"Jews for Jesus" Leader Responds to Attacks on Group and Palin

Jews for Jesus leader David Brinker in One Day in Wasilia, responds to attacks on the speech he gave at Sarah Palin's church in Wasila. The Palins were in attendance.

The groups mission statement says:

We exist to make the messiahship of Jesus an unavoidable issue to our Jewish people worldwide.

Here are their core values. Here's what it takes to "get saved."

If you know any Jewish voters, please forward this to them. Particularly if they live in Florida. They can assess for themselves the danger of giving any voice in government to these extremist radical right groups. Update below:

Update: This is not an attack on Sarah Palin's religion. It is meant to reach those voters who can appreciate why James Dobson decided to vote for John McCain once Palin, an evangelical, was added to the ticket. It's about the quid pro quo James Dobson and other fundamentalist groups will extract from McCain if elected.

Ask yourself what happens if evangelicals get a say in picking our next Supreme Court Justices, which they are determined to do through their political activism and support of candidates.

For those who believe strongly in the separation of church and state and in preserving the independence of our courts, this is quite relevant.

Florida right now according to polls is leaning McCain/Palin. I think, and hope, that can be changed.

Update: Also see Jewish Group Launches Online Campaign Against McCain/Palin. Here is their factsheet on Obama v. McCain (pdf).

< Obama's Strong Record of Support for Veterans | MS GOP Ballot Shenanigans >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What is the purpose of this diary? (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:27:07 PM EST
    Jews for Jesus have been around for many years - at least 30 (since I went to college).  They talk to lots of Jewish temples, synagogues, churches, etc.  Since they try to proselytize, like some other Christian groups, they are always speaking to others.  They're just another fringe sect but not a cult.

    How does this relate to Palin or her church in any way?  Democrats are now opposed to interfaith discussion?

    read the piece (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:48:34 PM EST
    Read what he wrote.

    Ask yourself why James Dobson decided to vote for John McCain once Palin, an evangelical, was added to the ticket.

    Ask yourself what happens if evangelicals get a say in picking our next Supreme Court Justices, which they are determined to do through their political activism and support of candidates.

    You can disagree, but please don't say evangelicals are irrelevant to this election or the future course of government.

    For those who believe strongly in the separation of church and state and in preserving the independence of our courts, this is quite relevant.


    Is listening a crime? (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Jeannie on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:03:34 PM EST
    It doesn't really matter what she hears or even believes. It matters what she would try to get passed through government to force others to do things her way. Is there any indication in Alaska that she tried to put through any radical women's issues or religious issues? If there aren't, then I don't see that her beliefs are of any importance - unless you think people who believe odd things have lousy judgement - and that would certainly take in Obama's church, too.

    Well, as Voltaire (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by eric on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:11:49 PM EST
    said, Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

    So yes, there is something scary about believing odd things.

    Furthermore, yes, she does support some radical issues, as digested HERE.

    The Iraq War Is A Task `From God.' and it goes on from there.


    You missed (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Jeannie on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:31:16 PM EST
    the last sentence.... Don't you think that someone who sat and listened to Rev. Wright has some even more scary ideas? But IOKIYAO, I guess.

    I was thinking the exact same thing (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by nulee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:17:17 PM EST
    when I read this diary.  This line of attack on Palin boomerangs right to Obama.  If Palin is attacked for this - Obama should be as well.

    I think a more equivalent (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by tree on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:30:25 PM EST
    comparison to Jews for Jesus would be Farrakhan and Nation of Islam, neither one of which is viewed positively by most Jews. Jews for Jesus spoke at Palin's church. And Obama's church has highly praised Farrakhan. Does that mean that Obama is responsible for everything that Farrakhan says? No.

    They can assess for themselves the danger of giving any voice in government to these extremist radical right groups.

    Who has been advocating giving Jews for Jesus a voice in running government? Again, this is equivalent to saying that Obama will be giving the Nation of Islam a voice in running government. Its a smear. I thought we were supposed to be better than that. This election has been an eye opener, and not in a good way.


    Has Governor Palin Rejected, Disowned and (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:23:23 PM EST
    repudiated David Brinker's ideas?

    Because Senator Obama has done so with Rev. Wright's excesses.

    No, in fact Palin was selected to engage the religious right. So it seems reasonable for secular Americans and those of other faiths to ask a potential Vice President if she embraces any of the more alarming tenets of some of her peers.

    If she doesn't, she doesn't. But it seems to me that Obama has lived through his painstaking scrutiny on this and Palin has only just begun hers.

    And she and the McCain campaign are the ones who put her religion front and center unlike Obama.


    Are you willing to give her twenty (none / 0) (#94)
    by tree on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 06:13:50 PM EST
    years before she condemns them? If not then you are asking more of her than you are of Obama. I suspect that she will be asked about this at some point and she will have a chance to respond. I'm willing to wait, and I don't think it will take 20 years  for her to do so.

      Obama's put his religion front and center from the git-go. His mixing of his religion and his politics was evident from his very earliest campaign literature. I haven't seen Palin standing at the pulpit in Republican campaign literature yet. If I do, I won't like it, but I don't like it when Obama put himself there on his campaign literature either.


    First of All (none / 0) (#105)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:53:08 AM EST
    I was responding to Jeannie's post that Wright's ideas are scarier than The Jews for Jesus speaker when I pointed out that even if they are Obama has repudiated those remarks.

    And so far Palin has not clarified (or even made herself available to clarify) where the press and the throngs on the internet scrutinizing every element of her faith (or their sense of her faith) may be getting it wrong.

    But, yes, presumably she will. Twenty years is irrelevant here. The clock on explaining, apologizing, rationalizing or whatever one does to make one's questionable associations palatable to the public starts ticking the moment one enters a national electoral arena. Obama had about a year before he was called on Wright. Too bad for Palin she was put on stage a few scant months before the GE--her trial by press will be necessarily compressed, and maybe there will be room for more and more speculation (and some of it wacko) if McCain's handlers don't let her out of the isolation booth soon and more.

