The November Commentary is not online yet, but I’m a subscriber, and it contains an article by a Christian theologian, R.R. Reno, that justifies the Jewish law against intermarriage–including Reno’s own, for which his Jewish daughter is now paying a spiritual price, he relates in a solemn and regretful tone, as he is barred, rightly he says, from joining her on the bima during her bat mitzvah. The article includes an attack on "modern Christianity" over its approval of homosexuality: "[I]t had rejected the very idea that God’s commandments can shape or control how we use our bodies."
Thus Commentary’s conservatism on intermarriage puts it in the company of fundamentalist Christians.
Reno’s interfaith relationship began at Yale in 1985, he says. Two achievers, thrown together–"our lives as students were full of common experiences and common aspirations…in that bastion of American liberalism." Much more unlikely, he says, would be a union between "a young Republican and a Women Studies major."
True indeed. The new sociology of America has made Jews and Episcopalians peers in elite launching pads, the Ivy League. Yes: why not roll that back, and feminism, and gay rights while you’re at it.
Related posts:
- ‘Commentary’ prints a sparkling gem of ’50s anti-Semitism, absent the usual moralizing
- The Media Slam Religion-n-Politics–When It’s Christian Republicans
- Since When Is ‘Commentary’ for the Two-State Solution?
- Paranoid Style in Jewish Politics: ‘Commentary’ Offers WORLD TERRORISM WALL MAP to New Subscribers
- ‘Commentary’ seeks to discredit charge that Gaza attack was ‘disproportionate’ without even citing casualty figures
{ 3 comments }
should we ban his religion? maybe the politically correct police can go through the christian bible and cross out the things not permissible by the secular elite?
what the talmud says about me as a christian and about jesus who is to me my Lord and Saviour does not affect me one iota, because that is their religion and their view and as long as they dont go on a pogrom after me for being what their books say i am, i really could care less about what they choose to worship in the sanctity of their synogogues or homes.
the enlightened crowd ought not to assign themselves the task of trying to change peoples religious beliefs.
inclusivity means accepting someones elses beliefs and not calling it hatred…as long as they dont make it the mandated law of the land, which is what the inclusivity crowd does when they try to make religious people criminals for believing something.
thought crimes are not crimes.
the law can prosecute a criminal for assault regardless of whether the individual assaulted was left handed or curly haired or talked with a lisp.
assault is a crime, believing that someone is going to hell isnt.
Jews and Episcopalians: God's Chosen People and God's Frozen People–a marriage made in Heaven, no less!
But the question is will Jews support a Christian state in the same way that some a demanding a Jewish state?
Why it is plurality for you, but not for me?
Do you have enough self respect to stand up to that? I doubt it.
Do Jewish organizations and other organizations led by Zionist Jews abide by "live and let live" for Christians, showing that religion some moderate level of respect and a proper place in the public dialog?
Only you can decide for yourself, but I would have to say, in general, no.
Comments on this entry are closed.