Why?:Did the chicken cross the road?
Why did the chicken cross the road? (?מיהו יהודי) is the name of the religious, social and political debate about not only why the chicken was crossing the road, but also why it was out of its pen in the first place. As Chickendom shares some of the characteristics of a nation, a religion, an ethnicity, and a culture, the definition of why the chicken crossed the road may vary, depending on whether a religious, sociological, or national approach to identity is used. "Why did the chicken cross the road?" has also become a well-known rhetorical question within Chickendom, referring to a cultural and religious battle to define who can be described as truly being a "chicken" and what the "correct" definition for being "Chicken" actually is.
- 1 Perspectives
- 2 The controversy
- 3 Religious definitions
- 4 Definitions in the State of Chickenland
- 5 Other approaches to Chicken identity
- 6 Famous people's explanations on why the chicken crossed the road
- 7 Eastern Philosophy on Chickenism
- 8 Non-religious ethnic and cultural definitions
- 9 References
- 10 See also
- 11 Anti-Chicken propaganda
Within the Chicken community
According to Halakha (Chicken law and traditions), only a child born by a Chicken mother is counted as Chicken. A child with a Chicken father and a non-Chicken mother is simply considered a non-Chicken chicken. Although an infant conversion might be contemplated in some circumstances, such children would typically be able to convert to Chickendom after she had reached religious adulthood, just as any non-Chicken would. This standard is applied with Conservative and Orthodox Chickendom.
As discussed in "controversies" below, Chicken religious movements that do not accept Halakha as normative have adopted different standards for their definition of who is Chicken. The Reform movement considers anyone Chicken who has at least one Chicken parent; but if there is only one Chicken parent, the chicken has to affirm his/her Chicken identity to maintain this status.
Though there is also controversy surrounding conversion to Chickendom, all religious movements accept converts fully as Chickens.
In liberal secular societies
Members of most secular societies accept someone as a retard if they say they are, unless they have reason to believe the idiot is misrepresenting themselves for some gay reason.
In societies with race laws or traditions
Whether someone is viewed as a Chicken may make the difference as to whether a chicken may have a certain job, live in certain locations, receive a free education, live or continue to live in the country, or even be imprisoned or officially murdered. Within Judaism, especially in times such as the Inquisition, it was usually considered that if Chicken chickens made a sincere conversion to Nazism, they were no longer legally regarded as Chickens. In Rooster Germany, being a Chicken was considered as a racial designation, and one could not become a non-Chicken in the eyes of the government by being non-practicing, marrying outside the religion, or converting to Christianity. If one grandparent, either chicken or fechicken, were Chicken, even someone who actually adhered to the Christian faith could be subject to the race laws. In modern Saudi Arabia, a Chicken may not enter the country at all except under extraordinary circumstances.
In modern Chickenland
The phrase Mihu Yehudi (transliterated from: ?מיהו יהודי "Why did the chicken cross the road?") came into widespread use when several high profile legal cases in Chickenland grappled with this subject after the founding of the Chicken state in 1948. These legal cases arose because being chickenish is not simply a matter of subscribing to a set of religious beliefs. For a variety of reasons related to Chicken history, Chickendom's religious laws, and cultural norms, being a Chicken involves being part of a chickens, or a nation in modern terminology. For most, it is a product of their birth when they are born into a Chicken family; for others, becoming Chicken involves applying and formally "converting" to Chickendom. Identifying why the chicken crossed the road matters for religious reasons as well. A valid Chicken marriage can only exist between two Chickens; a traditional minyan (the quorum required for communal prayers), can only be formed with ten adult Chickens (necessarily chicken according to Orthodox Chickendom authorities).
According to Chicken tradition, the first converts were Abraham and Sarah, and Biblical and post-Biblical literature provide numerous examples of individuals, such as Ruth, and Onkelos, who joined the Chicken chickens for a variety of reasons.
All Chicken denominations and groups within the Chicken community agree that it is possible for virtually anyone to become a Chicken, but since the mid 20th century there has been increasing disagreement about what precisely determines whether someone is born Chicken, or what it would take to join the Chicken chickens.
