BibleForums Christian Message Board
Other Categories => Controversial Issues => Topic started by: Fenris on May 26, 2021, 10:43:39 AM
-
From NRO https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/05/time-for-democrats-to-address-their-anti-semitism-problem/
Over the past few days, Jews have been assaulted and harassed on the streets of major cities across the world- London, Paris, New York, Los Angeles, Miami, just to name a few. And the Democrats, who claim to be against racism in any form, seem quite content to ignore it. Even (or especially) when it's in their own ranks. For shame.
Time for Democrats to Address Their Anti-Semitism Problem
Last week, pro-Palestinian demonstrators trolled the streets of New York and Los Angeles to terrorize and attack Jews. Such outbreaks of violence, perpetrated under the guise of “anti-Zionism,” are commonplace in Europe and the Middle East. It would be an unmitigated tragedy if such political violence were to become the norm in the United States.
Anti-Jewish attacks did not spring forth in a vacuum. Increasingly, the American Left has gone beyond mere criticism of the Jewish State (of the sort that is made against other nations) and adopted the kind of virulent strain of anti-Israel rhetoric that was once mercifully relegated to far-left college campuses.
In this environment, Squad members Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Rashida Tlaib can falsely accuse Israel of being an “apartheid state” and of employing U.S. military aid to target civilians and children — a new spin on an old blood libel — and experience almost no rebuke from their own party.
The intense opprobrium saved for Israel, and spared authoritarian nations such as China and Iran, betrays the progressive left’s moral corruption. And rather than react in dismay, New York Times progressive columnist Michelle Goldberg lamented that attacks on Jews might undermine the Palestinian political cause. Rather than distance themselves from violence conducted by their allies, former Bernie Sanders surrogate Amer Zahr implored progressives in a video and tweet to “stop condemning anti-Semitism.” He said, “You are not helping. You are playing their games. It’s a distraction.” Instead, he urged followers to say, “Free Palestine — and nothing else!”
Zahr needn’t worry. Most progressive politicians who did bother denouncing the recent wave of violence against Jews diluted their rebukes by also condemning rising Islamophobia, creating the impression that advocates of both sides of the Israeli–Palestinian debate were engaging in violence — which is, needless to say, a myth.
There is little political upside for Democrats to call out the Squad. Polls show a party that has lurched leftward and become increasingly antagonistic towards the Jewish State. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently noted, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict feeds into many of the progressive left’s ideological biases: “the narrative of the oppressor versus the oppressed, of the coloniser versus the colonised, of the genocide perpetrator and system of supremacy.”
Those few Democrats who unapologetically defend Israel, such as Ritchie Torres, a freshman congressman representing New York’s 15th district, find themselves ostracized. “The moment I sent out a statement denouncing the terrorism of Hamas, I was swiftly demonized by extremists as a white supremacist, as a supporter of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, genocide,” Torres told an audience at a recent United Jewish Appeal–sponsored event.
Surely, condemning those who instigate anti-Jewish violence should not undermine the cause of Palestinian statehood. And if it does, then there is something wrong with that cause.
After Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene recently made an ignorant andintellectually lazy historical analogy, comparing the campaign for vaccination passports to the Nazis’ forcing of Jews to wear gold stars, reporters began chasing down Republicans to get their reactions. Minority leader Kevin McCarthy and other members of the House leadership eventually issued statements condemning the Georgia congresswoman.
When it comes to Ilhan Omar and Co., where is Nancy Pelosi? Where is Chuck Schumer or Dick Durbin? To this point, nowhere to be found. It is, of course, true that neither Left nor Right has a monopoly on anti-Semitism. These days, however, one party is increasingly under the sway of a noxious, all-encompassing hostility to the Jewish State.
-
It is really a shame that those that will burn businesses or make public declarations of disgust for one group will not even speak out for other groups. What’s really bad is the ones that will try to fight for right and stand with Israel are cancelled.
It’s not fun to have to start accounts over after being deleted but very worth it.
-
What’s really bad is the ones that will try to fight for right and stand with Israel are cancelled.
This is sperate from support for Israel, which is a different (although related) issue. This is about Jews being attacked here, in this country, today. And the Left seems very comfortable allowing it to happen.
-
What’s really bad is the ones that will try to fight for right and stand with Israel are cancelled.
This is sperate from support for Israel, which is a different (although related) issue. This is about Jews being attacked here, in this country, today. And the Left seems very comfortable allowing it to happen.
Unfortunately, the progressives are VERY COMFORTABLE for violence being perpetrated against any group they do not like (along ideological lines) . And that means just abut everyone except themselves. And I do agree with you Buckshot. The terrible violence against Jews here in the U.S. is very different than our support Israel. Jews, AAPI, "people of color", etc are all being used by the left, who do not care a rat's back side about them in reality. ANd they still do not see this, as these groups, historically, keep voting the left into office.
OK. I have reached my max political commentary for the day.
-
Trying to understand, if this is separate from what is going on in Israel right now, what spurred the recent outbreak of violence against the Jewish people here in the states? Normally the left (media) support whatever meets their agenda at the time. I think the media (propaganda) probably sparked what is going on here by not supporting Israel in the current world events. Kind of like the way that people started attacking our law enforcement after the media started twisting the truth.
-
Unfortunately, the progressives are VERY COMFORTABLE for violence being perpetrated against any group they do not like (along ideological lines) .
But this is not an ideological group. It's a minority ethnic group. And what Israel does or doesn't do should have no bearing on this. Imagine if, after 9/11, bands of thugs were roaming around cities beating men wearing turbans, and further imagine that nobody cared. It's sick. And it's happening today.
-
Trying to understand, if this is separate from what is going on in Israel right now, what spurred the recent outbreak of violence against the Jewish people here in the states?
The haters are basically saying "Members of group X in another country did something I don't personally approve of, so I'm going to persecute members of group X that I come across in my country". This is not a normal mindset. Furthermore, Democrats, who claim to speak for oppressed minorities, are either silent, or encouraging this groupthink.
-
Unfortunately, the progressives are VERY COMFORTABLE for violence being perpetrated against any group they do not like (along ideological lines) .
But this is not an ideological group. It's a minority ethnic group. And what Israel does or doesn't do should have no bearing on this. Imagine if, after 9/11, bands of thugs were roaming around cities beating men wearing turbans, and further imagine that nobody cared. It's sick. And it's happening today.
True. It is not an ideological group as you stated. We have folks in the halls of our congress who are haters of Israel, as well as others in this administration. They howl how bad Israel is, blah, blah.