    If you think Obama's promotion of his religious beliefs is greater than Palin's or even equivalent, well...we disagree. Her credentials for even being on a national ticket are based completely on the strategic elements of her gender and her faith. His religion, while a useful part of the bio he brings to the table--countering all the Muslim misinformation out there, for one--is no where near as front and center as hers is.


    I was right. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Jeannie on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:42:09 PM EST
    It's OK if you are Obama.
    His painstaking scrutiny?? Oh, my goodness. For 20 years it was just peachy. But when it becomes POLITICALLY bothersome, then he repudiates Wright et al.

    I Learn More Silly Acronyms On This Site (none / 0) (#106)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:01:19 AM EST
    that I have to run to Google-Is-My-Friend to translate.

    Obama didn't have 20 years when he wasn't asked to explain/defend Rev. Wright's excesses. The only time anyone cared about this association was after he stepped onto the national electoral stage and began running for president. Then he had a little over a year before he was asked the questions.

    Palin doesn't get the luxury of a year because she was only invited into the national spotlight as VP nominee in the last couple weeks. So she faces a compressed time limit to be vetted by the national press and the Obama campaign (and the voters).

    And the way the McCain handlers are keeping her out of the glare of press scrutiny just intensifies the drive to dig up things about her--real or not.

    The sooner she's out there explaining her positions in her own voice presumably the sooner she will get beyond this. But her absence from press availability only increases the market for speculation.


    Shoot - just ask yourself (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:06:12 PM EST
    what happens when a fundamentalist whose belief system contains a strong component of (if it doesn't actually revolve around) the idea that Revelation (and all the fire and battles therein) and Armaggeddon and all the rest are not only literally true but are supposed to happen in their lifetime ... gets their hands on the nuclear launch codes.

    And, don't think "it can't happen while McCain is alive".  The authority to launch does not, under things like "Continuity of Government" and similar plans, have to come from the President and the President alone.  The VP is on the list, and if two or more agree with the idea - off they go.


    Jimmy Carter is an evangelical (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:08:03 PM EST
    and the Baptist church is considered fundamentalist.

    He didn't use the launch codes to blow up the world, did he?


    Because Jimmy Carter (none / 0) (#96)
    by Jjc2008 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:11:38 PM EST
    was not, is not a right wing absolutist evangelical.

    Palin is.  She is scary and while I think it was beyond stupid for ANY of the dems to bring their religion into play at all, Obama, Edwards, Clinton all did.....or allowed it to be put into to play.
    Every since the "myth of the Moral Majority" and all the time on air was given to the Falwells and other right wing preachers, democrats have been AFRAID of saying what they should be saying.

    "My religion and my beliefs are private and separate from my role in government."

    This is what dems should have been saying for years now.  Instead all of us, those elected, the electorate, the media have allowed a small group of extremists to frame the narrative.  This is ONE thing I will not blame just Obama for....it is our problem and we all need to solve it now.


    I disagree then. Vehemently. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:25:07 PM EST
    Palin is Evangelical.  Kennedy was Catholic.  Nixon was a Quaker.  Carter is Southern Baptist (Born Again and Evangelical).  Millard Fillmore was Unitarian.

    And your point is?  All of those people can have a religion and be in government.  They can even believe in separation of church and state.

    Why don't you provide me links to specific examples where Palin said she advocates injecting her brand of religion into laws?  And no - using abortion, stem cell research, evolution (that was settled by the Scope trial) won't work - those are issues.  I'm looking for a specific bill, ordinance, regulation she's proposed or lead to get passed.

    Frankly, I've been more alarmed by Obama's stated support for EXPANDING the government support of religious charities!  Talk about mixing state and religion - that entire program is a flat out travesty in my opinion.  And he wants to expand it?


    She brought abortion into the previously civil... (none / 0) (#77)
    by Berkshireblue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:35:15 PM EST
    Wasilla mayoral race-what does abortion have to do with being a mayor. She wants abortion banned even for rape and incest-that belief is informed by her religion which she is unable to put aside as Kennedy and other Catholic leaders have done. She went ot a church to ask for prayers for a gas pipeline and for the missionaries to go out and convert Alaskans so the state would do God's will.

    None of These Presidents Ran on Their Religions (none / 0) (#90)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:38:15 PM EST
    In fact, Kennedy ran as far away from his as the public and the press would allow.

    With Governor Palin, though, her religion is an integral part of her credentials for being nominated by the Republicans. McCain who is known for displaying his own discomfort doing the requisite pol religion pander needed a credible running mate to ease that image as well as to energize the base.

    She's doing that for him. It was McCain and Palin who put her religion on the table to advance his campaign. So reasonable questions can and should be asked, and answered.

    Maybe she isn't interested in injecting her religious beliefs into governing as VP. Good. Then let her and the McCain campaign explicitly state that. Many of us might be satisfied with such a campaign promise. But I doubt it will be coming.

    Because that runs counter to the implicit promise to the Republican right wing religious base of her inclusion on the ticket.


    Seperation of Church and State (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by CDN Ctzn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 07:54:51 PM EST
    goes both ways. Not only should Religion keep it's nose out of Politics, but Politics should keep it's nose out of Religion. If Jews for Jesus wants to speak at a Church that the Palins attend, then whats the big deal? Was she the pastor? Did she invite them? Even if she did, it's none of our business. Thats her constitutional right. Since we are concerned about religion influencing the State then we should be hyper-sensitive to the States attempts to stick it's nose where it doesn't belong.

    The big deal to me is (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by nalo on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:03:57 PM EST
    that we are already in 2 wars in the middle east, and McCain is saber-rattling about Iran and Russia.  Palin has personally described the war in Iraq as "a task from God", not a mistake.

    Her views and knowledge of world events is troubling and she refuses to answer questions or clarify.

