Talk Elections

This little contretemps (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74371.html) does not bother me in the slightest (I really don't care what religious sect folks subscribe to, nor how they label themselves, unless we sink down to the Scientologist level or something), but it may hurt Rick with those Orthodox Jews (as well as other Jews for that matter perhaps) who have not yet found their way to Jesus. According to the Orthodox Jewish guy I talked to about redistricting in NYC, Rick has some rather substantial support among registered Pub Orthodox Jews, including from himself - tentatively at least. He thinks Rick will run better than Mittens in Ohio against Obama among other things.  Everyone has their own opinion.

I find it interesting however, because I recently met the daughter of my next door neighbor who is a self described messianic "Jew" who has embraced Christ, who lives in Utica, New York, poor thing. She is a strong Santorum supporter. Her still Jewish parents are going to vote for Obama.  Anyway, this tends to connect the dots a bit. When it comes to religion, Rick has a certain psychological intensity about it, which is unusual for politicians in my experience.

Everyone carves their own path in life don't they?

That's fine with me if Santorum accepts a paid speaking engagement to a Jewish group who believe Jesus is the Savior.

What I find interesting is that, according to this article, Santorum previously failed to disclose $95,000 in speaking fees he received.

Now this is hardly the way that a good Christian should be acting, especially when he's running around the country constantly telling everyone how they should be behaving.  

The Messianic Jewish Alliance of America paid Santorum $6,000 to speak at its 2010 annual conference, according to a filing released Wednesday showing a total of nearly $95,000 in speaking fees that Santorum previously failed to disclose.

::)

Hopefully, Rick "disclosed" his speaking fee income on his tax return. I assume that he did. I assume that Rick is not a crook. Absent that, since Rick was not in public office at the time, just why does he have some duty to reveal to the public the exact source of his streams of income, assuming those streams are legal?  Granted, I can understand opposition research digging into it. That is all part of the game.

I wonder what the "filing" was that disclosed it?  That confuses me.

Well, if he only spoke at some event, this might not matter too much. If he expresses strong support for their missionary work in the Jewish community, that would be more serious, especially if they can get it on tape.

So some Jews who converted to Christianity support Rick Santorum. Uh, who cares?

People convert to other religions. Big deal.

Religious freedom includes the freedom to embrace, abandon or change religion. It also includes the right to share your faith with anyone willing to listen.

The notion that if you are ethnically Askenazi then you should or ought practise Judaism [or be an atheist] is nonsense. Religious freedom includes the freedom of persons of Askenazi descent to embrace any religion, including the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Part of the religious freedom of Christians is the freedom to share their faith in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ to any person whom is willing to listen, including people of Askenazi descent.

Askenazi folk whom have exercised their religious freedom by embracing Jesus Christ don't forfeit their right to organize fellow believers, host conferences or hire speakers. What is being suggested is here is utterly outrageous. The alternative is demanding that Christians shun these people. While some Jews may shun such folks for theological reasons, it makes no theological sense for a Christian to shun another human being for embracing Jesus Christ.

Jews for Jesus are not...typical converts.  They still pray in Hebrew, refer to Jesus as "Yeshua," use an Old Testament-heavy liturgy, and sometimes even still keep Kosher or the Sabbath.  It's...a very weird movement, and a lot of Jews accuse Jews for Jesus of being primarily a kind of conversion plot to trick Jews into thinking that they can accept Jesus and still be Jewish.  "Messianic Jews" would respond by saying that they aren't "Christian" at all, but rather Jews who accept the coming of the Jewish Messiah, and that he was Jesus of Nazareth.

Mikado- I agree. As a Christian, I can say that there are not many things that seperate us from our Jewish brethren but one is the divinity of Jesus Christ...and on that one I believe if you accept Him you are a Christian and if you do not, but believe most else waht we believe- you are likely Jewish

"Messianic" Judaism is as much an oxymoron as "kosher pork". They are considered apostates among Jews if of Jewish origin -- or frauds if they are missionaries not of Jewish origin (some of these fellows had no idea of the significance of Shema Yisrael and did not know what a bagel is). One need not obey kosher dietary laws to be Jewish (Reform), but accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior and especially the Christian Trinity defines one as a Christian.

