"Conservatives need to be careful to avoid framing these issues as religious issues, and to counter the attempts of their opponents to impose such a framing."
It is not Republicans/conservatives who frame it that way - it's Democrats and the media. They seek to discredit opposing voices by claiming those voices are only speaking for their religious confreres.
I am a devout conservative Christian. My reasons for opposing abortion are based in science. From the moment of conception an unborn baby is a unique individual (unique DNA), living (cells are dividing, multiplying), and human. It is wrong in law to kill an innocent human after they are born, it should also be so before they are born.
My reasons for opposing men who identify as women in women's spaces are also based on science. No matter how you feel, no matter what cosmetic surgery you have, and no matter how many hormones you take if you are a man every single cell in your body testifies to it in your DNA. And men are genetically bigger, stronger, faster and more aggressive (both physically and sexually) than women. Compassion for the mentally ill should not be an excuse to put women at risk or strip their accomplishments.
My reasons for opposing sexually explicit books in schools and inappropriate sex education is that it is bad for children. I also add a "natural rights" view on this in that parents should be able to choose how their children are educated - not the state. This is the same reason I support robust school choice.
These are common arguments for conservatives, especially the last. If you believe otherwise then you are not listening to conservatives, you are listening to what other people say about them.
Also, my support for Israel is that it is a democratic, free nation in an area where those are in short supply. My support for the Jewish people overall is because, as a devoutly religious person myself, no one should be persecuted for their religion or their ethnicity. And as a Christian, I believe it is our religious and moral duty to stand up for people who are, whether their religion is the same as ours or not. I take the same stand regarding countries like France that try to ban veiling for Muslim women. I agree with the wording of the Religion Freedom Restoration Act - any restriction on the exercise of religion should have to overcome the strictest legal test that it is 1) a "compelling interest" for the government and 2) has the least impact possible to achieve the essential government aim. For instance, it makes sense to require a hijab be removed for a passport or driver's license photo because there is a "compelling government interest" in being able to identify someone with that ID. To fulfill the "least impact" portion it would be reasonable to provide a curtain for privacy and make sure a female employee is available to take the photo. There would not be a "compelling government interest", however, in banning the hijab in, say, government buildings. It's important to respect religious expression of all religions. By speaking up for the religious freedom of others, I help secure my own.
I have always spoken out against antisemitism and have been particularly vocal since October 7 as antisemitic protests and vandalism have multiplied. Not because of any "end days" prophecy (anyone who claims to know exactly what Revelation means is lying or deluded) but because it is wrong. Duh!
The retort that is made, and I'm playing Devil's advocate here, is " It is wrong in law to kill an innocent human" is a Christian value. Humanism, Socialism, Utilitarianism, Progressivism, Atheism, Agnosticism, etc make no such grand moral claim. All shall be sacrificed to narcissism because the now is all any individual has and as I'm more equal than you, you, not me, shall be the sacrificed.
Very true. True secularism is amoral. Those who espouse it choose to forget that most of what they consider "moral" is founded in the Jewish and Christian worldview. Richard Dawkins, I think, has come to that realization with his recent argument for "cultural Christianity". The ability to promote a secular society without a degradation of societal morals was a privilege allowed by the stability of a mostly Christian culture (in the mid-20th century). But like the dog who cought the car, the increasingly secular culture they promoted became unstable when that support was removed. Dawkins thinks he can square that circle by bringing back Christian values without Christian religion. For a good view of where post-christian society is headed, I recommend "Pagan America" by John Daniel Davidson.
- That morality requires religion - especially in what people would perceive as its "classic" sense - is this unprovable thing that religious people keep stating over and over again with, imo, very weak evidentiary and epistemological standards. The causes of our current rot can be mapped in many ways, and are probably manifold, and human nature and psychology and sociology and history and so forth is incredibly complicated. But conflict of interest would predict that the the religious will be drawn to making the arguments they do.
- maybe the evidence does necessarily lend to what they say significantly more than any other possible theory, but (I certainly don't see it and moreover) I don't think the argument has been anywhere near sufficiently made for that.
Keith is a very fair person, don't get me wrong, but you will note that even though his conclusions are very in line with natural law theory (at the least) his source for them is "God says so." My words, not his. That's fine, we get to the same place, but it is worth noting that God might say something different at some point, or at the very least it seems like different groups disagree on what God is saying now and again.
I would posit that Keith is a very fine example of a person, as well as an example of a Conservative that frames things as a religious issue. There are many others who do so who are not very fine examples of a person, alas. For quite a few Christians (and other religious folks, including lefties) things are right or wrong because their religion says so, not because there are fundamental principles that people of all creeds can accept; if other creeds don't accept them it is because they are unGodly, not because there is reasonable disagreement to be had, or better arguments required. The search for universal moral principles is an Enlightenment project (Scottish Enlightenment, at least) and many of the louder Christian commentators are skeptical at best about the Enlightenment. (Although usually they are thinking of the French Enlightenment, not the Scottish or American versions.)
A salute to Katrina for a clear and thoughtful presentation in her posts. I would emphasize, however, that <i>prescriptive</i> beliefs can never be determined by science alone. Every <i>fact</i> about the DNA, etc. of an unborn human can be stipulated by a pro-abortion-rights partisan without contradiction. Ditto the trans-rights person and so on. I agree with Katrina's policy prescriptions, but emphasize that ultimately they arise from moral or philosophical positions that are informed by facts but not decided by them.
The irony is that Christians use Jewish scripture to support their anti-abortion position. It would be interesting to understand why Jews interpret this passage differently.
Though hardly surprising since Christians consider Jewish scripture to be the Old Testament, part of their Bible, full of prefigurings and prophesies of Jesus.
What may be more surprising is why most Jewish people find the passage irrelevant to the question of abortion.
