Posted on 11/21/2009 4:01:45 PM PST by rmlew
The idea was that if government were purged of its Christian character that Jews would rise to the heights.
This is not only false but sounds much like mid-1800 anti-Semitic propaganda. No, no Jews had an idea of "purging the government of its Christian character." What is the "Christian character" of those English kings that expelled Jews for centuries and of Cromwell that allowed them back? What does the "Christian character" of the English court have in common with that of the French? No much: one allowed Magna Carta in 1215 and the other was overthrown in a revolution of 1789. What does "Christian character" of Spanish Isabella (called the Catholic for her expulsion of Jews and Roma) have in common with that of the Dutch monarchs, that allowed the expelled into Holland? Nothing at all. What is the "Cristian character" of the Russian court?
There is no such thing as the "Christian character" of the government. Our form of government was heavily influenced by a particular stream of the Christian, largely English, thought. All other, equally Christian, governments held an opposite view of the world.
And, no, European Jews did not want or demand weakening of Christianity. They wanted the end of expulsions, robbery, rape and murder. The "Most Christian" monarch of France did not even want to entertain the thought, and it was the revolutionaries of 1789 who granted Jews equal rights. These rights were brought to Germany by Napoleon but denied again after his defeat. It was actually some influential Christian thinkers that demand equality for the Jews at the time. Most "Enlightened" Jews in the fist half of XIX century converted to Christianity. Those that did not invented a more secularized, Reform Judaism. Nobody I know of has advocated that "government [be] purged of its Christian character" --- whatever that means.
You have turned Jews from victims of the Church policy to attackers of Christianity.
"hey also bought the myth that Jews under Islam flourished."
Who are they? And when did "they" allegedly buy into that idea?
The safety of a Spanish Jew under Islam was indeed incomparably greater than in contemporaneous Europe. Yes, their culture flourished in Spain and Northern Africa. This is largely because the Eastern countries were incomparably more enlightened than the West at the time. You sound as if the "idea" is somehow false and Jews merely "bought" into it.
"So there is an unacknowledged anti-Christian sentiment at work."
This is simply a defamation. There is deeply rooted apprehension of any strong expressions of any religiosity. Every Easter, Jewish mothers in Eastern Europe prohibited their children to play outside: they may be harmed by a "Christian" returning from church to avenge the death of Christ. For almost two millennia then living Jews were declared collectively guilty in the death of Christ, and their oppression was justified on those grounds. The more strictly a ruler bought into this logic, the more oppression he inflicted.
As a consequence, German and East European Jews acquired apprehension of religiosity. There is no "anti-Christian sentiment."
"Zionism owes a tremendous debt to British Judeophilism, exemplified by the Balfour Agreement."
Another nonsensical statement. There was no such thing as British Judeophilism. In mid-1800, as part of the continuing Enlightenment, it became acceptable not to hate or oppress Jews; it became OK to state that one stands for equality of all religions. Just like those standing up for Blacks were called "n-lovers," the opposition often referred to liberals as Judeophiles. Yes, they could even have Jewish friends.
You make it sound like those "Judeophiles" were ruling the country. Where have they gone immediately after Balfour? England was so rampantly anti-Semitic in 1920s-1930s.
You also make it sound as if Balfour was some kind of a gift to the Jews. Perhaps as a gift to the Jews they also created Jourdan?
"Lawrence made promises he had no right to make and through his celebrity sold this version of history... So Zionism had been tarred with the anti-colonialism of that is part of the mindset of the Left."
Another conspiracy theory. Zionism is anti-colonial as a consequence of it being heavily influenced by socialism. As I said earlier, it was liberals and socialists that advocated for equality, being thus natural friends of the Jews. In addition, in the second half of XIX century, socialism was strongly influenced by Marx and took strong hold in the minds of Europeans, both Jews and Gentiles. That is when Zionism was born, and many Zionists were socialist. As such they opposed colonialism.
The non-jewish Left has never trusted Jews, because they think that Leftist Jews are untrustworthy, that they were willing to sell-out their own people for their self advancement. This is undeniably true of the Stalinist Left.
