Why Do Jews Typically Vote Democrat???

[Acumen]

Statecraft is far, far different than interpersonal relations. We will never be able to move beyond the past when, not only are Holocaust survivors alive, but their children and grandchildren.

That isn't my choice. It just is.

Clyde,

Christianity did not cause the Holocaust.  Hitler was a nationalist monster who, despite his own admissions of being a Christian, wasn't born again, nor did he adhere to any Christian virtues whatsoever. 

[Clyde5001]

Acumen,

Jews don't make that distinction between being born again or not. We take people at their word. They're Xians.

Hitler was a very, very bad Xian. So were many of the Nazis. But the Holocaust was aided and abetted by millions of Germans, Poles, Slovaks, Croats, etc. who thought they were doing their Xian duty by turning in Jews.

Why are we even going here? It isn't going to end well. I withdraw.

[Acumen]

Acumen,

Jews don't make that distinction between being born again or not. We take people at their word. They're Xians.

Hitler was a very, very bad Xian. So were many of the Nazis. But the Holocaust was aided and abetted by millions of Germans, Poles, Slovaks, Croats, etc. who thought they were doing their Xian duty by turning in Jews.

Why are we even going here? It isn't going to end well. I withdraw.

I totally respect the fact that you wish to withdraw - it tends to be a controversial issue.  However, you need to keep in mind that we Christians find it offensive that such a man is associated with Christianity without some sort of warrant.

And I think taking people at their word is a little convenient too.  Most people who claim to be a Christian do practice their Christianity in some form or another, and therefore I admit that when someone tells me they are a Christian, I tend to believe them as well.  However, if they start to do things that don't seem very Christian, I begin to doubt the veracity of their words.

I'm sure you can relate to this as well.  If a Jew tells you they are a practicing Jew, but they begin talking about Jesus as their Lord and Savior, do you still take them at their word that they are a religious Jew?

I hope you don't take self-professed Christians at their word because it's convenient to use it as a weapon against Christianity - as in the case with Hitler.  Hitler was no Christian, and it's offensive to Christians to refer to him as such.

[Acumen]

I'm running into a time problem, so I'm going to have to be very brief-- again.

Acumen, what you are proposing as your economic model at least somewhat parallels Locke's approach.  Personally, I have mixed feelings about Locke.  On one hand, he was interested in breaking away from totalitarian rule (monarchies) and away from forced religion.  That I like.  But his solutions were lassez-fair capitalism matched with a separation of church and state.  That I have problems with, as most Christians then and now also have.  Let me give you Rousseau's very angry response to Locke even though they lived during different time periods.

Rousseau considered Locke's ideas as being extremely dangerous and immoral for two main reasons:

1.if there's a separation of church and state, what or who are going to keep the state from slipping into doing things in an immoral way?

2.if there's no safety net to help the disadvantaged, doesn't this violate Jesus' and Christianities teaching on helping the disadvantaged?

As far as the first is concerned, Locke never dealt with this question, so it's difficult for us to say how he may have responded to Rouseau's charges.  Locke was not a philosopher (he was a doctor), so we maybe have to pardon his incompleteness at times.  But, admitedly, Rousseau brings up a good point, does he not?

As far as the second is concerned, the church had long contended that the poor HAD to be helped as much as possible, and that this must be done through both legal and charitable means.  Even under the old feudal system, nobles had an obligation to take care of their serfs and even slaves if needed.  Rousseau, therefore, was appalled that Locke would be so inconsiderate of the needy whereas they would be subject to the hit and miss approach that charity would or would not provide.  And what happens to charities during rough economic times?  They tend to dry up (just ask the American Red Cross about that as they announced last month that there's been a decline in charitable giving).

Did the U.S., which first built it's economy on the Locke model, keep it?  No.  Very gradually we walked away from it because way too many problems began to occur that even a basic review of our history clearly indicates.  Where it all came to head ocurred during the Great Depression.

