pageok
pageok
pageok
Political Ignorance and Jewish Perceptions of Conservatives and the Religious Right:

In a recent post, co-blogger David Bernstein rightly chides for omitting political ignorance from my post on Jewish perceptions of the religious right. David suggests that Jews may overestimate the prevalence of anti-Semitism among Christian conservatives, and that this may account for part of their distaste for them.

The survey data support David's conjecture. This 2005 American Jewish Committee survey shows that American Jews, on average, view "Evangelical Protestants" as more anti-Semitic than any other group, with the exception of Muslims. 28% of Jewish respondents in the AJC survey thought that "many" or "most" evangelicals are anti-Semitic, and an additional 44% thought that "some" are. Only 23% answered "very few" or "none." By contrast, 19% thought that "many" or "most" African-Americans are anti-Semitic, 15% thought that of Catholics, and only 7% of Hispanics. In reality, ADL surveys show that anti-Semitism among evangelicals is comparable to the national average, and National Election study data show that evangelicals, on average, view Jews slightly more favorably than do other gentiles (though the difference is not statistically significant). By contrast, anti-Semitism among African-Americans and Hispanics is significantly higher than the national average (though a majority of both groups is not anti-Semitic, and among Hispanics the divergence from the national average is largely a result of anti-Semitism among Hispanics born in Latin America, where anti-Semitism is more common than in the US).

Obviously, evangelical Protestants and the religious right are not identical. But there is a high overlap between the two groups, and negative attitudes towards one are likely to be correlated with hostility to the other. If anything, I would bet that the AJC study would have recorded a higher perceived level of anti-Semitism if they had asked Jews their opinions about the "religious right."

As I have argued in my academic work, political ignorance is both rational and widespread. So we should not be surprised that that many Jews might be ignorant about the true prevalence of anti-Semitism among Christian conservatives. Political ignorance is not a specifically Jewish pathology. Rather, it cuts across ethnic, religious and political lines. Surveys of evangelicals and conservatives reveal all kinds of political ignorance among these groups as well.

An interesting question is whether Jews would be less hostile to the religious right and conservatism more generally if they had a more accurate perception of the prevalence of anti-Semitism in those quarters. Some of the hostility might disappear, but not as much as we might think. Even if Jews did not perceive Christian conservatives as more anti-Semitic than they really are, there would still be vast cultural and ideological differences between the two groups that would lead many Jews to be hostile to a political movement closely associated with the religious right. Moreover, some of the Jewish overestimation of evangelical anti-Semitism might actually be a result of the antagonism between the two groups rather than a cause. Many studies show that people tend to devalue or ignore any information that makes their political adversaries look good, while overvaluing anything that looks bad. Some Jews might accept exaggerated claims of anti-Semitism among Christian conservatives in part because they already dislike them for other reasons. Similarly, people tend to reject information that makes their political allies look bad. That may help explain why liberal Jews might underestimate the relatively high rate of anti-Semitism among key Democratic constituencies such as African-Americans, foreign-born Hispanics, people with very low levels of education, and the poor (though it is important to note yet again that the majority of each of these groups is not anti-Semitic).

A second way in which ignorance might affect Jewish perceptions of conservatives and the religious right is that Jews may overestimate the extent to which these groups want to establish Christianity as a quasi-official religion, persecute religious minorities, ban the teaching of evolution, and so on. While some Christian conservatives seek to make the US an officially "Christian nation" and otherwise subordinate minority faiths, many others have far more limited objectives, such as legalizing government-sponsored religious displays, permitting voluntary prayer sponsored by public schools, and so on. Even the more moderate version of the Christian conservative agenda is at odds with the social liberalism of most Jews (and my own views as well). But understanding the true nature of the mainstream religious right agenda might lead some Jews to be more willing to ally with conservatives on economic and foreign policy where a large minority of Jews might agree with them. However, it's hard to say how important this factor is without looking at actual survey data on Jewish perceptions of the religious right political agenda.

In sum, I think a more accurate understanding of the religious right would lead only to a modest reduction in Jewish distaste for them. But it might cause some Jews who agree with conservatives on economic and foreign policy issues to be more willing to ally with them in spite of a continuing dislike of the religious right element of the conservative political coalition. It's unthinkable for many Jews to even consider allying with a group perceived as a bunch of troglodyte anti-Semites who want to make Christianity the official religion. An alliance of convenience with people who are not anti-Semitic theocrats, but merely (from secular Jews' point of view) badly mistaken about various social issues, is less inconceivable.

UPDATE: It is perhaps worth noting that the AJC survey linked above does show that Jews perceive a comparatively high degree of antii-Semitism among African-Americans, with 73% answering that at least "some" African-Americans are anti-Semitic, very similar to the 72% who said the same of "Evangelical Protestants." Only 24% stated that "very few" or no blacks are anti-Semitic (23% said the same of evangelicals). However, a much larger percentage of Jews (28%) believe that "many" or "most" evangelicals are anti-Semitic than say the same of blacks (19%).

Alan Jeffries:
Who cares, Professor? This whole conversation strikes me as a thinly veiled attack on liberal Jews (such as myself) who haven't "seen the light." Actually, I have, sir. I have seen the Religious Right label the Anti-Christ as a Jew among us. I have seen them demagogue against sensible abortion policy which Halachah sanctions. I saw the attacks in 2004 that "John Kerry isn't strong on Israel" (and know many Jews who voted for Bush because of this nonsense) and those who carried that torch. I saw the attacks on Obama as not being strong on Israel. To be sure, I have no idea what it means to be "strong on Israel" -- they are an important ally, but surely the two-state solution is the option we are all going for here, including conservatives such as George W. Bush. If your argument is that the fringe right winged conservatives frame the argument, that is a fair point. But I think the point you miss is that liberal Jews have considered all of the arguments and find that the Democrats' humanistic agenda to do right by ALL, instead of the lucky few, has carried the day and not some phantom Christian bias.
9.17.2009 9:43pm
sputnik (mail):
I think anti-Semitism is spread in right and left political movements equally thus having no political affiliation.
Communist government in USSR had the bug of it, so do may extreme RWingers .
I think the disease of anti-Semitism is of a different origin, it is connected to the culture to the way the kids were raised , etc.
You and David trying to explain JEwish liberalism with the perceived anti-semitism of the right is not correct IMO.
I am liberal and I know that anti-semitism on the left is actually more wide spread then on the right in the USA for example...

Lower income classes voting dems exhibit more of it...

No, Jews vote liberals , because modern GOP is abomination steeped on belligerent propaganda, lies, conspiracy theories, Ayn Rand cult (same as communist cult-one singing utopian praises to the government power to decide everything, the other Utopically believes in total unrestricted individualism of the human being) which economically almost brought this country to it's knees, etc....
Jews are smart, educated , and well informed (most of course ),
and a little tax here and there , a few dollars more or less, will not buy the vote of the majority of thinking Jews, when the question is social justice, health care for all, do not attack and invade at whim other countries etc, etc,,,,
9.17.2009 9:50pm
Ilya Somin:
I think the point you miss is that liberal Jews have considered all of the arguments and find that the Democrats' humanistic agenda to do right by ALL, instead of the lucky few, has carried the day and not some phantom Christian bias.

If you really believe that the Democratic agenda is right for "all," then of course your political position won't be affected by your perception of how anti-Semitic the religious right is. But if you have doubts about various aspects of that agenda (as many people, including many Jews, do), then your view of the key elements of the other side's political coalition do become important. Perhaps they affect even you, given that the first point you make is "I have seen the Religious Right label the Anti-Christ as a Jew among us" -a view that is shared by only a tiny minority among the religious right.
9.17.2009 9:51pm
sputnik (mail):
and whatever Alan Jeffries said.
Very nice, sir
9.17.2009 9:52pm
anon252 (mail):
What you and other commenters don't like is that the data shows that many Jews have views about evangelical Christians that are based on rumor and myth. Since liberal Democratic Jews think of themselves as champions of tolerance and foes of prejudice, they can't stand it when it's pointed out that their impressions of evangelical Christians are based on rumor and myth.

Somin isn't attacking you for being liberal. Indeed, he isn't attacking you at all. He's simply showing that Jews are more hostile to Christian evangelicals than they likely would be if they weren't prejudiced against them, and instead looked at things more objectively.
9.17.2009 9:52pm
Alan Jeffries:
anon252--

Rumor and myth? Okay. For that to be the case you have to call the late Jerry Falwell and the current Pat Robertson absolute frauds. Are you willing to do that? I doubt it. If the face of the Religious Right is the fringe, than the Religious Right needs new spokespersons. Perception is reality in the real world, and perhaps, I may even venture to say that reality IS reality. I think your views bespeak an ignorance (to use Ilya's words) as to the contemporary views of Jews in non-cities. When I went to law school, I met people from the midwest who had never met a Jew in their life (I grant that weakness in this argument that this is anecdotal, but allow me, please) and had their views of Jews colored by, again, anecdote, and the media.

I view the views of conservatives like Ilya as political attempts, dressed up as academic minded attempts, to show that liberal Jews are, in fact, ignorant. And I just do not think this is the case at all. In sum, dressed up in stats, Ilya is making an idealogical argument (though he may deny it to the grave, lest he lack self-awareness which for the Ivory Tower would probably be the norm, sadly) that is flawed at its core.
9.17.2009 10:05pm
trotsky (mail):
I am a moderately conservative secular Jew. For three generations, members of my family (including myself, though with no distinction at all) have served in the U.S. military. My brother nearly died in one of George H.W.'s little wars, and two of my great-uncles died in WWII.

Yet every December, I am righteously informed in the letters to the editor of my local newspaper that America is a Christian nation, that when check-out clerks at Target don't say "Merry Christmas" it is a plot to tear down America, and that if I don't love my country I'm welcome to find another one.

I've not taken a scientific poll, but I'd speculate that, of these people who seem blissfully unaware of what the 1st Amendment to the Constitution means even as they trumpet their adherence to their vision of America, 95 percent vote Republican.

And that's why so many Jews do not. Whether out of malicious anti-Semitism (mostly not) or simple ignorance, members of one party's base -- and some of its media stalwarts, including the otherwise enjoyable Bill O'Reilly -- continually tell us we are unwelcome in this country. And that is not rumor and myth.
9.17.2009 10:10pm
Curious:
As a somewhat conservative (politically and non-religiously) Jew, I find the the idea that Jews should be wary of evangelical Christians who strongly support Israel somewhat odd.

Personally, I'd rather have stronger support for Israel in the here-and-now and let the theological bet ride.

Who cares if evangelicals primarily support Israel because they think it's a precondition to Jesus coming back (or whatever)? Since I don't believe in the tenets of the Christian faith anyway, what difference is it to me why they support Israel? If they're right about Jesus, I'm pretty much screwed anyway, theologically. If they're wrong about Jesus, hey, at least they still supported Israel.
9.17.2009 10:11pm
anon252 (mail):
I view the views of conservatives like Ilya as political attempts, dressed up as academic minded attempts, to show that liberal Jews are, in fact, ignorant.


(a) Ilya, who is an outspoken atheist, and a libertarian, is hardly on a mission to promote the religious right; and
(b) more important, he is reporting data from the ADL, an organization that, if anything, historically tends to share standard Jewish suspicion to evangelical Christians. Are you saying that the ADL is trying to make its liberal Jewish constituents look bad? Or is merely reporting data from the ADL Ilya's plot? Ilya has had many, many posts on political ignorance, involving all sorts of groups, and he emphasizes that political ignorance is widely shared by all groups. So how is this a plot against liberal Jews again?
9.17.2009 10:12pm
anon252 (mail):
And note the dynamic,here and previous threads.

I.S. Jews tend to believe things about evangelical Christians that aren't true, or at least exaggerated.

Outraged commenters: It is true! It is true! We know from personal experience! ADL data be damned! The evangelicals hate Jews, want to force us all to convert to Christianity, and turn the U.S. into a Christian republic. We KNOW they do. And they really, really hate Jews, even if they tell pollsters they don't.

I.S. Jews tend to believe things about evangelical Christians that aren't true, or at least exaggerated.
9.17.2009 10:17pm
Steve:
There are valuable insights about political ignorance, but this doesn't strike me as one of them. Instead, it's more of a partisan "if only people saw the world as I see it" complaint. Just think how many more Jews would vote Republican if they understood that tax cuts increase revenue!

It's one thing to talk about political ignorance of knowable facts, like whether Saddam planned 9/11, or whether Bush planned 9/11 for that matter. It's another thing to take "surveys by the ADL" as the One True Signifier of the truth about whether evangelical Christians are anti-semitic. Set aside the fact that the survey results neatly line up with the argument the ADL seeks to make; the link doesn't tell us anything about how these surveys were conducted or how they sought to measure anti-semitism. For all we know, all the ADL surveys prove is that evangelical Christians self-report anti-semitic attitudes at the same rate as other Americans.
9.17.2009 10:19pm
Alan Jeffries:
anon --

because apart from being an atheist (which I never knew...your volokh institutional knowledge is clearly better than mine) he is an idealogical conservative as much as he may pretend not to be. So no matter who gets caught up in that fray, it's likely stilted towards the conservative side...liberals...be they Jews, Lutherans, Protestants, or Catholics.
9.17.2009 10:19pm
Steve:
more important, he is reporting data from the ADL, an organization that, if anything, historically tends to share standard Jewish suspicion to evangelical Christians.

The ADL has had the same leader for more than 20 years; his attitude towards evangelical Christians is ably documented at Ilya's link. What the ADL may have focused on 50 years ago is more or less irrelevant; they're certainly far from hostile towards evangelicals today.
9.17.2009 10:22pm
DangerMouse:
But I think the point you miss is that liberal Jews have considered all of the arguments and find that the Democrats' humanistic agenda to do right by ALL, instead of the lucky few, has carried the day and not some phantom Christian bias.

Phantom Christian bias? What's phantom about it? You've clearly said that to you, your false perception is reality. Facts be damned!

You just want to wallow in your bigotry without being called on it. Pathetic. Anon is right: Since liberal Democratic Jews think of themselves as champions of tolerance and foes of prejudice, they can't stand it when it's pointed out that their impressions of evangelical Christians are based on rumor and myth.

That says it all.
9.17.2009 10:25pm
Oren:

A second way in which ignorance might affect Jewish perceptions of conservatives and the religious right is that Jews may overestimate the extent to which these groups want to establish Christianity as a quasi-official religion, persecute religious minorities, ban the teaching of evolution, and so on. While some Christian conservatives seek to make the US an officially "Christian nation" and otherwise subordinate minority faiths, many others have far more limited objectives, such as legalizing government-sponsored religious displays, permitting voluntary prayer sponsored by public schools, and so on

All of the things in the second list are baby steps towards the things in the first list.

