Can I be Jewish for Halloween?

[masterp48hd]

I'll dress up as Jesus and **** *****es and **** just to **** of people. Jk but it would be hilarious

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll dress up as Jesus and **** *****es and **** just to **** of people. Jk but it would be hilarious

Join the crowd!
Jesus costumes are all over the place.

Note....
We tried to put on a Passion Play once in Revoltistan.
But we couldn't find 3 wise men or a virgin.

 

[Aquitaine]

Because what unites us as Jews is the issue of religion which is passed by birth (primarily). So it doesn't matter what color your mother was, or what continent she was from. Jewish is Jewish. It also doesn't matter whether or not the aforesaid Jewish person is a believer -- under Jewish law, he is bound by Jewish law regardless of his personal faith.

I think we will still not see eye-to-eye on this issue, primarily because I see that as a human-made restriction (being bound by Jewish Law), unlike a person's race, which is truly out of one's control.

 

[Curious George]

No, that is stating that the other person is relying on stereotypes, ones which I reject. If that person is NOT trying to represent me, and I am Jewish, then his costume's claim to "being a Jew" in a generic sense fails. If I saw someone wearing a kippah, my first thought would be that that person IS Jewish, because that's not a costume. And if a person walks into a halloween party wearing a kippah and I know he isn't Jewish, then I look at him and wonder why he thinks that this IS a costume and which specific Jew he is pretending to be.

That you think a costume fails in a generic sense if it doesn't represent all of a set of which it is supposed to be a member, shows this stereotyping.

No costume can represent all of a set. When an individual puts on a costume, they unless consciously making a statement that all x look like this, are simply dressing up as an instance of that set. The costume doesn't fail if it enables people to identify the set to which they are an instance. Moreover, if the person is respectfully, and truthfully representing an instance of the set I don't see why there is a problem. @Levite seems to be saying that the Halloween event makes it impossible to do this respectfully. But the notion that this cannot be done truthfully, without stereotyping, is a red herring. We are discussing wearing a yarmulke and tzitzit. This is not some offensive stereotype. Wearing something this simple can hardly be construed to making a comment about all Jewish people.

 

[rosends]

That you think a costume fails in a generic sense if it doesn't represent all of a set of which it is supposed to be a member, shows this stereotyping.

No costume can represent all of a set. When an individual puts on a costume, they unless consciously making a statement that all x look like this, are simply dressing up as an instance of that set. The costume doesn't fail if it enables people to identify the set to which they are an instance. Moreover, if the person is respectfully, and truthfully representing an instance of the set I don't see why there is a problem. @Levite seems to be saying that the Halloween event makes it impossible to do this respectfully. But the notion that this cannot be done truthfully, without stereotyping, is a red herring. We are discussing wearing a yarmulke and tzitzit. This is not some offensive stereotype. Wearing something this simple can hardly be construed to making a comment about all Jewish people.

Not, it is not making a comment about all Jewish people so it fails in the claim that it represents dressing up as 'being Jewish' as per the OP's question. If the description is more limited ("can I dress up as a Chassid" or "can I dress up as a dati le'umi") then the specifics might be closer to being useful and accurate (albeit partial) representations. Representing a single instance of the most general set and making the claim to represent the set as a generic whole doesn't make any sense to me. It is less a problem of disrespect that one of an erroneous claim predicated on poor application of a misinvoked stereotype.

 

[rosends]

I think we will still not see eye-to-eye on this issue, primarily because I see that as a human-made restriction (being bound by Jewish Law), unlike a person's race, which is truly out of one's control.

Understood. I would see as a human construct which has no real basis or confines and can be changed through the generations.

 

[Aquitaine]

Understood. I would see as a human construct which has no real basis or confines and can be changed through the generations.

There may be a lot of truth in that, and although it can change through the generations, it cannot change through a person's lifetime.

