The Progressive Jew

Governor Sarah Palin--A Naïve and Controversial Choice

2008-08-29T10:10:00.000-07:00

This is a point-by-point rebuttal to claims that Sarah Palin was a great pick for McCain.

She will appeal to female voters, particularly the ones who are upset that Obama beat Clinton.

She will appeal to clueless female voters who are willing to abandon their values and ideals (like a pro-choice position) to vote for any candidate with the same reproductive organs they have. True, most female Clinton supporters that wanted to see a woman on the ticket still do want to see a woman on a major ticket... but only if that woman is Hillary Clinton. Most intelligent female voters will see McCain's pick for what it is: pandering to clueless female voters. Agree with them or disagree with them, but we have to admit that the Democrats will be stronger on "bread and butter" issues: economic growth, jobs, etc. Republicans need to step up their game if they hope to compete in the fall.

She is youthful and attractive.

You got me on that one, but that means Republicans can't ridicule Democrats who are only voting for Barack Obama because he is youthful and attractive, or eloquent and inspiring.

Picking her demonstrates McCain's "maverick" leadership style.

Picking her demonstrates McCain's problem with conservatives, women, working class families, and those who crave a Washington outsider. If by "maverick," we mean that McCain does not care about attracting voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, or Florida, perhaps he lives up to the reputation with this decision.

Her level of experience will not be an issue.

Oh, it will be a HUGE issue. She served on an obscure Alaskan city council and then as a mayor of an obscure Alaskan city. She became a governor in December 2006. "She beat the powerful incumbent Republican governor during the primary," but so did somebody else. "She's popular as a governmental figure," yeah, in Alaska, with its 3 already-McCain-leaning electoral votes. If Republicans say that Obama's experience as a city organizer and member of the Illinois state legislature is meaningless, almost all of Sarah Palin's experience up until the last year or two has been meaningless, as well. Imagine when Joe Biden and Sarah Palin finally get on TV to debate and the issue of foreign policy comes up... At least Alaska will give us a prime location to bomb the hell out of Russia, right? Oh, and to drill, drill, drill.

John McCain said he was going to pick somebody who, a heartbeat away from the presidency, would be ready to lead on day one if something were to happen to McCain (and at age 72 today, it's not hard to imagine that occurring). I hope the Obama campaign uses these words against McCain, which would only strengthen his choice in Joe Biden.

This will attract conservatives.

Yes, but she will turn off moderates and independents who were hopeful for McCain Republicanism. I don't know if the pro-Romney or pro-Huckabee (or pro-Guiliani) voters will appreciate the Palin pick as much as McCain hopes, but certainly the pro-McCain Republicans will find many faults with this decision, and perhaps many will stay home or even deflect to Obama.

The truth is that her campaign is not too historic, except that she will be the only woman to lose the vice presidency since Geraldine Ferraro did it back in 1984.

What what about the controversy? Well, there's a rift on Townhall.com, for what it's worth:

"If she's the pick, the press frenzy will be huge ---- HUGE --- but McCain will largely lose the experience issue against Obama. By any standard, Governor Palin is less prepared as commander in chief than Obama." -- Michael Medved

"When the Dems come after Palin for inexperience in foreign affairs, the reply will be obvious --the GOP vice-presidential nominee is as experienced as the Democratic presidential nominee but also has executive decision-making that Obama lacks." -- Hugh Hewitt

What conservatives have said about McCain...

2008-08-28T20:52:00.002-07:00

Since McCain has used both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden in ads against the phenom Barack Obama, here's a small collection of videos featuring notable conservatives badmouthing Senator John McCain--the same "maverick" who prided himself on being a "maverick" months and years ago when these criticisms were made. I will not insert commentary; the videos speak for themselves.

Hugh Hewitt:

Rush Limbaugh:

Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter:

Joe Scarborough:

Tom DeLay:

Laura Ingraham:

James Dobson:

Mitt Romney:

Karl Rove:

Racial Injustice and Other Inconsistencies

2008-08-27T00:15:00.000-07:00

It's a policy that distinguishes between races and selects for the minorities.

It makes assumptions about a person's life, upbringing, and background based on physical appearances.

It's rooted in stereotypes.

According to this doctrine, certain attributes are inherent in being of a given ethnicity.

Its proponents hold that it "helps American society as a whole" by solving problems, even though its foundations are unjust and based on racism.

The policy exists in both the private and the public sectors.

It is based on convenience: Because performing in-depth research is difficult and expensive, making decisions based on race becomes simple and cheap.

It fits the definition of "prejudice" perfectly because the act judges other people based on first impressions.

___________________

If you're a conservative, chances are you assumed I was talking about "affirmative action."
If you're a liberal, chances are you assumed I was talking about "racial profiling."

In many ways, both systems are unfair both to those they target and to those they neglect to target.

Under affirmative action, individual members of minority groups have an advantage because minorities as a whole are underrepresented at schools and in certain industries. Those minorities who actually have talents and skills are often viewed by their white peers as the beneficiaries of affirmative action policies, even though they may have been highly qualified without any extra bonus. Equally qualified whites are at a disadvantage. Although some feel that it rectifies an American historical trend that barred minorities from achieving real success, many feel that it is simply "reverse racism." In some instances, affirmative action appears to be on the rise in private school admissions; yet many public school admissions statistics reveal that the schools are actively recruiting minorities less than in years past.

And what about "racial profiling," with which Dennis Prager and Ann Coulter (among the most vehement opponents of affirmative action) have no problem? It targets certain minorities (people of Middle Eastern descent in airports, and African-Americans and Hispanic people in car searches and other police procedures), while assuming based on skin color that a person is more of a suspect for a given crime. Shouldn't security in airports be on the look-out for all terrorists, Mohammed Attas as well as Timothy McVeighs? In a world where the vast majority of our terrorist enemies seem to be of Arabic descent, causing us to target Arabs, terrorists with unconventional skin colors are bound to emerge. We must be vigilant in suspecting all equally, even if that means raising the security for all travelers.

Although I consider myself a "progressive," I do not consider myself a hypocrite on most issues. Therefore, I do not support affirmative action or racial profiling.

And a few other inconsistencies:

Conservatives believe in an "inalienable right to life" as God grants us (via our Judeo-Christian Founding Fathers' Declaration of Independence), yet when a person is found guilty, that murderer's right suddenly becomes alienable. I'm not saying the death penalty isn't justifiable under the "Old Testament," but it's not justifiable if somebody believes that the right is and should be "inalienable."

Conservatives cannot understand why Obama criticizes McCain's success (see the '7 homes' ad), but McCain is not wrong to criticize Obama's success (see the 'Paris & Britney' ad).

