Israel and Soviet Jewry, and our insecuri-
ty as a minority. This isn't the first battle
among Jews in our history and it won't be
the last."
Cohen asserted that the most conflicted
groups in the religious community are the
modern Orthodox and the committed Con-
servatives "because the others on either
side have made up their minds." He said
these two groups have the most to lose —
each other — and called on them to work
together through their youth groups, co-
sponsoring of day schools, and rabbinical
ties. "We must be realists rather than alar-
mists," he concluded.
One People, Or Two
The first area of discussion focused on
Rabbi Greenberg's thesis, articulated two
years ago in an article entitled "Will
Therre Be One Jewish People By The Year
2000?" (A Detroit Jewish News cover sto-
ry in 1985.) A key concern in that article
was the increase in the number of people
who claim to be Jews but whose religious
status is questionable- according to
Halacha, or Jewish law. This trend has
been spurred by the high rate of intermar-
riage, divorce, remarriage, conversion, and
the Reform movement's patrilineal descent
ruling. Greenberg wrote that "within
decades, the Jewish people" may "split
apart into two . . . hostile groups who are
unable or unwilling to marry each other."
Steven M. Cohen, a professor of
sociology at Queens College, refutes that
contention, charging Greenberg with
dangerously exaggerating the problem.
While crediting Greenberg for stimu-
lating the ensuing dialogue through his ar-
ticle, Cohen took strong exception to its
conclusions. He told the conference that "it
is absurdly improbable" that the Jewish
people may actually split in two. Citing as
proof his own demographic survey which
showed that only about 10 percent of
American Jewry, at most, would be af-
fected, he said this was a far cry from the
50-50 split Greenberg wrote of.
Cohen believes that Greenberg's thesis is
one of several "far-fetched Jewish
nightmares" that are emotionally compel-
ling but logically invalid. Others include the
contention that the Holocaust can happen
here in America, and that the American
Jewish community is disappearing through
assimilation. "Anything is possible but not
everything is plausible," said Cohen in
refuting those theories.
He suggested that engaging in debate
over Greenberg's theory was "squandering
our energies" that could be more effective-
ly focused on "more serious issues," such
as "the collapse of modern Orthodoxy,"
and the growing alienation between
segments of the Orthodox and the vast
majority of the non-Orthodox. Cohen ex-
pressed concern that many Orthodox Jews
do not socialize with non-Orthodox Jews
or contribute to Federation in large
numbers, and that many Orthodox rabbis
will not sit down with non-Orthodox rab-
bis in rabbinical umbrella groups.
He deplored "this growing Orthodox sec-
tarianism" as well as "what Rabbi Shlomo
Riskin calls the dark side of Orthodoxy,' "
referring to support for Rabbi Meir
Kahane's viewpoints.
But Cohen insisted that this alienation
does not mean that there will be two
Jewish peoples. "Rabbi Alexander
Schindler [a Reform leader] and the Satmar
Rebbe [a Chassidic leader] are still part of
the same people," he said. "There is too
much that unites us, including concern for
Greenberg: 'My Worst Fears'
RABBI YITZ GREENBERG: In an analogy to the
American Civil War, he noted that "when it finally
came, it was not the choice of most Americans, but
the product of the breakdown of the moderates on
both sides."
PROF. STEVEN COHEN: Disagreeing with
Greenberg's theory, the sociologist said "it is absurdly
improbable" that the Jewish people would split in two.
,k4 k
PROF. PAULA HYMAN: "Solutions will not come
through Halacha but through the historical process,"
said the professor of modern Jewish history at Yale.
Rabbi Greenberg responded by defen-
ding his original thesis and asserting that
Cohen's raw data numbers are close to his
own projections. Indeed, he said that
Cohen's numbers "confirm my worst fears"
regarding the demographics of separation.
He charged that in the two years since
his initial article appeared, the situation
has deteriorated more than he imagined,
and he cited a litany of disturbing episodes
of religious radicalism, including:
• the bus stop burnings in Israel by the
ultra-Orthodox and the burnings of sacred
texts by the secularists;
• the Who Is A Jew legislation debate
in the Knesset, prompting an emergency
mission to Israel by American Jewish
leaders;
• the dissolution of the joint chaplaincy
board of the JWB over the admission of
women rabbis;
• the Reform movement almost passing
a resolution criticizing the Lubavitch
organization as a "cult";
• statements by leading Orthodox rab-
bis condemning dialogue with non-
Orthodox rabbis on the grounds that such
clergy are heretics and representatives of
an inauthentic form of Judaism;
• the Israeli army refusing to allow cer-
tain ultra-Orthodox rabbis to speak to the
soldiers, and forcing an Orthodox chaplain
to remove the traditional B"H from the top
corner of his stationery. (The letters stand
for B'ezrat Hashem, or, with the help of
God.)
"I had anticipated none of this two years
ago," said Greenberg. "Professor Cohen
says it's not a split into two peoples, it's
just Yitz Greenberg exaggerating. But he
described two peoples in his presentation."
Greenberg said that it is "the height of
folly" to contend, as Cohen does, that if
"only" ten percent of the Jewish people
split off it is not a major crisis.
Greenberg and Cohen were sharply
divided on the implications of Cohen's
statistical findings, and there was much
discussion between them over whether or
not the growing divisiveness among Jews
would indeed lead to a complete split.
But Cohen and Greenberg seemed in
agreement on the more practical aspects