Jews are not going to vote anywhere near a majority for any Republican nominee for President. The only place in which  the difference between the Jewish vote going 70% for President Obama and going 90% for President Obama will be those states likely to be close anyway. It could be the difference between winning and losing Arizona, Indiana, and Missouri.

 

This, they really are a conversion plot.  I doubt Santorum would like it if a group people calling themselves Catholics formed a group called Christians for Mohammed and started actively coordinating with Muslim religious organizations to convert Christians to de facto Islam.  Actually...wow...I am trying to imagine the rage that would come from the Christian right if such a group became active all across the U.S.  lol

Let's put it this way. Of course, people have a right to choose religion and that includes the right to convert from Judaism to Christianity or even to continue practicing Jewish customs while acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah. It is also completely legit for people to be trying to induce conversions from whatever face to whatever other faith.

The problem is not legal or moral, but political. In the Jewish community at large, attempts at conversion to Christianity (or anything else) are viewed with extreme hostility. And once you acknowledge the right of people to convert and to evangelize you also have to acknowledge the right of the other people to dislike those who convert and evangelize. Converts have always been viewed in Jewish communities at large with high disdain - for all practical purposes, they are considered as having cut themselves from the community. Nor are potential missionaries viewed favorably - they are considered to be enemies of the community, set on destroying it. And, of course, Jews for Jesus are a lot worse from this standpoint - they are viewed as converts, who attempt to insinuate themselves into the community through false advertising, so as to capture more converts. This would be, in particular, the view among the Orthodox, we've been discussing here so much as potential Republican recruits.

Anyway.... A politician who publically identifies himself with what is viewed as a missionary anti-Jewish outfit, obviously, would have trouble attracting Jewish support. It's less of a problem for some of the secular Jews (though they would have a strongly negative reaction, but it wouldn't be a dominant motive) - but they won't vote Republican anyway. Interestingly, it is not such a big problem for the Russians - they are sufficiently confused in their Jewishness not to, in general, have the more commonly visceral reaction of other Jews; in fact, in Russia itself there have been in recent decades prominent converts who became Orthodox priests and theologians, who managed to attract sizeable following from among the Jews. It is viewed much less starkly there, you may convert and still maintain some cultural Jewishness. By converting you do not die for the rest of your friends and family - as you would for many other Jews. But it would, definitely, be a problem for the Orthodox. If the Republican presidential candidate gets too closely identified w/ Jews for Jesus, he might loose the entire Orthodox block voting in a blink.

But the key here is, how close is that identification. I would think, that would take a lot more than speaking at a paid event.

They have every right to do all of that. And the rest of the Jews have every right to dislike them. And evey politician has to understand that by getting closely identified with them, he antagonizes other Jews.

I have doubts as to whether most messianic jews believe in trinity doctrine.

 

A lot of them certainly do, but in any event, even if they did they'd still be pariahs at best.

Sure they have the "right" to, just as people have the right to vote against Jewish politicians for that reason or hate Obama and vote against him because he's black. That doesn't make it any less morally repugnant.


That's not really a good analogy, since in embracing Islamic doctrines on Jesus they'd be going against the Nicene Creed and Christianity and would cease being Christian. And would obviously not be Catholic since they'd hold views entirely against the Vatican's teachings and papal edicts. A better analogy is some group that would go around preaching that to truly follow Jesus you'd have to convert to Islam and accept Islam teachings on Jesus, since this is kind of what mainstream Islam actually preaches I wouldn't find it anymore "offensive" than standard attempts to convert Christians to Islam.

The fact that Messianic Jews keep Jewish traditions and all doesn't strike me as very important. So basically people are saying it's OK for Jews to convert to Christianity as long as they abandon all Jewish traditions in the process but not if they do it and keep them? That's really quite odd. I should note that it's quite common for people to keep traditions from their old church if they convert, for example people raised in churches that put a big emphasis on Lent might still put a lot of focus on it even if they convert to a church that doesn't, or do the Sign of the Cross if raised that way even if converting to a church that doesn't, and that isn't controversial at all.

And really the only real controversy I see in the Messianic Jewish doctrine is that if they accept all the teachings about Jesus they'd have to accept the New Testament which makes it pretty hard to argue as well that all the Old Testament kosher laws and whatnot are still in effect. But really that's their business not mine, nor do I see it as a reason to vote against any politician supported by them (not that there aren't hordes of other reasons to vote against Santorum.)