I wouldn't deem those things anti-Semitic but they are certainly against the general pluralistic desire (and recall that Judaism is pluralistic at heart) to put no religion in a position of favor.
9.17.2009 10:26pm
Psalm91 (mail):
What is Prof. Somin's definition of "anti-semitism"? That would help.
9.17.2009 10:26pm
anon252 (mail):
Foxman appreciates their support for Israel, and argues that Jews should not treat evangelicals with reflexive hostility. But he remains deeply opposed to their agenda, and deeply critical of them. I suspect one reason that he has mellowed somewhat is precisely because his own organization's data shows that the threat of anti-Semitism (ADL's main mission) from them is low.
9.17.2009 10:27pm
Oren:

Since I don't believe in the tenets of the Christian faith anyway, what difference is it to me why they support Israel?

Because if they support Israel in an attempt to trigger the second coming of Jesus (and the 12th Imam, no doubt), that will mean the actual annihilation of a State that I would prefer continue to exist.

The Religious Right has not ever supported Israel's continued existence qua Israel's continued existence.
9.17.2009 10:29pm
DangerMouse:
The Religious Right has not ever supported Israel's continued existence qua Israel's continued existence.

That's complete B.S. There are plenty of Christians who support Israel because it's a 21st century Western state in a sea of backwards dictators and 9th century reasoning. I'm Catholic and don't believe in the "count the days" end-times theology of many protestants. I fully support Israel because it's akin to a miniature America in the middle East, and its neighbors are despicable.
9.17.2009 10:33pm
Oren:


You just want to wallow in your bigotry without being called on it. Pathetic. Anon is right: Since liberal Democratic Jews think of themselves as champions of tolerance and foes of prejudice, they can't stand it when it's pointed out that their impressions of evangelical Christians are based on rumor and myth.

Most evangelical Christians that I know are, in fact, swell people. So are most of the Catholics that I know. Most of the liberals too.

That said, I still object to the social and religious agenda (e.g. Why Evangelize the Jews).
9.17.2009 10:35pm
Guesto12:
Instead of investigating the question of why Jews are liberal as if it's a vexing query that yields an answer consisting of logical fallacies, voting against self-interest and misconceptions about the religious right, let's ask the FAR more pertinent question of why ignorant people are conservative?

What is it about conservatism that attracts people who are frighteningly paranoid and vast devourers of common right-wing myths about the Constitution, economics, science, psychology and history. Is it that ignorant people overestimate the extent to which liberals hate them? Is it that it's rational for ignorant people to be politically ignorant (as per Somin's thesis)? It's a shame Podhoretz didn't focus on this interesting research area instead.
9.17.2009 10:37pm
Guesto12:
Also, before DangerMouse hijacks this thread again with his sad, sad, sad excuse for reason and logic, let's all agree not to respond to his stupidity or otherwise act as if he exists.
9.17.2009 10:39pm
Alan Jeffries:
Dangermouse --

You're a paradigm of ignorance bespeaks ignorance, and I needn't waste another word on your...ignorance. Ha!
9.17.2009 10:41pm
DangerMouse:
Oren, it's fine to object to the social and political agenda. But Alan specifically said that he didn't care what the scientific data says: his false perception is what matters. He's "seen the light!" And the light says, to hell with the data! Those Christians said bad things about John Kerry! They're against abortion! They MUST be anti-semetic!

If you want to debate social and political policies, it's one thing. But Alan seems just to hate Christians and wants to paint them with a broad brush. It's unfair and bigoted, and he knows it. Which is why he's angry that a so-called tolerant lib's intolerance is exposed.
9.17.2009 10:41pm
Curious:
Oren,

That's exactly the point. If they're right about the 2nd coming, the Jews (in any country) are pretty much screwed, and the boundaries of the state of Israel won't really matter. I'm already making a theological bet by being a Jew and not an evangelical Christian. So why not accept the support?

Unless you think that somehow maybe the evangelicals are right--and that if Jews accept their support that Jesus is more likely to return--why they support Israel is of zero consequence. In fact, I'd argue that because their support is theologically- and not practically-derived, it's even less of a cause for concern: as a Jew, I must already think they're wrong about Jesus' divinity, and evangelicals are less likely to be fickle in their support, since Jesus told them to support Israel.

Support for Israel qua Israel isn't the issue; the issue is Israel's continued existence. Since I'm already taking the theological waver, why not accept support where I find it?
9.17.2009 10:41pm
Oren:
DangerMouse, sorry then. I should have been clear -- I don't trust the Protestant RR's support for the State of Israel.

You are correct, many Christians do support Israel qua Israel. My fear is lies more with those in power in the various organizations. Pat Robertson's suggestion that God struck down Ariel Sharon, for instance, would be laughable if it came from someone without his position.
9.17.2009 10:44pm
Alan Jeffries:
Dangermouse —

You're a paradigm of ignorance bespeaks ignorance, and I needn't waste another word on your...ignorance. Ha!
9.17.2009 10:44pm
Psalm91 (mail):
How should Jews fell about Rush Limbaugh as he resurrects the cry of segregation?
9.17.2009 10:45pm
Assistant Village Idiot (mail) (www):
Oren: "The Religious Right has not ever supported Israel's continued existence qua Israel's continued existence."

Rubbish. You are talking about people you read about and I know hundreds of. Believing that God wants Israel to exist and that Israel has a right to exist are not mutually exclusive. You have assumed what others' real motives are and exercise a confirmation bias on the basis of slim evidence.

Alan Jeffries, your own post gives evidence against your claim that you have considered conservative ideas on their merits. If you characterise the conservative outlook as wanting to do right by the lucky few instead of doing right by all, then you have conveniently defined what "lucky" and "doing right" mean.

The standard exercise is to reword one's post to see how it sounds if its arguments and rhetoric were directed against you before hitting "Post Comment."
9.17.2009 10:48pm
Oren:


That's exactly the point. If they're right about the 2nd coming, the Jews (in any country) are pretty much screwed, and the boundaries of the state of Israel won't really matter. I'm already making a theological bet by being a Jew and not an evangelical Christian. So why not accept the support?

Because they might encourage a nuclear war that, despite their best hopes, will not lead to Jesus' second coming but rather a charred wasteland.

That is, a "count the days end-times Christian" (credit to DM for the lovely phrase) ally might do things that are not in our material best interest.
9.17.2009 10:49pm
Oren:


Rubbish. You are talking about people you read about and I know hundreds of. Believing that God wants Israel to exist and that Israel has a right to exist are not mutually exclusive. You have assumed what others' real motives are and exercise a confirmation bias on the basis of slim evidence.


No, I've read what they have to say and don't want support from someone that thinks my existence is part of a set-piece that ends with the world burning.

That is, the end-of-timers think the destruction of this world is a good thing. Since I live in this world, I'd prefer it not to be destroyed.
9.17.2009 10:51pm
DangerMouse:
I don't think that those end-times protestants would do anything to encourage a nuclear war. That is insanity. Even if they are bellicose, it's because they believe that such actions would AVERT war and protect Israel.

If, for instance, someone supports Israel attacking Iran right now to forestall Iranian development of nukes - would you view that as encouraging a nuclear war, or trying to prevent one? It can be seen either way, of course. But most normal people don't want to encourage nuclear war. Assuming they do imparts a terribly wicked motive and suggests that thousands and thousands of people are sociopaths who have no qualms about the instantaneous incineration of millions of people in a ball of fire. I don't think that so many friendly people could have such an insane policy in mind. That sort of madness is reserved towards those whose actions speak louder than their words, who are actively working on WMDs and terror plots.
9.17.2009 10:55pm
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):
One thing that infuriates me about liberals, probably to an unhealthy extent, is that they believe they are the party of "reasonable discourse". I mean just look here on the relatively intellectual VC. Too many of them think that is a form of argument to simply parade their litany of unrelated terribles. "Palin/Limbaugh/Beck/Bush." "Torture/science/creationism/racism." Well, sorry, but numbers are more convincing to me than appositives. If you have a problem with the presented data, attack the methodology. You're not impressing anyone with your reasoning faculties when you dissemble or deflect.
9.17.2009 10:59pm
Steve:
One thing that infuriates me about liberals, probably to an unhealthy extent, is that they believe they are the party of "reasonable discourse". I mean just look here on the relatively intellectual VC. Too many of them think that is a form of argument to simply parade their litany of unrelated terribles. "Palin/Limbaugh/Beck/Bush." "Torture/science/creationism/racism."

Maybe you should have chosen a thread without DangerMouse to make the point that liberals tend to substitute vitriol for argument.
9.17.2009 11:11pm
DangerMouse:
Stevo, you're welcome to refute anything that I've said. Go ahead, demonstrate your rapier wit.
9.17.2009 11:14pm
Cato The Elder (mail) (www):

That is, the end-of-timers think the destruction of this world is a good thing. Since I live in this world, I'd prefer it not to be destroyed.

"Liberals push for discriminatory, anti-White, affirmative action policies because they believe discrimination is a good thing. Is that fair assessment? No. You believe the remediation of past injustice trumps the ancillary discrimination. It would be unfair to not appreciate your larger objective -- you're missing the larger objective here. The Apocalypse is only a "good thing" because Jesus comes back, and for him to come back, as it is prophesied, the chess pieces have to be in their proper place. In any case, there will be 7 years for even non-believers to repent after the Rapture and be delivered to Christ. However, as the Left Behind series relates, take care not to gamble because terrible, destructive wonders will strike the Earth and make that plan of action a whole lot riskier during that period. Then anyone who ever lived is raised, and brought before the REAL Supreme Court and judged on Judgment Day. I believe, but am not sure, that it is the doctrine of the Catholic Church that anyone who hasn't received the Word of God is judged on a preponderance of evidence standard. After that, it's free sailing for everyone during the 1000 year Kingdom of God on Earth! Well, OK, there's one last battle with Satan (or is the Beast?), but truly after that everyone gets to live happily ever after.
9.17.2009 11:16pm
Randy R. (mail):
I'm not jewish, but I have many Jewish friends, and almost all of them are liberal. They believe that blacks should have full civil rights, and should be free from discrimination. Liberals agreed to this well before conservatives did. Most Jews also believe that gays should have full civil rights, including marriage. Again, liberals have agreed to this to a much higher degree than most conservatives.

I could go on, but it makes sense that so many jews are liberal -- it's because it's the way they see the world.

Also, the hard core evangelicals support Israel because of the second coming, and state that when that happens, jews will have the option of converting to christianity. If they don't, they, along with all other sinners, will be thrown into the lake of fire.

If I were a jew, that would be enough to tell me that I am not particularly liked by these people.
9.17.2009 11:25pm
Steve:
Stevo, you're welcome to refute anything that I've said.

Refute stuff along the lines of "libs hate America"? Please.
9.17.2009 11:27pm
southerner:
aaaand, once again, DangerMouse trolls the thread.
9.17.2009 11:28pm
DangerMouse:
Refute stuff along the lines of "libs hate America"? Please.

You're right. It IS irrefutable. Like the 4th law of thermodynamics, or something...
9.17.2009 11:29pm
Cornellian (mail):
You link to a survey of evangelical attitudes towards the state of Israel, which isn't the same thing as anti-Semitism. If you think Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel because that's one of the prerequisites to bringing about the end of the world, that doesn't say anything about your degree of anti-Semitism.
9.17.2009 11:29pm
Ariel:
Oren,

No need to worry about the whole Second Coming thing. Look, if Jesus takes another walk around the world, maybe we were wrong all along. I'll toss that one to the evangelicals. I have enough faith to believe that's not going to happen.
9.17.2009 11:36pm
Putting Two and Two...:
If it's "politically ignorant" to suspect conservatives and the religious right, it's historically ignorant to not understand why...
9.18.2009 12:06am
jerry (mail):
Thanks Professor,

Thanks to your post, now I love these guys, even though they are anti-science, global warming denying, intelligent design affirming, anti-civil liberties, homophobic, against reasonable abortion (or abortion constraints), and still are generally not fond of outsiders.

Why Evangelical Protestants are the kindest warmest most wonderful human beings ever!!!! ZOMG!
9.18.2009 12:15am
jerry (mail):
He's simply showing that Jews are more hostile to Christian evangelicals than they likely would be if they weren't prejudiced against them, and instead looked at things more objectively.

It's really quite unfair how the Christian Evangelicals are treated by the Jews. And what do they do to deserve it?
9.18.2009 12:19am
tvk:
I am not sure political ignorance really explains this. The standard story for political ignorance is that voters have little incentive to get political information, because it affects them in a diffuse way and there is little they can do about it. Individual Jews, on the other hand, have great incentives to know what groups are anti-Semitic, since they will bear the consequences of that bigotry. Now, there may well be an availability bias (everyone generalizes based on who we know), but the standard political ignorance story doesn't seem to work.
9.18.2009 12:26am
Randy R. (mail):
A more interesting question is why so many Catholics in America are more liberal than the Vatican. Generally, (but certainly not all) Catholics support birth control, gay rights, rights for all minorities in fact, split on abortion more so than you would think, and so on.
9.18.2009 12:38am
John Moore (www):

Yet every December, I am righteously informed in the letters to the editor of my local newspaper that America is a Christian nation, that when check-out clerks at Target don't say "Merry Christmas" it is a plot to tear down America, and that if I don't love my country I'm welcome to find another one. trotsky,Oren:

This is not a anti-Jewish or exclusionary Christian thing - for the most part it is a reaction to the anti-religion policies and practices foisted upon us. I suspect that you won't find many Christians who would object if the clerks at Target say "Happy Hannukah." As for letters to your newspaper, what sort of sampling is that?
9.18.2009 1:03am
John Moore (www):
Because they might encourage a nuclear war that, despite their best hopes, will not lead to Jesus' second coming but rather a charred wasteland.


I can't believe that was posted here with any serious intent. Certainly not by a serious person. Does anyone have a count of how many Christians are eagerly trying to make the final days come upon us?
9.18.2009 1:04am
John Moore (www):
They believe that blacks should have full civil rights, and should be free from discrimination. Liberals agreed to this well before conservatives did.


Classical liberals, who are as close or closer to today's conservatives than today's liberals.

This trope that conservatives are/were the racists is outlandish.
9.18.2009 1:06am
Steve:
This trope that conservatives are/were the racists is outlandish.

Right, of course. Liberals ruled the postwar South for sure.
9.18.2009 1:14am
Randy R. (mail):
"Does anyone have a count of how many Christians are eagerly trying to make the final days come upon us?"

My sister, for one. She can't wait for it. The last time Lebenon lobbed bombs into Israel, the religious blogs were filled with Christians happily welcoming the Rapture that was sure to follow.

"This trope that conservatives are/were the racists is outlandish."

This was already discussed in another thread, so no need to rehash it here. I didn't say conservatives were racist, though undoubtedly many were during the civil rights era, but jews were on the side of blacks who wanted civil rights, and against those who opposed them. Jews provided a great deal of money and young jews went to the south to help organize blacks. The Southern Baptist religion opposed civil rights for blacks, and they are proudly conservative. Which is why they officially apologized for their stance just in the past few years.

