By CAROLINE B. GLICK, JPOST
For 70% of American Jews, party loyalty trumps all of their conceivable rational interests. Decades ago, the sociographer Milton Himmelfarb coined the aphorism that “American Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans.” And his words ring as true today as ever. Surveys show that roughly 70 percent of American Jews intend to cast their ballots for President Barack Obama’s reelection next month.
Himmelfarb’s quip indicated that American Jews abjure their economic interests in favor of their liberal values. Certainly it is true that for American Jews to vote for Obama next month they must act against their economic interests.
Obama’s economic policies have taken a huge toll on the economic fortunes of American Jews who invest disproportionately in the stock market. His nationalization of the college loan business has given universities impetus to raise tuition rates still further, thus dooming more young American Jews to start their adult lives under a mountain of debt. And it isn’t at all clear how they will be able to pay off this debt since under Obama half of recent college graduates cannot find jobs.
Obama’s gutting of Medicare to pay for Obamacare has harmed the medical choices for older Jewish Americans.
His war on tax deductions for charitable contributions has placed synagogues, Jewish schools and nursing homes in financial jeopardy.
So with economics ruled out as a reason to support Obama we are left with American-Jewish values.
But is Obama really advancing those values? What are those values anyway? Well, there’s civil liberties.
American Jews like those. But Obama doesn’t.
Take freedom of speech. Obama is the most hostile president to freedom of speech in recent memory. He has advocated implementing the so-called “fairness doctrine” for radio to stifle the free speech of his political opponents on talk radio.
He has sought to undermine the freedom of the Internet through federal regulations and intimidation of Internet companies such as Google.
He has made repeated and outspoken attempts to intimidate individuals, groups and businesses including Google to bar freedom of speech as relates to criticism of Islam. He has purged the lexicon of the federal government of all terms necessary to describe jihad, Islamic radicalism and terrorism, and so made it impossible for federal employees to examine, investigate, discuss or understand the nature of the greatest national security threat facing the US.
Then there are women’s rights. American Jews like those.
True, Obama has distinguished himself as the greatest ally of abortion-on-demand ever. He even supported infanticide of babies who survived abortions when he served in the Illinois legislature. But, we women are a bit more than reproductive machines.
We also work and raise families. And Obama’s economic programs hurt women as much if not more than they hurt men.
Aside from that, there are females who live outside of the US.
American Jews have long been outspoken champions of women’s rights around the world. But here Obama’s record is arguably worse than any president in US history.
Obama has abandoned the women most at risk of gender-based discrimination, rape and murder – the women and girls of the Muslim world. Whereas the Bush administration liberated the women and girls of Afghanistan from the maniacally misogynist Taliban regime, the Obama administration is negotiating with the Taliban and setting the conditions for its return to power. If the signature image of the Bush administration’s war in Afghanistan was that of women voting, the signature image of Obama’s war in Afghanistan is the photo of 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai. This week Yousafzai was shot in the head by the Taliban in Pakistan for her defense of the right of girls to go to school.
Then there is the cause of good governance. American Jews like that.
But here, too, Obama fails to live up to liberal values of clean politics. Every day seems to bring with it another scandal related to the Obama administration.
This week we learned that the Obama campaign is illegally soliciting funds from foreigners.
According to a report published by the Government Accountability Institute, some 20% of visitors to the Obama campaign’s fund-raising site “my.barackobama.
com” are foreigners, barred by US law from contributing to political campaigns. So, too, the Obama.com website was registered by Robert Roche, a US businessman living in Shanghai with ties to Chinese state-owned companies. Roche is an Obama campaign bundler. Sixty-eight percent of the traffic on the site comes from foreign users. Obama.com is currently managed by a Palestinian rights activist in Maine.
Finally, there is the cause of Israel and US-Israel relations that American Jews are assumed to care about.
After the fiasco at the Democratic National Convention when the widespread antipathy for Israel raging in the Democratic Party was broadcast on primetime television, the Obama administration has stopped even trying to hide its contempt for the Jewish state and its American Jewish supporters.
Whereas the US refused to walk out of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s obscene address to the UN General Assembly last month, US Ambassador Susan Rice chose to absent herself entirely from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s address before the body.
Adding insult to injury, last week Obama appointed Salam al-Marayati to represent the US at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s annual 10-day human rights conference. Marayati is the founder and executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee. As Robert Spencer recalled this week, on September 11, 2001, Marayati gave an interview to a Los Angeles radio station accusing Israel of being responsible for the jihadist attacks on the US.
He is an outspoken supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah.
And Obama appointed him to represent America at a major human rights conference.
So what is it that drives over two-thirds of American Jews to support Obama? The only issues that come easily to mind are social issues – particularly the two flagship causes of American Jews these days – abortion and homosexual marriage.
While it is true that Obama shares their positions on these issues, it is hard to believe that these two issues have become the cri du coeur of more than two-thirds of American Jews.
