Right-wing anti-Christianity

[TheLibertarian]

Writing in the January 20th, 1980 edition of The Sunday Telegraph, "former radical" Mary Kenny made a remark that I think is extremely perceptive:

... so many of the political ideas [of modern liberalism] are religious at root. The search for equality in the secular sense is a replacement of the Judaeo-Christian idea that God loves every individual equally... (t)he feelings of guilt or, indeed, pity, which once went into the religious drive, are being transferred to secular ideas to the ultimate destruction of our civilisation.

This echoes sentiments made by the libertarian journalist H.L. Mencken nearly a half-century earlier, when he wrote

(u)nder Prohibition, Fundamentalism, and other complex ideals of the Klan there runs a common stream of bilge: it issues from the ghostly glands of the evangelical pastors of the land. The influence of these consecrated men upon the so-called thinking of the American people has been greatly underestimated by fanciers; in fact, most of the principal professors of such forms of metabolism overlook it altogether. Yet it must be obvious that their power is immense, and that they exert it with great gusto... The pastor got into public affairs by the route of Prohibition. The shrewd shysters who developed the Anti-Saloon League made a politician of him, and once he had got a taste of power he was eager for more. It came very quickly. As industry penetrated the rural regions the new-blown Babbits began to sense his capacity for safeguarding the established order, and so he was given the job; he became a local Billy Sunday.

One of the strongest statements of this path of attack comes from Friedrich Nietzsche, in the opening sections of his Antichrist:

Christianity is called the religion of pity. Pity stands opposed to the tonic emotions which heighten our vitality: it has a depressing effect. We are deprived of strength when we feel pity. That loss of strength which suffering as such inflicts on life is still further increased and multiplied by pity. Pity makes suffering contagious.

This is a line of thought that has been extended both by anarchist thinkers like Mencken and neo-Traditional philosophers such as Julius Evola: that there is basically no distinction between what is today called liberalism and the very moral essence of Christianity, with its emphasis on such beatific notions as "the meek shall inherit the Earth". Individuals from both ideological backgrounds tend to regard Christianity as proto-Marxism, and Christ as a radical who sought to rouse the rabble oppressed by Rome in first century Judea.

Any thoughts on this line of thinking? It appeals far more strongly to me than does 'secular humanism', which strikes me very much as Christianity without Christ. How do you feel about this angle of critique?

[TheLibertarian]

Now, if you have the stones to stand up and speak honestly about what you have here openly admitted that you believe, as opposed to backing away from it again, let’s nail some of these scurrilous and demonstrably, provably false claims down -- and perhaps get a peek at your sources and references while we’re at it.

Okie-dokie.

Let’s start here.

Okay. But I'm going to focus on what can be subjectively proven.

*snip*

Crystal-clear implication: That many, if not most, Jews are “conscious agents of social decay,� etc. This is, of course, the ancient calumny of the existence of the nefarious International Jewish Conspiracy. Do you actually believe that even a minority of Jews are engaged in a conscious, deliberate conspiracy to -- take your pick -- bring down Western culture, rule the world, reduce all Gentiles to a state of dependent slavery, and so on? Do you accept the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as actual, authentic evidence of such a conspiracy? What is your evidence that such a conspiracy exists? You’ve said it; now let’s see you back it up. Be sure to give your citations.

Nonsense. The Protocols are a forgery based upon Dialogues Between Montesquieu and Machiavelli in Hell, with the titualer speakers, and some of their speeches, substituted. You're attempting to tar me with an obvious forgery when, as I've made it perfectly clear, I don't believe in any conscious conspiracy.

What I believe, quite simply, is this: that Jews are (probably justifiably) overly self-conscious of their role as a minority - a charge you've done nothing to refute, incidentally. This basic nature makes them prone to look out for what they perceive to be their self-interest, even to the detriment of the non-Jewish whole.

First, it would be nice to see you actually prove the first assertion -- in particular how it relates to American pressure, from Carter to Clinton to Obama, on Israel to accept a “two-state solution� in the Mideast, to stop the expansion of the “settlements,� and so on. Many pundits think that the U.S. controls Israeli policy more than the other way around. See this article in Frontline, The Myth of the “Jewish Lobby.� America does not support Israel because of an evil conspiracy of venal Jews, but because America’s interests and Israel’s coincide more often than they diverge. Conspiracy theory again.

Then let's have a look-see, shall we?

First there's the fact we have given Israel, since its establishment as a State in 1949, just over one hundred billion dollars:



That works out to an average of $1,658,685,000.00 a year. That's one billion, six hundred fifty-eight million, six hundred eighty-five thousand dollars. In comparison, Egypt - our "second strongest ally" in the Middle East, receives on average sixty-five million dollars a year.

Now let's see how much this actually breaks down in a yearly basis, since it isn't always level (warning: large image):






Notice anything about this image? The amount we give to Israel has escalated under Obama. Talk about out-of-control government spending!