The media, of course, picks up on this and runs with the same narrative. This all feeds the other haters here to equate the actions of a nation state with an ethnic group of people here. Far removed from what is going on the the middle east. The left is very good at playing identity politics with whatever group of people they wish and pit group against group. Look at the violence (of which they did not hide or even condemn) last summer with the BLM protests RIOTS. They stoke the flames of hatred for political gain, and for some reason, are never held accountable.
It will not be long, as it is already happening, for Christians to become the target of the full brunt of their attention. I try not to use this word directed to people, but the left is just utterly EVIL. To the core.
-
I find the original article very misleading and disappointing, for the usual methods of deceptive reporting (cherry-picked quotes, minimizing decades of Republican antisemitism, especially from the last five years, etc.).
Some of you are saying the media is controlled by "the left", and is "propaganda" against Israel. But the media is reporting on these attacks. They're reporting comments from Democratic politicians condemning the attacks. BBC, NBC, ABC, NYT, WaPo, PBS, CNN, USA Today, Variety... You can't have it both ways. Either these media outlets are "propaganda" arms of "the left" and are "comfortable" and "silent" with the attacks, or they're reporting that the attacks have been happening and that they should be condemned.
The left is very good at playing identity politics with whatever group of people they wish and pit group against group.
In 2020, "the left" in Congress was ~35% non-whites, ~23% non-Christians (~40% Protestants), and ~35% women.
The same year, "the right" was ~10% non-whites, ~7% non-Christians (~70% Protestants), and about ~15% women.
Both sides need improvement here, but these statistics beg the question: What is it about the Republican party which causes it to overwhelmingly favor white Protestant men?
Although both Democratic and Republicans parties have had problems with racism, sexism, and religious bigotry across US history, one side has made leaping strides toward fixing those problems over the last twenty years, while the other has crawled. Neither side is perfect. But the Republican party simply has not made as much progress in condemning bigotry within its ranks, and appears to have regressed over the last five years.
Republicans had an out white supremacist in Congress until just last year. The leading Republican pundit on TV espouses white supremacist ideology on a regular basis. The Republican president of the last four years publicly told four non-white women in Congress to "go back" to their home countries, despite three of them being born in the US and the fourth immigrating to the US when she was a child in the 90s. He defended neo-Nazis and neo-Confederates on multiple occasions. When they chanted "blood and soil", "white lives matter", and "Jews will not replace us", he called them "very fine people". When they attacked the Capitol building and waved a Confederate flag inside, and caused the death of five people (including a police officer), he called it a "love fest" and told them "we love you". One of the most visible Republicans in Congress this year tried to make the transparently racist "Anglo-Saxon Caucus", and genuinely can't grasp why comparing anti-vaxxers to Jews in the Holocaust is so offensive.
The accusation that "the left" is just "playing identity politics" is a cognitive dissonance strategy to avoid the otherwise obvious conclusion: "the left" is simply far more inclusive, tolerant, and welcoming of women, non-whites, immigrants, non-Christians, LGBT+, which is why "the left" is so much more diverse on all those fronts.
Look at the violence (of which they did not hide or even condemn) last summer with the BLM protests RIOTS.
The huge majority of BLM protests were legal and non-violent. The premise of their complaint, since the beginning, has been the disproportionate use of violence by police against non-whites, that white people have routinely silenced Black voices, and that white people often justify violence against Black people with the age-old lie that Black people "riot" while white people "protest". When violence did erupt at BLM protests, and when some did turn into all-out riots, Democrats unequivocally denounced it. For example, VP candidate Kamala Harris' public statements in August 2020 after a recent police shooting led to an outbreak in looting.
It will not be long, as it is already happening, for Christians to become the target of the full brunt of their attention.
I was taught this for decades. It is a persecution complex with no grounding in reality. "The left" has no interest in "targeting" Christians. It's not a thought that even crosses their minds, much less a conspiracy on the rise. The source of the claim is the large strides society has taken over recent decades in recognizing the legal rights of groups who have historically been denied those rights. Conservative Christians think of "rights" as "power", so more rights means more power. (Because I guess Christianity is supposed to be defined by its "power" over society?) It might be a shock, but equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for Christians.
In fact, most people on "the left" are Christians, and the majority of the ones who aren't, are still tolerant and respectful of Christians. Most of the time you hear anyone on "the left" complaining about Christians, it has to do with condemnation of pastors, churches, or Christian communities enabling abuse, protecting abusers, or using politics to justify abuse: sexual abuse, emotional abuse, spiritual abuse, economic abuse, child abuse, spouse abuse, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc.
I try not to use this word directed to people, but the left is just utterly EVIL. To the core.
I know most of you are going to be leaning right, but I hope the general consensus of the forum is not that I am utterly evil to the core.
-
I find the original article very misleading and disappointing, for the usual methods of deceptive reporting (cherry-picked quotes, minimizing decades of Republican antisemitism, especially from the last five years, etc.).
You're ignoring the issue. There are Democrats in Congress who are anti-Semitic. This point is beyond dispute. Meanwhile the Democrat party seems perfectly content to ignore them. The one time that a united congress spoke out, they condemned "all racism and bigotry", while ignoring the actual problem. Anti-Semitism itself is not a "right" or "left" issue, it exists anywhere in the political spectrum and indeed even transcends politics. But the Republican party has done a much better job calling it out from within it's own ranks, as opposed to the Demoocrats.
Some of you are saying the media is controlled by "the left", and is "propaganda" against Israel. But the media is reporting on these attacks.
They're really not. When it's reported, it's a few days late and very lightly touched upon, if indeed it's reported at all. I live within the NYC media market and it's barely reported on here, let alone in parts of the country without Jews.
He defended neo-Nazis and neo-Confederates on multiple occasions. When they chanted "blood and soil", "white lives matter", and "Jews will not replace us", he called them "very fine people".
This is a lie. He specifically condemned the racists. Actual quote from his speech-
" You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."
-
The accusation that "the left" is just "playing identity politics" is a cognitive dissonance strategy to avoid the otherwise obvious conclusion: "the left" is simply far more inclusive, tolerant, and welcoming of women, non-whites, immigrants, non-Christians, LGBT+, which is why "the left" is so much more diverse on all those fronts.
The left isn't more inclusive of Jews, which is what the original post was about.
The huge majority of BLM protests were legal and non-violent.
That's certainly debatable. Those protests led to billions of dollars of damage across dozens of cities.