If you want a Christian analogy, one that might work is those groups that incorporate a lot of Eastern Religion and New Age type practices and still claim to be Christian. I'm sure many evangelicals would dispute that they are Christian, but I doubt someone who converts from a "standard" Christian denomination to one of them would rile any more controversy with anyone that someone who flat out converts from a Christian denomination to Buddhism or some other type of Eastern religion.

The "controversy" is that they have committed "high treason" and try to induce others do the same. From the proper Jewish religious standpoint, they have abandoned Judaism and embraced Christianity and are set on a mission to convert other Jews to Christianity. In general, Jews (at least, religious Jews) do not look well at any outfit that tries to convert Jews, and Messianic Jews' missionary activity is directed specifically at Jews. You know, even many fairly moderate, not necessarily Orthodox, Jews fret a lot about things like intermarriage and assimilation and such. And here is this whole missionary outfit, bent on destroying the community. Add to this the "false advertising" (Christians claiming to practice Judaism to confuse the simpleminded and the uneducated), and you can see, why there is not much love lost.

Then, again, I don't think they matter enough for most people to care. Talking to them, speaking in their meetings isn't going to matter much, methinks. If a presidential candidate were to actively ally himself w/ their missionary activity, it would be another matter. Not because of the Jews-for-Jesus themselves, but because a US President bent on converting the Jews would be viewed as a dangerous and committed enemy.

 

The Jews for Jesus people believe in the trinity doctrine, believe that Jesus is their Lord and Savior, go around trying to convert Jews to their brand of evangelical Christianity.  It's just as obvious that they're not Jews as it is that the people in my analogy would not be Christians.  Also, with all due respect, whether or not you see it as a reason to vote against someone is not the point.  What matters is that the Jews who might conceivably vote for Santorum are also the most likely to see any association with Jews for Jesus as a big reason to vote against Santorum (and by big I mean that it would make Santorum a non-starter).  I'm a fairly secular reform Jew and I could go on for weeks about how much I abhor the Jews for Jesus groups, I can't even begin to imagine the intensity of the resentment Orthodox Jews almost certainly harbor towards them.  Of course, I would have never even considered voting for Santorum regardless, but still, you have to understand that the Messianic "Jewish" Christians are really the Pariahs of Judaism.  That said, I agree with ag that merely speaking at some of their events isn't enough of an association to cause a complete implosion in Santorum's support among Republican NYC Orthodox Jews (assuming it even exists in large enough numbers to be relevant, which I'm not sure I believe).  However, it could definitely cost him some votes and quite possibly enough for him to lose congressional districts he would've won, even without a full-scale implosion.

1) The "proper" Jewish position is that the return of the Messiah ought to be acknowledged. That is incontrovertible. The debate is merely over whether, or not, Jesus Christ was the Messiah.

2) Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other such sects are as much "the Pariahs" of Christianity as Messianic Jews are of Judaism.  Basically, Seventh Day Adventists accept Jesus as the Messiah, and reinterpret the Old Testament from a Christian perspective. They celebrate the Sabbath, but, interpret Old Testament passages as commanding vegetarianism. Messianic Judaism accepts Jesus as the Messiah, and reinterprets Jewish tradition in that light. Messianic Judaism is certainly more "Jewish" and less "Christian" than the Seventh Day Adventists. That would make Messianic Judaism even more of a "pariah" among Christians than Seventh Day Adventists.   Calling them closet Christians is theological nonsense.

3) Messianic Jews have concluded that Jesus Christ was in fact the foretold Messiah. That is not "high treason." That is a theological disagreement. Labeling attempts to persuade other Jews to accept their theological beliefs can't be characterized as an attempt to "destroy" the community.

4) Some of the Jews whom have married Christians are raising their children as Christians. If this is merely a "fret," how could embracing a mishmash of the two be so much worse?

BSB, you can make arguments as much as you like, but for whatever reason, they don't mesh with how actual Jews (of all stripes) respond to the Jews 4 Jesus.