Conservatives believe abortion is murder. Does the fact that the mother became pregnant due to rape make an abortion any less a "murder" of an innocent human being? Giving the option of an abortion to a rape victim sounds an awful lot like two wrongs making a right, no? John McCain rejects abortion ("infanticide") except in the case of rape or incest, so go figure.

Again, I'm trying to attain a Prageresque notion of "moral clarity."
I welcome inconsistencies of liberal thought (like the pro-"affirmative action" stance but not pro-"racial profiling" stance I mentioned earlier) in the comment field.

Campaign 2008: By the Numbers

2008-08-26T01:00:00.000-07:00

During the TV ads and stump stops, there seems to be one focus of both presidential campaigns.
Is it the economy? No.
Is it Iraq? No.
Is it "change"? No.
It's Barack Obama.

In a presidential election with no incumbents running, voters must turn to the candidates, whom many know well (McCain) or whom many have yet to meet (Obama).

Both parties had major problems during the primaries. The Democrats had a heated battle between Obama and Clinton, which will be definitively closed when the Clintons speak during this week's convention (or so the Dems hope). The Republicans elected McCain, who has been painted as too liberal for conservative tastes (even he admits it!).

Tonight, CNN's John King pointed out the trend to focus the Republican campaign on Barack Obama. He said that given "the fundamentals" (which includes the state of the economy and Pres. Bush's low approval ratings), the only way Republicans can hope to win is to "disqualify" Barack Obama: He's unpatriotic, he's an elitist, he doesn't share your values, etc. I would add, "He's a crypto-Muslim," as a concern of many conservatives, but that wasn't mentioned on CNN.

Does my assertion that Barack Obama is the focus of both sides of the political spectrum have any merit? Well, let's check the numbers.
(All searches performed at 1 AM on August 26, 2008. I'm a night owl.)

Number of results for "McCain" on the conservative Townhall.com search of columns: 782
Number for "Obama": 1,165
Number of results for "McCain" on Townhall.com search of everything (audio/video, blogs, columns, etc.): 8,825
Number for "Bush": 9,208
Number for "Obama": 16,774

Number of results for "McCain" on the liberal DailyKos.com search of stories from last 5 years: 2,990
Number for "Obama": 3,770

Number of results for "economy" on JohnMcCain.com: 255
Number for "security": 249
Number for "Iraq": 227
Number for "energy": 176
Number for "POW": 39
Number for "country" (as in, "Country first"): 423
Number for "Obama": 453

Did I prove that Obama was the focus of both sides of this battle? Well, maybe not, but he's certainly discussed much more by bloggers, conservative and liberal alike, and he's certainly a big talking point of Senator McCain. But let's keep pretending that only the "mainstream liberal media" is nonsensically obsessed with Senator Obama, with "The One."

In my view, Sen. Barack Obama has had enough time being the focus of both campaigns. Now the focus must shift to President Bush.

And on a side note,
Does anybody really think that the option of voting "for Obama" and "not for Obama" (rather than "for McCain") is healthy for America? John McCain seems to believe that's how a person wins, by trying to ruin Obama's reputation and keep Obama on the defensive. We'll just have to see how well that strategy works come November.

Prager on Shooting Taggers

2008-08-25T21:32:00.001-07:00

Well, the eminent Judeo-Christian moralizer Dennis Prager has shocked me again. Today he responded to those who criticize his opinion that taggers should be shot on sight (wounded, yes, but God forbid they should be killed).

So now it's a far-left position to be against shooting taggers? Let's see if this column alienates any Townhall.com readers with his ignorant assumption that his view is the standard conservative one. ("But if he shot them in the legs or in the arms I would have considered the man one of the great advancers of civilization in my time. And that is what divides left from right.")

The reason people on "the left" (more accurately, most people) oppose such drastic ways of dealing with taggers is not because they condone taggers' behavior, but because those crimes do not warrant gunfire. And to think this guy has taught at the American Jewish University...

Unless there is a significant response to this post asking me to do so, I won't respond point by point to Prager's outrageously far-far-far-far-far-right column and its absurdly anti-Judeo-Christian sentiment. For now I will assume the absurdity is inherent in his verbal lunacy. The bulk of my argument would go something like this: Most agree that graffiti is a major problem, and vandals are often engaging in gang violence, but where he loses people (and me) is how this leads logically to the conclusion that it's fine to shoot them in the leg or in the arm. Or how this violence follows logically from Judeo-Christian morality.

Dennis Prager: Champion of Moral Clarity...

Another interesting Prager column:
On John McCain

Ignorance: A "Judeo-Christian" Value?

2008-08-25T19:50:00.000-07:00

"Ignorance" -- 1. The condition of being ignorant; the want of knowledge in general, or in relation to a particular subject; the state of being uneducated or uninformed.

Ignorance is the curse of God, Knowledge the wing wherewith we fly to heaven. --Shakespeare

2. (Theol.) A willful neglect or refusal to acquire knowledge which one may acquire and it is his duty to have. --Book of Common Prayer.

"ignorance." Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary. MICRA, Inc. 25 Aug. 2008. <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorance>.

The results of this poll on the front page of Townhall.com came about 2 minutes before she walked on stage at the convention.

The readers of Townhall and the writers who think they're appealing to an educated audience (or at least vastly more educated than liberal readers of sites like The Huffington Post, right?) ought to feel ashamed at the unabashed ignorance.

Disgraceful.

Obama-Biden, McCain-Romney, and the Perils of Debate Footage

2008-08-24T00:02:00.000-07:00

Warning: This post does not reference Jewish texts or religious authorities in any way. It's merely a political discussion, not a religious one. Those who are offended by lashon hara as it relates to elections should not indulge in the following post.

Shortly after Baruch Tov Obama announced on his website this Shabbos that Delaware Senator Joe Biden would be his vice presidential running mate, the McCain campaign released an ad attacking Obama as inexperienced, using Joe Biden's own words from a primary debate:

Yeah, Biden did sit next to Senator Clinton during the post-Iowa Senate meetings that were televised. Yeah, he did criticize Obama's inexperience on more than one occasion. Yes, he has been consistent in his delivery of fantastic gaffes.

But Biden does bring much to the ticket: Foreign policy experience, the perspective of a Washington insider, an appeal to Catholic and working class voters, and a charming and personable way of handling himself in uncomfortable political situations (as demonstrated in the following video).

But is the inconsistency in his perception of Barack Obama something that should worry liberal voters? Hardly, especially if McCain chooses former Massachusetts governor and current businessman Mitt Romney.