It certainly was not the liberals who opposed civil rights for blacks, and I doubt anyone would fall for such unsupported revisonism. Perhaps it was just that powerful Martians lobby who opposed civil rights....
9.18.2009 1:16am
jerry (mail):
I can't believe that was posted here with any serious intent. Certainly not by a serious person. Does anyone have a count of how many Christians are eagerly trying to make the final days come upon us?

From Ronald Reagan to Tim LaHaye to Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson

http://www.google.com/search?q=end+times

And here's Jerry Falwell on end times and the Jewish Antichrist:

"On July 31, 2006, Cable News Network's (CNN) Paula Zahn Now program featured a segment on "whether the crisis in the Middle East is actually a prelude to the end of the world," "marking the third time in eight days that CNN had devoted airtime to those claiming that the ongoing Mideast violence signaled the coming of the Apocalypse."[49] In an interview Falwell claimed, "I believe in the premillennial, pre-tribulational coming of Christ for all of his church, and to summarize that, your first poll, do you believe Jesus coming the second time will be in the future, I would vote yes with the 59 percent and with Billy Graham and most evangelicals."
...
In 1999, Falwell declared the Antichrist would probably arrive within a decade and "Of course he'll be Jewish."[51] After accusations of anti-Semitism Falwell apologized and explained that he was simply expressing the theological tenet that the Antichrist and Christ share many attributes.[52][53]"

John, I think you need to get out more.

Jesus Ilya, which of these friends of Israel and friends of Jews don't believe in the coming Armageddon?
9.18.2009 1:17am
trotsky (mail):
John Moore,

I get your point about some folks' honest wish not to see religion scrubbed from the public square, but "This is a Christian nation" is about as "exclusionary Christian" as a statement could be.
9.18.2009 1:30am
neurodoc:
jerry: It's really quite unfair how the Christian Evangelicals are treated by the Jews. And what do they do to deserve it?
In part it is because as a group, Evangelicals are much more supportive of Israel than most, and certainly more so than many left-leaning churchs which call for divestment, boycotts, etc. to put pressure on the Jewish state. If you are not Jewish, you may have difficulty understanding how that could possibly be an answer to your question ("what do they do to deserve it"), because it would appear so against self-interest, and it is. Jews, especially less religious Ashkenazim here in the US, do that, though. As a group, they may be sui generis in this way, being like Episcopalians (were in the '50s when it was first said) in SES, but voting like Puerto Ricans.

Oren, for example, is quite confident that Israel faces no existential threat, and sees those Israelis and American Jews who think otherwise as clearly mistaken. Also, from his "progressive" perspective, he sees Isreal as wrong on a great deal vis-a-vis the Palestinians and other Arabs. So, he places no value on the support Evangelicals give to Israel, seeing that support as "insincere," explained by ulterior and to him offensive motives, and even harmful, encouraging US and foreign policies he thinks ill-adivsed, possibly dangerously so. (Oren corrected me the other day, when I said he saw Israelis who weren't as sanguine as he about their security as hysterical or possibly conniving, telling me that was not so, that he saw them as being in "error." So if I still have his views wrong, I expect he will correct me again, and I invite him to do so.)
9.18.2009 1:39am
neurodoc:
Randy R: "Does anyone have a count of how many Christians are eagerly trying to make the final days come upon us?"

My sister, for one. She can't wait for it. The last time Lebenon lobbed bombs into Israel, the religious blogs were filled with Christians happily welcoming the Rapture that was sure to follow.
You say that your sister and others like her were "happily welcoming the Rapture that was sure to follow." You don't say, however, how they were "trying to make the final days come upon us." You don't count celebrating because they thought the Rapture was imminent, or even earnestly praying for it, as "trying," do you? Anything your sister or any others did in hopes of hastening that day, even writing Congress urging that the US do what it could with the express purpose of starting a nuclear conflagration in order the End of Days might be hastened? Why should the rest of us care a whit about the eschatologic thinking of your sister and those who think like her? Does that thinking somehow affect our lives in any way?
Randy R: A more interesting question is why so many Catholics in America are more liberal than the Vatican. Generally, (but certainly not all) Catholics support birth control, gay rights, rights for all minorities in fact, split on abortion more so than you would think, and so on.
What is so puzzling? Are those American Catholics who are more liberal than the Vatican on these particular issues somehow going against their individual or collective self-interests, and if so, how? Are you as impressed by the number to the "right" of the National Conference of Bishops on other matters, e.g., the death penalty and opposition to war, as you are by the number to the "left" on personal choices like birth control? And for which minorities other than gays are all those American Catholics more supportive of greater rights than the Vatican, which I thought was pretty supportive of minority rights with the only possible exception being minorities defined on the basis of sexual-orientation?
9.18.2009 2:01am
Steve:
In part it is because as a group, Evangelicals are much more supportive of Israel than most, and certainly more so than many left-leaning churchs which call for divestment, boycotts, etc. to put pressure on the Jewish state.

This is a particularly common form of argument by assertion. Many conservatives can't seem to get past the point of "Jimmy Carter is on the left, so why don't Jews vote Republican?" without even stopping to think whether there are any prominent religious leaders on the left who have said that Ariel Sharon was punished by God for abandoning Gaza, that the Antichrist is going to be a Jew, and so forth. You'd never think it, but some Jews actually consider the latter remarks as a more serious problem than advocating for divestment!

Some Jews find it icky to line up with people who are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the Jews are going to burn in Hell for eternity... no matter how many cuddly fuzzy sentiments those people may express about Israel! How many evangelical Christians believe Jews are going to hell, by the way? Did the ADL poll THAT question? Political ignorance takes many forms!
9.18.2009 3:25am
David M. Nieporent (www):
Some Jews find it icky to line up with people who are convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that all the Jews are going to burn in Hell for eternity... no matter how many cuddly fuzzy sentiments those people may express about Israel! How many evangelical Christians believe Jews are going to hell, by the way? Did the ADL poll THAT question? Political ignorance takes many forms!
Yes, and some Jews find it ickier to line up with people who want "Palestine" to be made Judenrein... no matter how many of some of their best friends are Jewish.
9.18.2009 4:20am
Steve:
Yes, and some Jews find it ickier to line up with people who want "Palestine" to be made Judenrein... no matter how many of some of their best friends are Jewish.

Quite right, just as there are Jews who view the wanton usage of Nazi terminology in wholly inapplicable situations with distaste. But this is not a series of posts arguing that more Jews should vote Democratic, nu?
9.18.2009 4:31am
Guy:
Here's a controversial question... can we trust evangelicals to be able to correctly self-identify their own anti-semitism? Evangelicals often have respect for Jews because they believe them to be God's chosen people. In other words, it's the result of an irrational positive bias. One of my exes (now a close friend) who is Jewish recently told me he had a date with an Evangelical (A graduate of Liberty University, no less) who expressed this very opinion (that the Jews are God's chosen people, and therefore worthy of respect) to him... it killed any possibility of him considering a second date.
9.18.2009 6:21am
BGates:
the wanton usage of Nazi terminology in wholly inapplicable situations

Right. Or as Muslim protesters in Ft Lauderdale chanted in January, "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas a minority but still respected position in a unified Palestinian state which is committed to the protection of human rights."
9.18.2009 8:41am
BGates:
Many conservatives can't seem to get past the point of "Jimmy Carter is on the left, so why don't Jews vote Republican?" without even stopping to think whether there are any prominent religious leaders on the left who have said that Ariel Sharon was punished by God for abandoning Gaza, that the Antichrist is going to be a Jew, and so forth.

Some conservatives seem to think that President of the United States is a more important position than
- what's Pat Robertson's position again?
9.18.2009 8:45am
Whadonna More:
Maybe the data says something different. If a substantial number of evangelicals have "favorable views of Jews" based on their millenial beliefs around Israel or their belief that Jews can be uniquely converted/saved in ways other groups can't, the Jews may be right to view them as "anti-Semitic" in a sense.

It's quite similar to the "noble savage" view of native Americans - those who hold the view may think of it as a positive one, while the targets see it as negative.
9.18.2009 9:31am
wm13:
The Southern Baptist religion opposed civil rights for blacks

This is, basically, not true. The Southern Baptist Convention endorsed desegregation in 1954. There was an interesting book published a few years ago, called "A Stone of Hope," on the role of religion in the civil rights movement. The black churches were, as we know, a major source of support for the civil rights movement, but what is less well-known is that a major complaint of segregationists was that the white churches were not a correlative source of support for segregation.

If you're looking for institutions to hate, I would suggest that the Democratic party was, as an institution, a bigger opponent of civil rights than the Southern Baptist Convention. (Although I think that refighting the battles of 50 or 100 years ago is pretty stupid. Princeton University, the City of Baltimore, and Davis Polk and Wardwell might all be considered to have been opponents of civil rights, but I don't go around hating Princetonians, Baltimoreans, or lawyers at Davis Polk.)
9.18.2009 9:32am
Steve:
Some conservatives seem to think that President of the United States is a more important position than - what's Pat Robertson's position again?

Since my point was that some conservatives just can't seem to figure out why that argument isn't a slam-dunk winner, I suppose I need to thank you for illustrating it so well!

Of course, the underlying issue is that non-Jewish conservatives are about as discriminating at pointing out anti-semitism as white liberals are at pointing out racism.
9.18.2009 9:54am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
somin:

In reality, ADL surveys show that anti-Semitism among evangelicals is comparable to the national average, and National Election study data show that evangelicals, on average, view Jews slightly more favorably than do other gentiles (though the difference is not statistically significant).


Those claims are unreliable, for reasons that are discussed here.

So we should not be surprised that that many Jews might be ignorant about the true prevalence of anti-Semitism among Christian conservatives.


We should not be surprised that intelligent, educated people might be ignorant about the futility of trying to measure prejudice via polling. The polls you cited tell us little or nothing about "the true prevalence of anti-Semitism among Christian conservatives."
9.18.2009 10:11am
rj (mail):
What liberal Jews resent more than anything is being told by other Jews that their failure to sign on to a conservative/libertarian ideology is a result of ignorance, or self-hating.

If Podhoretz, Peretz, Bernstein, Somin et. al. convinced many Jews to throw in their lot with the "Christian Nation" crowd because they were "stronger on Israel" or whatever that means, I haven't met them. Support for Israel may be a good policy, but I live in America and I don't want a state religion.

No wonder there is only one Jewish Republican member of Congress, and no wonder he comes from a not particularly Jewish district. Jews of the right would rather be scolds than leaders.
9.18.2009 10:11am
anotherpsychdoc (mail):
some Jews to be more willing to ally with conservatives on economic and foreign policy where a large minority of Jews might agree with them.


Run Jewish Republican candidates in New York on these issues. After all both parties are, partially at least, 'bottom up' parties. As for the issue of abortion, I think Republicans would largely accept your dissension that it is 'appropriate to make the nation safe for Moloch worshipers.' A Pope criticized the 'culture of death' and such an acceptance of abortion has a cultural criticism and reduces the American options in 'cafeteria morality.' As to the religious right, rediscover the ancient Lalolian text which says that when the Messiah comes evangelical Christians will be transformed into talking donkeys as found in the Bible. Doubt its authenticity but consider it "interesting."
9.18.2009 10:13am
Just Dropping By (mail):
Don't many polls that purport to measure fundamentalist Christian anti-Semitism suffer from the problem that while they ask about clearly anti-Jewish attitudes they don't measure conduct that many Jewish people themselves view as threatening? For example, fundamentalist Christians often announce that they can't possibly be anti-Semitic because they believe Jews are the "Chosen People," but those same individuals support "mission" activities aimed at converting Jews, advocate for explicitly Christian prayers to be said before public events, make statements like, "This is a Christian nation," etc. It's my understanding that many Jewish people find that kind of conduct hostile, even though it's not based on an express hatred for Jews.
9.18.2009 10:21am
rick.felt:
Randy R wrote:

A more interesting question is why so many Catholics in America are more liberal than the Vatican. Generally, (but certainly not all) Catholics support birth control, gay rights, rights for all minorities in fact, split on abortion more so than you would think, and so on.


It's not an interesting question. It's mundane.

American Catholics are more "liberal" than the Vatican (or as Neurodoc put it, more conservative) because it's enjoyable to act on our base impulses, whether they be grounded in lust or revenge.

The ideas that humans have inherent worth and that sex must be understood telelogically aren't left-right things.
9.18.2009 10:38am
neurodoc:
rick.felt: American Catholics are more "liberal" than the Vatican (or as Neurodoc put it, more conservative) because it's enjoyable to act on our base impulses, whether they be grounded in lust or revenge.
rick.felt seems to concur with neurodoc in the not so remarkable conclusion (i.e., not very remarkable that many American Catholics are not in lockstep agreement with the Vatican either going left or right, as the case may be). Not clear that they agree on the reasoning, though.

In any event, Judaism, unlike Catholicism, has no central, top down headquarters/authority. So, however close to or far from the Vatican's position many American Catholics may be, it has no relevance to this thread.

What might have some relevance is how close to or far apart are American Protestants and their leadership on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The leadership of a number of churchs say it is a matter of "social justice," and when I hear that term used in this particular context, I am too am inclined to take the safety off my imagined Browning.
9.18.2009 11:09am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
somin:

some Christian conservatives seek to make the US an officially "Christian nation"


The official platform of the Texas GOP says "America is a Christian nation." That is evidence it might be more than just "some."

the first point you make is "I have seen the Religious Right label the Anti-Christ as a Jew among us" -a view that is shared by only a tiny minority among the religious right.


Hagee said the Antichrist is "partially Jewish," and McCain said he was "proud" to be endorsed by Hagee. That is evidence it might be more than just "a tiny minority."

======================
curious:

Who cares if evangelicals primarily support Israel because they think it's a precondition to Jesus coming back (or whatever)?


It might be easier for you to understand why people care if you look at this.

======================
steve:

all the ADL surveys prove is that evangelical Christians self-report anti-semitic attitudes at the same rate as other Americans.


Bingo.

======================
dangermouse:

Alan specifically said that he didn't care what the scientific data says


The problem is that what you're calling "scientific data" is pointedly unscientific. Which is par for the course, given the normal GOP attitude about science.

But most normal people don't want to encourage nuclear war. Assuming they do imparts a terribly wicked motive and suggests that thousands and thousands of people are sociopaths who have no qualms about the instantaneous incineration of millions of people in a ball of fire.


Trouble is, much more than "thousands of people" have bought 65 million copies of the Left Behind series, which tells a story very much like "the instantaneous incineration of millions of people in a ball of fire."

======================
cato:

Well, sorry, but numbers are more convincing to me than appositives. If you have a problem with the presented data, attack the methodology.


Done.

======================
moore:

I suspect that you won't find many Christians who would object if the clerks at Target say "Happy Hannukah."


Are you sure? And what about "Happy Ramadan?" That, too? What about the equivalent Pagan greeting? "Many Christians" wouldn't object? Really? Even though they object to Harry Potter?

Does anyone have a count of how many Christians are eagerly trying to make the final days come upon us?


