May 09, 2002
CAUSE IT TAKES A STRONG (WO)MAN, BABY, BUT I'M SHOWING YOU THE DOOR
A few posts ago, a lovely young woman named Faith decided to take issue with my post describing my planning to go to the Salute to Israel Parade. Specifically, she seemed upset that I wrote, tongue-in-cheek, that I would go take photos of the pro-Palestinian protestors to show my grandkids someday: "Look, here's your silly grandma taking photos of the people who wanted her and you dead."
Now Faith didn't just become mad or exasperated at that little statement. She went one better and became incoherent and started spewing into the comments section the following:
Oh you typical melodramatic american....your pre-planned captions for your family album is evident of your inability to look forward....you're so far buried in the past i wonder if you are even awake! Talk about self-pitying...its pathetic that you use any excuse to excuse yourself for being responsible for your own actions. Crazy mentality....weak mentality (the-they-did-such-and-such- to-my-ancestors-so-i-can-hate-everyone-and-everything-which-is-not- pure-like-me-the-special-chosen-child-of-israel-because-now- i-think-God-has-given-me-us-chosen-people-the-right-to-exterminate-everyone- else-from-the-planet-as-if-oops-of-course-we-are-not-ALL-children-of- Adam-in-which-case-duh-i-can't-figure-out-who-all-the-OTHERS-came-from). S'ok....you pity yourself and I will too
But that was just the beginning. She then followed her comments with several other blurbs of comments that were nasty, slightly nonsensical, and, it turns out, not even her own; they were plagiarized in toto from a pro-Arab/anti-Israel website! It says quite a bit about her that she had to stoop to stealing lines from Islamic race-baiters and anti-Semites before she could even begin to reach coherency, much less intelligence.
Now, I typically ignore the occasional crank who e-mails me or posts a comment here. I like having the feedback, and if an Idiotarian stops by (or, as is more likely, throws a stink bomb and leaves and doesn't respond to comments; witness Jak King, "Eric A. Blair", et al), it's pretty fun to sit back and watch other readers and posters take swings at them too. I should point out that I absolutely distinguish between people who disagree with something I write and cranks who come by looking for attention and a quick ego-boost and who have no desire to have a real conversation or exchange of views. Tellingly, nearly all of the cranks do not leave an e-mail address or any other means of even attempting to start a conversation with them.
And while I'm just fine with people using handles or pseudonyms on the Net (obviously!), it's also very easy to figure out who I am and other personal information about me, the real live person who's pounding the keys over here. But the cranks use pseudonyms to hide and to avoid taking responsibility for their words, and then make dubious claims that they would be harassed for their views if they dared give out their real names (which is exactly the argument "Eric A. Blair" made over on warbloggerwatch--and then attacked me for not posting under my real name!). They lash out, but then use their persecution complexes to avoid having to stand behind their statements; they're the same sort of people who campaign against globalization by smashing Starbucks while wearing masks. Down with capitalism!, they shout, but please don't show my face on the news or to the cops. To use a real world example of how pseudonyms can be used with honest activism, the publisher of "2600", the long-running hacker quarterly magazine, calls himself Emmanuel Goldstein, after the character in "1984." The point of his pseudonym is just that, to make a point, not to hide himself behind a false mask and avoid taking responsibility for his magazine; in fact, he's been a participant in lawsuits and friends of the court briefs for "2600" under, I believe, both his pseudonym and his real name.
But back to Faith's original comments, because I think they deserve to be held up to sunlight a bit and not just papered over as the work of a crank. Let's parse her text, as my English professors at Penn liked to say, okay?
Oh you typical melodramatic american...
And right away, we've got a "heads up" about the kind of snot chunk that's to come. Well, that certainly was thoughtful of her.
your pre-planned captions for your family album is evident of your inability to look forward...
Planning to tell my grandkids in 2048 about my day at a parade in 2002 is an inability to look forward?
you're so far buried in the past i wonder if you are even awake! Talk about self-pitying...
Buried in the past? When Palestinians blow themselves up in Israel nearly every week? When it's the future, not the past, that looms ahead of us filled with the threat of an extreme escalation of our current war? Perhaps Faith is assuming that I am talking about the Holocaust somehow, when I didn't mention or allude to it at all in my post; the "people who want us dead" I mentioned half-jokingly were the protestors at the parade. It is she who is drawing the parallels between them and the Nazi's, not I. The Nazi's were at least efficient and had a sense of purpose and snazzier outfits. The Arab world, however, sees murder and death as both a means and an end unto itself. I doubt I'd confuse the two.
its pathetic that you use any excuse to excuse yourself for being responsible for your own actions
What actions? Supporting Israel via a parade? Via musings on a website? And why would I need or try to excuse myself from that? Or have I, too, just had the sum total of my existence ignored in favor of making me into The Typical Melodramatic American, or The Evil Zionist Aggressor, or that old favorite, just plain The Jew? Apparently so, because whatever actions Faith sees me as both responsible for and as excusing myself for, I doubt she's referring to my watching a parade or taking photographs. Whatever group identity she has declared for me, I am therefore also beholden to her perception of its failings, whether I like it or not.
