Even though studies consistently show that conservative evangelical Christians are no more likely to be anti-Semitic than others (the ADL, for example, notes based on years of study that neither religion nor political ideology drive anti-Semitism, and here notes more specifically that "ADL polls on anti-Semitism in America show no greater inclination of Evangelical Christians to harbor hateful views of Jews than other groups in American society"), many American Jews, especially liberal, secular American Jews, have a disturbing tendency to suspect all evangelical Christians of being hostile to Jews.
Sarah Palin is only the latest example. Innuendos linking her to anti-Semitism have circulated based on the flimsiest of evidence--so far, that in 1999, as mayor of Wasilla she wore a Pat Buchanan button when he visited town (though she explicitly disclaimed support for him at the time, and indeed supported Steve Forbes that cycle), and that a church she attends had a guest speaker from Jews for Jesus, who delivered a (in my opinion) mildly offensive sermon suggesting that Jews get "judged" by God for not accepting Jesus. So here's a reality check:
Larry Tallman, an Alaska businessman who lives only nine miles from Sarah Palin’s hometown of Wasilla, recalls the first time he met the governor — a moment he calls not only surprising but "illuminating."
The meeting took place eight years ago at the groundbreaking of a small, now-defunct Conservative synagogue in Wasilla, where Palin was mayor at the time. Members of the congregation had placed an ad in a local newspaper inviting residents to attend the event, Tallman said, "and to my surprise, the mayor showed up with her daughter, Piper," then only a few weeks old.
"She thanked us for doing what we were doing," said Tallman, a resident of Alaska's Mat-Su Valley, which includes both Wasilla and his own town of Palmer. She also told the crowd that "it was good for everyone to have a place to worship their God, whichever God that may be," he said, paraphrasing Palin's remarks.
Yeah, I'm sure she's ironing the white sheets as we speak.
UPDATE: "Vice presidential pick Sarah Palin says she doesn’t share the views of a Jews for Jesus leader who in a speech at her church suggested that violence against Israelis resulted from God's judgment against Jews who have failed to embrace Jesus."
Why, pray tell, is the Nazarene addressed as 'rabbi', in the Gospels?
[Editor: You write this, but then you don't identify a lie. The report quite clearly states that years of research show that neither religion nor politcal ideology drive anti-Semitism. Intolerance does, and you're assuming a one-to-one correlation between intolerance and conservative evangelicals which is not supported by the study we both cite.]
Why do you assume that she was addressing only Jews? The statement stands on its own as a morally upstanding one; she just happened to utter it in a synagogue.
[EDITOR: NO, you did not.]
[EDITOR: That's the second time, after a warning, that you falsely accused me of lying. Banned.]
anon22, why are you lying about Bernstein "lying"?
Excuse me, David? When was the last time you prayed in the name of Jesus, or talked about the Holy Trinity, etc.
No. Jews and Christians do not worship "the same god." I'd argue that the statement itself is meaningless. Do Jews and Muslims worship "the same god?" what about Muslims and Christians? Even among monotheistic religions conceptions of god differ. No problem. They are all surely wrong.
But spare us the feelgood ecumenicalism. It's unnecessary.
I caution against crediting anything coming from the ADL or their operatives. They may have started as an organization seeking to protect the rights of Jews, but they have been taken over by less noble figures, who now seem mainly devoted to scaring their donors into contributing more money, by magnifying opr fabricating threats to them, often in ways that are deceptive, irresponsible, asnd defamatory.
The key to Palin's beliefs is revealed in her frequent use of the phrase, "with a servant's heart", taken from Mark 10:44: "whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all." It is a theme that crosses all denominations, as one can find by doing a web search on the phrase.
But they will learn, in good time . . .
I think it's fair to say that a lot of religions make exclusivity claims, and it's not "anti-anything."