It isn’t that it is wrong for people to support abortions on demand and homosexual marriage. And it isn’t wrong for people to oppose them. There are reasonable, Jewish arguments to be made for a woman’s right to abort her unborn children. But there are also reasonable Jewish arguments for constraining that right. There are Jewish arguments in favor of permitting homosexuals to wed. And there are Jewish arguments opposing such unions.
Then there is the relative urgency of the issues. With the US economy in a rut and American national security increasingly imperiled, are abortion rights and gay marriage really the American Jewish community’s top priorities? True, there are some American Jewish fanatics who are propelled to near violence when faced with opponents of their beliefs. And they are capable of intimidating a large proportion of their fellow Jews into toeing their extremist lines. Their intolerance has been on display in all of its ugliness at synagogues around the US since the start of the election campaign. In one recent, outrageous incident, one gay marriage partisan managed to intimidate his congregation on Erev Yom Kippur.
On the most sacred evening on the Jewish calendar, at Anshe Emet synagogue in Chicago, congregant Gary Sircus led other congregants in walking out of services when, in keeping with synagogue protocol (and common courtesy), Rabbi Michael Siegel acknowledged the presence of US Rep. Michele Bachmann in the audience.
After staging the walkout, Sircus went home and began an online assault on Bachmann and on his synagogue for extending the outspoken and stalwart supporter of Israel the courtesy of acknowledging her presence at services.
Sircus wrote a letter of support to Jim Graves, Bachmann’s deep-pocketed Democratic opponent in her reelection campaign. In it, he referred to Bachmann as “this evil woman.”
Rabbi Siegel did not decry Sircus for his shocking behavior. Speaking to the Chicago Tribune Siegel said, “I am aware of the fact that our congregation’s policy in regards to [welcoming public officials to the community and honoring their presence] clearly caused pain to some members of our community on the most precious day of reconciliation on the Jewish calendar. That we regret deeply.”
In a letter of explanation to synagogue board members, Siegel spoke of the need to welcome visitors even if they don’t share the community’s “values.” But when did the members of Anshe Emet take a vote to determine that support for gay marriage is their shared value? Undoubtedly, Sircus’s success in embarrassing his entire community owed in part to his willingness to intimidate his fellow congregants with his moralistic sanctimony on Erev Yom Kippur.
But it isn’t only gay marriage champions who use intimidation tactics to silence their communities into conforming with their views. American Jewish Democratic partisans have taken a leading role in blocking dissenting voices from their midst.
For instance, this past May B’nai Emet Congregation in Boca Raton, Florida, invited Amb. Susan Rice to address the congregation. Synagogue officials not only rejected offers to have Rice debate opponents of Obama’s treatment of Israel. They barred community members known for their opposition to Obama from attending the speech. For these synagogue officials, the idea that their partisan prejudice might be challenged was simply unacceptable.
To be fair, there are some American Jews who have been willing to approach politics with an open mind. For instance, Susan Crown, of the Chicago-based Henry Crown business empire, has transferred her support from Obama to Mitt Romney. In an interview with Chicago Magazine Crown explained that she switched candidates last May when Obama gave his speech calling on Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and contract to within the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. Crown said that her switch was due as well to economic and foreign policy considerations.
Crown’s arguments for transferring her support from Obama to Romney are all rational. On the other hand, the positions taken by the likes of Sircus and the management of B’nai Emet are emotional and unthinking.
Unfortunately, the polls indicate that more than two-thirds of American Jews are with the synagogue bullies at B’nai Emet and with Sircus, not with Crown.
For 70% of American Jews, party loyalty trumps all of their conceivable rational interests. For them, partisan loyalty is more important than facts. They do not want to use independent judgment. They just want to be Democrats.
The most disturbing aspect of the surveys of American Jewish voters is not that they are willing to vote for the most hostile US president Israel has ever experienced in order to remain true to their party. The most disturbing aspect of the American Jewish community’s devotion to Obama and the Democrats is that it indicates that the vast majority of American Jews have abandoned their faculties for independent thought and judgment in favor of conformism and slavish partisanship. They have rendered themselves unreachable.
caroline@carolineglick.com
dionissis mitropoulos Said:
There is truth that many liberal jews support these issues but that is not what I am stating. I am stating that support for the democratic party over the republican by jews does include economic issues. That ignoring, and ridiculing, this fact weakens the analysis and therefore the conclusions derived therefrom thus creating an ostrich-like situation. Furthermore, it is my view that not only is it an issue but it is a major issue. Glicks conclusions represent the error in assuming false premises. The second issue is that the major responsibility for the divided and confused support of US Jews regarding Israel derives directly from the confused and divided behavior of Israelis and Israeli media.
@ Bernard Ross:
Bernard, I think there is at least a kernel of truth in Caroline Glick’s assessment of the importance of abortion and gay marriage to American Jews. From the little I’ve read here and there, and from my own attempt to empathize with minorities that have been persecuted for long, I have come to conclude that such minorities need to side with the more tolerant sect of the society that hosts them. I mean, American and European Jews had to ideologically side with the progressives of America and Europe because they saw them as less threatening on account of their tolerance. Now, the progressive ideology has become mainstream in both America and Europe, to the effect that nowadays you are considered a redneck if you don’t accept gay marriage and abortions. American Jews must have deeply internalized this attitude towards the two aforementioned social issues – a very natural response from the most persecuted people in the history of mankind. So there must be a gut reaction from their part towards voting for a GOP that is perceived as intolerant.