    By contrast, Barack Obama confronted the Jeremiah Wright issue and explained the nuances of foreign policy (and race) in many, many interviews, debates and his Philadelphia speech...he has delineated which parts of his public policy are shaped by his religious beliefs and which parts of his religious beliefs are personal.  He had already pre-explained his reasons for joining the church (he wanted to help the poor in his community) with a chapter in his autobiography.

    I'm comfortable that Obama knows what he's talking about especially in regards to foreign policy and terrorism.  

    Sarah Palin receives an 'F' or at best an 'Incomplete' until she or her handlers attempt to explain herself.


    Enough with Obama/Biden foreign policy expertise! (none / 0) (#104)
    by 18anapple2 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:01:56 AM EST
    What a joke..I really am tired about hearing about Biden's foreign Policy credentials. His plan to partition Iraq into states along sectarian lines (under a federal government is  monumentally  stupid and diastrous).
    India/Pakistan ..mass exodus leading to civil war. India is still dealing with the consequences of this forced partition and resulting mass exodus. History is littered with such examples.
    As for Obama's completely irresponsible statement that he insists on repeating endlessly.."If we have actionable intelligence and  Musharaff doesn't act I will" implying unilateral action in a sovereign country!!..smart real smart..America needs the goodwill of the Pakistani/Afgan people if it plans on the war in Afganistan being a success. Threatening unilateral action against a sovereign just does not endear you with the local population This statement resulted in public rioting against the US in Pakistan . And every time he says it it further hardens anti US feelings.By making statements like this he has already damaged his credibilty in future negotiations .
    Frankly to an outsider like me (an Indian who doesn't appreciate unilateral action in my neighbourhood) he is as much a warmonger as any republican..if a bit more sophisticated.As I recollect it was " actionable intelligence that got America into Iraq in the first place!

    At Least Obama and Biden (none / 0) (#107)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 10:06:41 AM EST
    have foreign policy experience and a record for you to critique.

    What was Palin's plan for post war Iraq--is it so much superior to Biden's?

    And of course since she hasn't served at the national level yet she gets to run on that lack of public record as if not being in a position to formulate policy on wars and occupation is a positive point.


    obama! (none / 0) (#110)
    by 18anapple2 on Thu Sep 18, 2008 at 01:35:29 AM EST
    ? so she may be as stupid...your point? mine was simply please do not tout  non existent foreign policy expertise...evidenced by the fact that
    "Pakistan orders troops to open fire if US raids"

    Exactly (3.50 / 2) (#70)
    by Fritz on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:24:31 PM EST
    She is upset that they advocate Jesus rather than Barack as the Messiah.

    How the heck did they end up in Wasilla, of (none / 0) (#40)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:25:04 PM EST
    all places with the shear distance and small number of people living there and why Wasilla? Did someone invite them? I think so.  

    They talk to Jewish temples & synagogues????? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Berkshireblue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:11:31 PM EST
    WTF-they want to CONVERT Jews-they aren't JEWS and they certainly are NOT welcomed by rabbis into Jewish places of worship.

    As one Rabbi said:

    "It is possible for a Jew to no longer be Jewish by converting to another faith. And that is essentially what I believe Jews for Jesus do when they proclaim a belief in Jesus. It is simply not possible to remain Jewish and accept Jesus."Rabbi Eric Eisenkramer

    This is the standard view as also expressed here:
    "Similarly, so long as one believes that Jesus was anything more than a human being who lived and died around 2,000 years ago, that person cannot convert TO Judaism, and become a Jew. The two faiths of Judaism and Christianity are simply mutually exclusive and incompatible.

    The "Jews for Jesus" are not Jews. Originally founded by a very old organization known as The American Board Of Missions To The Jews, as their San Francisco office, they changed their name to "Jews" for Jesus, as the newest technique in missionizing the Jews to Christianity. Were you to compare the theology of the "Jews" for Jesus with the theology of the Southern Baptist Convention, you would see no difference. Compare the statements of faith of the Messianic "Jewish" Alliance of America (whose original name was the Hebrew Christian Alliance of America), with the statement of faith from the Southern Baptist Convention. Both the MJAA and the SBC have web sites.

    Christian missionaries (and this includes the "Jews" for Jesus, the Messianic "Jews," and the "Hebrew" Christians) claim that this deceptive technique originates with Paul, in I Corinthians 9:20, where he says that it is okay to pretend to be anything, so long as it gets converts to Christianity. One can also see this in Phillipians 1:18. Furthermore, it is expanded in the idea of Indigenous Cultural Evangelism. This is the name to the missionary technique which says so long as you make the targets think that they can be both a Christian and whatever they were before their conversion, then missionizing will be easier. See Understanding Church Growth, by Donald A. McGavran, the chapter on The Sociological Foundation.

    So, the "Jews for Jesus" are merely another Christian Missionary organization, which make converts to Christianity by dressing up the Christian theology in Jewish clothing. "

    Palin and her church are frightening to most people I know. Praying for pipelines and wars and talking about being an end times refuge is not the type of belief system I want in a leader. People who think God is on their side and directing their careers are inherently mentally unstable in my world view.Jews for Jesus is just one small piece of what is wrong with Palin.


    First of All (none / 0) (#98)
    by CDN Ctzn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 08:07:47 PM EST
    Jews for Jesus is not an Evangelical Christian group. They were invited by an Evangelical Christian group to speak at their church!

    Secondly, Christianity did not begin as a seperate religion from Judaism. It began as Jews with who had accepted Jesus as their Messiah. All other doctrines, with the exception of animal sacrifices, remained the same. Early Christians worshipped along side of their Jewish brothers and sisters every Sabbath (Saturday) in the synagogue. Jews for Jesus see themselves as following in the tradition of their first century ancestors.


    Well, Jews think they are... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Berkshireblue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:05:04 PM EST
    and so does anyone who understands that Jews don't think Jesus was God-since these "Jews" do, they are NOT Jews and are not considered Jews by other Jews and their religious leaders who I think get to decide this. Once "Jews" accepted Christ they became "Christians" duh-people can and do convert you know. Jews for Jesus are not Jews but they are as offensive as the rest of the born again crowd.