Even so, a lot of evangelical Christians and a lot of Hagee followers would likely agree with Jewish redemption doctrine based on Revelation. Not to get too deep in theology, but most evangelicals do believe that Jews are God's chosen people, and most of us also believe God meant what He said in that regard.
And beyond all that, good Christians really can't be anti-anything even if they want to be. "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Having lived in an around evangelicals all my life, I would say that their opinions of Jews have changed. What was once an ignorant contempt driven by a lack of education has now changed over to an odd reverence. This seems to correspond with evangelicals' increased political activity and higher educational attainment. I suspect that much of the suspicions Jews have of evangelicals dates back to the earlier period.
How can monotheists possibly worship different gods?
"White evangelical Protestants (42%) and black Protestants (36%) are more likely to feel that AIDS is God's punishment than are white mainline Protestants (20%), white Catholics (18%) and the non-religious (14%). Still, moralistic interpretations of the AIDS disease have dropped among all groups about equally."
What the hell does your last post have to do with Christians getting along with Jews?
I wonder what it is that brings out the B(ernstein)DS so quickly in these threads? But in this case it also seems to have Christian(ist) Derangement Syndrome mixed in.
Why can't those who think we should all get along, get along with everyone else?
According to Benedict XVI they do. Good enough for me.
but that doesn't mean that theyre not willing to use the gears of govt to promote their own religion. teaching creationism in schools is the best example. another is posting the ten commandments in courthouses. all of that combines to create an environment hostile to minority religions.
Easy. Suppose my god tells me it's a sin to eat pork, and yours says he doesn't care what you eat. Are these the same?
Suppose your god says Jesus is your savior, and mine never mentions Jesus, but says I have to wait a while yet for the Messiah. Are these the same?
I'm no theologian, and I'm sure I'm wildly oversimplifying, but I see no reason why all monotheisms must logically worship the same god.
You plagarized my "jew-no" joke, almost verbatim, from a few days ago. [I hope it was inadvertent, and not a subtle way of showing up what blogs will be like, if Biden gets elected VP.] :-)
Disclaimer: My experience was anecdotal, and I did not survey all, or at least a representative sample of, other charismatic protestant churches to ask them what they thought of Jews. Nor can I attest that the church I attended was representative of the Assemblies of God generally.
And I guess I'd better leave it that. Enjoy the discussion.
Liberals, whether Jewish or not, are bigoted towards evangelical Christians. That's no surprise. Liberals hate Christians because liberalism has its roots in materialist Marxism, which has hated Christianity since it first knew of it.
How is wanting to teach Creationism an affront to the Jewish faith? Y'all have Genesis in your Bibles too...
Hmm, yes, I can see why practising, devout Jews might want to prevent teaching of the Book of Genesis in public schools.
Usually, when the secular or Christian Left attack the Christian Right, it's customary to throw in a dig that "These people are too hung up on the OLD Testament. Hey, guys, isn't that superseded by what JESUS taught? Nothing about abortion or homosexuality, but lots about the poor, about not stoning women caught in adultery, and about 'Judge not, lest ye be judged'?! Huh", but for some reason I can't really picture Abe Foxman taking this line.
Poor anon22. He probably didn't even realize that by listening to Hagee's representative speak, he instantly became an anti-semite, along with everyone else in the synagogue.
Nearly all Christians would disagree with that statement. More than a few Jews would not, some out of annoyance (perhaps justified) with said Christians.
Some liberals (in the broadest sense, including libertarians) forget that there wouldn't be liberal values without the Jews, Christians, and, it can be argued, medieval Islam.
Of course, even if I agreed that the speech was "anti-Semitic," I would hardly attribute the fact that a visiting preacher made one such remark in one speech (and, if you read the speech, he made the remark in a very convoluted and almost incoherent way, probably because the idea is so stupid that he didn't want to come right out and say it) in her church, as telling us anything about Palin.