So tell me something: why shouldn't we be able to push around a client state? We shouldn't have to ask your people to acquiesce to a two-state solution; we ought to be able to tell you to do so, and you ought to obey us without question. After all, it's by our money you still exist in the first. We own you. We ought to be able to say, "You will stop settlements", and you ought to listen, because we bought and sold your State.

Let's focus on this first, as the rest is your typical Zionist piffle. As soon as you can justify a yearly budget for Israel that dwarfs expenditures on, say, NASA, we'll get down to subjective brass tacks. Once this is out of the way, we'll move on. The onus is on you to possibly justify Israel's current incarnation as a welfare-warfare State.

[cnorman18]

Now, if you have the stones to stand up and speak honestly about what you have here openly admitted that you believe, as opposed to backing away from it again, let’s nail some of these scurrilous and demonstrably, provably false claims down -- and perhaps get a peek at your sources and references while we’re at it.

Okie-dokie.

Let’s start here.

Okay. But I'm going to focus on what can be subjectively proven.

*snip*

Crystal-clear implication: That many, if not most, Jews are “conscious agents of social decay,� etc. This is, of course, the ancient calumny of the existence of the nefarious International Jewish Conspiracy. Do you actually believe that even a minority of Jews are engaged in a conscious, deliberate conspiracy to -- take your pick -- bring down Western culture, rule the world, reduce all Gentiles to a state of dependent slavery, and so on? Do you accept the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as actual, authentic evidence of such a conspiracy? What is your evidence that such a conspiracy exists? You’ve said it; now let’s see you back it up. Be sure to give your citations.

Nonsense. The Protocols are a forgery based upon Dialogues Between Montesquieu and Machiavelli in Hell, with the titualer speakers, and some of their speeches, substituted. You're attempting to tar me with an obvious forgery when, as I've made it perfectly clear, I don't believe in any conscious conspiracy.

Here's what you said, in your own words, again:

I don't believe that all Jews are conscious agents of social decay, but enough of them have been [conscious agents of social decay], in enough of the right places to be effective, for me to question whether or not something deeper is going on.

As predicted, you're backing away from what you have clearly and unequivocally said in your own words. I'm not surprised that you're spending the rest of your post here arguing against a position I don't take. Read on.

What I believe, quite simply, is this: that Jews are (probably justifiably) overly self-conscious of their role as a minority - a charge you've done nothing to refute, incidentally. This basic nature makes them prone to look out for what they perceive to be their self-interest, even to the detriment of the non-Jewish whole.

Why would I refute something that you've never said? I'm more interested in how you're going to justify the outrageous and viciously slanderous claims you've made about the nature of Jews and Judaism than in any relatively reasonable remarks you'd care to switch them for now.

First, it would be nice to see you actually prove the first assertion -- in particular how it relates to American pressure, from Carter to Clinton to Obama, on Israel to accept a “two-state solution� in the Mideast, to stop the expansion of the “settlements,� and so on. Many pundits think that the U.S. controls Israeli policy more than the other way around. See this article in Frontline, The Myth of the “Jewish Lobby.� America does not support Israel because of an evil conspiracy of venal Jews, but because America’s interests and Israel’s coincide more often than they diverge. Conspiracy theory again.

Then let's have a look-see, shall we?

First there's the fact we have given Israel, since its establishment as a State in 1949, just over one hundred billion dollars:



That works out to an average of $1,658,685,000.00 a year. That's one billion, six hundred fifty-eight million, six hundred eighty-five thousand dollars. In comparison, Egypt - our "second strongest ally" in the Middle East, receives on average sixty-five million dollars a year.

Now let's see how much this actually breaks down in a yearly basis, since it isn't always level (warning: large image):






Notice anything about this image? The amount we give to Israel has escalated under Obama. Talk about out-of-control government spending!

So tell me something: why shouldn't we be able to push around a client state? We shouldn't have to ask your people to acquiesce to a two-state solution; we ought to be able to tell you to do so, and you ought to obey us without question. After all, it's by our money you still exist in the first. We own you. We ought to be able to say, "You will stop settlements", and you ought to listen, because we bought and sold your State.

Let's focus on this first, as the rest is your typical Zionist piffle. As soon as you can justify a yearly budget for Israel that dwarfs expenditures on, say, NASA, we'll get down to subjective brass tacks. Once this is out of the way, we'll move on. The onus is on you to possibly justify Israel's current incarnation as a welfare-warfare State.

Predictable enough; you're running like a rabbit away from your own words.