65 million copies sold.

This trope that conservatives are/were the racists is outlandish.


Feel free to ignore the scientific data which indicates that racists are likely to vote R.

======================
neuro:

Why should the rest of us care a whit about the eschatologic thinking of your sister and those who think like her? Does that thinking somehow affect our lives in any way?


The rest of us should care because "eschatologic thinking" leads to "eschatologic" voting. Which definitely "affect our lives."

======================
bgates:

Some conservatives seem to think that President of the United States is a more important position than
- what's Pat Robertson's position again?


Robertson did in fact have a great deal of influence. So good luck trying to paint him as an insignificant figure. Aside from that, it was actually a "President of the United States" who went to Bitburg.
9.18.2009 12:00pm
Just the Facts:
Jukebox -- It is true that directly asking about prejudice is suboptimal. However, stereotype polling and similar less explicit polling (as used by the ADL, Malhotra and Margalit, etc) is routinely used as a tool of social science. Usually, explicit and implicit measures of prejudice will strongly correlate, even though the implicit measures will appear to find more racism overall. Lab studies that improve on these often sacrifice external validity (by using small, non-reprsentative samples) for increased internal validity (more accurately measuring the respondents. Survey experiments are optimal, but relatively rare.

Social desirability bias is an issue, but it is not necessarily relevant when comparing groups within the same study. Social desirability bias may affect the baseline levels of a response, but that is not a problem for comparisons, since in such a case it is a constant across groups. For it to make it difficult to compare, you would have to show that the level of social desirability bias differs enough across groups to be driving the differences. For the purposes of the argument on this blog, you would also have to show that such a finding is robust to accounting for the effects of SDB on relevant behaviors. If groups suppress more anti-Semitic statements may also suppress anti-Semitic behavior, and in practice be to some extent less meaningfully anti-Semitic.

It is also important to know that social science is a process of accumulating evidence, usually based on works that are imperfect. As much as you can point out potential flaws in conventionally solid work, the pattern of evidence from a variety of works, taken together, is unmistakable and consistent.

To other people:
1. The vast majority of Christians, even fundamentalist ones, believe that the time of the apocalypse is pre-ordained. Mankind can speculate that it might come soon, but cannot affect when it will happen. This forcing the end times stuff is generally considered heretical.
2. Yes, many Christians believe that the Antichrist will be Jewish. However, this is because they believe that the Messiah HAS TO BE Jewish, so any reasonably successful false messiah would also have to be Jewish to make much progress as an impostor. It really has nothing to do with prejudice against Jews. It is instead a logical deduction about the properties of someone pretending to be a heroic figure who has to be Jewish.
3. Moloch? Really? You know where Christians get the idea that there was a false god named Moloch, who was worshipped by means of Child sacrifice? The Torah. Thats where.
4. More religious facts. Lets switch the parties around to better elucidate the logic of this matter:
Many Orthodox Jews (Rabbinic authorities are split on this) hold that the belief in the Trinity constitutes idolatry, and as such Christianity would be a violation of the Seven Noachide Laws that religious Jews believe non-Jews are obligated to observe. Many Christians, in turn, believe that Jews not believing Jesus to be the Messiah is a Very Big Problem in a similar sense. Yet, these groups have a far better relationship with each other than Conservative Christians and less religious theologically ecumenical Jews, who, as we have discussed, display high levels of hostility towards the former. If one holds that a lack of theological acceptance trumps more traditional types of prejudice, one would have to accept the clearly absurd conclusion that Orthodox Jews (who hold lower levels of traditional hostility towards Evangelicals) are less friendly to Evangelicals than secular Jews.
9.18.2009 12:15pm
DangerMouse:
jukeboxgrad is apparently suggesting that 65 million Americans are slobbering in anticipation of nuclear war, because they bought a second-rate yet bestselling work of fiction.

Everyone who sees a disaster movie wants death and destruction. Everyone who saw Jurassic Park wants dinosaurs to eat people. People who read Edgar Allan Poe and Steven King are psychopaths. The popularity of vampire stories suggests that millions of people want to cannibalize their neighbors. Blah blah blah.

What a stupid argument. Do you actually believe your own B.S. now?
9.18.2009 12:42pm
yankee (mail):
A more interesting question is why so many Catholics in America are more liberal than the Vatican. Generally, (but certainly not all) Catholics support birth control, gay rights, rights for all minorities in fact, split on abortion more so than you would think, and so on.

They're only more liberal than the Vatican on those sorts of social/sexual/cultural issues. On economics, Benedict XVI has been quite off on the left and John Paul II was even moreso.
9.18.2009 12:53pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
Trouble is, much more than "thousands of people" have bought 65 million copies of the Left Behind series, which tells a story very much like "the instantaneous incineration of millions of people in a ball of fire."
Millions of people watched Star Wars, which showed a planet being blown up. I guess we can conclude from this that this is what all those viewers want to happen.
9.18.2009 12:57pm
yankee (mail):
Yes, many Christians believe that the Antichrist will be Jewish. However, this is because they believe that the Messiah HAS TO BE Jewish

I think you may need to brush up on Christian doctrine regarding the Messiah.
9.18.2009 12:59pm
Just The Facts:
yankee - Jesus was of Jewish ethnicity/origion/whatever terminology you want to use for this. Thus, also sharing that known property would be a likely feature of fake Jesus/Moral Bizarro-Jesus Its like saying that Christianity is anti-Male because the Antichrist is typically considered male as he is supposed to be similar in many ways to Jesus.
9.18.2009 1:19pm
Just The Facts:
Addition/correction, since I did misspeak to an extent. I can admit when I'm off a bit -- to the extent that he must be accepted by the Jews under certain versions, he also must be Jewish. Christianity is based in Jewish Mesianism from before, and as such one would need to be Jewish to really tap into that narrative/set of prophesies/line at all. It does not mean the belief that Jews in general are Stanic or evil.
9.18.2009 1:29pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
just the facts:

directly asking about prejudice is suboptimal


What a delightful understatement. Yes, it's "suboptimal" in much the same way that using dice to pick stocks is "suboptimal." A better word would be 'worthless.'

similar less explicit polling … is routinely used as a tool of social science


To the extent that "social science" allegedly relies on this sort of pointedly unscientific method, the people who laugh at the term "social science" are doing so for a good reason.

Usually, explicit and implicit measures of prejudice will strongly correlate


Prove it.

If groups suppress more anti-Semitic statements may also suppress anti-Semitic behavior


Voting is private. Answering a survey question is not. Feel free to explain why a person who is inclined to hide their bigotry from a pollster is going to refrain from expressing their bigotry while inside a voting booth.

As much as you can point out potential flaws in conventionally solid work, the pattern of evidence from a variety of works, taken together, is unmistakable and consistent.


Uh, no. When I have baloney and add more baloney, I don't end up with something other than lots of baloney. A bad study does not become more credible when someone else does the same bad study.

Moloch? Really? You know where Christians get the idea that there was a false god named Moloch, who was worshipped by means of Child sacrifice? The Torah. Thats where.


Yes, the story of Moloch is in the Old Testament. So what? Who cares? Lots of evil people have done evil things based on wacky ideas they pulled out of the Old Testament.

It does not mean the belief that Jews in general are Stanic or evil.


Of course not. What we have instead is merely the belief that Jews are going to burn in hell for eternity because they rejected Jesus. But a belief like that could certainly never lead to problems for Jews, right? Aside from history demonstrating such problems over and over again, why would anyone ever expect such problems?

======================
dangermouse:

jukeboxgrad is apparently suggesting that 65 million Americans are slobbering in anticipation of nuclear war, because they bought a second-rate yet bestselling work of fiction.


I have been careful to talk about how many books were sold, not how many people bought them. We know the former, but we don't know the latter, because a single fan might buy multiple books. But the readership is undoubtedly millions.

And the Left Behind series does indeed glorify the violent deaths of millions of people, so "slobbering in anticipation of nuclear war" is not far off the mark.

And the fact that it's a "work of fiction" is beside the point. Fiction can be important. As zuch pointed out, Atlas Shrugged is considered important by certain people even though it's 'only' a "work of fiction." And feel free to prove that the Bible itself is not largely a "work of fiction."

If you're not clear about the importance of these books, pay attention to what Falwell said (about the first book in the series): "In terms of its impact on Christianity, it's probably greater than that of any other book in modern times, outside the Bible."

Everyone who saw Jurassic Park wants dinosaurs to eat people.


If the dinosaurs in that movie mostly ate Jews, and if millions of members of a certain non-Jewish religion showed great interest in that movie, I would see that as a problem. Even if that religion did not have a long history of condemning and persecuting Jews for their Jewishness.

======================
nieporent:

Millions of people watched Star Wars, which showed a planet being blown up.


If the movie was about blowing up a planet that was largely Jewish, and if millions of members of a certain non-Jewish religion showed great interest in that movie, I would see that as a problem. Even if that religion did not have a long history of condemning and persecuting Jews for their Jewishness.
9.18.2009 1:42pm
DangerMouse:
juke, you're really an idiot. If you think millions of Americans are desireous for a nuclear war, then you've lost your sanity.

But I'm not going to stop you from saying that. All it does is make you look incredibly stupid. Millions of people bought Dan Brown's anti-Catholic books, but I don't think they're all anti-Catholic bigots. You really DO believe your own bullshit, I guess. Well, enjoy the smell.
9.18.2009 2:01pm
wm13:
jukeboxgrad, people who don't believe in modern social science or its methods are not really going to be making a useful contribution to a discussion on a social science question, i.e., why is the social group identified as Jews generally supportive of political parties and candidates who are liberal? The reasons why you personally despise Christians are not really germane to this discussion.
9.18.2009 2:06pm
yankev (mail):

What the ADL may have focused on 50 years ago is more or less irrelevant; they're certainly far from hostile towards evangelicals today.
If so, they have changed focus within the last 10 to 15 years, which is certainly possible.
9.18.2009 3:29pm
yankev (mail):

Instead of investigating the question of why Jews are liberal as if it's a vexing query that yields an answer consisting of logical fallacies,


Sort of like

Fran Lebowitz: "The Primary Cause of Heterosexuality Among Males in Urban Areas: Yet Another Crackpot Theory" essay, 1978 (US) ...
9.18.2009 3:37pm
yankev (mail):

Those claims are unreliable, for reasons that are discussed here.
IOW, although jbg said that Foxman is infallible when he (supposedly) said (and supposedly for all time) that Rev. Wright is not anti-semitic, but the same Foxman is a pathetic bungler when he says Evangelical Christians are not more anti-Semitic than the general populace.

Gottenu.
9.18.2009 3:50pm
Luck Corn:
Reading the comments here, I remember a saying: "Conservatives thing Liberals have bad ideas. Liberals think Conservatives are bad people."

I am a conservative who mostly socializes with liberals. We agree on many issues; we disagree on some. They don't hate me and I don't hate them.

The liberal posters here seem to be filled with hatred of conservatives, but they don't want to admit it. They want to believe that they are paragons of peace, love, virtue, patience, and tolerance. What a bunch of hypocrites.
9.18.2009 4:21pm
Luck Corn:
I wonder if the most vitriolic of the liberals here have ever had a sincere, productive talk with a conservative. They seem to base their opinions of conservatives on odd stereotypes. Hey, I'd hate people who had the characteristics of "conservatives" as they see them. Problem is, conservatives are not like that.

But then, isn't that Ilya's point about Jewish liberals?
9.18.2009 4:25pm
jerry (mail):
Hmm,

At 2.2% of the US Population, I wonder what the chances are that American Jews have not spoken to anyone other than American Jews to get their erroneous opinions regarding the behavior of some conservatives.

At 2.2% of the US Population, perhaps it is Luck Corn who is having a problem finding, listening to, respecting, American Jews who find the behavior of some conservatives disconcerting. Isn't that the point of the counter arguments here?
9.18.2009 4:32pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
wm13:

people who don't believe in modern social science or its methods are not really going to be making a useful contribution to a discussion on a social science question


The "methods" of "modern social science" include techniques to measure prejudice in a reliable manner. If you think it makes sense to measure prejudice via a poll (as compared with via a proper study that uses tools such as a bogus pipeline procedure), then you're not in a position "to be making a useful contribution to a discussion on a social science question," because you understand neither "science" nor "social science."

The reasons why you personally despise Christians are not really germane to this discussion.


Only if you think that the GOP's avid embrace of the Religious Right doesn't remind Jews of certain features of Jewish history.

Make sure to keep doing this so that you don't need to pay any attention to this.

===================
yankev:

although jbg said that Foxman is infallible when he (supposedly) said (and supposedly for all time) that Rev. Wright is not anti-semitic


It's not a good sign for the quality of your argument that you can't make one without pretending that I said things I didn't say. Where did I say Foxman was infallible? I didn't. I just reported his opinion about one person. If you think anyone other than you should consider your opinion about Wright to be more credible and relevant than Foxman's opinion about Wright, good for you.

And it's not something Foxman "supposedly" said. When you say that you're just demonstrating that facts don't matter to you. It's what he said.

And both these things are true:

A) Foxman said Wright is not an antisemite, even though Foxman probably knows more than you do about Wright and about antisemitism.

B) ADL's polls about antisemitism are not reliable, because polls are not a reliable way to measure prejudice. If they were, social scientists would not have invented such things as bogus pipeline techniques.

If you can't fathom a world where both A and B are true, that's your problem. Sometimes things are not as simple as we want them to be.
9.18.2009 4:32pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
dangermouse:

If you think millions of Americans are desireous for a nuclear war


"Millions of Americans" seem to be quite fascinated with this:

The riders not thrown leaped from their horses and tried to control them with the reins, but even as they struggled, their own flesh dissolved, their eyes melted, and their tongues disintegrated. As Rayford watched, the soldiers stood briefly as skeletons in now-baggy uniforms, then dropped in heaps of bones as the blinded horses continued to fume and rant and rave.

Seconds later the same plague afflicted the horses, their flesh and eyes and tongues melting away, leaving grotesque skeletons standing, before they too rattled to the pavement.


If you don't think that scene is a close facsimile of "nuclear war," feel free to give us a phrase you would consider more accurate.
9.18.2009 4:33pm
Luck Corn:
Insulting me is not helping you make your point, Jerry. I know plenty of liberals, including politically liberal Jews. I also know politically conservative Jews.
9.18.2009 4:49pm
Oren:

I have enough faith to believe that's not going to happen.

Me too. I'm just afraid of what someone who believes that Jesus is coming might do, being that he has no interest in preserving the material world.


Does anyone have a count of how many Christians are eagerly trying to make the final days come upon us?

Very few, but they tend to be surprisingly high up on the Christian food chain.


Everyone who sees a disaster movie wants death and destruction. Everyone who saw Jurassic Park wants dinosaurs to eat people. People who read Edgar Allan Poe and Steven King are psychopaths. The popularity of vampire stories suggests that millions of people want to cannibalize their neighbors. Blah blah blah.