During that time, charities proved to be incapable of handling the economic carnage that took place.  My father was very much affected by this and it left scars on his personality that he carried with him the rest of his life. 

But the "the messiah" came.  I'm referring to John Maynard Keynes.  Keynes was so radical that his ideas were soundly rejected at first.  Eugene Debs bought Keynes ideas and got promptly put in jail becuase he was considered too radical.  What Keynes taught in part was that it would be better to have a man dig a hole and fill it up again and get paid for it even if the payment comes from taxes than to just sit home out of work with no money or pride.  A person who makes no money doesn't buy, and if not too many people are buying it can further take us down the path of recession/depression.  Keynes felt it would be better to temporarily unbalance the budget, create programs to get people back working, and lift the economy in that manner if it couldn't be handled by the private sector.  Along with this, he taught it was far better to have people helped through government intervention along with charity whereas people are taken care of one way or another.   

During the depression, our government got desparate, and on the scene as President came FDR, who looked into Keynesian economics and bought it.  Starting in the 1930's, American and many other countries began to flourish because of Keynesian economics.

The idea that these programs somehow stifles our economy violates even basic understand as to how Economics 101 works.  If these programs are supposedly so inefficient, then explain how the Scandinavian countries are doing so well as they run a mixture of mostly capitalism with relatively high amounts of social programs.  How can you explain the economic growth of China, which economists now are predicting will likely pass us up within the next 10 years.  Again, what they have done is to increase their level of capitalism while also having an increasing level of social programs. 

The point becomes that we can both use free enterprise AND social programs to help the needy without destroying our economy.  Yes, it's a balancing act at times and sometimes some very tough decisions have to be made.

Oops, gotta go.     

I never did get to respond to this post, and I apologize for that.  I will be back on Sunday, and hopefully I will get that chance.  However, I do want to throw out there an interesting idea that I've been thinking about for a while.

We hear the idea of charity and helping out the needy in Jesus' ministry.  Liberals are quick to point out that their social policies are in the same vein with such charities.  However, it was pointed out earlier that the statistics show that conservatives are more generous with their individual charitable contributions than liberals EVEN WHEN church contributions are removed from the equation (which I find astounding actually).  What does this suggest about the heart of giving and the notion of social programs?  For instance, should social programs be instituted because they help the needy, or should they be instituted because they are good for the soul of the givers - as we see in the NT.  If social programs are paid through taxes, does it strip the charitable component of giving and therefore strip away its moral goodness, or is it still good to mandate such programs?  When the government gets involved in such giving, does it make people more cold and callous because they don't need to give as much, since government has stepped in?

These are just some thoughts to consider.

[SquirleyWurley]

Practically, there are just certain problems societies face, and questions about whether proposed solutions are more or less ideal, ethical, workable, given the goals one may have.

An ideology that is against programs can't deal with realities of insufficient private sector options or insufficient charitable offerings.  An ideology that sees every answer in government programs can't deal with realities of neglected free-market options, neglected charitable options.

That's why I'm against ideology.  It doesn't matter to me whether the rationale is claimed to be moral or religious, if it's ideology it's difficult for reality to inform and correct people's opinions.

[Acumen]

An ideology that is against programs can't deal with realities of insufficient private sector options or insufficient charitable offerings.  An ideology that sees every answer in government programs can't deal with realities of neglected free-market options, neglected charitable options.

Insufficient for what?

[Clyde5001]

If you want to really understand why Jews vote Democrat, just look at Sarah Palin.

[Acumen]

I'm not even sure what that means.

[Clyde5001]

1. The Iraq war is a mission from God.

2. The pastor saying that if a Xian voted for Kerry (in '04) that their salvation was in doubt (Wright scared us - this scares us more).

