The "Judeo-Christian values" conservatives don't like...
Here's a compilation of some of my favorite quotes, taken from the Torah and from conservatives.
(1) Sympathizing with Immigrants
"And if a stranger [also, foreigner] sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am HaShem your G-d" (Vayikra 33-4).
(2) Taking Care of the Environment
"When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by wielding an axe against them; for thou mayest eat of them, but thou shalt not cut them down; for is the tree of the field man, that it should be besieged of thee?" (Devarim 20:19).
(3) Equal Rights for Non-Citizens
"Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for the home-born; for I am HaShem your G-d" (Vayikra 24:22).
__________________
From where do we derive our Judeo-Christian values? Michael Medved said conservatism rejects moral relativism, so there should be one true source for morality.
Then what is the one true source, the one sacred text? Certainly not the one I use, di heylige Toyre.
(1) Sympathizing with Immigrants
"And if a stranger [also, foreigner] sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not do him wrong. The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am HaShem your G-d" (Vayikra 33-4).
"If one cannot understand English, one is probably not sufficiently knowledgeable to vote intelligently in an English-speaking country" (Dennis Prager, 8/12/08).
(2) Taking Care of the Environment
"When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by wielding an axe against them; for thou mayest eat of them, but thou shalt not cut them down; for is the tree of the field man, that it should be besieged of thee?" (Devarim 20:19).
"In fact, the only large body of Jews with a mission are the Jews with the least Jewish religiosity. Such Jews have been disproportionately involved in secular ideologies such as Marxism, socialism, feminism, environmentalism, gay rights, animal rights and every other ideology of the Left" (Prager, 5/10/05)
(see earlier post on Jewish Conservative Radio Hosts for relevance of animal rights in Jewish thought and Noahide laws)
(see earlier post on Jewish Conservative Radio Hosts for relevance of animal rights in Jewish thought and Noahide laws)
(3) Equal Rights for Non-Citizens
"Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for the home-born; for I am HaShem your G-d" (Vayikra 24:22).
"Thursday's 5-4 decision awarding 'unlawful combatants' at Gitmo --terrorists-- the 'privilege of the writ of habeas corpus' has left millions of Americans stunned. What in the world is the majority of the Supreme Court thinking?" (Hugh Hewitt, 6/12/08).
Well, maybe the majority of the Court believes in Judeo-Christian ideals, like the ideal that says if citizens have the right to know why they're being detained, so do those who are not citizens.
And, on the same topic of the Court granting the 'privilege' of habeas corpus to detainees, Dennis Prager, postulating on why "liberals" have granted this right: "They know they are better people. They are better than conservatives, and they are better than anybody who disagrees with them, present or dead. They are better than the Bible..." (audio).
Maybe they think they're better (which they all don't) because they have a set of ideals that they hold true and faith-based.
Well, maybe the majority of the Court believes in Judeo-Christian ideals, like the ideal that says if citizens have the right to know why they're being detained, so do those who are not citizens.
And, on the same topic of the Court granting the 'privilege' of habeas corpus to detainees, Dennis Prager, postulating on why "liberals" have granted this right: "They know they are better people. They are better than conservatives, and they are better than anybody who disagrees with them, present or dead. They are better than the Bible..." (audio).
Maybe they think they're better (which they all don't) because they have a set of ideals that they hold true and faith-based.
__________________
From where do we derive our Judeo-Christian values? Michael Medved said conservatism rejects moral relativism, so there should be one true source for morality.
Then what is the one true source, the one sacred text? Certainly not the one I use, di heylige Toyre.
posted by I, the Progressive Jew at
2:06 PM
8 Comments:
A very interesting compilation. I guess it shows that conservatives don't base their morals on their scriptures, but rather their scriptures on their morals.
I agree with you that conservatives don't always base morals on sacred texts, but some certainly do. Many are just highly selective about what views they quote and espouse, and what they don't. As if God made a mistake when He wrote the thing.
"And the question is further sharpened given that traditional Jewish values are not leftist."
- Dennis Prager, "Why Are Jews Liberal?" 4/25/06
In the column I just quoted (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0406/prager042506.php3), Prager presented that line as an axiom before providing commentary.
And his conclusion:
"If you believe that leftist ideas and policies are good for America and for the world, then you are particularly pleased to know how deeply Jews — with their moral passion, intellectual energies and abilities, and financial clout — are involved with the Left. If, on the other hand, you believe that the Left is morally confused and largely a destructive force in America and the world, then the Jews' disproportionate involvement on the Left is nothing less than a tragedy — for the world and especially for the Jews."
FINANCIAL CLOUT? Oy.
But thank God, Prager gave us plenty of material to discuss and debate from a theological viewpoint.
Sigh...really? This is your best shot?
1. Being friendly to the immigrant is not the same as giving him a vote. Nor does believing that the rule of law be followed mean you hate foreigners.