If people took those works as seriously as they do the Revelation of Saint John, I would be very concerned.


Oren, for example, is quite confident that Israel faces no existential threat, and sees those Israelis and American Jews who think otherwise as clearly mistaken. Also, from his "progressive" perspective, he sees Isreal as wrong on a great deal vis-a-vis the Palestinians and other Arabs. So, he places no value on the support Evangelicals give to Israel, seeing that support as "insincere," explained by ulterior and to him offensive motives, and even harmful, encouraging US and foreign policies he thinks ill-adivsed, possibly dangerously so. (Oren corrected me the other day, when I said he saw Israelis who weren't as sanguine as he about their security as hysterical or possibly conniving, telling me that was not so, that he saw them as being in "error." So if I still have his views wrong, I expect he will correct me again, and I invite him to do so.)

This is mostly correct. :-)

I would add that the Palestinians are definitely wrong vis-a-vis Israel. And that the Arabs (Syria in particular) are definitely wrong vis-a-vis the Palestinians -- having harmed their correligionists much more than the Israelis have.

The way I see it, there's just a whole heap of wrong and it's just about everywhere.
9.18.2009 5:09pm
jerry (mail):
"Insulting me is not helping you make your point, Jerry. I know plenty of liberals, including politically liberal Jews. I also know politically conservative Jews."

Odd. I think I just mirrored your own statements back to you. Perhaps you may wish to consider how that appears as an insult to you, but you don't realize how you insulted millions of others.
9.18.2009 5:16pm
jerry (mail):
(I'm certain some of your best friends are Jews....)
9.18.2009 5:17pm
yankev (mail):

And both these things are true:

A) Foxman said Wright is not an antisemite, even though Foxman probably knows more than you do about Wright and about antisemitism.
No, what is true is that he aid he saw no evidence that Wright is an anti-semite. There is a difference. I am still not clear whether he said this before or after Wright's anti-Semitic outburst about "them Jews" preventing him from seeing Obama. You seem to feel that Wright's apology clears that all up, but the link that you posted about that apology leaves out a few things that appear in the Chicago Sun-Times of 6/11/2009:


"I apologize for the way I framed my comments. I misspoke and I sincerely meant no harm or ill-will to the American Jewish community or the Obama administration," Wright said. "I have great respect for the Jewish faith and the foundational (and central) part of our Judeo-Christian tradition."


But Lonnie Nasatir of the Anti-Defamation League's Chicago office said Wright was expressing "classic anti-Semitism."


The ADL issued this statement: "Reverend Wright's comments claiming that 'them Jews' are preventing him from communicating with President Obama are inflammatory and false. The notions of Jewish control of the White House in Reverend Wright's statement express classic anti-Semitism in its most vile form. In a short succinct sentence, Reverend Wright manages to both label some of the president's closest advisers solely by their religious beliefs and give them powers superior to the president himself."
Are you telling me the ADL retracted that statement?
And according to the same Sun Times article, Wright "apologized" by saying he meant to insult Zionists, not Jews:

MARK THOMPSON: Of course people are keying in, Dr. Wright, on the statements you made regarding Jews.

REV. WRIGHT: Well let me say…I misspoke. Let me just say, Zionists.


MARK THOMPSON: …I want everybody to be clear that when you say… "them Jews won't let him talk to me" you were specifically referring to Zionists.

REV. WRIGHT: Exactly.

Earlier in the interview he said he may his "Them Jews" remark in response to a student's question as Wright was walking to his car.

Yeah, he's sorry -- he's sorry it got reported and caused a stir.
9.18.2009 5:22pm
yankev (mail):

And it's not something Foxman "supposedly" said. When you say that you're just demonstrating that facts don't matter to you. It's what he said.
Okay, I just checked your link. Foxman's statement was 5 months before Wright's "them Jews" remark. Not a good sign for your argument when you rely on out of date information and cover up subsequent condemnations by the organization that Mr. Foxman leads.
9.18.2009 5:25pm
yankev (mail):

"Millions of Americans" seem to be quite fascinated with this:
Sounds like something out of Raiders of the Lost Ark. You seem to think you are proving something.
9.18.2009 5:26pm
Stash:
I think the primary sticking point is Church-State separation. The assertion that this is a "Christian Nation" is, as Larry Summers might say, "anti-Semitic in effect." Just as supporters of an Israel boycott do not necessarily have a personal animus against Jews, supporters of the notion that the United States is really a government that has an obligation to promote and support Christian values may very well be free from any bias against Jews as individuals or as a group. A similar example might be non-racist persons who nevertheless sincerely supported States' Rights against Brown v. Board of Education. The personal lack of racism would not be a reason for pro-civil rights groups or African Americans to make (or want to make) common cause with them, even if, say, they strenuously supported civil rights at the State level.

I have to admit that my own reaction the "Christian Nation" stuff is immediate and quite visceral. My parents escaped from Nazi-Germany and the assertion makes me feel as if such people seek to break the fundamental promise of America. The assertion is certainly true as a demographic fact, but this is not what is meant. My view, and I believe the correct one, is that this country is built on universalist Enlightenment values that reached their apex in the United States. These values are what led to the removal of most restrictions on the Jews in Europe (though Disraeli and Rothschild still had to convert to obtain full rights).

And there is no way around it. The importance that its advocates place on the idea of this country being a "Christian Nation" is without doubt intended to be, and most likely would be a slippery slope, that implies that Jews (and other non-Christian minorities)are, at best, magnanimously tolerated alien peoples, who, by grace of Christianity are granted full and equal rights. The notion is intended to be the lens through which the judiciary and legislature enforce and make law. Despite the fact that there is certainly no agenda to start using this rationale to discriminate against Jews, it removes a important barrier to doing so. This is as distasteful to me as, say if it was suddenly declared that the U.S. was founded on Sharia with the proviso that of course other religions would be tolerated and have full civil rights. I mean, really, why be so upset about that? Or, more demographically correct, making a declaration that this is a "White Nation" that therefore should be based on "White values." Or that the country should be ruled by Masons only. To me it would fundamentally alter the universal appeal and intentionally non-religious basis of the United States, particularly to those who came here to avoid oppression and be equal citizens, not just "under the law", but also as a matter of fundamental social organization and values.

So, given the perceived threat of the "Christian Nation" plus the fact that the support for Israel is at least partially based on theological reasons (as opposed to humanitarian or empathetic reasons), it is not surprising that the group is perceived to suffer from greater anti-Semitism than it does. The same might happen with respect to a survey that asked Jews to rate anti-Zionists as group, and the results might be no more accurate.
9.18.2009 6:23pm
neurodoc:
yankev, in jukeboxgrad's eyes it matters not Wright's antisemitic utterances, nor Rep (D-VA) James Moran's, so long as when they get heat for them, they then "withdraw" and/or "apologize." If jukeboxgrad can find something Abe Foxman of ADL (did you know Foxman has met with 7 presidents and the Pope several times?) ever said that can be used to defend the likes of Wright ("no evidence of antisemitism) and Moran, he will cite it no matter when Foxman said it. And if you call jukeboxgrad on the sort of deceptiveness a judge would never tolerate from an attorney, then it demands that you come up with proof that Foxman did not accept their apology?!

It is a waste of time to try to discuss antisemitism coming from the Left with jukeboxgrad. He is only willing to discuss antisemitism coming from the Right, and for that he will go anywhere to find examples (e.g., Prescott Bush engaging in business deals with the Nazis 60+ years ago.)

Oh, and don't cite polling or other social science data on different forms of prejudice among different groups, since jukeboxgrad will reject as methodologically unsound anything that doesn't support him.
9.18.2009 7:01pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
yankev:

he aid he saw no evidence that Wright is an anti-semite


Unless you think the operative principle regarding antisemitism is guilty until proven innocent, saying "he saw no evidence that Wright is an anti-semite" is essentially the same thing as saying that Wright isn't an antisemite.

I am still not clear whether he said this before or after Wright's anti-Semitic outburst about "them Jews"


Foxman made multiple statements before that incident. And the matter of that incident itself was discussed thoroughly in the other thread.

Are you telling me the ADL retracted that statement?


The only thing worse than posting misinformation is posting the same misinformation in multiple threads. I already answered you here.

cover up subsequent condemnations


I did nothing to "cover up" the ADL statement of 6/11/09. What you're doing is falsely asserting that this ADL statement was subsequent to Wright's apology.

Sounds like something out of Raiders of the Lost Ark


If "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was about millions of Jews dying because of their Jewishness, that would concern me. And I think it would concern you, too.

======================
neuro:

then it demands that you come up with proof that Foxman did not accept their apology


It would be nice if you could show that Foxman didn't accept Wright's apology. But what's even worse than not having such proof is making a pretense of having such proof.

for that he will go anywhere to find examples (e.g., Prescott Bush engaging in business deals with the Nazis 60+ years ago.)


I cited that old example, and also cited a bunch of current examples. And that old example has current relevance, because his offspring have been and still are an important part of American politics.

Given that Romney lived in France for over two years, you should expect his citizenship to be questioned. You might have to end up choosing between Palin and Jeb.

======================
stash:

The importance that its advocates place on the idea of this country being a "Christian Nation" is without doubt intended to be, and most likely would be a slippery slope, that implies that Jews (and other non-Christian minorities)are, at best, magnanimously tolerated alien peoples, who, by grace of Christianity are granted full and equal rights.


Exactly. And conservatives are irony-impaired, because they condone or promote the perspective you just described, while also making a big fuss about the concept of dhimmitude (link, link). Even though what you've described is just a variation on that concept.
9.18.2009 7:53pm
DangerMouse:
Given that Romney lived in France for over two years, you should expect his citizenship to be questioned.

Jukeboxgrad is a birther on Romney? Are you serious? I suppose this logic applies to Obama, then, who lived abroad for more than 2 years? Why, yes, such logic would apply to Obama!

jukeboxgrad is a birther.

I'll say it again: you're really an idiot.
9.18.2009 8:28pm
zuch (mail) (www):
Satire is totally wasted on DangerMouse.

Cheers,
9.18.2009 9:09pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
dangermouse:

jukeboxgrad is a birther


Whatever you do, don't pay attention to the context. If you did, you might understand that it was a joke.

Are you serious?


Duh.

I suppose this logic applies to Obama, then, who lived abroad for more than 2 years? Why, yes, such logic would apply to Obama!


Please make sure to not notice that the subject came up because someone indeed attempted to apply that exact 'logic' to Obama.

you're really an idiot


I sincerely appreciate the reverse endorsement. Very few people are in a position to offer one as valuable as yours.

By the way, "idiot" is a good word for someone who reacts to a remark without bothering to understand the context.

And speaking of idiocy and things that are much worse than idiocy, I'm really interested in hearing more of your thoughts about Jews as Moloch-worshippers (link, link).

=====================
zuch:

Satire is totally wasted on DangerMouse.


Which is kind of a paradox, because he is satire personified. People like Dangermouse make satire superfluous. Dangermouse transcends satire. It's a pretty awesome accomplishment, and one that only few can claim.
9.18.2009 9:22pm
Luck Corn:
Oh, I forgot to add, I am a Jew too.

I guess that saying anything that you disagree with is insulting.
9.18.2009 10:09pm
John Moore (www):
Reading this thread reminds me of how overly broad the term "anti-semitic" has become. It's used to describe almost any belief or policy, related in any way to Jews, that is disliked by some Jews.

I think this damages the term and reduces its usefulness. How about restoring anti-semitic to a reasonable definition, such as holding a belief in the inferiority or evil of Jews, or advocating policies specifically targeted to harm jews.

"Christian nation," for example, does not fit into this category. It may be insufficiently sensitive, but it has no exclusionary meaning (except perhaps against militant atheists).

Evangelicals proselytizing Jews isn't anti-Semitic - it's part of evangelizing. Heck, they probably target Catholics also.


Maybe the data says something different. If a substantial number of evangelicals have "favorable views of Jews" based on their millenial beliefs around Israel or their belief that Jews can be uniquely converted/saved in ways other groups can't, the Jews may be right to view them as "anti-Semitic" in a sense.

What if those evangelicals also have favorable or neutral views of Jews outside of their ideology? If someone has those millenial beliefs, but also thinks, based on history or personal experience, that Jews are good, or made major contributions, or whatever, are they still anti-semitic?
9.18.2009 10:53pm
John Moore (www):


Yes, and some Jews find it ickier to line up with people who want "Palestine" to be made Judenrein... no matter how many of some of their best friends are Jewish.



Quite right, just as there are Jews who view the wanton usage of Nazi terminology in wholly inapplicable situations with distaste.

Hazi terminology is very appropriate in this case, and readily comes to mind as one views the Palestinian attitude towards Jews, the Palestinian historical cooperation with the Nazis during WW-II, the widespread Arab use of blood libel, and the admiration many Palestinians and other Arab's have expressed for the Nazis.
9.18.2009 10:54pm
Ken Arromdee:
If "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was about millions of Jews dying because of their Jewishness, that would concern me. And I think it would concern you, too.


The back story of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is about millions of Jews dying because of their Jewishness.
9.18.2009 11:11pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
I did nothing to "cover up" the ADL statement of 6/11/09.
Failing to cite a relevant fact is covering it up, by the JBG standard.

Still waiting for him to explain how apologizing for an anti-semitic statement is relevant to the question of whether the speaker was anti-semitic. Or how accepting an apology is actually an exoneration of the original charge.
9.18.2009 11:43pm
Oren:

"Christian nation," for example, does not fit into this category. It may be insufficiently sensitive, but it has no exclusionary meaning (except perhaps against militant atheists).

Nonsense. It evinces a belief that non-Christians have no place here and are somehow lower-status members of the Republic. Perhaps even failed human beings (as Mr Falwell said).

Just because it's also anti-Muslim, anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, anti-Confucian, anti-Pagan, anti-Norse and anti-atheist (did I miss anyone, I'm sorry), does not make it not-anti-semitic.

Again, I'm willing to talk to Christians when they accept that Christianity is just one religion, not the sum-total of all of humanity's knowledge of the divine.
9.18.2009 11:52pm
Kevin P. (mail):
The full paragraph of the "Christian nation" quote:


Christian Nation -- America is a Christian nation, founded on Judeo-Christian principles. We affirm the constitutional right of all individuals to worship in the religion of their choice.


It seems a little different when quoted in full.

Quote on Page 21
9.19.2009 12:47am
mbilinsky (mail) (www):
Jews are not alienated from the Christian right becuase of concerns over anti-Semitism. Jews don't share the cultural sentiments nor general principles of the Christianists regardless of their feelings towards Jews. More particularly, American Jews have a strong intellectual streak. Not something that has been a hallmark of Christian conservatism.
9.19.2009 1:38am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
moore:

"Christian nation," for example, does not fit into this category.