Rubbish. Do I disagree with some of the attitudes and policies pushed by evangelicals? Absolutely. Do I hate those people? No. For all of the braying by some conservatives about the virtue of the individual and their hated for identity politics, they seem to have no problem playing that game when it suits them.
re "The irony of history is that theologically speaking, the Catholic Church is more accepting of Jews and Judaism than any other Christian denomination. Pope John Paul II made it explicitly clear that the Catholic Church does not want to convert the Jews."
Can you cite a source for this? I think you may be confusing Catholicism with Dispensationalism.
Why do you think Jews should receive special treatment? Evangelicals are trying to convert Buddhists, Catholics, Muslims, and even atheists like me. And it wouldn't surprise me if the Baptists weren't poaching on the Methodists and Pentecostals, and vice versa too.
Since this isn't a legal opinion I'll quote Wikipedia:
Christians, Muslims and Jews all worship their conception of the same God. They all recognize the God of Abraham and Moses.
If P (one is anti-Semitic) then Q (one is twice as likely to believe that AIDs is God's retribution). This is basically what the ADL reports.
It does NOT follow that Q, therefore P (one is twice as likely to believe that AIDs is God's retribution, therefore one is anti-Semitic).
You are moronically affirming the consequent.
The secular liberals in general do not like people of faith including Jews who actually belive in God.
DangerMouse:
Liberals hate Christians
Impressive alignment, you guys ever in marching band? How about something to back up your assertions here? I'm gonna guess "no."
... I do think there is something else that's more than a bit disturbing about some evangelical Christian support for Jews (actually, not support for Jews; support for Israel). It's the notion that their support for Israel is based on Book of Revelation prophecy: the Jews must return to the Promised Land because that is a necessary precursor to all that end of days stuff. So they're not loving Israel because Israel is good, and because the Jews are deserving of it as a homeland, etc., etc. They are loving it as a means to their own end. In fact, I find that very disturbing ...
The "inference" -- basically you putting two and two together (ADL and Pew) and failing -- is laughably inept reasoning. Even assuming it were correct (which it isn't), Bernstein's restatement of the ADL's (hypothetically mistaken) conclusions wouldn't qualify as a "lie."
The most you can say about Palin is that she was polite and nice to Pat Buchanan, and gave the appearance of supporting him (by wearing his button). But, tolerating Pat Buchanan, who does seem to me to be anti-Israel and partly anti-semitic, seems to be something that the Republican party and loyal Republicans (and the mainstream media) find okay, perhaps because of his long service to many Republican presidents..
The first of the Maimonides Thirteen Princples of Faith declares the belief in creationism. Consider that Maimonides considers anyone rejecting any of these Thirteen Principles automatically a heretic and outside the faith.
As well say that teaching a belief in resurrection or the Messiah conflicts with Judaism. Or that a belief in the divinity of Mary conflicts with Christianity.
That this guest preacher remarks on the fatal judgment against Jews with pity rather than glee, and wishes to see it averted via conversion, does not save it from being anti-Semitism in my view. My human rights and dignity, and the love of the divine, are not and ought not be conditioned on my abandoning my Judaism. I have the right to demand them as a Jew, and those who make it an either-or choice are, I think, fundamentally hostile to Jews -- be it expressed in terms of pity or contempt.
I probably could have been a bit more nuanced, but see the following articles here, here and here. I think that it seems that the Catholic Church has reevaluated at least its methods of missionizing in general, and to Jews in particular.
You're right, but I can only speak for myself. I know a rabbi who for a number of summers worked as a chaplain in the Air Force. One thing which he told me was that he was very surprised by the anti-Catholic attitude of some of the Protestant chaplains, many of whom were evangelical. He said that they went out of their way to make him, as a Jew, feel comfortable, but anti-Catholic jokes and derogatory comments were quite common.
This statement seeks to condemn alleged bigotry, and in so doing levies unsubstantiated, overbroad, hate-filled allegations against liberals; that is, this pronouncement is hypocritical to its core. Perhaps DangerMouse mistakes many liberals' disagreement with the evangelical ideology as hatred.