The mainstream Democratic Party is overwhelmingly pro-Israel. Biden has the leverage to put a lot more pressure on what is a very right wing Israeli government and for the most part he has let them do what they want. Zionist Jews on the right can basically get what they want from the Democrats in terms of foreign policy while left wing Jews can lobby for the domestic agenda they want. Yes, I am aware of a what a few Democrats in Congress have SAID, but look at how they and our government votes. A few thousand young people protesting on some Ivy League campuses and a few politicians talking about Israeli "colonialism" is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
As someone from a Christian background I do want to point out that outside of the large and vocal Evangelical movement Christian Zionism isn't a thing. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Mainline Protestant (progressive and traditional) churches don't have any theological stake in this fight because none of them teach that the existence of Israel is necessary for any prophecies to come true or for anyone's salvation. Non-Evangelicals also don't buy into this notion that the old covenant is still in effect and Jews can be saved without Jesus unless they are ultra progressive universalists.
All of this is true. Israel itself isn't at any kind of risk.
However, I have a very good Jewish friend that is in the same situation a lot of Jews are. He is a professional living and working in areas that are pretty far to the left. He feels a great deal of hostility in his life over the issue. Everyone will inevitably move onto the next Current Thing, but it's hot a happy time for him. He doesn't care about what bills congress is passing so much as what his day to day social interactions are like.
I am Jewish and was most recently a member of a Conservative Congregation. I was General Counsel for the Christian Coalition of American for the period 2000 to 2003. I used to quip that I was "the Jewish Lawyer at the Christian Coalition." I saw first hand that Evangelical Christians would be the best friends American Jews could ever have. Yes, sometimes a few of them would ask me to convert, but they respected my choice not to.
In an interview with David Samuels, the late Angelo Codevilla talked about this issue.
"People believe mistakenly that Jews are especially smart. American Jews have proven to be dumb, politically. What is political stupidity? Political stupidity means not knowing which side your bread is buttered on. Jews have taken to believing the leftist propaganda that the Christians are somehow their enemies. Where in fact, there is no group that is friendlier to Jews in America. The more Christian you are, the more let us say pro-Jewish we tend to be. And why? Well for this very simple reason. That if you read the Bible, you don’t grow up rooting for the Philistines.
* * * *
Working on the Hill, I would see these Jewish lobbyists breaking their heads against the left. Whereas if they’d gone to conservatives, they would have been greeted with open arms and gotten exactly what they wanted."
Instead of laying all the blame and obligations at the feet of Christians, maybe the Jews could confront their own bigotry and stereotyping of evangelicals?
You’re absolutely correct. But, I never attributed that sentiment to Kling.
My point is that negative stereotypes of Christians appear to be somewhat common among Judaism generally and that such bigotry would be deemed socially unacceptable and antisemitic if the roles were reversed. See the lack of parity? Maybe they need some unconscious bias refresher training?
Isn’t that what Kling was more or less saying, that Jews need to examine and get over their irrational fears? Your comment seems to be suggesting the opposite, that Kling was laying blame on Christians.
Many do. The article, while identifying something very real, is somewhat overstated. Historically, sure - a combination of the GOP being effectively the WASP party and the Dems being the party for everyone else held a lot of sway. When the GOP turned more broadly Christian in the late 90s, with a large portion of evangelicals, maybe some ingrained suspicion of Christians helped maintain old habits. But just as likely that reason, if/when cited, was simply a rationalization for not changing from the ingrained “team.”
In the past 10 years, or so things have been changing - even among Reform and. Conservative Jews. More the latter than the former, but that is moreso due to the fact that Reform Jews are the most secular in nature, where (often fairly shallow and simplistic) liberal ideology takes the place of the more complex, critical and demanding of humans theology.
Anyway, the suspicion of Christians and sensitivity towards those who more aggressively proselytize has notably decreased - particularly among the more religious. If one is confident in one’s own religion, it isn’t all that bothersome that someone else thinks that one should convert out. You bless them for their often well meaning intentions.
I have always hesitated to witness to devout people of other religions because I know that someone trying to convert me away from Christianity would not find much success. I have always thought that proselytizing is best reserved for those with no religion.
As regards people of other religions, I feel the best thing I can do is to be be best Christian I can be, to follow Christ's example in all things, to be open about what I believe, and to joyfully explain what I believe and why I believe it to anyone who asks. That way, if someone is open to the idea of converting, they feel they can come to you with questions but people who are not don't feel pressured.
That's a tricky one though I myself don't evangelize so pot kettle black but I do have great respect for those that do even if I have an intellectual distaste for them.
If Paul felt that way for example Christianity would have been consigned to the dustbin of history (let's just for this discussion assume no supernaturalism) as any idea needs it's evangelicals to proselytize and like it or not, no truth is self evident in a vacuum. The fact is the correct answer simply doesn't always win in the marketplace of ideas, marketing often trumps it.
Religiously, at least in Christianity , maybe Islam too, though if one genuinely believes and cares about their fellow man, one should be out spreading the Good Word (tm). I acknowledge my own willful failing in that but I don't try and lipstick that pig. Even in your own case, if nobody knows you're a Christian, how would they know to ask you about your beliefs. If I believe my neighbor to be a good outstanding atheist communist party member, how would I know the good part of that is because he's a crypto-christian, maybe I would associate it with that's how a good atheist is.
PS: It's a gripe I have with my own Church, ROCOR for example though also modern Orthodoxy in general. Their utter refusal to advertise along the lines, and the clergy will openly admit it, the same as you. "God is a big tent, we can evangelize best by simply being the best Christian possible and welcoming to those that value that". There is some truth in that, different strategies work on different people individually but in the aggregate I feel an aggressive approach works better historically for any idea.
Have a heart for those of us who don't know that ROCOR is the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. If most readers won't know what an acronym stands for, please spell it out.
It's broader than that. Many many educated/urban/upper-middle-class people--not only Jews--feel contempt and fear toward those who are rural, southern, noncollege, and/or Christian. I explored the reasons in my post The Phobia(s) That May Destroy America:
Yeah. But in politics, it is some times a good idea to try to present things to potential allies in a way to get them and keep them. The danger, of course, is that you can become inauthentic.
I think that the danger you cite disappears if there is no contradiction between your reason and your religion. For example, my religious beliefs may lead me to oppose abortion, but I might also oppose abortion on the prudential grounds that I don't want to give anyone the power to decide which human beings aren't "people" and therefore not worthy of basic human rights.