Clearly, Barack Obama has demonstrated that he has the judgment, if not the experience, to lead on matters of foreign policy. He bothered to read the briefings on Iraq and came to the conclusion that Bush should not receive the "okay" to use military force there. I would assert that Barack Obama's skillful handling of his honorable campaign has better prepared him for the presidency. But for his VP pick, Joe Biden has the experience, and he has admitted that his decision to give Bush the authority to deploy troops in Iraq was a bad call.

But let's get back to Mitt.

Fortunately for the Democrats, Mitt Romney will (if pundits are correct that he'll be chosen as the VP) be a great choice. Why do I think so? Well, Romney's political philosophy can be accurately described as "liberal conservatism." If that sounds like an oxymoron, that's because it is.

For example, here Romney is speaking on behalf of McCain and his "We are all Georgians" message:

And yet here he is debating against the notable Democrat Ted Kennedy when he ran for the U.S. Senate:

(Interesting to note: Log Cabin Republicans actually used this debate as a positive and true portrayal of Mitt Romney when they made their pro-Romney ad.)

Good for conservatives and for liberals? Everybody loves Mitt!
Well, that simply mean's he's good for Democrats. If McCain wants to play dirty with his attack on Biden's disapproval of Obama, you better believe the Democrats are going to play dirty with Romney's disapproval of McCain, like in this ad:

Studies have revealed that the VP selection has never really made a significant difference in the preference of voters. Nonetheless, if Mitt Romney can show that he is so liberal on social issues when he's under pressure during a debate against a well-known Democratic senator, just imagine how he'll fare when he's up against Joe Biden.

And just for kicks,

Response to Dennis Prager's "If There Is No God"

2008-08-19T01:05:00.000-07:00

In this post, I will respond to Dennis Prager's 8/19/2008 column, "If There Is No God." The original text appears in italics, and my commentary appears in non-italic text.

"There Is No God" by Dennis Prager, Townhall.com

We are constantly reminded about the destructive consequences of religion -- intolerance, hatred, division, inquisitions, persecutions of "heretics," holy wars. Though far from the whole story, they are, nevertheless, true. There have been many awful consequences of religion.

I can't disagree here. Those Crusades were pretty bad, as is the terrorism of Islamic extremists (and all other extremists).

What one almost never hears described are the deleterious consequences of secularism -- the terrible developments that have accompanied the breakdown of traditional religion and belief in God. For every thousand students who learn about the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials, maybe two learn to associate Gulag, Auschwitz, The Cultural Revolution and the Cambodian genocide with secular regimes and ideologies.

I also agree here. Atrocities based on secular/atheistic ideologies have been committed (though I strongly disagree with the claim that Auschwitz was committed by atheists; the fascist Nazis, though perhaps not as much as their Spanish and Italian counterparts, were Christians, if bad ones).

For all the problems associated with belief in God, the death of God leads to far more of them.

So, while it is not possible to prove (or disprove) God's existence, what is provable is what happens when people stop believing in God.

1. Without God there is no good and evil; there are only subjective opinions that we then label "good" and "evil." This does not mean that an atheist cannot be a good person. Nor does it mean that all those who believe in God are good; there are good atheists and there are bad believers in God. It simply means that unless there is a moral authority that transcends humans from which emanates an objective right and wrong, "right" and "wrong" no more objectively exist than do "beautiful" and "ugly."

True, God represents a clearer picture of what is right and what is wrong. But people's interpretations of God's will have certainly led to "subjective opinions" on who deserves to die, ranging from the "sinner" to the "infidel."

2. Without God, there is no objective meaning to life. We are all merely random creations of natural selection whose existence has no more intrinsic purpose or meaning than that of a pebble equally randomly produced.

If Dennis Prager had bothered to study the eminent ethologist and atheist Richard Dawkins (with whom I disagree on almost every one of his assessments of the worth and purpose of man) and his The Selfish Gene, he would know that a human being has more of an intrinsic purpose or meaning than a pebble, even for secular biologists. A human exists, for example, as a machine to act out (with some cultural exceptions) what his genes dictate to him to ensure fitness; a pebble has no DNA and, as a result, is formed randomly through natural processes. I disagree with this view and the view Dawkins espouses in the text, but Prager should note that atheists often do find an "objective meaning to life" (though all life is basically equal in "worth" from the genetic point of view).

3. Life is ultimately a tragic fare if there is no God. We live, we suffer, we die -- some horrifically, many prematurely -- and there is only oblivion afterward.

'Tis grim, indeed. I like Judaism's answer more than simply rotting in the ground without any direction... At any rate, I fail to see how this statement shows an inherent problem with atheism, or to phrase that a little bit differently, I fail to see how an "atheist" would convince himself to believe in God because he wants to go somewhere pleasant when he dies. It would be logical for somebody to want to go somewhere happy; yet, what somebody believes in, I'd like to think, is based on something more than a matter of choice and convenience. It's convenient to believe in a religion's concept of the afterlife, but I don't think that's usually why believers believe.

4. Human beings need instruction manuals. This is as true for acting morally and wisely as it is for properly flying an airplane. One's heart is often no better a guide to what is right and wrong than it is to the right and wrong way to fly an airplane. The post-religious secular world claims to need no manual; the heart and reason are sufficient guides to leading a good life and to making a good world.

Yes, it is easy to see how a world without organized religion can be based on feelings and emotions rather than a given set of immutable values. Nonetheless, we cannot overlook that many "instruction manuals" have existed in the secular world to try to establish what is a good life and what is a good world; Marx's "The Communist Manifesto" comes to mind.

5. If there is no God, the kindest and most innocent victims of torture and murder have no better a fate after death than do the most cruel torturers and mass murderers. Only if there is a good God do Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler have different fates.

I agree. That's why many secularists also believe in social justice, bringing criminals like Hitler to justice while their still alive. Still, I agree with Prager's concern.

6. With the death of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many Westerners believe in little. That is why secular Western Europe has been unwilling and therefore unable to confront evil, whether it was Communism during the Cold War or Islamic totalitarians in its midst today.

Was Western Europe ever based on Judeo-Christian values? If so, when did Judeo-Christians die for them? And if they believe in little, why did many European nations establish successful government-run health care programs? Clearly, they believe in something. Humanism is often that something, but there can be other ideologies that lead to important and necessary innovations that benefit society as a whole. Evils are the result of secular societies, but so are institutions that serve the common good, like private charities (for those of you who don't agree with socialized medicine).