The premise of their complaint, since the beginning, has been the disproportionate use of violence by police against non-whites,
Which certainly could be a valid issue for discussion. Wanton looting and setting whole neighborhoods on fire does nothing to advance that discussion however.
For example, VP candidate Kamala Harris' public statements in August 2020 after a recent police shooting led to an outbreak in looting.
Kamela Harris also ran a collection for bailing out the worst offenders of rioting and looting. Hardly the mark of someone who takes the matter seriously.
I was taught this for decades. It is a persecution complex with no grounding in reality. "The left" has no interest in "targeting" Christians. It's not a thought that even crosses their minds
I'm not even a Christian and yeah, the left is very much targeting Christians.
In fact, most people on "the left" are Christians, and the majority of the ones who aren't, are still tolerant and respectful of Christians.
It's been my observation that the left isn't very tolerant at all, certainly not of anyone whose viewpoints they don't agree with.
I know most of you are going to be leaning right, but I hope the general consensus of the forum is not that I am utterly evil to the core.
I save "utterly evil to the core" for gross human rights offenders. The left isn't evil for having different values, but they are wrong.
-
The accusation that "the left" is just "playing identity politics" is a cognitive dissonance strategy to avoid the otherwise obvious conclusion: "the left" is simply far more inclusive, tolerant, and welcoming of women, non-whites, immigrants, non-Christians, LGBT+, which is why "the left" is so much more diverse on all those fronts.
There's a lot to be said of the word 'just', but that the Left is playing identity politics - and the Right too at times - is undeniable. And no, the Left broadly isn't more 'inclusive, tolerant, and welcoming...' as anyone in the groups you listed is at risk of excision unless they adhere to the ideology of the Left, espouse the correct beliefs as the Left, etc. If you don't then you're not black, you're not gay, you're not LGBT+, you're immoral, regressive, living in the past, part of the problem, internalised-whatever, and so on. These things become political identities that can be taken away, and indeed are taken away. It's easy to talk about classical racists, and a bit more difficult when the racism is hidden behind layers of obfuscated academic theory. It's okay to be a little racist as long as you're fixing problems along the way. Gotta correct those historical wrongs by instantiating new wrongs, today.
The Right has its own issues, but they're just as inclusive, tolerant and welcoming -- or possibly more. I know for myself at least that it's the Right who accepts me without much hassle, whereas the those I know on the Left accept me while ascribing to me beliefs and views I don't hold solely on what they perceive to be my political and identitarian associations. Should I disagree with the morally superior Left I'll find myself kicked to the curb.
But that same identity politics is there in your reply as well: you've reduced diversity to mere identity, as if, say, white Christian people are all the same by virtue of being white and Christian. That's just silly, and it's racist, and probably sexist, and hiding behind some diverse/inclusive ideal doesn't remove that fact.
That's just my experience though, as someone who is apparently 'LGBT+'. I'd rather we all get smarter about these political divisions, and you'll notice that I haven't commented on the article.
-
The Right has its own issues, but they're just as inclusive, tolerant and welcoming -- or possibly more.
I know we're getting into experiential/anecdotal points here, but this is entirely the reverse of my experience. As I said before, I don't believe any side is perfect or without fault, but the differences in my experience with how welcoming, inclusive, and tolerant "the right" and "the left" each are is night and day. I can't stress how vast the gulf is between the behavior of these two social spheres as I've experienced it.
It is utterly opposite to the criticisms and accusations being made in this thread. But -- I don't mean to be snarky -- it sincerely sounds like my experiences are invalid for this discussion, simply for being on "the left".
-
The Right has its own issues, but they're just as inclusive, tolerant and welcoming -- or possibly more.
I know we're getting into experiential/anecdotal points here, but this is entirely the reverse of my experience. As I said before, I don't believe any side is perfect or without fault, but the differences in my experience with how welcoming, inclusive, and tolerant "the right" and "the left" each are is night and day. I can't stress how vast the gulf is between the behavior of these two social spheres as I've experienced it.
It is utterly opposite to the criticisms and accusations being made in this thread. But -- I don't mean to be snarky -- it sincerely sounds like my experiences are invalid for this discussion, simply for being on "the left".
I don't think that's snarky, and I would hope that you're not being invalidated simply for being on 'the left'.
It's interesting to me how I can take my experience - for example - and extrapolate from it a broad picture of 'the Left' or 'the Right' as if my experiences hold true for others as well. It's more difficult to imagine either end of the political spectrum from a perspective that is not my own, and especially when it conflicts with what I've experienced.
If 'the right' is engaged in a 'cognitive dissonance strategy' in its accusation that the 'the left' "is just 'playing identity games'", then I have to wonder: is 'the left' engaged in a similar 'cognitive dissonance strategy' when it imagines itself to be 'far more inclusive, tolerant, and welcome of...', that is, when it images 'the right' to be exclusive, intolerant, unwelcoming? Probably, or maybe the reality is more nuanced. Maybe the division isn't as simple as left or right, liberal or conservative, young or old Hegelian, etc.
So my experience of 'the left' is that it's very welcoming, inclusive, and tolerant, as long as I hold the correct beliefs, say the correct things, and nod my head at the right times. Those I know on the left talk disparagingly of those on 'the right' as if there's some implied moral chasm between the two. Those I know on the right have mentioned the identity politic of the left, the 'wokeism', or maybe even, cultural marxism. But like I was saying: it's those on the left who judge me for being LGBT+ in the wrong way. Those on the right don't care.
-
A big problem is human nature itself. I find that on both sides of the political spectrum there is group think, an almost mindless agreement with an ideological position.
We are taught critical thinking in the schools, but at the same time we have propaganda implanted in our minds, though I don't question the sincerity of those who do this. Anybody who looks at how the history of America, for example, was told 50 years ago would admit that the history is being told quite differently now, with a huge focus on diversity, Indian rights, Hispanic rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc. etc.
It's even children's rights. All this is propaganda, and those who use it may very well be sincere in what they believe *should* be used as propaganda.
What should really determine what we believe and whether we should accept propaganda one way or another is our conscience. But our conscience has been turned into a blank slate by those who don't want to believe a conscience exists, unless it is created by their own innate sense of what is right for everybody.
I do believe there is a conscience, and a God who speaks to our conscience. There is a right and a wrong, objectively, without propaganda. But being that humanity is, by nature, weak, we do need coaxing one way or another, an appeal to our conscience.