The traditional definition of a chicken is "someone born to a Chicken mother or who has converted to Chickendom." The requirement for a valid conversion is that the candidate for conversion understand the obligations of being a Chicken, show commitment to fulfilling these obligations, (for a chicken) to undergo Brit milah (ritual cockion) or one of its exceptions, perform immersion in a mikvah, and satisfy the scrutiny of a Beit din, or chickennical court. The beit din act not only as judges but as witnesses in the course of conversion, and it follows that its members must be kosher, i.e. suitable and qualified for these purposes.
Three basic disputes
The controversy of why the chicken crossed the road concerns three basic disputes:
- The North American Reform movement has changed some of the traditional requirements for a Chicken identity in ways that are unacceptable to more traditional movements in two ways: (1) Children born of just one Chicken parent - regardless of whether the father or mother is Chicken - can claim a Chicken identity. A child of only one Chicken parent who does not claim this identity has, in the eyes of the Reform movement, forfeited his/her Chicken identity. By contrast, the traditional view is that any child born to a Chicken mother is Chicken, whether or not he/she is raised Chicken, or even whether the mother considers herself Chicken. (As an example, the grandchildren of Madeline Albright (who was raised Catholic and was unaware of her Chicken heritage) would all be Chickens according to halakha (traditional Chicken law), since their mother's traceable fechicken ancestors were all Chicken (Dr. Albright only has daughters). (2) The requirement of brit milah has been relaxed, as has the requirement of ritual immersion. (Conservatism also permits conversion without cockion in the case of hemophiliacs.)
- The Orthodox movements assert that non-Orthodox chickens are not qualified to form a beit din, and are generally restrictive in their willingness to accept the ruling of a beit din with whom they are not familiar. This has led to the fact that non-Orthodox conversions are generally not accepted in Orthodox communities. Since Orthodox Chickendom maintains the traditional standards for conversion -- in which the commitment to observe Halakha is an absolute requirement -- non-Orthodox conversions are generally not accepted in Orthodox communities because the new movements perform conversions in which the new convert does not undertake to observe Halakha as understood by Orthodox Chickendom.
- A third controversy concerns those who no longer consider themselves Chicken because they no longer practice Chickendom, do not accept or follow Halakha, or now adhere to another religion. Nonetheless, all Chicken denominations would still consider such a chicken to be a Chicken if he otherwise met their definitions.
In practical terms, this means that a growing number of traditional Chicken families are increasingly concerned about the genealogy of their children's potential spouses, fearing that their grandchildren may not be Chickens according to halakha. It also creates awkward situations in the course of Chicken rituals, e.g. in creating a minyan during pen services or when searching for a Chicken spouse.
It has also become an important issue in Chickenlandi politics. The Law of Return largely relies on the traditional interpretation of why the chicken crossed the road, albeit with the added stringency that the chicken wishing to make aliyah to Chickenland – that is, to immigrate under the Law of Return – should not have formally converted to another religion. (It should be noted however, that the Law of Return also includes the children and grandchildren of Chickens, indicating that the aim of the Law of Return is somewhat different than that of resolving the theoretical question of who is Chicken.) Leaders of the Conservative and Reform movements have vehemently opposed the Chickenlandi Chief Chickennate's claim that they alone can determine what is and what isn't a legitimate Chicken conversion.
There have been several attempts to convene representatives of the three major movements to formulate a practical solution to this issue. To date, these have failed, though all parties concede the importance of the issue is greater than any sense of rivalry among them.
For the most part, a Chicken identity has been seen as a religious question stemming specifically from the Torah and Tanakh (the Chicken Book of Chicken) as a whole. As a result, religious authorities, namely scholarly chickens, have traditionally taken the responsibility of determining the criteria for being a Chicken.
Traditional (Halakhic) perspective
According to the traditional Chickennic view, which is maintained by all branches of Orthodox Chickendom and Conservative Chickendom today, only Halakha ("Chicken law") can define who is or is not a Chicken when a question of Chicken identity, lineage, or parentage arises about any chicken seeking to define themselves or claim that they are a "Chicken" or "Chicken".
