Ha'aretz publishes an example of a very typical article in Jewish publications these days, accusing the American Jewish establishment of being too conservative, and too supportive of Israel, and therefore turning off young (which is for some reason used as a synonym for leftist) Jews.
I want to raise the opposite issue, which I've never seen addressed in print before: whether what is actually, judged by the "mainstream" American political spectrum, the pervasive liberalism of the American Jewish establishment and laity, including the (non-Orthodox) religious establishment, "turns off" right-leaning American Jews. I can't imagine I'm the only one who has some ideological religious sympathy with Reform Judaism, but can't stand the prospect of going to a synagogue and hearing, e.g., an incredibly ignorant and religiously irrelevant op-ed-masquerading-as-a-sermon on gun control from the rabbi (which, I should note, actually happened to me in a synagogue in the D.C. area).
Moreover, you can't be a "proud conservative" Jew in many congregations without attracting at best pointed questions, and at worst blatant insults, from your fellow congregants. Long-time readers may recall that I have previously posted some anecdotes along the latter lines, though I can't find the links now. Not to mention putting up with the left-wing sermons, left-wing religious action committees that claim to speak in your name, people who won't date you if they find out you're a Republican(!), et al.
Given that conversion to Christianity by American Jews outside of marriage is relatively rare, it strikes me as remarkable that I can name off the top of my head at least three prominent American Jewish conservatives (a small breed to begin with) who converted to Christianity in their later years, and I know of several others who are rumored to have converted, or at least flirted with it. And several major leaders of American conservative evangelical Christianity were born Jews. I'm not questioning the sincerity of any of these individuals' conversions, just wondering whether a (if not necessarily THE) factor that led them to seek another religious community is discomfort with the way individuals of their political ilk are received in the Jewish community.
So, I'm really just wondering: has anyone ever studied, journalistically or academically, "alienation" from the Jewish community among political conservatives, the way folks are constantly ringing their hands about alienation among leftists? If not, it would make a great sociology or religious studies thesis.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Russian Jews and the Liberal Jewish Establishment:
- Are Politically Conservative Jews "Turned Off" by the Jewish Establishment?:
I also think an awful lot of (Protestant) congregation-based charity is wasteful and naive (distributing sandwiches to "homeless" persons living in alleys or under bridges, for example.) Philanthropy is certainly an area where the Catholics are professionals: Catholic schools and Catholic charities are effective organizations. Jewish-based philanthropies are also effective and professionally-run.
But I can't find a spiritual home where I'm comfortable with both the theology and the rest of the political and philanthropic "package."
That said, I'd like to expand on the preceding post. As you've noted, the Orthodox community is less wedded to the Democratic party, and certainly to the left wing of that party. It is also Orthodox Judaism that has the strongest and most consistent moral compass. Halacha does not depend on what is socially or politically fashionable. Reform and its progeny (including Conservative judaism, which split from Reform, and Reconstructionism, which split from Conservative) alas cannot make that claim. In the Christian world, we see defections from denominations that have replaced the gospel with the social gospel. At the time of the conversions that you describe, Orthodox Judaism was little known and was not on the radar screen of most US Jews. (Today it is growing at a pace undreamed of 40 or even 20 years ago.) Could it be that the conversions were inspired by a desire for clearly stated unambiguous moral and religious standards, unclouded by moral relativism?
The results of the poll were that republicans have a much higher favorable view of Jews than do democrats as well as a lower unfavorable view.
My question: Given these results why would Jews tend to be democrats when republicans seem to like them better?
(My real dissappointment was that my own religion--Mormon--was veiwed so unfavorably. We didn't poll any better than the muslims.)
I extracted Jews from the GSS for the years 1996-2004 and ran party preference by age. I excluded those with a third-party preference. On a scale of 0-6, where 0 is a strong Democrat, 3 is an independent, and 6 is a strong Republican, here's how Jews rank by age:
age 18-35 average 2.6
age 36-60 average 1.7
age 61 and up average 1.6
So gen-X and gen-Y Jews are independents with slight Democrat tendencies, which puts them a solid notch to the right of their elders.
This took me about 5 minutes. If anyone cares to check my work or try different versions, you can go to http://sda.berkeley.edu/archive.htm
choose GSS and run a table with these parameters:
row: age
column: partyid
selection filters: relig(3) year(1996-2004)
While my evidence here is only intuitive and anecdotal, I also agree with David that some politically conservative Jews may "exit" to Christianity, particularly if the ritual aspects of Orthodix Judaism do not appeal to them. It's curious how attitudes about time often drive attitudes about eternity when ex ante, you'd expect it to be the other way around.
Can you sort the data by sex? My very strong impression is that young Jewish men are MUCH more likely to be conservative than are young Jewish women, and young Jewish women are MUCH more likely to be extremely hostile to anyone they perceive as "conservative" leading Jewish men with strong conservative views to having a big disadvantage in the Jewish dating market, and thus being more likely to date and ultimately marry non-Jews. Now THAT would be a great economics paper.
