Redstate

hate crimes aren't from people who are Christians, but more along the lines of your typical neo nazi.

But its always fun to play the victim, and in the US at least anti semitism ain't what it used to be.

Americans by the thousands have died, to establish and preserve Israel.  This includes 34 Navy killed deliberately by Israel aboard the USS Liberty in 1967.

Rabbi James Rudin sounds EXACTLY like an ISLAMIC IRANIAN CLERIC.

Give us a break.

believing that anyone could find the religious right threatening.  For their credit, you could also mention that the Anti-Defamation League acknowledges that much of the offense is not intentional, but that when the culture war hysteria takes over, and when people assert that Christianity is "under attack," people start declaring "enemies" and that Jews tend to be on the wrong side:

"Some are saying we are attacking (Christianity). This whole movement is not anti-Semitic or motivated by anti-Semitism. But sometimes unintended consequences are much more serious than intended" he added.

And then there are these sentiments, shared by more than a few Redstaters:



"They are people who believe there should be a legally mandated Christian nation ... who say that Jesus Christ is the ultimate leader of America and that God's law trumps the Constitution ... I'm very concerned."

Listen, debate all you want about whether the Ten Commandments belongs in a Courthouse.  That is a legitimate gray area in first amendment law.  But, honestly, there are prominent religious leaders, right-wing activists, and major Republican leaders who are out there saying that America is fundamentally a Christian nation and we should have laws to reflect that.  That goes beyond icons like the Ten Commandments or a having a Congressional Christmas tree.  You can't see why statements like that seem ominous to Jewish organizations?

But those of us firmly attached to Planet Reality note the following:

(1) Context.

(2) Perspective.

(3) Balance.

Put a little less obliquely, the danger of a theocracy is passing tiny; this is a profound overreaction.

Further:

"They are people who believe there should be a legally mandated Christian nation ... who say that Jesus Christ is the ultimate leader of America and that God's law trumps the Constitution ... I'm very concerned."

As it happens, I agree with all of that. Not in the way that you or the speaker mean it, but that's kind of the point: You're both creating bogeymen where they do not, and need not, exist. The good news is that you're actually creating the sort of thing this genius is off tilting at. Great work, there.

But, honestly, there are prominent religious leaders, right-wing activists, and major Republican leaders who are out there saying that America is fundamentally a Christian nation and we should have laws to reflect that.

Well, they're actually right, although again, I suspect you're taking your preconceptions into viewing what they're saying and how.

You can't see why statements like that seem ominous to Jewish organizations?

Time to round up and execute the commies, it seems. You with me?

Hmmm.

I see.  Well that is a sort of a plan I guess.

1. Attack, denigrate and insult the only people on planet Earth that gives a damn about you?
   
2. ????
   
3. Profit!

Works for me.

Taken in context of the article, and your exposition of the disquiet of Jewish organizatitons, if these organziations are aware of who, in this country, are the strongest supporters of Israel, do they believe that the ultimate purpose of that support is to Christianize the Holy Land?  Otherwise, why damage that support with such unfortunate neologisms as 'Christocrats'?

may I add a perspective?

The shrillness and public scope of their inanities, put the lie to these Christiophobes' wailings.  

If there was the slightest chance that American Christians intended the actions claimed by these people - they would already have locked their shutters, and gone to ground.

Should American Christians be actively pursuing the course prescribed by the Christiophobes, it is doubtful in the extreme that the latter would be trumpeting their circumstances from any medium willing to shill for them. Instead, silent fear would prevail, and there would likly be more whispering than shouting.

Thomas' reference to a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' is chilling, and to the point. One simply does not set ones dogs upon his neighbor, if one fears his neigbor's dogs.

"noun:   the belief in government by divine guidance

noun:   a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided)"

I think it is a bit much to say that because there are conservative Christians that would like our nation to return to the biblical principles it was once founded upon, that it would impose (or more rightly RETURN us to) a theocracy (in particular a Christian theocracy).

"Every room (from bedroom to classroom) in the American mansion is under assault to impose either de facto or de jure a Christian theocracy...They are people who believe there should be a legally mandated Christian nation..."

A few comments:  First of all, most people who call themselves Christians and who actually read the Bible understand that nobody can "force" a person to be a Christian.  Those "elected" for salvation were actually chosen by God from before the foundation of the world and God is working (often in silent & mysterious ways) to ensure that all those on His list do somehow come to salvation.  Nobody knows who & who is not on that list.

Second, some of our Founding Fathers (most notably Thomas Jefferson & Benjamin Franklin) most likely never trusted in Jesus as their Divine Saviour, and thereby most likely died unsaved.  But that did not prevent them from thinking that it was a good idea to follow biblical principles (primarily taken from the Old Testament !!) in setting up the government, or in checking out what the Bible had to say before passing laws, or in praying before opening Congress, or even in sending Christian missionaries (at ferderal expense) to the Indians!! (perhaps this was a bit too much by President Jefferson)

Although there have been times in the past in the USA when people who called themselves Christians mistreated the Jewish people, I think those sins have been recognized and mostly disposed of nowadays.

Nowadays, the best friends of Israel and the Jewish people worldwide are often the conservative Christians in the USA.  I agree with Thomas above, the Jewish people should think twice before sending forth poisioning rhetoric against some of their strongest allies.  

that some of the things usually mentioned in this Christian reign of terror have been practiced in America for a while and some of those have been curtailed because of the concern felt by the soon to be persecuted.  What the rabbi is whining about is the fact that Christians are resisting and they are unaware that they are not supposed to.  Liberal secularist push, conservative Christian fall down, that's the way the drill is intended to work.  I'm not sure what you could call a tree put up to celebate Christmas other than a Christmas tree and I'm reasonably sure that's what it was called in past dark ages which we,including the rabbi, miraculously survived.  The good rabbi best learn to live with diversity,the real kind not the liberal kind.  In the meantime and while recovering from disappointment, he may dash off an indignant letter to Michael Newdow before Newdow's efforts establish one of those 24 hr old "liberal traditions".  Then the rabbi may scour our educational system for evidence of increasingly accepted Muslim religious practices, much as I suspect that's one briar patch his convictions won't lead him to.