I agree that Jews For Jesus are not actual Jews and a somewhat shady group, though ultimately harmless. My real issue is that the type of people that is being speculated this would hurt Santorum of wouldn't respond much better to simple "normal" conversions to Christianity. Someone born in Borough Park who ignored the "Messianic Judaism" nonsense and just became a Presbyterian or Catholic or evangelical or whatever likely would still be ostracized by that community. The idea of "hereditary religion" REALLY offends me, this is kind of a personal issue that hits close to home so I shouldn't go into the details, let me just say it's largely affected by the (admittedly more mild but still there) attitudes in some Catholic communities (not all or even most Catholics fall into this I'll admit, including the ones from my family, but hearing about the attitudes some take like that woman in the hospital who dealt with Nathan's Buddhist relative often quite hits a nerve.) But this isn't the place for that.

And as not even being a Republican it's really none of my business and how it'd affect my vote doesn't matter, sure. And yeah they have the right to think that way, just as people have the right to vote against anyone for being Jewish or vote against Obama for being black. My point is more that people who adhere to this type of thinking are more morally repugnant than Santorum, and that's saying A LOT.

BRTD, I think the thing that really offends Jews is the trade name "infringement" as it were. If the Messianic Jews called themselves something other than Jews, or Jews for Jesus, it would be less of an issue. But it is a free country, and Jews don't have the exclusive legal right to the name, so that is that. It is complicated by the term Jews referring to both a religion and an ethnicity/tribe in common parlance.

Back in the 16th and 17th century, probably many Catholics would have preferred Protestants calling themselves something other than Christian, for that matter.

"Heretics" just are not that popular.

I always like to think about how Christians would react if a Muslim evangelical organization started a group called Christians 4 Mohammad that claimed they were authentically Christian, but accepted Mohammad as the final prophet and adhered to the five pillars of Islam.

If an Islamic group (hard to analogize this in America to someone like Santorum) started doing joint appearances with Christians 4 Mohammad and said this showed their outreach to the Christian community, and I don't see why all those Christians just don't get over themselves and be broad-minded and accept that they're Christians too blah blah, well we can see how successful that would be.

There's also a very long and ugly history of Jews being compelled to convert which animates the Jewish reponse.

Yep, of course, Brittain33. Anyway, it is easier to be dispassionate about it all when one is Godless. :)

BRTD, your own experience, such as it is, is kind of a ridiculous comparison.  Throughout its history, Judaism and the Jewish people have been pushed to extinction. To start  even at a later period in its history, you could look at the forced diaspora after the destruction of the Second Temple, the forced conversions during the Spanish Inquisition, the hundreds of pogroms or the Holocaust and you will see why the Jewish people are correctly hostile to attempts at conversion. It is a matter of survival.  When there are continual attempts to extinguish your religion or culture, people tend to hold these traditions and heritage even more dear.  It is not just doing a easy flip between a congregation or even sect of Christianity because you disagree with an aspect of a church's teaching.

I've got very little observance left but something about people not understanding why Jews 4 Jesus isn't just another color in the rainbow of Judaism and why don't Jews just "get it" sets me off. Not that that's what you said...

There is a reason this discussion is in the presidential election board, and not in the religion board. We are not discussing the doctrinal issue, but the electoral one. Nobody is asking our gentile friends here to agree w/ the Jewish opinion of the Jews-for-Jesus :)) Still less we are discussing here the theological justifications for their views. The fact remains, though, that even some of the very secular Jews present react with, at best, unease, when thinking of this group. Any sort of Christian missionary activity among the Jews has always been viewed as a dangerous attack no the community. Such activity "masquerading" as a development in Judaism is only more dangerous.

Mind it, unlike some of my fellow-tribesmen present, I myself have no problem w/ the JfJ crowd - except finding them mildly hilarious, I guess. I am an atheist, a "Russian", non-Zionist and even a mishling (so, I am unlikely to see any problem in assimilation to begin with). The only identifiable sense in which I belong to an community is gastronomical :)) The main reason, I've never considered converting into anything else, is that I don't believe in god(s) :))) But I am Jewish enough to understand the reaction, even if I don't share it. And, you know, at a subconscious level even I get some of those butterflies brittain33 has mentioned - this is sitting very deeply inside.

Ah, one of my little delights in life is savoring Yiddish words (yes, it is perhaps an odd hobby for a Godless WASP but whatever), and not having been exposed to "mishling" before, it immediately went into my Google. And look at what I found (http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-antisemitism&month=9801&week=&msg=eTPTFxXoAmyz7w2aTEVNEQ&user=&pw=). Who knew?