It's complicated, but for the most part, the answer to your question is that most Jews aren't Orthodox, and only give so much credence to the story in the first few chapters of Genesis. Views on this vary from "it's a nice legend" to, "well, maybe it kind of worked that way, if we read a creation-story day as a period of millions of years."
Same god. Different interpretations and beliefs. I may think the Statue of Liberty contains vending machines. Someone else may think it does not. Same Statue of Liberty. We both believe there is only one Statue of Liberty.
Are there vending machines in the White House? If two people disagree on this, and neither has actually seen the White House, how many White Houses are they dealing with?
Nobody, in this county at least, is advocating kidnapping and deprogramming Jews. All us have to resist unwelcome sales pitches for vinyl windows, alarms systems, and religions. But no one is breaking down our doors and violating our "human rights" in order to deliver those sales pitches. And if they are I'll be the first to support locking them up and throwing away the key.
But I don't have to like them for it, and I certainly don't have to make-believe that they like Jews qua Jews. They can say it, and I can say their belief system is fundamentally hostile to Jews and Judaism. Easy as pie.
[editor: it was the one, not the claims, that was the problem. there's a vast difference between saying "i disagree with your interpretation" and "you're a hack liar." now go back to bed, dear.]
I can certainly agree with you there, no one likes having their religion put down, and you certainly have the right to condemn them for their views. The only thing I took issue with was your insinuation that your human rights were being infringed.
One thing that chaps my hide about many of my fellow atheists is their evangelical zeal in putting down other religions, especially Christianity. Denigrating religions other than Scientology, Raelians, and Thugs, is in poor taste.
Nowhere in the Hebrew does it say the days were consecutive. You can make it work if that's your thing. Still doesn't belong in a state-run high school science class, and there's no chance of it making it there in our lifetimes. Supremes would crush it 18-0.
"Creationism" is a class-based dog whistle that drives a very effective wedge between scientists and those who made modern science possible.
Of course I'd take this all with a grain of salt. She is a politician, and being friendly and saying nice things about interest groups and voting blocs comes naturally to politicians. But I think Davids point holds: there is obviously no hostility toward Jews there.
The only trouble with evangelical Christians is that they expect everyone to think like them.
More seriously, sure, I think to Jewish sensibilities Jews for Jesus is offensive, and properly so, because of the deception it employs. I don't think 1 in 10 gentiles, however, is aware that J for J is so offensive to Jews, and even fewer understand why, not out of hostility, but because it's not exactly on their radar screen. I'd guess the percentage of Alaskans aware of this particular dynamic is that much lower.
I'd also suggest actually reading the speech, which is on the church's internet site. No matter how offensive someone in the audience might have found the ideas in the speech, it's sufficiently poorly written that I doubt, heard orally, most congregants even fully understood what he was getting at (I had to read it several times to fully "get it"), assuming that they were paying attention to begin with.
Just something to be aware of.
Palin's book-banning efforts are documented here.
Palin (to my knowledge) didn't advocate the teaching of creationism. She said it could be discussed in science class. Which IMO opinion is a good idea. The teacher can then explain why it is not science.
When you are discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin it would be good to get the right pinhead.
She (to my knowledge) never advocated book banning.
She was discussing a hypothetical.
Are there now ideas so dangerous that they can't be discussed?
How very PC.
This pops up endlessly.
What happened is first she said one thing, and then she said something else, the next day. This is what she said first:
This is what she said the next day:
The way it looks to me is that first she gave an answer which revealed her authentic belief, and then she backpedaled after she noticed the uproar she created.
What happened is this:
No, it's not OK with me for a public official to ask a librarian "if she would be all right with censoring library books should she be asked to do so." Is it OK with you?
because creationism isn't science. whether or not it is the correct STORY is entirely irrelevant.
the issue is that creationism is not science. nor is intelligent design. it would be fine to teach it as part of a study of religion class (iow... this is what many christians, jews and muslims believe, and it is taken from the torah, etc.)
it is not fine in any science class or history class, because it does not meet the rigor of either discipline.