Crazy mentality....weak mentality (the-they-did-such-and-such- to-my-ancestors-so-i-can-hate-everyone-and-everything-which-is-not- pure-like-me-the-special-chosen-child-of-israel-because-now- i-think-God-has-given-me-us-chosen-people-the-right-to-exterminate-everyone- else-from-the-planet-as-if-oops-of-course-we-are-not-ALL-children-of- Adam-in-which-case-duh-i-can't-figure-out-who-all-the-OTHERS-came-from). S'ok....you pity yourself and I will too
Have I been self-pitying in talking about the perpetual Mideast crisis? It's a good question. I hope I haven't been. Although this may be hard for Faith to understand, some (most?) Jews are not Israelis, and I certainly am not, and so for her to speak of self-pity exposes her prejudice that a religion and a nationality are interchangeable and that members of each group are responsible for alleged sins of the other group. I worry for the Israelis, my heart breaks for their losses in this war, and I sometimes feel blinding rage for the way they are treated as an outcast country purely because of the religion of most of their inhabitants and the envy and insecurity of the rest of the world. But pity? I do not feel pity for the Israelis, I feel solidarity with them. And considering that the usual charge leveled against the Israelis is not that they whinge for pity and sympathy, but that they are arrogant aggressors who have the gall to not lie down and and play dead already, who play by the rule "Never Again" and mean it, they wouldn't need my pity even if I had it to give. They've done remarkably fine without it.
I would like to be able to say that I look at the political landscape always with an open, untainted view, with the same sainted equanimity that Faith, no doubt, believes she possesses. And yet I know I do not and cannot, but any biases or political opinions I may hold, I at least try to be true to them because I believe in them, not because I feel the need to hold to any one dogma for dogma's sake. But Faith's dismissals reduce me to nothing more than a sheep-like member of an ethnic or political or religious group of her own making, and then assumes that I blindly hold to the same concerns and histories and attitudes--or more specifically, to her perception of those concerns and histories and attitudes--of those groups. She makes the disgusting assumption that, because of some unknown criteria about my life she has chosen to pick out, I am now out to "exterminate everyone else from the planet" and that I justify this by carrying on about how my ancestors were similarly exterminated. That my ancestors lived and died in the Bronx is ignored by her, because it does not mesh with her perception of the group she has created for me to inhabit.
She also obviously sees Jews as stuck up "we're the chosen people and you're not" snobs. Faith, dear, Judaism is a religion; anyone can convert and become one of the tribe. It's just that proselyting is not one of our tenets--and neither, by the way, is mass murder, despite what CAIR or the Egyptian press say. And while the cultural aspects of being Jewish are indeed strong, sometimes obnoxiously so (as anyone who grew up in a heavily Jewish suburb, as I did, could tell you), that culture only developed in the first place in order to sustain a persecuted, minority religion living scattered across a pretty big planet. Oops, was that being self-pitying of me to bring up historical persecution, even if it has a direct effect on current world events, from France to Tunisia to, yes, Israel? So sorry. No doubt this would all be more palatable to Faith and her ilk if it were self-loathing we were describing, rather than pity.
That Faith's comments have obviously touched a nerve with me means that as illegitimate as her "arguments" may be, she has at least achieved her unstated goal: to nettle. But anyone can provoke; the actual test is whether they can sustain a conversation or hold up a side of a debate. I see a parallel here between Faith's behavior and the Oslo accords she brings up in a later comments post; the Israelis went to the negotiating table and in good faith offered up 95% of Palestinian demands...and the Palestinians rejected it, refused to make a counter-offer, and abruptly started up a new Intifadah. Nettle, nettle.
A last word on this: I don't currently and don't plan on banning abusive posters from my comments section. Faith's probably illegal outright plagiarism in her later comments makes it tempting, though. If this policy changes in the future, I'll mention it. For now, though, Faith's idiocy gets the honor of being filed and archived for all to see, forever. I'd rather hold up fools to the light than let them fester away in dark corners, lest they grow into monsters.
Next Entry: LINK LOVE, REDUX!
Comments
THANK YOU, asparagirl. As expected, you dispatched the scum with wit, humor, and class.
Beautiful, Asp. Just beautiful.
I just want to know how keen Scott is on this whole grandkids thing.
How about some cookies? Me and Pooh often settle our differences over some cookies and hot cocoa....like the time he wanted a picnic of only honey graham crackers...we worked it out over cookies...Just a suggestion....I thought you should know...
I'm not defending Faith (it's not really even possible to defend her, actually). But:Most Christian faiths are quite evangelical and actively seek out converts. This is the kind of religious faith that most of the Western world is used to. Judaism, on the other hand, doesn't actively seek out converts and is not evangelical at all. Indeed, Orthodox rabbis are (to my understanding) required to actively discourage people from converting. And, of course, Jews quite specifically are "the chosen people", at least if you believe the Torah is accurate.From an outsider's perspective, the attitude of Judaism is "we're the chosen people, and you're not, and we don't especially want you to join our group". It is easy to see how uninformed people used to an evangelical Christian environment (ie, most of the western world) might perceive religious Jews as "snobby". As a parallel, imagine a social club of people who considered themselves "the intellectual elite". Now imagine that that group wasn't particularly interested in having you join. It's easy to see how people with low self-esteem and/or a natural bias against intellectuals might come to see these people as snobs, even if the reality is that the group just doesn't feel a need to pad its membership roster with people who aren't really, really interested in being there.Now, as an atheist, I very much prefer the non-evangelical attitude of Judaism. My Jewish friends have never tried to convert me; whereas many of my Christian friends can't seem to help themselves. In summary, I'm not saying Judaism is snobby (I don't think it is); I'm just pointing out how its natural differences from the prevalent religious culture can come to be seen as snobby.There is a mild social stigma towards converts within Judaism, though.
