I sympathize more with Kurtzman's point of view but he's got his work cut out for him answering this.

Still, I can poke at least one hole in Weirtheimer's reasoning here:

My grandmother has tried to get me to dump my shiksa girlfriend by saying that one day, when she gets really mad at me, no matter how much she loves me, she'll call me a "dirty Jew". Or at least think it. Weirtheimer makes the same point when he advises us not to assume our "non-Jewish peers are as indifferent to group allegiances as they might claim."

The essential point seems to be that a Jew who sees himself as a "citizen of the world" is akin to a nerdy weakling handing out with the high school football team and thinking they're his friends. No matter how much he thinks he's "one of the guys," he will always be held in contempt as long as he tries to pretend he's someone he's not.

I find the analogy unconvincing. First of all, it depends on the notion that all our non-Jewish friends and lovers are secretly antisemites and that any close relationship we have with them is far weaker than it seems. I guess you're not paranoid if the whole world is really out to get you, but frankly, I think Weirtheimer's paranoid.

Second, I think Weirtheimer's concern about whether those goyim are really so open-minded stems from an unconscious suspicion in HIS generation that the Jews are the nerdy kids, unable to be popular no matter how much they try and act cool. (read anything by Phillip Roth to get the full picture). What Weirtheimer misses here is that we don't share his generation's inferiority complex. We don't eagerly mix with non-Jews because we're desperate to have them as friends. We mix with them because we are them and they are us.

Similarly, we're not trying to deny our Jewish identiy just so we can fit into a larger culture. We're embracing a larger, world-centric identity because when we see disasters like Darfur (and global warming, and terrorism, and any other problem plaguing the 21st century), we can see that no solution can possibly come from a ghetto mindset.

Mr. Wertheimer's sententious nonsense about the great Rosa Luxemburg and her demise had me about ready to send my laptop windmilling across the room. Had Luxemburg been a Jewish Bundist agitating for social democracy, would her death have been such a cosmic gotcha to the present defender of the faith? Her noble expression of a universal concern for all human suffering is dismissed here as famous last words, when in fact it is Mr. Wertheimer who suffers from a terminal naivete that the attitudes of the 19th century ghetto should or can be reaffirmed in the 21st century. (While we're on the subject of Cassandras, Luxemburg prophesied the disaster of Bolshevism far better than Mr. Wertheimer understands the historical Stalinist designation of "rootless cosmopolitans," who were alternatively known as Zionists, Titoists, Trotskyists, and CIA agents -- very often all of those things at once.)

If I were at all superstitious I might wonder about reading this extremely nervous screed on the same night I happened to glance at the population geneticist Spencer Wells's essay in Vanity Fair. Dr. Wells has argued persuasively that a mapping of our DNA proves humankind began in Africa and that we are all "African under the skin." So much for taking care of one's "family." For my own part, I would not want to belong to any nuclear unit whose patriarch spoke of the urgent need to stop the genocide of black Muslims in Darfur as "apple pie talk." Don't wait up for me next seder, Uncle Jack.

The scientifically proven truth of a biomolecular brotherhood of man is much more fulfilling and optimistic than any of the medieval hysteria passing for wisdom in this installment of the dialogue.

Mr. Wertheimer is right about one thing, however. People should be better versed in the cultural and religious traditions of Judaism, the better to decide for themselves just how alien and remote people from their own heritage can seem.

Michael, I don't see how you can pull out some biological facts about the common ancestry of mankind to justify your sense of alienation from the Jewish heritage. Torah and science both tell exactly the same story in this case - that we all descended from the first human beings. So I don't think this is a valid argument against staying in touch with your family, people and heritage.

Besides I wonder why some people seem to think that caring about ones family makes you less sensitive towards the needs of other people. On the contrary, I think that the family is (or should be) the place where a person first learns about love and caring for others.

Wertheimer writes:

As I read your impatient remarks about those who believe “ someone is a less appropriate object of our love and commitment because of the particulars of their genealogy,” I can only conclude that either you don’t accept that human beings have a special responsibility to give back to their own family or that you don’t regard the Jewish people as your family. Given the world in which I grew up, these are unthinkable options for me.

This IS ethnocentrism. Kurtzman will hopefully respond as a good universalist would: Everyone on earth is our family. This might strike Wertheimer as syrupy drivel, but it is instead a deeply felt moral imperative for cosmopolitans.