    Some of what you say (none / 0) (#109)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:57:09 PM EST
    may be true today. But just because certain Jews feel that way doesn't mean it is factual. I was trying to give some historical perspective to the discussion.

    For the record, it wasn't until almost 4 years after the Crucifixion that non-jews were even approached about believing in Jesus of Nazareth. Initially it was seen as a new sect of Judaism, like the Essenes, Zealots, ect, and was intended to be a logical extention of Judaism if one truely believed that Jesus was the Messiah.

    Furthermore, it wasn't until almost 20 years after the Crucifixion that new sect of Judaism was called Christianity after non-Jews in Antioch gave them that name. Initially, it was a slang term, but the followers decided to accept it and began referring to themselves in this manner.

    Just thought you'd like to know the historical perspective!


    How did your post get so many votes? (none / 0) (#93)
    by 1980Ford on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 06:11:59 PM EST
    Is it really that great? Maybe the default should be non-voted and if we want our reading controlled by voting we can ask for it to be.

    Anyway, to answer your question, this is an interfaith discussion.


    There is a section in preferences that (none / 0) (#95)
    by tree on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 06:17:19 PM EST
    will either list posts by rankings or simply list them by time posted. Change your settings if the rankings upset you.

    I don't "get it." (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:31:09 PM EST
    Jews for Jesus trying to convert Jews to Christianity.  That's what they do.  Hasn't anyone tried to get you to accept a flyer while you are walking in a crowd?

    I think the difference is (4.20 / 5) (#22)
    by eric on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:01:06 PM EST
    that they tend to attack Judaism.  It's not just, "Find Jesus!", its "being a Jew won't help you, you need to Find Jesus!"  It's destroying one religion rather than just bringing people into Christianity.  It sort of conjures up the historical attempts to Christianize all Jews.

    This, coming from and atheist, so take it for what it is...

    ADL's position.


    I uprated your comment for two reasons (none / 0) (#43)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:28:24 PM EST
    1. The substance of it

    2. Haner troll-rated you for no reason, something I believe ought to be exposed.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#49)
    by eric on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:40:05 PM EST

    Haner has been banned (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:50:13 PM EST
    he was a new commenter today that repeatedly mischaracterized what was written here and made unfounded accusations.

    so what is the big deal (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by frenly on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:31:40 PM EST
    A group of Christians concerned about evangelism?  How is this scandalous?

    I really want to be clear about this.. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:39:53 PM EST
    If you are Jewish, but under 45, sure this might be no big deal.

    But if you bring this up with the elderly Jews (like my mother), they will probably spit at the mention of Jews for Jesus.

    There are many elderly Jews who think we're always never far away from "All Jews report to Times Square immediately."

    well (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:49:30 PM EST
    The bit about saying that violence against Israel is punishment for not accepting Jesus might not sound right to many jews.

    Just saying.

    Okay, Palin's not Jewish, and Jesus (5.00 / 10) (#37)
    by Anne on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:21:32 PM EST
    is already her guy.  I'm guessing that she didn't have a say, and had no role, in bringing the J4J guy to her church.  Whatever her beliefs are, there is no indication of her ever pushing those beliefs on her constituents.

    Jews for Jesus has been around for a long time, and I have never seen or heard of any effort on their part to bring their views to government, either.

    So, I guess my puzzlement is over the exhortation to send this to all the Jews we know.  Why?  To try to associate a group with beliefs you do not share to the Republican ticket in the hope of turning people away from it?  How is that any better, or any different than all those ugly e-mails that circulated about Obama's faith and patriotism?

    For the life of me, I do not understand why you would want to open this can of worms.  The Jews for Jesus guy makes one appearance in Palin's church and Barack Obama attends a church for 20 years and regards Jeremiah Wright as his religious mentor - why should people be more afraid of Palin than of Obama?  And where is your evidence that Palin's agenda is to inculcate her religious beliefs into the federal government when she hasn't done it at the state level?

    Given Obama's extensive outreach to evangelicals in an effort to pull votes away from McCain, it strikes me that there should be some concern there that if he wins, those same evangelicals will be seeking payback, as well as validation in an Obama administration - and no one knows what form that will take.

    I think this is a losing issue that will not help Obama in any way, shape or form, and will only end up putting him on defense - where he has been spending way too much time already - on his own religious/church/pastor issues.  

    Why would you want to do that?

    You really don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:37:21 PM EST
    do you? Obama has never imposed Rev. Wright's beliefs on America, but he was raked over the coals for sitting in the church. So it's only fair to apply the exact same scrutiny to any other candidate. The JFJ guest and the pastor that invited him SHARE THE SAME VIEW ON JEWS.
    Hypocrisy is the issue. And the point isn't to condemn Palin outright, it's to question her as it relates to public policy. Same for Obama(I thought that was the point at least)

    You haven't been listening. (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:41:34 PM EST
    Obama choose to attend Wright's church for 20 years and stated that he listened to his advice and counsel as pastor during that time.  Suddenly a few weeks ago, Obama seemed surprised by what Wright has been advocating and preaching during those past 20 years.  Maybe Obama went to the early service and slept through - but he did say that Rev Wright spiritually advised him.

    Palin attended church the day the Jews for Jesus stopped by.  

    See the difference?

    I think the other point you're trying to make is that all Evangelicals are anti-Semitic by definition.  That sounds false to me.


    It's All About Listening (none / 0) (#92)
    by daring grace on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:53:41 PM EST
    You're right.

    For example, Obama didn't reject Rev. Wright's excessive remarks 'a few weeks ago.' It was actually more like 4 or 5 months ago.

    And yes, Senator Obama called Rev. Wright his spiritual adviser, not his political adviser. So why continue to attach Wright's political views, which represent a small sliver of the preaching he did while pastor at Obama's church to the candidate?