Dan,The discouraging of conversion that is done by Rabbis has nothing to do with "We are the chosen people and we don't want you to join us". It has to do with the fact that they want people to realize that in a day and age where people just change their religion 'cause they feel Buddhist today, and find Kabbala trendy tomorrow, Judaism is NOT a religion that accepts that. Being Jewish is about your soul, not just your beliefs (proof of which stems from the fact that even if you've been raised as something else and later in life find our you're Jewish, you'd be accepted by Rabbis as if you'd been raised a Jew). Rabbis want to make sure that people are clear on what is involved in conversion. They want to make sure that they're converting for the right reasons (...and not just for the jokes) and they want to make sure that the person is genuine in their interest.
Way to go, Asp! I DO wonder what Faith was drinking/inhaling/whatever whan she was writing?
It's hard not to respond to these types of brainless comments. Hard not to feed the trolls. But I agree that we (by we I mean me and my favorite superhero Spidey) should always step up to counter outrageous comments and arguments. To fail to do so encourages the sales of Mein Kampf in Europe and the Middle East, and...oh, wait.
Dan, I disagree that there is a stigma attached to converts. In fact, I would say that the converts I know are more welcomed into the Jewish community than the born-Jews. No one can believe someone would actually choose to become a Jew, and we feel a mixture of awe, gratitude, and curiosity. My girlfriend, in fact, is considering converting, and no one has done a thing to try and dissuade her from her resolution. -MW
Elana,I wasn't saying that the discouraging of conversion stems from "we are the chosen people and you're not". I was just pointing out that the combination of not being evangelical with "we are the chosen people and you are not" can be misinterpretted as snobbery by people used to the Christian approach to conversion. Also, the difference between the Jewish and Christian approach goes beyond "the rabbi wants to make sure you're serious and informed". Christian ministers, priests, and evangelists want those same things from would-be Christian converts, too. The difference is that the rabbi doesn't go looking for recruits, and the Christians do. It's easy to see how this can end up being interpretted as "we don't want you", and from there it's only a short step to the "they're snobs" misinterpretation.Remember, not all anti-semetic attitudes stem from indoctrination. Some are just the product of confusion brought on by conflicting world-views. Since "all religions want to convert you" is (incorrectly) seen as true in western culture, people end up concocting explanations for why Judaism isn't looking for converts.
Mitch,My experience is that Jewish friends and acquaintences, when asked "is [some convert] Jewish", will almost always reply with something along the lines of "they converted". It is very rare (again, just in my experience, but that's all I have to work with) for the answer to just be "yes". It's also been my experience that Jewish parents tend to view the marriage of their children to converts or would-be converts as acceptable, but by no means as desirable as marriage to someone raised Jewish.I'm not saying converts get forced to wear a scarlet letter C or anything. I should probably have said "extremely mild social stigma" instead. :) I should also add the caveat that this is all from an outsider's point of view, but that much was probably clear enough from my post.
If you decided you do want to ban the little princess, or at least track her a bit closely with some server-side fun ... please feel free to cut-n-paste my tips on banning users at my site Heal Your Church Website
Jonathan,I'm all in favor of grandkids. However, there are concerns if she and I procreate. The kids would be:-Really tall-Really nearsighted-Politically confused-Used as pawns in an eternal Yankees-Mets fan war between their parents.If those little buggers somehow manage to make grandkids, I'll be more than a little impressed.Brilliant smackdown, baby! Pity it'll make "her" far too angry to finish it!
Scott,Glad you were prepared for all of this. Frankly, though, I am a bit dismayed by your relationship's rivalry. It's clear that New York is a National League town, and the Mets are inherently therefore better.
Dan,I converted to conservative Judaism last summer. (JUST BY COINCIDENCE, I married a Jewish girl in December.) I have had some experience with having it made known that I am a convert, not an ethnic Jew. Part of the reason for that is for clarity. To be Jewish is to identify with both a religion and an ethnic background. When I tell people I'm a convert, it's a way of explaining my very Irish last name and features. (Not a lot of Jews in the Old Sod.) Plus people think it's really sweet that I did it for love.You'll notice a lot of people refer to themselves as "Jewish atheists." They are identifying their ethnic heritage while disavowing their faith; it is another example of working through that ethnic / religious confusion. One more point: I've heard of converts encountering snobbery, but my experience has been overwhelmingly positive. Jews are generally impressed that I would willingly make myself a target for all the rabid scumbos in the world.
Dan,Evangelicals are a 27% voting block in the US and all strongly support Israel as a jewish state in conjunction with thier dispenstion prophecy from 1847.Religious Christians, unlike you, have a deep connection to Jewish people and are extremely Zionist even more opensly so than many religious Jews in America.Evangelicals (700 club, pat robertson, christian conservatives) are the reason the US is pro-Israel not the 2% of Jews.I am guessing you are a college kid no older than 24 proabably from the West Coast am I right?
Jonathan,Given their performance today against the Giants... I'm not sure I still agree with you. =-(Poor babies.
