Why are most Jews Democrats?

[NY Jew]

They wouldn't necessarily, though. I don't see where a brace of Orthodox Jewish immigrants from, say, the Pinsk Marshes (where my ancestors on that side came from) a hundred years ago would be more 'conservative' on what would now or then be considered 'social issues' than most other groups in America, immigrant or otherwise, at that time.

If you look at Kinsey's report Orthodox jews were the least likley group to have homosexual relations and non Orthodox Jews (remember this was in the pre sexual revaluation days) were the least likley to have them then other non religious people.

Have you ever heard of the word "anachronism"? It's surprisingly reach in meaning. Google it.

what's your point Judaism's been an "anachronism" for the past 2,300 years?

[ag]

They wouldn't necessarily, though. I don't see where a brace of Orthodox Jewish immigrants from, say, the Pinsk Marshes (where my ancestors on that side came from) a hundred years ago would be more 'conservative' on what would now or then be considered 'social issues' than most other groups in America, immigrant or otherwise, at that time.

If you look at Kinsey's report Orthodox jews were the least likley group to have homosexual relations and non Orthodox Jews (remember this was in the pre sexual revaluation days) were the least likley to have them then other non religious people.

Have you ever heard of the word "anachronism"? It's surprisingly reach in meaning. Google it.

what's your point Judaism's been an "anachronism" for the past 2,300 years?

Judaism has varied a lot during the past 2,300 years - so, with some notable exceptions, it hasn't been that anachronistic (hey, Hasidim didn't even exist 400 years ago - it's very much an 18th century phenomenon).

My point has more to do w/ your reasoning.

[morgieb]

The true reason is that they're liberal.

[NY Jew]

They wouldn't necessarily, though. I don't see where a brace of Orthodox Jewish immigrants from, say, the Pinsk Marshes (where my ancestors on that side came from) a hundred years ago would be more 'conservative' on what would now or then be considered 'social issues' than most other groups in America, immigrant or otherwise, at that time.

If you look at Kinsey's report Orthodox jews were the least likley group to have homosexual relations and non Orthodox Jews (remember this was in the pre sexual revaluation days) were the least likley to have them then other non religious people.

Have you ever heard of the word "anachronism"? It's surprisingly reach in meaning. Google it.

what's your point Judaism's been an "anachronism" for the past 2,300 years?

Judaism has varied a lot during the past 2,300 years - so, with some notable exceptions, it hasn't been that anachronistic (hey, Hasidim didn't even exist 400 years ago - it's very much an 18th century phenomenon).

My point has more to do w/ your reasoning.

the difference between a hasidic jew and and the avg Jew in Babylonia in 300 ACE is much smaller then the difference between the avg Orthodox Jew and the avg non Orthodox Jew today.  I doubt you could even know the reasons why Hasidiem were put in cherem with out looking it up.

[ag]

They wouldn't necessarily, though. I don't see where a brace of Orthodox Jewish immigrants from, say, the Pinsk Marshes (where my ancestors on that side came from) a hundred years ago would be more 'conservative' on what would now or then be considered 'social issues' than most other groups in America, immigrant or otherwise, at that time.

If you look at Kinsey's report Orthodox jews were the least likley group to have homosexual relations and non Orthodox Jews (remember this was in the pre sexual revaluation days) were the least likley to have them then other non religious people.

Have you ever heard of the word "anachronism"? It's surprisingly reach in meaning. Google it.

what's your point Judaism's been an "anachronism" for the past 2,300 years?

Judaism has varied a lot during the past 2,300 years - so, with some notable exceptions, it hasn't been that anachronistic (hey, Hasidim didn't even exist 400 years ago - it's very much an 18th century phenomenon).

My point has more to do w/ your reasoning.

the difference between a hasidic jew and and the avg Jew in Babylonia in 300 ACE is much smaller then the difference between the avg Orthodox Jew and the avg non Orthodox Jew today.  I doubt you could even know the reasons why Hasidiem were put in cherem with out looking it up.

Well, given how little we really know about life in Babylonia this is a very brave statement, based, primarily, on reconstruction of life in Babylonia from the present-day models )) Which brings me back to the idea of anachronism )

BTW, if you insist on using anachronistic arguments, you should recall that "traditional Jewish orthodox values" (circa 1800) involve what, according to the modern secular law, is pedophilia, child abuse and statutory rape. You are still arguing, these haven't changed? ))

[Gustaf]

In Sweden I'd say Jews are generally on the political right, regardless of whether they're secular or not. Then again, the party they typically have been identified with (the People's Party) is a type  of party who's voters would be on the left in many other settings.

There has been a fair share of Social Democrat Jews in Sweden as well, of course.

[dead0man]

Wouldn't most Jews today have significant Khazar ancestry? Then again I'd suppose they were basically absorbed into "the Orthodox" before 400 years ago.

That's something racist buy into that has been disproven with DNA testing.  I'm not suggesting you are a racist, just that you may be buying into racist propoganda.  cite

You must be logged in to read this quote.