rabbis who sanction prayer services for women have been vilified, and scholars, particularly in the Sephardi community, who espouse a somewhat more open-minded approach to the study of sacred texts have been muzzled."  

The Orthodox separatists have, Wertheimer points out, had an impact upon other branches of Judaism as well: "As if by magnetic attraction, both Conservative and, more startlingly, Reform Judaism have, to varying degrees, been drawn inward and ‘rightward’."  

Two Different Ideals  

Both in Israel and in the U.S. there are many voices rising to criticize the mounting intolerance of Jewish life, although they are sometimes difficult to hear above the charges and counter-charges of the combatants.  

Ruvik Rosenthal, the op-ed editor of the Israeli daily Ma’ariv, declares that, "Roughly one can sketch two ideals that are confronting each other. On the one hand, there’s the model of the modern Western, secular state, open and democratic in all respects, combining the best of the European culture and the European welfare state with the best of American democracy and the American media. The opposing model is a halakhic (Orthodox Jewish law) state. While the first model is clearly defined, based on modern concepts and examples, the other model is vague. Its supporters are half hidden. But you can see more and more signs that it is not just an eschatological dress. Religious Zionists speak of rebuilding the Temple, rather than building modern state institutions. The Sephardi ultra-Orthodox Shas movement has created a whole culture, and in many ways challenges the ethos of the modern secular state."  

It is now clear that the murder of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was the result of a carefully planned effort by Israel’s far-right religious extremists to bring an end to the Middle East peace process. The assassin, and his colleagues, operated on the basis of a religious decree declaring Mr. Rabin a mortal enemy of the Jewish people who must be killed.  

Professor Ehud Sprinzak of the Hebrew University states that, "These are true believers. They believe it was God, not so much the Israeli Army, but the hand of God that gave them back these lands in 1967. It was God sending a message that he was ready to redeem them. They have built a world of Torah, with Yeshivas, school, a religious lifestyle. Now this is committing a huge religious sin, a sin against God."  

Rabin Portrayed As A Nazi  

In the days before the assassination, opponents of the peace process portrayed Prime Minister Rabin as a "traitor." Posters were displayed at rallies showing him dressed as a Nazi SS trooper. Fifteen fundamentalist rabbis called on Israeli soldiers to refuse to obey orders connected with the evacuation of West Bank military installations.  

In a report which appeared one week before Rabin’s murder, The Jerusalem Report printed a story about calls for Rabin’s death by some on the religious right: "Yitzhak Rabin does not have long to live. The angels have their orders. Suffering and death await the prime minister, or so say the kabbalists who have cursed him with the pulsa denura — Aramaic for ‘lashes of fire’ for his ‘heretical’ policies. ‘He’s inciting against Judaism,’ says the Jerusalem rabbi who . . . read out the most terrifying of curses in the tradition of Jewish mysticism — opposite Rabin’s residence on the eve of Yom Kippur: ‘And on him, Yitzhak, son of Rosa, known as Rabin,’ the Aramaic text states, ‘we have permission . . . to demand from the angels of destruction that they take a sword to this wicked man . . . to kill him . . . for handing over the Land of Israel to our enemies, the sons of Ishmael.’"  

The intolerance of Israel’s religious fundamentalists has been growing for many years. Both the Israeli Government and leaders in the American Jewish community have repeatedly downplayed the dangers of such movements. Recalling a visit to Israel in 1980, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen writes: "Back in 1980, Rabbi Moshe Levenger, a major force in the Israel settlements movement, led me through the market at Hebron, wading through Arabs with a contempt and disdain that I found both repulsive and downright scary. Levenger acted as if God has ensured his safety; I, however, had not gotten such a message. Levenger is an important figure for a number of reasons. In the first place, the settlement he and his wife, Miriam, established in Hebron was clearly illegal. The government moved to protect it anyway, and ultimately, provided it with utilities. Second, Levenger was later convicted of killing an unarmed Arab in a burst of anger — and served no more than 10 weeks in jail. In other words, Levenger has been the personification of the Israeli Government’s refusal to come to grips with its extremists. Some politicians admire them; others merely want their votes."  

Religious War  

Israel is now sharply divided in what many have called a religious war, something which is alien to American Jews who live in a free society in which government has no role in religious matters and in which religious belief is a matter of individual choice and all forms of religious practice are protected by the First Amendment.  

On February 14, 1999, about 250,000 ultra-Orthodox protestors gathered for a rally in Jerusalem to protest the Israeli Supreme Court’s efforts to expand religious freedom, what they referred to as "anti-religious tyranny." It was, in effect, a rally in behalf of theocracy and state-controlled religion.  