    Especially when Obama has already said he disagrees with them.

    It's appropriate for candidates to be quizzed about their faith based associations--especially when they tout religion as an integral part of their political identity. At least it was when it was Obama. Why shouldn't Governor Palin be likewise scrutinized when her faith is an even more visible aspect of her political image?


    This is painful to watch (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by goldberry on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:26:08 PM EST
    Short of coming up with some criminal behavior on Palin's part, all this oppo research is just getting all the bad stuff out there in advance without the GOP having to lift a finger.  Her popularity is still high and no one really gives a blank about all this niggly stuff.  
    The question that must be answered is whether she imposed her own religious beliefs on Alaska while she was governor.  If the answer is no, then there's not much to go on.  
    She's in.  She's the perfect answer to Obama's refusal to allow Clinton to participate in her own Party's nomination or election in any meaningful way.  At this point in time, Obama's time is better spent giving his alienated base a reason to vote FOR him and not AGAINST him.  
    I have yet to see it and all of the spinning on his behalf is a waste of time, IMHO.

    no the question is whether (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:32:21 PM EST
    James Dobson and the evangelicals will extract concessions from John McCain in exchange for the fundamentalist's energized support for the ticket.

    If evangelicals propel McCain to victory, Dobson will demand his due, just like he did with Bush. Look at his effect on Harriet Miers' supreme court nomination -- and what Charles Schumer said about the promise Dobson and his fellow fundamentalists extracted from Bush before his re-election.

    Sen. Schumer was emphatic in his remarks to us. He said the hard right, both economic and religious, has decided that the only way to push their agenda through is to control the courts. If they win and gain control of the courts, both economically and socially, they will roll back America to the 1930's or the 1890's.

    He said that the hard right made a deal with George Bush during the election. It would support him and "not hound him", but he had to cede control of his judicial nominations to the Federalist Society.

    Then work for downticket Dems (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by goldberry on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:43:34 PM EST
    From what I can tell, the SC already has 5 votes to overturn Roe if the right case came along.  And while you are absolutely correct that we have to worry about Federalist Society judges, I am not at all convinced that a pro-business, financial industry backed candidate like Obama is going to be impervious to pressure to appoint one.  
    SO, the best thing to do is vote defensively.  Get as many progressive candidates in Congress and the Senate as possible to keep any more egregious appointments to federal judgeships.  
    Pointing to Palin as the cause of the upcoming disaster ignores the other culprits and prevents us from taking action now.  

    No, my goal is for the (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:52:39 PM EST
    Dems to get the White House back. Clearly, it isn't your's, but it is mine.

    But Jeralyn didn't you write not (none / 0) (#71)
    by nulee on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:25:03 PM EST
    long ago that a Veep choice of Biden was a deal breaker for you?  Sorry it is that Aug/Sept vacation time and I was not on line during the conventions - but what was your argument for coming around?

    the deciding factor was that (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:49:47 PM EST
    a Republican ,including John McCain, would be far worse than Biden on crime and civil liberties issues and far more dangerious in control of the Justice Department.

    We need to control it as I fear... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Berkshireblue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:30:36 PM EST
    Palin would be able to staff the Executive branch with even more ideological rightwingers than Bush did. She has apparently not used merit in AK and now the ticket will be indebted to Dobson et al and so we can expect more government of the religious right by the religious right. We all know McCain is not interested in domestic policy and govenrment agencies so I'm sure Palin can enjoy free reign and how would McCain fight it anyway-he already sold his soul.

    Her one court appointment (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by tree on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:40:40 PM EST
    was NOT a right winger. He was mainstream with a high reputation for fairness. She's mainly kept her religious views out of her governance, from every example I've seen.

    But now she's being elevated FOR her... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Berkshireblue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:07:06 PM EST
    religious significance. I don't see that she was in AK but she definitely is now with Dobson and the rest of the kooks showing new levels of hypocrisy to support her.

    Palin's present pastor is anti-semitic (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:44:31 PM EST
    "One of Palin's new preachers at the church she now attends in the state capital said during a sermon last month (Aug. 17) that Jews' "unbelief" in Jesus was the reason for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The pastor also described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's "judgment of unbelief" of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity.

    So far, Palin hasn't said or done anything to distance herself or denounce these hate-filled rants, nor has she explained her views on supporting and upholding the Constitution."


    One of the new preachers (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:47:46 PM EST
    at a church she has started attending has made a crazy statement.  Palin better get ready with the denials on a regular basis.  Lots of politicians better line up to do their weekly confessionals, too.  "I confess that someone made a crazy comment during sermon this week which I heard."  Shoot three moose and list an office chair on eBay - you are now forgiven.

    I can see how one sermon could equate to 20 years of advice and sermons.  Sure.


    please repost your comment (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:51:49 PM EST
    without the anti-semitic allegation. That's name calling and I won't have defamatory allegations like that on this site.

    Don't touch this (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Jonathan3 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:12:40 PM EST
    She hasn't given any press interviews yet.  I'm fairly certain that once she does, she'll put all these speculation about her association (the lack of) with Jews for Jesus to rest.  It will make us look like fools and quite Wingnutty.

    She may be evangelical, but she strikes me more as a pragmatic politician.  Most evangelicals I know aren't the Dobson type.  They are pretty normal and decent people.

    Frankly, the comment "forward this news to Jewish voters in Florida" offends me more than anything else.

    Heck, forward it to ANY voters (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by eric on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:23:07 PM EST
    It doesn't take a Jewish person to find this interesting!

    Agreed (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:39:55 PM EST
    I mentioned Florida because it's a swing state with a high population of Jewish voters, but also, I think, a high population of fundamentalists in the north.

    The first "Jews for Jesus" sign I ever saw was in Lakeland, FL, outside of Tampa in the early 80's. In 2007, the school board favored teaching "intelligent design" alongside evolution.