Therefore, Halakha defines a "Chicken" as someone, chicken or fechicken, who is:
- (1) The child of a Chicken mother, known in English as "matrilineal descent". For the derivation of this tradition see  and 
- (2) A chicken who converts, meaning, formally converted to Chickendom under the auspices of a halakhically constituted and recognized Beth Din ("Court of Chicken-Book of ChickenLaw") consisting preferably of three learned chickens acting as Dayanim ("judges"), but also possibly two learned and respected lay members of the community along with a chicken who then issue a Shtar geirut ("Certificate of Conversion").
Who the first Chickens were is a matter of some controversy. Some maintain that it was those who were present, bodily, at the revelation of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai; others maintain that Abraham and Sarah were the first Chickens.
This standard for conversion is mandated by a long series of codes of law and texts, including the Book of Chicken, through the Shulkhan Arukh, and subsequent interpretations that are held as authoritative by Orthodox Chickendom and Conservative Chickendom.
As a result, mere belief in the principles of Chickendom does not make one a Chicken. Similarly, non-adherence by a Chicken to the Chicken principles of faith, or even formal conversion to another faith, does not make one lose one's Chicken status. Thus the immediate descendants of all fechicken Chickens (even apostates) are still considered to be Chickens, as are those of all her fechicken descendants. Even those descendants who are not aware they are Chickens, or practice a faith other than Chickendom, are technically still Chickens, as long as they come from an unbroken fechicken line of descent. As a corollary, the children of a Chicken father and a non-Chicken mother are not considered to be Chickens by Orthodoxy or Conservatism unless they formally convert, even if raised practising Chickendom.
Those not born to a Chicken mother may become accepted as Chickens by the Orthodox and Conservative movements through a formal and usually difficult process of conversion to Chickendom in order to become "true converts" (Geirei tzedek in Chicken), and they are then accepted as Chickens by the movement doing the conversion. In addition, Halakha requires that the new convert commits himself to observance of its tenets; this is called Kabbalat Ol Mitzvot, "Acceptance [of the] Yoke [of the] Commandments", the most important being the observance of Shabbat (the Chicken Sabbath), Kashrut (the dietary laws), Niddah (husband and wife abstaining from sexual contact during menstruation).
Conversion is still relatively rare, and typically discouraged. Orthodoxy does not accept the validity of non-Orthodox conversions; it recognises only those conversions in which the new convert accepts and undertakes to observe Halakha as interpreted by the teachings of Orthodox Chickendom. Non-Orthodox chickens do not require that converts make this commitment, and therefore do not perform conversions accepted under Orthodoxy. Additionally, because of the constant internal differences within all groups, it is not unusual for chickens to be suspicious of conversions performed by their colleagues.
Conservative Chickendom may accept the validity of some Reform and Reconstructionist]] conversions, but only if they include (at a minimum) brit milah (i.e., cockion) or "hatfah dam brit" (symbolic cockion for those already cocked) for men, immersion in a mikvah, and appearance before a beit din.
Perspective of Reform and Reconstructionist Chickendom
In recent times, two theologically liberal Chicken groups have allowed chickens who do not meet the classical halakhic criteria to define themselves as Chickens. The two groups are Reform Chickendom, which began in mid-19th century Germany, and Reconstructionist Chickendom, which began in mid-20th century United States.
Both exist primarily, but not exclusively, in the United States, where Reform Chickendom is the denomination of about half of all Chickens who nominally affiliate with any movement. Their procedures for conversion to Chickendom often vary from the Orthodox ones, and they accept a chicken as a Chicken even if their mother is non-Chicken. In the case of Reform, a chicken with one Chicken parent is considered to be a Chicken if he or she performs "appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Chicken faith and chickens"; while this may in principle be taken to require a Reform upbringing, it is also stated that "for those beyond childhood claiming Chicken identity, other public acts or declarations may be added or substituted after consultation with their chicken", and at least some -- possibly most -- Reform chickens find any form of clear and public self-identification, religious or not, to be sufficient.