7. Without God, people in the West often become less, not more, rational. It was largely the secular, not the religious, who believed in the utterly irrational doctrine of Marxism. It was largely the secular, not the religious, who believed that men's and women's natures are basically the same, that perceived differences between the sexes are all socially induced. Religious people in Judeo-Christian countries largely confine their irrational beliefs to religious beliefs (theology), while the secular, without religion to enable the non-rational to express itself, end up applying their irrational beliefs to society, where such irrationalities do immense harm.

I can't accurately refute or defend this claim because I simply don't understand the foundation of this argument, but I'll try to come up with a response. People who call themselves Christians, including the priests involved in molestation scandals and the KKK who used to lynch blacks and burn crosses, lehavdil, have applied plenty of irrational beliefs to societal circumstances. I think this is a really hasty generalization, and even Orthodox Jews would admit that somebody can act morally without being religious.

8. If there is no God, the human being has no free will. He is a robot, whose every action is dictated by genes and environment. Only if one posits human creation by a Creator that transcends genes and environment who implanted the ability to transcend genes and environment can humans have free will.

Oh, here is the "selfish gene" theory that Prager neglected in his earlier discussion. I guess he picks out the parts of Dawkins' book that he feels are relevant while ignoring others that disagree with his assertions (just like when Judeo-Christian values seem to ignore plenty of verses from the Bible).

9. If there is no God, humans and "other" animals are of equal value. Only if one posits that humans, not animals, are created in the image of God do humans have any greater intrinsic sanctity than baboons. This explains the movement among the secularized elite to equate humans and animals.

True, life can have no "sanctity" unless you believe in "sanctity," which is a religious principle. As a result, many non-religious people equate humans and other animals in worth, but even more do not (for instance, those few secular people who eat beef or pork but not family members...).

10. Without God, there is little to inspire people to create inspiring art. That is why contemporary art galleries and museums are filled with "art" that celebrates the scatological, the ugly and the shocking. Compare this art to Michelangelo's art in the Sistine chapel. The latter elevates the viewer -- because Michelangelo believed in something higher than himself and higher than all men.

This is an interesting assumption that I largely agree with, but I also acknowledge that people can be inspired by plenty of other things: hate (Hitler's inspiration for Mein Kampf), family (Americans' inspiration to save money for their children), ambition (athletes' quest for gold medals), and the constant need to be right (Dennis Prager's columns), among many others. Many great works of literature, music, and architecture have been inspired by things other than faith in God, and I think it's unfair and irresponsibly misleading for Prager to point out unconventional paintings rather than beautiful modern symphonies to construct his argument that age and religion define quality.

11. Without God nothing is holy. This is definitional. Holiness emanates from a belief in the holy. This explains, for example, the far more widespread acceptance of public cursing in secular society than in religious society. To the religious, there is holy speech and profane speech. In much of secular society the very notion of profane speech is mocked.

This is in keeping with my commentary earlier on number 9. I also admit that religious people often see an intrinsic holiness in language (especially us Jews, who believe that one's name and one's essence are basically the same thing, as demonstrated by our reverence for God's name and the power it represents). Nevertheless, sensibilities change over time. Religious Jews felt that Yiddish, mame-loshn, should be the national language of Israel based on an understanding of the intrinsic sanctity of Hebrew, loshn koydesh; that doesn't stop today's religious Jews from using modern Hebrew in day-to-day dialogue about non-holy matters. Can this be viewed as an example of when "the very notion of profane speech is mocked"? I'm not entirely sure myself.

12. Without God, humanist hubris is almost inevitable. If there is nothing higher than man, no Supreme Being, man becomes the supreme being.

Didn't he just say that secularists believe that humans are equal to animals? See Prager's number 9.

13. Without God, there are no inalienable human rights. Evolution confers no rights. Molecules confer no rights. Energy has no moral concerns. That is why America's Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed "by our Creator" with certain inalienable rights. Rights depend upon a moral source, a rights giver.

I agree.

14. "Without God," Dostoevsky famously wrote, "all is permitted." There has been plenty of evil committed by believers in God, but the widespread cruelties and the sheer number of innocents murdered by secular regimes -- specifically Nazi, Fascist and Communist regimes -- dwarfs the evil done in the name of religion.

Again, trying to rewrite history by saying that the fascists were secularists. No they weren't; totalitarianism is not to be equated with a belief in man's ability to triumph over God. Mussolini instituted many reforms that were in keeping with Catholic doctrine, including laws against public swearing and rulings that closed down bars. Religion was taught in public schools, and the Catholic Church was allowed to control all marriages in Italy. Many if not most Nazis were also Christians.

As noted at the beginning, none of this proves, or even necessarily argues for, God's existence. It makes the case for the necessity, not the existence, of God. "Which God?" the secularist will ask. The God of Israel, the God of America's founders, "the Holy God who is made holy by justice" (Isaiah), the God of the Ten Commandments, the God who demands love of neighbor, the God who endows all human beings with certain inalienable rights, the God who is cited on the Liberty Bell because he is the author of liberty. That is the God being referred to here, without whom we will be vanquished by those who believe in less noble gods, both secular and divine.

I would capitalize "He" and "Whom," and I would set "god" in lowercase in the question, "Which god?"... but I won't criticize Prager here with such relatively trivial matters. I agree that his column argues for God, and obviously, it argues for what he perceives to be the true God. Nonetheless, I think this conclusion (the way he phrases it) isolates some of our closest allies, like peaceful Hindus and Buddhists, while bringing in those Prager disagrees with the most: radical Islamic extremists, who also believe in many attributes of God that Prager just lists.

Israel and Foreign Policy: You Decide!

2008-08-17T02:27:00.001-07:00

"... Internationalism is the guiding belief of most American Jews. And so they endorse Barack Obama (by a 2-1 margin in some polls) despite the fact that Obama and his advisors are dangerously anti-Israel." -- Ben Shapiro, Townhall.com, 6/25/08

Does this assertion make any sense? What does Shapiro use to base his claim? Speeches? Press releases? A feeling in his gut? To illustrate that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain is "dangerously anti-Israel," I've decided to make this post interactive!

All right, class. Get out a sheet of paper and a pencil, it's time for the "foreign policy and Israel" quiz. Let's see how well you know your candidates in 2008.

The following numbered quotes are taken from the writings/speeches of both John McCain and Barack Obama (or, more accurately, from their campaigns). For each quote, write down who you think the author is. Good luck!

(1) "During the July 2006 Lebanon war, [he] stood up strongly for Israel’s right to defend itself from Hezbollah raids and rocket attacks. [He] is an original cosponsor of the Senate resolution expressing support for Israel, condemning the attacks, and calling for strong action against Iran and Syria."

(2) "We hope that the talks between Israel and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will yield progress toward peace."