I suppose I have a different Jewish heritage than Wertheimer does. Mine is not Middle Eastern and rabbinic. Mine is European, skeptical, intellectual. Mine is Spinoza, Einstein and Freud rather than Herzl, Ben-Gurion, and Ariel Sharon. As a Jew, I have learned to reject nationalism as evil in and of itself - even if that nation is my own.

There something I don’t get with all these accusations of Ethnocentrism. I went to dictionary.com and checked out a definition - “the belief in the inherent superiority of one's own ethnic group or culture”

Many a traditional Jew’s self understanding is that God mysteriously created a covenant with the Jewish people, not especially for any superior merit but just out of the mystery of God’s workings. Now though in fact I don’t believe in any supernatural anything (i.e. an atheist) there is nothing necessarily ethnocentric about such a self understanding. I would like to ask Michael Weiss or whoever what do they mean by this barb. (If individual Jews believe themselves inherently superior that’s their issue though I agree not a pleasant trait.)

Now if you mean some Jews are ethnocentric because they are not cosmopolitans like let’s say Arthur Koestler, Rosa Luxembourg and many more - ok. But it is not some moral offence to be tied to a life of particular loyalties and affections.  At most such Jews are guilty of the same sins that Swedes, Indian folk or Scottish folk etc.  

The agenda of cosmopolitan universalism is very attractive and many Jews and people of a Jewish background have been at the forefront of progressive social change it embodies and just plain urbanity. What I don’t care for is the need to ask or accuse other Jews who define themselves particularisticly to shed themselves of privileged loyalties to Jews or stand accused as some sort of ethnocentric reactionary.  This would only be ok if you looked similarly askance at every other nation.   

Long live the cosmopolitan Jews who have done so much to enrich the intellectual milieu of the last two centuries and this century.  However a fundamentalist campaign to define Jewishness as universalism – or liberal intellectualism informed by Jewish and modern history is not helpful.  Let those who call themselves Jews and define their lot in life the wellbeing of the Jewish people and the destiny of the Jews do their thing.  They are no worse as I said than other nations in this world. The other folk who call themselves Jews, the cosmopolitans, let them carry on too.  Fundamentally though the two identities in the Diaspora are irreconcilable (I think Israel is another story where you can have your cake and eat it). That is painful as many of the people from two groups are related, intimate and have shared a hell of a journey for many hundreds of years.

Hope I make sense here!

i don't like how Wertheimer makes non-Orthodox Jews seem inferior to the Orthodox. Jews should NOT be comparing and contrasting themselves to each other. yes, we have different denominations and different levels of observance. but one is not better than the other. contrary to Wertheimer's opinion, the Orthodox are by no means perfect. they have their own issues, some of which have unfortunately gone public over the past few years. i am saying this to point out that there is no such thing as a perfect Jew, even though Wertheimer seems to think there is.

i don't affiliate with one specific denomination (even though i grew up Conservative). i am able to feel comfortable in any setting, regardless of whether it's Orthodox or Reform or whatever. in addition, i utilize various teachings from each one. i may not observe Shabbat or attend shul every week, but i refuse to eat pork or shellfish and i read Jewish text and celebrate all major holidays. but Wertheimer seems to convey the message that if we're not married by age 19 and we haven't squeezed out 6 kids by the time we're 25, then we're not good Jews.

while many people blame intermarriage as the major cause of our problems, there are other factors that are just as concerning, if not more so. low birth rates have plagued Jewish women for years. genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs are still prevalent, though not as common as they once were. and conversion rates are declining because communities are either unwelcoming or are pressuring non-Jewish spouses to convert for the sake of keeping up appearances. if i were faced with the option of remaining single for the rest of my life due to a shortage of Jewish men or marrying a non-Jew, i'd have to choose option B.

As much as I'm largely on the other side of this debate from Dr. Wetheimer, he obviously makes a few very valid points. I should be able to speak hebrew after 15 years of formal jewish education. I don't. I should take pride in Jews both past and present. I do.