What if you are one of the weird Christians who think that if you personally practiced abortion, it would be wrong, but wrestles with how to handle it as a political issue? The Bible doesn't instruct us how to vote as far as I can tell; nor does it ask us to try to force non-Christians to act like Christians. Of course, I could be wrong!
The Bible says that it’s wrong to murder. Should a Jew or Christian therefore decide that they shouldn’t support laws against murder because doing so would be forcing their religious beliefs on others?
But I rarely see Jews or Christians voting to outlaw adultery or greed, or many of a number of other things the Bible says are wrong. So "the Bible says it is wrong" is not even a heuristic most Jews and Christians use when voting--so why hold me to it. In any event, I see a difference between things the Bible says are wrong and things that should be legislated in order to make a better society, so I don't vote on that basis even if others do. I'm not saying I'm against anti-abortion laws--I just don't think that the Bible mandates voting for them. I hope that makes sense.
Basing arguments on moral issues on the Bible will not win over anyone but practicing Christians who are likely already in the choir. If we want to convince others, we need to speak their language.
So I think the issue is less "win over" then "give people the motivation to stay true."
The issue I see with a lot of secular right people is that they worship self advancement above all, and so the truth simply becomes "what helps me gain self advancement." Hence the track record of just going along with the "elite human capital" perspective in the long run.
It takes guts to say abortion is wrong when it polls bad and when it makes you unpopular in your social circle. The natural human inclination in the absence of some greater reason is to just rationalize conforming to the path of least resistance.
Jewish Christophobia (and Leftism) have much deeper roots than just a current 'false consciousness' re
'who their real friends are now.' It is no accident that it is the dominant sentiment in a population 90+% of whose ancestors fled to the US from Czarist Russia (which included most of Poland and Ukraine). As Andrea Widburg pointed out over at American Thinker, the opposite of Czarist Christian Orthodoxy (no separation of church and state back there), was (revolutionary) Marxism. Not much appreciation in that population of the finer points of republican democracy...or of cross-tribal tolerance, and they educated their children and grandchildren in Chrstophobia. (I grew up as a young musician in a Detroit then heavily culturally dominated by such immigrants and their children. I could play in their Jewish Center Orchestra, but was not allowed to date their daughters. A non-trivial number were real communists.). It is also no accident that so many (secular) Jews have been leaders of the Old Left (CPUSA), New Left (SDS was predominantly ethnic Jewish...I knew several of them), and today's Leftover Left (Axelrod, Klain, Mayorkas, Garland, RBG, Schumer, Schiff, etc. etc. etc.) Many were also at the forefront of the move to de-Christianze (and de-white) America, on the theory that 'diversity' would make America safer for them (see role of Celler, Javits, et. al. in the 1965 immigration 'reform' law). Unfortunately for Jews, and those of us well disposed to them (I had many wonderful teachers, professors and mentors who were Jewish), the consequence of viewing American Christians as re-incarnations of Czarist agents led to the importation of a much more dangerous population, and to Dearborn, Mogadishu-On-The-Mississippi, and all those Columbia and Harvard students chanting 'Death to Israel' (and the Jews). Most Christians stopped being anti-Jewish 60 or 70 years ago. Perhaps more Jews could now do some introspection on how we got to this point. (Note to "Guest User," I am not sure the word 'bigotry' covers the issue, and I am sure it won't encourage reflection and change. There is a long history behind that 'bigotry,' and it needs to be honestly talked about if it is to be overcome.
Jewish alienation is part of Jewish culture, and it's alienation to prevent assimilating, lest Jewishness disappear. Tied more closely to prophets than (early Greek) philosophers, what Hegel called unhappy consciousness.
But Jews, everywhere the minority (save Israel), are the most adept and inclined to assimilation in my view — limited assimilation in which they blend in and belong while still retaining their Jewish heritage and culture. I find it endearing, as compared to other demographics that reject their newfound homelands, wholesale, and instead prefer to exist in a microcosm of their native lands.
Jewish alienation seems a recipe for tribal ugliness that rarely finds them outnumbering the “tribe” they seek to alienate. Alternately, they often seem to alienate those friendly to them while embracing a future enemy, in hopes that the enemy will consider them part of their tribe or being entirely dishonest with themselves, failing to see that their new bedfellows are just itching for a reason to dehumanize them. Jews have true friends in this country — a quick glance at the *entirety* of the globe shows the US to be unique in that regard. In such a case, is alienation still wise? If not American Christians, who else would be a worthy ally?
Seems to me that the only two safe havens on the planet are the US and Israel. A lot of Christians have died, and are willing to die, in order to keep it that way.
What I don't get is how "Many Jews fear that Christians are either out to convert Jews or otherwise make American Jews feel uncomfortable and unwelcome." or "the only reason Evangelicals support Israel is because they believe in a prophecy that when all the Jews move to Israel they will be converted to Christianity" is in opposition to "we both practically have the same temporal goals". I.e. enemy of my enemy, bootleggers and baptist. I mean sure Christians are out to evangelize but so what practically speaking, you are a big boy, just don't convert.
If I'm a Jew why do I care about my allies ulterior, or even overt, motives if we genuinely share the same goal of a strong independent Jew ethno-state in Israel. That is what I've never understand even when I've had that exact conversation with my Jew, albeit they were all Reformed or agnostic, friends. I.e. "We all have the same practical goal here, why are you shooting yourself in the foot".
The other thing I've never gotten is, at least in the US, the apparent rampant and fervent support of abortion and homosexuality by Jews. I honestly can't say I know much of Judaism in practice at the theological level but I just not seeing casually where the Torah doctrinally supports either, at best you can claim a lack of prohibition but American Jews seem to take them as the 11th and 12th commandments "thou shall abort non-homosexual children and raise the remainder as transgendered" since the 1920's at least.
PS: On the Christianphobia thing, that plagues male homosexuals as well whom deep down intellectually understand the GLBT movement has left them behind and is now actively working against their interests but they just can't get past their Christianphobia to realize in many cases Christians are practically their allies, liberal or conservative.
The Torah/Theology does not. Abortion is a sticky question because of the theological issue related to the status of the fetus prior to birth - which is different than Catholic and common Christian belief. But there is some “sympathy for a different ‘other’ / minority group” that plays in, too.