Comrade Prager is correct. Jews are political behavior has a "lack of logic"; I mean it is obvious that Jews should align themselves with a party whose current leader, President Bush, said that all Jews are going to hell when he was Governor of Texas. We Jews are such idiots not to align ourselves with the party that wants to criminalize private sexual conduct, nationalize 50 percent of the country's reproductive organs and whose respected pundits support mass imprisonment of people based on ethnicity alone (see, e.g., Michelle Malkin, respected conservative thinker). I mean these traditions are just exactly what Judaism is all about!
I just checked and surprisingly, the Jewish gender gap is smallest for the young. In fact, given the relatively small N (57 young Jews) it's probably not statistically significant. So while your idea on political roots of out-marriage may occur at the margin, it probably doesn't explain much of the variance.
Here are the details:
Men
18-35 2.8
36-59 2.2
60 and up 1.9
Women
18-35 2.5
36-59 1.3
60 and up 1.3
Replace "age" with "sex" as the row value
Change the selection filters to "relig(3) year(1996-2004) age(18-35)"
I agree to a certain extent; stereotypes are bad, and I certainly wouldn't rule someone out just because their voter-registration card listed a certain party. But when you get to the level of "voted for Bush in '04," well, I don't know, it's hard for me to imagine a scenario in which someone could do that who (1) largely shares my basic values, and (2) is informed and at least somewhat politically engaged (not necessarily activist, but interested). But maybe shared political/social views are more important to me than to most other people, I don't know.
Another point: being liberal and jewish aren't one and the same thing. jewish is what you are - by heritage. liberal is merely a fad... albeit one that is taking far too long to end up in the historical dustbin of discredited ideas. And even though I don't go for much of the religious rituals, there's no way I'd ever let some idiot (syn. for liberal) push me to convert.
1) I don't care if Bush thinks that all Jews will go to hell, since his belief does not make it any more likely. As a Zionist and as a Jew, I care much more about what he does than why he does it. If someone supports Israel, I am happy for that support (even if it's because that person believes that Israel's success is a necessary step toward the rapture), and prefer that over someone who wants Israel dismantled because of some great-sounding ideals.
2) Before beginning this point, I should note that I want same-sex marriage to be legal. I don't think it's fair to characterize the Republicans' opposition to same-sex marriage as wanting to criminalize private sexual conduct. Are you referring to something more? That's the drawback to your glib and sarcastic approach -- it's hard for others to know exactly what you are referring to. Certainly there are those in the Republican party who want to criminalize provate sexual activity (hell, there are those in the Democratic party as well). But I don't think that is enough to support your characterization. If it's part of the party platform (to my knowledge, it isn't, but I don't have the platform memorized), then your characterization is supported. But in that case, I would consider what exactly that means, and what the ramifications are for policy -- what will get done. Since the trend is toward more acceptance of sexual differences, I am not terribly concerned. Now, as far as your characterization goes, both parties can be said to want to keep private sexual conduct criminal, because the majority of people in both parties want prostitution to be kept illegal.
3) I believe abortion should be legal, but I don't think it's fair to characterize people who believe that a fetus' right to life supercedes its mother's right to control her uterus as wanting to "nationalize 50 percent of the country's reproductive organs."
4) I'm not going to address the merits of Michelle Malkin's positions or your characterization of them. But your argument on that score smacks of guilt by association. (i.e., (A) Malkin supports the Republicans; (B) Malkin is wrong about certain issues; Therefore, (C) Supporting the Republicans is wrong). There are plenty of respected liberal commentators with whom I disagree vehemently, and whom I can't stand. By your logic, that means I shouldn't vote for Democrats.
a party whose current leader, President Bush, said that all Jews are going to hell when he was Governor of Texas
Did he? He certain feels no compunction about including us in his administration, or granting that the one Jewish state has the same right to self defense as any other nation. He may or may not think we are going to hell, but even if he does, he can't affect what happens to us in the afterlife. But the countless maintstream liberal churches, various Democratic office holders and pundits who think the Jewish state should not defend itself, and who spread classic canards about undue Jewish influence, dual loyalty and blood libel, CAN cause the deaths of numerous Jews in the here and now.
We Jews are such idiots not to align ourselves with the party that wants to criminalize private sexual conduct,
Oh, you mean like the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay republican group? Or like GW Bush, who as a candidate made it clear that he was not going to demonize or marginalize gay Americans? You are exaggerating GWB's opposition to judicial impostion of same sex "marriage". And perhaps you are unaware that Jewish law in fact does criminalize certain private behavior.
nationalize 50 percent of the country's reproductive organs
And do what with them? Redistribute them? Preserve them in brine? Will he compensate those from whom he has confiscated them? And is this worse than nationalizing people's income to support not only the unfortunate and helpless but also the drug addicted, the criminal and the irresponsible? If you are merely engaging in hyperbole about abortion, are you aware of what Jewish law has to say about abortion for reasons other than saving the life of the mother?
and whose respected pundits support mass imprisonment of people based on ethnicity alone (see, e.g., Michelle Malkin, respected conservative thinker).
My, my, you do like to mischaracterize and exaggerate the opinions of others, don't you? Besides, Malkin hardly commands respect in the White House or the Congress; witness her futile attempts to get the party in power to enforce the immigration laws. Has any Republican office holder suggested mass imprisonment based on ethnicity? As I recall, the only time that was done in this country, it was at the hands of the liberal Democrat FDR.