Highly doubt the origin (I am pretty sure it's been much older), but, yes, that's what it means.

As someone who frequently has to argue about misuse of the word "emo", I can empathize somewhat. Like I said, I agree Jews for Jesus are not actual Jews except in an "ethnic" sense, though they are relatively harmless in comparison to the other right wing evangelical groups with actual influence, like the people who tend to be supporting Santorum, and I'd still consider them more harmless than the Kahanist political machine that supposedly might be offended by it. But I think the question as to how the Hebrew word for "apostates" would be treated is a pretty valid one and kind of begs the question as to if Santorum is better off without these people anyway just like asking if it would be worth it for Hillary to attempt to appeal to racists, or if people in Texas who wanted to oust the former Jewish House speaker would be better off without the people who were clearly opposed to having a Jew in such a position, like that guy who said he got into politics to elect Christians to office (mind you I don't think this is a big issue to them, they didn't seem to mind Sarah Palin.)


There's a huge difference between attempting to annihilate one culture and someone from that culture simply abandoning it. You don't strike me as the type to be screaming about heretics from Irish families who abandon Catholicism even in a cultural sense, and you obviously can go on quite a bit about oppression of Catholics in Ireland and discrimination against the church. The fact that some Irish apparently would (for example I'm thinking of some of the things Supersoulty said about his family) is part of what caused that massive distaste for Catholicism I'm known for, or my mom mentioning that she had several (but all dead now) relatives who were quite bothered by her getting married in a Protestant church, or the story I heard from an old DFL State Rep speaking against the gay marriage amendment by pointing out that not only were interracial marriages illegal in about half the states the year he was married (and the same year Barack Obama's parents were married), but that many members of his Catholic family refused to attend his wedding to his Lutheran wife that was held in a LCMS church. I'm sure you find this as distasteful as I do.

And I doubt anyone in the west would defend the parties in India that want to ban religious conversion despite the fact that Hindus had to suffer under colonialism and a lot of harsh evangelism as well. Or the law in Malaysia that prohibits Muslims from converting to anything else (religious is a legal status of someone in Malaysia and is noted on their state ID card. All other religions are allowed to apply to change it, Muslims can not. And no this isn't just an insignificant thing on an ID card, since Muslims in Malaysia are not permitted to buy alcohol, and Islamic marriage laws would still apply so a woman would not be allowed to marry a non-Muslim.)

One of the pastors at my church is from a Buddhist family of Vietnamese immigrants and she became a Christian in college. Buddhists in Vietnam certainly weren't treated too nicely under Ngo Diem, or the communists for that matter, and it's often a big part of many groups' heritage. I've never heard her talk about it, but it's not a stretch to assume that many in her family were quite offended. If that's true, then I find that repulsive. Most people would. Now if she were from a Jewish family and went through the same background, how would that be any different?

Above all that, there's the fact that the groups in question wouldn't be any more tolerant about "one of them" joining a liberal Jewish movement, as NY Jew's posts have shown.

Bit tin-eared there, I think.

BRTD, you crack me up bro. Your Great Aunt Peggy and Uncle Bob's being peeved at the venue of a wedding is hardly comparable to the Jewish experience. And I'm also sure it pains you greatly to have to explain the proper use of the word emo, but I think you will live.

Now, you stated: "There's a huge difference between attempting to annihilate one culture and someone from that culture simply abandoning it." However, many in the Jewish community would beg to differ because they would feel that it is one and the same thing.  If enough people simply abandon their culture and religion it is functionally the same thing, just done at one's own hands.

Above is why you have the standard Jewish mother cliche of "finding a nice Jewish boy/girl to settle down with. Many view the survival of the culture, and for some religion, at stake from a demographic attack and will succeed where the Nazis failed. Whether this is right or wrong is another matter and you have clearly taken your position. However, you just seem blithely unaware as to why someone would even have this position in the first place.  The combined
experience of being under assault from centuries of violence, forced conversions and demographic crunch makes it for some a question of survival. And once again your positing your own experience here is out of balance.  Christianity in America is the default and mainstream culture and we have freedom of worship. Talking about whether someone is a Lutheran or Catholic in the context is just silly.