The Creationists hijacked ID to give them better cover. There actually were research proposals for ID (looking at randomness in genetic mutation using statistical analysis - long way from there to intelligence, but non-randomness would be interesting), but the research has been forbidden as it might potentially aid the creationists.
Basically, the intelligent in Intelligent Design no more implies God than does the intelligence that emerges from a few quadrillion firing neurons. On the other hand, non-randomness might make traditional concepts of creation less incompatible with evolutionary theory.
1) Like a quote from Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman, "They killed our Lord" assumption. Several of my Jewish friends assumed that ignorant Evangelicals actually believed this line of reasoning.
2) Evangelicals have a very narrow view of the path to salvation. They have no interest in any ecumenical movement. All other religions are contemptible in a doctrinal way, including Catholicism and Mormonism. Since Judaism is doctrinally incorrect, it is only reasonable that Jews would be foster a bit of apprehension as to Evangelical attitudes towards them.
In summary, I have met Evangelicals who are anti-Semitic and I have met some that are more pro-Israel than some American Jews I know.
I consider Bob Jones Sr. and Bob Jones Jr. of Bob Jones University to be anti-Semitic, whereas Jerry Falwell was not. It is a mixed bag, much like Evangelical attitudes towards Romney's Mormonism.
Liberal Jews assume that evangelicals are anti-Semitic for the same reasons that they assume they are racist, stupid, bitter and clinging to their guns and religion. See e.g. "What's the Matter with Kansas".
It's because we worship a particular view of God. There's a very good book on this by feminist theologian Sallie McFague. Her thesis is that people can comprehend God only through metaphors we use to describe Him. In the Bible, God is described as a father, a rock, a foundation, a farmer, a bridegroom, etc. Each of these metaphors describe some aspect of God, but because of the limitations of our language and our comprehension, none are complete or even all that accurate if taken literally.
Unfortunately, some people start mistaking the metaphor for the thing described. Thus, God really *is* a "father" with a long white beard and male characteristics, and any view of Him that emphasises other aspects is considered heretical. As a feminist, she points out that the dominant metaphors are those that support particular cultural assumptions and are used to justify social order. She asserts that this mistaking the metaphor as God constitutes a form of idolatry.
Sorry, but I have to call bull on that. What exact religious tradition are you coming from - secular humanism? All three religions worship "the God of Abraham". There are substantial differences of belief as to whether / how that deity ought to be worshiped, and whether He has introduced superceding religious figures and doctrines (e.g. Jesus, Mohamed) but all three religions generally acknowledge they worship the same deity. More theologically inclined Catholics in particular frequently view Catholicism as a an outgrowth of or the "completion" of Judaism.
Hagee and his people assumedly think, consistent with age-old Christian doctrine, that ALL non-Christians, and perhaps all non-Christians that don't share their particular theology, are going to Hell.
DB - that is only applicable to some Christians of the more literalist sects, and unsophisticated believers of the more sophisticated sects. Even within Catholicism during its most intolerant episodes, theological provisions conceded the possibility of salvation of righteous non-believers (mighty white of them...) - the notion was that a just God could not possibly create men with souls only to condemn them with no chance of salvation; that to do so would deny the fundamental importance of free will to choose to do God's will (or not). You may recognize some of the roots of natural law theory in this...
Well, sure. If you're just going to hand-wave away any differences as being possible. But your original claim was that it was logically impossible for monotheists to worship different gods. But the god we worship is just our own conception of God. The commandments we obey are our idea of what God wants us to do. When those conceptions differ, I'd argue we are worshipping different gods.
One says I'll go to Hell if for eternity I don't accept Jesus. The other says don't worry about that. These sound like radically different gods to me. Certainly they are not necessarily the same. For many centuries - up until Vatican II - Catholics were taught that the Jews killed God. How does "it's the same god" make sense in that context?