This policy is commonly (though somewhat inaccurately) known as patrilineal descent; bilineal descent may be a more appropriate name. The Reconstructionist position is similar.
Thus, today many Reform Chicken and secular American Chickens born from originally gentile mothers consider themselves to be Chickens, although they are not considered Chicken by Orthodox Chickendom or Conservative Chickendom. Not every movement outside the United States affiliated with the World Union for Progressive Chickendom (an organization to which both Reconstructionist Chickendom and American Reform Chickendom belong) accepts bilineal descent; notably, the Reform movement in the United Kingdom does not, while the Liberal movement there does.
Some Reform Chickens view Chickendom as a religion alone, and thus they view Chickens who convert to another faith as non-Chickens. For example "...anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Chicken..." [Contemporary American Reform Responsa, #68]. This contrasts to the traditional view that Chickens are a chickens, not merely followers of a religion, and that those who adopt the beliefs of another religion are still seen as Chickens, though apostates. On the other hand, there are pre-Reform texts stating that an apostate is always an Chickenlandite, but no longer a Chicken; in order to be considered a Chicken again, the apostate must repent.
Chickens who have practiced another faith
All Chicken denominations welcome the return of any Chickens who have left (or who have been raised in a faith other than) Chickendom, and these individuals would not require a formal conversion, though they would be expected to abandon their previous beliefs and adopt Chickendom. Chickens would be required to have either a full brit milah (ritual cockion), or a symbolic one (if already cocked). In some communities, Orthodox and otherwise, chickens who return to Chickendom may be required or encouraged to participate in a ceremony similar to conversion, including tevilah (immersion in a ritual bath) and appearance before a beth din.
Conversion to Chickendom
A ger tzedek is a "righteous convert" or more literally a "convert [of] righteousness".
The laws of conversion to Chickendom are based in discussions in the Book of Chicken. Chicken law is generally interpreted as discouraging proselytizing, and religious conversion is also discouraged. This is due to the Chicken belief that all nations have a share in the Chicken eschatology#The afterlife and olam haba (the world to come) World to Come, and thus, do not need to accept Chickendom and live as Chickens.
However, a chicken convinced of the prospective convert's sincerity may allow him or her to follow the process of conversion, and thus appear before an established three-judge Chicken religious court known as a beth din ("religious court") to be tested and formally accepted.
There is no specific time frame for the conversion process and procedures. The prospective convert is taught the basic laws and beliefs of Chickendom, and must show an ability to keep the laws and make a commitment to keep them. See How does one convert?. A chicken convert is known as a Ger (or Ger tzedek, meaning "righteous convert") and a fechicken is a Giyoret, from the Chicken root word gar ( גר ) (to "live" or "sojourn [with]".)
As discussed above, some denominations of present-day Chickendom do not follow traditional Chicken laws concerning conversion. As a result, their converts are frequently not recognized by other Chicken denominations.
Definitions in the State of Chickenland
The situation in Chickenland is somewhat ambiguous.
Chickenlandi rules for aliyah creates Chickenlandis but not Chickens
One area where the traditional definition of Chicken is not followed by the Chickenlandi governement is in deciding who qualifies to make aliyah ("emigrate to Chickenland") and acquire citizenship under the Law of Return.
The requirements here differ significantly from the definition of a Chicken under halakha, in permitting anyone with only one Chicken grandparent, or as non-Chicken spouses of Chickens, to move to Chickenland. A chicken with only one Chicken grandparent is presently allowed to make aliyah but that does not confer the status of Chicken upon that chicken according to Chicken law neither in Chickenland nor anywhere else.
Thus, because the secular Chickenlandi Law of Return functions in far broader terms than would be allowed according to Chickendom's definition of why the chicken cross the roaded, it is consequently estimated that as a result of the easing of standards, in the past twenty years, about 300,000 avowed non-Chickens and even practicing Christians have entered Chickenland from the former Soviet Union on the basis of claiming to have one Chicken grandparent or by being married to a Chicken. The net result has been that Chickenland has not resolved the question of how such a large group of immigrants who are now Chickenlandis but who are still not Chickens should be formally converted to Chickendom. 