One would hope that their concern about Israel (and polls that I have read corroborate that they are dedicated to Israel’s security) would lead them to vote for the more Israel-friendly GOP. But it must become clear to them that Obama is a serious threat to Israel’s existence because of his policy on Iran nukes. I am confident that if the message is forcefully presented, American Jews will vote for the right (no pun intended) Party.
I am judging from myself. I am deeply dedicated to legal abortions and gay marriages, and yet I would vote for the GOP because (among other issues) the issue of whether Israel is going to be nuked is by far more important than my concern about gays and women rights. After all, once the mullahs are bombed, American Jews can return to their preferred Democratic Party.
Of course, I might be completely wrong in my assessment of American Jewish mentality. Still, there is nothing to lose by stressing to them the annihilation threat that Israel will face from a re-elected Obama.
@ yamit82:
Yamit, my thoughts on your reply have been captured by spam filter. I hope they will show up, or i’ll protest!
@ yamit82:
Yamit, you brought up very substantive arguments and I feel very much like responding to them.
Before starting let me explain the “Yamit, I protest”: I do that all the time, when I am going to enter a discussion where there is going to be disagreement with someone I don’t really want to disagree with, I try to find ways to lessen the heat. In our case I chose the (intended to be) faux formality.
My moral outlook is a consequentialist (utilitarian) one, i.e. one that attempts to grant objective truth to moral statements based on the consequences of the actions that those statements refer to. There are notorious philosophical problems with defining “utility”, but for starters we can make do with the notion of harm (both psychological and physiological) as the ultimate arbiter of whether an action is immoral: if an action brings about harm, it is immoral (to varying degrees, depending on the degree of harm).
“ Acceptance of a behavioral trait doesn’t prove its morality”.
I completely agree. Our discussion is normative, i.e. about how things SHOULD BE, not descriptive, i.e. not about how things ARE. The whole world might accept one day that pedophilia is morally ok and practice it extensively. I would still consider this practice immoral based on the fact that it harms children, and wouldn’t give a damn for its acceptance.
“Societies are often intolerant to alien rather than abominable practices”.
This is a brilliant sociological observation, one that I had not thought of.
“In the past twenty years, American attitudes moved toward acceptance of homosexuality because media made that lifestyle familiar,and non-threatening. But the public acceptance of homosexuality sunk after the Massachusetts court mandated gay marriage and therefore posed a threat to traditional and normative values. All societies suppress some deviating minorities”.
You described the basic reason for the public’s growing acceptance of homosexuality (Media-ted familiarity with gays) . And it is true that all societies suppress some deviating minorities. Those societies consider certain statistical deviations as threatening, and go a step further and label them as deviating in the normative sense. In a nutshell, they call immoral the one who engages in the rare behavior, because they feel threatened. And according to my selected criterion of assigning moral (un)worth (i.e. the utilitarian notion of how much harm a behaviour brings about), these societies are justified if indeed the deviant (in the statistical sense) represents a threat to their well-being, but are not justified if the deviant is not really a threat. No harm, no immorality – thus spoke dionissis.
“Permissiveness knows no boundaries. That’s especially a problem when tolerance is coupled with formal justice and moral subjectivity”.
Based on some things you wrote after this sentence, I interpreted your concern about moral subjectivity as a statement to the effect: “If we agree that there is no moral objectivity, that there are no moral commands that are objectively true or false, then not just homosexuality but anything else goes – why not pedophilia, why not accept Hamas’ narrative that it is morally permissible to target schoolbuses?” (excuse my utter degradation of pedophiles by conflating them with Hamas terrorists). Luckily, we both agree that there are objective ethical truths (for example, that pedophilia is morally wrong), so we don’t have to worry about letting homosexuals off the hook based on an argument about moral subjectivity that would excuse Hamas terrorism or pedophilia. Neither of us is a moral relativist.
“Tolerance starts with accepting other religions and not ostracizing homosexuals. The sphere of tolerance is continuously expanded. If we tolerate all religions, why not tolerate Islam? If we tolerate homosexuality, why not accept gay unions? Soon their countries are flooded with Muslim immigrants and the cornerstone institution of family is undermined by same-sex marriages. We see this expanding trend today in every Western country and society”.
Why tolerate Islam? We know that they harbor very immoral beliefs (it is permissible for Muslims to beat their wives, it is permissible to kill in order to expand Islam). Well, so long as they do not act on their beliefs (i.e. they don’t kill the infidel, or they don’t beat their wife), we cannot bring criminal charges against them. We may plausibly consider them immoral (and according to my moral criterion they are immoral because of the harm they are prone to bring to wives and infidels and gays and…) but a society that tolerates their existence faces no threat so long as their number is small. It is when societies start accepting immigrants in large numbers that they face a problem. This means that Muslim immigration should be kept at a minimum, that may be they should not be given the right to vote unless it is somehow verifiable that they have been devulgarized. But there is no conceptual problem here, we both agree that Islam sets forth a set of beliefs many of which are immoral.