Some alienating events I recall include:
(1) Our confirmation class trip to DC, where we were subject to lots of brainwashing for the RAC (Reform Action Committee, the Reform movement's lobby) in preparation for lobbying our congressmen. While these included liberal standbys such as opposition to the death penalty and increased social spending, there were some surprises. My favorite ironic moment was being told that, AS JEWS, we should lobby in favor of homosexual marriage, without even an attempt to deal with the "ABOMINATION" language. Not that I'm against gay marriage per se (I support civil unions), but they didn't even make any attempt to bridge that huge gulf between the text and the movement's politics.
(2) In "Hebrew High School" post-confirmation class, we were discussing conflicting accounts of the Creation in Genesis. One source was the Torah (in English, from the Tanakh translation), and the other was some 1970's feminist poet who had some rambling, incoherent piece about how cruel Adam was to Lilith. One of the girls in my class remarked, "I just can't believe how cruel Adam was to Lilith, and nobody talks about it!" My response, of course, was to point out that the quality and reliability of the sources were not the same.
But overall, I agree with the points. I'm not particularly religious -- in part because Reform did an absolutely wretched job of teaching me Hebrew -- but my lack of Hebrew skills make me feel very uncomfortable and out of place in Orthodox services. On the other hand, the relentless left-wing preaching, misguided peace nowism, and stupid, clunky, gender-neutral prayers really keep me out of shul other than the High Holy Days and Yartzeits.
Oh, what I wouldn't give for a libertarian Judaism...
This may be easier in places other than the Pacific Northwest, where the Jewish population is one of the smallest in the nation.
Back in '96, a friend of my father stated that he was voting for Dole. My father (about 40 at the time) was amazed that a Jew would vote for a Republican. It simply wasn't done.
Now of course, it's just the opposite.
Can I please comment on your implication that fundamentalist Christian support for Israel is based on some notion that it will help bring the rapture around? In seven years in the Marines, I met lots of fundamentalist Christians. They generally support Israel because (1) Israel is our only real ally in the region, (2) it is the only democracy in the region, and (3) it is the only country in the region that even remotely shares our values. I have never heard anyone except liberal Jews expouse this rapture theory.
That was sloppy on my part. I didn't mean to imply that Christians support Israel because of a rapture theory, though my comment can easily be read that way. I was trying to give an example of someone supportying (what I believe to be) the right cause for (what I believe to be) the wrong reason.
Sorry if I wasn't clear about that.
Name one. And random comments from Daily Kos and Democratic Underground do not count. Please, let's see "countless liberal churches" and "various Democratic office holders" who think Israel "should not defend itself." Give me a break. The last Democratic administration was quite supportive of Israel's right to defend itself.
After all I think a HUGE reason that conservatism is so unpopular in many academic and intellectual circles which are often composed of people with fairly libertarian sentiments (witness acceptance of drug use or just general oddity) is the association with christianity and puritanical moral enforcement. I know that even if I was extremely opposed to welfare and taxation I wouldn't identify as a conservative for fear of lending support to this awful inclination to legally enforce a puritanical morality.
As I recall, Ms. Malkin wrote a book dedicated to defending, and supporting, the mass imprisonment of people based on ethnicity alone. Her book was specifically aimed at revisiting the widely held belief by both those on the right (e.g., Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, etc.) and those on the left that the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was one of the great injustices of American history. Malkin did not write that it was a mistake that perhaps was understanble under the circumstances; she out and out defended it and implied quite strongly that we should be thinking seriously about whether to treat Arab-Americans the same way. Please explain to me where I am "exageratting or mischaracterizing" Malkin's views.
Furthermore, this is how Malkin made a name for herself, and much to this website's credit, her blog was created as a reaction to very pointed scholarly criticism of the purported "facts" upon which she based her revisionist history of internment from Eric Muller while guest-blogging here. Nevertheless, Malkin is a hero amongst the right-wing bloggers (again this website excluded) and she is almost linked to daily by Instahack. And on a dead serious note, I would say that the present right-wing's willingness to accept such views into their mainstream is one reason why many Jews in America today are uncomfortable with the modern right wing. Malkin, supported by the modern right, has mainstreamed the idea that we should have a serious debate over whether the mass deprivation of the most fundamental right in the Anglo-American justice system -- i.e., the right to be free from imprisonment except by due process of law -- based on ethnicity alone. Many Jews, with another such mass imprisonment that went a step farther, still fresh on their minds might be a tad uncomfortable with this. You might even call those Jews' views "logical."
Gee, it's interesting being accused of setting up a strawman argument by someone who said the Republicans want to "nationalize 50 percent of the country's reproductive organs."
My argument wasn't a strawman. You implied that I shouldn't support the Republican Party because Bush "said that all Jews are going to hell." I explained why I could still vote for Bush.
That said, I'll acknowledge that my point does bear some more clarification. Given a choice between:
A) someone who would, for the wrong reason, pursue policies that would be good for Israel; and
B) someone who is well-intentioned but would pursue policies that are bad for Israel,
I'll take choice A.
Is that clearer?