Nice try (not), but let's look back at the statement you're trying to defend -- YOUR OWN words, not your A.N.U.S. author's:

... I don't believe that all Jews are conscious agents of social decay, but enough of them have been, in enough of the right places to be effective, for me to question whether or not something deeper is going on. Certainly they have subverted the United States entirely; there is no possible denial of it. Whether on the Right or the Left, our entire thinking on foreign policy can be boiled down to two words: "Praise Israel". That's not the spontaneous result of a few leaders of European-descent deciding to be nice to Jews.

That's not a statement that the US supports Israel, even to an enormous extent, which I've never denied; it's an assertion that the US supports Israel because of the actions of Jews who are consciously intent on subversion.

Here's what I said again:

America does not support Israel because of an evil conspiracy of venal Jews, but because America’s interests and Israel’s coincide more often than they diverge.

Do you see a denial there of US support for Israel? I'll happily stipulate every number you've posted here. Yes, the US supports Israel to a HUGE extent. But you claimed that that was a result of powerful Jews influencing American policy for subversive purposes, and now you're claiming that the US has the right to push Israel around? Talk about reversing course in a panic...

This is going to be fun, watching you duck and dodge and try to avoid addressing the overwhelming majority of your own claims and enthusiastically endorsed calumnies and bigotry.

You've ducked the question you pretended to answer, and clearly don't have the stones, as predicted, to address the rest.

What else have you got? Do you have ANYTHING to say about the rest of this vicious excrement? You're going to try to keep it focused on Israel, of course, so you can run away and hide from all that you've said or applauded about Jews.

I'm laughing. Try again.

[TheLibertarian]

As predicted, you're backing away from what you have clearly and unequivocally said in your own words. I'm not surprised that you're spending the rest of your post here arguing against a position I don't take.

Am I? I'm pretty sure that I wrote

I don't believe that all Jews are conscious agents of social decay

That most certainly does not mean I hold to any "conspiratorial views", though by dismissing mine as such you feel free to also dismiss my very real concerns about the activities of the Jewish-American community.

Why would I refute something that you've never said? I'm more interested in how you're going to justify the outrageous and viciously slanderous claims you've made about the nature of Jews and Judaism than in any relatively reasonable remarks you'd care to switch them for now.

Then show me those "outrageous and viciously slanderous claims". It seems to me that all I've said is what any thinking man actually believes, no matter how he's cowed into refusing to acknowledge it: Jews look out for their own, even if it's at the expense of the greater non-Jewish population.

Predictable enough; you're running like a rabbit away from your own words.

Elucidating my views =/= "running" from them.

That's not a statement that the US supports Israel, even to an enormous extent, which I've never denied; it's an assertion that the US supports Israel because of the actions of Jews who are consciously intent on subversion.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Nations do not give out one-tenth of one trillion dollars in loan to a nation whose domestic representatives less than three percent of the total population without some internal prodding from those representatives. Shall I go through and list the number of high-ranking members of the United States government of Jewish descent, or those with an influence on that government, starting with Harry Truman's Jewish friend Eddie Jacobson (long canonized by the Establishment as the "man who saved Israel") who have appealed, argued, and agitated for American aid to Israel?

Or would you honestly have me believe that the great masses of money being spent now in Israel's name have nothing to do with domestic lobbying? You may say that AIPAC doesn't exist; you may actually believe it. AIPAC doesn't have to have ever existed for the record to show that individual Jews have long hassled the United States for more and greater expressions of interest in the state of Israel. Your need to sanitize that record speaks for the weaknesses of your position, not of mine.

Do you see a denial there of US support for Israel? I'll happily stipulate every number you've posted here. Yes, the US supports Israel to a HUGE extent. But you claimed that that was a result of powerful Jews influencing American policy for subversive purposes, and now you're claiming that the US has the right to push Israel around? Talk about reversing course in a panic...

These two claims have nothing at all to do with one another. You're positing a hilarity: that non-Jewish Americans, presumably of strictly European descent, gave, from the goodness of their white hearts, one hundred and one billion dollars to Israel over a period of sixty-one years without any influence from the organized Jewish community at all. You're doing this in a lame effort to distort the record: that Jews have agitated for this aid because the Jews must have agitated for it, because the WASP-dominated government of the United States would never have given it freely of their own volition otherwise.

This is going to be fun, watching you duck and dodge and try to avoid addressing the overwhelming majority of your own claims and enthusiastically endorsed calumnies and bigotry.

You've ducked the question you pretended to answer, and clearly don't have the stones, as predicted, to address the rest.

What else have you got? Do you have ANYTHING to say about the rest of this vicious excrement? You're going to try to keep it focused on Israel, of course, so you can run away and hide from all that you've said or applauded about Jews.

I'm laughing. Try again.

It seems to me that you're the balless, soulless wonder trying to deny what is obvious - that Jews have worked for sixty-one years to compound the United State's influence in the region with the material health of the state of Israel. You are the one who seems to be suggesting, quite ludicrously, that Jews had nothing at all to do with the monetary support we've given Israel. Prove your assertion.

