US Jews feel threatened by religious right

Reuters ^ | 12/15/05 | Michael Conlon

[freedom44]

CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. Jewish leaders say they are increasingly worried that Christian conservatives want to turn America politically and culturally into a country that tolerates only their brand of Christianity.

"There is a feeling on all sides that something is changing," said Abraham Foxman, director of the New York-based Anti-Defamation League.

"The polls indicate a very serious thing -- that over 60 percent of the American people feel that religion and Christianity are under attack," he said on Thursday in an interview.

"Some are saying we are attacking (Christianity). This whole movement is not anti-Semitic or motivated by anti-Semitism. But sometimes unintended consequences are much more serious than intended" he added.

Foxman recently arranged a meeting in New York involving six Jewish organizations to discuss the problem. He said that while participants did not agree on the exact level of the problem, they felt a strategy was needed.

"It's not a war room strategy," he added. "It's to understand what's out there."

He said Jews are a people of faith but are opposed to anyone who would say only they know the truth and want to impose it on everyone else.

While every December brings disputes over what to call the "holiday season" and its trappings, the level of lobbying by those who fear Christmas is becoming something generic has been particularly high this year.

But the issues raised by Foxman and others goes much deeper into American society, ranging from challenges to teaching evolution to bans on abortion and same-sex marriage or deciding

what kind of people who should serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Every room (from bedroom to classroom) in the American mansion is under assault to impose either de facto or de jure a Christian theocracy -- I call them Christocrats," said Rabbi James Rudin, former head of interreligious activities for the American Jewish Committee.

"They are people who believe there should be a legally mandated Christian nation, where the concept of separation of church and state is weakened or abandoned," he added.

Rudin said he has met pastors "who say that Jesus Christ is the ultimate leader of America and that God's law trumps the Constitution ... I'm very concerned."

While far from all evangelical Christians hold those views, he said, the influence of those who do is strong.

Rudin, whose book "The Baptizing of America: The Religious Right's Plans for the Rest of Us" will be published in January by Avalon, said those with a theocratic agenda are not anti-Semites, and in fact some of them are among the strongest supporters of the state of Israel.

But he said they are Christians who see secular humanists and globalists as their enemies and who feel they are being attacked.

Mathew (cq) Staver, general counsel of the Florida-based Liberty Counsel, a group which backs conservative Christian causes in court and which has been particularly active in Christmas-related issues, says "there is absolutely no effort that I'm aware of to theocratize America or put down other faiths to expand Christianity."

He credits the increased activity surrounding Christmas issues this year to three years of building an organization over the matter.

"People have said enough is enough," he said, citing such incidents as naming Boston's Christmas tree a "holiday tree" and the publication of a sales catalog by a major retailer which featured Kwanza and Hanukkah gifts but made no mention of Christmas.

President George W. Bush, who describes himself as a born-again Christian, also faced criticism recently for sending out cards wishing people a happy "holiday" season.

"This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture," William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights told the Washington Post.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Abe Foxman was completely correct in his dire warnings that The Passion of the Christ would create violence against Jews and we would witness a new rise of anti-semitism in the U.S. Therefore, I trust his dire warnings yet again.

[white trash redneck]

Foxman is delusional.

If you wanted to guess which of two individuals were more warmly disposed towards Jews and Israel, and the only thing you knew about these two people was that one was an evangelical Christian, and the other was a member of an "establishment" denomination (eg, Episcopalian, Presbyterian) is there any doubt who it would be?

Yes, I understand that I am making a generalization, and that there are anti-semitic evangelicals and philo-semitic Presbyterians, but Foxman is really barking up the wrong tree.

[Sam Gamgee]

Sadly, we Canadians don’t have a written constitution. The Bill of Rights is actually a section of the Constitution, correct?

[Sam Gamgee]

Are you serious? You really think the Passion has anything to do with new anti-semitism? It is not as though telling the story of Christ’s death is something new.