Now, this is not to imply that I accept the notion that Bush's policies re Israel are for the wrong reason or that all those whose policies I believe would be bad for Israel are well-intentioned. But I'm making the point that actions are more important than motivation.
Re your assertion that most Israelis prefer Clinton over Bush. That may or may not be correct. I tend to doubt it, but have no numbers at my fingertips. But it's unimportant. I don't have to agree with the majority of Israelis.
But then, are you even reading this far? It is, afterall, easier to say you stopped reading at the first point than to address the substance of an argument. My guess is that that's what you did after my first post.
You bring up an interesting and important question; one I have thought about off and on for years, but never did any formal research. It is hard to understand why Jews are so politically liberal when it today’s world it might be counterproductive to their very survival. To help understand what’s going on I’m go to quote from the book “Before the Deluge: a Portrait of Berlin in the 1920s” by Otto Friedrich. This book is supposed to be one if the best studies of Weimer Germany, so says Lotte Lenya wife of Kurt Weil of Three Penny Opera fame. Here are some excerpts from pages 109-111. It’s best to read the whole thing, or better yet the whole book if you can get a copy.
“As Jews began to emerge in business and professions there came outbreaks of anti-Semitic in the 1880s …”
“When the Kaiser’s court chaplin … founded the Christian Socialist Party and demanded forced conversion of the Jews more liberal Christians founded a Union to Combat Anti-Semitism.”
Sound a little familiar?
“When World War I began the Jews expressed their sense of German nationalism by swarming into the army …”
“Some one hundred thousand Jews [1 out of every 6 Jews] … entered the German army”
“Of these 80,000 served in front-line trenches, 35,000 were decorated for bravery and 12,000 were killed.”
“The Jews were pathologically patriotic says Rabbi Prinz”
“To many Gentiles however, even those who vehemently deny the accusation of anti-Semitism this flowering of Jewish life represented the triumph of an alien an vaguely threatening force.”
Now we come to what I personally regard as the key sentence:
“Whatever hopes for Jewish assimilation might be—and they were considerable (‘Jews are political idiots, says Rabbi Prinz.’ They are too optimistic too hopeful. They do not understand an enemy.’)…”
So we can see the pattern. Again and again the Jews fail to understand both their friends and their enemies. Many Jews I know are more concerned about American Christian Fundamentalists than radical Islam. Yet these Christians support Israel, and Jews in general while the Muslims threaten them with annihilation. It’s absolutely astonishing. How can you call this anything other than political idiocy?
Regards.
Because, for one thing, the overwhelming majority of liberals believe their favored policies would make Israel safer and more secure, not less so.
“Because, for one thing, the overwhelming majority of liberals believe their favored policies would make Israel safer and more secure, not less so.”
Your response does not address the rhetorical question I posed. I didn’t even use the word “liberal.” Do you think being liberal means favoring radical Islam over Christian Fundamentalists? Or do you think favoring radical Islam would help not hurt Israel?
You do realize that radical Islam, and even the more secular Arab terrorist organizations like the PLO have targeted and killed Americans (not just Jews) for over 30 years? Do you think the Israelis are the ones killing and abducting Americans? Just how do you determine whose side you are on?
As a Jew, why the hell should I care whether someone thinks I'm going to hell? My feelings are hurt? My personal beliefs can't handle it? I don't give a damn.
I don't care if someone thinks I'm going to hell - I care if they try to send me there prematurely. And in that respect, it is President Bush who is most active in preventing those most likely to do so from getting the chance.
As a Jew, why should I care whether someone thinks I'm going to hell? My feelings are hurt? My personal beliefs can't handle it? I don't give a damn.
I don't care if someone thinks I'm going to hell - I care if they try to send me there prematurely. And in that respect, it is President Bush who is most active in preventing those most likely to do so from getting the chance.
However, David Bernstein is clearly in error, if polling or any informal period of time spent in the Bible Belt middle class communities would indicate.
Crazy , isn't it?
Just you wait. When the time comes they will turn on you and make Hezbollah look like jokers.
Maybe if you did research instead of relying on your own preconceptions so haughtily, you might come across as less foolish.
Here's another piece of advice. When the evangelical community talks about creationism, they mean it. When they talk about armageddon, they mean it. When they talk about reading the bible literally, once again, THEY MEAN IT.
Now, they're clueless and going to fail, and indeed Israel will not be struck down at the beginning of armageddon for rejecting Jesus Christ. But that's the goal of these people - it has nothing to do with secular democracy, a concept that they DO NOT believe in.
Because people aren't random piles of disconnected beliefs and the belief that Jews aren't going to go to heaven is associated with negative beliefs about Jews and Jewish practices in the living world.
"ven more significant for this study, over one-third of those Americans who support Israel report that they do so because they believe the Bible teaches that the Jews must possess their own country in the Holy Land before Jesus can return."
I doubt Malkin is linked even weekly by Instapundit. She isn't up there currently (4 days of links). At any rate, she is certainly an order of magnitude or two less significant (viewers, appearances) to the Republicans than DailyKos is to the Democrats. I also don't recall her sitting next to any ex-Presidents at the RNC. Further, there are any number of anti-semites (and "anti-Zionists" who judge Israel by standards they apply to no one else) welcome in the Democratic party, provided they are black and/or sufficiently far to the left.