(3) "The Palestinian people are badly served with Hamas in charge of Gaza. This is a group that refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, to denounce violence, and to acknowledge prior peace commitments."

(4) "[He] supports U.S. efforts to provide aid directly to the Palestinian people by bypassing any Hamas-led government that refuses to renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist."

(5) "The United Nations Security Council should impose progressively tougher political and economic sanctions [on Iran]... We will encourage those in the region and our European partners to impose targeted sanctions."

(6) "He has sought to encourage Palestinian moderates who seek peace and to isolate Hamas and other extremists who are committed to Israel’s destruction."

(7) "Additionally, he has called for sustaining the unique U.S.-Israel defense relationship by fully funding military assistance and continuing cooperative work on missile defense programs, such as the Arrow."

(8) "He strongly supports the increase in military aid to Israel scheduled to begin in October, and is committed to making certain Israel maintains its qualitative military edge."

____________________

Drum roll, please... Here are the answers:

(1) Senator Barack Obama
(2) Senator John McCain
(3) Senator John McCain
(4) Senator Barack Obama
(5) Senator John McCain
(6) Senator Barack Obama
(7) Senator Barack Obama
(8) Senator John McCain
(And please note, I gave them an equal number of quotes, because that's just the kind of guy I am...)

Surprised by the answers? Not surprised? Confused by the candidates' similar stances? Appalled by their differences? I really don't care how you reacted to the quotes and their authors (unless you leave me a comment, of course), as long as you reacted in some way.

If you got all of them correct, congratulations. If you didn't, don't fret. Regardless of how you scored, go back and read through the quotes, and check out these links (where I got my quotes): McCain and Israel and Obama and Israel. If you find all of the quotes and positions agreeable, then maybe you should pick another issue to differentiate between the two major candidates; furthermore, if you fall into this category, you should also feel comfortable knowing that, God willing, Israel will be just fine for years to come under either candidate. If you saw one candidate waver or mention something you found questionable, feel free to investigate, leave me a comment, and/or make a decision on who will earn your vote (with this being one of the many important issues you should consider in this presidential campaign).

"And Barack Obama, internationalist, will stand alongside the United Nations and the European Union." -- Ben Shapiro, again. Read their positions yourself, and see just how much McCain and Obama mention the UN and the EU in their ideas on foreign policy.

The Free Market -- A Panacea?

2008-08-15T07:00:00.000-07:00

Here's a sampling of 3 common positions/complaints of conservatives on very specific issues. (We can discuss the supposed commonality in the comment field, but I believe them to be fairly common based on my findings.) Because I don't want to risk having my readers say that I've set up a "straw man" (a logical fallacy where one makes up claims and then refutes them), I will accurately quote columnists from Townhall.com, and then former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

(1) "Most Americans look upon the English language as the No. 1 factor that defines our national identity: 'e pluribus unum,' one nation out of many peoples. We want English to be our national, official language, spoken by all who call themselves Americans" (Phyllis Schlafly).

(2) "Outside of the natural sciences, colleges are either more interested in liberal indoctrination than in a liberal arts education, or they enable students to take courses that are so narrowly focused that your child graduate will likely graduate as a cultural and historical illiterate" (Dennis Prager).

(3) "A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not a new proposal but rather a codification of longstanding policy and tradition. Civil union language is best left to the legislative process. My hope is the Constitutional Convention will approve an amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. If we do that, we will have taken an important step toward restoring the people’s voice in their own government" (Mitt Romney).

My response: Stop kvetching. Market forces will work everything out.

(1) If Latin American immigrants aren't assimilating, maybe it's because business owners are hiring immigrants but aren't making sure that they speak English, and maybe it's because customers are supporting such businesses by giving them their money. Making English the official language is government intervention in a natural process that has worked itself out for centuries. (And please note: "E pluribus unum" is Latin. Let me be the first to say that if "E pluribus unum" is what defines Americans, we are all Latin Americans.)

(2) If American universities are so liberal (or so inadequate), let their customers (American families) decide which ones they are going to pay to teach their kids. If a notably liberal university loses customers, maybe it will change its tune.

(3) Let me propose a free market solution: If a pastor, rabbi, what have you, has a policy of performing gay marriages, let the straight couples choose different people to perform their own marriages. Soon, those same-sex-marriage-performers will go broke from losing straight couples, and they'll change their tune. Having the government expedite this process is unnecessary government intervention and infringement upon the right of pastors to lose business! They should be punished by going broke for performing such aberrational/abominable marriages, in this, a country that endorses Judeo-Christian values.

_____________________

Is the free market a panacea, a cure-all? I certainly don't believe so, but I can argue so. Let me say here: If conservatives believe so strongly and so unequivocally in the free market, they should think and write as if they do. And if I've demonstrated that conservatives don't love the free market unconditionally, maybe they should stop calling government intervention "socialism" all the time.

And if they really believe in the free market, they shouldn't vote for John McCain. Here he is proposing that the government spend $300 million as "prize" money for the person that invents a battery that will solve the energy crisis. Why not let the free market work this out, McCain? (Like it did years ago on this very same issue).

"The Progressive Jew" Poll

2008-08-14T19:33:00.001-07:00

Readers, please participate in the poll found on the right-hand side of the page. The outcome will determine the content of future posts.

In the meantime, read my previous posts and enjoy this video:

I only wish I got that kind of applause every time I opened my mouth during Hebrew class...

The "Judeo-Christian values" conservatives don't like...

2008-08-13T14:06:00.000-07:00

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).

"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)

(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.

__________________

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.

Ann Coulter: A friend of the Jews?

2008-08-12T16:49:00.000-07:00

Since I'm new to the blogging world, about a year ago I was voicing my opinion about Ann Coulter and her 'perfecting Jews' comment the old-fashioned way: offline. Nonetheless, I think this is something that should be addressed here, also.

Here's an excerpt from this now infamous interview from CNBC's The Big Idea:

DONNY DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not -- we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or --
ANN COULTER: Yeah.
DEUTSCH: Really?
COULTER: Yeah, well it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.

Click here for a complete transcript.

A lot easier than what? A fast track to what?

Is this something that should trouble Jews in America? The Christians are supposed to be our friends, right? Certainly more than the Muslims are, especially in this, our "Judeo-Christian" society, right? Comments and responses to these questions are welcome.

Although Coulter "[doesn't] think most Jews are as stupid as Donny Deutsch" (click here for that fantastic interview), I think Deutsch's concern and the concern of many in our community were genuine during the weeks that followed the interview. Are the similarities between Judaism and Christianity really as obvious as Ann Coulter says they are? And is Ann Coulter, known, rightly or wrongly, as the face of Christian conservatives, to be trusted as an authority on religious matters?