The issue is not whether advocates of the "Christian nation" concept are fairly described as antisemites. Making the discussion about the meaning and application of that particular word is looking at the situation too narrowly. Rather, the issue is how Jews are likely to react, and actually do react, when they run into concepts like "Christian nation" (and it has a lot to do with evaluating the concept in the context of Jewish history). I may not conclude that every advocate of the concept is an antisemite, but I will nevertheless steer clear of those advocates and not pray for their political success.

Likewise for people and groups who place a high priority on convincing Jews that there's something wrong with being a Jew.

A similar statement could be made about various aspects of racism, and the specific term "racist."

Evangelicals proselytizing Jews isn't anti-Semitic - it's part of evangelizing.


That's one way to look at it. Here's another way to look at it: antisemitism is part of Christianity.

Heck, they probably target Catholics also.


They target lots of people, but there's no other target quite like the Jews. Why? Because the Jews are the original rejecters of Jesus.

If someone has those millenial beliefs, but also thinks, based on history or personal experience, that Jews are good, or made major contributions, or whatever, are they still anti-semitic?


It's a distraction to argue about whether the word fits that particular person. The bottom line is that if I know you expect me to burn in hell forever, and if I see you as someone who is heavily invested in this belief, that's going to have a major effect on my willingness to trust you, feel safe around you, and choose to form alliances with you (and this has a lot to do with evaluating your views in the context of Jewish history). And gushing about how much you love Einstein, Dylan and the Marx Brothers is not going to change that.

==================
arromdee:

The back story of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is about millions of Jews dying because of their Jewishness.


I hope you'll explain what you mean, because I'm not managing to guess.

==================
nieporent:

Failing to cite a relevant fact is covering it up, by the JBG standard.


Failing to cite a fact I didn't know about is not "covering it up," by anyone's standard. Prior to the time that it was mentioned in this week's threads, I didn't know about Wright's statement of 6/10/09, and I didn't know about ADL's reaction to that statement.

You might enjoy the following exercise: see if you can find any instance of anyone at VC mentioning that statement, prior to this week. After all, it's not as if this crowd has demonstrated a lack of interest in Jeremiah Wright. If the remark was so offensive and controversial and well-known, how come no one here (as far as I can tell) ever mentioned it at the time it happened?

And feel free to demonstrate that I have ever accused anyone of failing to cite a relevant fact, other than in a situation where there was good reason to believe that the person was aware of the fact. You are continuing your normal practice of making phony accusations.

Still waiting for him to explain how apologizing for an anti-semitic statement is relevant to the question of whether the speaker was anti-semitic.


For some strange reason you're pretending this question has not already been asked and answered. Speaking of "failing to cite a relevant fact." The fact that you don't like the answer, and ran away from the answer in the thread where it appeared (even though that thread is still open), is not an excuse to pretend that no answer was given.

==================
kevin:

"America is a Christian nation, founded on Judeo-Christian principles" … It seems a little different when quoted in full.


Emphasis on "a little." It would be more accurate to say 'hardly at all.' If I'm supposed to be impressed by the "Judeo" part, then why didn't the sentence begin by saying ''America is a Judeo-Christian nation?" Were they trying to conserve ink because they were getting to the end of their typewriter ribbon?

The "founded" part is meaningless. Yes, everyone knows that Christianity was "founded" on Judaism. But it replaced Judaism (from the Christian perspective). And that's why the current perspective is "Christian nation," not "Judeo-Christian nation."

We affirm the constitutional right of all individuals to worship in the religion of their choice.


Gosh, how comforting. For now, you won't force me to pray in your church, as long I remember that the "nation" really belongs to those who are "Christian."

And it's quite spectacular to notice that you seem to have no awareness whatsoever of how what you're describing relates to the concept of a dhimmi, a concept that is regularly mocked by conservatives.

The fundamentalists who live down the street and vote in American elections are more of a threat to my freedom than the ones hiding in a cave on the other side of the planet. And the local ones are deeply clueless with regard to how much they resemble the foreign ones.
9.19.2009 1:46am
John Moore (www):
Oren, meet Kevin P and his full quote.

mbilinsky


Jews are not alienated from the Christian right becuase of concerns over anti-Semitism. Jews don't share the cultural sentiments nor general principles of the Christianists regardless of their feelings towards Jews.

What the hell is a CHristinaists? A modern slur on Christian?

As for the difference in viewpoints, that is true.

More particularly, American Jews have a strong intellectual streak. Not something that has been a hallmark of Christian conservatism.

Bull-puckey. Just more anti-Christian bigotry. The narrative that Christians, or "Christian conservatives" are anti-intellectual is simply a slur - a very popular one that is constantly reinforced by media cherry picking of quotes. It is true that many conservatives, myself included, are anti-many-intellectuals, because they've gone over to the dark side - a danger inherent in intellectualism that intellectuals should watch out for.

When intellectuals start believing they are the elite, the best, the right people to run society, being anti-them is a good thing.
9.19.2009 1:49am
mbilinsky (mail) (www):
Was my comment anti-Christian bigotry? Hmmm, a potshot, yes. Bigotry...nope. I'm sure there are quite a few religious conservatives who are very intelligent and well educated. Some of them were my professors over the years.

But we're not talking about singular members or exceptions. We're also not talking about reality, necessarily. We're talking about the perception of the group as a whole.

And like it or not, some of the louder members of the Christian right have not done much to enhance the movement's intellectual viability. I'll spare you a rant on Sarah Palin, but in the eyes of the American Jewish community (of which I am a member), conservative Christians (as a movement) are not viewed in a favorable intellectual light.

The American Jewish community puts a premium on education and intellectual discourse. Whether justified or not, these are not the characterstics that American Jews associate with conservative Christianity.

Maybe it's my community's fault. Maybe it's a few vocal (achem Palin) members of the Christian right who ruin it for the rest. Regardless, it's the truth.
9.19.2009 2:36am
mbilinsky (mail) (www):
And "Christianist" is not a slur on Christianity. It is a term for those who pedal a false agenda under the flag of Christianity. And I'm sorry, but there are a helluva a lot of people doing that these days.
9.19.2009 2:40am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
moore:

Oren, meet Kevin P and his full quote


I have already responded to the emptiness of the "full quote."

What the hell is a CHristinaists? A modern slur on Christian?


Christianism is no more of a slur than Islamism.

The narrative that Christians, or "Christian conservatives" are anti-intellectual is simply a slur


You're entirely right, as long as one believes that creationism and intellectualism are compatible.

When intellectuals start believing they are the elite, the best


Are you intellectual enough to know what the word 'elite' means? It means 'best.' Some people think that intellect is a major aspect of what it means to be 'best.' If you reject this idea, here's what you are, by definition: anti-intellectual.

the right people to run society


Some folks actually have the wacky idea that when we pick people to run things, we should be biased in favor of people who possess intellect. On the other hand, some people feel threatened if their leaders are less mediocre than they are. That's an important aspect of the current GOP flavor of populism: the glorification of mediocrity. And I am not the only one to notice "the intellectual decline of conservatism."
9.19.2009 2:47am
mbilinsky (mail) (www):
Yes jukeboxgrad, it's what Christopher Hitchens referred to as "prideful ignorance". And as much as educated Christian conservatives want to ignore it, there's a violent streak of it that currently exists in their movement.
9.19.2009 2:52am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
it's what Christopher Hitchens referred to as "prideful ignorance"


Your comment prompted me to notice an article he wrote about Palin's anti-intellectualism ("Sarah Palin's War on Science - The GOP ticket's appalling contempt for knowledge and learning"). It includes this relevant passage:

Videos taken in the Assembly of God church in Wasilla, Alaska, which she used to attend, show her nodding as a preacher says that Alaska will be "one of the refuge states in the Last Days." For the uninitiated, this is a reference to a crackpot belief, widely held among those who brood on the "End Times," that some parts of the world will end at different times from others, and Alaska will be a big draw as the heavens darken on account of its wide open spaces.
9.19.2009 3:05am
mbilinsky (mail) (www):
Yeah. There are a few conservatives out there who have the wherewithal to admit "hey, a streak of anti-intellectualism has infilitrated our movement" and try to deal with it. But most will just call you a liberal bigot, rattle off a few leftists organizations they disapprove of, and deny it.
9.19.2009 3:50am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
It's a shame that Dangermouse hasn't told us more about his concept of Jews as Moloch-worshippers (link, link). Because it's helpful to run into Christians who are so refreshingly candid.

Like the fellow who just dropped into a prior thread and left this gem:

maybe Jews should start examining their behavior and ask why they are hated everywhere they go … Jews are in for a rude- albeit well-deserved- awakening


'Rude awakening?' That sounds familiar ("Excuse me, sir? Jew? Jesus is filled with nothing but love for you! And if you reject him, you'll face eternal torture, Judas!").

It's hard to understand why Jews don't show more appreciation for Christians, especially the kind of Christians the GOP attracts. Don't Jews know who their real friends are? Don't they realize John Moore has a 'favorable view' of people like Jonas Salk and Billy Joel?
9.19.2009 11:12am
Kevin P. (mail):

jukeboxgrad:
The fundamentalists who live down the street and vote in American elections are more of a threat to my freedom than the ones hiding in a cave on the other side of the planet. And the local ones are deeply clueless with regard to how much they resemble the foreign ones.


Thanks for being so up front. Your own fellow citizens are more of a threat to your freedom that the fundamentalists who fly planes into buildings, and bomb buses, cut off the heads of Jewish journalists and others and force women back into bondage.

Wow. You call yourself liberal, progressive, tolerant and inclusive of all world views. And you accuse Christian conservatives of being intolerant and anti-intellectual.

To the rest of the world resting this thread, just remember this. The mask of the leftist slips for just a moment.
9.19.2009 11:12am
Kevin P. (mail):

jukeboxgrad:
Are you intellectual enough to know what the word 'elite' means? It means 'best.' Some people think that intellect is a major aspect of what it means to be 'best.' If you reject this idea, here's what you are, by definition: anti-intellectual.


How do even know which people are intellectual or not? The amount of superiority and condescension that you and mbilinsky are displaying is stunning. You have no idea about the commenters on this thread and their amount of personal and intellectual accomplishment - as opposed to just passing gas on the Internet about intellect.

The truly intellectual people I know are remarkably modest about their achievement and also quite reticent to claim that they are superior to anyone in any way. They don't have the insecurity that makes them sneer at other people - and in fact have the maturity to realize that being educated and intellectual does not mean you have all the answers.

Note to other readers: This is what the mind of an elitist looks like.
9.19.2009 11:31am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
kevin:

Your own fellow citizens are more of a threat to your freedom that the fundamentalists who fly planes into buildings


There is no fundamental difference between someone who flies planes into buildings because of their fundamentalist beliefs and someone who bombs abortion clinics and gay bars because of their fundamentalist beliefs. The great difference in damage inflicted (at the moment) is ultimately superficial, and should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the underlying immorality is essentially indistinguishable.

Eric Rudolph was hidden from the FBI and treated as a hero (link, link, link). Palin refused to call Rudolph a "terrorist." Righty blogger Rick Moran thinks this is a form of "moral cowardice," and he's right. Palin understands that the people of Murphy NC, who sheltered Rudolph for years, are the kind of people she relies on for votes. It is precisely the kind of place she considers "real America."

Falwell said "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals." It's not hard to imagine how someone like Rudolph hears that statement as a form of encouragement. Falwell also blamed 9/11 on "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians." But people like Robertson and Falwell are warmly embraced by the GOP, even though they incite hatred and violence. McCain spoke at Falwell's Liberty University in 2006.

Another example of the GOP's ties with Christian extremists:

when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr


The GOP is quick to condemn fundamentalism and violent extremism, as long as it's someone else's. One more time: the fundamentalists who live down the street and vote in American elections are more of a threat to my freedom than the ones hiding in a cave on the other side of the planet.

How do even know which people are intellectual or not?


Here's one clue: if they think "Dinosaurs And People Coexisted."

Here's another clue: if someone claims that someone else is just "passing gas on the Internet" while not lifting a finger to provide logic or evidence in support of that claim.

And when someone claims that intellectuals shouldn't be considered elite, they are anti-intellectual, by definition. And if you still have trouble comprehending "the intellectual decline of conservatism" you should ask Posner to explain it to you.
9.19.2009 12:03pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
When Palin refused to condemn Rudolph as a terrorist, she was probably aware that many people sympathize with him. That's why we see statements like this:

I am 100% convinced that devout Christian protector and defender of unborn babies at abortion clinics, Christian Hero Eric Rudolph, needs to be released from prison today!


And that's why ADL was able to find other examples of people praising Rudolph. And that's why you can find a list of people who signed a Declaration of Support for James Kopp. More names here. By the way, here you can find WorldNetDaily hinting that Kopp is innocent, and being persecuted for political reasons.

Here are some interesting facts about Cherokee county NC, where Rudolph survived for five years with "help from sympathetic local residents." It's a close look at the core of the current GOP. The black population is 1.8% (22% for NC overall). College degrees: 11% (23%). Median value of a housing unit in 2000: $86k ($108k). Median household income, 2005: $31k ($41k). Number of churches listed on the county web site: 67. Number of synagogues: 0. Number of mosques: 0.

Bush's victory margin in 2004: 34% (12%). McCain's margin: 39% (-0.4%). This is one of the few places in the country where McCain did better than Bush. Those places tend to be rural counties in the South, where people tend to be poor, white, uneducated, Christian and Republican. (See here, and click on "Voting shifts." That map vividly illustrates that the region where Rudolph went to hide, successfully, is exactly the region where McCain was also successful at finding support.)

Here are the words that Palin said last year in North Carolina:

We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America … Being here with all of you hard-working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation. This is where we find the kindness and the goodness and the courage of everyday Americans.


Is she talking about "the kindness and the goodness and the courage" displayed by the citizens of Murphy, NC, who apparently kept Eric Rudolph hidden and alive for five years while the FBI was looking for him? Because if you kill people with a bomb, that's only "unacceptable" if your victims are "innocent," right? That's what Palin essentially said when she refused to call Rudolph a terrorist. She suggested that his victims weren't innocent. She understands how her voters think.

Imagine that the FBI spent 5 years chasing a Muslim terrorist inside the US. Then he's found, and the FBI says that a Muslim community had apparently been helping him hide. Imagine that candidate Obama later visits that area and calls it the "best" part of America, "the real America."

Can you picture the outrage? Rush and Sean would be jumping out of their skin. Drudge would be running a triple siren. Every hour, McCain would have released a new web video juxtaposing Obama's words with pictures of terrorism victims. IOKIYAR.

I think all this has something to do with "Jewish Perceptions of Conservatives and the Religious Right." And I think the "Political Ignorance" is on the part of those who don't grasp the reality of that ugly embrace.
9.19.2009 12:38pm
John Moore (www):
mbilinsky:

And as much as educated Christian conservatives want to ignore it, there's a violent streak of it that currently exists in their movement.