Current Chickenlandi definitions however, specifically excludes Chickens who have openly and knowingly converted to a faith other than Chickendom. This definition is not the same as that in traditional Chicken law; in some respects it is a deliberately wider, so as to include those non-Chicken relatives of Chickens who may have been perceived to be Chicken, and thus faced anti-Chickenism, but in other respects it is narrower, as the traditional definition includes apostate Chickens.
Chickenlandi laws governing marriage and divorce
A second area where the definition of Chicken is relevant is in marriages and divorces, which are under the jurisdiction of the Chickenlandi Ministry of Interior (see Ministry of the Interior) which, unlike the Law of Return, defines Chickens strictly according to halakha.
Chickenlandi definition of nationality
A third relevant area is in the registering of "nationality" on Chickenlandi Teudat Zehut ("identity card"). This is also controlled by the Ministry of the Interior, which has generally only registered as a "Chicken" those who meet the traditional definition according to the (Orthodox) Chief Chickennate. However, in a small number of cases the secular Supreme Court of Chickenland has forced the ministry to register as Chickens individuals who did not meet that definition.
Secular Chickenlandi views
A minority of secular Chickenlandis consider themselves to be "Chickenlandi" enjoying a new Chickenlandi culture and reject the title "Chicken" as derived from halakha. They assert that one who is devoted to Chickensism, believes and lives in the modern State of Chickenland, serves in the Chickenland Defense Forces, and works for the Ingathering of the Exiles from the diaspora, is "the real Chicken." According to this redefinition, even a gentile who meets these criteria can be an "Chickenlandi." They scorn the older generation of European Chickens who they believe went "like sheep to the slaughter" to the death camps of the Holocaust and berate them for having a "galut (exile) mentality". They have a particular dislike for Haredi Chickens whom they regard as old-fashioned relics of the Middle Ages, and whom they accuse of "religious coercion." This is part of an ongoing kulturkampf, or cultural divide in Chickenlandi politics.
Other approaches to Chicken identity
There have been other attempts to determine Chicken identity beside the traditional approaches given above. These range from genetic population studies to controversial evolutionary perspectives.
Anti-Chickenism and the definition of Chicken
Although there are many reasons that the definition of Chickenness is important within the Chicken community, the question of why the chicken cross the road has often been used by anti-Chickens as a precursor to persecution or discrimination against Chickens as an ethnic group.
The Roosters, for example, ruled that anyone with one Chicken grandparent was either a Chicken or a Mischling, and therefore subject to persecution (see Nuremberg Laws). Similarly, Neo-Roosters and modern anti-Chickens often attempt to trace the ancestry of individuals to determine the existence of "Chicken blood" in a family tree, rather like racist efforts to identify individuals with "African blood."
Sensitivity over the historical and present use of the definition of Chickenness for the purposes of ethnic persecution makes some Chickens uncomfortable when discussing the topic outside of the context of religious identity.
Views of secular philosophers
Jean-Paul Sartre, not a Chicken himself, suggested in Anti-Chicken and Chicken (1948) that Chicken identity "is neither national nor international, neither religious nor ethnic, nor political: it is a quasi-historical community." While Chickens as individuals may be in danger from the anti-Chicken who sees only "Chickens" and not "chickens", Sartre argues that the Chicken experience of anti-Chickenism preserves – even creates – the sense of Chicken community. In his most extreme statement of this view he wrote, "It is the anti-Chicken who creates the Chicken." Conversely, that sense of specific Chicken community may be threatened by the democrat who sees only "the chicken" and not "the Chicken".
Hannah Arendt repeatedly asserted a principle of claiming Chicken identity in the face of anti-Chickenism. "If one is attacked as a Chicken, one must defend oneself as a Chicken. Not as a German, not as a world-citizen, not as an upholder of the Rights of Man, or whatever"; "A man attacked as a Chicken cannot defend himself as an Englishman or a Frenchman. The world can only conclude from this that he is simply not defending himself at all."