3. No abortion, even in cases of rape and incest - even Cindy McCain disagrees with this.

4. Flirting with the Alaska Independence Party - you want to leave us, then you want to rule us?

5. Having endorsed Pat Buchanan - no Jew can support anyone because that man is a Nazi supporter - yes, that is what people say breaks an internet debate, but he called Hitler a courageous man and questioned our going to war with him, so that makes him one in my book.

My mother was voting for McCain, like she voted for Bush I and II. Now she's voting for Obama. So is my Dad. That says something that should make Republicans take notice.

I disagree with McCain. Palin's just scary. Before I was just tepid for Obama. Now I'm an enthusiastic supporter.

[Acumen]

Clyde,

Your comments are very interesting, I will get back to them later.

[Acumen]

1. The Iraq war is a mission from God.

She didn't say that, Clyde.  She addressed a local church and asked them to pray that we are sending our U.S. soldiers out on a task that is from God.  She said, "That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan."

What you're saying is that she trumpeted the mission in Iraq as God's plan, which she didn't do.  She said we need to pray that the Iraq War is a mission from God.  In other words, let's pray that we are in line with God, and not going to war for the wrong reasons.  You ought to check this stuff out rather than just believing what the media tells you.

2. The pastor saying that if a Xian voted for Kerry (in '04) that their salvation was in doubt (Wright scared us - this scares us more).

And that is the right of her pastor to say such things.  Certainly, some politicians are no friends of Christianity.  Right now, the Roman Catholic Church is having similar issues with self-professed Catholics advocating abortion, which is a serious sin for the Catholic Church.  One can see how endorsing the political stances of politicians may very well be a sin IF such stances are considered sinful.

3. No abortion, even in cases of rape and incest - even Cindy McCain disagrees with this.

And as a Jew, I believe you should be in line with Palin, and of course, this is my opinion.  The book of Jeremiah is fairly clear that the destiny of the unborn is determined by the choice of God, not the mother.  This is found in the Jewish scriptures. 

And from a non-scriptural standpoint, it makes no philosophical sense to abort fetuses when we aren't even certain when life actually begins, whether it's at conception or after a live birth.  We shouldn't be making such important choices based upon assumptions that cannot be proved.  Science has not, nor cannot determine when human life begins.  So the wise man ought to err on the side of caution.

4. Flirting with the Alaska Independence Party - you want to leave us, then you want to rule us?

She wasn't a member of the Alaska Independence Party, so what's the issue here?

5. Having endorsed Pat Buchanan - no Jew can support anyone because that man is a Nazi supporter - yes, that is what people say breaks an Internet debate, but he called Hitler a courageous man and questioned our going to war with him, so that makes him one in my book.

You need to check your facts.  Palin never endorsed Buchanan.

My mother was voting for McCain, like she voted for Bush I and II. Now she's voting for Obama. So is my Dad. That says something that should make Republicans take notice.

That's actually very surprising.  I know some independent women here in Wisconsin who plan to help the McCain campaign this election BECAUSE of what the liberal media has done to her in the past few days.  I believe they call that a backlash.  But we'll soon see how this all pans out.

I disagree with McCain. Palin's just scary. Before I was just tepid for Obama. Now I'm an enthusiastic supporter.

Again, I don't think you represent the typical voter.  And some of your statements seem contradictory.  You seem to buy into the propaganda that Palin endorsed a Nazi sympathizer, but you ignore the fact that Obama had a 20 year relationship with a pastor and church that was blatantly anti-Semitic.  But whatever. 

I can't persuade a liberal to vote a republican ticket, I'm just hoping that people are willing to do their own investigations before believing the lies of the media driven to smear a republican candidate they barely know.

[Clyde5001]

And as a Jew, I believe you should be in line with Palin, and of course, this is my opinion.

But that isn't something you should even have an opinion on! I would never tell you, as a Xian, what you should believe. I have no right.

There are reams and reams of rabbinical literature and rulings on how to understand abortion. A verse here and there from Tanakh is only the beginning of a discussion from a Jew, when Talmud is scripture on the same level as Tanakh.

No, a Jew should never be in line with Palin!

