Wednesday, October 28, 2009

A Million Years Ago in Moment Magazine...

Every month, Moment poses a thought-provoking spiritual question.  And I just realized (I was searching for a past article at a site I had written for equally long ago) that they actually printed my response.  The question:

Is Wanting to Share a Jewish Partner's Religious Commitment a Sufficient Basis for Conversion? What Do YOU Think?

(I wonder why it came out so darn big?)
The question continues, but in a smaller font:
"In a move toward traditionalism, the Reform movement's Central Conference of American Rabbis recently announced that a Beit Din (a tribunal of rabbis) can ask a convert whether the conversion is because of spiritual as opposed to romantic reasons. Moment Magazine then asked readers what they thought of this new policy."
So this was my answer:
If conversion is "romantic," you're doing it wrong. It's got to be spiritual, it has to be life-changing. Traditional rabbis already know what my boyfriend and I are discovering: Our relationship is romantic, but the road to conversion is difficult--even grueling. My fiance is converting, and so far, he's had to starve, walk around in bad shoes, let stubble grow for weeks, listen to Uncle Moishy, and choke down cold gefilte fish (he likes it warm, which I feel is a crime against nature). Not much romance there.
Short, not so sweet.  To read some of the other responses, click here.

No comments:

Post a Comment

I love your comments!