    Here's a county by county denomination report from 2000.


    The other benefit of (none / 0) (#47)
    by Paladin on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:36:59 PM EST
    forwarding this is addressing the faction of Jewish voters who are somewhat nervous about Obama's perceived relationship (albeit 2 or 3 parties removed)with Farrakhan. Of course, this relationship is bogus.

    Palin's perceived relationship (none / 0) (#85)
    by tree on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:52:47 PM EST
    with Jews for Jesus is equivalent to Obama's perceived relationship with Farrakhan. They are both bogus.

    I also agree (none / 0) (#42)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:27:56 PM EST
    I am RC and horrifed.  I thought they just accosted you on the street with their pamphlets.  The Wasilla Church definitely condones this or would not have had them speaking.

    Does (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:27:20 PM EST
    anyone know how this plays with Jewish voters? Are they indifferent to this group? Do they find it offensive?

    One of my friends who is jewish thinks that the group is a joke. I certainly have no idea whether that opinion is widely held or not.

    Yes indifferent; not offensive; (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:33:49 PM EST
    yes mostly a joke; yes widely held from my observation.  What is the big deal here?

    I am a secular Jew and I along with many of my (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:35:18 PM EST
    friends find Jew for Jesus very offensive.

    Now, they're a joke in the sense they're not dangerous, like Jihadists would be.  But they ARE offensive, telling me my Judaism counts for nothing because I don't accept Jesus.

    Now, We survived the Spanish Inquisition, Russian Pogroms and the Holocaust, so we'll easily survive this group.

    Howwver, they serve to further the impression in the real world that somehow Jews are wrong, different, deviant in their religion.  And we've seen where that leads.


    Meh (none / 0) (#76)
    by lizpolaris on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:31:07 PM EST
    Most folks I knew just considered them yet another bunch of Christians trying to convert them - only with a stupier, oxymoronic name.

    In my experience (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:37:29 PM EST
    a lot of religious Jews feel very negatively about this group.

    I personally thought the underlying "scandal" was a total non-issue (Palin was in church while this guy gave a guest sermon! the horror!) but I'm certain the McCain/Palin campaign would rather he simply kept quiet.


    Steve you're one of the (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:42:55 PM EST
    smartest, fairest posters on this site, so surely the underlying point about Obama is not lost on you of all people. Also, to intercept the thoughtless anti-Obama talking (counter)point to this, Pastor's guest speakers reflect their own views.

    A few points (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by steviez314 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:52:30 PM EST
    1.  That pastor is already out of the bag.  The Republicans will use it.  No reason why Dems can't use this in places like FL.  No "holier than tous", so to speak.

    2.  I have never believed that Obama subscribed to Rev. Wright's stuff.  I always thought it was more of a political convenience. (I wish he had said so right away, maybe--cynical but less damaging perhaps).

    3.  I believe that Palin's views ARE more in tune with that church's views, based on that videotape of her speech at the church and her policy positions.  I know things can be spun other ways, but that's just my belief.  I, of course would like to hear more about her views on how her religion influences her politics, but I doubt I will.

    Well (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:52:40 PM EST
    my friend doesn't consider herself especially religious so that may explain her feelings about the group. She thinks that it's nonsense because isn't part of being jewish the fact that you don't believe Jesus is the messiah (her statement not mine)?

    Yeah (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:11:06 PM EST
    What's offensive is that if you're a Christian who wants to convert people to Christianity, you shouldn't be billing yourself as a Jew.  Also, think about how it feels (assuming you're not saved yourself!) when someone tells you that if you don't get saved then you're going to hell, and then think about how it would feel to have someone tell you that your people as a whole are all damned unless you let them rescue you.

    Frankly, the "why" of the reaction isn't even that important; it's just reality that when you mention Jews for Jesus, an awful lot of Jews make a face.


    most of them (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:59:23 PM EST
    are former Jews who converted to Christianity, and it was founded by a Jew who converted to become a baptist minister.  So the name is quite fitting being that the Jewish faith does not ascribe to the trinity doctrine thereby making Jesus a man and not a deity.  So Jews for Jesus under the context of the founding makes perfect sense to its members and me.

    I remember witnessing as a kid and going out with Pastor Steve who was converted by Jews for Jesus.  I remember being completely shocked at 12 that Jews denied Jesus was the son of god and prayed every night for their salvation.  Not because I was an anti-semite but because at 12 I did not have the capacity to understand the history of religion.

    As an adult and an atheist I find it confusing that other adults can hold to the tenets of their faith so intensely.  To think that "your religion" is the only religion that will be accepted into the kingdom of heaven while all the others will perish and suffer through eternal damnation, seems rather juvenile.

    Churches and religions are the biggest providers of assistance to those in need and I find it hard to criticize religions as a whole.  But the dogma attached to that assistance and the narcissism that drives their rightness seems to be contradictory.  

    Just curious, if the pastor were saying that America was punished for its sins on 9-11 or Katrina was a message from god, oh wait that was said by a Christian.......


    Believe (none / 0) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:12:49 PM EST
    it or not, I'm a Christian and I still get the "saved" argument from other Christians, mostly evangelicals and fundamentalists. These people believe that you can't be a "real" Christian unless you are "saved". All other denominations are wrong in their viewpoint. It's tiresome.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#88)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:20:43 PM EST
    My stepmom was a Lutheran and she told me that the more hardcore branches of the Lutheran Church are the exact same way.  It's amazing, really, so many religions that are all the One True Way.

    Here's an analogy (none / 0) (#7)
    by nalo on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:34:55 PM EST
    Mel Gibson

    Most I know say (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:49:05 PM EST

    Joe Lieberman.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:57:51 PM EST
    doesn't seem to mind.

    My jewish friends aren't practicing or down with organized religion, so I'm sure they view "Jews for Jesus" as unintentinal comedy, right alongside traditional judaism, christianity, islam, pick your organized superstitition.