Israel not = Judaism

Support for Israel not = Support for Judaism

Criticism from some Jews not = "Christophobia" among all Jews or from Israel.

And since Jo-Ann Davis, my own lovely Congresswoman, apparently rejected an attempt to put an equivalent of "Happy Hannukah" into her praise-of-Christmas resolution, it's not that surprising that some Jews (not the nation of Israel) would be a bit offended.

Mark J. Rozell, director of the Master of Public Policy Program at George Mason University in Fairfax, was appalled enough by the resolution to risk being called a Scrooge.

"Talk about meaningless drivel," Rozell said. "Let's also have a congressional resolution affirming our national support for motherhood and apple pie."

Do not want to divert the thread, which is an important topic, but I cannot let the reference to the attack on the Liberty as "deliberate" go unanswered. It's a calumny, and evidence refutes the charge. In a time of war -- as we are learning now, yet again -- bad things happen out of confusion, uncertainty and the heat of the moment.

but when the Rabbi says "U.S. Jewish leaders say they are increasingly worried that Christian conservatives want to turn America politically and culturally into a country that tolerates only their brand of Christianity" I am concerned that he may be right.

That doesn't mean I agree with the rest of what he says or his approach to the problem. But I am beginning to think that there is cause for concern.  I never would have thought so.  I come from a Catholic family and growing up I lived in areas where there were lots of Catholics and Jews and a whole mix of other denominations. I was never taught to look down on my friends who weren't Catholic and I never felt looked down on by others because I was Catholic.

But ten years ago I moved to an area that is dominated by evangelical Christian denominations and for the first time in my life I have become aware of anti-Catholic bias.  I was shocked to find out that some of my friends and neighbors don't consider Catholics "Christian."  I've had an employee tell me that she thought she would never work for a Catholic but it turns out I'm a really a good person and great boss (?!?) and so forth.  I have become aware of how segregationist and almost clannish the local Christians are encouraged to be.  The Christian businessmen I know want business from everyone but for their own suppliers, lawyers, accountants, doctors, dentists, etc. they want to patronize just "Christians" and by that they mean no Jews and no Catholics (and no Greek Orthodox - which is a significant minority here).  "Christian" business directories and networking groups abound. I have no problem with that, it is certainly their right and other non-Christians are entitled to do the same; except that as one of "them" it makes me nervous that such a vocal, politically dominant group is so deliberately and rigidly cutting up every element of life (political, cultural, social and economic) into "us vs. them." It makes me want to go back and read more history because it has a precursor feel to it.

Maybe I am a worrywort.  But just today our paper had an article about a pianist who has released an album of hymns (entitled Grace I believe) which had to be released in two different versions - the one for the "Christian" market had to be released without Ave Maria.  

Apparently we have arrived at a place and time where the inclusion of Ave Maria on a CD of hymns is offensive to a significant number of "Christians."  So yes, I am "increasingly worried."

Okay, so you are warning Jews not to cross Evangelicals ...  What exactly are the consequences going to be if they don't do what you say?  This posting is not up to par with the normal quality of Red State front page stuff.

Motherhood? A bit shakey. Are you saying that abortion is a bad thing? You must want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?

:-)

Here's my favorite: Simply because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're out to get you.

If your store front isn't smashed in after calling somewhere between a third and two thirds of the country Christocrats, the dark night isn't even at the late afternoon stage.

Now, for reading:

Criticism from some Jews not = "Christophobia" among all Jews or from Israel.

Never said it did. Unfortunately, these folks make the P.M. news as "Jewish leaders." What that, in turn, means is that Jim and Jane out there in TV land are going to see these folks accusing evangelicals who want to put the Ten Commandments up on Courthouse steps (a position supported by a majority of Americans) of being, I love this, "Christocrats." (Note the link source.)

As to the rest: Bully for them. However, registering that offense, so as not to hack off a sizable majority, is better done with a scalpel than an axe.

Sir, there are no monsters under the bed. There are problems aplenty in this world, no small number of them directed at the Jews. Let's deal with those instead of conjuring a boogyman in the closet.

-----------

into a froth over something that apparently only you see.

Try this. If we warned labor unions or the NAACP, a deliberately unlikely example, that they were biting the hand that feeds them by badmouthing people who were helping them would you have posted:

Warning Workers on the Front Page of Red State?

Warning Blacks on the Front Page of Red State?

Of course not. It would be profoundly stupid on its face. Because the discussion was about the actions of labor unions and the NAACP not workers or blacks.

Here, if you come out of a high hover long enough, you might notice Thomas is talking about the actions of an advocacy group not "the Jews." More than a semantic difference. Unless, of course, you're saying that we can't tell a predominately Jewish group that we don't like what they are saying because being Jewish makes them bulletproof?

Okay, so you are warning Jews not to cross Evangelicals

Not what I said, but you need to believe what you need to believe.

What exactly are the consequences going to be if they don't do what you say?

A poisoned culture. A little more mistrust. And with enough of it, a dissolution of sixty years of hard effort at inter-religious comity.

This posting is not up to par with the normal quality of Red State front page stuff.

Your concern has been noted and forwarded to the proper authority.

of Jewish 'leaders' making this false claim are not representative of Jewish thought on this, from what I am told or hear.

IOW, the 'leaders' making these false claims and using demeaning terms to describe those they don't agree with are just typical lefty hack bigots.

What is going to happen to this guy if he does not do as Republicans want?  Will it erode Conservative support for the state of Israel?  Exactly what?

I just feel really weird about this.

has already answered it, I don't feel any particular need to help you on your way to the aneurysm you're working so hard to bring on.

Now I know you're on the verge on claiming that this is a threat of a pogrom or new Holocaust but how about the people shooting their mouths off no longer have a place at the table? How about moving interfaith relations back 30 years? Yes, if those perceived as Israel's public face in the US are also implacable enemies of Christianity then yes you might see less political support on Capitol Hill and a lot less financial support directed towards charities and organizations that support Israel.