Let's take a look at some other statements she has made regarding religious doctrine.

"... if anyone's going to be offended by anyone else's religion, the Jews believe that my savior, a Jew, was a raving lunatic, and you don't see me sniffling and crying." (transcript)

FACT: Generally speaking, today's Jews believe that Jesus was probably a practicing Jew who was executed and then given divine status by his followers.

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.' " From Hannity & Colmes, 06/2001

FACT: The verse actually says, "And G-d blessed them; and G-d said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth' " (Bereshis 1:28). Do trees creep? Nevermind. Many see this verse as the basis behind the Jewish concept of tikkun olam (and baby-making, of course), and we are supposed to take care of the earth and its inhabitants rather than merely exploit them. We are to rule over the earth, indeed, but responsibly.

The truth is that "Judeo-Christian values" are neither solely Jewish nor solely Christian (though I would admit, largely Christian). It is hard for somebody to argue logically that Christians are "perfected Jews," since, if Jews try to follow mitzvot, it seems logical that a "perfected Jew" would follow... more mitzvot (and, of course, also be Jewish). Well, maybe no religious claims are logical; maybe all are based on faith. In that case, we must ask if Ann Coulter speaks for all Christians. Do all Christians think Jews go to heaven, and, an even more basic question, do all Christians recognize Supersessionism (a belief that the Christian covenant with God is a replacement or a perfected form of the Jewish one)? No, to both counts.

I think Ann Coulter should stick to being a political pundit rather than a religious one.

___________________________

To close up this post, here are two comments made by Townhall contributors, Mary Katharine Ham and Ann Coulter herself, related to this and other Coulter interviews. Apparently, there's even a few misunderstandings on the conservative side of the spectrum.

"Well, my first reaction was, 'Oh, what did Ann say again?' I'm not a reflective Ann defender when it comes to some of the things she's said in the past. In this case, I think that she and Donny Deutsch had what appears to be a very clumsy, indelicate and sort of Coulteresque discussion of religious doctrine that between a normal American Jew and a normal American Christian could have gone fine, but in this case, it's Coulter and it's a guy who's interviewing her who's waiting to be offended and everybody -- it turns into a big political storm." -- Mary Katharine Ham, on CNN (transcript)

"No. I do that on my own." -- Ann Coulter's response to the question by Time Magazine interviewer, "Do interviewers try to provoke you into saying outrageous things just because you're Ann Coulter?" (text)

Medved: A thoughtful response to Tisha b'Av (and this progressive is not being facetious)

2008-08-12T01:23:00.000-07:00

Replacing Causeless Hatred with Causeless Love
Posted by: Michael Medved at 3:03 AM, 8/12/2008

Each year in late summer (August 9th this year), religious Jews observe a full 24 hourday of mourning and fasting to recall the destruction of both ancient Temples in Jerusalem – both destroyed on that same calendar day (the Ninth day of the month of Av in the Jewish calendar). Tradition explains that the second Temple fell to the Romans in 70 A.D. because of the sin of causeless hatred (sinat chimam in Hebrew)—groundless animosity among people of faith who should have been knit together in fellowship and their shared covenant. How can we make up for this grievous failing? A recent sage—the founding chief Rabbi of modern Israel, Abraham Isaac Kook ---said that the Temple can only be rebuilt when we replace causeless hatred with causeless love. We must learn to love our fellow human beings for no reason at all – and only then can we fully repent for the habit of feeling hostile for no reason at all. In Judaism, as in Christianity, learning the ability to feel love just as instinctively and automatically as we sometimes feel anger or envy or annoyance is associated with the Messianic age, and ultimate redemption.

---------------------------------------

In this post, the conservative Michael Medved presents a truly inspiring message for his readers (the Jewish ones in particular). This entry on his blog demonstrates a meaningful, intelligent, and appropriate way to make connections between Judaism and Christianity.

Click here for original link. (Remember, clicking on ads gives Ms. Coulter money. Visit Townhall's sponsors, but do it proactively. Google the companies' names and then click.)

"Judeo-Christian" and Logical Fallacies

2008-08-10T21:01:00.000-07:00

As I have mentioned earlier, I don't believe Jews should support "Judeo-Christian values," because the term is purposefully misleading. Upon finishing up my first post, I found Dennis Prager's "What does 'Judeo-Christian' mean?" on Townhall.com (dated March 30, 2004). The full article can be found here.

Don't click on the ads or Ann Coulter will make .000000001 cents.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's Writing Center has a wonderfully informative page about fallacies of logic and argument (http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/fallacies.html). In this piece, I will find examples of such fallacies from Dennis Prager's column in support of what he calls "Judeo-Christian values."

______________

Hasty Generalization
"Nothing 'Judeo' ever sanctioned pacifism."
When a person uses the extreme word "nothing," even one piece of contrary evidence is sufficient to destroy a claim. Here's one: "Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: On three things the world is sustained: on truth, on judgment, and on peace, as it is it says (Zechariah 8:16): 'Speak the truth to one another, render in your gates judgments that are true and make for peace' " (Pirkei Avos 1:18). (http://www.shechem.org/torah/avot.html)

But in case you want another, in the Torah (Dvarim 20:10), we are told that offering peace before engaging in an offensive attack is righteous.

Post hoc
The very premise of an argument that because "American was founded on Christian morals" (which some may argue) it has prospered economically and politically is flawed. Cause-and-effect relationships are dangerously easy to misinterpret.

"But what does 'Judeo-Christian' mean? We need to know. Along with the belief in liberty -- as opposed to, for example, the European belief in equality, the Muslim belief in theocracy, and the Eastern belief in social conformity -- Judeo-Christian values are what distinguish America from all other countries. That is why American coins feature these two messages: 'In God we trust' and 'Liberty.' "

The existence of those phrases does not prove that America is a Judeo-Christian nation. It could just as easily prove that America was founded on Deist and Enlightenment principles (which, if you read Montesquieu, Rousseau, etc., you will find is true). Neither Prager's argument nor mine is substantiated by believable cause-and-effect relationships, so both would be examples of "post hoc."

Slippery Slope
If we begin to secularize Christmas, a sign that we are losing our values, our country goes down the drain. Prager brilliantly combines this point with "hasty generalization": "Yet, for all its importance and its repeated mention, the term ["Judeo-Christian"] is not widely understood. It urgently needs to be because it is under ferocious assault, and if we do not understand it, we will be unable to defend it. And if we cannot defend it, America will become as amoral as France, Germany, Russia, et al." So, Prager effectively shows how not being able to define a term leads to sodomy, or whatever it is that those 3 countries are currently doing.