    It's not comedy to me (none / 0) (#30)
    by shoephone on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:14:21 PM EST
    But I do consider this group to be something of a sick "joke". What they stand for is contradictory to Jewish belief and they are offenisve to me even though I'm not that religious anymore (I was a practicing Jew throughout childhood and early adulthood).

    I should say, having grown up in California during the 1960's and 1970's, I saw it all. I remember well the Hari Krishnas chanting inside of LAX as flyers were boarding or exiting flights. The Jews for Jesus were among the groups holding rallies on Sunset Blvd. and proselytizing in Westwood Village. They were pretty roundly treated with derision.


    My husband is Jewish (none / 0) (#13)
    by litigatormom on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:46:33 PM EST
    and he finds this group very offensive, especially because they refer to Jews as "ungodly" and "non-believing."  They are not just ordinary evangelists; they specifically and somewhat aggressively target Jews and tell them that they must reject their own faith to be saved. It's certainly not a group that promotes interfaith cooperation and communication.

    On the other hand, I don't think that the fact that a guest spoke at Palin's church to promote Jews for Jesus is more than a minor story.  If Palin's own minister was spouting spouting off and calling Jews ungodly, then I guess you'd have a sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander situation. But we have no idea whether Palin agrees with the J4J guy or how she reacted to it.

    As it is, there are many, many other things about Palin that worry me a lot more.

    How many Jews did the guest (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by oculus on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:23:23 PM EST
    speaker anticipate would be attending Sarah Palin's Christian church?  Must have been there for fundraising purposes, IMO. See Gideon Bible speakers w/hat in hand.  

    Jews for Jesus is to Jews like. . . (none / 0) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 02:50:37 PM EST
    Sarah Palin is to moose.

    If she (and through her McCain) were to have any actual connection to the group it would be truly toxic among Jews.  Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like she does have much of a connection.  Was there a donation?  Did she give?  That would be bad.

    Of course, the Jewish vote will already come out overwhelmingly for Obama and any association with JfJ is likely to increase not decrease, support among Republican voters (also known as white Christians).

    As a few good souls (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:08:35 PM EST
    on this thread have pointed out already, one would hope that the news would incease support for Obama among more than the targeted group.  When they came for me, there was nobody left to speak up for me, and all that.  

    My worry is the opposite. . . (none / 0) (#27)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:09:44 PM EST
    that (believing) Christians would be attracted by a message of wholesale conversion of Jews.

    I agree with that (none / 0) (#32)
    by glanton on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:17:41 PM EST
    to a large extent.  But what I am saying is, those who "believe" in the radical message of this group are surely outnumbered by those who see them as radical.

    If McCain and Palin win this thing it won't be because of the radical evangelical base.  It will be because Enough Independents and Democrats choose to look the the way on Social Issues.
    (as well as, by the way, looking the other way on the Economy, on Foreign Policy, etc.)  

    Looking the other way because they themselves don't feel targeted is what scares me. That is why I say, this election will say a lot about who we are as a people.


    If a significant enough number.... (none / 0) (#33)
    by kdog on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:17:52 PM EST
    of Americans attracted to that message, then we deserve a McCain/Palin administration.

    I'm holding out hope this association with "Jews for Jesus" turns off 99 people for every one it turns on.  


    nothing like a little bigotry in the morning (none / 0) (#34)
    by Bulging Bracket on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:19:57 PM EST
    JfJ is regarded as a joke by pretty much everyone. No need to sling mud at "white Christians". There are a few denominations that don't think JfJ is a joke, and it's unfortunate that Palin's pastor invited them.

    Some of the quotes from JfJ on terrorism cross the line into horrifying offensiveness, though they seem fairly standard amongst anti-war protesters. Most any observant person will find any evangelist of another religion/sect inherently offensive, so someone's Rabbi being appalled a JfJ shouldn't really count for much, as it's part of his job description. JfJ isn't the only odd sect with ethnically Jewish members who say horrible things about Israel and terrorism. Some ultra-orthodox view Israel as a fraud,ad the Iranians even got one of those Rabbis to show up to their holocaust denial conference.


    Hysteria. (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:17:39 PM EST
    Pure and simple.

    Dobson will extract his "quid pro quo" from McCain just as much as Popes John XIII and Paul VI took from JFK.

    If you think he wasn't going to ultimately endorse McCain, well, I think that's a rather naive belief...

    Interesting (none / 0) (#35)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:20:14 PM EST
    The Bush White House actually consulted with Jerry Falwell on judicial nominations, so I hardly think comparing this to the hysteria about JFK's religion is fair.

    Well, ok, there is that. (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:34:50 PM EST
    Falwell, among many others, including Dem congressmen and his wife...

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:42:52 PM EST
    but please, let's not minimize here.  Evangelical leaders are like the head of any other interest group - they deliver votes and money, and they expect something in return.  (The Pope, by comparison, did not exactly headline fundraisers for JFK.)

    That's not to say that the nation will become an evangelical theocracy on Day One of a McCain Administration, but I think it's silly to pretend like there's no chit to be repaid at all.  Dobson was a key figure in getting the Harriet Miers nomination pulled.  The Bush DOJ hired any number of underqualified lawyers from Pat Robertson's law school.  These connections have consequences.


    POTUSii get advice from  many, many people, including those who worked the hardest to get them elected.

    Among all the people who want to give advice (OK, desperate for the power to influence) it's not as though Dobson's advice would be all that mind-blowingly different from any other strong conservative, any more, for example, than Farrakhan's advice would be mind-blowingly different from any other strong liberal.

    Luckily for our Democracy, over the centuries, the center seems to win enough of these battles...


    I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Steve M on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:40:55 PM EST
    that I am inflating anything simply by questioning your claim that Dobson and the Pope have a similar degree of influence over US politics.