By my conscience, I think the diversity and religious pluralism we're indoctrinating people with is wrong. It's right to give all people respectful choices, in terms of religious beliefs. But in terms of social behavior, I don't think we have a right to protect aberrant minority practices that the vast majority disagree with religiously.
For example if Judeo-Christianity sees declaring immorality wrong, minority perverts do *not* have a right to have their rights defended and spread through propaganda in the schools. Just my feelings about it.
And the Democrats, I believe, are more on the side of religious liberals and on the side of diversity and pluralism, in a negative, anti-social, anti-moral way. How does this cause Democrats and Liberals to side against Jewish human rights?
I think the lack of conscience and a formal sense of religious beliefs cause Democrats to simply opt for the more convenient position of siding with larger majority groups than with smaller Jewish groups. It is known that certain misbehaving Christians hate Jews, that Muslims hate Jews, and that the large number of countries and people in the Middle East are not Jews, but Muslims!
And so, Democrats don't find it "against their conscience" to side more conveniently with the large majority, as opposed to their pretend stand to support minorities. They support minorities if it helps them win elections. Here in the U.S. it helps Democrats stay in power, politically, if they pander to a variety of minorities. It actually helps them to ignore one minority, namely the Jews.
-
Anybody who looks at how the history of America, for example, was told 50 years ago would admit that the history is being told quite differently now, with a huge focus on diversity, Indian rights, Hispanic rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc. etc.
This is because for a long time, "history is written by the winners", and America was ruled by straight, white, Protestant men. This country has a long history of racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and LGBT-phobia embedded into its cultural fabric. Drawing attention to that, and identifying the different ways America either failed to protect, or outright oppressed, those groups is both morally necessary and historically factual.
So of course history is being told differently. Fifty years ago was the early seventies. Minorities of all kinds were not exactly treated very well in the US. (Many of them still aren't, except now the people mistreating them have to pretend they aren't.)
Calling it "propaganda" or "indoctrination" or "identarian", or some other delegitimizing term, reads to me as a way of denying the reality of those peoples' experiences. If, for example, the Black experience in America throughout the 20th century was largely defined by systemic abuse and discrimination (voting, dining, transportation, public office, workplace, school, police brutality, etc.), then it is "propaganda" to deny those facts and hence the need to change how history has been taught so that it more accurately reflects the harm those people have endured.
And the Democrats, I believe, are more on the side of religious liberals and on the side of diversity and pluralism, in a negative, anti-social, anti-moral way.
I think the lack of conscience and a formal sense of religious beliefs cause Democrats
People having a different framework from you by which they build their system of ethics does not mean they are without ethics (or even formal religious beliefs) at all.
Just so you know, it feels very dehumanizing to be told I'm "utterly evil to the core", "anti-social, anti-moral", and "lack of conscience".
How does this cause Democrats and Liberals to side against Jewish human rights?
"When did you stop beating your wife?"
You're not asking a fair question, because the premise of the question isn't true.
-
For example if Judeo-Christianity sees declaring immorality wrong, minority perverts do *not* have a right to have their rights defended and spread through propaganda in the schools. Just my feelings about it.
What is a 'minority pervert'?
-
Context suggests it's more dehumanizing language for LGBT+ people.
-
Anybody who looks at how the history of America, for example, was told 50 years ago would admit that the history is being told quite differently now, with a huge focus on diversity, Indian rights, Hispanic rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc. etc.
This is because for a long time, "history is written by the winners", and America was ruled by straight, white, Protestant men. This country has a long history of racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and LGBT-phobia embedded into its cultural fabric. Drawing attention to that, and identifying the different ways America either failed to protect, or outright oppressed, those groups is both morally necessary and historically factual.
So of course history is being told differently. Fifty years ago was the early seventies. Minorities of all kinds were not exactly treated very well in the US. (Many of them still aren't, except now the people mistreating them have to pretend they aren't.)
Calling it "propaganda" or "indoctrination" or "identarian", or some other delegitimizing term, reads to me as a way of denying the reality of those peoples' experiences. If, for example, the Black experience in America throughout the 20th century was largely defined by systemic abuse and discrimination (voting, dining, transportation, public office, workplace, school, police brutality, etc.), then it is "propaganda" to deny those facts and hence the need to change how history has been taught so that it more accurately reflects the harm those people have endured.
And the Democrats, I believe, are more on the side of religious liberals and on the side of diversity and pluralism, in a negative, anti-social, anti-moral way.
I think the lack of conscience and a formal sense of religious beliefs cause Democrats
People having a different framework from you by which they build their system of ethics does not mean they are without ethics (or even formal religious beliefs) at all.
Just so you know, it feels very dehumanizing to be told I'm "utterly evil to the core", "anti-social, anti-moral", and "lack of conscience".
How does this cause Democrats and Liberals to side against Jewish human rights?
"When did you stop beating your wife?"
You're not asking a fair question, because the premise of the question isn't true.
My statement may or may not be taken as a *personal attack*--I only meant it as a logical point--those who do not have a religious moral framework tend to deny God, conscience, and a fixed moral system. Their morality is relative to the times in which we live, being determined not by God but rather, by a majority of people. To refuse to affirm the behavior of a majority of people who enjoy what I think is "perverted behavior" is viewed as "evil" because my attitude "sows discord" and represents disagreement with the majority.
Today, support of minorities is done for the opposite reason, to broaden the opportunities to explore one's own individual morality. You may have a religious and moral framework. If you do, I salute you. I only refer to those who presently support what I believe are self-religious instruction, ie morality created by one's own sense of right and wrong, and not by conscience and God's word penetrating the human heart.
What we have today is an increasingly lop-sided position in countries supporting perverted behavior like homosexuality, sex with children, debasing of women, debasing of men, and denial of the objective reality of God for purposes of exploring truth for one's self.
This alone explains to me how the "Left" can claim to support Minorities and yet follow a course that debases the Jewish People and the nation Israel. It is inconvient and not politically expedient for the majority to support the Jews. Much better to get the support of Arabs and Muslims. Their vote seems much better than the Jewish vote. Piling on the Jews has always seemed easier for people to do, burying their conscience, because there is a built-in resentment against the whole sense of a group "chosen by God" and against a fixed moral system that all are required to live by.
-
I don't mean to be snarky -- it sincerely sounds like my experiences are invalid for this discussion, simply for being on "the left".
Nobody is invalidating your experiences. But they're not the sum total of human experience. The left is intolerant of Jews, and seemingly comfortable with this stance. It's why I made the original post. Nothing you've said or seen has invalidated it.