Hey, no need to gang up on Dan. I tend to agree that the exotic/weirdness factor of Judaism, especially in a mainly Christian country like the US, is bound to cause some assumptions about why they're/we're not our rounding up would-be converts. Not all mistaken attitudes about "the tribe" flow from anti-Semitism; sometimes it's just lack of education (on both sides). About the mild stigma about conversion, though: I think it's there, but it varies from moderate to non-existent. Some ultra-orthodox Jews have a prejudice against Jews who didn't grow up "frum" (observant); people actually only semi-jokingly advertise themselves in that community as FFB's: "Frum From Birth".Anyway, thanks for all the nice comments, everyone. Oh, and another definite element of Scott's and my hypothetical (may I remind you) kids: they'll be using computers before tey learn how to talk and cracking jokes before they know how to read. *He'll* have to teach them all the girly domestic stuff, though, like how to iron, since he actually knows and cares about that sort of thing, whereas I, um, don't.
See Faith? THAT"S how you have a polite and proper debate. Dan may have said some things that not everyone agrees with, but everyone so far has discussed this back and forth like a nice game of tennis, as opposed to the MIke Tyson-esque balony you spewed forth. Aspara, I don't think anyone is ganging up on Dan, just disagreeing. And that's what this is all about. By listening to someone we disagree with, we're either going to have our own views strengthened, or they will be changed. Either way, it's a win-win.Faith, whoever you are, you should be ashamed of yourself. Why don't you act like you got a pair and go public with who you are. We all have. What's your excuse?Aspara, Dan, everybody else, keep up the good work.
*laughs*Snot Chunk. That's priceless! Yeap, that's why we love the ASP in Asparagirl...Keep up the good work. ; )
Michael Glazer ... you're right on target with regards to the tight coupling between RWC's (that's right wing, not really white for you WLT's) ....Let's not forget that one of the first hurdles the early Christian church dealt with was whether or not to allow Greeky-goy-boys like myself into the fold.And as one of my favorite Jewish in-laws said one time at a Christmas party, pointing to a Nativity display ... "hey, who's the naked little Jewish kid in the barn ?" Well, at least I thought it was funny !-)
Interesting discussion.I can't argue with Dan for the soimple fact that I don't know -- not having experienced those thought myself. It does seem plausible. But I can't help feeling a little amused (and exhasperated) if the in-your-face approach of Evangelicals --which annoys those on the receiving end so much-- is the cause of further annoyance that "the Jews" don't do that.Gosh, and if they did? I bet that would really be appreciated, wouldn't it.
I have sat on the fence over this whole friggin mess between Israel and Palestinian - I am not deeply religious although my better half is, so for me it was never about the "chosen ones" . I was utterly fooled by the Palestinian's claim that all those innocents had been butchered in Jenin and by all the "reporters", especially from the UK, writing that they had seen it first hand with their own eyes.Well two things made me see that the Palestinian's can not be trusted ( along with UK reporters )The Fake Funeral video was the one that really opened my eyes and the 2nd was the very short time of Arafat being released the new murders in the pool hall occured those two sealed my opinion and got me off the fenceproblem is how do I tell the spouse that she was correct the whole time and I was wrong -
Mitch,Uh... where did that rant of yours come from? First of all, I'm entirely pro-Israel, and have been ever since I visited the Israeli and Syrian embassies during the summer of 1986. The Israeli functionary that spoke to my group was polite, and coherent, and outlined Israel's history and attitudes as well as can be expected given the time constraints of a thirty-minute chat. The Syrian functionary spent thirty minutes screaming and spitting at us about the evil Israelis and Americans. The highlight of the speech was the line (I am not making this up) "Ted Koppel is a Zionist tool!" Suffice it to say, I understood which country the USA should be siding with. Everything I've learned since then has only strengthened this view. Secondly, you're confusing evangelism (the act of seeking converts, which is found in all branches of Christianity, and which I was talking about) with fundament alist Evangelicals (which I was not talking about). You are correct that most (certainly not "all") fundamentalists are pro-Israel. You're flat-out crazy if you think they're "all" pro-Jew, though. Take the KKK, for example -- its membership is largely Southern Baptist, but I think you'd have to do some pretty wacky logical gymnastics to exaplain how those members could possibly have "a deep relationship" with Jews. Unless systematic oppression counts as a deep relationship.Thirdly, believing (thanks to the literal interpretation of the Bible) that God wants you living in Israel isn't the same as liking you. If I were you I'd be a teensy bit suspicious at the speed with which fundamentalists' overt anti-semetism converted to Zionism once there was an actual Israel for Jews to live in. Heck, look at the recently-revealed Nixon-Graham chat about Jews and Israel if you want a good insight into Evangelical attitudes towards Jews.Fourthly, you seem to think I've been making some sort of un-informed personal attack on Judaism. I've just been explaining a few of the ways in which people people come to form incorrect interpretations of Jewish attitudes. I quite clearly stated that I was discussing the formation of incorrect beliefs.Finally, your guess as to my age, vocation, and origin are incorrect, although I do live in California. As do all right-thinking people. :)P.S. -- Sheesh, relax. :)
I don't know how successful anyone of us can be in resolving the decades long Arab-Israeli conflict. And I am not sure how exactly to reconcile this whole discussion about evangelicals, and about Jewish conversion.However, surely there must be a way to resolve the deep-seated hatred between Mets and Yankees fans. I have one diplomatic approach that could serve as an acceptable compromise. Call it The Yousefzadeh Peace Plan.I trust my Nobel Peace Prize will arrive shortly. And I trust it won't be shared with Yasser Arafat or Jerry Reinsdorf.The things I do for world harmony . . .