So do you think that Christians who actually take their religion as something more significant than a cultural touchstone should silently put up with this nonsense? And if so, why?

I was just saying.

Last time I read it, the US Constitution did not mention God or the Bible or make any statement expressing a Divine origin of government.  The well educated men who wrote our most important founding document, so precise with their language, would certainly have made the Christian basis of the  radical government they were forming clear, if that indeed  was what they were doing. The lack of religious reference in the US Constitution was deliberate, and did not go unnoticed at the time.  Some people were very upset that God was not part of the document, and predicted that we were in great peril because of the ommision.  Others, such as evangelical Christians, supported the religious neutrality of the new government because they calculated that their own brand of belief was in the minority and would not fare well otherwise.  To state that we are a Bible base nation is a re-write of history.  We do not uphold Mosaic law.  I count 3 of the Ten Commandments that have been codified into our legal system (murder, theft, false witness).  Our very wise founders, who held various religious beliefs, formed a truly radical government.  Radical because is was, and still is, secular.  Keeping it secular and religiously neutral is the best and only way to protect every citizens Constitutional right to believe as they choose without fear of government reprisal.  

A cut-and-paste is the only reason I can imagine for why you've wandered off onto this tangent. But in the interim, have at it.

that what is missing is balance and perspective.  But the rhetoric is out of control at times and Jewish organizations, while disagreeing on the extent and nature of the problem, agreed that it needs to be recognized as potentially dangerous and that a strategy, at least on paper, should be outlined for reacting to it.

Hardly revolutionary or an overreaction, though "poisioning allies" makes it sound that way.  There are plenty of people who nominally agree with the quotes I cited, and you are one of them.  They are reasonable assertions but can lead to overheated, dangerous rhetoric.  That's all they are saying and they are right to at least react to it.  But you are also right that if everyone keeps rational heads, and understands each other's positions, this is not a big deal.  "War on Christians" aside, of course.

Just before Katrina struck, I'd been reading quite a bit about Ken Mehlman's efforts to win over black voters, enough to have even Donna Brazile publicly voice her concerns. The concocted Bush anti-black spin from Katrina put an end to that. Now Joe Lieberman is straying from the party line and moving closer towards Bush, regarding Iraq at least, so we get this. I think Hunter's closer to the truth - smells like the Dems battening down the hatches for '06 to me, a meme in the making, although it began a few weeks ago with Foxman's comments.

"...you are warning Jews not to cross Evangelicals ...  What exactly are the consequences going to be if they don't do what you say?"

"What is going to happen to this guy if he does not do as Republicans want?"

Of course if Jews=this guy, and Republicans=Evangelicals, then I guess they are the same question.

Let me ask you one (1) question.  Israel currently has a tourism PR campaign with the slogan, "Nobody belongs here more than you."

Who do you think the "you" is referring to?

But the rhetoric is out of control at times and Jewish organizations, while disagreeing on the extent and nature of the problem, agreed that it needs to be recognized as potentially dangerous and that a strategy, at least on paper, should be outlined for reacting to it.

This is like hearing that there are Neo-Nazis somewhere in the countryside, and therefore planning to deal with conservative groups across the country.

Hardly revolutionary or an overreaction, though "poisioning allies" makes it sound that way.

Well, maybe "deeply irritating people on your side for one of the largest foreign policy questions in existence and who otherwise view you as, at most, political opponents to be met in the public square, to the point where they instead begin to perceive you as Enemies, which is a really bad thing" would be more accurate, but would be a lot harder to get out.

And it is, indeed, an overreaction.

There are plenty of people who nominally agree with the quotes I cited, and you are one of them.  They are reasonable assertions but can lead to overheated, dangerous rhetoric.

Yeah, kinda like the idea that some humans are just collections of cells waiting to be exploited.

That's all they are saying and they are right to at least react to it.

"Christocrat" must, therefore, be some codeword for "we're vaguely concerned about the state of interfaith relations." Must be like "the Taliban wing of the Republican Party," another good faith hail-fellow-well-met of recent years.

But you are also right that if everyone keeps rational heads, and understands each other's positions, this is not a big deal.

I'm usually right about this sort of thing.

"War on Christians" aside, of course.

Those dumb Christocrats. Thinking that determined efforts to purge expression of their faith from the public square, combined with insulting neologisms, indicate some sort of sustained offensive against their faith.

cut and paste?  You lost me.  The comment may seem out of context because I'm a slow writer.  Paranoia about the mix of government and religion is a good thing.  Given the historical relationship between Judaism and Christianity, how can any Jew, leader or otherwise, be blamed for being sensitive to the issue?  Also, the evangelicals I have asked relate their support for Israel to the befief that Christ will return only after the Jewish people reclaim the Holy Land.  Fine.  Whatever.  But don't whine if some Jews find the support a bit less than reassuring.

have missed blue laws (keeping the Sabbath) and adultery in your countdown.

As the Evangelical movement, or what we term Evangelicals today, didn't exist until the mid-19th century it is pretty unlikely they had very many concerns about their religion in the Constitution. The signers of the Constitution were mostly Episcopalians, only one of the famous "Deists" among them.

But other than that, good cut and paste job. Next time try giving it attribution.

While Jews may be concerned, fairly enough, about parts of Christian theology, they should recognize that conservative Christian evangelicals are the best American friends of Israel, and among the strongest opponents of anti-Semitism domestically and abroad.

Most of the attacks on such evangelicals are motivated by political liberalism rather than theological differences, though, since most Jews still vote Democratic (a shrinking number, fortunately, but around 75%).

So I think we shouldn't pay these things much attention.  It's just the anti-conservative and anti-religious parts of the media using a Jewish face to mask their real motives.

(A decent article on the subject by the ADL:

http://www.adl.org/Israel/evangelical.asp)

I've often thought about just this disconnect.  The only was I can reconcile these statements (along with the demographic tilt to the left demonstrated by many Jewish groups in this country) is that these groups actually have no particular concern for the state of Israel.