One of his best ideas points to a certain benefit of ethnocentrism: If we feel some degree of affinity for a group larger than our family (to whom we would certainly give) and smaller than the whole world (which seems overwhelming), we can be driven to give our aid, our time, and our wealth to help better the world. Now theoretically this will work out to everyone's benefit because everyone is a part of one of those medium-sized communities and all will give more than they otherwise would if confronted with an all-or-nothing notion of identity. The problem comes up when certain groups have NO resources to share. We Jews take good care of eachother, more often than not, in large part because of a shared ethnic identity. But there is no similar wealthy community to spread resources among the refugees of Darfur (to reuse the threadbare example running throughout this discussion). In a world where groups only take care of their own, what happens when a group's internal resources run out, or are simply insufficient to meet a given emergency?

PS - What makes you think that only men are marrying outside the faith, leaving poor defenseless women with no choice but to marry out? The same applies in both directions.

"if i were faced with the option of remaining single for the rest of my life due to a shortage of Jewish men or marrying a non-Jew, i'd have to choose option B."

IS THERE REALLY A SHORTAGE OF JEWISH MEN ("NICE JEWISH BOYS") THESE DAYS?

New millenium? It's 5767, buster.

"We Jews take good care of eachother, more often than not, in large part because of a shared ethnic identity. But there is no similar wealthy community to spread resources among the refugees of Darfur (to reuse the threadbare example running throughout this discussion). Dan Freeman Jun 14, 2007 3:09 pm

Dan no one takes care of me excpet me and mine. 

In any case you set up a false premise when you imply that Jews need to care for all the world because they someday may need the help of the world.

Sorry, Dan, but there is no world out there keeping track of how much each group contributes. The claim that Jews need to be more universal is what aill ultimately destroying the community.

Such a tiny community as ours can't take care of all the world or even  a small fraction of it. We need to care for ourselves and those closest to us which in the US means help as best we can our neighbors who are in need.

Why can't American Jews feel pride in their heritage and also be proud to be American? Other minorities like African-Americans, Latinos love their heritage and being American. Most won't date outside their group but nobody would dare call them racists.
Jews are scared wimps who are scared of their own shadow. This is due to intermarriage and the vitrolic self-hatred that is unique to the Jewish people.
Zbird is a perfect example of a Jew who has to screw a shiksa so he can feel accepted by the Waspy American society. He doesn't care that his children won't be Jewish because that would be a burden for them. Having Gentile children is his wet dream and wll mean that he "made it" in America. Gentile ass-kissing Kapo!

Even if I grant that one should privilege help to family members, labeling the Jewish people "family" and then arguing from that metaphor is flawed. Metaphors are useful for exposition, but one cannot argue from the properties of a concept used as a metaphor.

Jackson Dyer: everyone knows that the so called "Jewish calendar" is a fabrication at best, boasting at worst...hell, even the New Testament predates the damned Talmud (which is by far the most important holy book amongst REAL Jews).

Jews and Judaism didn't actually coalesce until well into the Common Era (CE/AD).

And anyone that knows anything about the history of religion knows that the Hindu culture of India is FAR OLDER than Jews and Judaism. It's not even close.

...and I wonder where it might come from. Perhaps you're the one who's insecure about his heritage. So insecure that you can't be comfortable with your own religion unless you hide from all the goyim and stick to your own. And even then, you still can't feel secure unless all the other Jews shared your narrow mind and paranoid lifestyle.

And though I appreciate the free psychological evaluation, you're Freudian analysis is completely divorced from reality. American Jews hardly need some deep-seated shadow in order to pick a non-Jewish mate--probability alone will predict that most Jews will pick a mate from the 99% of the population that isn't Jewish. If you want to discourage intermarriage, you need to give a good reason why we should go out of way to limit potential spouses to 1% of the population.

And by the way, my parents had already "made it" in America before I was born. I've never dated a Wasp, and for that matter harldy dated any Americans at all, whether Jew or Gentile. If you have nothing intelligent to say and insist on filling this blog with crass insults, at least make them accurate.

You are not really a Jew if you have to ask about the benefits of marrying another Jew. You worship Gentiles and need to screw shiksas to make you feel psychologically whole. The good news is that your children won't be Jewish, since you are barely a Jew, but Gentiles that you can worship everyday. Hitler, who you also worship, would be so proud. You are making his dream of a Judenfree world come true.

I find your mix of English and German in "judenfree" offensive. A proper trolling post would refer to Hitler's vision as "judenfrei."

It's "every day," not "everyday." "Everyday" should be used only as an adjective ("Walking to work is part of my everyday routine.")

1) If you are not obsessed with bloodlines- what is you and your fellow 'official' jewish friends' policy or attitude towards adoption?