 

[rosends]

There may be a lot of truth in that, and although it can change through the generations, it cannot change through a person's lifetime.

Rachel Dolezal might disagree (said only half in jest).

 

[Curious George]

Not, it is not making a comment about all Jewish people so it fails in the claim that it represents dressing up as 'being Jewish' as per the OP's question. If the description is more limited ("can I dress up as a Chassid" or "can I dress up as a dati le'umi") then the specifics might be closer to being useful and accurate (albeit partial) representations. Representing a single instance of the most general set and making the claim to represent the set as a generic whole doesn't make any sense to me. It is less a problem of disrespect that one of an erroneous claim predicated on poor application of a misinvoked stereotype.

How does this make sense? Every instance of a Jew is being Jewish. It doesn't fail to meet the claim. That you hear such a claim is prejudiced. Being a generic instance (no one specific) who is Jewish is still being Jewish.

If you dressed as a maid would you be representative of all maids? Or would you be an instance of a maid?

 

[rosends]

How does this make sense? Every instance of a Jew is being Jewish. It doesn't fail to meet the claim. That you hear such a claim is prejudiced. Being a generic instance (no one specific) who is Jewish is still being Jewish.

If you dressed as a maid would you be representative of all maids? Or would you be an instance of a maid?

First, I have already drawn a distinction between dressing as an occupation and dressing as a group member, so the maid question is a non-starter.

But if a person is trying to dress as a member of a large group, and takes on elements which are local to only one part of that group, the costume fails. It relies on a generalized understanding when one would be erroneous. Every instance of a Jew is an instance of a Jew. Adopting a particular mode of dress and saying that that is the same as being that generic Jew is doomed to failure. If I shave my head and wear a small hat and say I am dressing up so I can "be a Muslim" I can bet you that a huge number of Muslims will say that my costume in no way represents being a Muslim. Even though my costume reflects the dress code of one section of the overall Muslim population, it is counter to the codes of, and therefore excludes huge other sections of Muslims and therefore fails at the claim of "being a Muslim."

 

[Curious George]

First, I have already drawn a distinction between dressing as an occupation and dressing as a group member, so the maid question is a non-starter.

But if a person is trying to dress as a member of a large group, and takes on elements which are local to only one part of that group, the costume fails. It relies on a generalized understanding when one would be erroneous. Every instance of a Jew is an instance of a Jew. Adopting a particular mode of dress and saying that that is the same as being that generic Jew is doomed to failure. If I shave my head and wear a small hat and say I am dressing up so I can "be a Muslim" I can bet you that a huge number of Muslims will say that my costume in no way represents being a Muslim. Even though my costume reflects the dress code of one section of the overall Muslim population, it is counter to the codes of, and therefore excludes huge other sections of Muslims and therefore fails at the claim of "being a Muslim."

And yarmulke and tzitzit exclude a huge population of Jewish people? So much that they have no idea what they are but are still informed on Jewish culture? You are stretching.

You addressed whether people are dressing up as instances of an occupation vs. Representatives of the occupation as a whole?

What about any other category? You need more than dressing up as an instance to claim someone is trying to represent the category as a whole.

 

[leibowde84]

Couldn't help but ask your sister is Jewish? Half-sister, step-sister, sister-in-law?

Real sister. Grew up with a Jewish dad and a Catholic mom. Got to choose in eighth grade. Hey ... At least I got to decide with a somewhat formed brain.

 

[rosends]

And yarmulke and tzitzit exclude a huge population of Jewish people?

Sadly, yes. And I would say also that a large majority of the Jewish (by birth) population, at least outside of Israel, would not know what tzitzit are. All the more so, the non-Jewish population. I wish I was stretching when I say that, but the numbers are pretty clear. The orthodox community (which is the one in which you will find most of your "tzitzit aware population", was, in 2003 2% of the US Jewish population.

You addressed whether people are dressing up as instances of an occupation vs. Representatives of the occupation as a whole?

