One of the most infuriating aspects of the "inreach" v. "outreach" debate is the false choice between creatively engaging the periphery of American Jews and empowering the American Jewish core.  Being one of the preeminent American Jewish sociologists ("A People Divided" in particular is brilliant), Wertheimer has to know that the Orthodox revival has been paralleled with rapid growth for the Reform movement.  As dim as the statistics on the Jewish identity of intermarried children may be, intermarried Jews who affiliate with Reform synagogues are far more likely to raise their children as Jews.  Reform youth groups and camps have been proven as effective tools for promoting Jewish idenity.     

I think that Wertheimer confuses the problems besetting his own movement for that of Jewish America as a whole.  Conservative Judaism is hemorraging badly and in reality has no future as a mass movement - it must empower and challenge its commited core, rather than placate its dwindling periphery.  A model on how to do this in an inclusive manner can be found at Hadar and other independent minyanim that keep the movement at arms length.  One of the reasons is that they do so is that they seek to build communities, that unlike conventional Conservative synagogues, take Shabbat and tikkun olam seriously.  When leading members of the movement tell Jewish women that their primary worth is as baby makers and dismiss concerns about climate change or genocide as "save the whales" shtyuot, Conservative Judaism is getting no closer to bringing its alienated core back into the fold. 

Joey wasn't trying to convince us to be socialists. Wertheimer completely misses the point here.

I do agree about the rebirth of spirit among orthodoxy. Led by Chabad and Shlomo Carlebach, and by the sheer enormity of the fact of the re-creation of Jewish sovereign life in Israel and the (partial) reconquest of our holy sites, Jews-- both orthodox and not-- are rediscovering what it means to stand tall and proud after millenia of exilic submission.  While by your address I can guess that you haven't yet taiken the full leap of faith and moved to Israel (next year in Jerusalem! look me up when you get here), I think we agree on the essentials on that issue.

I don't think critiquing socialism is entirely fair-- Israel IS the only place in the world that communal living was experimented with in a non-coercive, democratic, state-supported way.  The fact that many kibbutzim have 'failed' shouldn't overcome our pride in the many that still succeed, and the many more that DID succeed for generations in building Jewish life and a Jewish state out of practically nothing over the last century.  We ARE a light unto nations for many reasons beyond just the moral message of Torah, and I only disagree with Joey that these other ways are what defines a Jew. 

The world DOES need to figure out how to move beyond cannibalistic capitalism and hypocritical nationalisms, we need and thirst for sustainable and meaningful community... we can and should take the lessons of the (oft disastrous) experiments of intentional communities and radical socialisms of the last century and LEARN from them, and COMBINE those lessons with the wealth of wisdom Judaism has accumulated over our thousands of years in the wilderness.  And make something old and new, and better, and whole. And as Jews, and in Israel first.

If anyone has been suckered, it's Dr. Wertheimer and his obsession with the Orthodox version of Judaism. This is somewhat ironic, considering his position at the institution at which he works. Yes, it's true, Orthodox Judaism has a tendency to produce more Jews, but they also produce a lot of mediocre human beings. They are not bad human beings, just generally uninteresting. Conservative, Reform and secular Jews, on the other hand, have done far more in the universalist realms of the arts and sciences. Does that make them better Jews? Maybe, maybe not. Oddly enough, it's the same story in the less universal world of Jewish scholarship. The better academics are typically not Orthodox (this is not to say there are no great orthodox academics - there are). Some of the best have left Orthodoxy, an indication that quality scholarship requires an open mind, something Orthodoxy does not offer most of its adherents. None of this may matter to Dr. Wertheimer, who may feel that as long as Jews perform stale rituals and read mostly irrelevant texts, that they are fulfilling their promise as "authentic Jews." That's nice if Jews are to become an obscure minority. But if they are to remain relevant and vibrant to humanity at large, they have to live in the world.

"cannibalistic capitalism"

Care to offer anything more than an emotional attack on capitalism? The rhetorical digs socialists/communists use for any non-socialist economic concept irk me. Even Marx created a whole vocabulary skewed to his viewpoints. This isn't honest scholarship; it's emotionally driven, empty language. Even if you make an intellectual argument for socialism, I don't care to read a word you write until you discuss the matter without loaded words.

My Marx's vocabulary, I mean the practice of creating terms that beg the question, terms that assume the reality of what they embody. It distances the discussion from reality and makes rhetorical novelties seem like empirical fact.

I don't think Mr. Wertheimer has learned much modern Hebrew, or he would realize he's conflating two different (but overlapping things): Am Yisrael, Jewish peoplehood, and "Y'hudut", the Jewish religion.

Do they feed into one another, often creating a symbiotic identity? Very much so, yes. But the former certainly doesn't require religious Orthodoxy, and many would argue that the latter also does not.

Dr. Wertheimer fails to distinguish between democratic socialism, as advocated by the late Michael Harrington, and Stalinism; that latter being one of the greatest evils of the modern world. Two eminent Jewish thinkers were exponents of socialism -- Martin Buber, who spoke of "ethical socialism", and Albert Einstein.