In the case of gays though we have a factual disagreement. You consider that the institution of family is undermined by gay marriages. I don’t. I do not think that heterosexuals will stop getting married with the opposite sex if gay marriages are legalized, and I don’t think that certain heterosexuals will become gays because gay marriage is legalized. One cannot just become gay because it has become acceptable to be one. All my gay friends (by the way, I am not gay) are telling me that they felt desire for the same sex from a very young age, long before they had any encounter with a permissive popular culture. If my empirical claim is true, i.e. if there is not going to be an increase in the number of gays due to tolerating their marriages, then there is no threat to the heterosexual family institution.
But even if there were such a threat to the heterosexual family institution, namely that a society would have far fewer heterosexual marriages because of its legalizing same-sex marriage, why should we view this as immoral? Gays will argue that no harm is done to the society by such an eventuality. If we are concerned about fertility rates, then we should allow gays to have children from surrogate mothers (so their argument will go). And isn’t this what in effect was happening when gays were getting married to the opposite sex at times when homosexuality was deemed unacceptable? The only argument that is left to the anti-gay-marriage theorist is that in such a case the kid will grow without a mother. Gays will counter that the basic issue in upbringing is whether the parents are good, and that there are many heterosexual couples that make terrible parents. If one wants to prove that all gays are going to be bad parents because of a peculiar trait of their character, then one must bring evidence to that effect. In the absence of such evidence, so the argument goes, gays should be legally treated on a par with heterosexuals. The onus of proof rests with those that insist on a discriminatory practice against gays. And this so, because any legal discrimination is harmful to the class being discriminated, and should be avoided unless there is evidence that more harm is going to be done by not implementing the discrimination.
“The next logical step is to tolerate and legally codify polygamy. Why Not?”
Because there is psychological harm done to women, who are treated as lesser beings than males. If young girls see the male father having many wives, they internalize the idea that they are inferior to males. Boys too develop an attitude that they should treat females as inferiors. That’s a bad attitude.
“Except for animal rights activists protesting, what’s wrong with bestiality? It doesn’t harm anyone except the beasts”.
You said it, it is the harm done to the beasts. My moral criterion of harm done extends to all beings capable of feeling pain and distress. If an action hurts unjustly humans or animals, it is immoral (I added the “unjustly” to my moral criterion in order to cover for cases of self defense against either humans or animals. This addendum also allows for not declaring as immoral the practice of consensual S/M sex. The practice is morally ok on account of the consent, which turns the physical harm into justified harm because it has been asked for).
“Why not accept safe sex consensual incest”?
I do not assign moral blame to the adult sister who asks for sex with her brother. I see no harm done whatsoever.
“Tolerance is a policy of no barriers, and such policies are prone to exploitation. Intolerant societies are much more durable because they are conservative. All innovations have to pass through the barrier of initial hostility or be tried elsewhere and be seen to be beneficial. How is tolerance of homosexuality beneficial to any society”?
Gays don’t have to prove that they are beneficial. It is the one who opposes homosexuality who must produce evidence that they are harmful. Otherwise, any whimsical desire to oppose a class of people can be justified. For example, bridge-players in Greece are statistically deviant, there are far less of them than gays. Does this mean, if society happened to dislike them, that they would be morally obliged to bring evidence that they are beneficial? They should be allowed to engage in their card playing, so long as society cannot bring evidence that they are harmful. And in my moral book, they are as moral as gays and heterosexuals, because I can see no indication that they are indeed harmful due to their practice.
Even though gays don’t have to prove that they are beneficial, there is a bonus for societies that are more and more tolerant to gays: the mere fact that gays are treated as equals serves as a repellent to feelings of resentment against their society – therefore, you’ve just made new friends in case you assent to their marriages. Also, I will venture that human beings that are not suppressed are more likely to achieve their true potential, for no other reason that their brain will be less preoccupied with harboring emotions of hatred and/or self pity. Such free personalities will make better professionals, better scientists, better athletes, better artists (better warriors?).
The argument that tolerant societies are more vulnerable than intolerable ones leads me to conclude that tolerant societies should be more vigilant in order to protect themselves from exploitation, not that they should lose their tolerance (because to my mind more harm is done by losing my tolerance, than by exerting effort to be vigilant). Dr Richard Landes has brought forth a threat that western societies are facing from those he labels as “cognitive liberal egocentrists” and “demopaths”. The latter are those who evoke a society’s tolerant moral standards without adhering to them (an example is Muslims in Europe who insist to protect Muslims from perceived discrimination, whereas all along they have in mind to make the western tolerant societies collapse). The former are the demopaths’ dupes, (usually leftists) who tend to see the demopath Muslims as adhering to western tolerance ideals. Well, this means that westerners must wake up to the threat of the demopaths, not that they should become less tolerant towards TRULY moderate Muslims. The Muslim Brotherhood obviously belongs to the dempopath category, and therefore is dangerous.