You should try to read fewer conspiracy theories. What you stated is the opposite from the truth. Great many of the socialists, social-democrats, anarchists and communists were former Jews -- that is, Jews born to Jewish parents. Many of these people were leaders of the respective movement -- so much for the distrust. In fact, the present-day anti-Semites in Russia love to point out how many of the Russian communist leaders had Jewish surnames.
You appear to have a complete misunderstanding of the socialist and communist movements. Two of the central parts of those ideologies are secularism and internationalism. A Russian communist born into a Jewish family and a German communist born into a Christian family have this much in common: both view themselves and each other as (i) non-Jewish and non-Christian respectively, and ((ii) members of one world without national boundaries.
Russian communists, whether born into Christian, Jewish or Muslim families, were destroying churches, synagogues and mosques with fervor. They did not think they were fighting their own people but enemies of the people --- od all people.
There was no distrust of Jews among the Russian communists. There was envy (Jews tend to be over-achievers, and were prominent in particular in the Communist Party) and ancient hatred. It is funny but true that many Russians Communists admitted to hating Jews "because they killed Christ." Some things never die. The Stalinist Left proved nothing else in that regard.
What you plug in here is an age-old trick: Jews deserve the treatment they had for millennia. I find it interesting that your post contains not a single true fact but quite a bit of bias.
Jews distrust Christians for the same reason that blacks distrust whites—that is, for good reason. Your argument sounds a whole lot like “blacks can’t be racist.” And when I use the word Christian I mean simply Christian “vaues,” not some supposed “true” Christianity. I mean Cultural Christianity. There can be no doubt that our culture is Christianity. There can be no doubt that our laws are founded on Christianity beliefs. Just as canon law followed the forms of Roman law, so the English common law followed the forms of Canon law and used its principles. Even our infidels are those whose attitudes are formed by Christianity. or a rejection of it.
My assessment of Bronfman is the same as your. But why has not he done that by now, then? The detioration of Hillels is going on for a couple of decades, especially since mid-1990s. Has Bronfman failed to notice it somehow?
I don't think so. The explanation may quite different: Bronfman is not as powerful as his title and his money appear to look. You can be a brilliant general but it is foot soldiers and cavalry who carry out your strategy. And Bronfman's foot soldiers are the radicals of the '60s, graduates of leftist universities. They themselves are not particularly pro-Israel any longer. The Left never was: it subscribes to one-world, transnational view, remember?
American Jewry, as a whole, was pro-Israel for about a decade or two after the Six-day War. As in Germany, most viewed Zionism with suspicion and animosity: they thought that Zionism undermined their fight against accusations of dual loyalty. [ A prominent example is Arthur Sulzberger, the part-owner and publisher of the NYTimes since 1935. Unlike the present owners, who converted to Christianity, he was Jewish. Some people accuse him of playing down the news of the Holocaust precisely because he did not want NYTimes to be seen as being "too Jewish." He spent his lifetime speaking out against Zionism. ] Personally, I am not surprised by the liberals' abandonment of Israel. The left is transnational. If they can abandon American ideals for the leftist ones, why would they not abandon a faraway Israel?
Well, I am glad to hear that. But that's not what you actually said.
"here can be no doubt that our culture is Christianity. There can be no doubt that our laws are founded on Christianity beliefs. Just as canon law followed the forms of Roman law, so the English common law followed the forms of Canon law and used its principles. Even our infidels are those whose attitudes are formed by Christianity. or a rejection of it."
I tend to agree with you here, but only in part. When you speak of our form of government as being Christian, it sounds as if Christians share in our vision. They do not. The Christians of England and Spain have opposed us. One should speak of this matter more precisely. I think it is unambiguous to say that we owe a great deal to a particular stream of English Protestants. Iberian Catholics have created a very different form of government both in Spain and Portugal, and in the New World. The regimes of Guatemala and Paraguay can also claim that their form of government is rooted in Christianity. Think about that.