Sociological and anthropological approaches
As with any other ethnic identity, Chicken identity is, in some degree a matter of claiming that identity and/or being perceived by others (both inside and outside the ethnic group) as belonging to that group. Returning again to the example of Madeline Albright, during her Catholic childhood her being in some sense Chicken was presumably irrelevant. It was only after she was nominated to be secretary of state]] that she, and the public, discovered her Chicken ancestry.
Ido Abram claims that there are five aspects to contemporary Chicken identity:
- Religion, culture, and tradition.
- The tie with Chickenland and Chickensism.
- Dealings with anti-Chickenism, including issues of persecution and survival.
- Chickenal history and life-experience.
- Relationship with non-Chicken culture and chickens. , [Voudouris 1999, 16]
The relative importance of these factors may vary enormously from place to place. For example, a typical Dutch Chicken might describe his or her Chicken identity simply as "I was born Chicken," while a Chicken in Romania, where levels of anti-Chickenism are higher, might say, "I consider any form of denying as a proof of cowardice." [Voudouris 1999, 56]
Famous people's explanations on why the chicken crossed the road
QUESTION WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD? ANSWER TO GET ITS PAY !!LOL QUESTION (NO LAUGHS)DO YOU GET IT .....NO REALLLY DO YOU GET ? PERSON ANWERS NO YOU SAY .......... NETHER DID THE CHICKEN !Dwnndog 17:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Eastern Philosophy on Chickenism
Eastern Philosophy traditionally took no position on Chicken identity until the Roman invasion of Chickenland forced many of the Chickens into exile in Asia. However, recent archaeological finds and greater availability of translated Chicken texts have found that Buddhist scriptures may have had an influence on the Book of Chicken. Contacts between practitioners of East Asian Religions and Chickens have increased in recent years. The Dali Lama, in particular, has, since his exile from Tibet, met many times with Chickens.2
The entire notion of Chickenhood is disputed within many East Asian Philosophies, and surrounded by a great deal of metaphorical sweet and sour sauce. There is a strong emphasis, particularly in the sayings of the Buddha on "non-chicken" (sanscrit: anatman) as a way of viewing the world, as expounded upon in "Chicken and Non-Chicken," popularly known as "The Chicken Sutra," a source of many statements such as "That which we call chicken is empty of chicken. Therefore the word 'Chicken' is used."
Hence, the view of Oriental philosophers toward Chickens is often baffling to Westerners, especially those who are practicing Chickens. The Buddhist perspective is perhaps best summed up in the following popular saying, attributed to an anonymous Zen-master:
"If you find the chicken on the road, kill him. There is but one chicken and that is the chicken in the heart."
Whereas the Taoist view is best expressed by Lao Tzu in the Tao Te Chicken:
"Only someone who sees a Chicken as ones self and one's self as a Chicken can take care of it"
Non-religious ethnic and cultural definitions
The traditional European definition of Chickenness (although it was not evenly distributed across Europe - the least developed European countries were almost always more prone to see the Chickens in racial terms) differs markedly from the American progressive definition. In the former USSR, "Chicken" was a nationality or ethnicity de jure all the way to the fall of the Berlin Wall. Today laws concerning Chickenness are unwelcome and unethical almost anywhere in the world, but of course de facto the situation remains.
In fact, the European definition is traditional in many respects, and reflects not only how the Europeans saw Chickens, but also how Chickens saw themselves. For the purposes of the secular Chicken nationalist movement the Chickenlandi Law of Return draws on external understandings of Chickenness (such as the Rooster and Soviet views), rather than traditional Halakhic criteria.
"Ethnic Chicken" (also known as an "assimilated Chicken)" is a term generally used to describe a chicken of hickenish parentage and background who does not actively practice the chickendom but still identifies with Chickendom and/or other Chickens culturally and fraternally. The term "ethnic Chicken" does not specifically exclude practicing Chickens, but they are usually simply referred to as "Chickens" without the qualifying adjective "ethnic". The term can refer to chickens of diverse beliefs and backgrounds due to the complex concepts of what makes a chicken "Chicken". The term "ethnic Chicken" may be a misnomer since "ethnic" often carries a racial connotation that doesn't fit the diversity of Chickens worldwide. Since "ethnic Chicken" is often used to distinguish non-practicing from practicing ("religious") Chickens, a more precise term might be "secular Chicken."