“If those who maintain that homosexuality is genetic and not cultural lifestyle choice then an argument can be made for accepting Kleptomaniacs,Necrophiliacs and a whole list of genetically influenced deviant behaviors.”
Yes, the claim that homosexuality is genetic (as is my view) is not an argument against inhibiting it. But I am defending gay marriage on different grounds, i.e. on the fact that no one gets hurt if gays get married. It is irrelevant to my argument whether they are gays because of choice or because of genetics.
“If as I suspect, homosexuality is a life style choice by most they also have the choice of not being a homo and or not putting or flaunting their choice on public display”.
Yamit, I protest! They have the right to put their choice in public display (incidentally, I find the expression of sexuality in public quite cheap, hetero or gay). And it does not matter whether they are a product of nature or nurture, because their right is predicated upon their deserved equal status, a status they should have as long as there is no evidence that they are harmful.
The photo of the two gay Israeli soldiers holding hands in the site of the IDF has done more good to Israel’s public image than the most expensive Public Relations campaign (in Greece it would be out of the question – or else)
“What people do behind closed doors is their business unless it is criminally harmful to others”.
I agree
“There must be for a reason that every major religion condemns homosexuality. Homosexuality, in statistical terms, is a deviation without any signs of being a beneficial trait. And people naturally detest deviations because they threaten social stability. Deviants threaten moral integrity of society no less than murderers threaten its physical existence”.
I don’t know why we have this tendency to detest certain statistical deviations (we don’t detest all of them, as my example of bridge players shows). Whatever the reason(s), they are just a fact of our psychology, they do not necessarily mean that the deviant practice is immoral.
“The above example of adoption involves plenty of restrictions: the act is performed in the child’s interest rather than for the adoptive parents’ benefit; adoption can be performed by a responsible and moral adult—not, for instance, a teenager. Every restriction infringes on someone’s freedom, in this case a teenager’s or an immoral adult’s. Thus, the notion of individual freedom can be used to overturn any law whatsoever”.
You are right up to a point, the notion of individual freedom can be used to question any adversary law against a class of people. But it should not overturn the law, not in case the society can come up with evidence that the discriminative law protects from harm. If evidence can be provided that gays will make bad parents, then, in the interests of protecting children, we have every right to keep gay adoptions illegal. But the onus of proof rests with those that claim that gays will be irresponsible parents.
If my reply passes Ted’s spam test, it will be weird (or queer).
@ yamit82:
If you don’t want your reply to be wasted, in case it does not show up, here is my email:
dionissismitropoulos38@gmail.com
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
My reply to you was botted by the spam filter it might show up?
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
Protest,dionissis?
Historically, many cultures tolerated homosexuality, but many had also tolerated excessive drinking, violent conquests, or communism. Acceptance of a behavioral trait doesn’t prove its morality. Societies are often intolerant to alien rather than abominable practices. In the past twenty years, American attitudes moved toward acceptance of homosexuality because media made that lifestyle familiar,and non-threatening. But the public acceptance of homosexuality sunk after the Massachusetts court mandated gay marriage and therefore posed a threat to traditional and normative values. All societies suppress some deviating minorities.
Permissiveness knows no boundaries. That’s especially a problem when tolerance is coupled with formal justice and moral subjectivity. Tolerance starts with accepting other religions and not ostracizing homosexuals. The sphere of tolerance is continuously expanded. If we tolerate all religions, why not tolerate Islam? If we tolerate homosexuality, why not accept gay unions? Soon their countries are flooded with Muslim immigrants and the cornerstone institution of family is undermined by same-sex marriages. We see this expanding trend today in every Western country and society.
The next logical step is to tolerate and legally codify polygamy. Why Not? Except for animal rights activists protesting, what’s wrong with bestiality? It doesn’t harm anyone except the beasts. Why not accept safe sex conceptual incest? Tolerance is a policy of no barriers, and such policies are prone to exploitation. Intolerant societies are much more durable because they are conservative. All innovations have to pass through the barrier of initial hostility or be tried elsewhere and be seen to be beneficial. How is tolerance of homosexuality beneficial to any society?
If those who maintain that homosexuality is genetic and not cultural lifestyle choice than an argument can be made for accepting Kleptomaniacs,Necrophiliacs and a whole list of genetically influenced deviant behaviors. If as I suspect, homosexuality is a life style choice by most they also have the choice of not being a homo and or not putting or flaunting their choice on public display. What people do behind closed doors is their business unless it is criminally harmful to others.
There must be for a reason that every major religion condemns homosexuality. Homosexuality, in statistical terms, is a deviation without any signs of being a beneficial trait. And people naturally detest deviations because they threaten social stability. Deviants threaten moral integrity of society no less than murderers threaten its physical existence.
The quote i used in my previous comment (“it is plausible that Jews can be more ethical than Gentiles?”) is not from James B Canada but from yamit82. I mixed their “Highlight and Quote” boxes, and picked the wrong one.
Apropos, let’s call it a Queer choice!
@ kim:
Not so sad at least we know who not to depend on, narrows the possibilities and options for us.