I don't agree with Malkin on Arab Americans or Japanese Americans, but her position on Arabs recently was explicitly of the tentative it-might-have-to-be-considered variety. Most of her work on WWII internment, that FDR had reasons other than bigotry to do it, is clearly correct, although that does not mean you have to agree with her or FDR on the resulting policy.
All that aside, since it was FDR who actually did the internment, why didn't that drive Jews away from the Democrats, given your reasonable assumption that Jews are or should be particularly sensitive to such moves?
Probably not.
I'm very skeptical when I see a poll paraphrased without the actual question posed cited, nor any link to the poll itself, nor any definition of what is meant by "israel's supporters" but even taking this citation literally, this is still a far cry from the allegation that evangelicals support Israel because they want Israel to gather all the Jews, who will then all be massacred, and I can think of much more innocuous interpretations than that, including many that are positively philo-Semitic (i.e., Jesus has delayed his arrival because Christians have so mistreated Jews, so we need to support Israel to make up for all the bad things Christians have done; I've seen preachers say this on t.v.).
Wikipedia claims that Malkin's previous book (two years earlier) was a bestseller, and that she became a nationally syndicated columnist five years earlier.
I'd also wonder how much of that book was influenced by Filipinos not liking the Japanese much because of what happened during World War II. ~~~~
On another point: I was raised among conservative Christians who mostly supported Israel, and never once heard anyone connect his support of Israel with the Rapture. It would be rather odd for a Christian to try to help God out with grand historical events; we pretty much think God can handle it, being omnipotent and all. The idea that the believers have a hand in the unfolding plan of history is much more Marxist than Christian. For Christians, our job is just to do what is right, and that means supporting a group of people who just want to live in peace but are in constant fear of murder by their neighbors.
While it might be said that Saul of Tarsus "converted" in some sense, since as an adult he went from being merely a persecutor to the Founder of Christianity, that cannot be said of Simon and his brother Andrew, James and John, Philip, Nathaniel, Matthew, Thomas, and James son of Alpheus, Simon the Zealot, Judas, and Judas Iscariot and on and on. Don't forget: Jesus did not come to overturn the laws of the Jews, but to fulfill them! Being a Jew and a Christian at the same time is the most natural thing in the world, and normally does not involve a "conversion."
How can Jews vote Republican? How can Jews support gun control? How can Jews favor gay marriage? How can Jews work together with fundamentalist Christians? How can Jews support Palestinian causes? How can Jews oppose Iraq intervention? How can Jews support abortion rights?
Easy. The same way everyone else does--by following our consciences. Now stop pigeonholing me just because I'm Jewish.
evangelicalistMuslim community talks aboutcreationismjihad, they mean it. When they talk aboutarmageddondhimmitude, they mean it. When they talk about reading thebibleKoran literally, once again, THEY MEAN IT.Now, they're clueless and going to fail, and indeed
IsraelAmerica will not be struck down at the beginning ofarmageddonfor rejectingJesus Christ. But that's the goal of these people - it has nothing to do with secular democracy, a concept that they DO NOT believe in."Of course, the difference with fundamentalist evangelicals is that when Israel isn't struck down, there is no evidence that they will strike it down themselves. Whereas, fundamentalist muslims show every indication of speeding up their own goals.
The Koran prescribes Jews as monkeys and apes. Would that bother me anymore than Christian theology, if that was all that came of it? No. So once again, I ask - why should I care at all about the personal beliefs of someone who is aiding me, so long as they do not act in a way hostile to me?
"Now, they're clueless and going to fail, and indeed
IsraelAmerica will not be struck down at the beginning ofarmageddonfor rejectingJesus ChristAllah. But that's the goal of these people - it has nothing to do with secular democracy, a concept that they DO NOT believe in.Most fundamentalist Christians share an eschatological viewpoint but at the same time most Christians do not believe in the Rapture - which is a specific confluence of events and circumstances.
Most Christian denominations teach that "every eye shall see Him" when He returns whereas the Rapture specifies that a "chosen elect" will be "caught up" and mysteriously disappear.
Also, Isaiah, as drilled into everyone by Handel (in a nice, catchy sort of way), "Comfort ye, comfort ye My people, saith your God. Speak ye comfort to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her
iniquity is pardoned."
It is no joke how seriously these admonitions are taken, and there is no bad side of it for MOTs or Israel.
David: As to you main point, look at the changes that are happening in Canada. The Democrat's equivalent has recently espoused very ambivalent (to be charitable) positions on Israel. This has translated into significant and VERY public changes in political identification, with one of the largest Liberal Party donor and fundraiser families loudly procaliming their change of allegiance to the Conservative Party (Gerry Schwartz and Heather Reisman, the latter of whom has up until now promoted conventionally liberal positions through her bookstore, the largest in Canada and equivalent to at least Borders and Barnes &Noble combined). Further switches happened during the last election, including a major newpaper proprietor (David Asper, equivalent to a Sulzberger combined with a Ridder and a Chandler) and the clergy of many temples are becoming very vocally conservative. This process is of course helped by very vocal and influential voices of aggressive islamist organizations that have been heeded by the other Canadian political parties.