[cnorman18]

As predicted, you're backing away from what you have clearly and unequivocally said in your own words. I'm not surprised that you're spending the rest of your post here arguing against a position I don't take.

Am I? I'm pretty sure that I wrote

I don't believe that all Jews are conscious agents of social decay

That most certainly does not mean I hold to any "conspiratorial views", though by dismissing mine as such you feel free to also dismiss my very real concerns about the activities of the Jewish-American community.

Why would I refute something that you've never said? I'm more interested in how you're going to justify the outrageous and viciously slanderous claims you've made about the nature of Jews and Judaism than in any relatively reasonable remarks you'd care to switch them for now.

Then show me those "outrageous and viciously slanderous claims". It seems to me that all I've said is what any thinking man actually believes, no matter how he's cowed into refusing to acknowledge it: Jews look out for their own, even if it's at the expense of the greater non-Jewish population.

Predictable enough; you're running like a rabbit away from your own words.

Elucidating my views =/= "running" from them.

That's not a statement that the US supports Israel, even to an enormous extent, which I've never denied; it's an assertion that the US supports Israel because of the actions of Jews who are consciously intent on subversion.

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Nations do not give out one-tenth of one trillion dollars in loan to a nation whose domestic representatives less than three percent of the total population without some internal prodding from those representatives. Shall I go through and list the number of high-ranking members of the United States government of Jewish descent, or those with an influence on that government, starting with Harry Truman's Jewish friend Eddie Jacobson (long canonized by the Establishment as the "man who saved Israel") who have appealed, argued, and agitated for American aid to Israel?

Or would you honestly have me believe that the great masses of money being spent now in Israel's name have nothing to do with domestic lobbying? You may say that AIPAC doesn't exist; you may actually believe it. AIPAC doesn't have to have ever existed for the record to show that individual Jews have long hassled the United States for more and greater expressions of interest in the state of Israel. Your need to sanitize that record speaks for the weaknesses of your position, not of mine.

Do you see a denial there of US support for Israel? I'll happily stipulate every number you've posted here. Yes, the US supports Israel to a HUGE extent. But you claimed that that was a result of powerful Jews influencing American policy for subversive purposes, and now you're claiming that the US has the right to push Israel around? Talk about reversing course in a panic...

These two claims have nothing at all to do with one another. You're positing a hilarity: that non-Jewish Americans, presumably of strictly European descent, gave, from the goodness of their white hearts, one hundred and one billion dollars to Israel over a period of sixty-one years without any influence from the organized Jewish community at all. You're doing this in a lame effort to distort the record: that Jews have agitated for this aid because the Jews must have agitated for it, because the WASP-dominated government of the United States would never have given it freely of their own volition otherwise.

This is going to be fun, watching you duck and dodge and try to avoid addressing the overwhelming majority of your own claims and enthusiastically endorsed calumnies and bigotry.

You've ducked the question you pretended to answer, and clearly don't have the stones, as predicted, to address the rest.

What else have you got? Do you have ANYTHING to say about the rest of this vicious excrement? You're going to try to keep it focused on Israel, of course, so you can run away and hide from all that you've said or applauded about Jews.

I'm laughing. Try again.

It seems to me that you're the balless, soulless wonder trying to deny what is obvious - that Jews have worked for sixty-one years to compound the United State's influence in the region with the material health of the state of Israel. You are the one who seems to be suggesting, quite ludicrously, that Jews had nothing at all to do with the monetary support we've given Israel. Prove your assertion.

Like I said; trying desperately to keep the focus on Israel so you won't have to even acknowledge the rest.

Tell you what: I'll concede anything you like about Israel. Yes, Jews campaign for support from the US, and there's no other reason for that support than pressure from Jews; the US and Israel have no common interests at all otherwise. Okay? On Israel, you win. I confess defeat. We're a bunch of sinister Israeli partisans fooling everyone in the US Government into thinking that it might be a good thing for this country to support Israelis.

Now that we've finished dealing with one sentence in all this material you've endorsed, let's see what you've got on the REST of this horse manure -- about the nature of Jewish culture, the Jewish religion (aka "Judaism"), and so on.

Go ahead. Let's see you prove all those OTHER claims you're so proud to endorse.

[TheLibertarian]

Very well, let's proceed.

The ANUSites, myself included, believe that Jews are "racialist" in two senses: the first concerns the way in which they induct new members into their conglomerate. The Orthodox Jews, at least, who, by virtue of their nature as traditionlists are likely closer to the heart of 'pure' Judaism, hold strongly to the believe that matrilineal descent alone defines a Jew -- even at the expense of religiosity. This emphasis on descent, versus conversion (ala Christianity) suggests that there is a biologicism inherent in Judaism that is not to be found in most other religions. This is also one of the reasons you have so many self-identified Jews who also disclaim any religion at all (Woody Allen, Jon Stewart, etc.). 'Jewishness' here is identified as a biological ethnicity and not a mere religion.

