Pro-Jesus Jews paid Rick Santorum

[ag]

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.

[ag]

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.

[ag]

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.

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.

[ag]

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.

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.

[ag]

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.

[ag]

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

[ag]

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?

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.

[ag]

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 )

[ag]

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?

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.