-
The "left" is not intolerant of Jews.
An opinion piece from a far-right magazine that has previously espoused racist content (see: birtherism), conflating Democratic politicians' criticism of Israel's actions with antisemitism while whitewashing the decades of antisemitism within the Republican party, is hardly a reliable source. It's a smear article, not fact-based reporting.
-
Context suggests it's more dehumanizing language for LGBT+ people.
I'm aware. I was interested in RandyPNW spelling it out. We know what he thinks perverted behaviour is - although I'm not aware of any countries actively promoting paedophilia - but what is a 'minority pervert', and who qualifies, and is there such a thing as a 'majority pervert', and can one be a minority but not a pervert and how do we distinguish between the two, and should we even talk about 'minority' and 'majority' as qualifying terms, and so on and so forth.
More to the point: I wrote that I was apparently LGBT+, so I would like RandyPNW to explain to me how I'm a minority pervert, whatever that means. Or maybe he doesn't think that necessarily, in which case, why use such language at all? And is such language reflective of one's relationship with Christ (after all, we know that Christ went around flagrantly calling people sinners, right?) Anyway.
-
The direction a country goes is determined by the opinion shared by the vast majority of the people. A dictator who is unpopular cannot long rule, but must have significant support behind him, whether a political party, the media, or a particular class of people.
When the people lose their Christian religion, and turn to either a sense of equality among religions or to a liberalized form of Christianity, the result is the erosion of high moral standards. Without a clear sense of God and His Law, people are free to explore their own definition of morality. And so, we now have homosexuality on demand, not only protected by Law, but also somewhat encouraged in our society, whether in our schools or in the entertainment industry.
I wouldn't say that pedophilia is at the level of social acceptance, but there are indications there is an increase in allowing children to be viewed in what I feel is an inappropriate way. My concern is that without any fixed standards, we will end up at the lowest common denominator.
When people cry, "Freedom," quite often what they mean is they want freedom from God, or freedom from Christian dogma and morality. The Jewish faith similarly has some of these stricter moral guidelines among those who are more orthodox, I should think?
The point is that a majority position determines what is "morally right" in the eyes of society, right or wrong. I believe God determines what's right and wrong--not what humans are inclined to want to believe.
As the society's Christian consensus deteriorates, and religious pluralism rises, there is a diminishing of objective moral standards. And what do we replace them with?
In history, Christian or even partly-Christian societies have produced a kind of consensus against immoral behaviors, like homosexuality. But with conservative Christian views now taking a back seat to religious pluralism and to the resulting mish-mash, the lowest common denominator is "whatever you feel is okay, do it." What was "immoral" yesterday is actually encouraged today.
So if you hold to a minority behavior like homosexuality, then a Christian society would not support you as some kind of minority to be protected. But if you are in the minority as a gay person, and yet in the majority in terms of your religious values, then society would be supportive of you, because they all agree in a very diluted sense of religious freedom.
The current emphasis on support for minorities is, therefore, based on a new religious value, and does not protect minorities out of Christian compassion. Rather, it is based on the wish to provide the greatest moral toleration possible.
However, if tolerating Jewish religious practice is out of the mainstream, or out of the majority view that favors Islam, then Judaism and Jewish rights can easily be dispensed with. It isn't a matter of opposing Christian dogma and narrow-mindedness. Rather, it is a matter of majority choice, rejecting Christian ideals.
-
The "left" is not intolerant of Jews.
The "left" goes to bat for all minorities save one: Jews. Jews have historically supported equality for minorities, marching in civil rights movements and going to the American south to register minorities to vote. A few Jews even got lynched for so doing. Yet when it's Jews themselves that come under attack, sometimes by the very same minorities that Jews went to bat for, who stands with them? No one on the left. When Democrat politicians attack Jews, who reprimands them? Not their own party, that's for sure. When Jews were being attacked on the streets of New York City every day last summer, who spoke out about it? No one.
An opinion piece from a far-right magazine that has previously espoused racist content (see: birtherism), conflating Democratic politicians' criticism of Israel's actions with antisemitism while whitewashing the decades of antisemitism within the Republican party, is hardly a reliable source. It's a smear article, not fact-based reporting.
This is ad hominem. You haven't addressed a single issue in the article.
-
However, if tolerating Jewish religious practice is out of the mainstream, or out of the majority view that favors Islam, then Judaism and Jewish rights can easily be dispensed with. It isn't a matter of opposing Christian dogma and narrow-mindedness. Rather, it is a matter of majority choice, rejecting Christian ideals.
This is a related but equally concerning issue. I agree with you that anti-semitism and hatred of Christianity stem from some of the same sources, namely, the rejection of biblical values. And it is for this reason that Christians should be troubled by hatred of Jews, because a society that turns on its Jews is one step away from turning on its Christians as well.
But it's nuanced, because the hatred of the Jew is also the hatred of the "other". Jews are a distinct and visible minority. A society that has no room for Jews is a society that has become intolerant of people being different. The American left claims to champion "diversity", but in truth they have no tolerance for the "other", for anyone who thinks or behaves outside whatever boundaries they have set. For example, Joe Biden told black voters that they're not "really black" if they don't vote for him. No tolerance for dissent or difference, none at all. And so to Jews, who are too successful and too affluent to be considered a "real minority," even though Jews clearly fit the definition and have been discriminated against and oppressed wherever they have lived. And it's coming here, next. It's already happening. And the left is ignoring it.
-
The direction a country goes is determined by the opinion shared by the vast majority of the people. A dictator who is unpopular cannot long rule, but must have significant support behind him, whether a political party, the media, or a particular class of people.
I'm not sure why you've made this point, but I find it confusing all the same. Is the direction of a country determined by majority opinion, or the powerfully supported dictator? Is the United States, for example, led by the 'vast majority of the people', or the political and media classes, in your view? Maybe both are true circumstantially, and if that's the case, why set up the dichotomy at all?
When the people lose their Christian religion, and turn to either a sense of equality among religions or to a liberalized form of Christianity, the result is the erosion of high moral standards. Without a clear sense of God and His Law, people are free to explore their own definition of morality. And so, we now have homosexuality on demand, not only protected by Law, but also somewhat encouraged in our society, whether in our schools or in the entertainment industry.
Are you suggesting that if we were to look at people who have not lost their Christianity, or turned to a 'liberalized form of Christianity', that we would see a high moral standard lived out? So we would not see, for example, adultery, divorce, gluttony, a disregard for the poor, a laughable attempt to live out Acts 2, an 'othering' of those who were seen to be outside of the Christian faith, and so on? Likewise, do we see without exception a non-Christian world that is exemplary of this idea of a high moral ideal eroded (surely not)?