2. Environmentalism, as it is today, is at odds with humanism. Being against developing nations increasing their CO2 is being against them progressing and improving their quality of life. And, it does nothing for the environment! Lose lose.
3. Oh please. The detainees had rights before the decision. Never in the history of man have prisoners of war had such rights. And now they have more rights than citizens! Amazing.
You're long on rhetoric. Short on reality.
1. I agree. Yet with the great progress Spanish-language newspapers and television news programs have made in reaching immigrant audiences, denying a different copy of a ballot to those who prefer to vote in Spanish is not what I would consider evidence of sympathy with their condition. Enforcing our laws by keeping illegal immigration down is not something I disagree with, but creating new ones to ensure that Spanish doesn't become too prevalent in our society is something I do contest. English should be learned, yes, and perhaps it should be a part of becoming a citizen (and I hear it's supposed to be); nonetheless, we shouldn't make it seem as though we're saying their other language is less valid.
2. I definitely see your point; progress as we know it today means energy use and pollution, absolutely. That doesn't mean it would hurt us to rely on a/c and heating less than we currently do, or to recycle paper, plastic, and metals more than we currently do.
3. The Bible says what it says... Even if one doesn't believe that we should grant detainees so many rights, at least acknowledge that this belief runs counter to what the Bible says in Leviticus... just as I believe people who support gay rights should acknowledge rather than misinterpret Leviticus' commandment against gay sex. Views that disagree with the Bible exist on both sides, but I find them more problematic when the misinterpretation comes from people who claim to believe in Judeo-Christian values based on the "Old Testament."
And why are you insulting me personally? Your arguments were sound... but this last line discredits you as an opinionated author. That's why so many people don't bother listening to people like Ann Coulter and Michael Moore, who usually have solid arguments but portray themselves as overly critical and often flat out insulting.
1. There is no reason we should "reach out" and print ballots in other languages. If you have done the requirements to get citizenship, you have the English skills to read the ballot. To be blunt, if you wish to vote, learn the language. If not, your voice will be unheard in the elections. Voting is a responsibility, not a right.
2. Conservation is a wonderful thing. It is also a luxury of the rich. We have such high standards because we are such a wealthy nation. We are the only country IN THE WORLD where it is possible to be fat and "poor".
While recycling should be a part of every responsible adults life...there is no reason we shouldn't live in the comfort our devices afford us. Despite MASSIVE increases in CO2 around the world, average global temperatures have increased by .12 degrees Feirenheit in my lifetime (2 years ago, so it may be .15 by now). if i live to 200, i may see the mean temperature increase by a degree!Of course, most scientists say we're in a cooling period so hmmm.
3. I'm trying to avoid the Old Testiment for this one, because you really won't like the outcome. We'd mercilessly slaughter every man in Guantanimo and dump his body in a ditch. That's kinda how Israel dealt with war criminals.
Nevertheless, you ignored the rest of my point. The detainees have basic rights. They get to go in front of a tribunal, with basic facts about their detention. For obvious reasons this excludes their accuser or classified intelligence. So, it's obvious that they're not being denied the rule of law. Furthermore, the Supreme Court case gave them rights unheard of in the history of man. War POWs have never had rights to this magnitude. They certainly don't in the bible. (Your quote is about visitors, not enemies btw.) The idea that they have rights that supercede the citizenry's (as this case gave them) is ludicrous, and is undefendable from any standpoint.
And bud, you're the one charging that these people are ignoring their religion with these three things, which is a far harsher charge than "you're not talking reality". You basically claim they hate immigrants, don't care about the environment, and want prisoners to suffer. Where is your moral standing to protest? You've hardly been fair or non-partisan.
The difference is that I don't pretend that I'm some high minded far guy who is never mean to anyone. You're calling these people bad Christians and Jews, and I'm calling you a dreamer. As Christ said "Take the beam out of your own eye before you try to remove the spinter from your neighbors eye."
1.
Let's agree to disagree. Personally, I believe voting is indeed a "right" (as a young voter, the 26th amendment, which applies directly to me, even says that "the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age") as well as a privilege.
2.
I agree. Progress brings about comforts that I pray I will never have to live without. Still, if the people in my city decide to cut back on their use of luxuries like SUVs and pool heaters, I'd personally be very happy. Smog is terrible where I live, and a more immediate concern for me than global warming.
3.
Yeah, the Bible has some pretty brutal things in it. Good thing I decided to be a "bad Jew" by interpreting some of it, right? Whatever.
The reasoning behind habeas corpus for prisoners, in my opinion, is not that we should be "nice" to terrorists but rather that we should grant them this right if it means that even one innocent detainee walks free. Every so often, one guy who has been thrown in Gitmo is actually pretty innocent and harmless, and this has appeared in newspapers (they're usually not Islamofascists when this happens, but rather suspected drug dealers or something who were not directly involved in crimes). And what about the rest, the ones we know were involved in terrorist cells? I'm not so sure if we should give so many rights to terrorists, but I know for sure that habeas corpus will help innocents. Also, there is no real and direct harm in granting them the right to know why they're being detained, is there?
