Rick Santorum’s already minimal chances to win Jewish votes in November just got a tiny bit smaller. Politico reports that the GOP presidential candidate spoke in 2010 at a conference of the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America, a group whose adherents claim Jewish identity while also professing belief in the divinity of Jesus. Santorum picked up $6,000 for the speaking gig that went unnoticed at the time but now must be considered a minor embarrassment for the former senator.
Messianics, like the better-known group that calls themselves Jews for Jesus, are ardent supporters of the Jewish state and wanted Santorum to speak at their event because of his pro-Israel views. But Christians who may be puzzled by any Jewish resentment about his appearance need to understand two things about this controversy. The first is that the only one thing upon which virtually all Jews — no matter where they stand on the religious or political spectrum — agree on is that belief in Jesus makes a person a Christian rather than a Jew. There is also a strong consensus that Messianic groups are engaging in deceptive practices when they seek to proselytize Jews to join them. Therefore, any connection with such groups is bound to be seen as controversial.
It should be specified that Messianics are as free as any other Americans to believe whatever they wish and to practice their faith as they see fit. But almost all Jews view Messianic campaigns to target them for conversion to Christianity — which are integral to the beliefs of these groups —as insidious efforts to undermine their survival as a community.
Part of this stems from demography. After 2,000 years of persecution that culminated in the Holocaust, any endeavor that seeks to further diminish the number of Jews is not taken lightly. Even more to the point, the long history of forced conversions to Christianity has left a foul taste in the mouths of Jews even if such memories have little to do with contemporary spiritual competition. Either way, it must be understood that the visceral distaste that the overwhelming majority of Jews have for the Messianics is not to be taken lightly.
It should also be understood that during his years in the House of Representatives and the Senate, no member worked harder to be a friend to the Jewish community than Santorum even though he never won a majority of their votes. While he was out of office, Santorum relied in part on speaking fees to support his large family and no one is alleging that he did anything unethical or improper here. Nor can he be accused of actually engaging in any proselytizing of Jews on the Messianics’ behalf.
Due to his conservative social views, Santorum had little chance of taking advantage of Jewish dissatisfaction with President Obama’s policies toward Israel. Jewish conservatives already inclined to back Santorum will probably understand that he meant no insult to the Jewish community so it’s not likely that this will cost him any votes. But this story won’t do anything to increase their numbers.
Virtually all Jews “agree on is that belief in Jesus makes a person a Christian rather than a Jew.” n nWhy can’t a person be both? Jesus himself was a Jew and every single one of his early disciples (guys like Paul and Peter and John) were also Jews. The “mesianics,” as you call them, are following in that 2,000 year old tradition. I understand that you think they are not Jews in good standing, but I don’t understand why you believe they became non-Jews when they became Christians. Help me out here.
Easy. Unless you approve of LYING to achieve your goal, it is not proper to call yourself a Jew when you believe in the divinity of Jesus. We don't really know with any degree of certainty or completeness what happened two thousand years ago in Israel. We do know that the most fundamental prayer of ALL Jews denies the legitimacy of Jesus, not in so many words, but entirely and clearly. It's called the Shema. Shema Yisrael Adonai Eloheinu Adonai Eu1e25ad – Hear, O Israel: the Lord is our God, the Lord is ONE…
So what about the claims for Schneerson or Sevi before? Were the Sabbatians or some of the Chabad Messianics non Jews? nEchad may indicate a composite form and is not the same as Maimonides' Yochid, however much rabbinic Jews may wish it to be..
Shabbatai Zvi was a "moshiach sheker" (false messiah), as was Jacob Frank — both of whom ended up leading their followers out of Judaism altogether (the former towards an islamic sect, the latter towards Catholicism). n nBy the time some of the Lubavitcher Rebbe's more overheated followers started making claims that the Rebbe was moshiach, he himself was no longer all there so in no position to put a stop to it. The group came within a hair of breaking into two over the matter (cooler heads prevailing eventually), and its image within the Orthodox community was tarnished possibly beyond repair.