I’m not Jewish, but I think I may fall into the “Christophobia” camp. I don’t actually believe that the American right is trying to impose a Christian theocracy. But I would be more receptive to some of their positions if they based them on more universal moral principles than merely espousing Christian beliefs (or claiming to be espousing them).
As a NYS Escapee from Freeport NY, politically conservative (PC), conservative Jew (CJ), living in the deep Bible Belt of rural SC, I find 'Christophobia' to be BS. I grew up with many CJ kids and we all had many Christian friends and we were never the focal point of a conversion. Here in rural northern Greer SC, not one Southern Baptist has tried to convert me. I have even been a speaker for them during Easter to talk about Passover. Am I somehow unique? I doubt it. Jews of the 1940s & 1950s maybe felt a fear of Christians. But by the 1970s and beyond, no way.
Now the Reformed Ashkenazi Jews, they have the same mindset as the Weimar Republic Jews. Many good intentions they created, that eventually ate them up later.
Although I support Israel, not based on my Christian beliefs, but as a whole hearted acceptance of Never Again, and my anti-abortion beliefs are based on the idea that there is new human life at conception, I nonetheless resist the notion that I should not base any moral or social question on my religious faith.
If my religious faith scares some Jews that much, perhaps that more a matter of their anti-Christisn bigotry and then anything else. There are plenty of Jews, who are either smart enough, or well informed enough, to not have such fears.
Although I support Israel, not based on my Christian beliefs, but as a whole hearted acceptance of Never Again, and my anti-abortion beliefs are based on the idea that there is new human life at conception, I nonetheless resist the notion that I should not base any moral or social question on my religious faith.
If my religious faith scares some Jews that much, perhaps that more a matter of their anti-Christisn bigotry and then anything else. There are plenty of Jews, who are either smart enough, or well informed enough, to not have such fears.
I would take a look at the history of the secular right to see that non-Christian objection to progressivism just fails. Look at the arc of a Richard Hanania (who went from being squeamish about abortion to calling it a great moral good, and from against LBGTQ to being friendly to trans). Now you've got Hanania clones like Walt Bismarck publishing things like "you know we should all bang slutty women with mental disorders."
I may have my issues with some of the tenets of the christian faith, but it's pretty clear to me that the secular case for these things is on some pretty thin ground. Its advocates abandon their positions within a few years of whenever progressives bring it to the for.
People are, well ..., human. Rejecting a worldview simply because another (flawed) human being rejected it seems to me to be pretty thin grounds. If that is your basis for belief, then there is no set of beliefs - including Christianity - that you could accept.
Do you not consider (small l) libertarians to be on the right? Or the dozens of right wing commentators who don’t say “because God says so” is the reason for opposing progressives?
Libertarians tend to be right on economics, left on culture. They usually think there is nothing wrong with drugs, trans/gay stuff and other weird sex stuff, etc. This IME is the biggest area of disagreement between Christian conservatives and libertarians.
I think you will find that libertarians do not think that "there is nothing wrong" with drugs etc., but rather that they think people get to make decisions for themselves. There will be some disagreement if the demand is to make people stop making decisions for themselves that you wouldn't make.
What do you think of the term “Judeo-Christian”? Some Christians use this term to create the idea of a common moral worldview that unites Jews and Christians. Is this a fiction? Does it annoy Jews? Would the Orthodox accept this? I’m curious.
I don't know about Jews in general, but it tends to annoy me. It sounds condescending. Like the person is saying "Christianity is the best, but you Jews are ok, too." I prefer "western values."
Judeo-Christian is a way for Christians to incorporate, as they see it, the professed values of the Bible - the Old and the New testaments.
I don't like "western values" because the West is also the birthplace of all the pathological "isms" from Marx, communism, identify politics - all of which stem from European intellectuals and their descendants. Worse they were exported to the East to grievous effect as the 20th century demonstrated. That's not to condone the West but the term just doesn't work as a descriptor.
This isn't a false perception, unfortunately. I think there is a segment of Christians who feel like Jews should "graduate" to Christianity. Though positive attitudes generally prevail among American Christians towards Jews, there remains a sizable subset, especially within evangelical camp, that prioritizes conversion efforts. This is regrettable, IMO, as we should adhere to Cohen's "we need each other" position.
"Christianity is the best, but you Jews are ok, too."
Isn’t this kind of objectively true though? Both religions are false in my view, but isn’t one Amazon and the other Barnes & Noble in terms of influence, breadth and future longevity?
The reason for the term Judeo-Christian is that Christian morality is based on Jewish law. Except for certain parts that were deemed "fulfilled" (specifically the need for sacrifices to cover sin and dietary laws) most Jewish law was reaffirmed in the New Testament.
Jesus is recorded as saying in the Gospel of Matthew: "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Look at how frequently he says, "It is written" - those are all references to Jewish law or history.
And most Western morality and law is based in Judeo-Christian law. A good example is the Ten Commandments and how prevalent they were in American courthouses before aggressive secularists sued to have them removed.
While Islam is an Abrahamic religion, its laws are not as closely related to Judaism as the tenets of Christianity are.
I personally consider Judaism and Christianity different enough religions I don't use the term. I prefer "Biblical values" over "Judeo-Christian" values.
Right but when talking about the history, not the practices, we say "Abrahamic religions ", not "Judeo-Christian", and they aren't euphemism because the latter excludes those whom don't hold compatible political values such as Islam and Mormonism. Even "Western values" is a euphemism for Latin values.
"Conservatives need to be careful to avoid framing these issues as religious issues, and to counter the attempts of their opponents to impose such a framing."
It is not Republicans/conservatives who frame it that way - it's Democrats and the media. They seek to discredit opposing voices by claiming those voices are only speaking for their religious confreres.
I am a devout conservative Christian. My reasons for opposing abortion are based in science. From the moment of conception an unborn baby is a unique individual (unique DNA), living (cells are dividing, multiplying), and human. It is wrong in law to kill an innocent human after they are born, it should also be so before they are born.
My reasons for opposing men who identify as women in women's spaces are also based on science. No matter how you feel, no matter what cosmetic surgery you have, and no matter how many hormones you take if you are a man every single cell in your body testifies to it in your DNA. And men are genetically bigger, stronger, faster and more aggressive (both physically and sexually) than women. Compassion for the mentally ill should not be an excuse to put women at risk or strip their accomplishments.