Moreover, what you said earlier was much stronger, prejudiced and factually incorrect. You have invented an idea that Jews want to remove the Christian roots of our (form of) government. This rises to the level of being ridiculous. While Jews were dispersed among nations for two millennia, there has never been recorded such a movement, or idea, among them. In fact, every week we say a special prayer for peace and prosperity in our country -- for all its inhabitants --- and for our government to conduct itself in a righteous way.
"Jews distrust Christians for the same reason that blacks distrust whites—that is, for good reason."
I agree only to the extent I indicated earlier. You may not be able to related to that, but Jews are soooo used to being a minority --- it bothers them not at all that someone is a Christian. Every Jew I know would laugh if I suggested to them they have "anti-Christian sentiment." It is not the fact that someone is Christian but very vigorous expressions of religiosity that Jews are traditionally apprehensive about: it is from such expressions that they suffered in the past (in Europe, much less here).
I can find a partial agreement with you here but not with what you said earlier. I repeat, there is no "anti-Christian sentiment" among the Jews as a whole.
"Your argument sounds a whole lot like “blacks can’t be racist.”
You commit another logical fallacy here (taking part for the whole, pars pro toto). You, as many other prejudiced people, speak of "the Jews;" that is, those traits that are supposedly share by the whole tribe. I spoke against that and said that your claims are false. The fact that certain traits ("anti-Christian sentiment") are NOT shared by all does not preclude, of course, that SOME members of the group may exhibit those trades. SO you are incorrect when you say that my "argument sounds a whole lot like `blacks can’t be racist.'" Not at all my argument was that, contrary to your claim, a typical Jew is not anti-Christian.
Of course there are racist Blacks, but I am yet to meet an anti-Christian Jew. You may view aloofness of some Orthodox Jews as expression of "anti-Christian sentiment." Well, they are equally aloof with respect to me, because I am not sufficiently observant. For a similar reason, monks went to monassteries. They were not anti-Christian, anti-people, or anti-anythihg.
I suppose there may exist some weird guy who can present some illogical theory with an "anti-Christian sentiment." Such person may of course exist. But that is NOT what you said earlier. You attributed this to Jews in general, which is both false and prejudiced.
If you are indeed Christian --- I am familiar with what that means, as many of my friends are true and observant Christians --- then you may want to look into your heart and see if your views expressed in the previous post are indeed pure.
Perhaps, we'll meet again under moder agreeably circumstances. Have a good day.
Thanks justiceseeker93.
Nobody aid they were immune from prejudice. If you have any intellectual honesty, you'd admit by now that this was NOT the point your were making. You ascribed to "Jews" prejudices such as "anti-Crhirstian sentiment" and basic lack of morals, which supposedly allowed them to persecute "their own people" -- so much so that even the scummy Left supposedly did not trust them. This has nothing at all to do with whether Jews are immune from prejudice.
"while they may not have harding feelings against Christians, or even nowadays not even Jesus,"
It's not just nowadays: Jesus disturbed the priests at the time of his life, but not after his death. People differentiate a person and his teaching. Jewish priests continued to guard Jews against acceptance of Jesus' teaching, but they had no feelings one way or another against him.
" they reject Christianity."
Yes. And also Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism --- any other religion. Don't you do the same?
"they reject Christianity. Which is why they embraced the Enlightenment."
Where do you get this stuff?
As I mentioned earlier, and you can easily verify, most Jews that accepted Enlightenment converted to Christianity. In the first few years of XIX century, about 10% of all German Jews converted to Christianity. They did not become atheists or agnostics.
The two notions are disconnected. A Jew "accepting the Enlightenment" can: (i) remain Jewish, (ii) convert to Christianity or some other religion, or (iii) become an atheist or agnostic. That is, he has the same options as the person that does not "accept the Enlightenment."
You claim that Jews "embraced the Enlightenment" because "they reject Christianity" does not make any sense. Many Christians --- people who did NOT reject Christianity --- have also embraced the Enlightenment. Great many of them became atheists. Have you looked around lately? Only about 5% of Europe is now Christian. The vast majority of the remaining 95% are not Jews. These people accepted Christianity before but no longer do so.