Although I appreciate the candor with which Jonathan Tobin writes about the hesitancy of Jews to vote for Santorum, it is just another example of why it is a waste of time for the GOP to spend time and money courting the Jewish vote. As Michael Medved wrote in Commentary September 2009: u201cFor most American Jews, the core of their Jewish identity isnu2019t solidarity with Israel; itu2019s rejection of Christianityu2026u2026u2026This political pattern reflects the fact that opposition to Christianityu2014not love for Judaism, Jews, or Israelu2014remains the sole unifying element in an increasingly fractious and secularized community.rnrnhttp://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/why-are-jews-liberals%e2%80%94a-symposium/rnrnWith such a deep-seated attitude, The GOP should really reconsider the cost-benefit of chasing a voter they are unlikely to ever get. They would do much better redirecting their efforts toward the larger demographics of Hispanics and even African Americans where they have made more progress in recent years.rnMoreover, it would allow the GOP to reinstate the traditional defensive foreign policy of the GOP, and thereby diminish the more militaristic foreign policy from the neoconservative wing of the GOP, which cost them dearly during the George Bush presidency and continues to haunt them today. rnLastly, I would also mention that I doubt Rick Santorum is, or should feel, embarrassed about speaking to Jews for Jesus. It seems as though Tobin is suggesting that Santorum should have rejected the speaking invitation from Jews for Jesus, so as to not offend traditional Jews? That would have been rude indeed.
In fact, the Orthodox Jewish vote (the only one growing) went 2:1 for Bush in 2004, and the GOP still does very well there (mostly because of shared conservative values). It's the Reform and Conservative Jews (plus the JINOs or "Seinfeld Jews") that still vote to stay on the Deemocrat [sic] plantation, since they are generally liberals first and Jews second if at all. n n
1. This reminds me, in one sense, of the Mormon practice of baptizing dead Jews. Who cares and why? If people can stand securely on the strength of their own faith, why and why do they care what Mormons do in their own bizarre rituals? How are Jews secure in their own faith touched? And so, not only are "…Messianics are as free as any other Americans to believe whatever they wish and to practice their faith as they see fit," they are also free to proselytize as they see fit.
They, the Mormons, can do what they want. If what they want is to INSULT Jews by that practice, they are free to do it – in this country. However, they are NOT FREE from negative criticism.
2. Think of that as as an aspect of the free play of ideas in the public square. Let the religious be jostled by the claims of others. If Messianics feel it their religious obligation to gather others into the arms of Christ, who want them to flinch from their holy duties? Who would want Jews to flinch from their holy duties, even though proselytization isn't part of Judaism. When Jehovah's Witnesses come to my house on far fetched occasion, and if I have the time, I say, "Come on in, let's talk about it.." I am secure enough in my own beliefs and so are my chilldren. The public square is a robust, fractious place, open to all comers to take their best shot. Long may it remain, crowded, josltling and vigorous, so long as no laws are broken.
The free play of ideas perspective doesn't work in this case. It is like saying, "What is wrong with a little healthy competition" and then having the New England Patriots play a high school team AND cheat AND go out of their way to play high school teams. I am a former Christian converting to Orthodox Judaism and I am capable of holding my own against proselytizers. A Jewish kid who grew up in a Traditional, Reform or Secular Jewish home and is away from home the first time is not prepared to take on someone well versed in Christian doctrine trained to twist Judaism to manipulate. It is different to approach this kid and speak about what it means to have Jesus in your life than to say that Judaism points to Christianity while using lies, half truths and verses taken out of context.
Very good. The key word here is CHEAT.
Ever read Sharon Allen's testimony for example? Who exactly was shuffling their feet and playing fast and loose with the texts?
I think it's fair to say that, like Jews, Christians regard people who believe in the divinity of Jesus as Christians! n n
Before Santorum continues his quest of becoming president, he should read the r nPer the Constitution of the United States of America:r nArticle Six: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.r n The Second Amendment states: u201cu201cCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofu2026u201d.
Er, the SECOND amendment states something else entirely.
Yah, but why prosletyze for the Church of St. James when it's been superceded by the Church of Paul of Tarsus? Neither fish nor fowl. But are they as great a threat of corrupting the faith as, well, J-Street, Beinhart and the rest? Don't think so.