And just to provide some factual information, many detainees have never been brought to a court of any kind and, in the mean time, are not informed of the reason behind their detention. This can go on for years, and specific cases also make the news every now and again. It's really difficult for these (rare) innocent people at Gitmo to get lawyers.
And if you could tell me what rights supercede the citizenry's (besides, say, universal health care on the premises at Guantanamo), I'd love to hear them.
And to be clear. Never once have I called those that I quote "bad Christians" or "bad Jews." I'm pointing out the inconsistencies because I believe it to be hypocritical to say that you defend Judeo-Christian ideals, and then select those ideals from certain convenient passages of the text. Am I a hypocrite when it comes to faith? Not always. I personally don't believe in a literal reading of the entire Bible, but then again, I don't espouse Judeo-Christian values for all Americans, either. Nonetheless, I consider myself a "good Jew" and I consider people like Medved and Prager "good Jews" also. Not "perfected," but pretty darn good... ;) Also, this Jew thinks Jesus is a "raving lunatic," right(?), so I don't really believe in what Jesus says based solely on the grounds that he/He said it. Interesting quote, though.
You're not getting me...again.
1. I said voting was a responsibility, not a privledge. I know Democrats believe everybody should vote, regardless of age, citizenship, language, or even being alive...but the rest of us believe reasonable standards should apply...like speaking the language. If you cannot read the bill (which is in English), then you shouldn't be able to vote on it. The voter should be educated.
Refusing the vote to foreigners is not the same as not sympathizing with immigrants. This commandment is the precursor to the golden rule. If a man comes to my house, I should feed him, give him clothes, a place to sleep, and help him. You are conflating expecting someone to honor their duty as a citizen with being unkind. It's silly.
2. Granted.
3. These people had access to military investigations, which is why we have released so many of them. Far from "being held without end", the cases we hear about are of people who were released. If they're not getting hearings how are we supposed to believe they came to be released...magic? Clearly they have tribunal hearings.
Again, you are accusing your opponents of opposing the rule of law. But the standards of law have NEVER been the same for prisoners of war as it has for criminals. There are different rules of conduct and there are different rules of law.
Your response is a typical liberal "it makes me feel good response". It's not only the innocents who get habeus rights in CIVILIAN COURTS, it's everyone. It will cause lots of people to go free, including the guilty. Any American who commits a military crime gets judged by military tribunal. These people not only have access to military hearings, but then they can now demand a hearing from a civilian trial too. And if that doesn't go their way, an appeal. This is unprecedented in even civilian law. When ruled against in civilian courts, youre done. You wait til trial. The harm in this is that it can clog civilian courts with habeas hearings, appeals, and further appeals. Civilian courts are much more likely to grant a release than a tribunal, which will release people back to the battlefield. If the hearings aren't quick enough, it also gives the detainees the right to sue, and maybe be released WITHOUT a hearing.
And I find the defense "I never said they were bad religious people" to fall flat in the light that you're saying they're ignoring the tenets of their faith, and accusing them of disliking foreigners, polluting the Earth, and being against the rule of law. If not bad Christians and Jews, what does that make them?
1.
I don't even want to know the percentage of voters who theoretically could read the bills they're voting for but do not take the time to do so. It's too depressing... They should be educated, but even the ones who speak English aren't educated enough on the issues. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that the sons and daughters of immigrants (or immigrants who have become citizens themselves) that bother to come to the polls and yet prefer to speak Spanish at home and with friends are more knowledgeable overall than those born in this country who have grown apathetic and take civil duties for granted.
And show me a prominent Democrat (anybody from a U.S. Senator to a local party chair) who has publicly made the statement that non-citizens or 9-year olds should vote, and I will concede this point entirely. Dead people have "voted" to benefit both parties, so there's no reason to bring that up.
I'd love to come to your house, then, based on what you just said. (By the way, the original Hebrew refers to foreigners within a country, not guests at a home, though the principle is the same). It's actually kind of amusing that the same Christian conservatives who are willing to have me over at their homes are the ones who fight most strongly to protect their right to have a gun within reach. There seems to be a fundamental lack of trust in the American character, don't you think?
3.
It's amazing how little faith you have in the power of our court system to convict the guilty. The founding principle of law in this country is "innocent until proven guilty." If we assume all people detained in Gitmo are guilty and thus don't deserve rights, how can we protect the innocent ones? The whole reason we have a system of military tribunals is to make sure that the people we suspect are guilty, and to let those go who are free. If the evidence against a suspected terrorist is strong enough, appeals can be denied. The fact that they aren't denied proves that the evidence must not be too great.
I myself admitted that I don't believe everything my religion tells me to. What does that make me? I'm not calling Prager a bad Jew because I genuinely don't believe him to be (only a hypocrite for endorsing a select few Judeo-Christian values publicly and whole-heartedly) and because if he isn't, then I'm definitely not one.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home