    But I'll note my dissent, as well, from Jeralyn's exhortation that people spread the word about this "issue" to their Jewish friends.  I didn't approve of people trying to scare Jews about Barack Obama, and I don't approve of trying to scare them with stories about Sarah Palin and Jews for Jesus.  Now, the fact that she's an evangelical, that's going to carry its own freight within the Jewish community and it certainly doesn't need any help from me.


    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 05:45:48 PM EST
    imo, in all practicality, Dobson would have as much influence on a possible McCain presidency as the Pope(s) did on JFK's. Which is to say, essentially nil.

    iow, imo, absent Dobson and the Popes, McCain and JFK wouldn't have radically different core values and take radically different actions as potuses than they would with Dobson and the Popes.


    This is a point that (none / 0) (#39)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:23:49 PM EST
    I've held for a long time also but most people miss it. Evangelicals like Dobson don't know HOW to stay away from the polls. They see Democrats not as political animals, but evil, or at best "lost souls". As a guy from Dixie, I know for a fact that evangelicals are also xenophobic to put it mildly. They were always going to vote this election. Obama's problem isn't the GOP base revving up, his task is getting enough support among unaffiliateds.

    Well, to be fair, (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:47:58 PM EST
    I think there are Dems who believe evangelicals are "evil," if some of the comments over the years here on TL are to be believed. If not "evil," then certainly a grave and present danger.

    Of course, this all may be mainly a tool that certain political actors utilize in order to rally their base...


    Touche. To be fair indeed. (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:50:41 PM EST
    To be honest I do think they are dangerous... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Berkshireblue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:23:45 PM EST
    groups that think God is directing human activity and repsonding to it are inherently dangerous in my view. These are people who take a book as the literal word of God and try to arrange the world in accordance with it. Just becasue this particular mental derrangement is relatively common in certain enclaves in our country doesn't mean that it is OK or that I have to accept it as normal.

    Well, not to be snarky but, hey, (none / 0) (#73)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:28:59 PM EST
    as long as your xenophobia is justified.

    I know-basically I think everyone religious (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Berkshireblue on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 09:15:44 PM EST
    is deluded. But hey, some people believe in aliens-to each his own but I don't have to pretend it makes any logical sense to me. I was raised Catholic and quickly began driving the nuns crazy with my questions, none of which could be satiafactorily answered. The brainwashing simply didn't take.

    Me too. 12 years. (none / 0) (#102)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 10:27:33 PM EST
    Kinda miss it sometimes. Most of the time not.

    yes, very offensive (none / 0) (#50)
    by noholib on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:41:05 PM EST
    Yes, for most Jews, the group Jews for Jesus is very offensive.  It targets Jews for conversionary pressure, telling them that Judaism is not a valid religion and that Jews must accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior in order to be in relationship with God and avoid hell or damnation.  Yet, somewhat paradoxically, they also claim that Jews can become believers in salvation through Jesus Christ without really giving up Judaism; it's the old message--Judaism is only completed or fulfilled through Christianity.  They offer no mild interfaith discussion.  Theirs is a direct and aggressive assault on the validity of Judaism.  In its struggle to emerge from its Jewish roots, Christianity always claimed that it superceded Judaism, that Christians had become the "true Israel," the people of God, and that Judaism had no more role to play. Well, after many centuries, the Catholic Church finally got it right and Pope John Paul II proclaimed it boldly and proudly at Vatican II: both Christianity and Judaism continue to have a role in the divine plan, and Christians and Jews should show one another mutual respect.  No one denies that Christianity has its own rich and varied and meaningful traditions.  No one ought to deny that other religions do so as well: Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on. In a society and a world filled with different religions, it is not wise for one group to tell others that they have no right to exist, and that they must give up their own religious traditions and teachings in order to see the one and only true path to the light. Jews don't like being preached to about the supposedly superior virtues of Christianity, they don't like being told that their religion is false, they don't like it when the U.S. Air Force Academy becomes open territory for evangelist proselytizing and indoctrination.  American Jews know very well that they are a small religious minority and they're not trying to change that.  Most Americans are Christians, but the U.S. has thrived because it has not been a religiously fanatic and intolerant state.  May this remain so.

    If you want to get a feel for Palin's church (none / 0) (#56)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:47:23 PM EST
    Take a look at this.  

    Jews for Jesus, which as a Jew and child of a holocaust survivor I find deeply offensive, is just the tip of the iceberg.  Is this really mainstream in America?

    it's becoming that way (none / 0) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:54:56 PM EST
    which is one of the reasons I write about it so much. It's not about religion as much as their attempt to bring their beliefs into our government, particularly through control of the courts.

    What bothers me the most (none / 0) (#62)
    by tres on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 03:57:36 PM EST
    Is that "Jews for Jesus" was at her former church and not her current one. Someone yesterday said on the news that she can not be held accountable for a guest speaker at her church. Well this isn't her church anymore and therefore she choose to be there to go listen to this. My father is Jewish and it is offensive to me as a child raised in my mothers faith and not his.

    James Dobson for SCOTUS! (none / 0) (#67)
    by 1980Ford on Tue Sep 09, 2008 at 04:13:52 PM EST
    For the first nomination and confirmation. Who for the 2nd?

    Boomerang Effect.... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Candace4Kansas on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 12:07:39 PM EST
    There are just issues that the Rep. and Dem. better leave off the table.  

    1. Religion - Obama's history with Rev. Wright and Palin's conservativism are going to be hot issues on each side.  My vote: Advantage Republican's (God D@m! America).

    2. Earmarks - Obama got $1million for his wifes employer and Palin Bridge to Nowhere.  Advantage Republicans (McCain has asked for zero earmarks)

    3. Inexperience - Obama's lack of executive experience vs. Palin's lack of international experience.  Advantage Democrats

    4. Per Diem - Biden's daily Amtrak to Delaware and Palin's 312 days in Wassilla.  Advantage Republican's (Hasn't been going on for 35 years and her expenses are 1/2 of the previous govenor's)

    The thing that I find interesting about these items is that it feels as if Obama is running against Palin....see the trend there?