I suppose you just have to consider this is from the perspective of someone that everyone knows is quite drawn to counter-culture, a bit of a "religion hopper" and has always disliked any type of "tradition" in that sense, and finds few things more offensive than the idea that if your parents are something and they raise you similarly then you have to be that for the rest of your life and that's it. Looking at the vote results of those amazingly still Democratic areas in odd places has sometimes made think "It's cool they vote that way, but it's also quite awful in a way." I should probably note the last name of Aaron and Michael Weiss from mewithoutYou (my favorite Christian hardcore band of all time), you can probably figure out their background from that.

Luckily I was raised in a family that never had any strong attachments to any religion, political party, geographic location, profession, etc. and was simply encouraged to do what you want. But this also means that I have to think from the perspective of someone with a similar mindset born into not so favorable circumstances. And one has to consider to take this to its logical conclusion that to "respect" this churches would have to refuse conversions and refuse to baptize people raised in a Jewish background. That might make Martin Luther happy and be what he advocated, but I don't think that's one position of his that would be too popular today and with good reason. If Santorum instead took the opposite position and said that he believed the Vatican should ban accepting converts from Judaism there'd be as much outcry as if he proposed banning accepting blacks as members.

To call back to the other thread, things like tradition and an ethnic or religious groups history are why they vote and act the way they do.  These things don't happen in a vacuum. 

In the saving souls biz, I'd think that if you think your brand is superior then you will go around selling it. That doesn't mean that you aren't going to profoundly piss off your competitors, particularly the ones where you used price undercutting and hostile takeovers to achieve greater market share.

I'm not talking about abusive evangelism here (and I can see how J4J would be considered that), but rather the mindset that it's never OK for anyone from a Jewish background to become a Christian (or anything other than Jewish). "It's OK for you to go to that "hipster" church because you were raised Lutheran. But it's not OK for my kids who were raised Jewish."

1) It is highly ironic that many of those whom bitch and moan about the "extinction" of "Judaism" are themselves folks whom have personally abandoned Judaism for atheism. Seems there are doing their part for the extinction of the religion.

2) I thought the goal atheism included the "extinction" of Judaism. As one of the religions with a minimal number of adherents, presumably, it would be one of the first to die. Is the drive for atheism suppose to exclude Judaism?

3) Rhetoric that equates "assimiliation" with "extinction" is hyperbolic and wrong. Genetically, twenty million people 1/4 Askenazi, or 5 million pure-blood Askenazis constitute the exact same share of the gene pool.

That may very well be their personal preference, but,it simply isn't a valid moral claim on another individual in a society that supports the religious freedom of each individual. As an American I would think your attitude towards such cultural/religions abandonment should be, "While I disagree most vigorously with any individual of Askenazi descent abandoning the Jewish religion, or their Jewish cultural identity, I will defend to the death their right to do it."

Nobody says, "While I oppose treason most vigorously, I will defend to the death your right to commit treason." That is beause treason is unacceptable. Those that use rhetoric like "high treason" are implicitly denying the rights of certain individuals to embrace, change or abandon any religion they choose. That's immoral and wrong.

1. Such people are sentimental about "Jewish culture" but ignore the religious reality that underpins all "Jewish cultures".

2. Does Judaism have anything to offer the rest of humanity? It's about the most benign of current religious traditions. I suspect that the theology is simpler and thus allows more emphasis on ethics than upon divisive debates.    

3. Consider that the non-Jewish spouse in an interfaith marriage has some chance of converting to Judaism. This is especially likely if both spouses begin with favorable views of Judaism.  Judaism is not as based on ethnicity as it was when Jews were endogamous groups in ghettos and shtetls.

1) So I take it that you are an honest to goodness Jewish theist?

2) Do Christianity, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, and the other smaller religions "offer" anything to mankind? That is an interesting question. Perhaps they do. But, I have yet to meet an atheist whom thinks it important that folks other than himself practise any of these religions. Certainly, few here seem to think Rick Santorum's Catholism means he has some special wisdom to offer mankind.

Those that believe that "religion is the opiate of the masses" would, presumably, answer that Judaism is the opiate of the Jewish masses.

3) Claiming Jewishness is not tied to race is an opinion that would put you well outside the mainstream of "Jewish" thinking.

 I am not Jewish and if you read carefully I did not advocate or advance either position. However, there is a reasoning and history behind the pov as there are with various other religious and cultural groups.  Were the Cherokee that lived like the White man sell outs, who exactly is an Uncle Tom or an Oreo, who is a collaborator-  communities typically have a hard enough time sorting these things out themselves. Here each person can follow their own conscience or values- some may not like their choices.