The second reason for this belief stems from the emphasis on the Jews as those who were in direct communication to and in a special relationship with G-d. From Genesis 22:17-18, which is actually fairly beautiful:

"I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."

And so you can see that the very same passages that the idiot Evangelicals use to hold the Jews in a privileged position seem to suggest to our minds that Judaism is essentially ethnocentric, and that it feels itself to be somehow 'closer' to the Deity than other peoples.

The reason you've gone apoplectic - my suggestion of a racialist reading of Jewishness and Judaism - is precisely why we somewhat admire it. We do not believe that racialist Jews are 'bad' or 'evil' for being racialist. But we do wish they'd not be so hypocritical about it when it comes to, say, the Palestinians for their own racialist motives.

[cnorman18]

Very well, let's proceed.

The ANUSites, myself included, believe that Jews are "racialist" in two senses: the first concerns the way in which they induct new members into their conglomerate. The Orthodox Jews, at least, who, by virtue of their nature as traditionlists are likely closer to the heart of 'pure' Judaism, hold strongly to the believe that matrilineal descent alone defines a Jew -- even at the expense of religiosity. This emphasis on descent, versus conversion (ala Christianity) suggests that there is a biologicism inherent in Judaism that is not to be found in most other religions. This is also one of the reasons you have so many self-identified Jews who also disclaim any religion at all (Woody Allen, Jon Stewart, etc.). 'Jewishness' here is identified as a biological ethnicity and not a mere religion.

The second reason for this belief stems from the emphasis on the Jews as those who were in direct communication to and in a special relationship with G-d. From Genesis 22:17-18, which is actually fairly beautiful:

"I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."

And so you can see that the very same passages that the idiot Evangelicals use to hold the Jews in a privileged position seem to suggest to our minds that Judaism is essentially ethnocentric, and that it feels itself to be somehow 'closer' to the Deity than other peoples.

The reason you've gone apoplectic - my suggestion of a racialist reading of Jewishness and Judaism - is precisely why we somewhat admire it. We do not believe that racialist Jews are 'bad' or 'evil' for being racialist. But we do wish they'd not be so hypocritical about it when it comes to, say, the Palestinians for their own racialist motives.

You apparently know very little about the teachings of Judaism, which is no surprise. Converts, like me, are as Jewish as any Cohen, by Jewish Law, and are acknowledged as such by all the branches of Judaism, including the Orthodox. There are ethnically Chinese Jews, Arab Jews, Black African Jews, Celtic Jews (myself), Nordic Jews, and Jews of literally every racial and ethnic group on Earth. Jews have accepted converts from the very beginning, and that FACT gives the lie to all of that nonsense. Yes, there are non-religious Jews. We don't compel anyone to believe or practice in a certain way, and being born to a Jewish mother doesn't mean one is obligated to be religious or observant. So what? Old saying among Jews: "When the pogroms start, it won't matter." We support and affirm each other as Jews, whether we are Jews by family and nonreligious or Jews by conversion to the religion. Again, so what? Racism is a canard and a falsehood. Period.

Are you going to dare to talk about the "parasitic" nature of Judaism and the Jewish people, how we supposedly limit access to our learning and exclude non-Jews from it (I've already shown that the claim that we are "racialist" and exclude Gentiles from our community is a lie), how we exploit Gentiles and believe that they are here to serve us, and all the rest? Can you prove those allegations? Or will you continue to run away from them?

I'm still not impressed. So far, you've only shown your failure to learn anything about Jews from any source other than antisemitic websites and books. No doubt we'll only see more of the same, but feel free to try to prove your claims about my people.

I'll be offline till tomorrow; take your time. Can't wait to see your reliable sources.

[TheLibertarian]

You apparently know very little about the teachings of Judaism, which is no surprise. Converts, like me, are as Jewish as any Cohen, by Jewish Law, and are acknowledged as such by all the branches of Judaism, including the Orthodox. There are ethnically Chinese Jews, Arab Jews, Black African Jews, Celtic Jews (myself), Nordic Jews, and Jews of literally every racial and ethnic group on Earth.

It has nothing to do with my alleged lack of knowledge and everything to do with your deliberate obfuscation of the subject. You are intentionally concealing the facts, not to appeal to me - who knows better - but to sway the audience, who is, of course, the real target of any argument.

I know all about 'Beta Israel', and that Zionists like to hold them up like a banner to prove how egalitarian and liberal Jews actually are. What they neglect to mention is that the Ethiopian Jews are recognized as such by the Orthodox because they are presumed to be descended from King Solomon. Whether they actually are - most of historiography speaks against it - is quite beside the point. Oral tradition holds it as true, and so the greater Jewish community accepts it. (Of course, what they don't accept as true is the equality of the Ethopian Jews with the Ashkenazi who dominate Israel - ask any member of 'Beta Israel' who has used their 'right of return' only to be stuck in the position of manual laborer in Israel and treated as a second-class citizen.)