Everyone knows there are a few violent kooks on the fringe of the Evangelical Christian movement. Nobody is ignoring it - it simply has no relevance. Those who seek to diminish the Christian right because of these few are dishonest.
9.19.2009 3:48pm
John Moore (www):
mbilinsky

And "Christianist" is not a slur on Christianity. It is a term for those who pedal a false agenda under the flag of Christianity.

That might be true if it were used only that way in discussions here on the Conspiracy. It's usage, however, has tended to be applied to the entire movement.

Althouse comments:

Christianist, with its evocation of Islamist, gains wider usage as an attack word on what used to be called the religious right,"
9.19.2009 3:51pm
mbilinsky (mail) (www):
Kevin P. and John Moore, please go back and actually read what I wrote. I did not say that Christians are stupid. I did not say they are anti-intellectual. I did not say they are below me.

What I said (very clearly) is that in the eyes of the American Jewish community, the extreme and anti-intellectual forces present on the religious right are very visible and influence American Jewry's view of Christian conservatives. This view explains American Jews alienation from the Christian right more accurately than concerns about anti-Semitism.

And Moore, you think that the anti-intellectual streak on the religious right is irrelevant????

Ok then I will go introduce you to 50 Jewish people I know who were all skeptical of Obama, but voted for him specifically because they did not want Sarah Palin anywhere near the White House.

Please go back and read the headline of this post and I'm sure you will see the relevance of that.
9.19.2009 4:09pm
Moneyrunner43 (www):
Do you people have any idea of the level of hatred that you are revealing toward Christians? Here's part of an earlier post. The people commenting on this tread, and the previous one appear to feel that they are at a Klan gathering and no-one will take notes:

American Jews, Liberalism, and … hatred of Christians

In line with the ACORN videos, I thought that I would go to a "respected" website and encourage its commenters to reveal themselves. Instead, I found a thread at the Volokh conspiracy that needs no incitement of disdain and hatred.
The essay was by David Bernstein entitled: American Jews, Liberalism, and the Democratic Party



I may make a more detailed contribution to the debate soon, but for now I wanted to point out that Norman Podhoretz and others are conflating two separate issues: the first is why American Jews are generally more liberal than are other Americans, and the second is why American Jews are so attached to the Democratic Party, especially in presidential elections, such that even Jews who are moderate to moderately conservative are presumptive Democratic voters.



These are Liberals and Libertarians speaking to each other.
All comments are cut and pasted, not edited in any way. Please note that these a comments appended to a single essay in a highly respected blog hosted by law professors.

A more telling combination of moral preening and bigotry will be hard to find outside of the Liberal blogosphere. This one is Libertarian.



Jews are overwhelmingly liberal and progressive: Jews are highly educated and highly educated people tend to believe in progressive values (a strong state dedicated to caring for members of society least able to care for themselves; universal health coverage; respecting scientific consensus when it comes to things like global warming and other environmental concerns; and, general protection of minorities and minority rights whether it's homosexuals, Latinos, Blacks, etc.).

Of course, the fact that Jews are progressive must also be due to logical fallacy or irrational ignorance on their part, right, Bernstein? Truly, I am sorry that you are not accepted by the majority of Jewish political-types, but it's your fault, not theirs.
...
I would have thought that Jews' concerns about the Christian right as a political force has less to do with anti-semetism and more to do with the Christian right's desire to base government policy, public school curricula, etc. on Christian religious doctrine.
...
You're simply making this up. Give us some facts. In my experience, a substantial percentage of evangelical Christains (especially in the Deep South) dislike Jews. Some of them support Israel (for a variety of reasons) but still dislike American Jews. And that percentage is far higher than the percentage of Jew haters among non-evangelical Christians.
...
I don't know about anyone else but, as a jew, I would find philo-semetism almost as repulsive as anti-semetism. Anything that essentializes judaisism or jews or thinks about us as a monolith is at best creepy and at worst repugnant.
...
Jews are afraid of a strong central government handing "traditional" values down to the people. This tends to lead to scapegoating. And the scapegoats are the Jews.

Thus, Jews shy away from anything that imposes one group's value system on another. For better or worse, that is the Republican party of today.
...
I think focusing on the personal anti-semitism of Republicans and their supporters misses the point. As Prof. Bernstein has noted elsewhere, it has more to do with the affiliation between the GOP and people who want prayer in schools, official recognition of the US as a Christian nation, etc. A snarky person might refer to these folks as "objectively anti-semitic" since they seek to promote Christianity to the exclusion of other beliefs.
...
You have to realize that in the last couple decades, the GOP has been swallowed by the screaming nutcases we saw on display last Saturday, and moderates, economically conservative Republicans are an endangered, if not nearlly extinct, species. Lincoln Chafee and other former Republicans have talked about this on MSNBC.



There is much, much more ... Do any of the people on this tread realize how this sounds to the average American ... who is also apt to be a Christian? Does anyone care?
9.19.2009 7:38pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
moore:

Everyone knows there are a few violent kooks on the fringe of the Evangelical Christian movement.


Trouble is, those "few violent kooks" get various kinds of support from the GOP base and from GOP leaders. I demonstrated this (link, link). You haven't lifted a finger to deal with the evidence I presented. In typical anti-intellectual style, you're doing this.

By the way, I notice the GOP is not inclined to gloss over Islamist terrorism by saying 'everyone knows there are a few violent kooks on the fringe of Islam.' A more typical GOP reaction is this:

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity


Why the double standard? Here's why: IOKIYAR.

That might be true if it [the term "Christianist"] were used only that way in discussions here on the Conspiracy. It's usage, however, has tended to be applied to the entire movement.


Except that you and Althouse, in aggregate, have demonstrated this many examples of the term being used inappropriately: zero. I guess that's because only effete intellectuals bother with such quaint things as proof and evidence.

================
money:

Do you people have any idea …


Do you have any idea how silly you look when you repeatedly pimp your blog here? Especially when the post you are pimping consists of essentially nothing more than a bunch of VC comments you cut and pasted?

And the only thing sillier than taking a bunch of VC comments and pasting them into your own blog is then taking that same batch and pasting them back into VC. Anyone reading these threads has already read those comments.

If you have anything intelligent to say about those comments, you should respond to them individually, when they are posted, instead of collecting them in a pathetic effort to pimp your blog.
9.19.2009 9:18pm
Moneyrunner43 (www):
If I were a religious bigot …
I'd stop making bigoted comments so no one will know.

After abstaining from bigoted comments for ninety days, I would pronounce myself cured of bigotry.

Proud of my success, I would start condemning others for their bigotry.

After succeeding for a time at pointing out the bigotry of others, I would impress my like-minded friends by identifying new and subtle behaviors that characterize bigots so that it will be even more difficult for those evil bigots to hide behind their politically correct speech.

This is easily done, because I know what thoughts, feelings, and subtle behaviors I would have if I were a bigoted. They are very familiar to me.

I have to admit, though.... Some of you bigots out there are so good at covering it up, the only way I can tell is when you do something I wouldn't dare do. - Like saying anything bad about a Liberals.
9.20.2009 7:54am
David M. Nieporent (www):
By the way, I notice the GOP is not inclined to gloss over Islamist terrorism by saying 'everyone knows there are a few violent kooks on the fringe of Islam.' A more typical GOP reaction is this:

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity
Trouble is, here's how much evidence you have provided to support your position that this is a "more typical GOP reaction": none. The trouble is: you've gotten so used to the fact that nobody takes you seriously that you provide phony links -- most of them to your own phony posts -- and hope nobody will read them to see that they never support your claims.
9.20.2009 2:55pm
neurodoc:
jukeboxgrad: By the way, I notice the GOP is not inclined to gloss over Islamist terrorism by saying 'everyone knows there are a few violent kooks on the fringe of Islam.' A more typical GOP reaction is this:

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
So jukeboxgrad believes that "Christian terrorists," e.g., Eric Rudolph and his ilk, have as many supporters and fans among Christians as Osama bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists have supporters and fans among Muslims. Or perhaps not as many, but the numbers of "Christian terrorists along with their supporters and fans are sufficiently great and otherwise consequential on the US and/or international stage that it is responsible jukeboxgrad to put them side by side.

If jukeboxgrad sees Ann Coulter as representative of the Republical Party, and hence someone who can be looked to for the "typical GOP reaction," then would he have us regard Bill Maher and Michael Moore as representative of the Democratic Party, people we should look to for a "typical Democratic Party reaction"? Are Maher and Moore less representative of the Democratic Party than Ann Coulter of the Republican Party?
9.20.2009 6:35pm
neurodoc:
yankev: JBG says the apology proves Wright is not an anti-Semite, and backs it with the supposed approval of Abe Foxman. Yet the official reaction of the ADL as reported by the 6-11-2009 Sun Times said
jukeboxgrad: I already explained this to neuro*, so you have no excuse to be confused. You are claiming that ADL issued a "reaction" to Wright's apology. Wrong. They did not. They issued a reaction to Wright's original statement. If you can find evidence the ADL ever said anything subsequent to Wright's apology, please share it with us. In the absence of a statement subsequent to Wright's apology, there is no reason to assume that ADL rejected Wright's apology.

The article you cited is here. The ADL statement is here. Wright's apology is here. Do you notice what those three items have in common? They are all dated 6/11/09. ADL's statement of 6/11/09 was not a reaction to something Wright said on 6/11/09. It was a reaction to something Wright said on 6/10.

Wright's apology was first reported on 6/11 at about 3 pm (you can check memeorandum and see that it was first mentioned after that time). If the ADL statement you called a "reaction" to Wright's apology was actually a reaction to Wright's apology, it would not have been dated 6/11. We would not have seen it until 6/12. And it also would have mentioned Wright's apology. It did not.

Getting your facts straight would be a good start.
jukeboxgrad stands pat on his answers, linking to the above exchange so it won't be overlooked. I too think it worth calling attention to for the benefit of anyone who would try to engage with jukeboxgrad.

jukeboxgrad will be glad to go anywhere in order to come up with that which he thinks somehow supports his 110% partisan case, no matter what a stretch it may be (e.g., back to Prescott Bush 60+ years ago to show the GOP as the party for antisemites; Ann Coulter as official spokesperson for the GOP), but he will reject out of hand anything that challenges his case, let alone makes the opposite one. I find it especially revealing to see how jukeboxgrad denies and/or excuses antisemitism on the Left, his defense of Reverend Wright and Rep Moran (D-VA) particularly noteworthy. That those who would call Wright out as an antisemite can't prove their case unless they can establish that the ADL's last word on Wright, that of 6/11/09, came after Wright apologized for saying "Jews" when he meant "Zionists" is laughable at best.

*jukeboxgrad did offer that "explanation" to neurodoc, and neurodoc thinks jukeboxgrad's "explanation" so much horses--t.
9.20.2009 6:54pm
mbilinsky (mail) (www):
No neurodoc, Bill Maher is not representative of the Democratic Party. His commentary is far more insightful than has been evident of the Democratic Party.

(*Note: Comment not applicable to Michael Moore)
9.20.2009 8:12pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
nieporent:

here's how much evidence you have provided to support your position that this is a "more typical GOP reaction": none


Coulter said what she said ("we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity") on the pages of the National Review. (And although she was later fired, Goldberg said "we did not 'fire' Ann for what she wrote.") Subsequent to that she was repeatedly invited to CPAC. At CPAC, she shared a platform with Romney, who had this to say about her (video):

I am happy to hear that after you hear from me, you will hear from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing. Oh yeah!


Romney should not be saying it's a "good thing" to hear from Coulter unless he thinks her views are welcome in the GOP.

I said that the GOP is not inclined to gloss over Islamist terrorism by saying 'everyone knows there are a few violent kooks on the fringe of Islam.' Here's more proof to support that assertion: we reacted to 9/11 by invading a Muslim country that had nothing to do with 9/11. The GOP did not respond to 9/11 by teling us that it was the work of 'a few violent kooks on the fringe of Islam.' On the contrary. The GOP responded to 9/11 by telling us that we were facing a mortal threat from terrorists who were numerous and well-supported. That's quite different from describing them as 'a few violent kooks on the fringe of Islam.' The GOP's actions were substantially congruent with Coulter's words ("invade their countries, kill their leaders").

As usual, you're attempting to invent your own reality.

you provide phony links


Bullshit. You're continuing your long track record of making phony accusations and then running away when challenged to show proof. Which is exactly what you have done the many times you have been proven wrong (proof, more proof).

================
neuro:

So jukeboxgrad believes that "Christian terrorists," e.g., Eric Rudolph and his ilk, have as many supporters and fans among Christians as Osama bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists have supporters and fans among Muslims


I showed evidence of extensive support for Rudolph, including and especially Palin pointedly refusing to condemn him as a terrorist. This is a big problem, especially because certain people are highly motivated to gloss over the problem.

I've never seen numbers to clearly evaluate the "as many" comparison you raised. If you have such numbers, please share them. The statement you made ("Rudolph and his ilk, have as many supporters and fans among Christians as Osama bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists have supporters and fans among Muslims") might be true. If you can show otherwise, please do so.

I know there are places in the world where I can find Muslims who sympathize with Al Qaeda. I also know that Murphy NC is a place where I can find Christians who sympathize with Eric Rudolph, and who were willing to help him evade the FBI for five years. Trouble is, Murphy NC is a lot closer to where I live. And unlike the Muslims in Pakistan et al who support AQ, the people in Murphy NC vote in American elections. I also know that the kind of people who live in Murphy NC are exactly the kind of people who are most likely to support the GOP. I also see the GOP openly pandering to the kind of people who live in Murphy NC, and telling me that they are 'real Americans,' and that I'm not. This tells me everything I need to know about the GOP.

the numbers of "Christian terrorists along with their supporters and fans are sufficiently great and otherwise consequential on the US and/or international stage that it is responsible jukeboxgrad to put them side by side


It's completely appropriate to put them "side by side" from the perspective of morality, because they are morally indistinguishable. This is true regardless of how "consequential" they are. And aside from that, they are indeed "consequential:"

According to NAF [National Abortion Federation], since 1977 in the United States and Canada, property crimes committed against abortion providers have included 41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs").


Have they knocked down any skyscrapers yet? No, they haven't, but that doesn't mean they would be reluctant to do so, if they could find one filled with abortionists and lesbians.

would he have us regard Bill Maher and Michael Moore as representative of the Democratic Party, people we should look to for a "typical Democratic Party reaction"? Are Maher and Moore less representative of the Democratic Party than Ann Coulter of the Republican Party?


I don't think they have a record comparable to hers, with regard to making a long series of outrageous statements. But even if they did, they don't have her prominence. Aside from one exception (Moore sitting with Jimmy Carter at the convention), you are not going to find Moore and Maher getting nearly the level of acceptance that the GOP grants Coulter, as exemplified by her repeated presence at CPAC, where she is introduced warmly by someone as prominent as Romney.

Her acceptance in the mainstream of the GOP is also demonstrated by the fact that she has sold 3 million books, and is invited as a guest by the usual suspects (Rush, Sean, Glenn, Bill) on a regular basis. Someone flipping channels on cable is going to see her face a lot more than Maher or Moore. Especially if they watch Fox a lot.