My reasons for opposing sexually explicit books in schools and inappropriate sex education is that it is bad for children. I also add a "natural rights" view on this in that parents should be able to choose how their children are educated - not the state. This is the same reason I support robust school choice.
These are common arguments for conservatives, especially the last. If you believe otherwise then you are not listening to conservatives, you are listening to what other people say about them.
Also, my support for Israel is that it is a democratic, free nation in an area where those are in short supply. My support for the Jewish people overall is because, as a devoutly religious person myself, no one should be persecuted for their religion or their ethnicity. And as a Christian, I believe it is our religious and moral duty to stand up for people who are, whether their religion is the same as ours or not. I take the same stand regarding countries like France that try to ban veiling for Muslim women. I agree with the wording of the Religion Freedom Restoration Act - any restriction on the exercise of religion should have to overcome the strictest legal test that it is 1) a "compelling interest" for the government and 2) has the least impact possible to achieve the essential government aim. For instance, it makes sense to require a hijab be removed for a passport or driver's license photo because there is a "compelling government interest" in being able to identify someone with that ID. To fulfill the "least impact" portion it would be reasonable to provide a curtain for privacy and make sure a female employee is available to take the photo. There would not be a "compelling government interest", however, in banning the hijab in, say, government buildings. It's important to respect religious expression of all religions. By speaking up for the religious freedom of others, I help secure my own.
I have always spoken out against antisemitism and have been particularly vocal since October 7 as antisemitic protests and vandalism have multiplied. Not because of any "end days" prophecy (anyone who claims to know exactly what Revelation means is lying or deluded) but because it is wrong. Duh!
The retort that is made, and I'm playing Devil's advocate here, is " It is wrong in law to kill an innocent human" is a Christian value. Humanism, Socialism, Utilitarianism, Progressivism, Atheism, Agnosticism, etc make no such grand moral claim. All shall be sacrificed to narcissism because the now is all any individual has and as I'm more equal than you, you, not me, shall be the sacrificed.
Very true. True secularism is amoral. Those who espouse it choose to forget that most of what they consider "moral" is founded in the Jewish and Christian worldview. Richard Dawkins, I think, has come to that realization with his recent argument for "cultural Christianity". The ability to promote a secular society without a degradation of societal morals was a privilege allowed by the stability of a mostly Christian culture (in the mid-20th century). But like the dog who cought the car, the increasingly secular culture they promoted became unstable when that support was removed. Dawkins thinks he can square that circle by bringing back Christian values without Christian religion. For a good view of where post-christian society is headed, I recommend "Pagan America" by John Daniel Davidson.
My four cents:
- Dawkins has gone soft.
- That morality requires religion - especially in what people would perceive as its "classic" sense - is this unprovable thing that religious people keep stating over and over again with, imo, very weak evidentiary and epistemological standards. The causes of our current rot can be mapped in many ways, and are probably manifold, and human nature and psychology and sociology and history and so forth is incredibly complicated. But conflict of interest would predict that the the religious will be drawn to making the arguments they do.
- maybe the evidence does necessarily lend to what they say significantly more than any other possible theory, but (I certainly don't see it and moreover) I don't think the argument has been anywhere near sufficiently made for that.
Religion gives a first-mover starting point from which to establish that right and wrong exist as objective concepts. Atheism does not.
This isn't a silicon valley competitive environment for moral memeplexes.
You said something false. I corrected you. Not sure what your point is in this response.
Or all shall be sacrificed to The Party. See Gary Saul Moreson's recent terrific article/ review: "The Gulag Archipelago at Fifty."
This is a well stated and coherent set of points. However, in disagreement with your claim that Christians on the right do not frame these arguments as religious questions, I will point you towards e.g. this conversation I had with Keith Lowry recently (started with the comment here https://open.substack.com/pub/keithlowery/p/the-myth-of-secular-neutrality?r=ftu8p&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=56228800 )
Keith is a very fair person, don't get me wrong, but you will note that even though his conclusions are very in line with natural law theory (at the least) his source for them is "God says so." My words, not his. That's fine, we get to the same place, but it is worth noting that God might say something different at some point, or at the very least it seems like different groups disagree on what God is saying now and again.
I would posit that Keith is a very fine example of a person, as well as an example of a Conservative that frames things as a religious issue. There are many others who do so who are not very fine examples of a person, alas. For quite a few Christians (and other religious folks, including lefties) things are right or wrong because their religion says so, not because there are fundamental principles that people of all creeds can accept; if other creeds don't accept them it is because they are unGodly, not because there is reasonable disagreement to be had, or better arguments required. The search for universal moral principles is an Enlightenment project (Scottish Enlightenment, at least) and many of the louder Christian commentators are skeptical at best about the Enlightenment. (Although usually they are thinking of the French Enlightenment, not the Scottish or American versions.)
A salute to Katrina for a clear and thoughtful presentation in her posts. I would emphasize, however, that <i>prescriptive</i> beliefs can never be determined by science alone. Every <i>fact</i> about the DNA, etc. of an unborn human can be stipulated by a pro-abortion-rights partisan without contradiction. Ditto the trans-rights person and so on. I agree with Katrina's policy prescriptions, but emphasize that ultimately they arise from moral or philosophical positions that are informed by facts but not decided by them.
Ken
The irony to me is that Pslam 139:13 is usually cited by Christians as the basis for their beliefs in life before conception
"13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."
Where is the irony?
The irony is that Christians use Jewish scripture to support their anti-abortion position. It would be interesting to understand why Jews interpret this passage differently.
Though hardly surprising since Christians consider Jewish scripture to be the Old Testament, part of their Bible, full of prefigurings and prophesies of Jesus.
What may be more surprising is why most Jewish people find the passage irrelevant to the question of abortion.