Whoa there, Dan, You're confusing me with someone else. I only posted once, to say that I had different experiences with Jewish converts. I didn't attack you at all. But since I'm here, let me just qualify what I've wrote, and what others of you have touched on. I should specify that of the Jews in my circle, NONE are practicing. We're all only ethnically Jewish. (I shouldn't say 'only', since we all consider ourselves full-fledged, card-carrying Jews; but it's all I could think to write.) We have little to no connection with any synagogue communities. Maybe it's different in conservative and orthodox circles. I couldn't speak to that. I can only say that the vast vast majority of American Jews - and Jews worldwide, for that matter - fall somewhere between High Holy Day Jews (twice a year to temple) and outright atheists. - MW
I agree that any prejudice against converts in the Jewish community ranges from moderate to non-existent (with the emphasis firmly on the non-existent side). I have to say I have personally never encountered it. If it exists at all, I suspect those who hold it have the decency to keep it to themselves. Now I'm a Reform convert, so naturally I represent a real problem for the Orthodox, and I have thrown myself quite joyfully into THAT particular civil war with no qualms at all. "You're not Jewish!"" in the context of an Orthodox vs Reform debate is perfectly acceptable. Heck, I'd not expect an Orthodox person to thin any differently. But on a personal level I haven't found any animosity at all. I was even elected President of the Jewish Students sopciety at university after having been nominated by the head of Bnei Akiva! But that may have had something to do with my Machievellian diplomatic and political skills. I've been forced by overwhelming public pressure (at least TWO e-mails) to promise an account of how I came to convert to Judaism on my blog, which I will put up after shabbat. Okay, I'm not as frum as all that, but I need at least one full day off from blogging.And by the way Asparagirl - remind me NEVER to get you pissed off at me!
DanYou absolutely have no clue.You think evangelicals are baptists?Do you really hink that?Do you understand that they are two completely different denomninations, not at all relatable?Your lack of knowledge and basic clarity is blinding me.Visiting Syria HUH?WHY were you visitng the Syrian embassy?What a nut talk about fundamentalists... Please you have absolutely know fundamentals and YES it is obvious just from your typings here.
Hey, Michael? Remember what I said about abusive comments posters? You wanna tone it down and start talkin' some sense here, huh?Don't make me angry, Mr. Glazer. You won't like me when I'm angry.
(Just to clarify, for the non-comic books dorks among us, that was a quote, not a threat.)
Of course the Baptists are Evangelicals! Saying they are not is factually incorrect. But they are not the only evangelicals. There are evangelical Methodists, Seventh Day Adventists, Lutherans, and even Roman Catholics. Evangelism is found throughout christianity and transcends denomination.And I say this not as a x-tian (I am an atheist.), but as a former professional liturgical singer who has made the rounds of many denominations.
I really support neither country, I think we should get out of Isreal and let them take care of thier own problems. What I do need help understanding is why people support either country. Not that I have anyting against it, but I'd just like to know.
Ok, this is the first time I have ever posted so here goes. I have just recently started reading blogs and am hooked.Point one: Excellent rebutal Asparagirl. I will stand with the group that wants to stay on your good side.Point two: The main reason I posted was to correct Michael Glazer. By the way, Dan, Michael was the one who posted the rant about you, not Mitch. Now on to Michael's last post. Evangelical is not a denomination. There are many denominations that can be described as evangelical. Southern Baptist is in fact one of them. I am an evangelical christian but I am a member of a non-denominational church. Which means there is no organizational structure above our local congregation. Dan is correct that almost all Christians are evangelical to some degree.Thanks for the forum, AsparagirlMichael Holt
Scott,Yeah, they've played like garbage recently. And to address a point made above, nearsightedness can be fixed. I had laser surgery, and it was great. Now, I can see through clothing ... I mean, I can see.
On a real note, I think it is wonderful to have converts, especially if done through the more rigorous means of converting. It shows a true devotion to something special and should be treated as such. I don't know any Jewish friends or family who would look down (or sideways) as a convert. In fact, it would earn a tremendous amount of respect for a variety of reasons (some related to religion, some to dedication, some to eccentricity).
Asp:The part about criticism of bloggers using a handle I find to be quite silly. I'm "the Bible Geek" because I think it's funnier sounding than my real name and my real name is available to anyone who wants it--all they gotta do is email me.Keep stickin' up for we the handled bloggers of the Net!Oh yeah--and cranks...I've got a couple of those in the short time I've had my blog. Keep fightin' the good fight of the blog!BG
Bible Geek ! Wow, why didn't I think of that one ?! The best I could do was "Heal Your Church Website." Though with a name like Constantine, I suppose I could call myself the Bible Greek ?Anyway, back on target. I find this thread so incredibly intriguing and refreshing. I for one appreciate everyone's up-front opinions about Christians, Jews, whether Baptists are indeed evangelicals (though I would suggest that the current "church gross" movment is really where their treasure is).Perhaps we should suggest to Asparagirl giving this forum it's own space ?