No, I addressed a potential distinction between someone dressing up as a occupation ("doctor") vs. as a member of a group.

What about any other category? You need more than dressing up as an instance to claim someone is trying to represent the category as a whole.

The OP was asking about his costume presented as an attempt to represent the category as a whole. His question wasn't "can I be a rabbi for Halloween?" or "can I be an ultra-orthodox chassid?" but "can I be Jewish".

 

[Curious George]

Sadly, yes. And I would say also that a large majority of the Jewish (by birth) population, at least outside of Israel, would not know what tzitzit are. All the more so, the non-Jewish population. I wish I was stretching when I say that, but the numbers are pretty clear. The orthodox community (which is the one in which you will find most of your "tzitzit aware population", was, in 2003 2% of the US Jewish population.

No, I addressed a potential distinction between someone dressing up as a occupation ("doctor") vs. as a member of a group.

The OP was asking about his costume presented as an attempt to represent the category as a whole. His question wasn't "can I be a rabbi for Halloween?" or "can I be an ultra-orthodox chassid?" but "can I be Jewish".

Lol ok, I am Jewish. My state of being is not representative of the group, so why must someone else "being Jewish" be representative of the group?

 

[rosends]

Lol ok, I am Jewish. My state of being is not representative of the group, so why must someone else "being Jewish" be representative of the group?

Because that what h asked about doing. My point is that he can't.

 

[Curious George]

Because that what h asked about doing. My point is that he can't.

No he didn't. That is what you understood. His title asked if he could be Jewish for Halloween.

Nowhere did he ask if he it was possible to represent all Jewish people by wearing a yarmulke and a tzitzit

 

[rosends]

No he didn't. That is what you understood. His title asked if he could be Jewish for Halloween.

Nowhere did he ask if he it was possible to represent all Jewish people by wearing a yarmulke and a tzitzit

The name of the thread is "

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/can-i-be-jewish-for-halloween

Not "can I dress up like a modern orthodox Jew". But "can I be Jewish for Halloween." Assuming that the "for Halloween" part indicates that a costume is involved, and the asker doesn't intend to undergo a long conversion process for a single day's party, the question is asking about how to pass one's self as generically Jewish via clothing. So the kippah and tzitzit are being used as the shorthand for "being Jewish."

 

[Curious George]

The name of the thread is "

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/can-i-be-jewish-for-halloween

Not "can I dress up like a modern orthodox Jew". But "can I be Jewish for Halloween." Assuming that the "for Halloween" part indicates that a costume is involved, and the asker doesn't intend to undergo a long conversion process for a single day's party, the question is asking about how to pass one's self as generically Jewish via clothing. So the kippah and tzitzit are being used as the shorthand for "being Jewish."

No, wearing a kippah and tzitzit would just be identifiable so people recognize him as a Jewish instance. Yes, I agree it is talking about a costume. However, nothing in the question indicates anything other than him inquiring whether he can be an instance of Judaism for Halloween. Again, I am Jewish. If my mother had another son, he would "be Jewish." To "be Jewish" is not to be all Jews.

One of us is reading this wrong. I have a feeling that if this is reasonably offensive the key lies in what levite was saying about dressing up for Halloween being the offensive part. I have just not wrapped my head around it. However, could it be that you are reading what is not there?

If my interpretation is correct is the act not offensive anymore?

 

[rosends]

No, wearing a kippah and tzitzit would just be identifiable so people recognize him as a Jewish instance. Yes, I agree it is talking about a costume. However, nothing in the question indicates anything other than him inquiring whether he can be an instance of Judaism for Halloween. Again, I am Jewish. If my mother had another son, he would "be Jewish." To "be Jewish" is not to be all Jews.

One of us is reading this wrong. I have a feeling that if this is reasonably offensive the key lies in what levite was saying about dressing up for Halloween being the offensive part. I have just not wrapped my head around it. However, could it be that you are reading what is not there?

