This is probably one of the most condescending opinion pieces I’ve ever read in my life. It starts out bashing the Forward’s current Jewish Bogeyman of the Month, Sheldon Adelson:
Jewish conservatives continue to spend significant amounts of effort and money to swing American and Israeli politics to the far right. Most visible is gambling billionaire Sheldon Adelson, whose funding of Israeli media affected the 2009 Israeli election and who is now spending a fortune to equate American “support for Israel” with support for Israel’s far-right wing.
Similarly, William Kristol’s “Emergency Committee for Israel” plays on Jewish fears to garner Republican votes. And Eric Cantor, House minority whip, is one of the most vocal proponents of Tea Party ideology — the same social Darwinism dressed up as American populism that brought us the 2008 financial crisis.
Note that he starts with a false charge, that Adelson is trying to equate American support for Israel with supporting only the Israeli far right. Now that Jay Michaelson has set the false tone, he then goes on to say that those progressive Jews who are saying that conservative Jews are not following “Jewish values” are wrong. Conservatives can be Jewish, too. I know, I know, you’re shocked. And as a Jewish centrist who has shocked her very liberal Jewish friends by voting for George W. Bush and John McCain, it’s nice to know that I’m just as Jewish as the Obama Fan Club in every synagogue. Why, just look at this philosopher’s reasoning process as to what progressives think of people like me:
The second response has been to argue that Jewish conservatives just don’t get it. They’re misreading Jewish history and tradition. They’re traumatized, bigoted or confused. Whatever the reason, it may be that Jewish conservatives are just plain wrong in their interpretation of Jewish tradition.
Relatively few progressives come out and say this directly, because to do so violates a cardinal progressive principle, that of pluralism and toleration. (Of course, conservatives don’t hesitate to make these claims, painting critics of Israel as self-hating Jews, or social progressives as rebels against the Torah.) So, some make a softer claim: that conservatives get it, but get the wrong it. Yes, there are reactionary elements within Judaism, but these are just barnacles stuck onto the side of the Jewish ship. Yes, the Cantors and Kristols of the world can find some nasty Jewish traditions to draw from, but they miss the real point, which is Judaism’s progressive social agenda, or love of peace, or whatever.
Shorter Michaelson: Oh, conservatives. You are so mean. But we, the Noble Progressives, rise above the meanness and give you our kindness, our tolerance, and our condescension.
Except, of course, they don’t. Note the way he started the article. “Some” Jews think this. “Some” Jews think that. He goes on to bash Jews who don’t think like him, and then he brings in the big gun for his backup: Michael Lerner. Yeah, now that’s an authority that all of Judaism considers to be a top Talmudic scholar able to make decisions about who is a Jew. And finally after being informed a dozen times that conservative Jews are wrong, wrong, wrong, we are told this:
I have my approach to Jewish values that allows me to say that Eric Cantor, Sheldon Adelson and William Kristol are wrong — pluralism is not the same as relativism, after all — but what I won’t say is that they are somehow un-Jewish.
Here’s the thing about this expert on Who’s A Jew: He’s a Buddhist.
I think I’ll stop here. ‘Nuff said.
Says there that he spent 5 months in silence. He couldn’t keep it up?
A “halachic Jew” would not also be a Buddhist.
He’s probably one of those people who thinks that Barack Obama is the first Jewish president.
He’s not quite a “no labels” person, but with him labels are meaningless, because they or beliefs can mean anything he wants them to mean.
One problem seems to be that it is very easy to misunderstand the term “conservative” Jews and “Conservative Jews”. Do you mean those who are sensible politically (like us) or those who belong to the religious group that calls themselves “Conservative” because they found that “Reform Judaism” had gone too far but who can include those whose real religion is political Liberalism” (which is not Jewish at all)?
While your headline may have given the impression of the first, I see after reading the posting that you meant the second. In any case one can be “Jewish” (halachically – which is the only definition that counts) but not follow “Judaism” (no matter how observant one appears to be). It seems that those whose real religion is “Liberalism” are the ones who refuse to see the truth. They will redefine whatever religion they pretend to follow to be whatever political fad they want the rest of us to bow to (idol worship reference was deliberate).
There are a few on the right that might do this, but it seems to be those on the left that tend to make a habit of this mistake.
This week, we see that they existed in Egypt at the time of the Exodus. The verse that the they went out “armed”. However, the word used (chamushim) also has the implication of one fifth. Rashi explains that this means that the 603,500 men between the ages of twenty and sixty (who were the politically active class at that time) were only one fifth of the actual number of Jews (in that group) in Egypt. The rest “died” during the plague of darkness because they insisted on staying behind.
This can be interpreted literally (as is usual) or even metaphorically. By refusing G-d’s command, they were totally lost to the family and wound up being buried as Egyptians. Today, it is mainly metaphorical. Those whose “religion” is political Liberalism will be lost to us and be part of the multitude that will not exist in the coming generations (unless their children come back as has happened to many).
To me, the term “Conservative Jew” means a Masorti Jew: someone affiliated with the Conservative movement in Judaism (as opposed to Reform, Orthodox, Reconstructionist, et al. This is distinct from “Jewish conservative,” which would denote a politically conservative Jew. Just sayin’.
Have to dispute you on this, Meryl. I am absolutely opposed to rich people using their billions to influence Jewish politics.
George Soros? Oh, yeah, wasn’t he a utility infielder for the late forties St. Louis Browns?
The left’s ability to engage in doublethink is astonishing. Orwell once said that sometimes the hardest thing was to see what was in front of your nose. I was called harsh and unfair on Facebook yesterday. The poster was soliciting contributions to buy Occupy Whatever with winter clothing. I suggested that at least in Oakland they could simply have taken it from the stores they trashed.
Another poster talked about the hate and violence emanating from the Tea Parties and got very upset when I pointed out that except maybe for a few signs here and there the hate seems to come from the Occupiers, and thousands of Occupiers have been arrested, private and public buildings and areas trashed…and the Tea Partiers don’t even litter.
Alex, Alex, Alex, you mustn’t confuse facts with Truth. The facts are that the hate emanates from the Left, but the Truth is that it’s the Tea Parties who are the haters, the bigots, the racists (don’t look at the black people in their ranks, they don’t exist dontcherknow). Facts are mere petty istimas, like the Law of Gravity, while Truth is whatever the Movement decrees it to be. As Lenin complained to a colleague, “Don’t bother me with a mass of petty istinas.” That phrase might stand as the epitaph of the USSR, that died of rejecting the existence of istinas, and yet Leftists continue to embrace the idea. Bad cess to them.