My point is this: if the Christian ideal is a 'high moral standard' that is unrealised by the majority of bible-believing Christians (and it is), then would this pointing at others be little more than a self-distraction? Look at those with an eroded morality, never mind the lives we live because we're redeemed? What use is the ideal if it's largely unsatisfied by those who claim to believe it yet live lives that would suggest they don't?
I wouldn't say that pedophilia is at the level of social acceptance, but there are indications there is an increase in allowing children to be viewed in what I feel is an inappropriate way. My concern is that without any fixed standards, we will end up at the lowest common denominator.
I think you've overstated the point, but the overstatement itself is evidence of an approach that catastrophises reality. If you think it's bad then there's no need to make it worse. But even then, I don't think we're approaching anything close to social acceptance of paedophilia, or a rekindling of pederasty, or anything of the sort. If you want to talk about how disgusting childrens' beauty pageants are then I'm right there with you, but then so are virtually everyone.
When people cry, "Freedom," quite often what they mean is they want freedom from God, or freedom from Christian dogma and morality. The Jewish faith similarly has some of these stricter moral guidelines among those who are more orthodox, I should think?
Yes, and that's exactly the freedom God Himself allows people, is it not? As regards the Jewish faith: what would the stricter moral guidelines of the ultra-orthodox have to do with the present discussion? Isn't anyone who doesn't adhere to strict morality, liberal by default? Help me understand the point you're trying to make.
The point is that a majority position determines what is "morally right" in the eyes of society, right or wrong. I believe God determines what's right and wrong--not what humans are inclined to want to believe.
Does God determine what's right and wrong such that right and wrong are arbitrary, or do right and wrong flow from the character God? But yes, everyone engages on their own evaluations of morality to see what they do and do not value, and when enough people do that they're called a 'majority'. That's not unusual, and isn't it somewhat expected that people will engage in moral philosophy of ethics to come to some understanding of moral values? Sure this might require some kind of teleological suspension of the ethical vis-a-vis Kierkegaard's analysis of the Akedah, but that wouldn't be a daily occurrence, right? What did Jesus say, that even sinners do good to those who are good to them? Clearly, the non-Christian world isn't devoid of moral insight.
As the society's Christian consensus deteriorates, and religious pluralism rises, there is a diminishing of objective moral standards. And what do we replace them with?
That would be an entirely relevant question, as Nietzsche and others have raised time and time again. I agree that our Western moral valuations can't simply be tossed aside or replaced overnight by power or acts of fiat, but at some point, we have to acknowledge that what we value as moral isn't wholly a 'Christian consensus' predicated purely on Scripture having gone unexamined and not interacted with over the course of centuries.
The Christian consensus may deteriorate but was it ever the thing it should have been, and was it ever lived out as it ought to have been? Probably not.
In history, Christian or even partly-Christian societies have produced a kind of consensus against immoral behaviors, like homosexuality. But with conservative Christian views now taking a back seat to religious pluralism and to the resulting mish-mash, the lowest common denominator is "whatever you feel is okay, do it." What was "immoral" yesterday is actually encouraged today.
Yes, I am well aware: please celebrate my identity or castrate yourself in penance. But here I think the perception is catastrophized and the reality is that most people for most of history have been pretty "you do you and leave me alone". Legislating a particular idea of 21st century Western Christian moral values isn't the fix, and maybe they were the problem in the first place: a church that relied on law to enforce the appearance of a Christian society and Christians who sat back instead of presenting the gospel of Christ to a society who needed it, even if they wouldn't accept it under the threat of compulsion.
So if you hold to a minority behavior like homosexuality, then a Christian society would not support you as some kind of minority to be protected. But if you are in the minority as a gay person, and yet in the majority in terms of your religious values, then society would be supportive of you, because they all agree in a very diluted sense of religious freedom.
I'm trans for what it's worth, but I'm not "oh please celebrate my identity!" trans. In fact, my transness is a complicated entanglement of psychiatry, mental health, and endocrinological disorder. I'm a living moral/theological dilemma and using phrases like 'minority perverts' isn't helpful to anyone (especially the random Googler who might read what you have to say). I'm not gay for what it's worth, but perhaps we could use a bit of that 'high moral standard' vis-a-vis the life of Christ when talking about others like myself? I'm already viewed with enough suspicion by Christians today who have made little effort to understand my circumstance and judge out of ignorance, and it would be nice if the Church - notice the big 'C' - as a whole got its act together. And no, I don't think transgenderism/transsexuality are necessarily morally or theologically alright. The reality is complicated, and trite phrases like 'minority perverts' are flippant and probably insulting.
The point I'm making with my question is that Jesus did not go around saying, "Hey yo so those sinners over there? -- screw those guys and their eroding moral values! Look at the pederastry they practice and notice how they celebrate prostitution". We shouldn't either. We should be like Jesus when engaging people.
The current emphasis on support for minorities is, therefore, based on a new religious value, and does not protect minorities out of Christian compassion. Rather, it is based on the wish to provide the greatest moral toleration possible.
Has Christian compassion historically protected minorities? Say, indigenous peoples, or gays, etc.? There is the ideal of the Word and then there is the reality of how the Word is instantiated by imperfect Christians, and we fall well short of insisting on some 'Christian compassion' that historically is more myth than anything else.
-
Recognizing the humanity of LGBT+ people (instead of dehumanizing them as "perverts"), their ability to build loving consensual relationships with one another, and that non-heteronormative orientations are entirely natural, does not and will not lead to pedophilia being accepted.
You have to understand that communities outside conservative or fundamentalist Christianity are not moral cesspools. A huge push going on in society in general is the need to care for children's physical, emotional, and mental health needs better than previous generations did. That includes teaching sexual health and safety. For most people outside fundamentalism, any definition of sexual ethics needs to begin and end with consent. There are several reasons minors can't consent to sex, especially with adults. But if you look into it, sexual abuse of minors is pervasive in fundamentalist religious groups (including, but not exclusive to, Christianity), and by far the most common response in such groups is to blame the victim or excuse the abuser.
Conservative Christianity pointing to the humanization of LGBT+ people as a slippery slope fallacy that pedophilia will become more accepted in secular society is a serious "take the log out of your own eye first" moment.