Coulter is one more of many reasons for Jews to stay away from the GOP. Coulter said that Jews need "to be perfected" by becoming Christians (text, video).

unless they can establish that the ADL's last word on Wright, that of 6/11/09, came after Wright apologized


You don't help your credibility when you continue to gloss over the fact that you presented a phony chronology.

no matter what a stretch it may be (e.g., back to Prescott Bush 60+ years ago to show the GOP as the party for antisemites


I'm sure you'll be speaking up to complain about the "stretch" the next time someone here mentions Lincoln as a way to prove how wonderful the GOP is. Or mentions the things Sen. Byrd did roughly 60 years ago. For some strange reason I think that kind of "stretch" is perfectly fine with you.

And please continue to pretend that the list I posted here was not composed mostly of much more recent examples.
9.20.2009 8:17pm
mbilinsky (mail) (www):
jukeboxgrad

I appreciation your positions, but stop conflating Maher with Moore. He misfires every now and then, but Maher has shown himself much more willing to break party line than Moore. And his views are not "radical" for the most part. Aggressive in their delivery, but not in their content.
9.20.2009 10:09pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
I think you're describing Maher accurately, and I agree with the important distinctions you're raising between Maher and Moore (Michael, not John). I shouldn't conflate them, and I don't mean to. I'm only saying that they share this important characteristic: neither is elevated and embraced in the mainstream of their party in the manner that Coulter is.
9.21.2009 12:06am
neurodoc:
jukeboxgrad: I've never seen numbers to clearly evaluate the "as many" comparison you raised. If you have such numbers, please share them. The statement you made ("Rudolph and his ilk, have as many supporters and fans among Christians as Osama bin Laden and other Islamic terrorists have supporters and fans among Muslims") might be true. If you can show otherwise, please do so.
I excerpted the exchange between yankev and jukeboxgrad, very much like my own with jukeboxgrad, because it said so much about jukeboxgrad's highly partisan views on the subject of antisemitism/anti-Zionism. In jukeboxgrad's eyes, whether the 6/11/09 ADL press release which called Reverend Wright out as someone who sounds antisemitic tropes ("The notions of Jewish control of the White House in Reverend Wright's statement express classic anti-Semitism in its most vile form.") came immediately before or after Wright "apologized," saying he misspoke and had meant to say "Zionists" not "Jews," is of great consequence. Since in 2007, Abe Foxman, who jukeboxgrad regards as the arbiter of what does and doesn't constitute antisemitism, said he saw "no evidence" of antisemitism on Wright's part at that time, and jukeboxgrad insists that Foxman's 2007 judgment must be the final word on whether or not Wright is an antisemite until Foxman says otherwise.

jukeboxgrad has made it clear on more than one occasion now that so long as those on the Left who sound classic antisemitic tropes reconsider in the face of publicity and criticism, "withdrawing" and/or "apologizing" for their offensive expressions of bigotry and substitute "Zionists" for "Jews," they cannot be convicted of antisemitism. (see, for example, jukeboxgrad on Rep James Moran [D-VA] and Reverend Wright) That's jukeboxgrad's position and he's sticking to it. And for help in defending antisemites against the charge of antisemitism, jukeboxgrad cites Michael Lerner, who urged Jews to support the infamous Cynthia McKinney, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, along with the likes of Al Hilliard and George Crocker, until she was finally defeated.

Now, this, jukeboxgrad's balancing of "Eric Rudolph and his ilk," who jukeboxgrad offers as representative of "Christian terrorism," and part of the GOP's base, against Osama bin Laden. How wonderfully illustrative of jukeboxgrad's thinking! Perhaps some day jukeboxgrad will outdo even this, but it's hard to imagine how he could make himself appear even more ridiculous.
9.21.2009 12:54am
neurodoc:
Speaking of antisemitism over on the Left, in today's Washington Post, Steven Walt not surprisingly blames Israel and what he, along with John Mearsheimer, has previously styled the "Israel Lobby" for stymieing Obama's efforts to broker a peace with the Palestinians. Three years ago (8/29/06 ADL press release), Abe Foxman condemned this Walt and Mearsheimer line, calling it a "sinister thesis that Israel and the Israel Lobby control American foreign policy." And, "At their bristling at charges that they are engaging in anti-Semitism, Mr. Foxman paraphrased Shakespeare by saying, 'I think the professors protest too much.'"

So, since jukeboxgrad has accepted Foxman as authoritative on the subject of what does and doesn't constitute antisemitism, will jukeboxgrad accept Foxman's assessment of Walt and Mearsheimer's "Israel Lobby" case as one that smells of antisemitism? Probably not, since to do so would undermine jukeboxgrad's "they meant 'Zionists' not 'Jews'" defense of Moran, Wright, and others over on the Left.
9.21.2009 1:15am
neurodoc:
jukeboxgrad: Maher and Moore (Michael, not John). I shouldn't conflate them, and I don't mean to. I'm only saying that they share this important characteristic: neither is elevated and embraced in the mainstream of their party in the manner that Coulter is.
Jimmy Carter, who occupied the White House from '76 to '80, isn't in the mainstream of the Democratic Party? Or that wasn't Michael Moore seated next to Carter at the Democratic Convention?
9.21.2009 1:19am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
neuro:

I excerpted the exchange between yankev and jukeboxgrad, very much like my own with jukeboxgrad


That's true, it was very much like your own. You both misrepresented the chronology (example, example), and you are both still refusing to take responsibility for misrepresenting the chronology.

In jukeboxgrad's eyes, whether the 6/11/09 ADL press release which called Reverend Wright out as someone who sounds antisemitic tropes ("The notions of Jewish control of the White House in Reverend Wright's statement express classic anti-Semitism in its most vile form.") came immediately before or after Wright "apologized," saying he misspoke and had meant to say "Zionists" not "Jews," is of great consequence.


It's of consequence if you think ADL's statement is of consequence. It's also of consequence if you think apologies mean something. I guess you don't, but I do.

If ADL spoke after Wright apologized, this means they rejected his apology. If ADL spoke before Wright apologized, and then didn't speak again (and this seems to be the case), then they apparently accepted his apology.

The chronology is relevant, and you and Yankev both have no excuse for misrepresenting the chronology, and you also both have no excuse for failing to take responsibility for misrepresenting the chronology. Don't you think it's about time? Better late then never.

Abe Foxman, who jukeboxgrad regards as the arbiter of what does and doesn't constitute antisemitism


Did I say he's the arbiter? No. I just think his opinion is relevant, and much more relevant than yours.

jukeboxgrad insists that Foxman's 2007 judgment must be the final word on whether or not Wright is an antisemite


Foxman was quoted in 1/08 saying "nothing I've seen would make me call him an anti-Semite." It would be better if you didn't distort the record by calling this "2007." And I didn't claim that this statement by Foxman, or any statement by Foxman, is the "final word" about anything. But it reflects his view at the time.

jukeboxgrad has made it clear on more than one occasion now that so long as those on the Left who sound classic antisemitic tropes reconsider in the face of publicity and criticism, "withdrawing" and/or "apologizing" for their offensive expressions of bigotry and substitute "Zionists" for "Jews," they cannot be convicted of antisemitism.


No two cases are exactly alike, but I generally take apologies seriously, and I've explained my evaluation of the Moran situation and the Wright situation. You, on the other hand, have said virtually nothing about multiple examples of GOP antisemitism, even when there has been no apology. This demonstrates that the one wearing partisan blinders is you.

for help in defending antisemites against the charge of antisemitism, jukeboxgrad cites Michael Lerner, who urged Jews to support the infamous Cynthia McKinney


Yes, McKinney dared to criticize Israel, and Lerner dared to support her for doing so. But even though you think this makes McKinney an antisemite, the fools at ADL couldn't manage to see the light (this article is from the Forward, although it's currently hosted at another site):

"People ask me whether she's antisemitic; it's more that she's pro-Palestinian," said Deborah Lauter, Southeast regional director at the Anti-Defamation League. "I don't think she's crossed the line."


You need to work harder at educating them.

Now, this, jukeboxgrad's balancing of "Eric Rudolph and his ilk," who jukeboxgrad offers as representative of "Christian terrorism," and part of the GOP's base, against Osama bin Laden. How wonderfully illustrative of jukeboxgrad's thinking!


How wonderfully illustrative of your thinking that you think a bare assertion that my thinking is wrong serves as a substitute for creating an argument using facts and logic in order to demonstrate that my thinking is wrong.

Do you claim that Eric Rudolph is less immoral than OBL? Do you claim that Palin's refusal to condemn Rudolph as a terrorist was not an act of "moral cowardice?" Does it bother you even slightly that the people of Murphy NC helped him hide from the FBI for five years? And sold coffee mugs and t-shirts glorifying him?

These facts don't change just because you have chosen to do this.

Foxman's assessment of Walt and Mearsheimer's "Israel Lobby" case as one that smells of antisemitism


If you want to know what I think of W&M, read Hitchens. Speaking of "smells," he says their work is "unmistakably smelly." But he also says this:

Everybody knows that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and other Jewish organizations exert a vast influence over Middle East policy, especially on Capitol Hill. The influence is not as total, perhaps, as that exerted by Cuban exiles over Cuba policy, but it is an impressive demonstration of strength by an ethnic minority. Almost everybody also concedes that the Israeli occupation has been a moral and political catastrophe and has implicated the United States in a sordid and costly morass. I would have gone further than Mearsheimer and Walt …


As the saying goes, read the whole thing.

wasn't Michael Moore seated next to Carter at the Democratic Convention?


I already acknowledged that, here. This is one of many indications that you're not reading very carefully.
9.21.2009 2:48am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
And jukeboxgrad thinks that neurodoc's silly affectation of addressing jukeboxgrad in the third person is even more puerile than when pompous nincompoops refer to themselves in the third person.
9.21.2009 2:56am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
those on the Left who sound classic antisemitic tropes


If you're on the lookout for "classic antisemitic tropes," they can be readily found right here at VC (examples). And they're coming from people who vote the way you do. But you seem inclined to avoid the reality of those on the Right "who sound classic antisemitic tropes."
9.21.2009 8:11am
neurodoc:
jukeboxgrad: If you're on the lookout for "classic antisemitic tropes," they can be readily found right here at VC (examples). And they're coming from people who vote the way you do. But you seem inclined to avoid the reality of those on the Right "who sound classic antisemitic tropes."
You presume to know how I vote ("people who vote the way you do"), so please tell everyone whom you imagine I voted for in the past however many national and state elections (VA). And tell them which office-seekers received rather substantial contributions from me in '04 and '08.

But even if you could guess for whom I've voted, and I don't think you would come close, how would that be of any relevance here? I'm not here on behalf of the GOP, nor to defend anyone given to antisemitic expressions or unfair attacks on Israel. You, on the other hand, clearly have a partisan mission. I would guess that you have for a long time gone with the Dems, and generally the most Left-leaning among them. That guess is partially informed by the fact that you told us you are registered as a Democrat (for more than 40 years I have registered as one), and more so by your fierce partisanship, which will not admit antisemitism as an issue of any consequence on the Left, but which scours the horizon for anything which however remotely connected to the GOP and pounds on it with torrents of links from you.

Moran and Wright are instructive examples of what would be straight up antisemitism coming from the Left, except they "apologize" and switch out "Jews" for "Zionists," allowing jukeboxgrad to grant them absolution. (Are you with Michael Lerner in believing that Jews should support the likes of a Cynthia McKinney lest they be replaced by a less Left-leaning, and antisemitic, person in Congress? How about Walt and Mearsheimer, are they tainted by antisemitism, as Abe Foxman has said they are?)

Now, I think we have exhausted the possibilities in this exhange between us, and it says what it says, clearly enough I think, about our respective positions and the way we get to them.
9.21.2009 9:01am
mbilinsky (mail) (www):



Jimmy Carter, who occupied the White House from '76 to '80, isn't in the mainstream of the Democratic Party? Or that wasn't Michael Moore seated next to Carter at the Democratic Convention?




Yes, Jimmy Carter occupied the White House from '76 to '80. And what relevance, may I ask, does that have to his stature within the Democratic Party in the year 2009? Much like the rest of the platform of these so-called conservatives, they are stuck in 1980.
9.21.2009 1:36pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
neuro:

You presume to know how I vote


That's true, I do, because I've read many of your comments and the ones I've seen generally take a pro-GOP position. But if I've missed your pro-Dem comments, I'd be happy if you showed me where I can find them.

even if you could guess for whom I've voted


I'm guessing that you voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and for McCain in 2008. If I'm guessing wrong, I'll be happy to be corrected.

state elections (VA)


If you're hinting that you managed to refrain from supporting George "macaca" Allen, who said that someone who mentioned his Jewish heritage was "making aspersions," color me not terribly impressed. But thanks for reminding us of that additional example of GOP antisemitism. I had forgotten that one.

I'm not here on behalf of the GOP, nor to defend anyone given to antisemitic expressions or unfair attacks on Israel.


Then it's hard to understand your apparent tendency to gloss over multiple examples of GOP antisemitism.

I would guess that you have for a long time gone with the Dems


I have voted for persons named Clinton or Gore this many times: zero. I started voting in 1974, and never registered as a Democrat until thirty years later.

That guess is partially informed by the fact that you told us you are registered as a Democrat


This is yet another in a long series of indications that you don't read very carefully. Yes, I told you that I am a registered Democrat. But I also told you I voted for thirty years before becoming one. But even though I told you that, you proceeded to say this: "if you have been voting a straight Democratic ticket for >30 years." And then I expressed puzzlement at this wacky statement of yours. But instead of explaining your wacky statement, you repeat essentially the same wacky statement: "I would guess that you have for a long time gone with the Dems." I guess you have somehow managed to not notice that I have criticized the Dems on many occasions (examples).

It's hard to understand why you bother to reply to my comments without actually reading them first.

your fierce partisanship, which will not admit antisemitism as an issue of any consequence on the Left


Yet another indication that you don't read very carefully. I have pointed out that Lerner has attacked leftist anti-Semitism. And if I wasn't willing to "admit" that leftist antisemitism exists and is worth attacking, it would have been odd for me to bring that up.

Are you with Michael Lerner in believing that Jews should support the likes of a Cynthia McKinney lest they be replaced by a less Left-leaning, and antisemitic, person in Congress?


You're running a severe trade deficit with regard to answering questions. Maybe you haven't noticed that I've answered all of yours, even though you've been ignoring most of mine. I don't know where you got the idea that you're entitled to get answers while refusing to provide them yourself. You have some catching up to do.

But I wouldn't answer that question anyway, because it embodies multiple false premises.

How about Walt and Mearsheimer


I already responded to that question. Here's an idea: respond to the response, instead of simply parroting your own question again.

I think we have exhausted the possibilities in this exhange between us


English translation: 'I have no intention to take responsibility for my multiple evasions and misrepresentations.'
9.21.2009 2:47pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.