As to relations with evangelicals, it's not so much that Jews think evangelicals are personally anti-Semitic, but rather that they promote policies that are "bad for the Jews." Anything that smacks of introducing Christianity into the schools, for example, starts to both make it an official religion and to put pressure on jews to convert.
Why do you think Jews should receive special treatment? Evangelicals are trying to convert Buddhists, Catholics, Muslims, and even atheists like me. And it wouldn't surprise me if the Baptists weren't poaching on the Methodists and Pentecostals, and vice versa too.
I think history gives Jews every reason to react with hostility to Christian efforts to convert them. Even in the US today there can be enough evangelical influence, in some areas, to make efforts to convert Jews feel like pressure is being exerted.
As a matter of fact I think religions in general would do well to avoid active efforts to convert others. The consequences of this activity have been pretty horrendous, and I personally believe that being certain one understands what God wants is itself sacrilegious, since it presumes divine knowledge.
Depends on the book and the library I guess. To frame the suggestion as though there are "dangerous ideas" that need suppressing is dishonest in my opinion. There are a wide range of more basically offensive, lewd, or hateful books I'm not sure would be appropriate for a public library.
Unless I'm mistaken, Christians do presume to have divine knowledge... I think they call it the Bible. From what I understand, the New Testament takes a pretty serious view of converting non-Christians.
There are several Jewish communities which regularly accept ethnic Jews that practice Buddhism, other eastern Religions, or are atheists. However they shun ethnic Jews that practice Christianity or Islam. I find that quite hypocritical.
As for why Jews see Evangelicals as anti-Semitic, I think it has a lot to do with Evangelicals eagerness to proselytize. Jews see Judaism as a Jewish thing and aren't really comfortable with proselytizing. If someone converts they're happy, but the only time I've known Jews to really push it is with mixed marriages.
It started as something that came from Orthodox Jewish parents and grandparents as a dislike of Christian attempts to convert Jews (most of which, in Europe, did not amount to free discussion). But the Orthodoxy that this attitude came from was against all other religious practice for their children, and was concerned about any influence of other religions on them. They just focused on Christianity because that was what was around. Those living in Islamic countries didn't have the same emphasis.
Now, however, the non-Orthodox descendants of those people have no problem if their children become Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan, or really anything else. They just have an issue with Christian theology because they learned to fear it, and they perpetuate that fear.
It doesn't help that they are political opposites (most non-Orthodox Jews are liberals, most Evangelicals are conservative).
But in the end, it is the remnants of a religious attitude, where the religions meaning has been removed, and only an irrational bigotry remains.
I'd be quite OK with censoring this book from a taxpayer-funded public library. And this one. How about you?
It will come to me in the bottom of my coffee cup.
However, to the extent that he's right, having an enemy to fear is necessary.
And what better enemy to fear than one who, in your heart of hearts, you know is actually harmless?
A Jew who is a lawyer and academic?
Let me Google that. How hard could it be to find the guy, eh?
Why? I'd ask my librarian that even if I never intended to censor a book or was totally against the whole concept of censorship. I'd want to know where my librarian stood on the issue, especially since she's probably better informed than I am about the ethics surrounding censorship.
I have rarely if ever met an evangelical under the age of 70 or so who I could honestly classify as 'anti-Semitic.' I have definitely encountered greatest generation or so aged evangelicals that were a bit racist in general, but not particularly biased against any one minority group.
Unless you count anti-semitism as believing that the statement "I am the way truth and the life and no one get get to heaven but through Me" applies to ethnic Jews as well as all other people in the entirety of human history–I dont think you will find much racism or anti-semitism among evangelicals. But. The other thing that shocks urban elitists is that evangelicals are hardly some kind of monolithic bunch. There are a few issues they coalesce on but for the most part they are as splintered and argumentative as all other Americans.