I don't necessarily see a problem with this, on its face (for example, even though I'm of predominantly German heritage, I feel little particular concern about Germany's fate--and what concern I feel is tied to our NATO obligations, nothing more.)  I rather suspect that the preponderance of people of Jewish heritage who do feel strongly about the state of Israel have already emigrated.  What still puzzles me is how any group (the AJC) who so publicly proclaims its fear of a Christocracy (man, that just rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it?) could not then view a home state as a possible refuge.  Unless they're also afraid of the YHWH-crats in Israel...

determined efforts to purge expression of their faith from the public square

And who is leading these determined efforts?  It's not evangelical Christians, obviously, and not Catholics because they celebrate Christmas, it's not Presbyterians or Anglicans or Lutherans.  It must be those...

who?

That's how overheated rhetoric leads to fear on the part of Jewish organizations.  Call it overreacting, call it putting a thumb in the eye of those who support them, but it is understandable.  Keep up the talk about the "enemies of Christianity" (I hear from O'Reilly that they're funded by Soros) and then be surprised if the Jews might want to get together and discuss a little.

Really, you ought to be circumspect about it as you mentioned.  We should demand a little balance and cooler heads from both sides, including those who assert that Christians are "under attack."

And who is leading these determined efforts?  It's not evangelical Christians, obviously, and not Catholics because they celebrate Christmas, it's not Presbyterians or Anglicans or Lutherans.  It must be those...

who?

To the hammer, the whole world is a nail. Simply because Foxman et al., are convinced that Christians think this way does not mean they in fact do. The answer to your question, by the way, is inevitably, "The [expletive] ACLU, the [expletive] liberals, the [expletive] Democrats, and, [to some], the [expletive] secularist Left." You really gotta reach to get "the Jews" out of that.

That's how overheated rhetoric leads to fear on the part of Jewish organizations.  Call it overreacting, call it putting a thumb in the eye of those who support them, but it is understandable.

Yeah. Sure. And calling a press conference to announce it is the height of political common sense.

Keep up the talk about the "enemies of Christianity" (I hear from O'Reilly that they're funded by Soros) and then be surprised if the Jews might want to get together and discuss a little.

Hey, they can be nervous all they want. Poking pointy sticks at otherwise unsuspecting folks, however, is not a good way to cool interfaith tensions.

Really, you ought to be circumspect about it as you mentioned.

Grow up? Or just read the last couple of paragraphs of my piece? Either will do.

We should demand a little balance and cooler heads from both sides, including those who assert that Christians are "under attack."

Again, this has been reported to the proper authorities.

Thomas, you wrote, "To the hammer, the whole world is a nail."

Another way of putting it is:

"To a worm in horseradish, the whole world is horseradish."

old Yiddish expression taught me by two Russian friends of mine

a worm, just in case you thought I was.

I was just suggesting another, colorful expression that I happen to like.

I was puzzled by the venom in the race-baiting the DNC did over their false claims about Katrina and slow response. Now it makes sense.

The defeatocrats are far too cynical to accept good when it comes. the DNC has to keep their plantation well staffed, and fooling Jewish voters into acceeptng the anti-Jewish bigotry by false claims and ethnic slurs against conservatives is no brainer for people with no ethics.

It's true that most of the leaders of mid-eighteenth century America were Episciples, and they signed a document creating a secular government.  Why would they do that?  (I'm not so sure about your numbers, but that's beside the point.)  As for evangelicals, the modern evangelical movement ma not claim the historical connection, but the fundamental beliefs have remained the same, as far as I can figure anyway.  Literal Biblical translation and the direct hand of God in all things, including earthly punishment for bad things, like whatever is going to happen to Dover, PA.  The point is that some religious leaders at the time condemned the Consitition for its lack reference to God and others supported it.  

Please stop stating that I am taking quotes from someone else without attribution.   I am not.

into the democrats "theocracy" talking points,  

Some of them are   here.

They are taking out ads to counter the theme among reform Jewry that all Jews are against the war in Iraq.  The democrats are behind this talking point and using it to fluster and blind any non Christian who will buy it.

I read your post where apparently you didn't. So it seems I have you at a disadvantage.

You blithely state:

The lack of religious reference in the US Constitution was deliberate, and did not go unnoticed at the time.  Some people were very upset that God was not part of the document, and predicted that we were in great peril because of the ommision.  Others, such as evangelical Christians, supported the religious neutrality of the new government because they calculated that their own brand of belief was in the minority and would not fare well otherwise.

After I point out that it would be pretty hard for people who didn't exist at that time to object to their place in a document written before they came into being, you now say, "so what, it doesn't matter."

The "fundamentals", eh? Well, again without going into a theological dissertation the answer is again no. The Evangelical movement is a lot different in its "fundamentals" than those held by the Episcopalians, or Presbyterians, or Catholics, or Congregtionalists who signed the Constitution.

And you didn't cut-and-paste this? If you read it again you may think it pretty convenient to blame your post on some else's ineptitude.

I like that expression, too.  And I agree with its application here, I just think it's apropos to both sides.

Do I have this right?  You argue that:

Some Jewish-American leaders have publically expressed concern about the relationship between religion, specifically Evangelical Christianity, and government. Evangelical Christians tend to strongly support the state of Israel.  Therefore, these Jewish-American leaders so not support Israel.  (or at least, their support is in question).  

That's quite a leap of logic.  Perhaps a history which includes oppression at the hands of "christian"

(deliberate small c) governments may be influencing their concerns.  I can't blame any group who has experienced religious and ethnic based persecution on such a grand scale and so recently for being very skiddish about the relationship between government and religion.

I'm assuming about their concern over the relationship between the government of Israel and Judaism, right?