Flash!!! Most don’t know the commandments from a ‘Dharma, and Sangha’
Not only Jews ignore the past and history everybody does but we have been doing it longer than any other group or people. “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people.” “Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey; but I will not go up among you, lest I consume you in the way, for you are a stiff-necked people,” Moses apologizes to G-d, saying, “If now I have found favor in thy sight, O Lord, let the Lord, I pray thee, go in the midst of us, although it is a stiff-necked people;..”
The attribution of having a stiff neck is not conditional. Rather, it’s a pre-existing condition. Significantly, having a stiff neck is the only description of the nature of the Jewish People found in the Torah. We also know one other thing about their physical characteristics, that is, G-d wanted for the males to be circumcised. So, I suppose one way to identify a Jew back then would have been to look around for circumcised males with stiff necks.
“Nahmanides” or (“Ramban”) interpreted Stiff Necked people to mean that, since G-d now is reconciled with the Jews, they need his help more than ever, because they’re stiff necked. They’re much better with him, than without him. And, more in our time, Rabbi Yitzhak Nissenbaum thought Moses asked for G-d’s favor because, what now is their greatest vice (that is, their stiff necks), one day will be an essential virtue.
“Jews are indeed an obstinate people. When they have everything to thank G-d for, they complain. Mere weeks after hearing G-d’s voice they make a golden calf. But just as now they are stiff-necked in their disobedience, so one day they will be equally stiff-necked in their loyalty. … Obstinate in their disbelief during much of the biblical era, they became obstinate in their belief ever afterward. … At times, Jews found it hard to bow down to G-d – but they were certainly never willing to bow down to anything less. That is why, alone of all the many peoples who have entered the arena of history, Jews – even in exile, dispersed and everywhere a minority – neither assimilated to the dominant culture nor converted to the majority faith.” (at least till now)
So, it just goes to show ya, having G-d think you’ve got a stiff neck might not be all that bad!
I don’t believe all Jews will be called back to the Land. Only those who stay loyal.
Jews were promised neither power nor riches, but the status of a priestly nation.
Time and again, the nation is purified and turned back on the right track. That’s about all the Jews were promised
Let me be the odd man out here as I have been called both a communist and a right wing fascist because I refuse to see through the blinders of party and ideology. I believe in free enterprise, guns, arab transfer, mandatory death penalty for terror, Israeli annexation of YS, Sinai, suez canal & south lebanon; militant and aggressive Israel inc seizing of foreign land, assets and oilfields for reparations,. I also believe that a national health policy is more important than a compulsory education system, that the rich and big business must be regulated, that the current economic structure distributes economic gains of technology into the top 20%(CIA factbook) and this is untenable as a path to the future, that a civilized society takes care of its poor, children, disabled and elderly.
If one wants to win a battle the first thing is accurate intelligence. My view is that the following statements are myopic,provincial and fail to accurately answer the question.
….It is a mistake in judgement to believe that ones own conclusions invalidate the existence of a differing valid perspective. This error causes one to overlook the economic concerns of Jews and substitute those concerns with a substitute issue.
…all Jews in the US are not large stock market investors. Many Jews are concerned with medicare, medicaid, and welfare. Many orthodox jews are on welfare. Furthermore, many see the financial meltdowns of the greed and corruption of the rich coupled with the negligence of corrupt govt to prosecute and regulate such damaging excesses. Some want more govt regulation of the excess not less, some are jews who lost.
@ dionissis mitropoulos:
They might show up eventually if Ted finds the time to sort out his overflowing spam deposiory. 😉
@ James B – Canada:
You sound like a total ass. Am I supposed to think you are not a bigot because your wife is Latina and you have a black associate? Well, you still are a bigot. Perhaps you shouldn’t be allowed to vote given your extreme stupidity, anti-semitism and misogyny. I’m quite sure you would feel at home in any muslim nation.
How sad,,the thought of any Jew that would not stand with Israel is beyond me. They know the commandments of G-d who changes not, no shadow of turning. but because they don’ want to or don’t know history, they repeat it. Do they really believe standing with the G-dless Democrats who are NOT what they used to be, nor are Republicans. One way or the other, one day they will remember too late no one can serve to masters..It is either money and the world, or G-d. The day will come when they being Jews will again flee for their lives , back to Israel, just like even now in all the other countries are. scripture tells us G-d will bring them home from the four corners of the earth.that day will come.To listen to the lies and go against G-d’s commands…is the wrong choice, that ALL nations will go against Jerusalem..not to kid ourselves that the so called peace plan is signed even by the US.G-d warns of those who devide His land..they need to repent and stand with the G-d of Israel, before it is too late.Shalom
@ SHmuel HaLevi:
You tell me what I already know and wished I didn’t have to know. 🙁
@ yamit82:
Yamit, i tried three times to contribute to your discourse, but all three times my comment disappeared into cyberspace (i didn’t receive a message that my comment was held for moderation, so i presume it’s been lost).
@ yamit82:
Yamit, I protest. I wouldn’t call homosexuality a societal deviation.