What outraged the ultra-Orthodox were Supreme Court decisions which recently allowed some shops to open on the Sabbath and which questioned the validity of military exemptions for ultra-Orthodox seminary students. The court also opened the way for representatives of Reform and Conservative Judaism to serve on Orthodox-controlled local religious councils, giving them a say in the distribution of state funds to religious institutions. Among the placards carried in the rally were declarations such as "The High Court Represents Violence" and "There Is No Law Above The Torah." Orthodox leaders declared that the judiciary were "enemies of the Jewish people." They referred to Reform and Conservative Judaism as "a spiritual disaster for the people of Israel." Amos Oz, Israel’s most celebrated writer, has called such extremists "Hezbollah in a skullcap."  

Intensifying the bitter debate over "Who Is A Jew?," the Chief Rabbinic council in Israel recently ruled out any cooperation with the non-Orthodox branches of Judaism on conversion and religious rites — after eight months of prolonged negotiation. Over the past year, they have worked to pass legislation that would nullify the breakthrough decisions of Israel‘s High Court to honor Reform and Conservative conversions in Israel. They have also bitterly opposed Reform and Conservative Jews from representation on local religious councils.  

Repugnant Face of Judaism  

Norman C. Rosenberg, who heads the New Israel Fund, which supports religious freedom in Israel, declares: "American Jews, deeply committed to the principles of religious freedom as a fundamental right, may well respond by distancing themselves from Israel . . . An Israel that practices discrimination and shows the world a repugnant face of Judaism will hardly strengthen the next generation’s Jewish identity."  

Israel’s descent into religious conflict, and a tendency of some to move Israel toward an Iran-like religious fundamentalist regime, make programs such as "Birthright Israel" anomalies when it comes to influencing young American Jews in the direction of Jewish identity, affiliation and belief. The intolerance they see all around them is, in large measure, one of the factors driving them away. In a society which welcomes diversity, they observe a Jewish organizational structure which fears diversity, hardly an incentive to join.  

In a thoughtful article, "The Continuing Quest For Continuity," Felicia Herman, a Ph.D. student in American Jewish history at Brandeis University, wrote in Contact (Winter 1998), the journal of the Jewish Life Network, in terms which speak for many young people when she declares: "American Jewish leaders must . . . abandon the use of the Holocaust (or, more generally antisemitism) and Israel as the strongest arguments in favor of Jewish affiliation. Arguments for ‘refusing to give Hitler a posthumous victory,’ or those which draw upon the romance of Israel’s rebirth and the need to oppose those who are bent on the State’s destruction, fail to address the unique problems or even the unique joys of being a Jew in America. I don’t think it minimizes the tragedy of the Holocaust or the importance of remembering it to say that a focus on such destruction is hardly a place to begin a strong and positive identification with Judaism and Jewish life. Jews my age already know much about how the Jews died; what we’re missing is a real sense of how the Jews lived. And Israel has become an increasingly problematic source of positive identity for American Jews . . . American Jewish leaders simply can’t expect to raise a thoughtful, committed community if they continue to focus on these two events as the building blocks of Jewish identity."  

To Live As American Jews  

Miss Herman concludes: "We need, instead, to be grappling with the issues of how to live as American Jews. A lack of reflection on the meaning of being Jewish in America leads inevitably to a lack of involvement as American Jews . . . Providing these Jews with a sense that, perhaps especially today, choosing to affiliate as a Jew in America is a weighty, complicated, but ultimately positive and rewarding decision, and then equipping them with the intellectual tools to make such a choice — a sense of their own history and an analysis of current issues in American society — might be the solution to the questions American Jewish leaders have been asking for so long."  

It is time that the growth of intolerance within both the American Jewish community and Israel be confronted. Such intolerance flies in the face of a humane Jewish tradition that now seems to be in retreat. The hostility to religious pluralism, the rejection of interfaith dialogue, the contempt for those who are participants in interfaith marriage, the unwillingness to have open discussion and dialogue about religious questions as well as about the State of Israel and its policies and role in the world, is a rejection of the Jewish tradition of compassion and concern for justice.  

Those who are concerned about the "continuity" of Judaism in the United States should consider the possibility that it is the Jewish establishment and its policies which may be the perpetrators of the most serious outrages against a genuine Judaism which would have so much to say to the problems faced not only by Jews but by all members of our society.  

Freedom As An Opportunity  

In America’s open marketplace of ideas, whether political, economic, or religious, those who have meaningful answers to the questions which are being asked, particularly by young people, will not only survive but thrive. But those who manifest intolerance and hostility to change, who are more concerned with "who is a Jew?" than what Judaism has to say to this era’s moral dilemmas, are doomed to fail. Freedom, the Jewish establishment must come to understand, is not a threat — but an opportunity. Thus far, they have failed to do so and in the process have alienated the very people to whom they wish to appeal.It is intolerance and not America’s free and open society which is the real threat to Judaism’s future.

< return to article list
© 2010 The American Council For Judaism.