Why American Jews are Democrats. An Answer? Perhaps.

Originally posted by Maggie at Maggie's Notebook

I somewhat frequently ask why American Jews vote Democrat. It has been a puzzle for years, and after 9/11, there seemed to be some hope that the Jewish vote would lean to the conservative side. It was a shortsighted, and perhaps naive hope.

I was perusing the posts over at Instapundit last night and found a piece by Ellen W. Horowitz - Justifying and Deconstructing Hagee and Ourselves. Ms. Horowitz characterizes Pastor John Hagee's recent and controversial "rhetoric" as the

...magnanimous political, humanitarian, and even theological support that the Jewish state is receiving from Pastor Hagee and the American evangelical community.

as well as attributing Hagee as "a well-intentioned, very generous and determined philo-Semite," but goes on to say:

That being said, we Jews need to remain vigilant because it is an historic truism that philo-Semitism can be a mere hair away from anti-Semitism, and when the church and Christians make sweeping and bold moves towards reconciliation – and Jews reciprocate in turn - sometimes things can go terribly wrong. So the Talmudic formula of “respecting and suspecting” would seem to be the wise approach.

I must admit that I Googled around for the definition of "philo-semite." Wikipedia says:

Philo-Semitism or Philosemitism, is an interest in, respect for, and appreciation of the Jewish people, their historical significance and the positive impacts of Judaism in the history of the western world, in particular. Within the Jewish community it also includes the significance of Jewish culture and the love of everything Jewish. The word is not new, but it has recently (ca. 2000) become a significantly growing phenomenon in the modern world. It is characterized (among other things) by an interest in Jewish culture and history, as well as increasing university enrollment by non-Jews in courses relating to Judaism (including Judaism, Hebrew and Jewish languages)[citation needed]. A Philosemite is one who substantially subscribes to, or practices, any of the above.

Philo-Semitism has been the subject of a series of books and journal articles (see partial listing below). The rise of philo-Semitism has been met by a mixed response among world Jewry. Some warmly welcome it and argue that it must lead Jews to reconsider their identity. This viewpoint has been expressed by the leading liberal Jewish publication The Forward (Editorial, 10 November 2000):

Others reject philo-Semitism, as they feel it (like its apparent opposite anti-Semitism) implicitly gives a special status to Jews. This contradicts the traditional goal of Zionism to make Jewry "a nation among nations." Daniel Goldhagen, Harvard scholar and author of the controversial Hitler's Willing Executioners, argues that philo-Semites are often closet anti-Semites. His detractor Norman Finkelstein agrees. The thesis is that Jew haters feel a need to talk about Jews, and with anti-Semitism no longer being socially acceptable they must instead make exaggerated positive statements.

So...now understanding that supporting Israel can be either a good thing or a bad thing (???), what really caught my attention was the back-and-forth bantering of two commenters - two Jewish gentlemen - regarding Christian proselytizing or "missionizing," and the monies that may flow to the Holyland from Christian organizations, specifically John Hagee's Christians United for Israel (CUFI). One of the commenters views this as "Zionist Christian support" and wants no part of it:

...we can live without their donations some of which I am convinced go towards missionizing, directly or indirectly.

This commenter (the one not wanting Christian support) mentions a book written by "a sort of relation," A Match Made in Heaven by Zev Chafets. In reading through an interesting review of this book, there's this:

“Jews are Democrats, Israelis are Republicans.”

Okay. Now I'm beginning to "get it." American Jews vote Democrat because their American friends (or not) attempt to bring their Jewish friends to Jesus. It makes more sense than the explanation I usually get: American Jews vote Democrat because "American Jews have ALWAYS voted Democrat and ALWAYS will." That's not much of an answer considering today's ever-present Islamic threat to annihilate Israel. Most of us could, rather quickly, get-over an old and harmful habit, when faced with extinction, but perhaps it is just easier to spite Christian "persecution" and pull the lever for a Democrat.

After a long, long time digesting this Instapundit post, I'm wondering if it is actually possible, in this day and time, that American Jews are simply frustrated at, or angry about, Christians attempting to convert them? And so they vote Democrat?

If this still isn't making a point with you, voting Democrat supports Islam. Voting Democrat supports Hamas, voting Democrat supports Syria, voting Democrat supports Iran (Speaker Pelosi claims that some of the success of the Iraq surge "is the goodwill of the Iranians - they decided when the fighting in Basra would end..."), voting Democrat supports the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision granting Constitutional rights to terrorists (in this case, Islamic terrorists) - who may have been complicit in bringing down the World Trade Towers, and if not complicit, would have been if they could have been. Voting Democrat demands that America remain tied to middle-eastern oil ($$$ flowing to Islamic countries - not comforting to those Republican-thinking Israeli's, I think). Did I mention that voting Democrat supports Hamas?

Do Jews ever attempt to tell their Christian friends that the Messiah has not yet come? Of course they do. I'm not angry about it, though.

The Horowitz piece, and the comments, are far more intricate than my focus in this post. To be clear, one commenter points out: "Jews and Israel need help now and Christian evangelicals are giving that help now. Jews should be embracing these Christian evangelicals. That does not mean embracing Christianity." Author and commenters: well-worth the read - please do read them.

Others talking about the Jewish view of John Hagee and Christians United for Israel:
Daniel Pipes: John Hagee, the Holocaust and Me: Thinking About Allies
Anglicans for Israel - The Rise of CUFI,
Jews on First: Leader of Reform Judiasm Discourages Cooperation with Christians United for Israel


Technorati Tags: Pastor John Hagee, Daniel Pipes, American Jews Vote Democrat, Christians United for Israel, CUFI, Zionism, Christian-Zionist Support,

A Progressive God Responds to the War on Christmas

Yesterday I was forwarded a rather long e-mail letter from God, so I thought you just might be interested. If you are reading this, then you will most likely receive it too. I was really disappointed, however, that I wasn’t on God’s initial list of friends, but I guess I should be thankful that the e-mail finally made it into my inbox.