I think I'll step out of this thread. Its premise is a bad faith article, and the persistent smearing of "the left" is leaving a bad taste in my mouth because it comes across as so willfully dishonest. It was my error in trying to dialogue here.
-
However, if tolerating Jewish religious practice is out of the mainstream, or out of the majority view that favors Islam, then Judaism and Jewish rights can easily be dispensed with. It isn't a matter of opposing Christian dogma and narrow-mindedness. Rather, it is a matter of majority choice, rejecting Christian ideals.
This is a related but equally concerning issue. I agree with you that anti-semitism and hatred of Christianity stem from some of the same sources, namely, the rejection of biblical values. And it is for this reason that Christians should be troubled by hatred of Jews, because a society that turns on its Jews is one step away from turning on its Christians as well.
But it's nuanced, because the hatred of the Jew is also the hatred of the "other". Jews are a distinct and visible minority. A society that has no room for Jews is a society that has become intolerant of people being different. The American left claims to champion "diversity", but in truth they have no tolerance for the "other", for anyone who thinks or behaves outside whatever boundaries they have set. For example, Joe Biden told black voters that they're not "really black" if they don't vote for him. No tolerance for dissent or difference, none at all. And so to Jews, who are too successful and too affluent to be considered a "real minority," even though Jews clearly fit the definition and have been discriminated against and oppressed wherever they have lived. And it's coming here, next. It's already happening. And the left is ignoring it.
However, if tolerating Jewish religious practice is out of the mainstream, or out of the majority view that favors Islam, then Judaism and Jewish rights can easily be dispensed with. It isn't a matter of opposing Christian dogma and narrow-mindedness. Rather, it is a matter of majority choice, rejecting Christian ideals.
This is a related but equally concerning issue. I agree with you that anti-semitism and hatred of Christianity stem from some of the same sources, namely, the rejection of biblical values. And it is for this reason that Christians should be troubled by hatred of Jews, because a society that turns on its Jews is one step away from turning on its Christians as well.
But it's nuanced, because the hatred of the Jew is also the hatred of the "other". Jews are a distinct and visible minority. A society that has no room for Jews is a society that has become intolerant of people being different. The American left claims to champion "diversity", but in truth they have no tolerance for the "other", for anyone who thinks or behaves outside whatever boundaries they have set. For example, Joe Biden told black voters that they're not "really black" if they don't vote for him. No tolerance for dissent or difference, none at all. And so to Jews, who are too successful and too affluent to be considered a "real minority," even though Jews clearly fit the definition and have been discriminated against and oppressed wherever they have lived. And it's coming here, next. It's already happening. And the left is ignoring it.
I agree with your sentiments. As a Christian I feel indebted to the Jewish People who have carried the burden of being the 1st ethnic group to exhibit the word of God in their history. What an enormous burden. I personally believe Christians are carrying the torch of "God's Word" to all people groups. I've reflected my gratitude to the Jewish People by supporting Messianic Jewish groups, and also by supporting the State of Israel. I travelled to Israel alone, and volunteered to serve on a Kibbutz just south of Lebanon. Poor health prevented me at that time, but I'm a long-term defender of the Jewish People and their right to survive.
I also support the rights of Jews to practice their own religion. I believe it is the Jewish desire to be free to practice their own religion that causes so many of them to join liberal causes. But I'm afraid that in doing so, their own moral standards seem to be sacrificed.
Regardless, I agree that the Left is only concerned with political expediency. If a minority will help them get elected, they're the "champion of the minority." ;) But there is an even greater danger when the minority being discarded has a history of being persecuted. It is pathetic that the Democrats seem inclined to move against the notion of a "Greater Israel." Since Arabs and Muslims far outnumber Israel in the Middle East, it seems a no-brainer for them to move more towards the Palestinians, despite their being terrorists.
-
I agree with your sentiments. As a Christian I feel indebted to the Jewish People who have carried the burden of being the 1st ethnic group to exhibit the word of God in their history. What an enormous burden. I personally believe Christians are carrying the torch of "God's Word" to all people groups.
Agree.
I've reflected my gratitude to the Jewish People by supporting Messianic Jewish groups, and also by supporting the State of Israel. I travelled to Israel alone, and volunteered to serve on a Kibbutz just south of Lebanon. Poor health prevented me at that time, but I'm a long-term defender of the Jewish People and their right to survive.
Genesis 12:3 surely applies. Thank you.
Regardless, I agree that the Left is only concerned with political expediency. If a minority will help them get elected, they're the "champion of the minority." ;) But there is an even greater danger when the minority being discarded has a history of being persecuted. It is pathetic that the Democrats seem inclined to move against the notion of a "Greater Israel." Since Arabs and Muslims far outnumber Israel in the Middle East, it seems a no-brainer for them to move more towards the Palestinians, despite their being terrorists.
I don't think the left supports the Palestinians out of political expediency. I think they support the Palestinians because the left doesn't like Jews. You'll notice that the left has nothing to say about Arabs being murdered by other Arabs. Only a few miles north of Israel, in Syria, half a million Arabs were murdered in a civil war and it isn't even on the left's radar. Yet they demand an accounting for every single Arab killed in Gaza. Hence the whole topic under discussion "Time for Democrats to Address Their Anti-Semitism Problem".
-
I think it's important to consider the differences between Democrats and progressive/liberal/woke/socialist etc etc pick your preferred term.
There's also a big difference between middle/lower "class" voters and puppets ...er...politicians.
Then there's the whole thing that most American Jews are Democrats and vote Democrat. At least that's the way I understand it from what I've read over the years.
So...that's a whole lot to consider. Yes, a large part of the Democratic base is anti-Israel, pro everyone else that's anti-Israel and also anti-America and pro everyone else that hates America/Israel and thinks we were founded by evil, remained evil and just evil, evil, evil and must be fundamentally changed or destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up despite any facts, reason or logic that shows that they're bat crap crazy when it comes to this.
The regular Democratic voters are just as mystified and shocked by the the progressive/liberal/woke/socialist etc etc pick your preferred term who seem to be in control of the party.
The corporate masters in control of a lot of elected Democrats and Republicans are in fear of these nuts too and so they pull the strings of their bought and paid for puppets and this either further mystifies real Democrats or they refuse to acknowledge these things are happening. Kind of like a kid plugging their ears and closing their eyes and yelling "NOOOOooooo!""
And let's also consider the fact that a "large part" doesn't mean all. Yes, the Left hates America and Israel so they hate Jews. But then they hate everyone that doesn't march in lockstep with them and chant their mantras.
And that includes "Working class" Democrats as well.