The mainstream Democratic Party is overwhelmingly pro-Israel. Biden has the leverage to put a lot more pressure on what is a very right wing Israeli government and for the most part he has let them do what they want. Zionist Jews on the right can basically get what they want from the Democrats in terms of foreign policy while left wing Jews can lobby for the domestic agenda they want. Yes, I am aware of a what a few Democrats in Congress have SAID, but look at how they and our government votes. A few thousand young people protesting on some Ivy League campuses and a few politicians talking about Israeli "colonialism" is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
As someone from a Christian background I do want to point out that outside of the large and vocal Evangelical movement Christian Zionism isn't a thing. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Mainline Protestant (progressive and traditional) churches don't have any theological stake in this fight because none of them teach that the existence of Israel is necessary for any prophecies to come true or for anyone's salvation. Non-Evangelicals also don't buy into this notion that the old covenant is still in effect and Jews can be saved without Jesus unless they are ultra progressive universalists.
All of this is true. Israel itself isn't at any kind of risk.
However, I have a very good Jewish friend that is in the same situation a lot of Jews are. He is a professional living and working in areas that are pretty far to the left. He feels a great deal of hostility in his life over the issue. Everyone will inevitably move onto the next Current Thing, but it's hot a happy time for him. He doesn't care about what bills congress is passing so much as what his day to day social interactions are like.
I am Jewish and was most recently a member of a Conservative Congregation. I was General Counsel for the Christian Coalition of American for the period 2000 to 2003. I used to quip that I was "the Jewish Lawyer at the Christian Coalition." I saw first hand that Evangelical Christians would be the best friends American Jews could ever have. Yes, sometimes a few of them would ask me to convert, but they respected my choice not to.
In an interview with David Samuels, the late Angelo Codevilla talked about this issue.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/angelo-codevilla
"People believe mistakenly that Jews are especially smart. American Jews have proven to be dumb, politically. What is political stupidity? Political stupidity means not knowing which side your bread is buttered on. Jews have taken to believing the leftist propaganda that the Christians are somehow their enemies. Where in fact, there is no group that is friendlier to Jews in America. The more Christian you are, the more let us say pro-Jewish we tend to be. And why? Well for this very simple reason. That if you read the Bible, you don’t grow up rooting for the Philistines.
* * * *
Working on the Hill, I would see these Jewish lobbyists breaking their heads against the left. Whereas if they’d gone to conservatives, they would have been greeted with open arms and gotten exactly what they wanted."
Instead of laying all the blame and obligations at the feet of Christians, maybe the Jews could confront their own bigotry and stereotyping of evangelicals?
Or their own bigotry and stereotyping of orthodox Jews?
How are you getting Kling “laying all the blame and obligations at the feet of Christians” out of this essay?
You’re absolutely correct. But, I never attributed that sentiment to Kling.
My point is that negative stereotypes of Christians appear to be somewhat common among Judaism generally and that such bigotry would be deemed socially unacceptable and antisemitic if the roles were reversed. See the lack of parity? Maybe they need some unconscious bias refresher training?
Isn’t that what Kling was more or less saying, that Jews need to examine and get over their irrational fears? Your comment seems to be suggesting the opposite, that Kling was laying blame on Christians.
Many do. The article, while identifying something very real, is somewhat overstated. Historically, sure - a combination of the GOP being effectively the WASP party and the Dems being the party for everyone else held a lot of sway. When the GOP turned more broadly Christian in the late 90s, with a large portion of evangelicals, maybe some ingrained suspicion of Christians helped maintain old habits. But just as likely that reason, if/when cited, was simply a rationalization for not changing from the ingrained “team.”
In the past 10 years, or so things have been changing - even among Reform and. Conservative Jews. More the latter than the former, but that is moreso due to the fact that Reform Jews are the most secular in nature, where (often fairly shallow and simplistic) liberal ideology takes the place of the more complex, critical and demanding of humans theology.
Anyway, the suspicion of Christians and sensitivity towards those who more aggressively proselytize has notably decreased - particularly among the more religious. If one is confident in one’s own religion, it isn’t all that bothersome that someone else thinks that one should convert out. You bless them for their often well meaning intentions.
I have always hesitated to witness to devout people of other religions because I know that someone trying to convert me away from Christianity would not find much success. I have always thought that proselytizing is best reserved for those with no religion.
As regards people of other religions, I feel the best thing I can do is to be be best Christian I can be, to follow Christ's example in all things, to be open about what I believe, and to joyfully explain what I believe and why I believe it to anyone who asks. That way, if someone is open to the idea of converting, they feel they can come to you with questions but people who are not don't feel pressured.
That's a tricky one though I myself don't evangelize so pot kettle black but I do have great respect for those that do even if I have an intellectual distaste for them.
If Paul felt that way for example Christianity would have been consigned to the dustbin of history (let's just for this discussion assume no supernaturalism) as any idea needs it's evangelicals to proselytize and like it or not, no truth is self evident in a vacuum. The fact is the correct answer simply doesn't always win in the marketplace of ideas, marketing often trumps it.
Religiously, at least in Christianity , maybe Islam too, though if one genuinely believes and cares about their fellow man, one should be out spreading the Good Word (tm). I acknowledge my own willful failing in that but I don't try and lipstick that pig. Even in your own case, if nobody knows you're a Christian, how would they know to ask you about your beliefs. If I believe my neighbor to be a good outstanding atheist communist party member, how would I know the good part of that is because he's a crypto-christian, maybe I would associate it with that's how a good atheist is.
PS: It's a gripe I have with my own Church, ROCOR for example though also modern Orthodoxy in general. Their utter refusal to advertise along the lines, and the clergy will openly admit it, the same as you. "God is a big tent, we can evangelize best by simply being the best Christian possible and welcoming to those that value that". There is some truth in that, different strategies work on different people individually but in the aggregate I feel an aggressive approach works better historically for any idea.
Have a heart for those of us who don't know that ROCOR is the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. If most readers won't know what an acronym stands for, please spell it out.
It's broader than that. Many many educated/urban/upper-middle-class people--not only Jews--feel contempt and fear toward those who are rural, southern, noncollege, and/or Christian. I explored the reasons in my post The Phobia(s) That May Destroy America:
https://ricochet.com/548927/the-phobias-that-may-destroy-america-2/
"Please stop basing your moral positions on your sincere religious beliefs, and base them on what I believe instead."
That's what the article sounds like.
Yeah. But in politics, it is some times a good idea to try to present things to potential allies in a way to get them and keep them. The danger, of course, is that you can become inauthentic.