[Gaffer]

Jews needn't feel threatened by Republicans and Conservatives; they should rightly be deathly afraid of their long standing moral(?), ethical(?) and monetary support to liberalism and the Democratic Party, however.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Yes, there were hundreds of synagogues burned in the U.S., thousands of Hassidic Jews rounded up and shot in Central Park, sermons on TV about how those Christ killers should have been exterminated in the 40's, and a complete collapse of support for Israel from the American Evangelical movement. All of Abe Foxman's predictions came through at the opening of the movie, so I have no doubt his predictions will come through now.

[Marine_Uncle]

"Sadly, we Canadians don’t have a written constitution. The Bill of Rights is actually a section of the Constitution, correct? " YES. Ten where ratified from an original 12. If you would want a quick glance, you may want to go to this site;
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm
The reason I included them as a seperate entity is they define a citizen's rights in relation to the over all constitution. In essense they are simply a part of our constitution. Think of them as "add-ons" to what the original constitution contained.
Intereseting. I had no idea you folks did not have a constitution along similiar lines as ours.

[Sam Gamgee]

I got you. Tongue in cheek. :) You can't always be sure in print.

[Sam Gamgee]

No, we inherited our Parliamentary system from Britain, which I learned recently does not have a written constitution either. In fact the Magna Carta is the only foundation they have for the freedoms that evolved after its creation. It is still actually used as a reference in law. Since our prime minister has broader powers than a US president we are at the mercy of the cabinet for any future decisions that may come at the expense of the minority. Granted we have a Supreme Court that does step in from time to time to frustrate the plans of the Parliament. We also have a Charter of Rights, but that is relatively new.

[Marine_Uncle]

Thanks for your explanation. Interesting. I understood your borrowing the English parlimentary process but just assumed all our western nations had a written constitution. Great. I learned something new today.

[Sam Gamgee]

Your welcome. That's why I am a recent convert to republicanism. Other democracies are not equal essentially because they simply result in mob rule. Sufficient constitutional protections from the government do not exist.

[Marine_Uncle]

"Sufficient constitutional protections from the government do not exist."
And that perhaps is why so many have migrated here over the years. It was not only for seeking prosperity but to gain under the law rights not to be found elsewhere regarding personal rights of an individual.

[Sam Gamgee]

I believe so. In that sense, the people of the 1800s were far more intelligent than us today. They had a better understanding of these sort of matters. Today, even Americans such as my wife, don't have a clue how the US system is different from other Western nations.

It seems Americans who want a popular vote, don't understand that it was the founders' intentions that each state choose the President.

[Marine_Uncle]

"It seems Americans who want a popular vote, don't understand that it was the founders' intentions that each state choose the President."
To many Americans do not remember what they learned in school or where not introduced to American history/politics to begin with. And your example is a good example of that proof. If you ask Americans what the Electorial College is, many will probably stare at you with glazed eyes.

[Sam Gamgee]

I think no one knew until the Gore-Bush debacle in Florida. I didn't. It seems that perhaps the US schools are really failing to educate their children as to what it means to be an American. (Don't think I am saying this snidely as though Canada has a better system). That's a tragedy, because if you don't know why your system of government is the best in the world, how can you defend it against erosion?

[Ostlandr]

Great post! Thanks!

[Marine_Uncle]

"That's a tragedy, because if you don't know why your system of government is the best in the world, how can you defend it against erosion?"
Well said. At any rate, I hope you folks shall continue seeing an upsurge in your conservative movement. I admit I do not follow your politics nor that of other nations anywhere as well as I should. One cannot continue to give the national treasures away without eventually going into the poor house.

[RightWinger]

The Christian Right are Israel's best friends.

[old republic]

A scientific "theory" is the end game in science, it doesn't get any higher than that.

Sure it can. There is a step above theory. Its a scientific law. Thats why you have Newton's three laws of motion. They are not theory, they are indisputable. Scientific theories can be fairly iron clad, but not necessarily irrefutable. That is why they are called Theories.

[old republic]

Not only do most Americans not know what the Electoral College is for, they also don't know what the US Senate is for. The founders orignally had the state legislatures elect the Senators for a reason. Since the XVII amendment was passed, now the state legislatures don't have a single check against the Federal government, except for calling a Constitutional Convention. We should give our state legislatures a check in the Senate again. We should repeal the XVII amendment and restore Checks and Balances to our system. Then the states could stop liberal judges who ban religion from this nation from being confirmed.