Yo! there are so many kids out there who need some lovin' , foster children who need stability, kids who need food- how come we can't just get over our instinctual maternal/paternal cravings for giving birth? One can still adopt and raise them in a jewish family

2)some people say fundamentalists are trying to overpopulate the country- they feel it is their only way of survival perhaps?

3)"In 1969, a group of young Jewish activists forced their way into the General Assembly of the then Council of Jewish Federations to demand greater investment in Jewish education."<----- what happend to these ppl?

Probably the same thing that happened to hippies... New laws were established to bend the rules for the favor of the status quo- ie, ppl with power who want to retain their power. The world witnessed this same phenomenon on another level when the U.S. bent the international laws and some how justified invading Irak. Somehow our law system has silenced our citizens. Corporations have made the individual invisible and this has coasted us not only our individuality but also our society's diversity.

no wonder the u.s. is a monolingual country! It appears common for Second generation americans to loose their mother tongue!? Why is this? That's why i'm not suprized that someone would study a language for a decade and still be unable to speak it productively. We should look into the causes behind this, it might illuminate the causes for our fears of intermarriage and jewish dilution.

4) I agree with Dr. Jack Wertheimer that he isn't trying to be ethnocentric- he is just one of the only guys around with a solid jewish spine! Some one has got to take a stand and I think it is noble that he is at lest addressing this issue of dilution- assimilation into americanism. However, I think that he is still far from finding a constructive solution. Perhaps he should look more at the environment, the society we live in and tell us more about how it is leading to not only intermarriage- but a loss of faith in the children of intermarriage.? It just dosn't work to ask kids of two religions to choose a relgion themselves when they are adults, yes, i have seen this failed over and over- what should we do?

As with previous commenters I take some issue with Wertheimer's statements, but this is the one that made me a bit crazy: 
 That if Joey really cared about Darfur he'd join the peace corps.

 If Dr. Jack Wertheimer had really read up on the humanitarian aid efforts in Africa he really might be more concerned about the effects that aid is having upon burgeoning nation states, and how some refugee camps have become unofficial bases for genocidaires from Rwanda, or provide sustenance for rebel groups like the SPLA. I'm not saying that the aid groups don't do good work, but that they aren't an unqualified good in the way that Dr. Wertheimer seems to be suggesting.

Also, you can care about something and it can give your life meaning without you having to devote your entire life to it. There are many humanistic things that Joey can (and I'm sure does) do to further his social justice goals without personally going to Africa. 

It's obvious to everyone who cares to analyze the situation today that -- for whatever they believe and practice -- the Reform and the so-called Orthodox are way-far-away from each other in practice and belief.

The Reform deny the Torah as given by G-d. The Mitzvos for them are either voluntary, absurd, discriminatory, or destructive. G-d, for them, is unconcerned about each human being's personal needs and challenges -- if He exists at all. Jews, they may claim, are the owners of one of mankind's greatest inventions, and the Land of Israel is a big pain in the tush. The Orthodox, on the other hand, hold that G-d is the Creator of the Universe, the Writer of the Torah, the Commander of the Mitzvos, and the Giver of Life.

Both views cannot be correct.

The Reform child of a Jewish father in Colorado, a Torah-observant Jew in Australia, a Persian-speaking Zionist Jew in Iran, an atheistic French-speaking Jew in Paris -- what possibly can unify these people so that all may be correctly called "Jew"?

The answer is found in the most ancient and unique knowledge of our people. Some of this knowledge -- and specifically the answer to my question above -- can be found in a magnificent collection called "Tanya, the Book of Intermediates." I hope each person interested in this matter will find this vital book and begin to learn.

The source of your confusion is that you've limited yourself  to theological criteria for membership in the Jewish community. I doubt that path will yield many answers because, as you've discovered, the Jewish community is internally divided on matters of theology.

Anything that divides a community internally cannot define the criteria for membership in the community.

David, if half of a community denies the criteria for its membership in that community, it must state with certainty the criteria that affirms its membership in that community.

For those who deny Torah, what are those criteria?

And what's more, David, you presume that the members of the community CHOOSE membership in the community.

I did not choose to be a Jew but was granted membership through my birth to a Jewish woman. In the same regard, I am an Israel and not a Levi or a Cohen. Nor am I a black-skinned human being but a white-skinned. In fact, my existence is a not a result of my choice but that of the Power That Creates and Gives Life.

