Pro-Jesus Jews paid Rick Santorum

[Torie]

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

[patrick1]

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, 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.

[Brittain33]

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

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...

[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.

[Torie]

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. Who knew?

[ag]

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

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.

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.)

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, 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.

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Bit tin-eared there, I think.

[patrick1]

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.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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.

[patrick1]

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.

[they don't love you like i love you]

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."

[BigSkyBob]

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, 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.

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

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.

[pbrower2a]

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, 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.

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.

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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, 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.

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 "assimilation" 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.

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.

[patrick1]

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.

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.

 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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

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 because 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.

 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?

[patrick1]

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.

[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.

[BigSkyBob]

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.

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.

[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 )

[BigSkyBob]

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?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

[BigSkyBob]

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. ... 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.