Beyond the Secular-Religion Divide: Judaism and the New Secularity

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article proposes a “new secularity” beyond the antagonism between secularity and religiosity. The author argues that the new secularity sheds light on American Jewish phenomena that remain unintelligible in the secular-religious binary and the fact-value binary. More particularly, she/he analyses orthodox Jewish feminism, reform Jewish traditional practices and a post-ethnic (Shaul Magid) Jewish self-consciousness.

Turning away from Peter Berger’s secularization thesis which opposes religion with science and reason, the “new secularity” appreciates science, while remaining sceptical towards scientific truth as the only truth. It values beliefs and laws as a pragmatic interest of living communities. Like Leo Strauss, the author challenges the scientific discourse as well as the revelatory discourse. Like Strauss, he calls attention to Jewish legal rationality. He/she defines rationality as the product of a community’s knowledge of the world.

 

Remarks:

- incomplete sentence in l. 177-180

-Jack Wertheimer in l. 60, 377, 407.

-religiosity in l. 42

Author Response

Many thanks for reading and reviewing the essay. I will revise the issues on lines 177-180, 60, 377 and 407 and fix 'religiosity' on line 42.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well written, interesting, and thoughtful essay. It highlights the problematic tendency to utilize the secularization hypothesis in the treatment of American Judaism and recommends instead the adoption of an alternative framework, what the author calls ‘new secularity.’ The author makes a strong case for the advantages this new paradigm would bring. The author uses three examples to illustrate this new secularity. On the whole, it is an interesting and thought provoking contribution to the field.

I do have some minor criticisms 
on page 2:I would suggest some rewording as the author makes seem as if Berger’s work is the origin of the secularization thesis rather than an illustration of it

the initial discussion of modern Jewish thought seemed too sweeping and general on page 3. The discussions on page 4 and 5 are much better and I wonder if the author an indicate if only in a note that on page 3 they are presenting things in a cursory way and that this will be deepened shortly)

On page 7, I would love to know where the author is deriving their account of the dispute at Riverdale—some reference would be good.

 

 

 

Author Response

Many thanks for the helpful review. 

I have made all the changes requested. I have indicated that the secularization thesis is coined by Weber (not Berger).

I have indicated that the brief account of modern Jewish thought on p.3 is supplemented by a longer account in what follows.

I have offered references for the Riverdal women's example.