Certainly, the "Christocrats" label is ill-advised.  While I don't think it is intended as derogatory towards Christ or Christians, see:  demos and Democrats, I certainly agree with you that it will be perceived that way by many who aren't even the target of such a label:

""They are people who believe there should be a legally mandated Christian nation, where the concept of separation of church and state is weakened or abandoned,"

But, I think you are wrong to portray these comments, by "Jewish leaders", as though they were motivated by fears of "Christian" anti-Semitic violence against, or forcible Christianization of Jews.  Your comments about "smashing store-fronts" and "Kristallnacht" are particularly innapropriate in the context of the Reuters article.

"This whole movement is not anti-Semitic or motivated by anti-Semitism. But sometimes unintended consequences are much more serious than intended"

The unintended consequences he's referring to are not pogroms or assaults, it is the squelching of our government's `laissez-faire' attitude of tolerance towards religious belief that has permitted the same Evangelical sects in question to flourish and rise to political prominence in this country.  That such groups, once risen to prominence, would turn around and use their size and political power to close some of the very doors of governmental religious tolerance that they themselves passed through should be a concern for all Americans whether they are members of a religious minority, ie. Jews, or even members of these groups flexing their political muscle, and no, I don't mean they're beating people up.

The media gets its share of bashing here so let me just say that I think the article's title is very misleading given the article's content, and in the context of more complete remarks by Foxman, I don't see anything that most Americans could disagree with:

"We are privileged to live in a country, in a democracy where the Jewish community stands as a co-equal partner in our civil society. We live not on the sufferance of the majority, or as a protected minority, but as full participants in every aspect of American life. That participation has been the cornerstone of the unique achievements of our community in this country. And the ideas that underlie it are the basis for building an ever more tolerant and successful society for all."

"First, I do not believe that this is a malignant assault; it is not motivated by animus, and certainly not by anti-Semitism. Our opponents' beliefs are sincerely held. Yes, some Southern Baptists want to convert us while we are alive, and Mormons want to convert us when we are dead. We may find that strange, even discomforting, but that is their right of belief."

"What we oppose is the imposing of one belief, one truth, above all others. We believe that we are a country that respects and envelopes people who have faith, a belief of a truth. Everyone is entitled to his or her own truth."

http://www.adl.org/Religious_Freedom/religion_public_square.asp

If you think Foxman is "yelling Kristallnacht" in  a China shop", please show me where.  As for Rudin, I know nothing about him but I expect to hear more when his book comes out in January.  And I suggest he heed Foxman's advice:

"My evangelical friends remind me that what we are dealing with is a principle of faith. And they are right. To bear witness, to share, to proselytize, is not a choice for evangelical Christians. It is a fundamental principle of their belief. So when you challenge it, you do it carefully, delicately, respectfully."

I mean in general and specifically the relationship between religion and the US government.

But ten years ago I moved to an area that is dominated by evangelical Christian denominations and for the first time in my life I have become aware of anti-Catholic bias.

Historically in the US, there has been an anti-Catholic bias; in fact, anti-Catholic bias played a part in spurring the American colonies to rebel against England. In the war with Mexico, some Irish units switched to the Mexican side due to Catholic bias in the US.

My opinion on this is that anti-Catholic bias is continuously shrinking. I was raised with an anti-Catholic bias, but have developed a stong respect for the Catholic church, for example.

I suspect you were simply unaware of the previous bias, and when you learn of current bias you think it is a new thing, when in fact it is an old thing that isn't as strong as it was in the past.

I was shocked to find out that some of my friends and neighbors don't consider Catholics "Christian."  

I've heard that, in fact I heard it from someone who was raised Catholic! I also heard that Mormons are not Christian. Odd.

be concerned about that and not the fact that Israel is an avowed Jewish state?

I don't understand.

Are you saying that they aren't fearful of government endorsed religion as long as they are in charge but they are fearful if they aren't?

that I'm shocked that you're shocked.

As a Roman Catholic convert from Baptist I really have trouble fathoming your surprise at some of the bigotry or that Ave Maria would not be played in an Evangelical home.

Skiddish (n.) The language used by the aircrew of that Southwest flight that went off the runway in Chicago...

Certainly, the "Christocrats" label is ill-advised.  While I don't think it is intended as derogatory towards Christ or Christians, see:  demos and Democrats, I certainly agree with you that it will be perceived that way by many who aren't even the target of such a label:

Given that it was in the context of "theocracy," you'll pardon me if I don't share that benefit of the doubt.

But, I think you are wrong to portray these comments, by "Jewish leaders", as though they were motivated by fears of "Christian" anti-Semitic violence against, or forcible Christianization of Jews.  Your comments about "smashing store-fronts" and "Kristallnacht" are particularly innapropriate in the context of the Reuters article.

One would then look to the other words used in the article, to take a guess at what the nice fellows were saying. I'm a lawyer; I understand equivocation. No dice.

The unintended consequences he's referring to are not pogroms or assaults, it is the squelching of our government's `laissez-faire' attitude of tolerance towards religious belief that has permitted the same Evangelical sects in question to flourish and rise to political prominence in this country.  That such groups, once risen to prominence, would turn around and use their size and political power to close some of the very doors of governmental religious tolerance that they themselves passed through should be a concern for all Americans whether they are members of a religious minority, ie. Jews, or even members of these groups flexing their political muscle, and no, I don't mean they're beating people up.

Actually, given the ADL's entire mission statement, one might go out on a limb and suggest that the "unintended consequences" are both what you say and what he sees as coming next.

Further, given his recent comments on the topic, I don't think I'm afield on this one.

Which leads into the rest of your comment: Like I said, I know equivocation when I see it.

I don't know where soccermom is from originally, but as someone raised Catholic in a large northern city, Northern Catholics' perception is that we pretty much rule the roost up here. The Irish have obviously done very well (attend any St Patricks parade in NY/Boston/Chicago/etc), and the Italians and even Poles have done well also. In this environment, the idea that anyone (other than the ACLU) is anti-Catholic is really non-existant.