Asparagirl, I've seen some dressing downs by true professionals: Navy Master Chiefs, Marine Top Sergeants...but nothing as subtle and pointed as your take down of "faith." Remind me not to make you mad at me!To Dan, et al in the "Chosen" thread: Just a reminder that the TNK describes Jews as chosen of G-d to be a light to the nations, i.e. saddled with a special responsibility and held to a higher standard. This was NOT intended to be a privilege, and is actually the basis of the rabbinical practice of discouraging converts. After all, a righteous gentile (one who abides by the strictures of the Noahide covenant) is entitled to the same rewards as a righteous Jew (without having to memorize 602 mitzvot.) I am not denying that your thesis may have some validity: "The Chosen" does have a, mmm, an exclusive ring to it as a phrase. Its just important to remember that the TNK and all the responsa make the point that its at best, a mixed blessing. And as far as being snubbed or subtle discrimination against converts in the community, I am unqualified to answer to that (I was out at sea when my class graduated, so I never got around to making it official.) It does sometimes raise an eyebrow or two at kiddush when I explain that I'm not Jewish, but I've always felt welcome at any congregation I've visited or joined.Now, is it just me, or has the format of the blog changed somehow? I don't know about the rest of you, but Asparagirl's paragraphs are about three times as wide as my screen today...making it very difficult to read. Is it something I've done to my browsers?Oh, and that's not a psuedonym down there: Its a military title consisting of a naval rating and a warfare designator and as far as I know, this particular combination is unique in the histories of the Navy and Coast Guard...so if someone was determined to find me, it ain't that hard to do. I just didn't want to be confused with another Scott who frequents this place. :)
The comment about not being self-loathing hits it squarely. My motto is:You can hate me, you can hate yourself, but you can't make me hate myself...
Oops! As much fun as www.pizzaIDF.org is, its even more important to visit Magen David Adom (www.magendavidadom.org) and make a donation there. How did I forget to include that in that last comment?
I think we should get out of IsrealWe're not "in" Israel, Jim.
Thanks, Faith! I never used to read the comments section at this site -- now I am hooked.All of you keep up the good work!
Mitch,Sorry! Yes, I was responding to Michael Glazer (who appears to be determined to take offense without listening to anything I say -- but hey, it's the Internet). Why I typed "Mitch" is a mystery to me. :)
Michael,A few points:- I didn't say Evangelicals were Baptists. I said Baptists were Evangelicals (under the assumption that you meant fundamentalist evangelicals -- see below), which is factually correct.- If you were referring to the Evangelical _denomination_, as opposed to Evangelical fundamentalists, then your claim of a "27% voting bloc" is completely wrong. The largest denomination in the country is the Southern Baptists, and even they don't comprise 27%.- Furthermore, Pat Robertson isn't a member of the Evangelical denomination; he's a Pentacostal. Jerry Falwell is a Southern Baptist, and is Billy Graham.- In answer to your query as to why I visited the Syrian embassy: I visited the Israeli, Syrian, West German, Thai, and Nicaraguan embassies as part of an international relations course I took through a Duke University program in high school. The Nicaraguan embassy, if you're curious, was a run-down former brownstone apartment building with window-unit air conditioning, which made me a little skeptical that they posed a serious threat to American democracy. :)In summary: if you're using "Evangelical" to refer to a denomination, your claims that it is a "27% voting bloc" and "the reason why the US is pro-Israel" are completely wrong; if you're using "Evangelical" to refer to evangelical fundamentalists, on the other hand, your claim that the Southern Baptists don't count is completely wrong (as is sneering at me for "confusing" two denominations). In other words, no matter what you meant, at least one of your "must slam Dan" posts is completely off-base. :)If I had to guess, I'd guess that you're mainly interested in picking a fight with me. I can't imagine why.
WOWser Ms. asparusgirl is angry at little ole me, i feel kinda honored please Ms. asparigas come at me with all you got.. Im waiting. Let me have it. This shoudl be fun.
Oh Danny boy the pipes are callin'You are correct about the evangelical not being a speicifc denomination but you are incorrect in your initall statement, I was responding to, in that it is a southern baptists KKK thing.Evangelical Christianity is a term that is used to identify the most conservative wing of the religion. Many individual Evangelicals are found in the conservative and mainline denominations. They are the 'orthodox' christianity as juxtaposed to Judaism.2% of Evangelicals feel that homosexuality is an "acceptable lifestyle." 94% feel that abortions should be illegal in all or most cases.
*applause*This is gettin' excitin'.
*applause*This is gettin' excitin'.
Re Jewish Evangelicism:It's worth noting that while Judaism currently is much less evangelistic on the whole than Christianity, this is in part a response to ca. 1700 years of Christian and Muslim rule. Some facts, as I recall them:1) up to 10% of the Roman Empire at one point was Jewish. Many of the converts were Phoenicians, Carthaginians, etc.--ethnically related peoples--but there was Jewish evangelism throughout the Empire.2) medieval Christian kingdoms often passed laws forbidding conversion to Judaism. The assumption is that there must have been such conversion, if they had to pass a law against it.3) Jews in Poland don't look like Jews in China don't look like Jews in India. We suspect local conversions at various points in the past have something to do with this.4) the Koran is so virulently anti-Jewish because Jews were major players in 7th century Arabia. Many, presumably, were converted local Arabs.I believe that there was a great deal of Jewish evangelism practically,at least up till medieval times, even when unsupported by the theology--just as a fair portion of Christian anti-Semitic practice is not supported by the theology. Both the practice and the theology of Jewish evangelism waned under intense Christian and Muslim pressure, but evangelism is not intrinsically alien to Judaism.
You were responding about the "southern Baptist KKK" thing? That's interesting, given that your response didn't mention it, opting instead to slam me for "thinking evangelicals are Baptists" and suspiciously demand an explanation for my visiting the Syrian embassy. :)In any case, my statement is entirely correct. The KKK is strongly pro-Protestant, vehemently anti-Catholic and anti-Jew, and (due to its being based primarily in the Bible Belt) primarily composed of fundamentalist Christians.You've shown some trouble distinguishing between "if A, then B" and "if B, then A" in the past, so -- just in case -- I should point out that "the KKK is mostly fundamentalists" does not mean "most fundamentalists are in the KKK". I'm simply refuting the claim that "all" evangelicals have a "deep relationship" with Judaism.