I think that the danger you cite disappears if there is no contradiction between your reason and your religion. For example, my religious beliefs may lead me to oppose abortion, but I might also oppose abortion on the prudential grounds that I don't want to give anyone the power to decide which human beings aren't "people" and therefore not worthy of basic human rights.
What if you are one of the weird Christians who think that if you personally practiced abortion, it would be wrong, but wrestles with how to handle it as a political issue? The Bible doesn't instruct us how to vote as far as I can tell; nor does it ask us to try to force non-Christians to act like Christians. Of course, I could be wrong!
The Bible says that it’s wrong to murder. Should a Jew or Christian therefore decide that they shouldn’t support laws against murder because doing so would be forcing their religious beliefs on others?
But I rarely see Jews or Christians voting to outlaw adultery or greed, or many of a number of other things the Bible says are wrong. So "the Bible says it is wrong" is not even a heuristic most Jews and Christians use when voting--so why hold me to it. In any event, I see a difference between things the Bible says are wrong and things that should be legislated in order to make a better society, so I don't vote on that basis even if others do. I'm not saying I'm against anti-abortion laws--I just don't think that the Bible mandates voting for them. I hope that makes sense.
If greed was outlawed, most politics would be outlawed.
Basing arguments on moral issues on the Bible will not win over anyone but practicing Christians who are likely already in the choir. If we want to convince others, we need to speak their language.
So I think the issue is less "win over" then "give people the motivation to stay true."
The issue I see with a lot of secular right people is that they worship self advancement above all, and so the truth simply becomes "what helps me gain self advancement." Hence the track record of just going along with the "elite human capital" perspective in the long run.
It takes guts to say abortion is wrong when it polls bad and when it makes you unpopular in your social circle. The natural human inclination in the absence of some greater reason is to just rationalize conforming to the path of least resistance.
Jewish Christophobia (and Leftism) have much deeper roots than just a current 'false consciousness' re
'who their real friends are now.' It is no accident that it is the dominant sentiment in a population 90+% of whose ancestors fled to the US from Czarist Russia (which included most of Poland and Ukraine). As Andrea Widburg pointed out over at American Thinker, the opposite of Czarist Christian Orthodoxy (no separation of church and state back there), was (revolutionary) Marxism. Not much appreciation in that population of the finer points of republican democracy...or of cross-tribal tolerance, and they educated their children and grandchildren in Chrstophobia. (I grew up as a young musician in a Detroit then heavily culturally dominated by such immigrants and their children. I could play in their Jewish Center Orchestra, but was not allowed to date their daughters. A non-trivial number were real communists.). It is also no accident that so many (secular) Jews have been leaders of the Old Left (CPUSA), New Left (SDS was predominantly ethnic Jewish...I knew several of them), and today's Leftover Left (Axelrod, Klain, Mayorkas, Garland, RBG, Schumer, Schiff, etc. etc. etc.) Many were also at the forefront of the move to de-Christianze (and de-white) America, on the theory that 'diversity' would make America safer for them (see role of Celler, Javits, et. al. in the 1965 immigration 'reform' law). Unfortunately for Jews, and those of us well disposed to them (I had many wonderful teachers, professors and mentors who were Jewish), the consequence of viewing American Christians as re-incarnations of Czarist agents led to the importation of a much more dangerous population, and to Dearborn, Mogadishu-On-The-Mississippi, and all those Columbia and Harvard students chanting 'Death to Israel' (and the Jews). Most Christians stopped being anti-Jewish 60 or 70 years ago. Perhaps more Jews could now do some introspection on how we got to this point. (Note to "Guest User," I am not sure the word 'bigotry' covers the issue, and I am sure it won't encourage reflection and change. There is a long history behind that 'bigotry,' and it needs to be honestly talked about if it is to be overcome.
Jewish alienation is part of Jewish culture, and it's alienation to prevent assimilating, lest Jewishness disappear. Tied more closely to prophets than (early Greek) philosophers, what Hegel called unhappy consciousness.
But Jews, everywhere the minority (save Israel), are the most adept and inclined to assimilation in my view — limited assimilation in which they blend in and belong while still retaining their Jewish heritage and culture. I find it endearing, as compared to other demographics that reject their newfound homelands, wholesale, and instead prefer to exist in a microcosm of their native lands.
Jewish alienation seems a recipe for tribal ugliness that rarely finds them outnumbering the “tribe” they seek to alienate. Alternately, they often seem to alienate those friendly to them while embracing a future enemy, in hopes that the enemy will consider them part of their tribe or being entirely dishonest with themselves, failing to see that their new bedfellows are just itching for a reason to dehumanize them. Jews have true friends in this country — a quick glance at the *entirety* of the globe shows the US to be unique in that regard. In such a case, is alienation still wise? If not American Christians, who else would be a worthy ally?
Seems to me that the only two safe havens on the planet are the US and Israel. A lot of Christians have died, and are willing to die, in order to keep it that way.
What I don't get is how "Many Jews fear that Christians are either out to convert Jews or otherwise make American Jews feel uncomfortable and unwelcome." or "the only reason Evangelicals support Israel is because they believe in a prophecy that when all the Jews move to Israel they will be converted to Christianity" is in opposition to "we both practically have the same temporal goals". I.e. enemy of my enemy, bootleggers and baptist. I mean sure Christians are out to evangelize but so what practically speaking, you are a big boy, just don't convert.
If I'm a Jew why do I care about my allies ulterior, or even overt, motives if we genuinely share the same goal of a strong independent Jew ethno-state in Israel. That is what I've never understand even when I've had that exact conversation with my Jew, albeit they were all Reformed or agnostic, friends. I.e. "We all have the same practical goal here, why are you shooting yourself in the foot".
The other thing I've never gotten is, at least in the US, the apparent rampant and fervent support of abortion and homosexuality by Jews. I honestly can't say I know much of Judaism in practice at the theological level but I just not seeing casually where the Torah doctrinally supports either, at best you can claim a lack of prohibition but American Jews seem to take them as the 11th and 12th commandments "thou shall abort non-homosexual children and raise the remainder as transgendered" since the 1920's at least.