So just wait, and you'll see movement as it becomes ever more clear that the Democrats are backing the Islamists.
My wife and I are Christians and attend an evangelical church as well as goto weekly Bible studies. My parents are fundamentalist Christians as well. We are all strong supporters of Israel's right to exist and defend herself.
Never (and I literally mean never) have I heard anyone in my church, Bible studies, or family or friends ever mention "rapture" as a reason for support of Israel. In fact, it's never mentioned as even being a part of a reason.
I think what drives many people to believe otherwise (such as Justin) are preconceived notions re: evangelical Christians which are then supported by readings of various sources which, no pun intended, preach to the choir.
Thanks for letting me put my 2 cents in. May God bless you all (hope noone takes offense at that).
Matt
This got lost in the shuffle, so I felt like requoting it--David, you're exactly right here. Another half of it is that to a right-winger who had seriously studied Jewish religion as a youngster, Jewish liberalism from the pulpit comes across not just as stupidity, but as corruption.
I believe, for secular reasons, that abortion is immoral, and that Jewish values should also condemn the practice. That a large swath of the Jewish public votes for the most pro-choice candidate available really call into question for me the morality of the American Jewish community. So, despite the barrage of comments that'll likely come from my grandparents, I'm probably not going to end up marrying a Jewish girl. (Of course, in New York, it's hard enough to find anyone for whom being pro-life isn't an automatic disqualifier. Isn't America great?)
Indeed. Now if only you knew how to take your own advice. David asks for evidence of what fundamentalist Christians believe, and you cite statements on the *ATHEIST* website as your "evidence"? Pretty hard to look more foolish than that.
What exactly is a "disproportionate response" to an attack on a sovereign state? Was the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan a "disproportionate response" given that Afghanistan itself did not attack the U.S?
" What exactly is a "disproportionate response" to an attack on a sovereign state? "
Well, some even in Israel are currently defining "disproportionate" as the killing of hundreds of civilians, and the destruction of millions of dollars of property in an failed effort to return a handful of kidnapped soldiers as disproportionate.
Not to mention the need, once again, for the international community to have to step in and protect Israel by monitoring the borders of neighboring states from the consequences of Israel's disproportionate and ineffection response.
(Can we at least stop calling Israel "independent" until they are capable of surviving without outside protection? I know it makes some feel more mighty, but it's really a contradiction in terms until they are capabable or actually acting independently militarily.)
Consider this "scholariship" on Michelle Malkin's book, and on why Japanese Americans were "interred":
http://www.reason.com/0412/cr.em.indefensible.shtml
More political propaganda? Yet another instance of moonbat leftism in the pages of Reason magazine?
Yeah, and France too.
My strategy is "entryism," as the Trotskyists used to say. I try to get involved in church activities and then move the discussion, programs, etc. in a less thoughtlessly liberal direction. Sometimes you can get people to focus on private charity - which churches should be involved in anyway - and at least turn the discussion a few degrees away from silly lefty "activism." Not easy, and not quick, but it may be a way to start turning Reform Judaism away from the unchallenged liberalism David discusses.
Matt W states in response to my characterization of Michelle Malkin's views as "support[ing] mass imprisonment of people based on ethnicity alone" that "My, my, you do like to mischaracterize and exaggerate the opinions of others, don't you?"
Actually, I didn't. That was someone else. And, by the way, It's Marc W -- not Matt. That's the second time you did that, so now I assume it's not a simple typo.
In two posts responding to what I wrote (in one of which you attributed to me comments made by others), you have yet to address the substance of any of my points.
In two words: goyische kopf.
The problem is that this particular belief - that Jews are automatically damned - has been, through the centuries, one justification for the persecution of Jews ranging from social and economic pressures to physical violence to the kidnapping and baptism of Jewish children. The argument has been that, since Jews are in danger of losing their souls if they do not convert, any action that induces conversion is justified.
I'm not claiming that Bush wants to make Jews convert at gunpoint, but the idea he expresses has had, and likely will have in the future, very nasty consequences for Jews (and other non-Christians as well).
In addition, this belief is, or should be, utterly insulting to religious Jews, since it essentially claims that Judaism is a false religion, that its followers, no matter how virtuous their lives, are condemned by God.
Now do you understand?
"However, David Bernstein is clearly in error, if polling or any informal period of time spent in the Bible Belt middle class communities would indicate."
So have you actually spent time in the Bible Belt or polled its inhabitants as to what they actually believe?
Evangelical Christians who believe in the Rapture are known as Dispensationalists. If you actually did poll the Bible Belt you would have discovered that Dispensationalists do not have the numbers or influence as you initially suggested; books by Tim LaHaye and others not withstanding.
But its also clear that you have a more fundamental problem in recognizing the differences between the Second Advent and what is called the "rapture."
It's not moving the goalposts; it's clarifying them, because you just don't understand what you're talking about. I have heard scores of left wingers tell me that the religious right's support for Israel should be rejected because it's based on the idea that all the Jews need to die in Israel during the rapture; I've never heard a Christian suggest that.
Rather than admitting you were just repeating left wing talking points, you tried to change the subject.