Same with all the other communities you've mentioned. The Orthodox consider them Jews only to the extent that they have Jewish ancestry in them. The concept is called halakha. Rabbi Learner has this to say on the subject:

Question

I am a little confused about the Halakha surrounding matrilineal descent. This is the deciding factor on whether or not one's son or daughter is a Jew (in Orthodox circles and also many Reform). The reason that I have been given (most often) for this law is that one can always be certain of the mother's identity but not the father's. Is this really the reason? And how about modern advances in science which would enable us to prove the identity of the father? Is their a Halakhic ruling on this? It seems to me that men are the main targets of this law. Yet within Judaism there remains a tradition of Patrilineal descent for the Kohanim. Could you clear this up for me?

Answer

Interesting questions and somewhat more theoretical than I have dealt with in the past few years. I hope that the following will be helpful.

In general, patrilineal Jewish identity was introduced in the Reform and Reconstructionist movement, IMHO, because of the incredible number of dual-faith families who had joined their congregations and placed their children in their respective movements education and youth programs. In principle, it stated that a child of a Jewish father raised uniquely as a Jew - education, home environment, celebration of life an calendar cycle events, brit milah for a male - would be considered a halachic Jew much as the child of a Jewish mother would be so considered.

As I have understood the principle, in no way was it permitted or intended to permit a dual-faith family to raise the child in both faiths; a choice of religious identity had to be made, and if it were Judaism, then no Gentile rituals, rites, rules, education, etc. was permitted. Of course, being part of a larger family, one would be expected to be respectful of Gentile grandparents, cousins, etc., but not to actually "share" in their religious faith.

I am a little confused about the Halakha surrounding matrilineal descent. This is the deciding factor on whether or not one's son or daughter is a Jew (in Orthodox circles and also many Reform).

Judaism introduced matrilineal descent somewhere in the period of the Second Temple and the Roman occupation according to Prof. Shaye Cohen, now at Harvard, and he wrote an historical review of the change in "Conservative Judaism" among other journals. His presentation was historical and not intended to effect changes in Jewish law as it affects us today. (emphasis mine - TheLibertarian)

The reason that I have been given (most often) for this law is that one can always be certain of the mother's identity but not the father's. Is this really the reason?

I recall that it was less the issue of being certain of the father's identity than it was to bring Jewish law into somewhat coherence with Roman law regarding "citizenship" and "nationality" and rights and privileges within society. Had the Rabbis not done so, if I recall the discussion correctly, many children would have become social outcasts and society itself would have become shattered and torn, not unlike the consequences of bi-racial children in Vietnam following the American presence and the tens of thousands of children who were ignored if not deliberately discriminated against by "pure" and thereby "superior" Vietnamese.

And how about modern advances in science which would enable us to prove the identity of the father? Is their a Halakhic ruling on this?

Thus, identity of the father while theoretically possible, is still financially and practically beyond our abilities. And, tragically, the sexual habits of young people today - perhaps no worse than before but it would seem so to me - make it almost impossible for even the mother to line up the men to take the DNA test - if they were willing. To my knowledge, there is no halachic ruling on this matter, or at least in our movement.

It seems to me that men are the main targets of this law.

No, children are being protected as society changed the norm of how "citizenship" and its respective rights and privileges were to be implemented as fairly as possible.

Yet within Judaism there remains a tradition of Patrilineal descent for the Kohanim.

And, a DNA study of Kohanim surprised a lot of people, including me, that there was so much similarity in a DNA marker of Kohanim! Ooops, maybe they have been more careful over the centuries and there is some substance to the notion of one calling himself and his male descendents "Kohanim," if and when that has legal consequences. Best Wishes

I'm not the one advancing the claim that conservative (small 'c') Judaism is matrilineally-based, and by consequence ethnocentric. A learned - pun intended - Rabbi is making the case for me.

Jews have accepted converts from the very beginning, and that FACT gives the lie to all of that nonsense. Yes, there are non-religious Jews. We don't compel anyone to believe or practice in a certain way, and being born to a Jewish mother doesn't mean one is obligated to be religious or observant. So what? Old saying among Jews: "When the pogroms start, it won't matter." We support and affirm each other as Jews, whether we are Jews by family and nonreligious or Jews by conversion to the religion. Again, so what? Racism is a canard and a falsehood. Period.

Except, as demonstrated above, you're the liar. Non-ethnic Jews are almost always actually ethnic in some form or fashion, even if, as in the case of the Ethiopians, their basis for the claim is traditional pabulum. Only the most liberal of dominations 'convert' strangers through the same means and channels as most Christian denominations. Judaism is exclusive, and a great deal of those exclusionary practices are predicated upon the basis of ethnicity.