I agree with the test that you propose, i.e. compare the practice of homosexuality to other practices that we find objectionable. Here are my results:
Criminals: they harm bodies and property rights. They create a sense of insecurity to other members of the society. Therefore, they pose a clear and present danger to societies.
Pedophiles: they destroy the innocence of children (let alone the physical pain that they might inflict). Therefore, they represent a tremendous threat.
Adulterers: experience teaches us that such a habit makes the sense of commitment among couples to vanish. And this sense of commitment is vital to the establishment of a healthy relationship (not to mention that adultery is a breach of the tacit promise of partners to abstain from other sexual partners).
Drug users: they only harm themselves, therefore they should be legally tolerated (i.e. no criminal charges against them, but no obligation of the State to pay for supporting their rehabilitation: it’s their right to kill themselves, but they have no right to ask the State to pay for their mistakes).
Homosexuals: they do not inflict physical or psychological pain to anyone, they don’t violate any property rights. Therefore, they should be treated equally with heterosexuals in terms of their legal status.
The reason they ask for State recognition of their marriage goes beyond financial security, it is a craving for not being treated as second-class citizens, a cry for non-contemptuous treatment.
Judging from my country, I bet that some Israeli leftist academics have joined the ranks of the anti-Israel crowd in demanding absurd concessions to the Palestinian terrorists, so as to retaliate for the insults (subtle or not) they received for being gay – if I had to bet, I would also include Judith Butler in this category: an intelligent person such as her could not possibly sympathize with Hamas, unless blinded by a decades-long hatred.
I’ve read in an article by David Goldman that Judaism hints to vegetarianism as the proper moral choice. I applaud, I have become a vegetarian myself so as not to harm animals.
James B – Canada Said:
Judging from the self-restraint that Israel has shown in the face of brutal daily Palestinian terrorism, a restraint that no other nation on the planet would have shown, i wouldn’t call it merely “plausible”, i would call it a fact.
It’s a shame that politics in the U.S. have taken on the worst aspects of theology. “My party right or wrong”; to hell with the country. I’m looking forward to this election in order to welcome America back into the world. For the past four years, America has been in hiding or asleep or maybe in suspended animation. If Romney is elected, the American people deserve that Nobel prize that was so ridiculously awarded to Obama — a failed social experiment.
@ yamit82:
Yamit, I protest. I wouldn’t call homosexuality a societal deviation.
I agree with the test that you propose, i.e. compare the practice of homosexuality to other practices that we find objectionable. Here are my results:
Criminals: they harm bodies and property rights. They create a sense of insecurity to other members of the society. Therefore, they pose a clear and present danger to societies.
Pedophiles: they destroy the innocence of children (let alone the physical pain that they might inflict). Therefore, they represent a tremendous threat.
Adulterers: experience teaches us that such a habit makes the sense of commitment among couples to vanish. And this sense of commitment is vital to the establishment of a healthy relationship (not to mention that adultery is a breach of the tacit promise of partners to abstain from other sexual partners).
Drug users: they only harm themselves, therefore they should be legally tolerated (i.e. no criminal charges against them, but no obligation of the State to pay for supporting their rehabilitation: it’s their right to kill themselves, but they have no right to ask the State to pay for their mistakes).
Homosexuals: they do not inflict physical or psychological pain to anyone, they don’t violate any property rights. Therefore, they should be treated equally with heterosexuals in terms of their legal status.
The reason they ask for State recognition of their marriage goes beyond financial security, it is a craving for not being treated as second-class citizens, a cry for non-contemptuous treatment.
Judging from my country, I bet that some Israeli leftist academics have joined the ranks of the anti-Israel crowd in demanding absurd concessions to the Palestinian terrorists, so as to retaliate for the insults (subtle or not) they received for being gay – if I had to bet, I would also include Judith Butler in this category: an intelligent person such as her could not possibly sympathize with Hamas, unless blinded by a decades-long hatred.
I’ve read in an article by David Goldman that Judaism hints to vegetarianism as the proper moral choice. I applaud, I have become a vegetarian myself so as not to harm animals.
yamit82 Said:
Judging from the self-restraint that Israel has shown in the face of brutal daily Palestinian terrorism, a restraint that no other nation on the planet would have shown, i wouldn’t call it just plausible, i would call it a fact.
@ Shy Guy:
Genetics are hard to change on the run Shy Guy. They cannot help it. They “selected” themselves to turn into unJews long ago. Woe to us if we rely on them and woe to anyone other than us that may want them in their midst.
Regretfully, because of their intrinsic make up they cannot not be be trusted by anyone.
Good words. One could even call it sanctimonious morality.
Circus – sorry, Sircus – is one person. How others could be so sheep-like and follow him out of the building on Yom Kippur is beyond me – and of course most of the sane people on Israpundit.
October 5, 2012
Rabbi Michael Siegel
Senior Rabbi
The Norman Asher Rabbinic Chair
As you know Anshe Emet attracts major national and international figures in government, politics, civic life, and the arts and sciences. Elected and appointed officials from every level of government from both parties, holding a wide variety of views, have always been welcome at the synagogue, although the synagogue takes no political positions.