PS: On the Christianphobia thing, that plagues male homosexuals as well whom deep down intellectually understand the GLBT movement has left them behind and is now actively working against their interests but they just can't get past their Christianphobia to realize in many cases Christians are practically their allies, liberal or conservative.
The Torah/Theology does not. Abortion is a sticky question because of the theological issue related to the status of the fetus prior to birth - which is different than Catholic and common Christian belief. But there is some “sympathy for a different ‘other’ / minority group” that plays in, too.
I’m not Jewish, but I think I may fall into the “Christophobia” camp. I don’t actually believe that the American right is trying to impose a Christian theocracy. But I would be more receptive to some of their positions if they based them on more universal moral principles than merely espousing Christian beliefs (or claiming to be espousing them).
As a NYS Escapee from Freeport NY, politically conservative (PC), conservative Jew (CJ), living in the deep Bible Belt of rural SC, I find 'Christophobia' to be BS. I grew up with many CJ kids and we all had many Christian friends and we were never the focal point of a conversion. Here in rural northern Greer SC, not one Southern Baptist has tried to convert me. I have even been a speaker for them during Easter to talk about Passover. Am I somehow unique? I doubt it. Jews of the 1940s & 1950s maybe felt a fear of Christians. But by the 1970s and beyond, no way.
Now the Reformed Ashkenazi Jews, they have the same mindset as the Weimar Republic Jews. Many good intentions they created, that eventually ate them up later.
Although I support Israel, not based on my Christian beliefs, but as a whole hearted acceptance of Never Again, and my anti-abortion beliefs are based on the idea that there is new human life at conception, I nonetheless resist the notion that I should not base any moral or social question on my religious faith.
If my religious faith scares some Jews that much, perhaps that more a matter of their anti-Christisn bigotry and then anything else. There are plenty of Jews, who are either smart enough, or well informed enough, to not have such fears.
Although I support Israel, not based on my Christian beliefs, but as a whole hearted acceptance of Never Again, and my anti-abortion beliefs are based on the idea that there is new human life at conception, I nonetheless resist the notion that I should not base any moral or social question on my religious faith.
If my religious faith scares some Jews that much, perhaps that more a matter of their anti-Christisn bigotry and then anything else. There are plenty of Jews, who are either smart enough, or well informed enough, to not have such fears.
I would take a look at the history of the secular right to see that non-Christian objection to progressivism just fails. Look at the arc of a Richard Hanania (who went from being squeamish about abortion to calling it a great moral good, and from against LBGTQ to being friendly to trans). Now you've got Hanania clones like Walt Bismarck publishing things like "you know we should all bang slutty women with mental disorders."
I may have my issues with some of the tenets of the christian faith, but it's pretty clear to me that the secular case for these things is on some pretty thin ground. Its advocates abandon their positions within a few years of whenever progressives bring it to the for.
People are, well ..., human. Rejecting a worldview simply because another (flawed) human being rejected it seems to me to be pretty thin grounds. If that is your basis for belief, then there is no set of beliefs - including Christianity - that you could accept.
Do you not consider (small l) libertarians to be on the right? Or the dozens of right wing commentators who don’t say “because God says so” is the reason for opposing progressives?
Libertarians tend to be right on economics, left on culture. They usually think there is nothing wrong with drugs, trans/gay stuff and other weird sex stuff, etc. This IME is the biggest area of disagreement between Christian conservatives and libertarians.
I think you will find that libertarians do not think that "there is nothing wrong" with drugs etc., but rather that they think people get to make decisions for themselves. There will be some disagreement if the demand is to make people stop making decisions for themselves that you wouldn't make.
What do you think of the term “Judeo-Christian”? Some Christians use this term to create the idea of a common moral worldview that unites Jews and Christians. Is this a fiction? Does it annoy Jews? Would the Orthodox accept this? I’m curious.
I don't know about Jews in general, but it tends to annoy me. It sounds condescending. Like the person is saying "Christianity is the best, but you Jews are ok, too." I prefer "western values."
Judeo-Christian is a way for Christians to incorporate, as they see it, the professed values of the Bible - the Old and the New testaments.
I don't like "western values" because the West is also the birthplace of all the pathological "isms" from Marx, communism, identify politics - all of which stem from European intellectuals and their descendants. Worse they were exported to the East to grievous effect as the 20th century demonstrated. That's not to condone the West but the term just doesn't work as a descriptor.
This isn't a false perception, unfortunately. I think there is a segment of Christians who feel like Jews should "graduate" to Christianity. Though positive attitudes generally prevail among American Christians towards Jews, there remains a sizable subset, especially within evangelical camp, that prioritizes conversion efforts. This is regrettable, IMO, as we should adhere to Cohen's "we need each other" position.
"Christianity is the best, but you Jews are ok, too."
Isn’t this kind of objectively true though? Both religions are false in my view, but isn’t one Amazon and the other Barnes & Noble in terms of influence, breadth and future longevity?
Thanks for your thoughts! Makes sense.
The reason for the term Judeo-Christian is that Christian morality is based on Jewish law. Except for certain parts that were deemed "fulfilled" (specifically the need for sacrifices to cover sin and dietary laws) most Jewish law was reaffirmed in the New Testament.
Jesus is recorded as saying in the Gospel of Matthew: "“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Look at how frequently he says, "It is written" - those are all references to Jewish law or history.
And most Western morality and law is based in Judeo-Christian law. A good example is the Ten Commandments and how prevalent they were in American courthouses before aggressive secularists sued to have them removed.
While Islam is an Abrahamic religion, its laws are not as closely related to Judaism as the tenets of Christianity are.
I personally consider Judaism and Christianity different enough religions I don't use the term. I prefer "Biblical values" over "Judeo-Christian" values.
Christianity didn't pop out of nowhere.
Right but when talking about the history, not the practices, we say "Abrahamic religions ", not "Judeo-Christian", and they aren't euphemism because the latter excludes those whom don't hold compatible political values such as Islam and Mormonism. Even "Western values" is a euphemism for Latin values.
Can you imagine making the same argument for Jews in Muslim countries?
The orthodox perception is that we are in exile and being punished for our sins. Whatever good we enjoy is temporary and unstable.