"David, if half of a community denies the criteria for its membership in that community, it must state with certainty the criteria that affirms its membership in that community."

That misplaces the burdens. The secular portions of the Jewish community do not owe the faithful justification. The faithful do not "own" the Jewish community. Nor do the secular members "own" the community. But if anything, keeping the faith is an affirmative action, not the null hypothesis you present it as.

"And what's more, David, you presume that the members of the community CHOOSE membership in the community."

Again you're treating what you do and believe as a null hypothesis* when it is not. Unless otherwise justified, membership in a community is assumed to be a choice. You could appeal to Judaism's matrilineal tradition, but we've already established that such criteria cannot be used to define the community because they divide what we consider the community.

* What I mean by null hypotheis is the assumption from which deviation must be justified.

If what you're trying to do is look at the community, stand up, point, and say, "You are not one of us!" you can be successful any number of ways. But, frankly, I don't think such an approach is honest. Communities are organic entities. We can look at them, find commonalities, and try to define them. Sometimes we can't; maybe it depends on how many exceptions you're willing to allow to members fitting your definition. But prescribing who comprises a community, which is what you seem to be attempting, appears very backwards to me.

"I did not choose to be a Jew but was granted membership through my birth to a Jewish woman."

Mazel Tov!

"But prescribing who comprises a community, which is what you seem to be attempting, appears very backwards to me."

Sometimes appearances are deceiving. Not this time.

I hope each of you enjoyed Shabbos. Just to let you know, I am the Anonymous who wrote to David just before Shabbos came in, not the Anonymous who wrote on Shabbos (Friday) night at 10:28.

David, I want to respond to you but I can't until later on, perhap tomorrow. I enjoy your input and want to keep our conversation going. Please check back here in the next couple days.

Have a successful week.

Are you purporting that there is no defined Jewish community? Are "Jews" everyone or those who simply say they are? Is the ultimate definition of "Who is a Jew?" simply "Whoever wants to be!"

Are Jews a community? Are Jews Jews? Please explain to us exactly who the Jews are.

First, I'd really appreciate if people would start posting with some form of handle or name.

"Are Jews a community? Are Jews Jews? Please explain to us exactly who the Jews are."

The problem with such a request is that it begs the question. Requesting a universal standard of who is a Jew is premised on a universal standard existing.

I think that human communities are based on federation. If I were to model it using data mining techniques, I would use single-link agglomerative clustering. Simply put, this is the idea that you start by linking two people with the most similarity into a community. You continue linking two people at a time by similarity until you reach a threshold of dissimilarity. These connections are transitive; if I link to someone who links to someone else, both people are part of my community.

The communities modeled by this algorithm often have distant members with little similarity. The reason they are considered part of the same community is not because they meet some universal standard of membership. Rather, there is a continuum of people linking them.

For better or worse, this is what happens when a computer scientist considers questions of sociology. :-)

My friend David. I'm happy and willing and interested in continuing this vital issue but, please, don't lecture me about federations, clustering, and similarity.

Answer the question! Who is a Jew?

"Answer the question! Who is a Jew?"

My point is that human communities are continuums without universal traits that define their membership. Sometimes, you can identify universal traits after identifying community members, but you should not mistake those traits as ones directly determining the community.

If you're looking for an answer to your question whose criteria can be applied to an individual, you won't find one. But I have answered your question: a Jew is someone who has sufficient similarity to other people recognized as Jews. Sufficient similarity can, of course, be realized many different ways.

Who says so?

I have answered your question: a Jew is someone who has sufficient similarity to other people recognized as Jews.

Huh? You've answered nothing. You encircle and veer off. You evade and flounder. You've determined nothing. You've stated nothing.

David, who is a Jew?

1. Get a username. I'm using my real name, not even a handle. If debating identity is so important to you, you should adopt more of one than being "Anonymous."

2. Let's hear your answer to your own question. If your answer only includes "birth to a Jewish mother" and "accepting Torah," you're fighting the wrong battle at the wrong site. If, for example, you want "Jew" to be synonymous with "accepting Torah," you'll save everyone here time and frustration by simply saying "people who accept Torah" and giving up on trying to own "Jew."