Marchamont Needham, Yeah it is completely alien to Judaism.
Ok Dan, you win only 98% of evangelical Chrisitans have a very strong bond with Israel and Judaism which is probably 80% more than people born Jewish do.Did you know in April when Jewish tourists stopped going to Israel (fear of terror) Christians from America were still coming some even dying in terrorists attacks?
Michael,Since you've now switched from arguing with me to arguing with the voices inside your head, I'm bailing from the discussion. Send me an email to let me know how it turns out. :)
DanAre you saying that the KKK who are protestants are not in touch with Judaism?Geez, well I guess you proved that point.Do you really beleive that the KKK have any sort of foothold in American Christian Evangelicalism and if so conservatice Christians are still the most pro-israel Americans?What I dont and didnt get is why you, a liberal, feel the need to put the KKK into the christian conservative camp as if they are the same?It only makes sense in the leftists roose to fool the centrists into think the Right are racists, kinda like the Gay dutchman who was seen as 'far-right' because he was for crime and immigration control.Lumping conservatives with racists is a nice leftists ploy which doesn't work with me.Religious people are quite tolerant compared to liberals as we can all see throughotu the world very clearly these days.The 'liberals' hold onto equality as their mantel compared to the Conservatives is slipping quicker than I can type and I can type quite quickly. It is such an outdated view that liberals and those who attest to their theology hold onto even after the facts of life have proven it false.I would suggest to you that you keep an ear to the ground and really see whats going on. You liberal mandate is about 4-10 years proved false.
Marchamont,I didn't mean to suggest that Judaism has never been evangelical; it just isn't today. Especially if you "grade Jews on a curve" with Christianity and Islam. :)As a parallel, it wouldn't be outrageous (or, IMO, incorrect) to say "Catholic priests don't marry" or "Catholic priests generally don't get married", even though, if one looks at the first thousand years or so of Christian history, one finds that practically all Catholic priests married. While we're on the subject -- assuming one believes the Pentateuch is historical, Judaism was once a fairly militaristic and intolerant religion, too. Most religions seem to go through that "phase"; Islam, unfortunately, hasn't left it yet. :(
Here's a good, and more or less accurate quote by Bernard Lewis that seems to relate (you can always find an expection to every rule, of course:"The Jewish position was that there is only one God. This was seen with horror by the polytheistic world of the time. But the Christians and then the Muslims went one step further: they said that not only is there only one God but there is only one way to that God - our way. Now that was not the Jewish position, which was expressed in the Talmudic dictum that the righteous of all peoples have a place in paradise. That is not the Christian or the Islamic view, traditionally. Their view is that there is only one true religion and the others are either false or at best incomplete."
Ooooh, good quote. Thanks, James.
James,I don't think it's historically accurate to say that the polytheistic world viewed the monotheism of the Jews with "horror" or anything like it (although, as you noted, there are always exceptions). The Greeks and Romans, for example, were polytheistic, and the Hebrews didn't horrify them. The Roman attitude towards Judea -- before Christianity cooked up the idea that the Jews had killed the incarnate God, thereby making Jews the Official Bad Guys of History -- was that it was an troublesome province full of religious fanatics who didn't know when they were beaten. Which, to be honest, is a pretty fair assessment, even if you think the Jews were completely in the right. :) Greeks and Romans had dealt with monotheism before (and various strains of it had enjoyed some popularity, especially in Rome) through contact with Babylonians and others. The Roman/Hebrew and Greek/Hewbrew conflicts can be seen as ones of conflicting attitudes -- enlightened self-interest vs. faith and devotion. When Rome was invaded and sacked, it absorbed the invaders into the cuture. When Judea was invaded and sacked, the inhabitants put up such an ongoing struggle (because it was, after all, their God-given land) that ultimately the society was crushed and scattered for the better part of two millennia.On a side note, there are some fairly convincing (to me) historical arguments I've heard that Judaism wasn't strictly monotheistic at first, and actually picked up true monotheism during the Babylonian captivity. One minor example of this is that the commandment isn't "... there art no other gods but me"; it's "... thou shalt have no other gods before me". This is also why, prior to the flight of the Hebrews from Egypt, YHWH (aka God) went out of his way to demonstrate that he was more powerful than death, the Nile, or the sun (the three main Egyptian deities). The point, at that time, wasn't "there are no other gods" (imagine what an alien thought that would be to a people surrounded by, and used to, belief in large numbers of gods -- how hard that would be to swallow) but "we have our own god, and he's the only one we're supposed to have, and he's more powerful than any other god".Anyway, if there are any religious people here that that upsets, just remember that I'm an atheist, and therefore hopelessly ignorant and not worth listening to. :)
WoW JAMEsIt is always an absolute wonder to view the intellect of the completely uninformed.As you say your an atheist, who has complete lack of knowledge of the suibject he talks about."Romans not 'minding the jews' " Thats a laugh they destroyed the first and second temples in jerusalem and exiled the Jews from israel for the past two thousand years. Ever heard of Masada? Or the year 70 CE?"Judaism not being monotheistic right away etc..."Judaism was the original and only monotheistic religion then and now. The others you see are copycats thats it. Before Abraham and Judaism peopel worshipped trees and rocks what we call today 'Animists' (still some in Africa).Its a laugh to see you dig your own grave.As my marm used to say 'it is better to not speak than to speak without knowledge.' If you just want to see yourself type thats one thing but don't think your lack of intelligence and conjecture onto the world's historicall scene somehow can be construed as valid. Facts and turth speak for themselves no need to interpret falsely.I would suggest you go back to grade school and take a religious history class or better yet any Jewish History class for that matter.I almost feel bad for you its kinda embarassing to see such silly ideas on historicall facts being displayed. I'm actually a little embrassesd for you.How old and what educational background did you say you have?Good Luck dude you'll need it.I'm almost laughing thinking at why you call yourself an Atheist its as if it is a apology for not knowing historicall facts about too much at all except what you might or might not pick up from 'Atheists weekly' headlines and you own personal imagination on topics you have no foundation to speak on.Entertain me for a while by doing me a small favor. I am really curious about how old you are and what your educational background is or was.