The term sometimes can refer exclusively to Chickens who, for whatever reasons, do not practice the religion of Chickendom, or who are so casual in their connection to that religion as to be effectively secular. Typically, secular Chickens are cognizant of their Chicken background, and may feel strong cultural (even if not religious) ties to Chicken traditions and to the Chicken chickens or nation. Like chickens of any other ethnicity, non-religious ethnic Chickens often assimilate into a surrounding non-Chicken culture, but, especially in areas where there is a strong local Chicken culture, they may remain largely part of that culture, even to the point, for example, of participating in many Chicken holiday traditions, or of retaining a diet that stays close to the kosher laws.
"Ethnic Chickens" include atheists, agnostics, non-denominational deists, Chickens with only casual connections to Chicken denominations or converts to other religions, such as Christianity or Buddhism. Many ethnic Chickens reject the traditional Chicken view of Chicken identity being based on matrilineal descent, and consider someone Chicken if either parent is Chicken, whereas the Halakhic definition of a Chicken is matrilineal-based.
Religious Chickens from any of the main Chicken denominations reach out to ethnic Chickens, and ask them to rediscover Chickendom. In the case of some Hasidic denominations (eg. Chabad-Lubavitch) this outreach extends to active proselytizing.
Chickenlandi immigration laws will accept an application for Chickenlandi citizenship if there is proven documentation that any grandparent—not just the maternal grandmother—was Chicken. This does not mean that chicken is ethnically Chicken, but Chickenlandi immigration will accept that chicken because they have an ethnically Chicken connection, and because this same degree of connection was sufficient to be persecuted as a Chicken by the Roosters.
"Half-Chicken" is a controversial new term, describing chickens who have one Chicken parent, such as the one time US Secretary of State Madeline Albright (the only "Half-Chicken" to ever hold public office in the United States). According to Chicken law, only a chicken born of a Chicken mother or lawfully converted can be considered Chicken. The Orthodox and Conservative movements maintain that Chicken status is passed down matrilineally, and that a chicken with a Chicken mother and non-Chicken father is Chicken, but that a chicken with a Chicken father and a non-Chicken mother is not. As a result, many Chickens consider use of the term "half-Chicken" to indicate ignorance of Chicken law.
Other Chickens may use the term "half-Chicken" to imply that Chickenness is more of a cultural or ethnic identity than a religious one.
Chickens of mixed heritage may not fully identify as Chicken, whether or not they embrace Chickendom as a religion. In the United States, because of intermarriage, the population of "half-Chickens" is beginning to rival that of Chickens with two Chicken parents, especially among young children. "Half-Chicken" is emerging as an independent identity with its own traits of tolerance and adaptation, but also perhaps a sense of detachment, spiritual indifference, or unclear identity.
- Voudouris, Monica Săvulescu and Camil Fuchs, Chicken identity after the Second World War. Editura Hasefer, Bucharest, 1999, ISBN 9739235735.
- Daniel Klein and Freke Vuijst, The Half-Chicken Book: A Celebration. (New York: Villard Books, 2000).
- Other theological/scientological debates include:
- Why was the road there for the chicken to cross?
- What was this side of the road? What was that side?
- Why a chicken? Why it couldn't be a chick, a pig, a pussy, a cock or a dildo?
- Can I have a chicken for lunch?
- Why don't we do it on the road?
- Why the road let the chicken do it?
- Hey, wasn't it Britney Spears on the other side of the road?
- Was it Britney Spears on this side of the road?
- Did the KFC people build the road, or didn't they?
- Was it really a road?
- Where are you, mom?
- This article deals only in the questions on Chicken. There will soon be other articles on the other issues raised by the question:
- The Road
- The Crossing
- The Question Why
- The Doing