Let me get this straight, as an American you would defend to the death the rights of persons of Askenazi descent to change religion or cultural affiliations?

Perhaps a stubbed toe or maybe a papercut if I'm feeling in a really generous mood.

Just to make something clear. I am not an American, but I would defend the right of any individual, including any Jew, to convert to or to practice any religion he or she might want to (or to no religion), the same as I would defend any of my own rights (whether I would defend anything whatsoever "to the death" is an open question: I never faced such a choice, and sincerely hope never to face it, so I wouldn't know how I'd behave - probably run for my dear life, I guess). Without this right, the religious freedom looses its meaning: and I do strongly believe in religious freedom.

These were your words in this thread:

"The "controversy" is that they have committed "high treason" and try to induce others do the same."

That is very strange rhetoric to describe behavior that you consider perfectly within ones rights.

And I stand by these words. They committed "high treason" from the standpoint of a community, to which I myself am almost equally traitorous. And, as you know, I, generally, consider "high treason" to be a rather laudalbe act :))

But in this thread we are not discussing MY reaction: I am not even a US citizen, so I am perfectly irrelevant here. We are trying to figure out how a certain voting block would behave. That voting block, most definitely, would not be as amused as I am at present :))

So, when you said, "The "controversy" is that they have committed "high treason" and try to induce others do the same," what you really meant is that didn't really commit "high treason" by your personal standard?

I can only speak for myself, but my hostility towards the "Jews" for Jesus groups is greatly exacerbated by the fact that they pretend to still be Jews and do so as a tactic to try to trick Jews into converting. I don't have any problem with Jews who decide to convert to another religion (or simply decide they want to be atheists or agnostics).  I have always hated the idea that if you are born a certain religion, than you have to be that religion.  That said, while I don't have much hostility towards Jews who convert, I do have quite a bit of hostility towards the Christian groups actively trying to convert Jews (even if they are within their rights to do so, though I doubt many of these groups would be so accepting of religious "diversity" if the group were Christians for Mohammed, but I digress).  However, there are many reasons for this (not the least of which is the history of other groups trying to wipe us out and of Christians forcibly converting Jews).  All due respect to BTRD, but having relatives who got mad b/c of the church a family member got married in really isn't even anywhere close to being comparable (I'm not trying to trivialize it, it's just that facts are facts).  However, "Jews" for Jesus are not simply Jews who converted.  They pretend to be Jews for the specific purpose of creating confusion within the Jewish community and then manipulating that confusion to try to lure in actual Jews and trick the uninformed into converting.  To argue that that is a run-of-the-mill conversion or just another type of Judaism is absurd at best and feigned ignorance at worst.  "Jews" for Jesus are up there with the Mormons who were trying to "convert" the bodies of Holocaust victims in terms of offensiveness to the Jewish community.

First of all, Messianic Judaism is in key respects both a form of Judaism and a form of Christianity. To deny that it is Judaic in key respects is theological ignorance. Like Sikhism, it is a fusion of two religions. Perhaps, it is best described as a new religion. Second, like any other religion in America, it has the right to share its faith with any other American willing to listen, including Ashenazis. It is totally inappropriate that you used the language of criminality, specifically fraud, to characterize their attempts to gain converts. Messianic Judaism is trying to gain converts by convincing persons of Askenazi descent of the correctness of their belief system, just as you see pairs of young men with white shirts, and black ties riding bicycles.

Claiming that the adherents they have gained is the result of "confusion" "trickery" or fraud is a denial position. Persons of Askenazi descent join Messianic Judaism because they became convinced of the correctness of their belief system. Such denial becomes a bit bizarre when on the walls of their temple they boldly write their belief in Yeshua, yet are accused on not being foreright. Are we now to have a religion police that telling religions that they cannot worship a man named Yeshua as "Yeshua" just because other religions use the Western variation of the name "Jesus?"

Finally, both modern Judaism, and Christianity claim to be the theological heirs of the religion of Moses. This simply isn't an area where any binding intellectual trademarks exist. Messianic Judaism makes the same claim.  Noone here has any obligation to take a position in this debate.