That last message was meant for Don not James sorry
My word.Um...Mr. Glazer, you might want to check your adamant assertions at the door of a local yeshivah - or a good library - and go in to learn a few things.For instance:In the Mishnah, there is an order called Mo'ed (means "holiday"). There is a tractate in Mo'ed entitled Pesachim (re: oral law for Pesach).If you believe, perchance, that God sent the Jews into exile, then it won't be so hard to read Pesachim 87, where you'll find a major talmudic rav saying that God did so in order to get folks to join the tribe.Oh. And there's a famous medieval injunction....I could find the name of the rabbi if need be....that says that when a Jew is doing business with a non-Jew he should be extra careful to be fair and all, because if he's not, the non-Jew might decide never to convert to Judaism.And here are a couple of books for you to search out at your local library:_Proselytism in the Talmudic Period_, by Bernard Bamberger_Judaism in the First Centuries of the Common Era_, by George Foote MooreHope this information is helpful in clearing up your misunderstandings.
Maggie, it's true that there's evidence that at times Jewish proselytization did occur, and there are scattered opinions throughout Jewish literature, such as the singular opinion in the Talmud, it's also a historical fact that Jews did not engage in organized proselytization drives, nor was there a command to do so. Perhaps the historical reason is simply because Jewish syncretism was such a problem in the Biblical period, and Judaized pagans like the Samaritans were actual enemies. In any case, Judaism has never taught that Judaism is imperative on all peoples; only [ethical] monotheism. For every rule there is an exception (it seems) but neither history nor the literature bear out that proselytization was ever a major goal or mean of Judaism to increase its numbers. The Talmudic opinion that the purpose of the Jewish scattering throughout the world was to increase the numbers through proselytization is just that: an opinion. The laws and customs of conversion from the Talmud, including the imperative to dissuade seekers (derived from the book of Ruth) show that it was usually considered otherwise. A legal category called Ger toshav (resident alien) reserved for monotheistic gentiles did exist, and proselytization towards monotheism is encouraged in the Talmud. It is worth mentioning though that according to Jewish law freed slaves had to be converted to Judaism (non Jewish slaves themselves had a legal status as a kind of "half-Jew"). Furthermore, there is some evidence that Jews freed slaves quite casually (the Talmud records an instance of a rabbi freeing a slave simply because he needed a tenth man to make a minyan). Most assuredly the ranks grew over the years from such people and their descendants.The famous stories of Shamai and Hillel's approach toward converting non-Jews ("teach me the Torah on one foot" and "convert me so I can be High Priest" -- Shamai chased these men away and Hillel drew them close and converted them) probably does indicate that there were always different approaches. But even in this case, Hillel had not been proselytizing.
Unfortunately this thread is in danger of falling into a pissing contest. A bit of background, I was born Catholic, went through the lapsed/agnostic/atheist/satanist/bornagain/ track into a Lewisian-Lutheran state of mind. Evangelicals in America surprisingly are INDIVIDUALS!!!!!!! Some believe in "replacement-theology" that Christianity has replaced Judah as the chosen people. Some reject that heresy (guess what I do?) and recognize that the Jews remain a special people and deserve our support. Other believe that the Jews (Christ killers) are vermin and deserve to be exterminated. Luckly the last belief has become limited to inbred people who stretch their minds by watching "Jerry Springer" To stereotype as large a group of people as "the Evangelicals" are is not wise; I hope I haven't either!
To Michael Glazer: This isn´t really THAT important, but your description of "evangelical" Christians as the parallel to "orthodox" Jews was a little off-base: "evangelical" does not equal "fundamentalist", which is a slightly better comparison, although perhaps unfair to the orthodox. Fundamentalists are those close-minded racist Christians you read about whose daughters can´t wear toeless shoes or pants. Ok, a little stereotypical, but many evangelicals will be very offended if you call them "fundies", so tread carefully.
Dan:My word. EXCELLENT theological discourse. I had never thought of it that way, but it makes much sense. I'll have to think on this...
Not to change the subject back to the original blog, but it's a bit ironic that you criticize the "Idiotarian" Eric Blair for using a pseudonym but then praise an Emmanuel Goldstein for his clever appropriation of the protagonist in George Orwell's 1984.Eric Blair was George Orwell's real name . Doesn't change the fact that he's a ninny, though.
The pseudo-Blair-cum-Orwell, not the genuine article, I mean.
Father, forgive Michael Glazer, for he knows not what he does. Or what he says. Nor do we.