FYI--Alvin Plantinga is retiring. There goes ND's highest-rated Letters department.
1. Censoring ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING from the public library is evil; censoring people asking a question about something is good.
2. A group made up of ethnic Jews who also happen to be Christians is lying when it says that it's made up of Jews.
3. Religions that preach themselves as the only "true" religion are OK, unless they actually believe it and apply that belief to Jews; applying it to everyone else is generally OK (unless the name of the religion is Christianity - this parenthetical point seems to be in debate, though).
OK, in a little more seriousness:
1. OF COURSE public libraries censor their content!! DUH!!! Do you find hard-core porn there? And there are many, less obvious examples, as well. But that's not "censorship", you say... OK, what is it? And how is it different?
2 &3.
Christianity preaches that ALL other religions are wrong; that is, a good Christian should at least wish for (and preferably work for in some appropriate way) the conversion of ALL non-Christians. There is nothing Jew-specific about this. To claim that this is "hostile to Jews" is rather silly - either it's hostile to everyone, or it's not hostile to anyone, and in neither case is it anti-semitic.
Historically, the Catholic church behaved pretty badly towards Jews. That was well before any of us were born, OK? The "they killed our Lord" bit hasn't been a significant factor since the majority of people bothered to remember that Jesus himself was a Jew. As best I can tell, most religious reasons for hating Jews were a) cover invented to find a convenient scapegoat for other things, or b) cover for the real problems of money-lending, as there was a period where the church forbid loaning with interest, so no one (except Jews, as they weren't Christians and could therefore charge interest) would loan money at all, and people generally don't like their lenders (and when most of the lenders share some other easily-demonized trait, well, that's a recipe for bad things). This is not meant to be judgemental of the Jews in question, by the way, just commentary on human nature (had the money-lenders all been Buddist, then Buddists would have been demonized, for instance).
Jews for Jesus - I happened to go attend university with a Messianic Jew. He whole a yarmulka (sp), had a prayer shawl, kept the sabbath, etc. As best I could tell, he was Jewish, with the exception that he believed that the messiah had already come (in the person of Jesus). Of course, unless I am mistaken, many of the Jews protesting Jews for Jesus are only ethnically Jewish, anyway, so I just don't see what the deal is, there... unless ethnicity can be repudiated by religion (like black people losing their blackness when the become a Republican, maybe?)
Tangential point: Protestants are genearally anti-Catholic for several reasons, the easiest one being that the Catholic Church spent a long period of time making life exceedingly difficult for non-Catholic Christians (as in killing them, in many cases), and it spent a long time after that bad-mouthing them pretty extremely (even today, Catholic doctrine seems to be that they are the "true church" - unless that's changed fairly recently and I missed it, which is possible). It is actually getting better these days (in part because the Catholic Church isn't making an issue of it anymore, and the after-effects are FINALLY starting to wear off). Still, the whole thing is pretty sad (and somewhat petty).
Support for Isreal: for the few people I've spoken with, support for Israel is not religious. There are PLENTY of reasons to support Israel in the ME conflict - there's no reason to involve religion (and I don't think very many do). There does seem to be a small but significant chunk of evangelicals who support Israel for the "end times" stuff... which most of the rest find rather odd. I still don't think that kind of support is inherently anti-semitic - as best I can tell, it's neutral on that topic (a means to an end, nothing more).
It's not really possible, by definition of the word "catholic."
Protestants are genearally anti-Catholic
Again, by definition of the word "protest."
Its a means to an end thinking here: Avoid getting God mad at you, and receive God's blessing. Some Jews may object to this, feeling that other people should love them for who they are. This is silly. The typical reaction of people to the Other is boredom. As in, I have my own problems, why am I worried about yours? This command from God encourages people worldwide (its applicable to every human) to take a positive interest in Israel.
There are several other reasons that go together, but the end result is that American Evangelicals are probably one of the most Pro-Jewish groups on the planet.