3. We can continue this conversation.

David, you are full of power and energy and purpose. Your mind is on full throttle. You are a thinker. This comes through clearly in your words. But I must tell you, my new friend, that you are as of now unfocused in your deliberation. You've concluded nothing but have only continually evaded the topic before us. Be forthright. Come to an intelligent, unemotional conclusion on this and then we can continue.

Furthermore, there are no battles, certainly no "wrong" ones, and most certainly none when we're discussing a topic so close to each of us as our people. And for sure this is not "the wrong site" but the most correct one as it's brought us together to "meet" and discuss.

I know that you liked writing the words "trying to own 'Jew.'" ("Owning" as a currently fashionable idiom for "taking responsibility" is perfectly okay with me.) But, truthfully, I own little except for a 2000 Kia with a bad transmission and a bunch of household stuff. I really don't aspire to get my hands around a label as contentious as "Jew." 

David, you have decided, for whatever reasons I do not know, that Torah cannot define a Jew. Is being a Jew, then, related to one's language, beliefs, feeling, diet, skin color, birthplace, political orientation, sense of humor, media preferences? 

Please help me understand what all of us--different as we are--can agree is the definition of a Jew.

I'm a completely different anonymous. Let's call me Anonymous Coward, in the best of online traditions.

David, he wants a predicate of one person, not an algorithm to find the entire Jewish community from two individuals.

The simplest predicate definition is:

(define (jew? person) (or (stood-at-sinai? person) (converted? person) (jew? (mother-of person))))

The Reform movement can piss around with accepting people born to Jewish fathers as Jews, but they really just need to get it over with and perform conversions. The rest of the Jewish world disagrees with them, except for Israel's Law of Return that the Knesset modified from the aforementioned definition only because of race-based anti-Semitism.

Oh, and we can quibble about what kind of conversion counts. If the Orthodox want to disregard Reform and Conservative conversions, they can go ahead, keep the very strictest Torah standards, and watch the world Jewish community suddenly shrink to nearly nothing due to their restrictive definition.

"David, you have decided, for whatever reasons I do not know, that Torah cannot define a Jew."

Using Torah as the definition fails on two counts. First, it isn't comprehensive enough. Jewish identity clearly extends to some people who don't hold the Torah holy. The more orthodox among us consider birth to a Jewish mother an indelible marker of Judaism, regardless of Torah observance. The more liberal among us include community and members who are not faithful, regardless of birth.

Second, using Torah is too broad to define the community. The phenomenon of crypto-Jews gives us people who have faith in Torah but do not outwardly have fellowship with other believers. This clearly removes them from being part of the Jewish community.

This is not to say Torah-observance is not a possible component of Jewishness. Clearly, it is also a means to community.

"Is being a Jew, then, related to one's language, beliefs, feeling, diet, skin color, birthplace, political orientation, sense of humor, media preferences?"

Yes, but not any single criterion or any one combination. Enough similarity with another Jew brings you into the community. This definition is recursive, so it still leaves open who the starting Jew is. Fortunately, that's a lot easier to agree on that than a universal definition of Jewness.

So, it could work like this, because I think we can agree that at least one person at my local Austin Chabad house is a Jew. I have friends who spend significant time there celebrating Jewish holidays, even though they don't subscribe to the house's chasidic beliefs. This community fellowship -- imbued with Jewishness -- makes them Jews. Continue this process, and you can map out the Jewish community in Austin. You might have to find a few more starting places because Austin may have several Jewish communities.

This open letter published here provides a similar perspective on how human relationships and communities form. (See the part discussing the "modules" of our mind.)
 I think the letter explains how these modules form our communities, not objective criteria.

The question remains open for whom you define as a Jew. 

Hello, A. Coward.

I don't think you've gotten my message so I'll spell it out again. At this point of our discussion, I'm looking for a definition of the group commonly referred to as "the Jews": who are they, what are they, why are they a group to the exclusion of others?

Please define this label and, while you're at it, what is a conversion so anyone reading can know if he--or his brother-in-law, the jerk--is a Jew or not.

"David, he wants a predicate of one person, not an algorithm to find the entire Jewish community from two individuals."

My response was: "If you're looking for an answer to your question whose criteria can be applied to an individual, you won't find one."

You can't define a community with a single predicate, and Jewishness is, to me, founded on community. Judaism doesn't arrise spontaneously.

The Anonymous Coward even cements this in his predicate calculus because he employs conversion and birth as criteria, both of which require community or human interaction. Even "stood-at-sinai?" gains its significance through a written and oral tradition.