[Acumen]

And as a Jew, I believe you should be in line with Palin, and of course, this is my opinion.

But that isn't something you should even have an opinion on! I would never tell you, as a Xian, what you should believe. I have no right.

As passionate as you are, I have a right to my opinion.  As a Christian, I have some insight on the OT, which I have used as the basis for my opinion. 

Perhaps you could take a stab at Jeremiah 1:5 that states that God knew, set apart, and appointed Jeremiah as a prophet to the nations before he was born.  I think the only reasonable interpretation to this passage is that the destiny of a fetus belongs to God, not to mothers.

There are reams and reams of rabbinical literature and rulings on how to understand abortion. A verse here and there from Tanakh is only the beginning of a discussion from a Jew, when Talmud is scripture on the same level as Tanakh.

And that is fine, but as Howie told me, he has never heard Jeremiah 1:5 used as a defense of protecting the unborn, so I would be interested in hearing the Rabbinical literature on this issue.

No, a Jew should never be in line with Palin!

Should they be in line with a candidate who has a 20-year association with an anti-semitic church and a pastor who thinks Farrakhan "truly epitomized greatness?"

Me thinks that if that were a republican involved with such a church and such a pastor, not voting for him would be a no-brainer.

[Clyde5001]

As passionate as you are, I have a right to my opinion.  As a Christian, I have some insight on the OT, which I have used as the basis for my opinion. 

But you're telling me, as a Xian, how I should believe as a Jew. I can't accept that. Can I use your scripture and tell you how to believe as a Xian?

Perhaps you could take a stab at Jeremiah 1:5 that states that God knew, set apart, and appointed Jeremiah as a prophet to the nations before he was born.  I think the only reasonable interpretation to this passage is that the destiny of a fetus belongs to God, not to mothers.

This is rhetorical flourish. This isn't God speaking, it's Jeremiah saying he believes his purpose was designated before he was born. This passage is never used as anything to do with abortion.


Should they be in line with a candidate who has a 20-year association with an anti-semitic church and a pastor who thinks Farrakhan "truly epitomized greatness?"

I've never heard Obama express these ideas, so I will trust him on this.

Me thinks that if that were a republican involved with such a church and such a pastor, not voting for him would be a no-brainer.

If you look at Rabbi Brad's blog on Beliefnet, you will see that Palin's church recently hosted the head of Jews for Jesus. Gov. Palin also signed a Christian Heritage Week into law. That would clinch the deal for me.

[Acumen]

As passionate as you are, I have a right to my opinion.  As a Christian, I have some insight on the OT, which I have used as the basis for my opinion. 

But you're telling me, as a Xian, how I should believe as a Jew. I can't accept that. Can I use your scripture and tell you how to believe as a Xian?

Clyde, let's be fair, non-Christians tell me all the time what I ought to believe based upon what the scriptures say.  I'm not telling you what you ought to believe as an ethnic or cultural Jew, but I'm appealing to your respect of the scriptures and what those passages are saying to you.

Perhaps you could take a stab at Jeremiah 1:5 that states that God knew, set apart, and appointed Jeremiah as a prophet to the nations before he was born.  I think the only reasonable interpretation to this passage is that the destiny of a fetus belongs to God, not to mothers.

This is rhetorical flourish. This isn't God speaking, it's Jeremiah saying he believes his purpose was designated before he was born. This passage is never used as anything to do with abortion.

Was Jeremiah lying when he said the "word of the Lord" came to him?

And it really doesn't matter if the passage has anything to do with abortion, it has to do with the value of a fetus in the mind of God.  The passage lays out that God is the ultimate authority that authenticates our life's work and calling, not anyone else.  How can a mother make such a choice not knowing what God has in store for the fetus?

Should they be in line with a candidate who has a 20-year association with an anti-semitic church and a pastor who thinks Farrakhan "truly epitomized greatness?"

I've never heard Obama express these ideas, so I will trust him on this.