In effect, that is what the belief amounts to. In addition, the belief stated by Bush is not, in fact, part of all Christians' beliefs.
I don't think they'd describe Judaism as "false" (unlike, say, Buddhism or Hinduism); rather, they'd call it "incomplete." They believe Judaism to be true; they just believe, bizarrely, that Christianity is compatible with it, and "fulfills" it.)
I think your own word, "bizarre," best describes this rationalization.
You're either offended by the existence of Christianity, or you're offended by the fact that Christians openly say what they think rather than concealing it.
No. I am offended by one particular aspect of the beliefs of some Christians.
And, I should add, I personally am mostly offended by this belief because of its historical consequences, an issue your comment ignores.
But I won't go so far as to say they will end up "on the Right", as those two choices are not exhaustive; the Right is composed of two contradictory elements ("small government" conservatives who tend to be secular and capitalistic, and the theocratic conservatives, whose view of government and society is akin to the Left's).
... and it's anybody's guess how the Right will resolve that split, or when. I'm pretty sure that the former liberal Jews will gravitate to the libertarian-ish wing, seeing as that's where most liberals disillusioned with the rise of the socialist Left end up.
Are you doing anything next Saturday night? ;).
(I hear ya.)
Israeli straw polls during the 2004 election season showed that a majorty of Israelis would vote for Bush if they were in the US.
"An Israeli in the class thought the program sounded touchy-feely, but if it was inclusive of all Jews, he supposed it was all right. I told him that he didn't understand the Bnai Jeshurun Upper West Side."
I live on the UWS - I know several ex-members of BJ who left because of the politics. He is right, if you are conservative or a hawk you are shunned.
"Why on earth should politics -- that is, basic questions of how we should live &relate to one another -- not be important in finding someone one is compatible with?"
Depends on what you want in a relationship, someone to rubberstamp everything you believe in, or someone different from you to bring in fresh viewpoints? I wouldn't mind dating a liberal democrat, we could have fun arguments! As for the Conservative Jewish man who can't find women to date .... Hi! I'm in NYC, how about you? I can't find Conservative Jewish men to date. All the single ones in my boomer cohort are secular lefties who don't even want to date Jewish women anyway. if you are too young for me or not in NYC area, do you have friends?
It's possible, but I think a greater factor would either be lack of Jewish education, so they don't know how beautiful and fulfilling Judaism is, combined with antisemitism so they feel being Jewish is a net loss ..... or the opposite, a very unpleasant Orthodox upbringing with emphasis on restrictions and claustrophobic insular community, rather than uplifting enjoyable Jewish life.
But I could be wrong.
You would have to tame the entire Arab bloc for that to happen. Tiny European countries - for example - don't need protecting because they are not surrounded by larger countries trying to destroy them.
Someone who is very secular or alienated from Judaism in general might feel differently, but I can't imagine politics being a major factor in conversion without some other issues being involved also.
No one has mentioned the religion of the spouse. That is a common spur to conversion..
So, I'll repeat myself, really slowly. I've persented EVIDENCE of my argument, and you've rebutted with a (nonsensical) POSSIBLE alternative explanation. If you want me to treat your position as even remotely honest, you're going to have to do something other than move the goalposts. You're going to have to show some actual evidence for your counterrargument.
And I want to point out that what I said is so obvious, that my respnding with evidence was to this haughty and foolish post of yours:
"OK Justin, point us to a poll that shows in any way, shape, or form, that any significant number of Americans support Israel because they believe that this will lead to the gathering of all Jews there, to be destroyed in the batlle of Gog and Magog, after which the rapture will come"
To say that the two polls I presented do not "show[] in any way. shape or form, that any signficant number of Americans suppot Israel because they believe . . . rapture will come" is silly. Of the ONE THIRD of supporters of Israel (a solid majority in this country) who support Israel because they think it will bring back Jesus, you argue that the numbers of those do so because of the one story that would explain that prerequisite is "insiginficant"?
Really?
No, seriously - is that what you are absurdly arguing? Because if you so, you really need to show some evidence yoursellf.
For instance, I could easily google rapture and polls and get responses like this:
Fully 59% say they believe the events in Revelation are going to come true, and nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the Sept. 11 attack.
or this
According to another poll, 44% of Americans- mind you, this poll includes all Americans, not just Christians- believe the Rapture will happen in their lifetime.
Now, I don't have the time, effort, or money to do specific polling on the connection, as obvious as they seem, between the strong belief in rapture and the strong belief in the second coming of jesus requiring jews to occupy Israel, but to see this as "not evidence" seems to me to show a complete lack of judgment - one which would scare the hell out of me had I taken your class and had the nerve to disagree with your viewpoint, no matter how strong a position I made.
Well nobody forced the Jews to take that piece of land when it was offered up, eh? It's that independence thang again...
It's been more than a few years though, since they settled in but from what I see, what with the disproportionate responses and backhanded ways of securing nuclear weapons, there's been no real progress by Israel in gaining long-term security for herself. Actions have consequences -- that's one thing I suspect other independent countries have learned in earning their security and taking care of themselves.
That is in the same article as a poll which states that "36% of Americans believe that the Bible is the word of God and is to be taken literally".
