That doesn't make sense. One can not be within Jewish law, while explicitly rejecting jewish law for being judaism.
In fact, to looks like Leftists are trying to re-define jewishness in order to make sure their apostasy isn't used against them, in exactly the "right of return" I've previously mentioned:
QUESTION: If more than half the people who went on aliyah last year under Israel’s Law of Return are not halachically Jewish, doesn’t this render the traditional definition of Jewish status obsolete and it isn’t time for a radical rethink?
Rabbi Brawer: One might approach the matter of Israel’s Law of Return by recognising that standards of halachah and standards of citizenship need not necessarily be aligned. One may recognise that there are individuals who, according to the strict interpretation of halachah, are not considered Jewish, but who very much identify as such, and have much to contribute to the Jewish people and the state of Israel.
While it is only right that halachists be guided within the framework of halachah, one must at least recognise that there are other non-halachic frameworks that set out to define Jewishness.
This looks like Leftist subversion of Judaism to me.
One can not be within Jewish law, while explicitly rejecting jewish law for being judaism.
One is not within it in the sense of adhering to it, but one is within it in the sense of being bound by it.
The Law of Return is a different issue. It encompasses people who are not (and were never) halachically Jewish, generally because Jewish descent is matrilineal or because they converted to Reform Judaism, which does not recognize halacha. And yes, Reform is leftist subversion.
You don’t understand. Judaism isn’t like Christianity. Whether you are Jewish isn’t about what you believe. It’s about the rules of a legal system called halacha.
If you’re born to a halachically Jewish mother, you’re Jewish, and nothing can undo it, even if you go to a Reform synagogue or abandon the religion.
If you’re not Jewish, and you convert under Reform, you’re not halachically Jewish because you didn’t convert under halacha.
May I humbly suggest that you read the Wikipedia page on halacha (if not something more substantial)? Then you will have the information you need to discuss this.
A Jew who abandons Judaism is still halachically (in Jewish law) a Jew. Just a bad one.
That doesn't make sense. One can not be within Jewish law, while explicitly rejecting jewish law for being judaism.
In fact, to looks like Leftists are trying to re-define jewishness in order to make sure their apostasy isn't used against them, in exactly the "right of return" I've previously mentioned:
This looks like Leftist subversion of Judaism to me.
One is not within it in the sense of adhering to it, but one is within it in the sense of being bound by it.
The Law of Return is a different issue. It encompasses people who are not (and were never) halachically Jewish, generally because Jewish descent is matrilineal or because they converted to Reform Judaism, which does not recognize halacha. And yes, Reform is leftist subversion.
Then you prove my point. They're not jews.
A Unitarian which rejects the divinity of Christ, isn't Christian.
A Jew living outside off Jewish Law, isn't a Jew. That's why they can't return
You don’t understand. Judaism isn’t like Christianity. Whether you are Jewish isn’t about what you believe. It’s about the rules of a legal system called halacha.
If you’re born to a halachically Jewish mother, you’re Jewish, and nothing can undo it, even if you go to a Reform synagogue or abandon the religion.
If you’re not Jewish, and you convert under Reform, you’re not halachically Jewish because you didn’t convert under halacha.
May I humbly suggest that you read the Wikipedia page on halacha (if not something more substantial)? Then you will have the information you need to discuss this.