If my interpretation is correct is the act not offensive anymore?

I see at least two separate lines of thinking. One has to do with the potential for offense based on the particulars of the costume. This point can be further broken into a couple of sub points (to my mind) -- devaluing items with inherent holiness, devaluing the belief system represented by those items and maybe even mispresenting the items so that others get the wrong idea about them and their place within the system.

The other line though is the notion that a costume can represent anything other than a very limited and local iteration of the group membership. If an Israeli who normally wore a black velvet kippah chose to wear a srugah, his costume would not be that of "Jewish" but of a particular subset of Jews. Someone coming from the outside who chooses to pick what is, in truth, only part of life for a small subset, and then seeing it as a way of presenting the larger group seems wrong to me. It isn't about the particulars or the holiness but about the notion that you can be something on the larger scale by doing something which only relates to a small group within.

 

[Curious George]

I see at least two separate lines of thinking. One has to do with the potential for offense based on the particulars of the costume. This point can be further broken into a couple of sub points (to my mind) -- devaluing items with inherent holiness, devaluing the belief system represented by those items and maybe even mispresenting the items so that others get the wrong idea about them and their place within the system.

The other line though is the notion that a costume can represent anything other than a very limited and local iteration of the group membership. If an Israeli who normally wore a black velvet kippah chose to wear a srugah, his costume would not be that of "Jewish" but of a particular subset of Jews. Someone coming from the outside who chooses to pick what is, in truth, only part of life for a small subset, and then seeing it as a way of presenting the larger group seems wrong to me. It isn't about the particulars or the holiness but about the notion that you can be something on the larger scale by doing something which only relates to a small group within.

The second one is where I certainly disagree, so I will start there. The dressing as an instance of a subset is just that. The claiming it represents the larger subset is something more. Hence my statement, that the costume is not offensive without something more. now, I do not see it as something more to acknowledge that one's instance, while part of a particular subset, is also an instance of the larger set. This is because this is true. I agree that given the instances of racism that it is very easy to assume that something more is present. But we still need to have this something more in order to say the act is offensive. Once this claim to represent all Jewish people exists, then the person is engaging in stereotyping.

This something more can present itself in other ways beyond stereotyping. Certainly acts that defile that which we hold dear is something more. Now here is where my struggle is, levite seems to have suggested, and you have implied that dressing up as Jewish, even just these two items, for Halloween entails disrespect.

So while I understand cutting the tzitzit would be disrespectful and some would reasonably take offense, I find it hard to understand how just wearing them would be. But it is not just wearing them, it is wearing them for Halloween. While they mean something very specific to some, wearing them for Halloween might be wearing them without this reason. It would be wearing them to look like someone they are not, instead of to remind them who they are.

Now, given that it is not offensive to look like someone you are not in a movie, the idea of looking like someone you are not at a Halloween party doesn't strike me as offensive. Levite suggested that the difference lies in the intent. The something more that is entailed by acting is sending a message. This could be good or bad, if it is good there is no reason to take offense, but if it is bad there is (I would assume). At Halloween, otoh, the likelihood of sending a good message is slim to none (but still present and I imagine it would be okay if the message was good, as in my cultural party example in second post). The likelihood of no message, or a bad message is high though. If there is a bad message then this is the something more I understand as offensive. If there is no message than the purpose is personal enjoyment. This is where I hit the wall again. What is wrong with someone enjoying some aspect of Jewish culture for a day? I suppose it is possible that the enjoyment of Jewish culture sends a message that Jewish culture can be used for one's personal enjoyment. But I don't see that as a bad message. I also suppose one could make the case that the message dressing up for Halloween conveys is that these aspects of Jewish culture should not be taken seriously. But why then the issue with the kippah? Should we take the kippah so serious? It is after all, just a head cover. I understand not disrespecting it, but so serious others cannot wear them for their personal enjoyment?