A few hours before Kol Nidre, the office of Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann called the synagogue asking to attend services at Anshe Emet that evening. The congregation’s long-standing policy welcomes public officials to our community and acknowledges their presence from the Bimah. In so doing we do not endorse the policies of those officials we recognize but the office they have attained.
Typically, we seat the official with someone who might either know them or have experience working with elected officials. We approached Lee Rosenberg and he was kind enough to accept this role. The adjacent seats were unexpectedly available, we contacted the family and they graciously allowed the use of their seats.
During our Kol Nidre service, Congresswoman Bachmann was acknowledged as we have always recognized elected officials from the Bimah. Importantly, if the person has a voting record supporting Israel, as Congresswoman Bachmann does, we express the congregation’s appreciation.
Here is what was said that evening:
I want to acknowledge the presence of Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann. She was the first Republican woman to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Minnesota. Congresswoman Bachmann represents Minnesota’s 6th district. We thank you for your support of Israel. Finally, I am sure that Congresswoman Bachmann will join all of us in a prayer for peace for our country the United States of America, the State of Israel, and for the entire world.
We are confident that Congresswoman Bachman’s visit was handled consistently with the words and spirit of our congregation’s policies. Nonetheless, we know that some were angered and hurt by her presence. As the spiritual leader and lay President of our community, our responsibility and concern goes well beyond matters of protocol, the manner in which we greet public officials and the wording of statements. We take our responsibility for the communal and spiritual experience of those who come to worship at Anshe Emet very seriously. It would never be our intent to cause pain or anger to any member of our community. To the extent that anyone’s Yom Kippur experience was negatively affected we are sorry.
Anshe Emet is a community that values inclusion. For many years we have defined family in a broad way and for the values of tolerance, and acceptance. We do not believe those values are compromised by recognizing an elected official who may not share those values. As the lintel over our door says: “Mine House Shall Be Called An House of Prayer for all People”.
Evolution is cruel, ask any extinct species. That’s how I view these(sarc) Jews.
I screwed up where the quote box should be.
The democrats must be saying, to paraphrase Jim Baker: “F the Jews they will vote for us anyway”
On the most sacred evening on the Jewish calendar, at Anshe Emet synagogue in Chicago, congregant Gary Sircus led other congregants in walking out of services when, in keeping with synagogue protocol (and common courtesy), Rabbi Michael Siegel acknowledged the presence of US Rep. Michele Bachmann in the audience.
After staging the walkout, Sircus went home and began an online assault on Bachmann and on his synagogue for extending the outspoken and stalwart supporter of Israel the courtesy of acknowledging her presence at services.
Sircus wrote a letter of support to Jim Graves, Bachmann’s deep-pocketed Democratic opponent in her reelection campaign. In it, he referred to Bachmann as “this evil woman.”
Rabbi Siegel did not decry Sircus for his shocking behavior. Speaking to the Chicago Tribune Siegel said, “I am aware of the fact that our congregation’s policy in regards to [welcoming public officials to the community and honoring their presence] clearly caused pain to some members of our community on the most precious day of reconciliation on the Jewish calendar. That we regret deeply.”
There is so much in common with today’s American JINOs and the liberal and assimilated or converted Jews of the kaiser’s Germany up until Hitler’s arrival. The similarities are uncanny.
Another of my comments in moderation.
We shall not hide from their sons; to the last generation they will recite the praises of the Lord, and His might and His wonders, which He performed.
And He established testimony in Jacob, and He set down a Torah in Israel, which He commanded our forefathers to make them known to their sons.
In order that the last generation might know, sons who will be born should tell their sons.
And they should put their hope in God, and not forget the deeds of God, and keep His commandments.
No one believes in ethical homogeneity: Polynesian cannibals are not similarly ethical to leftist academics; obviously, cannibals are much more ethical.
If people are differently ethically, it is plausible that Jews can be more ethical than Gentiles?
The difference between those claiming to be Jewish and those Jews who are observant is in how they live their lives according to traditional Jewish ethics, morals and beliefs.
Observant Jews refrain from unnecessary murder of animal species according to kosher laws, do no harm to their neighbors, testify honestly, avoid homosexuality and adultery, and adhere to many other laws, which should make Jews morally pure. More pure than those who derive pleasure from killing animals, they find it impossible to love every human being and do not embrace deviants.
Gay couples are not oppressed; they do not receive benefits which were not intended for them in the first place. Bereft of children, gay unions produce no personal, inalienable rights. As such, gay unions need no statutory regulation like the institution of marriage; gays who wish to have sex on a regular basis could regulate their committed relationship via contract.
How to debunk Liberal values: Ask Why Not to every societal deviation and compare it with gay marriage and legalization of gay rights on par with heterosexual couples? Make them face the absurdity of their values.
A Must read:
How Did Liberalism Become Judaism?
By Steven Plaut
MY Jewish ( wackjob ) family is solidly behind Obummer. Makes me wish that the USA never allowed Jews, females and latinos to vote. Homosexuals should be allowed to get married only if they disavow their right to vote.
I know I sound racist but my wife is latina, my closest associate is black and I am going to Colombia this December.