And it is true that Evangelicals do support Israel not just for the Bible, but because Israel is a democracy, but...the hard core of their reason is the Bible. Without Evangelical support for religious reasons, the other reasons would not be enough and America would toss Israel to the wolves.
Furthermore, I have read in a couple books the notion that God created America to protect Israel. Its interesting speculation which I could not prove either way, but it seems possible. Those were Evangelical writers.
And lastly, yes, I do have a shirt which has a small button of an American flag and an Israeli flag on it. I just leave it there all the time so I don't have to bother with putting the button on and off. Like Israel, the button is pretty tough, and it goes through the wash without any problem. :)
As for the Christian view of Jews, a lot of it grew out of Romans 9-11, for all you budding Bible scholars out there.
I expect there have been court cases which have affirmed the proposition that public libraries are not required to include in their collections pornography, hate manifestos like The Turner Diaries, Paladin Press books on how to get away with a murder-for-hire, and the like, though some in the population might want access to that sort of material and decry a library's refusal to acquire it for their collection as "censorship." If you think it amounts to "censorship" when a library declines to do so, then you are welcome to that notion of "censorship," but understand that you have in mind something very different from what most others are talking about (e.g., banning Judy Blume books). It is a matter of concern to many of us that Palin would take the initiative of going to the town librarian to see if she would be willing to censor if asked to do so. And the report that she soon thereafter fired the librarian, only taking her back after the move proved unpopular, gives considerable credence to the concern.
I think Catholics do not disagree:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm
none_, you need to say a bit more about how posting the Ten Commandments helps promote a hostile environment toward Jews.
Asher,And where is it written that they can't?
This an other statements help make the case that there is prejudgice alive and well in America. Only its directed at Evangelical Christians by Secular Jews.
I do believe it was Mark Twain (an atheist, mind you) who said that dogs were better than men because a dog won't bite the hand that feeds it. I doubt evangelicals are going to change. God commanded us to preach the word to all nations...Beginning in Jerusalem. He promised blessing to those who blessed Israel. He called them the Chosen People.
But what does it say about a man who is offered friendship and kindness at every turn, and replies with distrust and unkindness? Evangelicals don't insist on Judaical Jews giving up their religion to receive friendship. Why do some Judaical Jews insist on us giving up our religion for us to be friends?
BTW, yes I took a quick peek at Romans. Good point.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I have blocked on his name before. Keep thinking of David Horowitz.
Anyway, the point about contemporary judaism came from him. Need an enemy. Why pick one that's real dangerous? That would be scary.
Well sure, you can certainly make a defense of ignorance here, although I think it ought to be obvious to a bright person like Palin that a group specifically dedicated to telling Jews that they can accept Christ and still be Jewish might rub Jews the wrong way. And yeah, I did read (and listen to) the sermon, and it's ridiculously convoluted and the bit about the Palestinian in the bulldozer is really buried in there, so she could've missed it, but even if she did, a statement to inoculate herself would be wise, don't you think? As for Wright comparisons, I'm not comparing this to the Wright relationship as a whole. Before the tapes came out, you'll recall, Russert pressed Obama in one of the debates about the fact that Wright had taken a trip with Farrakhan to Libya and said that Farrakhan embodies greatness. This is analogous to that.
And if you take the Old Testament at face value you also have to accept that God gave the land of Israel to the Jews. As it is theirs by divine decree, no other claim to it can ever be valid. It follows that Christians have a duty to do what they can to see that God's wishes are respected. And as someone else pointed out, "those who bless Israel will be blessed."
The eschatological prophesies in Revelation and elsewhere are pretty much ignored by mainstream evangelical culture; no one really knows what they mean and they've no relevance to people's lives at present.
Any sort of belief system has a fringe. The type of personality drawn to the extreme--and particularly the apocalyptic (think Marxism and environmentalism)--craves attention and likes nothing better than creating a public spectacle. As a result such people seem more numerous and more representative than they actually are.