True that!
For that matter, can "virtually all Jews" agree that anyone who cannot establish his matrilineal descent from Abraham is not a Jew? Well, that absurdly strict construction is as fanciful as the claim that a Jew is no longer a Jew for his belief. One can certainly be cast out — anathematized — from the community for heresy or apostasy à la Spinoza (being a pantheist was apparently as blasphemous as being a Christian), but do we not say Spinoza was still a Jew? n nThe thought of ecumenism between Christians and Jews has been placed beyond the pale by two thousand years of barbarity by the former against the latter. But just consider the merits without the nbaggage. n nFirst, Jon has it wrong. It's not about about Jesus's divinity but Jesus as Messiah, the Deliverer. That Jesus did not conform to the scriptural mandate for a messiah, as laid out by the Pharisees or whatever authorities of the time would have passed on his candidacy, seems beside the point — some Jews believed he was. The problem arose when Paul declared that you don't have to be Jewish to love Levy's, you just do mikveh aka baptism and believe that Jesus was Messiah, and you're in. The idea behind this was that the Messiah wasn't to deliver just the Jews from the Romans or the Babylonians or the Persians or whatever, but that the Messiah would delivery all mankind, Jew and Gentile, from the human condition. So I guess the huge theological cleavage was over just whom the Messiah came for. n nThe other big problem for Judaism was that, bastardized or not, not only did Jesus get proselytized, JUDAISM got proselytized! it wasn't only Jesus that appealed to the Romans who converted and eventually made the Empire officially Christian — it was the whole Jewish ethos, of which Christianity was born, as Buddhism was born of Hinduism. It's why the basis of Western civilization is called not Christian but Judeo-Christian. n nTo purist Orthodox, anyone who is not born of a Jewish mother is not a Jew, no matter how devout. I think there are many inflections of Judaism (bat mitzvah G-d forbid!) that are regarded as inauthentic by other Jews. Nevertheless, I think it belittles Judaism to define itself by its rejection of Jesus. I mean, by that measure, those who regard the Lubavitcher Rebbe as the Messiah are not Jews either, are they? n n<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7239/7007826995_94fceeb421.jpg">
Well, which do you like better on a Jew who worships a human being as a god: the Orthodox position that he remains a Jew but is to be "utterly cut off", or the secular-Israeli position that such a person "regardless of his Halachic status is no longer a Jew as the common person in the street understands the concept" (the exact words of an Israeli Supreme Court ruling: "Rufeisen vs. Ministry of the Interior"). n nI regard Christianity and Judaism as "meat" and "milk" dishes: each is OK by itself but don't mix them.
A correction first: Jews for Jesus is an outreach organization, not a group. There are no members as such. Messianic Jews are simply Jewish people who have put their trust in Y'shua (Jesus) as Messiah and are not willing to give up their Jewish identity. n nI must disagree with your suggestion that virtually all Jews agree that belief in Jesus makes a person a Christian rather than a Jew. It is a false choice. If Jewish people are free to practice Buddhism, as many do, or other forms of spirituality, and still be embraced as Jewish, then why does faith in the Jewish Messiah alter that? Judaism is, after all, not an anti-Jesus movement. I agree with lbjack: it belittles Judaism to define itself by its rejection of Jesus. The Christian faith is 100% Jewish. Jesus was 100% Jewish – there is no question about that.