Are you going to dare to talk about the "parasitic" nature of Judaism and the Jewish people, how we supposedly limit access to our learning and exclude non-Jews from it (I've already shown that the claim that we are "racialist" and exclude Gentiles from our community is a lie), how we exploit Gentiles and believe that they are here to serve us, and all the rest? Can you prove those allegations? Or will you continue to run away from them?

Certainly, let's have at it.

[cnorman18]

Yeah, all of that was important - if you're trying to establish whether someone is a Jew by birth. It's irrelevant to conversion. There are black African Jews who are not Ethiopian, genius, and ALL the branches accept converts who have no Jewish ancestors at all. I won't even bolther with a reference: anybody can Google "Orthodox Conversion" and find dozens.

As predicted, you know nothing. Show us all your brilliance on the rest of these ancient, false and slanderous antisemitic myths.

If you're wondering, I'm on my BlackBerry, stuck in traffic on I-820.

[TheLibertarian]

Yeah, all of that was important - if you're trying to establish whether someone is a Jew by birth. It's irrelevant to conversion. There are black African Jews who are not Ethiopian, genius, and ALL the branches accept converts who have no Jewish ancestors at all. I won't even bolther with a reference: anybody can Google "Orthodox Conversion" and find dozens.

Except, as Rabbi Learner said, the Orthodox will not convert someone who has no Jewish ancestry. It's all there, black on white. Certain liberal/Reform sects might - but they're about as closely related to authentic, historical Judaism as are Christian Scientists to first-century Christianity, or as Wiccans are to historical European paganism.

Moreover, what does it mean to be a Jew "by birth", if Judaism isn't connected to a distinct ethnicity? For years now the Jews have been telling us that Judaism is merely one religion among many - and then cry "racism" whenever anyone has negative feelings towards it. It is either a religion, just as disconnected from any ethnicity as any other and hence just as vulnerable to criticism as they, or it is a tribalistic cult, in which case the charge of "racism" against its critics might be true (and against which it, too, is vulnerable).

As predicted, you know nothing. Show us all your brilliance on the rest of these ancient, false and slanderous antisemitic myths.

As predicted, you've moved on into defensive vagaries after you've been bested.

But, pray tell, what "ancient, false and slanderous antisemitic" myths am I here arguing for? I don't think that "the Jewish special interest group has an undue stranglehold over the national dialogue" is false. Neither do I believe that "Jews are insular and keep to their own, and are hypocritical for attacking others who choose do to the same with regards to them" is slanderous. And I think even most Jews would agree with me that Judaism draws a sharp distinction between Jews and non-Jews, and, under the guise that Gentiles have a 'lesser' burden through the Noahide laws, actually makes stricter demands of them, e.g. the ger toshav, to be accepted in that community.

[cnorman18]

Now that I’m back on my laptop, I can give this nonsense the attention it deserves.

Yeah, all of that was important - if you're trying to establish whether someone is a Jew by birth. It's irrelevant to conversion. There are black African Jews who are not Ethiopian, genius, and ALL the branches accept converts who have no Jewish ancestors at all. I won't even bother with a reference: anybody can Google "Orthodox Conversion" and find dozens.

Except, as Rabbi Learner said, the Orthodox will not convert someone who has no Jewish ancestry. It's all there, black on white.

Really? Where does he say that?

The article you quoted was about determining whether a person is a Jew by birth, as I said, which is entirely unrelated to conversion. The words "convert" or "conversion" do not even appear in that article. HERE, by contrast, is the ENTIRE list of articles by that same Rabbi Lerner on the subject of conversion to Judaism, and you’ll see there not - one - word, not one, that mentions Jewish descent of any kind being required for conversion, even among the Orthodox. (By the way, if you’re going to go to the good rabbi for your answers, even if you’re quote-mining articles on unrelated subjects, you might take the trouble to spell his name right.)

There are two ways to be or become Jewish: (1) by being born to a Jewish mother, and (2) by a formal rite of conversion conducted by a rabbi and ratified by a beth din, or rabbinical court. If one is born to a Jewish mother, the details of which laws are the subject of the article you quoted, conversion is of course not necessary; and a Jew by birth may or may not practice or believe the religion. If one wishes to convert, belief is of course necessary -- why else would one convert? But even there, specific dogmas are not required; there is no Jewish “Creed,� no list of required theological beliefs that are acknowledge by everyone to be necessary to be a religious Jew, not even, again, among the Orthodox (the Orthodox do specify required religious practices, but that is another matter).

Judaism is both a community and a religion; it is, as has been said elsewhere on this forum and by other people than myself, more like a family than either a “race� or a “church.� It is neither. It has been compared to becoming a citizen of a nation; one may be born so, or one may be made so by a court of justice -- and citizens may, or may not, believe in and support the laws and beliefs common to that nation. "Believing" that one is Greek or American or British doesn't make one a citizen; only birth, or the action of a court, does.