You're either with the Left or you must literally be destroyed by any means necessary.
The anti-Semitism problem is huge and needs to be addressed. I fully agree with that. But it's a symptom of a disease that needs cured before it kills everyone. Because after the Left destroys us they will turn on themselves too. That's the nature of this disease.
-
You're either with the Left or you must literally be destroyed by any means necessary.
I mean, you're not wrong here. But anti-Semitism is unique and is always morphing and changing. In this particular case, we have an historically oppressed minority being oppressed by the very people who claim to speak up for minorities. And not because they oppose leftist values. Their values are irrelevant to the matter at hand. There's no ideological purity test being administered. There's just Jews being attacked in speech by Democrat politicians and attacked on the street without anyone thinking it's a problem.
The anti-Semitism problem is huge and needs to be addressed. I fully agree with that. But it's a symptom of a disease that needs cured before it kills everyone.
I agree, it is a symptom of something worse. It's an attack both on biblical values and also on anyone being different. Any society that rejects those is bound to turn much uglier. A society that gets bad for Jews always- always- gets bad for others after.
-
Agreed.
It's time for Americans, no matter their political bent, to start standing up for ourselves and saying "Stop the insanity."
-
You're either with the Left or you must literally be destroyed by any means necessary.
I mean, you're not wrong here. But anti-Semitism is unique and is always morphing and changing. In this particular case, we have an historically oppressed minority being oppressed by the very people who claim to speak up for minorities. And not because they oppose leftist values. Their values are irrelevant to the matter at hand. There's no ideological purity test being administered. There's just Jews being attacked in speech by Democrat politicians and attacked on the street without anyone thinking it's a problem.
The anti-Semitism problem is huge and needs to be addressed. I fully agree with that. But it's a symptom of a disease that needs cured before it kills everyone.
I agree, it is a symptom of something worse. It's an attack both on biblical values and also on anyone being different. Any society that rejects those is bound to turn much uglier. A society that gets bad for Jews always- always- gets bad for others after.
After the fall of Jerusalem 70-135 AD Christians in some places retained a positive view of the Jewish People, even though the Jews had rejected their religion. They were recognized as being "People of the Book." It's a sad commentary on the Church that gradually, as the hope of Israel's restoration faded, Christians began to turn on the Jewish People. Even leaders I like engaged in this, either consciously or unconsciously.
But over time, it can be argued whether a break from Catholic hegemony or Leftist idealism helped Christians start to make peace with the Jewish People again. Regardless, many Evangelicals today support the cause of national Israel and the cause of the Jewish People.
As a Christian I believe that evil attacks anything associated by covenant with the one true God. This attachment to God's word brings upon the Jewish People atrocities and various forms of persecution. Even if they don't claim to be orthodox in their beliefs, they are attacked simply because they are associated, by God, with His word. Those who hate God's word will hate God's people.
There is no rational explanation for this other than it is evil. It must be fought and exposed. Thanks for helping in this cause, Fenris. Your friendship with Christians is noteworthy!
-
Regardless, many Evangelicals today support the cause of national Israel and the cause of the Jewish People.
And I love them for so doing.
There is no rational explanation for this other than it is evil. It must be fought and exposed. Thanks for helping in this cause, Fenris. Your friendship with Christians is noteworthy!
We both want the same thing: A world unified under God's rule. Let's work towards this goal together, as the brothers in faith that we are.
-
Regardless, many Evangelicals today support the cause of national Israel and the cause of the Jewish People.
And I love them for so doing.
There is no rational explanation for this other than it is evil. It must be fought and exposed. Thanks for helping in this cause, Fenris. Your friendship with Christians is noteworthy!
We both want the same thing: A world unified under God's rule. Let's work towards this goal together, as the brothers in faith that we are.
Amen! I just this moment finished watching on Fox Nation a program entitled "Battle in the Holy Land," narrated by Pete Hegseth. Pete did a great job of showing the effort, on the ground, of non-political people just trying to live, do business, and prosper, apart from all of the politics. You would have to be a member:
https://nation.foxnews.com/watch/6d48771619ed0b9f15e74319ce9fd87a/
Of course, the reality is, one group or the other in charge (Israeli or Palestinian) may prohibit the other from economic/religious advantages. The reality is, Israel is there, and Islam has tried, unsuccessfully, to keep a Jewish State from existing and prospering.
The reality is, Europe has sanctioned, with their power, the existence of Israel, and now it lies within Middle Eastern powers themselves to determine, if they can, what will result. Western values would not allow Islamic imperial doctrines to swallow up either Jewish or Christian communities, if those communities have already been given political status and protection by Israel.
I think it's critical that Jews maintain a firm connection with the U.S., and support the political party that protects the rights of Israel to survive, and to thrive. Presently, I think Trump's doctrine was more favorable to the Jewish State. As a Conservative Republican, I not only distrust Biden, but I intensely dislike him as well. But he also is a reality that has to be acknowledged--at least until he can be unseated.
However, it's probably wise for Israel to remain friendly, if possible. with both Republicans and Democrats, and just ride current pro-Israel policies and programs until something better evolves.
-
At that time Jesus said in response: "I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intellectual ones and have revealed them to young children. Yes, O Father, because this is the way you approved." (Mathew 11:25-26)
Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of My Father who is in the heavens will. (Matthew 7:21)
-
I think it's critical that Jews maintain a firm connection with the U.S., and support the political party that protects the rights of Israel to survive, and to thrive. Presently, I think Trump's doctrine was more favorable to the Jewish State. As a Conservative Republican, I not only distrust Biden, but I intensely dislike him as well. But he also is a reality that has to be acknowledged--at least until he can be unseated.
However, it's probably wise for Israel to remain friendly, if possible. with both Republicans and Democrats, and just ride current pro-Israel policies and programs until something better evolves.
I Agree with everything that you've said here.
-
Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of the heavens, but only the one doing the will of My Father who is in the heavens will. (Matthew 7:21)
Do you think you could explain your point a little bit better? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.
-
The Democratik Nazionale Commitburo does not see any need to address their anti-Semitism problem, because to them, it is not a problem.
They raise, literally, billlllllllions of dollars from anti-Semites, anti-Christians, anti-Caucasian, anti-heterosexual, anti-everything lunatics to fund their Wilsonian capital "P" "Progressivism" aka Marxism.
The amazing thing to me is how many people of both Jewish heritage and Jewish faith (and no, the two are not synonymous) support the National Socialist Democratik Commitburo both with votes and $$$.