ibjack, first of all, being an Orthodox Jew, I have to tell you that what you think we believe and what we do believe are two very different things. For one, I know any number of Orthodox Jews who cannot establish his matrilineal descent from Abraham, including many who are known not to have been born to a Jewish mother. The latter group are known as gerim. The former group include the descendants of gerim. Before you make ignorant and disparaging comments about " absurdly strict construction" it might behoove you to learn about it first. n nBut according to that "absurdly strict construction", you are correct that a Jew who believes in that certain man that the Christians worship does in fact remain a Jew, albeit (as you observe), not a Jew in good standing. The same is true of a Jew who believes in Baal, Ashtoreth, or Molech. The objection to groups like J for J is that they appeal to Jews who are ignorant of Judaism by distorting Jewish law and teaching to make it appear as though it supports the worship of a flesh and blood man (and a dead one at that), and distorts the Jewish idea of the Messiah into a distinctly non-Jewish one. n
Messianic "Jews" rarely turn out to be Jews ethnically, anyway. Too often they Gentiles who get a kick out of stealing Jewish ritual to combat their own disatisfaction with evangelical Christianity. It feels more authentic for them. n nFor those Jews that do embrace Christianity and call it messianic Judaism (of which I was once one), they do so out of ignorance that their beliefs in the tenets of orthodox Christianity are compatible with Jewish identity. They are not. They are an aberration and betrayal of their Jewish heritage. What they fail to see is that the ONLY reason the identify as Jews today is because their ancestors rejected Christianity for them. Their failure to do the same only ensures a complete assimilation and loss of Jewish identity within one or two generations, as has happened with the millions of descendants of former Jews who converted over the past two millennia. n nYes, it is true that Peter was a Jew and a christian (although what constituted Christianity for him was likely very different that what Christians today believe). But note that there was no Peter Junior celebrating Hanukkah, or a descendent of James visiting the synagogue to say the Shema. The "Jewish" church died almost as soon as it came into being because there is no way to maintain both a Jewish and Christian identity.
Either you are a Jew or a Christian. They are theologically incompatible! r nThereb
"What they fail to see is that the ONLY reason the identify as Jews today is because their ancestors rejected Christianity for them." n nBravo.
You haven't refuted what I've said, you've just gone off on a tear over someone who dares impinge on what you regard as your turf. Regarding someone as "ignorant and disparaging" for questioning an extremist definition of who is Jewish makes you part of the problem that's tearing Israel apart internally.
Actually I have. The Orthodox definition of who is a Jew is not what you say it is. Insisting that you have correctly summarized that definition is ignorant. Apart from ruling out the possiblity of conversion and the possiblity of descent from converts, you have invented the requirement that someone establish their lineage back to Avraham Avinu. That would be absurd, and you cannot cite a single recognised Orthodox authority who requires it, except in your imagination or your indignant willfull misinterpretation of what the Orthodox authorities DO say. n nPeristing in your mistake after it has been pointed out is even more ignorant. You have caricaturized the Orthodox definition, ridiculed it, and called it an "absurdly strict construction" ,"extremist" and "fanciful." That is disparaging, n nAnd by the way, I don't regard it as my turf. I have no voice in deciding who is a Jew, and for that matter, neither does the Orthodox rabbinate. That decision was made by the Torah, no Orthodox rabbi – let alone an Orthodox layperson like me — could change it if we wanted to. n n [cont'd]
[cont'd] Whether you like it or not, the Orthodox definition is derived from the Torah and is recorded as far back as the time of the mishnah. It is recounted by the Rambam (or Maimonides, as the gentiles call him) and later by the Shulchan Aruch. It was the ONLY definition until the Reform movement, over the warnings and objections of some of its own scholars, as well as the warnings and objections of every Orthodox and Conservative rabbi, adopted patrilineal descent in the late 1970's. n nIf your definition of extremist is anyone who takes the Talmud, the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch seriously, and if you consider anyone who refutes your smears, ridicule and misconceptions as being "off on a tear", then you need to think a bit longer about who it is that is "off on a tear" and who it is that is tearing Israel apart. n nI have to log off now, given the hour, and given that there is really nothing to add. Have a good Shabbos.
Maimonides (Greek for "ben Maimon") is also what many Jews who don't speak Hebrew call Rambam
I don't understand how one can identify himself or herself as a "Jewish atheist" without ceasing to be Jewish. nI am not Jewish, but I think there is a crisis in Judaism today based on what I have read in Commentary due to, as ahadhaamoratsim wrote, "Jews who are ignorant of Judaism". I believe these are a greater threat to Judaism than Messianic Jews. As an analogue, I believe, as a Catholic, that non-practicing Catholics are a greater threat to Catholicism than evangelical Protestants.