In every sentence you show that you hold Jews to a standard and view them as if they were all the same. This is one of the oldest forms of prejudice.
"Which is why they embraced the Enlightenment. It was a way for them to become Europeans"
Here is another prejudice: who on earth told you that they were NOT Europeans and needed to become such? They arrived to France before the Franks and to Spain before most of its other inhabitants. Who the h-ll are you to say that in 1800s, almost 2000 years after their arrival to Europe, they were not Europeans?
Jews were Europeans and, for many centuries, they had fought and died for their respective countries. What they did not have was equality of rights, including the most basic one --- citizenship. In the vast majority of times and places they were prohibited from owning land, hold public office, and engage in most professions. Equality was the issue. Only for bigoted people like you did not consider them "Europeans."
"But a society whose members actually believes in the divinity of Jesus and whose laws reflect their worldview, is not substantially different from the old European societies."
Another expression of bigotry. You just excluded all Jews that ever lived in Europe from "society." They certainly rejected the divinity of Jesus. According to you, they were not members of societies that constituted "old Europe."
I cannot understand how you can call yourself Christian: yuu are incapable not only of love but of mere tolerance to other people. And, of course, you statement is illogical. What is "old Europe." You don't mean those Germans whom Charlemagne has to fight and kill en masse (by tens of thousand) in order to convert them to Christianity? You don't mean to say that those pagan Germans were not European?
Are Rome and the rest of Italy, Spain and Portugal up until V-VI centuries not European? Spain was Christian for only about 150 years -- up until the discovery of America. That is, out of 2000 years after Christ, it was predominantly Christian for only 650 or so. What does "old European" mean. The images you have in your mind --- not only of Jews but also of Christians -- are unsupported by facts.
And so it this statement: "Liberal Christians who like reform Jews think of Jesus as just another prophet are easy to get along with."
Judaism, whether Orthodox, Reform or Conservative, does not view Jesus as a prophet.
And yet another: "a society whose members actually believes in the divinity of Jesus and whose laws reflect their worldview, is not substantially different from the old European societies."
What is the proof here. Where have you seen as society such this in the last 200 years? What is Christian about socialism, for instance? Most of Western Europe embraced it after about 1850. And when you say "European," you clearly have in mind Western European. Liberalism never arrived into Eastern Europe. In a previous post, you claimed that American society is an outgrowth of Christianity. Well, Eastern Europeans and especially Russians have chosen completely opposite, oppressive systems --- were they not a part of "old Europe?"
Not a sentence in your posts makes sense, and not one of your claims is supported by facts.
I have written to you extensively in the hope that you will realize that your views are hateful and prejudiced. You do not even engage in a discussion: you simply go to some other point and blatantly lie, stating something different as if reiterating.
I have nothing else to contribute to this discussion. Have a good day.
You sure like to use words. But of course Jews are anti-Christian, just as most protestants are anti-Catholic. And as for persecuting their own people. I am hardly the only one who had pointed out the strange phenomenon of Jews at the extremes of the divide between communism and capitalism. This was one reason for Stalin’s paranoia about Jews.
And it is not useful to talk about Jesus and the Jews. Judaism as we know has a history that in its development is a product of the Diaspora not the land and people that Jesus knew. The destruction of the Temple changed everything, including the religious practices of the Jewish people. One key to that was their reaction to Christianity. Jews and Christians were rivals for the affection of the same sort of gentile-God seeker, but after Hadrian’s final destruction and rebuilding of Jerusalem, the Jews become racially m more exclusive even as the Christians became ever more inclusive. It is said that Constantine considered Judaism when he was trying to fix on a new monotheist religion for the Empire, but decided on the Christians because they were less nationalistic and yet had similar social cohesion.
As for the Enlightenment, a Jew can be an atheist and be accepted as a Jew. The Enlightenment offered the alternative of a secular society, one in which religion did not matter, which is why many people, Christian or Jew , found it attractive. they had given up on the idea of a “true” religion.” and had turned to “Reason” as the only way of attaining truth. As European elites turned away from Christianity, they were more open to men of talent of whatever faith or no faith.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.