"You can't define a community with a single predicate . . . "

Aren't all members of the Maple Street Homeowner's Association owners of homes on Maple Street (however each of those terms are defined by that organization's members)?  Aren't all American Express charge cardholders entitled to be members of the American Express charge card community by the fact they have been issued American Express charge cards? Aren't we all nations of the world community because they're all in the world?

In the absence of a definitive conclusion on your parts to the question, Who is a Jew?, I will provide your answer for you (mine will come shortly). For you, a Jew is anyone who says he is a Jew because his Jewishness is from his father or mother, independent of his physical appearance, birthplace, belief set, understanding of anything, level of commitment to anything, cuisine, or anything other determination of anything in the physical realm. All the Jew requires to be called a Jew is his affirmation yes or no. We are a nation (what's a nation?) of anything.

"Aren't all members of the Maple Street Homeowner's Association owners of homes on Maple Street (however each of those terms are defined by that organization's members)?  Aren't all American Express charge cardholders entitled to be members of the American Express charge card community by the fact they have been issued American Express charge cards?"

"American Express charge cardholders" is a list maintained by an official organization. Equally uncontentious is the official record of members as a given local temple. But those aren't communities or identities; they're lists. Even still, it's not as simple as you portray. Is someone who has an AmEx card but never uses it a member? How about someone who cuts it up?

"For you, a Jew is anyone who says he is a Jew because his Jewishness is from his father or mother, independent of his physical appearance, birthplace, belief set, understanding of anything, level of commitment to anything, cuisine, or anything other determination of anything in the physical realm. All the Jew requires to be called a Jew is his affirmation yes or no. We are a nation (what's a nation?) of anything."

No, that's just what you're trying to get me to say. For you, criteria for being part of a group must be simple, steadfast, and (on face) objective. Otherwise, you see the group as undefined. As such, I refuse to take responsibility for your lack of sociological sophistication or your black-and-white sense of community.

By the standards you're applying here, the people who enjoy horror films on NetFlix are completely undefined because there's not a short list of films someone says they must enjoy. Face it: human communities are very complicated.

Re David Strauss:
Tatsächlich war die nazi Phrase Judenrein, nicht Judenfrei :)

"I am a jelly donut."

Both terms were used, according to this Wikipedia article, which cites multiple sources.

Please excuse me but I had to travel this week. Can we continue our discussion, perhaps Sunday or Monday?

Have a happy Shabbos. 

According to the reference you provided:

Judenfrei merely refers to "freeing" Europe of all of its Jewish citizens, Judenrein demands that any trace of Jewish blood be removed as an impurity

the Judenrein concept is what is being discussed here. Of course, its really only embattled minorities that have these discussions of what defines them. What defines "the Russian Soul" or being "Armenian" or "Buddhist" for that matter?
The best example is the ultimate expression of Israeli music, Naomi Shemer's "Jerusalem of Gold". Is there any song that sounds more Jewish/Israeli than that? Yet on her deathbed she admitted that the tune was stolen from a Catalan lullabye. And the "Yaale V'Yavo Tanz" so famous in Klezmer circles is actually from a Greek Operetta from 1850.
Now this kind of give and take with the "umwelt" is normal to healthy cultures, but then the proponents of closed circles of limited Jew interaction may accuse one of "cosmopolitanism". Oh, wait, the Jews have been labelled with that before...

Anonymous, DAvid doesn't seem to be giving you the answer you want, so let me help: a Jew is anyone born to a Jewish woman.

Similarly, a white man (such as myself) is anyone who is born of a white man and a white woman.

As you are proud of being Jewish, I am proud of being white.

Of course you are not supremacist, just accepting of the special burden God put on you to heal the world.

Similarly, I am not supremacist, just accepting of the white man's special burden to bring light and reason to non-whites.

And just ss you don't want Jews to mongrelize with other peoples, I don't want whites to mongrelize with other peoples, either.

After reading this, it is clear to me that those of us in the Church of Christian Identity out here in Idaho have so much in common with mainstream Jewry.

We too face the problem of ethnic and racial extinction and the failure of our children to follow our beliefs and breed true.

And like you, I tell my white children that deep in their hearts their Jewish spouses will always think of them as a "dirty shiksa" or a "filthy sheigetz" -- an abomination to all Jews.

Tell me, do you have any other ways to stop race mixing and mongrelizing?