>I don't understand how one can identify himself or herself as a "Jewish atheist" without ceasing to be Jewish. < nBecause there is a Jewish religion and a Jewish people. You cannot belong to the latter without belonging to the former. But you can belong to the former without belonging to the latter, and indeed without even knowing that you are a member of the Jewish people. This is one reason that Israel can be a Jewish state without being a religious state, and why comparisons to Muslim states are not apt. n n>I am not Jewish, but I think there is a crisis in Judaism today based on what I have read in Commentary due to, as ahadhaamoratsim wrote, "Jews who are ignorant of Judaism". I believe these are a greater threat to Judaism than Messianic Jews. < nJews who are ignorant of Judaism are the intended and natural prey of the Messianic Jews. They are also the ones most likely to confuse the demands of the Torah with the platform of the Democratic National Council.
Alas, Senator Santorum never spoke to my group, Kosher Goyim. We are a Christian community who believe that the mysteries of the Trinity are best approached through the orthodox Jewish dietary laws. For example, on Fridays we eat only gefilte fish, and we celebrate holy communion with challah and chicken soup. We feel that these practises do much to strengthen our faith in Christ, although there is also a touch of heartburn.
Let's get realistic and support Romney.
Besides Gingrich, Romney is the only one running for president. Santorum, very good man that he is, is running for Pope. Sounds like it, anyway.
Like Instapundit (whose wife and daughter are halachically Jewish, BTW) I would "vote for Zeeba the syphilitic camel over 0bama". Or a potted plant, or an empty swivel chair. It will take the US 40 years to recover from 4 years of BHOzo and his Insane Clown Posse.
Uhhh, which is it? n nJonathan Tobin wrote, " it’s not likely that this will cost him any votes." n nIn the same article, he wrote, "Rick Santorum’s already minimal chances to win Jewish votes in November just got a tiny bit smaller." So… which is it? n nAn article of this sort reveals the prejudice of its writer. It provides nothing to the reader. Apart from rapidly knocking out a writer's fee, what was the point? 'Commentary' can do better.
So I guess Jews will face a difficult choice in November. Vote for a man who was a Rev. Wright acolyte for 20 years; vote for a man whose religion Baptises dead Jews to "save" them; or vote for a man who once spoke in front of a Messianic Jewish group. Please Rabbi Tobin, tell your confused flock what to do!
DansDaMAn – "So I guess Jews will face a difficult choice in November. Vote for a man who was a Rev. Wright acolyte for 20 years; vote for a man whose religion Baptises dead Jews to "save" them; or vote for a man who once spoke in front of a Messianic Jewish group. " A bit of a no brainer. Even if it's a choice between the first and the third, one of them has a four year history of pursuing policies that increase the chances of war and have led to the deaths of Jews in Israel and elsewhere. And there is no evidence that Santorum participated in the efforts of the proseltyzers, or supported them in any way other than accepting a speaker's fee and talking to them about Israel. n nThe LDS post humous baptisms are silly. But if I have to choose between someone whose church claims to "baptize" dead Jews and someone whose speeches and policies increase the chance of live Jews becoming dead Jews, I'll take the former.
Nonsense. According to Article VI of the American constitution, a candidate's religion is not to be any consideration whatsoever. It is most definitely UnAmerican to consider his religion, only his views on other matters. Besides, I found it hard to believe that any two people of ANY religion would have the same opinions on all matters. Or even from one day to the next. It is all baloney – and anti-American as well – thanks to James Madison.
No, the Constitution says there shall be no religious test. Persons of any religion (or none) may run for any office. But the people have the inalienable right to take into consideration whatever they deem relevant when they vote. If a candidate professes what I consider a person would have to be mentally defective, deliberately ignorant, or brainwashed to believe, it's not irrelevant to his or her capacity to learn facts and make judgments, and I won't vote for him or her!
Not any consideration at all? Which planet are you living on? nSo what about a radical Islamist for President, or a Satanist? nYou cannot divorce religious persuasion from political conviction so easily, unless the religious persuasion is virtually dead.
I would say that over 50% of the "Jewish" community are not practicing Jews and therefore don't believe much of anything as far as religion goes. Are they controversial or not part of the Jewish community? I don't think so.