The letter starts out . . .

“Dear Children,

It has come to my attention that many of you are upset that folks are taking My name out of the season. Maybe you've forgotten that I wasn't actually born during this time of the year and that it was some of you're predecessors who decided to celebrate My birthday on what was actually a time of pagan festival. Although Ido appreciate being remembered anytime.

How I personally feel about this celebration can probably be most easily understood by those of you who have been blessed with children of your own. I don't care what you call the day. If you want to celebrate My birth just, GET ALONG AND LOVEONE ANOTHER. . . .”

The letter goes on to suggest that we all stop worrying about the War on Christmas, and start acting like real Christians by performing acts of Christian love and charity etc. Now who can argue with that? And more to the point, who would dare argue with God???

Well, for starters, how can I be sure that God actually wrote this e-mail? I did notice that there were a few grammatical errors, but perhaps God doesn’t really care much about grammar either or perhaps His secretary was off for the day?

The next question I had was that if God really did write this e-mail, which person of the Trinity was actually involved in the writing? The implication is that it must be Jesus because God is talking about “MY birthday.” We Christians all know that God the Father “Is, Was, and Always Will Be.” God the Father never had a birth date. If Jesus is writing about “My name” and “My birthday”, why didn’t He even once mention His name??? He could have at least signed the letter but HE didn’t.

Perhaps God was avoiding any mention of Jesus in order to keep Christians and Non-Christians alike from Christmas-time divisiveness? But that doesn’t ring true. It’s really hard to imagine a God “who sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him” (John 4:19), not even wanting to mention that fact on his only son’s birthday.

But this letter is hard to figure out, kind of like trying to figure out God. So I’m just not sure. Isn’t it funny that God would remind folks to read John 15: 1 – 8 ("I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. . .), tell folks to pray, and to send money to missionaries who would spread his name, but fail to spread His name in this very letter???

And why wouldn’t God want folks to heed Jesus’ own words?

“And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.” (John 14:13)

God made several good suggestions in his e-mail but I was struck by the fact that God had little interest in keeping alive the Christian tradition of Christmas. I would assume from reading this e-mail from God that He’s not at all opposed to secularizing the day.

“Stop worrying about the fact that people are calling the tree a holiday tree, instead of a Christmas tree. It was I who made all trees.”

That got me to thinking about the importance of tradition – to humans at least. Why should protecting our cherished religious traditions be important to all Americans regardless of our differing faith perspectives?

Oddly enough I found the answer from an Australian – Professor Mark Cooray. Dr. Cooray was once a socialist/progressive activist but he turned from socialism because, “I have come to believe that socialism and progressivism are in practice, as far as human development is concerned, retrogressive philosophies.”

Here’s a quote from a very interesting chapter on Tradition from the book, The Australian Achievement: From Bondage To Freedom by Dr. Mark Cooray.

"The Internationale contains a line "No more tradition's chains shall bind us." This is one of the fundamental ideas of socialist/progressivist thinking. Man must be freed from tradition. Reason is to be the guiding light. The devil can cite scripture for his purposes. Reason can often be used to support any position. If men and women are freed from tradition, the experiences of history and the family environment, they can be manipulated and used by ideological and religious leaders, eccentrics and maniacs. If tradition declines, ideologues can mould and influence individuals."
Source: http://ourcivilisation.com/cooray/btof/chap11.htm

Note: The Internationale is the international song of both Marxist and non-Marxist socialist parties. It was written in French by Eugene Pottier, a woodworker from Lille, after the fall of the Paris Commune of 1871, and set to music by P. Degeyter.
Source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/INTERNAT.html

Now it’s just possible, even plausible, that perhaps God didn’t really write this e-mail letter. And if the devil can cite scripture for his purposes, then who is to say who really wrote the letter? That got me to thinking about “inversion” – the turning of faith or any philosophy inside out.

Now anyone can be susceptible to ideologues who would manipulate faith, and those who are only too willing to overthrow tradition for political correctness are often the most susceptible. The clever part about the inversion of faith is that it is often very subtle. The primary rule of inversion is that the big lie is usually hidden amid much truth. And that big lie is often hidden through the process of expanding definitions and redefining commonly accepted theological truths. We usually call it "revisionism".

I don’t know who wrote the letter and most likely it was written by someone who has the best of Christian humanistic intentions. I do know that the letter was forwarded to me from one of my liberal/ progressive friends who is a member of a very liberal/progressive Christian denomination. I won’t mention the particular denomination’s name but you can usually tell which Christian denominations have a liberal/progressive bias. They are the denominations with well known old names that are rapidly losing membership due in no small part to the fact that they subtly promote moral equivalency with any faith perspective, and they avoid, at all costs, the mention of sin. The easiest way to spot them is that they quote every Biblical verse devoted to Love but recoil from any passage having to do with the cost of sin. And if you read any of their literature you will find that they have quite neutered the language by never referring to God as "He". The most extreme of the progressives refer to God as "He/She".

My friend sent the e-mail on to all of her many church friends and to me because she was afraid that we Americans are “politicizing our God.” But somehow this letter from God feels just like a politicized message especially when God tells us to pray for George.

I do not doubt the sincerity and devout faith of my friend and of most liberal/progressive Christians. But what I do know is that, as Dr. Cooray aptly pointed out concerning the progressives, “they can be manipulated and used by ideological and religious leaders, eccentrics and maniacs.”

If anyone would like me to send them the entire e-mail from “God”, please e-mail me.