I guess its a bucket of water in the face of a nothern conservative Catholic to hear that Christians to our south that we perceive as allies on many conservative issues in fact view us with contempt. I know that attitude existed 40 years ago, but had assumed that as the Sunbelt had taken off, many of those old ignorances and bigotries had fallen away.

At any rate I know I'm flirting with a threadjack here so I'll just say thanks for the eyeopening insight on this point.

The point I was making is that it is reasonable that Jewish groups (like other cultural/heritage groups) are not, in fact, attached to their nation/state of origin.  (Like I said, I'm not.)  These groups' worriment over the impending theocracy may have nothing to do in their minds with the state of Israel.  We are surprised at the apparent lack of gratitude; but as I said, maybe it's because we're conflating US Jewish interests with the interests of the nation of Israel.

Israel not = Judaism

Israel =  Jewish state.

Support for Israel not = Support for Judaism

Support for Israel = Support for Jewish state

Support for Jewish state = Not opposed to Judaism

Therefore,

Support for Israel = Not opposed to Judaism

"Given that it was in the context of "theocracy," you'll pardon me if I don't share that benefit of the doubt."

Given that it was applied specifically, and not generally, perhaps you should reconsider.

"One would then look to the other words used in the article, to take a guess at what the nice fellows were saying. I'm a lawyer; I understand equivocation. No dice."

Oh, I see, consider the words.  Like these:

"He said Jews are a people of faith but are opposed to anyone who would say only they know the truth and want to impose it on everyone else."

Yeah, you're right.  Clearly, the guy's an anti-Christian bigot.

This guy too:

"President George W. Bush, who describes himself as a born-again Christian, also faced criticism recently for sending out cards wishing people a happy "holiday" season.

"This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture," William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights told the Washington Post.

The President acknowledges the fact that not every American celebrates the same Holiday in December that he does by wishing everyone an all-inclusive "happy holiday season" instead of a rather specific "Merry Christmas" and he has:  "capitulated to the worst elements in our culture,".  Now how could "Jewish leaders" possibly get the idea that there are some people out there who want everyone to celebrate and acknowledge their religion above all others?

So, I guess I missed it, which words in the article discuss anti-Semitic violence?

"given his recent comments on the topic, I don't think I'm afield on this one."

Given his comments in the article at hand, and the one I linked to, and the other one I read at the ADL...  You are very much "afield" when you suggest that Foxman is saying Jews are in fear of physical violence from Evangelical Christians, in particular you are so far afield as to be off the planet when you suggest that Foxman is yelling  Kristallnacht in the context of these comments.

Thomas is quite right that Jews should back off from whining about  Evangelicals wanting a Christocracy.  Foxman should make noise, though, because that's what a mouthpiece for a (sadly necessary) watchdog organization does.  But Jews are not in any real danger from the various Christian types (meaning Evangelicals, conservative Catholics, and others who wear their Christianity on their sleeves) trying to convert or subvert them.  This is really only a backlash from secularists taking away important parts of their culture and, often, openly ridiculing the very fact of their beliefs.  Unfortunately, many leading figures of these secularist groups are Jews, so when Foxman says stuff like this, he gets lumped in with a Jewish ACLU mouthpiece, or someone who is of Jewish descent screaming about  ChimpyMcBushitler.  This gives the appearance that there really is a major conflict between Jews and Christians in the US.


There are, however, a couple of things left out of the debate in all these posts.  While many have tried various formulations of the Pro-Israel = Pro-Jew / Anti-Israel = Anti-Jew equation, there is one variable missing.   While Israel exists, it's not a simple formula.  There are obvious things Israel does/has done which can be criticized that have nothing to do with anybody's religion.  However, if Israel for some reason should cease to exist, or if that existence is seriously threatened, we have a different story.


When Israel is attacked by Iran and whoever else is filled enough with hate to do join them (notice I say "when" and not "if"), what happens then?  If Israel defends itself, will the US do so?  How many Americans will offer the lives of their sons and daughters to save Jews?  We already have a large "War is not the solution" contingent that will shed crocodile tears for the hundreds of thousands who will die from Iran's nuclear attack, which will be the prelude to other assaults.  The overwhelming response from the Left in this country to Ahmadinejad's comments has been "Israel deserves it".  And this comes from not a few Jews as well.  Europe won't do anything militarily, so it will be up to the US alone.  Britian will most likely not help either.  At that point, Jews in the US really will be faced with the dual-loyalty dilemma.  The "Jewish Lobby" will be blamed for all sorts of things, if American soldiers begin to die to save only Jewish lives.  That blame will come from both sides.


Put simply, Jews are in a very precarious situation right now, given the polticial situation in the US, and the way the Left has made Israel into the villain (in Europe even more so).  The anti-Christian crowd could even turn against Israel completely just because the Evangelicals support it.  Once we have President Hillary, it will be open season on Israel, and then Jews in this country will be in serious trouble.

Given that it was applied specifically, and not generally, perhaps you should reconsider.

We're speaking past each other here.

"He said Jews are a people of faith but are opposed to anyone who would say only they know the truth and want to impose it on everyone else."

Yeah, you're right.  Clearly, the guy's an anti-Christian bigot.

You develop selective reading comprehension problems at the most inopportune times.

The President acknowledges the fact that not every American celebrates the same Holiday in December that he does by wishing everyone an all-inclusive "happy holiday season" instead of a rather specific "Merry Christmas" and he has:  "capitulated to the worst elements in our culture,".  Now how could "Jewish leaders" possibly get the idea that there are some people out there who want everyone to celebrate and acknowledge their religion above all others?

By listening to politically marginalized blowhards and taking soundbites as proof of a long dark night a-comin'? Just a thought.

Given his comments in the article at hand, and the one I linked to, and the other one I read at the ADL...  You are very much "afield" when you suggest that Foxman is saying Jews are in fear of physical violence from Evangelical Christians, in particular you are so far afield as to be off the planet when you suggest that Foxman is yelling  Kristallnacht in the context of these comments.

You're entitled to take whatever you like from the evidence. You're entitled to see this the way you see the evolution debates, if you so desire. You're still wrong; so is he; and the tone-deafness of your and his response is what leads to the thing he's suggesting is coming.