As the result of Wertheimer's reductive thinking, which is widespread in the United States, we have children and the working poor without health insurance, corporate welfare, the asendancy of amoral anti-union consulting firms, and schemes too plentiful to enumerate here that, in the words of Rev. Jesse Jackson "take from the needy and give to the greedy."

Unfortunately, some forms of capitalism are, metaphorically speaking, "cannibalistic" if not worse. Many forms of capitalist enterprise are
ecologically unsustainable as well. If we follow our present, Republican-driven, relentless pursuit of profits over people, the boom and bust cycle may well end in a bust. If you don't like the term "democratic socialist" perhaps you will feel more comfortable with the terms "economic justice" and "economic democracy."

Global corporate collusion in horrific human rights abuses is now so widespread that Amnesty International now has a section of its website devoted to "Business and Human Rights."

In some cases, multinational corporations collude with violent union-busters. In Burma, Unocal profited from its collusion with repressive government forces who forced Burmese workers into slave-like conditions.

Corporate Watch is an organization set up to do what its name implies: keep an eye on large corporations because many have a propensity for environmental degredation,
union-busting, collusion in human rights abuses and more.

"Helping others is no substitute for helping one’s own."

"[H]elping one's own" - define "one's own", please? - is typically a cover for classist and/or racist bullshit - prejudice, in any words you prefer.

To argue this is to imply that, say, African children are less worthy of our help than Jewish children. And why on earth would African children be less worthy? Though Wertheimer will never admit it, the only possible answer to this question is, because they are less like him, and therefore less human.

As soon as we start to think of any people on earth as less than human, we affirm the basic worldview that led to the Holocaust.

Jack Wertheimer deserves a medal for his patent outreach to a man with no interest in maintaining his Jewishness. Joey Kurtzman in his adolescent fascination with the defeated and poisonous concept of universalism has no claim to Judaism or even "Jewishness." His ideas degrade our people and our mission.

Kurtzman's arguments quickly devolve into shear silliness. By his standard, the world might ban all national boundaries and perhaps, this might even please Mr. Kurtzman. But the Jewish people will not fall into this claptrap.

So Mr. Kurtzman wants to leave the Jewish people--fine--go ahead. Please don't dare suggest that anything you say or do is Jewish. Judaism has a universal vision as long it retains its particularity.

With all due respect, Wertheimer makes a poor case for re-engaging with traditional Judaism.  His argument does not seem to deal with the reality that secular Jews feel even less of a connection than Kurtzman, and Kurtzman is at least trying to frame the discussion in terms he feels strongly about (Tikkun Olam, etc).  By belittling what tenuous connections Kurtzman has to Judaism, Wertheimer risks alienating secular Jews looking for some basis to connect.  What Kurtzman is saying is "I'm not buying what you're selling, so give me something else".  Wertheimer is saying "There is nothing else".  Wertheimer argues convincingly that Kurtzman's "something else" is sub-par for building and sustaining Judaism, but he almost completely ignores the "I'm not buying" part.

In other words, why should Kurtzman and other non-traditional Jews care about building and sustaining Judaism?  Wertheimer seems to take for granted that they do, that "repairing the Jewish people" and "authentic Judaism" are concepts that they care about.  But there's no basis for this assumption, based on Kurtzman's words (and subsequent comments).

Kurtzman, for his part, does an even poorer job of making the case for a universalist Judaism (again, with all due respect).  The reason is that he defines being Jewish so vaguely that it becomes meaningless.  If being Jewish means simply studying and internalizing Jewish texts (ignoring of course the particularist stuff), then why bother defining Judaism at all? I read and take in the ideas of John Stewart Mill, but that doesn't make me a Millian.  If I studied Mill exclusively, maybe that would make me a Millian.  But once I see Mill as simply one voice among many, I can read him critically and objectively, and take away what I feel is logical and relevant.  My resulting worldview might be heavily influenced by Mill, but defining it as Millianism is just silly.  Why bother?

Last but not least - not being engaged in traditional Judaism is not "adolescence".  Using that term is demeaning and serves no legitimate purpose.

I too live in Los Angeles and I in my Shul I am surrounded by Doctors, Professors at UCLA, USC, CSUN, & CAL Tech, Lawyers, Accountants, Titans of business and yet they are all in the same room at 5:00 am to study and pore over their Gemara's. We have not rejected the "Yoke of Torah" and we are just as in tune to society as you are. As far as I can tell you either have not had a proper eduacation in the texts of our people or you are uninterested in some of the subjects just as even educated students are not interested in Chemistry, Physics or History.  Joey as a CSUN graduate and an Orthodox jew who goes to minyan every day I have no problem integrating life in this century and life dictated to me by Rabbis in every century prior. Honestly my friends just feel sorry for you and all of our fellow Jews that have given up on their faith. You write that Jews have voted with their feet to leave and ignore the point Jack made that for a little effort they could have worked and made Judiasim relevant to themselves adhering to our faith as opposed to abandoning it.