Appeal to Authority
Just because the Ivy League schools seem to demonstrate some historic trend, it must be accurate and worthwhile for today. "Yale, founded in 1701, adopted a Hebrew insignia, and Hebrew was compulsory at Harvard until 1787."

Ad populum/Bandwagon
"This sense of mission is why more Americans have died for the liberty of others than any other nation's soldiers." Because lots of Americans valued "liberty," we should value liberty today. I'm not saying I disagree, but I am saying that this is a logical fallacy.

Appeal to Pity
See above example.

False dichotomy
According to Prager, two philosophical extremes exist in America: Judeo-Christian values and complete subservience. "It [Judeo-Christian] is a belief that America must answer morally to this God, not to the mortal, usually venal, governments of the world." Believe it or not, Hindus live in this country, don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God, and yet, many don't support "[answering] to the mortal, usually venal, governments of the world."

Begging the Question
Let's suppose Prager convinced us of the true meaning of "Judeo-Christian." His column still begs the question, "What does making Christmas a national holiday have to do with Judeo-Christian values?": "And that is why those who want Judeo-Christian values to disappear from American public life affirm multiculturalism, seek to remove mention of God from all public life, and make Christmas a private, not a national, holiday."
Please point to "Old Testament" teachings (and by the way, Jews should never call this the "Old Testament" because it suggests that the "New Testament" or the "Brit haChadasha" has replaced our sacred text and our own Covenant, or brit, with Hashem) that would indicate the U.S. government should mandate that Christmas is now a national holiday.

Finally, my personal favorite statement in the column, and an example of an appeal to emotion:
"The battle over whether America remains Judeo-Christian or becomes secular like Europe is what this, the Second American Civil War, is about."
He should have pointed out how liberals are destroying the unity of the American people more than the terrorists did on 9/11... Comparing "Judeo-Christian values" supporters with the North and secularists with the South is accomplishing two goals: (1) Demonize secularists by conjuring up images of slavery and (2) communicate that Judeo-Christian people have an urgent and moral obligation to fight the rest of us.

Judaism and Jewish Conservative Radio Hosts

2008-08-10T21:00:00.000-07:00

"The left's war against Judeo-Christian values as the bases of American values is leaving us morally rudderless." -- Dennis Prager, 5/13/08, stating an example of why some people believe "we are on the wrong track"

Two of the most prominent talk radio hosts in America today are Dennis Prager and Michael Medved--mentshes and proud to call themselves observant Jews. I find their efforts to spread what they perceive as truth and wisdom over the airwaves quite admirable and necessary for free society to function.

What I cannot understand is their support of a set of ethical guidelines rooted in "Judeo-Christian morality." True, many if not most of the Founding Fathers were Christians; there can be no doubt that their morality played a major role in the type of Enlightenment thinking that gave rise to national codes like the Constitution and the accompanying Bill of Rights. In this post, I do not try to refute any claims that America is better off with religious Christians in Washington than with, say, religious Muslims in charge; I certainly don't endorse any such statements, either. My concern is based in Judaism. That is why I chose to highlight some of the statements that Jews like Prager and Medved have made, rather than anything "Christian conservatives" like Hugh Hewitt or Ann Coulter have said. I hope that the following topics, quotations, and commentaries highlight some of the inconsistencies between what Jewish radio hosts say and what their faith says, for better or for worse.

(1) Lashon Hara

What exactly is lashon hara? It is traditionally translated as "gossip," but it refers to a type of speech (usually truths rather than false rumors) that rabbis (notably the Chofetz Chaim) have told us not to use. On the surface, it seems that telling the truth about others should not reflect badly on the one who tells it; after all, the person with the shortcomings rather than the person talking about those shortcomings deserves the blame... right? Here's a specific prohibition against lashon hara, taken from www.torah.org (http://www.torah.org/learning/halashon/chapter5.html):

"It is forbidden to disparage another regarding his personal qualities: whether in wisdom, whether in strength, whether in wealth, or anything along the same lines. And I must explain my words according to all detail. 'Whether in wisdom' - such as telling others that Ploni is not a wise person. It does not matter whether the information is [completely] false or partially true, and the speaker exaggerated beyond the truth. [For insulting another's intelligence through lying is] surely a terrible sin, even worse than typical Lashon Hara [about truthful matters], called 'Motzi shem ra' - 'creating a bad reputation' - for the speaker lowers the subject of the Lashon Hara through his falsehood. However, even if the information is completely true, haven't we already cited all the Rishonim (commentaries and authorities of Jewish law from the Medieval period) etc. in the first chapter [who agree that the prohibition against Lashon Hara applies]: even with regard to truthful matters, such that the disparaging of another's personal qualities is certainly included in the definition of Lashon Hara."

As of late, the "ploni" used most frequently by conservative talk show hosts is Senator Barack Obama. As is evident from this teaching, whether Obama will make an effective and sensible leader is beside the point. "Creating a bad reputation," especially for a specific benefit (like John McCain's victory) is downright immoral. Yes, that's immorality based on Judaism's teachings rather than on so-called American "Judeo-Christian values." The fact that Jewish conservative talk show hosts are willing to compromise the tenets of Judaism, which has an emphasis on "shmiras haloshon" ("guarding the tongue"), in order to vocally support Christian conservative leaders who want to protect "Judeo-Christian values" is deplorable and hypocritical. Let us not forget that the "Judeo-" component should refer not only to what Christians call the "Old Testament" but also to the teachings we have been fortunate enough to receive from great Jewish thinkers.

Such thinkers also note that lashon hara committed against other Jews is particularly heinous.*

"Jews with no religious or national identity do not like Jews who have those identities, and Americans who have likewise become world citizens do not much care for Americans who wave the American flag... The radical non-Jewish Jew loves humanity, but hurts real humans, especially his own." -- Dennis Prager, "George Soros and the problem of self-hating Hebrews," 2/27/07

There are a number of issues that arise from such a provocative statement.** First, Jews without a "religious or national identity" often do love and respect Jews who have such identities. (This claim also ignores the fact that religious Jews have historically engaged in hatred of one another, which will explain the verbal abuse found in religious and secular writings of both the Hasidim and the Misnagdim.) Prager's hasty generalization of "non-Jewish Jew[s]" casts a negative light on all non-observant Jews, which is a very poignant example of lashon hara that indiscriminately causes damage to many. Second, many Jews can and do have "cultural" identities--based on language, music, food, humor, or philosophy--that don't cause them to have an aversion toward the frum or toward Zionists. In addition, claiming that a large portion of American Jews are, in one way or another, anti-Semitic toward the religious is a remarkably effective way of turning off an entire segment of our community from Judaism and its values. Clearly, Dennis Prager is trying to use guilt--which, as a Jew, he knows could work on his Jewish readers--to convince us that we have betrayed other American Jews by endorsing a kind of morality he feels runs counter to the Judeo-Christian ideals that religious Jews endorse for all (which they don't, as I will explain in the next section). What he misunderstands is that this smear tactic is itself not very Jewish, nor is the type of morality that Christian conservatives want us to believe we share.***