Not that the Left isn't full of anti-Israel virulence based on spurious ideas of colonialism, apartheid, etc., and not that this anti-Israel bias isn't worrisome.

But religious minorities are often alleged to have dual loyalties.  The best thing to do is to act as good American citizens, as Jews always have, and continue to argue for foreign policies based on the interests of the U.S.  Small-minded detractors, who fear finding themselves on the weaker side of the debate, will always make ad hominem attacks.  These mean-spirited attacks shouldn't be allowed to change the behavior and thinking of the victims of the attacks.    

Being anti-Catholic-Church is not the same as being anti-Catholic-Church-member.

that would a distinction without a difference.

perhaps it illustrates your point?

http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/12/raving-atheist-and-randists-
both.html

look at the fourth and eighth responses, and I warn you, they violate all of redstate's posting rules.

I must say, even I find the whole thing offensive in too many ways to count.

I'd ask you what that link meant, but I'm not entirely sure I want to know.

I'm guessing those people were "Christian." They certainly have some interesting things to say, particularly one that still has me scratching my head:

"Trust me, Zach, you WILL be feeling the Jesus when he shoves his righteous fist down your scrawny punk throat, and throws your heart to the beasts that ravage the dead in Hades."

All I can say is, that's an interesting take on how He operates.

it violates all of our rules. So would any number of sites with aesthetically perfect nude females. It was an interesting little journey into freakworld but I just don't see how this fits into any discussion on this thread.

after following a couple of links and ending up here.

Warning again, and this is complete with a bogus Abe Lincoln screed against the Catholic Church.

Have you been introduced to Jack Chick tracts?

Hey, Gideon, I completely agree.  But what happens when Israel is attacked?  That will change the equation. And I mean when, not if.  We won't have what happend to the Japanese American citizens during WWII.  But what will happen when many of us start complaining that our relatives were allowed to die?  When Bush 41 - and many European allies - used military force to defend Kuwait, there was a reasonable case to be made that an ally was seriously attacked and asked the US for help.  Israel won't be allowed to do the same, and many will die.  Different story for US Jews at that point.

you are in for a treat.

In fairness to Chick, I should say that he hates a bunch of people other than Catholics.

Heck, there's even some shocking anti-Catholic bigotry.

And you're right, he had one just for me too!

So is it true the Catholic Church controls the Illuminati, the Council on Foreign Relations, international bankers, the Mafia, the Club of Rome, the Masons, and the New Age movement?

I had no idea.

In what way would a war tomorrow between Israel and Iran be different for American Jews than the wars Israel has fought in the past, especially in 73, 67 and 48?  

Or are you saying that the position of American Jews was precarious at those times, too?

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.  Perhaps you can provide more detail.  Thanks.

he's an Equal Opportunity bigot. Wow, I need a shower.

Disagreeing with some religions is not the same as hating their adherents.

Or do you also buy into the garbage that the US is at war with Muslims worldwide?

Now they're talking about this article at Kos.  Look at it, there's no dialog, no discussion in the comments.  Its boring.

http://frederick-clarkson.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/16/184849/29

I am originally from New Jersey.  Then I moved to South Florida - which at that time was a subset of New York and New Jersey.   It wasn't until I moved to Georiga, and then Tennessee that I realized that there were "Christians" and "everyone else" and that Catholics fell in the everyone else category.  

In NJ my family were big contributors to the diocese, Knights of Columbus, etc., very much esteemed members of the community so moving here has been a shock.  To find out that you are not the "right" kind of Christian and that maybe your kids shouldn't play quite so much with their kids is upsetting. I consider myself a person of faith, a good person and it is hurtful. It reminds me a lot of the stories I've heard from my grandparents - all the no WOPS, no Irish need apply stuff I thought was in the past.  Maybe because the South didn't absorb the waves of immigrants that the North did it never learned how to be heterogenous - I don't know.  

My secretary is a very sincere evangelical Christian (her term - I've never fully mastered the difference between fundamentalist and evangelical) and her association with me has rocked her world (and vice versa).  No matter what problem any of her friends at church have (this week there was a car accident involving injured children, unpaid insurance, an expiring grace period and paycheck that wouldn't be received until the end of the week etc.) I always offer to help.  The folks in her Church are, frankly, poor.  I am not.  I was raised to help and it is my way of giving thanks for all I have. She comes to me because she knows someone who needs help.  And yet it makes her uncomfortable - which makes me uncomfortable.  And I it's because I am Catholic.  She just knows I don't deserve to burn in hell or be left behind or whatever it is she's been taught about Catholics and so she feels guilty about asking for my help - yet she needs it.  I fly in the face of what she's been taught and it rocks her world.  And, despite whatever issues I might have with her Church, she's a really good person.  The whole thing is just weird.

And then I hear about "Christian" churches in the area, maybe even hers for all I know, who are severing their ties with or their funding to Catholic charities serving the poor (I'll never really understand the faith v. works dichotomy)and it makes me mad.  I know it shouldn't but it does.

To go from a "rule the roost" mentality or at least a feeling that it is normal to be a Catholic to this has been really disconcerting.  

Those jewish leaders who sound alarms about the evangelical movement are simply crying wolf.  It is understandable, of course, given what so many jewish people have been through in the past.  And I certainly in no way regard Jewish americans as our antagonists in the cultural battle for the nation's soul.  To the contrary, most are on our side.  

What these jewish leaders don't realize is what kind of enemy we are up agains with the militant secularists.  These secularists won't stop at ruining Christmas.  Surely, they will begin trying to secularize Easter.  After that, they will try to remove references to the nation from Fourth of July celebrations.  They want nothing more than to destroy the foundations of faith and patriotism that undery this great nation.  The secularists are enemies of jews and Christians alike.

And working there, in one form or another, for twelve years, I've seen variants of this, in some deeply Bible Belt area, but rarely so direct as that.