Which means we are expected to believe that at least 23% of Americans don't think the Bible should be interpreted literally, yet believe that Revelation is going to come true. I don't think so.
By the way, during the entire second world war, the Germans landed fewer V-1s and V-2s on London that the Lebanese launced in ONE MONTH into Israel. Israeli Arabas as well as Israeli Jews were killed by these rockets. Compared to the deaths of civilians at the hands of the UK, the US and most other nations in time of war, Israel's record is one of the most humane, not one of the most bloodthirsty.
They use the word "dispensationalist" as though it represents a group. This lets them put together an apparent conspiracy based on the actions of lots of unrelated dispensationalists. You could probably do something similar with people who think O. J. Simpson is innocent: In May of 2002, a Simpsonist did this ... in June of 1999 there was a group of Simpsonists who ... there are two Simpsonists on the Denver city council ... you can see how all this adds up to a conspiricy of Simpsonists.
In other words, that essay was nothing but a ridiculous conspiracy theory. You should be embarrassed to link to it.
Getting back to the post, I would agree with David's observations on dating. As a right-of-center Jew who is registered as a Republican but sometimes votes for Democrats, I find myself in the minority when I am among groups of Jews, almost all of whom are to the left of me (and I am to the left of David). However, for the last 10 years, I have lived in Boston and San Francisco, two very liberal cities, so I always chalked this up to the demographics of where I lived and assumed that had I lived in Atlanta or Charleston, or even Denver, I would find a lot more like-minded people in reform and conservative temples. I could be wrong. Does anyone have any data by region or metro area?
David's post also reminded me of a conversation I had with a Jewish friend of mine a few years ago on this very topic, who insisted that the reason so many Jews voted Democratic was that the Democratic party (and liberal values) were much more in line with Jewish values. Having taken a seminar on Jewish law in law school, I know that he was not referring to Jewish values as articulated in the Torah, Talmud, etc., though perhaps he did not. But as a matter of Jewish values in the sense of the values that most Jews actually hold (regardless of what Jewish religious sources say they should hold), he may be right. Jewish values as a practical matter don't seem to have a lot of connection to Jewish religious sources, which may be why reform judiasm (which de-emphasizes religious sources, except for ritual purposes, in favor of the broad concepts assumed to motivate them) has grown in popularity as Jews have become more 'religious'.
Heaven forbid that you are exposed to ideas you disagree with!!! Oh, the humanity!!!
If this happened week-after-week, I could see the complaint. But saying it happened to you once does not sound like a horror story to me.
Stephen Carter lamented that when he arrived in a town (I think it was New Haven), he was told which church was for the politically conservatives and which was for the politically liberal.
I haven't seen Reform Jews kicking anyone out for failing to be liberal enough. I have seen a lot of politically conservative Christians try to kick out anyone with liberal views (think Episcopal and Southern Baptists).
Are you referring to the same Episcopalian Church that appointed a openly gay Bishop? That doesn't sound very "politically conservative" to me.
Conservative Episcopals (along with anti-gay bigots from Africa) are trying to kick the liberal Episcopals out of the Anglican Communion. And when I say "anti-gay bigots," I mean the head Bishop in Nigeria not only wants to kick the Episcopalians out of the Communion, he thinks the governments should put people in jail merely for demonstrating for gay rights.
In the US, it's less severe (but that hasn't stopped American Episcopalians from creating an alliance with the bigots across the sea).
As to tolerance of people with differing views, how many Orthodox synagogues would tolerate, say, an openly pro-gay rabbi?
However, from my reading of the issue of the gay Episcopalean bishop it seems to me that its the other way around and its the liberal Episcopalians who are, at the minimum, trying to force the conservatives out. After all its the liberals who hold the majority of votes; so much so that they elected a gay bishop. Obviously if the conservatives were in the ascendancy that wouldn't have occurred.
BTW, the "anti-gay bigots from Africa" are not Episcopalians - the Episcopal Church is very much only an American church.
Many of the comments in this thread - like yours and Justin's - have made me wonder how many commenters are actually Christians or even have more that a passing familiarity with Christianity.
The guys I'm talking about are pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun, strong on defense, pro-israel, and generally for the government staying out of our business, bedrooms, and pocketbooks. This is a real generational change. The republican/democrat thing doesnt come into it too much - these guys tend to cross party lines a fair bit - and are willing to hold their noses and vote for a pro-life or anti-gun politician, if, on the whole, they seem to have otherwise good views. See: South Park republican.
The problem with your argument is that you refer to these as "views," rather than religious tenets. For Reform Jews, those may be the same thing. But there's no way to be Orthodox and be "pro-gay" (if by "pro-gay" you mean feeling that there's nothing wrong with being gay.) On the other hand, gun control (unlike homosexuality) is not a matter of religious doctrine (for Jews; I suppose it might be for Quakers or something), even if some Reform Jews act as if it is.
Because the Orthodox view of what constitutes Jewish religious doctrine is right, and everyone else's view is wrong?
In one recent case, the Orthodox Union pushed a case all the way to the US Supreme Court (which denied cert). their goal? To use the power of the State to prohibit anyone but Orthodox Rabbis to use their view of Judai