(2) Jewish Gentiles

Is it possible for somebody to accept core Jewish values, be a Christian, and be viewed favorably by devout Jews? Conservative Jews (politically, not denominationally) would have you believe so: they're called "Judeo-Christian values." Religious Jews would also have you believe so, but not under the heading of "Judeo-Christian values" based on the entirety of the Christian Bible. In fact, within Judaism, a valid religion for non-Jews exists, based on the "Noahide Laws."

"In Jewish tradition, non-Jews are expected to follow just seven commandments—the Noahide laws of basic morality. According to mainstream Torah teaching, gentiles who follow these rules (don’t murder, don’t steal, don’t commit gross sexual immorality, and so forth) should be judged as righteous and assumed to earn their share in the World to Come (the afterlife)." -- Michael Medved, "Why the World Hates the Jews" on Townhall.com, 8/9/06

This begs the question, "Are American society and law based on the Noahide Laws or on Christian moral codes, or on something else entirely?" This is difficult to answer. If one asks, "On what 'should' American society and law be based?" the answer is clear-cut: If you are a Jew, regardless of political affiliations, the Noahide Laws would be acceptable, and if you are a Christian conservative, the Christian Bible. So what causes Medved and Prager to insist that American society is and should be based on Christian morality? And why do they advocate "Judeo-Christian" ideals above the Noahide Laws? If these two men are bothered by liberals' obsession with politically correct terminology, they should be more specific in what they advocate (unless they actually don't advocate the Noahide Laws for Gentiles, which would go against mainstream Jewish belief). As Jews, they should be advocating the Noahide Laws instead of "Judeo-Christian ideals" which, as I will clarify below, are really just "Christian ideals."

Here's a brief list of the standard 7 Noahide Laws, not including the numerous laws that religious scholars believe are logical extensions of these principles:
1) Prohibition against idolatry
2) Prohibition against immoral sexual relations (incest, adultery, etc.)
3) Prohibition against murder
4) Prohibition against blasphemy
5) Prohibition against stealing
6) Prohibition against eating the meat of a living animal
7) Commandment to establish courts of law

Some of the principles from the 10 commandments not on this list are keeping the Sabbath, a prohibition against coveting, and a commandment to honor one's parents. The 7 Noahide Laws are, for the most part, evident from American institutions and practices. We have laws against marrying one's siblings, animal cruelty, and murder, and we have courts to interpret those laws. Nonetheless, idolatry is legal, unless inhumane sacrifices take place. Blasphemy is also protected under the First Amendment.

But do the Noahide Laws form the basis for the civilized non-Jewish world? As a Jew, I would have to say yes. Adherence to the laws is what makes them "civilized." Has anybody else acknowledged that the Noahide Laws are so critical to American values, even with the exceptions I've mentioned above? The U.S. Congress and President George H. W. Bush have. On March 20, 1991, President Bush signed into law a resolution designating March 26, 1991, "Education Day, U.S.A." in recognition of the work of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. "Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded... these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws." (Full text at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.J.RES.104:)

Judaism, known for its tendency not to endorse proselytizing, would never advocate that we lobby for laws that favor Judaism. Most people don't need to keep kosher (according to the 7 Noahide Laws), so we should not expect them to. We also should not expect them to keep Shabbos. And coveting? Coveting is the basis of any capitalist system. Coveting and ambition made communism nonfunctional in every country that has attempted it. Our values do not and should not always resonate with mainstream American ones.

How can Jews endorse Judeo-Christian morals over the Noahide Laws? The Noahide Laws say nothing about praying in schools or taking the oath of office over a Christian Bible, yet these are "ideals" that Jews like Prager and Medved have supported. Sure, these have been practiced in this country historically (e.g., the residents of Salem, Massachusetts in the 1600s prayed in their schools, and President Richard Nixon swore in using a Bible), but the "it's part of our rich American political tradition" argument is not logical. After all, Jews have historically been left-leaning (the Bundists, the Workmen's Circle, kibbutzim, etc.), so Prager and Medved are going against Judaism's "rich political tradition" every day they're on the air. I'm not saying that Prager and Medved should be liberals or progressives, but I am trying to make a point that Jews cannot support "Judeo-Christian ideals" if they believe that Christians need only practice the Noahide Laws. Perhaps we should endorse a mandatory daily recitation of the Noahide Laws in public schools rather than prayers from this country's majority religion, Christianity.****

What I'm advocating here is an end to the hypocrisy: If you are a Jew, then the fact that non-Jews keep the 7 laws should be enough to make us respect and honor them. If you are a Jew who, for whatever reason, believes the United States should "continue" its dedication to "Judeo-Christian" ideals (I will not interject specifics about the Founding Fathers' Deism or the texts they've written about government and religion, though you should familiarize yourself with them), then at least recognize that you are endorsing Christianity rather than Judaism. Jews do not benefit from Christmas becoming a national holiday, and, despite what Dennis Prager said in March 2004, this de-secularization of the U.S. is hardly a "Judeo-Christian" value. "Judeo-Christian" is meant to be broad enough to include both Jewish and Christian ideals for society as a whole, but on further inspection, it mostly covers the Christian half.

-----
*Yes, I admit I am also committing lashon hara by pointing things out about Prager and Medved, but I am making concessions and compromises wherever possible.

**With the exception of this aside, I will not mention the obviously contradictory "I speak today as both a citizen of the United States and of the world" statement Ronald Reagan made back in 1982, just as I will not comment on the "Proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world" comment Barack Obama made in Berlin recently.

***Let me be perfectly clear: I am not attempting to call Prager and Medved out on their Judaism. After all, even accurately quoting something another Jew says can be lashon hara. I know they are not Christians. Nonetheless, I certainly hope they understand the influence they have over Jewish voters and the power they wield over Jews who respect them as religious as well as political leaders in our community. If I have time to continue writing, parts (3) and (4) will come soon.

****In my humble opinion, we should not endorse any prayer in public schools, but that's irrelevant here. I'm trying to make this discussion one that has its foundations within mainstream Jewish belief.