Time for Democrats to Address Their Anti-Semitism Problem

[agnostic]

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.

[Athanasius]

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'?

[agnostic]

Context suggests it's more dehumanizing language for LGBT+ people.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[Fenris]

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. 

[agnostic]

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.

[Athanasius]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

[Fenris]

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.

[Athanasius]

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.

[agnostic]

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.

[RandyPNW]

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.

[Fenris]

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".

[Redeemed]

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.