Like I said, you very clearly know next to nothing about Judaism. The word halakha means "Jewish law," for instance -- Jewish law in general, not the principle of hereditary Judaism. It's fun to watch you pretend to know things about which you know virtually nothing.

Instead of finding articles on Google that you can quote-mine, whether or not they support your bizarre opinions, you might read some basic books about Judaism before you claim to know anything whatever about it. You don’t.

Certain liberal/Reform sects might - but they're about as closely related to authentic, historical Judaism as are Christian Scientists to first-century Christianity, or as Wiccans are to historical European paganism.

You evidently don’t even know that, in spite of its name, Conservative Judaism is a liberal movement within the Jewish community. Rabbi Lerner, whom you quoted, is a Conservative, not an Orthodox, Jew, and so by referencing his opinions you are acknowledging liberal Judaism as authentic. You didn’t even realize that, did you?

In any case, Jews acknowledge each other as Jews regardless of the branch we are affiliated with. When I myself was considering with which branch to affiliate, I asked an Orthodox rabbi his opinion -- and he told me, and I quote, “Whichever makes you feel the most comfortable. A Jew is a Jew.� Some extreme Orthodox denounce Reform Jews, as well as non-practicing Jews, as “not real Jews� -- we have our crazy fundamentalists too.

Feel free to call me a liar. That would also be proving my case, of course. It is a dogma of antisemites that “Jews lie as reflexively and unthinkingly as humans breathe,� as Alex Linder says.

Moreover, what does it mean to be a Jew "by birth", if Judaism isn't connected to a distinct ethnicity? For years now the Jews have been telling us that Judaism is merely one religion among many - and then cry "racism" whenever anyone has negative feelings towards it. It is either a religion, just as disconnected from any ethnicity as any other and hence just as vulnerable to criticism as they, or it is a tribalistic cult, in which case the charge of "racism" against its critics might be true (and against which it, too, is vulnerable).

See above. Judaism is both a community and a religion. They are connected, but they are not the same. Like I said -- learn something before you begin spouting nonsense.

As predicted, you know nothing. Show us all your brilliance on the rest of these ancient, false and slanderous antisemitic myths.

As predicted, you've moved on into defensive vagaries after you've been bested.

“Bested�? You wish.

Look at the list of articles from your own Rabbi Lerner and find me a quote that says Gentiles must have some degree of Jewish ancestry to be converted, even among the Orthodox. Look anywhere. It just isn’t true, and you won’t find a Jewish source anywhere on the Web or anywhere in the world -- not Orthodox, not Hasid, not anywhere -- that proves your claim.

Go ahead; prove me wrong. Prove that you have “bested� me with your off-topic quote-mining.

But, pray tell, what "ancient, false and slanderous antisemitic" myths am I here arguing for? I don't think that "the Jewish special interest group has an undue stranglehold over the national dialogue" is false. Neither do I believe that "Jews are insular and keep to their own, and are hypocritical for attacking others who choose do to the same with regards to them" is slanderous. And I think even most Jews would agree with me that Judaism draws a sharp distinction between Jews and non-Jews, and, under the guise that Gentiles have a 'lesser' burden through the Noahide laws, actually makes stricter demands of them, e.g. the ger toshav, to be accepted in that community.

Like I said; running like a rabbit.

I see I have to be specific and deal with your (discarded in panic) allegations one at a time, so you won’t change the subject, bait-and-switch, and back off to reasonable-sounding (though still largely false) claims, as you have here.

How about this one? This ought to be EASY for you:

Judaism is also racist… excluding outsiders from its learning.

Like I said; the Talmud is available in any large library; it runs to fifty volumes or more in English, depending on the translation. The entire corpus of Jewish literature and learning is available to anyone all over the world. How and why are “outsiders� excluded from ANY Jewish “learning�? Can you back that up -- from Jewish sources, as opposed to anti-Semitic websites and books?

Your claim that Judaism is exclusive on an ethnic basis has been exploded (unless, of course, you can find some source somewhere that raises it from the dead); try this one. It’s baloney too, and you don’t have a chance in Hell of proving that this is a Jewish teaching or practice. The learning of our religion is open to all.

Deal with that one; you said much more than that, and we’re going to go over every word of it. I’m not going to let you off with a change of subject and a panicked retreat.

I'm still laughing, by the way. You don't even know the basics about Judaism, and what you DO think you know is almost entirely false. Let's see what you've got on that one little, easy point above. Will you disavow it, delete and ignore it as you've done with others, or will you claim you meant something else? Or will you just retract it, as you SHOULD do, since it is inarguably false and slanderous? You have no chance at all of PROVING it.