Jack Chick is a world-class hater. Back to the point, his tracts are routinely handed out in a lot of low-protestant churches.

they often are well-aware of the threat of radical Islam to Israel, but they don't apply the same thinking when it comes to America's security.  

I never said Foxman was the one yelling. You got that on your lonesome.

The several threads on DailyKos which discussed Lieberman's recent support for the war included a number of posts stating or suggesting that Lieberman is working for Israel rather than the U.S.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/10/164458/01

All the more credit to RedStaters for not even implying such a thing and instead sticking to the arguments.

If you don't want to go to dailykos.com to look at the threads, here are a few choice remarks for your edification:

"Most of us think you should resign and we'll buy you a ticket for Israel.  Perhaps you can take over for Sharon.  Let me know if you're ready to go.  Shame on you... putting your personal religious beliefs in front of the Americans dying in Iraq."

by victoria2dc on Sat Dec 10, 2005 at 06:24:49 PM EST

------

"Until Israel becomes one of the states of the united states of america, they get NO representation in our government.  period."

by DawnG on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 08:50:03 AM EST

------

"I think Joe Lieberman just became an agent for Israel."

by phoenixandrew on Sun Dec 11, 2005 at 06:01:49 PM EST

These three are from only one thread, and I'm sure I overlooked some.

This would be the first war involving Israel during which the US has troops in the vicinity, and has been steadily losing lives in a conflict which, unfortunately, many still think is somehow connected to Israel, and was instigated mainly by Jewish Americans.  This will be the first time that Israel is involved in a major conflict at a time when anti-Israel sentiment is at an all time high.  By this I mean that in 1974, and certainly before that, there was no national visibility for the "Free Palestine" crowd.  Today, every single political rally of any kind has its contingent of anti-Israel noisemakers, even when the topic at hand has nothing to do with it.  Remember Cindy Sheehan?  It's so bad that even Kos had to make a post telling people to knock it off.  


In previous Israeli conflicts, the atmosphere had not been poisoned so much that when a member-state of the UN openly calls for the destruction of another member-state, the most vocal response heard in America is that it is Israel's fault.  This situation did not exist until the last decade or so.  Sure, Kofi can cluck his tongue and some German diplomat can scold an Iranain embassy attaché.  So what?  During the "rush" to war in Iraq, we heard from both the right and the left that this was largely the idea of Jews.  Yes, it was all about oil to those same people, but when I see Pat Buchanan on TV start jumping up and down in his seat, face red as a beet, foaming at the mouth about the "Jewish Cabal", and then I see and hear anti-Israel slogans at anti-war gatherings here in New York, it starts to add up.


Even though this is mostly dopey conspiracy thinking, many, many people in the US labor under the delusion that Jews have a singularly powerful influence on the government.  For example, otherwise intelligent, rational people whom I know personally believe that the Social Security Agency is under instructions to be favorable towards Jewish immigrants when issuing Social Security cards.  I have been told that supposedly they look for Jewish names, figuring that Jews will be good for the economy.  Complete nonsense, I know, but they stand by this anyway.  I also know several people - people who do not have a prejudiced bone in their bodies - who have similar beliefs about Jews getting special treatment for this or that, or they think that Israel gets massive amounts of money from the US and don't know (or choose to ignore) that Egypt and the Palestinian Authority have gotten even more money.


I could go on and on, but the point is that while all these little myths don't really amount to anything individually, if you add the possibility of American deaths on Israel's behalf, the sum is much more frightening than the parts.  If there is a large outcry now that the Iraqi people are not worth American lives, how would Jewish lives be worth it?  And if Americans begin to die defending those Jews, who will take the blame?  Remember, when Clinton decided to bomb Serbia, there was no cry that a Croatian or Muslim contingent had goaded the US into it.  Iraqi ex-pats who had a vested interest in getting rid of Sadaam were not blamed for drawing the US into the conflict.  It was oil and Jews.


Make no mistake.  The Jewish situation is unique in the US in that there has unquestionably been a huge investment in Israel while at the same time we have massive amounts of misguided conspiracy thinking which is really a soft form of anti-Jewish thought.  So, if Iran waits until President Hillary takes office, then attacks Israel, will the US help at all?  Highly doubtful. Conventional wisdom says Israel can handle all this without outside help.  However, this mode of thinking only covers conventional warfare.  If a nuke suitcase goes off in Tel-Aviv, and/or several missiles with warheads are sent over, all bets are off.  Even Israel's latest anti-missile defense system can't handle everything 100%, and in nuclear warfare, all it takes is one hit.  And it won't be Iran all by itself.  Syria will be involved very closely, as will Egypt, Saudia Arabia, and the various terrorist-supporting organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hezbollah.  If nuclear or even radio-active material (dirty bombs for dirty Jews) are made available to these different groups, it won't be like anything Israel has handled before.  And who will help?  And if the US helps, who will be blamed for the loss of American lives?

I would agree that, as things stand, Evangelical Christians should not be at all worrysome to Jews.  But the problem is that this whole thing isn't actually a problem about relgion.  Historically, of course, Jews were persecuted for religious reasons by the Church (or various Church figures, and other Churches).  However, there has always been an ethnic component to this, which is really now in the forefront of the discussion.
It is not dissimilar to Latinos in the US having close cultural ties to their various home countries.  They are American citizens (or legal residents) who don't even think that they're not American, yet when the first flag they fly is that of Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic, it is easy for others to infer where these Latinos' loyalties actually lie.  Of course, there are no real dual-loyalty accusations here.


There is no room here to discuss the differences between culture and religion, as well as how the two can be intertwined, without hijacking the thread, but suffice to say that in the case of Jews in contemporary America, the question is not so much a religious one as it is ethnic.  While Jews don't seem to deserve a special ethnic designation on census forms, there is no question that we are still often considered to be slightly separate.


Because of the world-wide influence that ideas behind The Protocols of the Elders of Zion have had on people, this is no longer a religious issue per se.  If there is a group that is a perceived threat to everyone, dogmatic religion won't enter into it.