You can't have it both ways.  You can't get on Palin's pastor about the things he says from the pulpit about the policies of certain politicians, but ignore the fact that Obama's pastor is a vocal anti-Semite.  Why are you willing to give Obama a pass on this one?

Me thinks that if that were a republican involved with such a church and such a pastor, not voting for him would be a no-brainer.

If you look at Rabbi Brad's blog on Beliefnet, you will see that Palin's church recently hosted the head of Jews for Jesus. Gov. Palin also signed a Christian Heritage Week into law. That would clinch the deal for me.

Well, I'm not going to get into political controversies as they involved churches for the very obvious reason that it's intensely hypocritical to throw stones at Palin and her church given what America has witnessed with Rev. Wright's radical sermons and wicked associations.  If you would rather trash Palin for the false accusation that she endorsed Buchanan, but choose a man who spoke of an anti-Semite as his spiritual mentor, then there is not much reasoning to be had here. 

[Clyde5001]

Acumen,

Whatever the case may be, I would never have, in any circumstances, voted McCain. I would have stayed home. I don't vote Republican anymore (not even mayor of my 4,000 person town - they might wind up President!).

[Acumen]

Acumen,

Whatever the case may be, I would never have, in any circumstances, voted McCain. I would have stayed home. I don't vote Republican anymore (not even mayor of my 4,000 person town - they might wind up President!).

That's goofy, Clyde. 

Obama should give you pause, or any other liberal for that matter.  Did you watch the first part of his interview with O'Reilly?  This man finally admitted that "the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated."

Really?  McCain anticipated it, that's why he supported it.  When O'Reilly pressed him about admitting he was wrong, he said, "I've already said it's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”

Okay.  So the surge was a brilliant choice. Isn't this a problem?  Why didn't Obama and Biden give the surge a chance to work?  The reason I ask this is because while the surge was dropping violence in Iraq, Biden was publicizing his criticisms of the surge in front of news networks.  I can get the graph outlining the dates of his speeches that correspond with the dropping death tolls in Iraq.  This man denied the success of the surge up until the point he could no longer do so without making a joke of himself.  Not much later, Obama removed his criticisms of the surge on his campaign website.  Hmmm . . . I wonder why he did that?

The problem I have with this ticket (and there are many) is they initially staked the success of their campaign in the terra firma of the Iraq war, which is a little creepy.  This means they would be successful, in large part, if the U.S. failed in Iraq.  When the surge succeeded and the violence in Iraq dropped significantly, we didn't hear much about the war from the campaign trail.  Instead, we heard about the economy.  Again, a little creepy.  They are staking their success in failure.  However, last week, our economy experienced a 3% growth for the last quarter.  If that trend continues, the democrats are over.  In fact, I think they are already over because of the Palin selection.

40 million people watched Palin during her speech, which toppled the opening day of the Olympics, the Academy Awards, or the finale of American Idol.  In fact, it would have also toppled Obama's speech if PBS had covered it like they did with the democratic election.  BET, TV one, Univision, and Telemundo did not cover her speech, which blocked an estimated 4 million viewers.  And that really irritates me that the Latino networks didn't give her any airtime, and they should be called out on it.  But that's okay, because it's pretty much over.  Obama's convention bounce has been erased, and we are anticipating a GOP convention bounce in the polls today or tomorrow.

   

[Acumen]

Here are a few graphs on the surge.

[Clyde5001]

Again, I will not vote Republican under almost any circumstance. I identify it with the Xian party, and however much good they might do, Jews do not belong in a Xian world. We're assimilated enough.

[Clyde5001]

BTW, the New York Jewish Week says she endorsed Buchanan in 2000.

It's known she was present for the sermon by the founder of J for J (also in the New York Jewish Week). He said the Holocaust and terrorist acts were God's judgment on us for not becoming Xians. If she could sit there and give tacit approval to that kind of speech, then she can never get my vote.