By my personal standard that's a non-existent crime :))

But we are not discussing myself here. We are discussing those Jews, who might potentially vote Republican. For most of them (w/ exception of some Russians) it's a huge turn-off.

Most Jews are offended when outfits using "Jew" in their name whom they consider flying under false colors using unethical tactics to try to peel off members of their tribe and dilute their religion. Others think Jews shouldn't be offended and should just get over themselves - it's all part of the marketing game in the religion business, so chill out guys. Arguing that someone shouldn't be offended when they are, is one of the most ultimate exercises in futility, and just feeds the flames of resentment actually. It would be like me saying the "Santorum wing" of the GOP should not be foisting their agenda on the GOP because much of it actually just isn't suitable to being resolved in the public square, and is wrong headed and political poison to boot, and they should just stop. Is that going to persuade anyone of anything?  No. It will just irritate folks.

It is just the way the world is - almost as immutable as the earth is round rather than flat. Ersatz Jews are going to be offending Jews for a long time to come, and they will certainly not appreciate being lectured to that they shouldn't be. That simply isn't the way to win friends and influence people.

1. I'm not Jewish. I have had some nasty encounters with bigots who thought that I was. A German-American is almost certain to experience that unless he affiliates with the most demonic cause to have ever existed. Nothing makes Judaism and Jewish cultures look better to me than does anti-Jewish bigotry. I consider Jewish influence upon American political, economic, scientific, and cultural life an enrichment.

Christianity needs Judaism to keep it alert to an ethical debate more than two millennial old worthy of participation. Without attention to the Jewish part of the Christian heritage, Christian theological debates tend to devolve to "How many angels can dance upon the head of a pin?"

But what the heck? I never could quite understand what the Holy Ghost is, anyway.  

2. See above. In view of Jewish cultural achievements and in Jewish participation in labor, feminist, and minority-rights movements (Jewish participation in the civil-rights struggle of the 1960s was out of proportion to their numbers to a greater extent than any identifiable group except for African-Americans) Judaism is a positive force for humanity.

3. Although conversion to Judaism is difficult, a convert to Judaism needs have no tie to any Jewish ethnic group before then. After conversion, Judaism without ties to a Jewish community is about as absurd as being a penguin in the middle of the Sahara.   Judaism does not proselytize; Jewish thought seems to hold that a gentile with a strong moral compass is far preferable to a flawed Jew. As I understand it the Jewish view of the Afterlife is that the moral gentile will enjoy the great bliss of a Jewish Heaven -- after a quicker, easier, and inevitable conversion to Judaism.

If there were any religion that I wish were right for the good of Humanity it would be Judaism! Imagine that a Hindu policeman is killed in the terrorist attack on Mumbai having given his life in a way that saves Christians and Muslims in the knowledge that he does so. As a non-Muslim would his heroism get him to the Muslim paradise? Not from what I understand.    The Christian paradise? That depends upon the theology of the Christian denomination. The Jewish paradise? Having been a Hindu would be no bar.  

..."Jews for Jesus" gets much criticism from Christian organizations for theological fraudulence. Most Christians who know about the group recognize the group as a sham.  

Ah, well then we agree. That was my main concern here, since I doubt the hasids being discussed here agree with us on this. I do agree Jews for Jesus shouldn't call themselves Jews, but I also think Mormons shouldn't call themselves Christians, so it's pretty obvious that I'm not going to get what I want in regards to this stuff.

BRTD, in the tribal areas of India where these missionaries try to convert everyone in their villages, it basically does lead to the annihilation of their culture. We are not talking about "mainstream" Hinduism here. We are not talking about missionaries in big cities. We are talking about tribal cultures which can sometimes be very different from what is considered now to be "Hinduism". And when violence against missionaries occurs, it's by these tribal people trying to protect their indigenous culture, not BJP foot soldiers who are more concerned about the Islamic menace. While I do not condone violence, I hope missionaries leave these people and their culture alone. And no, this has nothing to do with colonialism. Also just to be clear this is regarding the tribals in central India, not the ones in the northeast. They are different, and many have already embraced Christianity. They would be just as at home in Burma as in India. The only reason they are in India is their historical trade with the Assamese river valleys.

Anyways I don't want to take this thread in another direction. I also understand why Jews would be touchy about something like this. They don't have strength in numbers and missionaries targeting them, especially when flying false colors, can lead to the decimation of their religion within America as well.