Yesterday on "Meet the Press," Joe Biden said that he thinks life begins at conception as a matter of faith, but wouldn't impose his faith on others if he gains higher office. This is the line that Mario Cuomo established at Notre Dame 24 years ago– I think it's murder but many other people disagree, so I'll put that aside. Myself I've always wondered about the dodge, but I'm voting for Biden and so I approve the moral cutout. I mean, I don't think these people really think it's murder; they're modern; so why don't they take on their church?
But for more than a quarter century, Catholic teaching on abortion has been problematic politically in the U.S. Why isn't Jewish teaching re Jerusalem and the Land of Israel problematized? Why isn't it openly scrutinized, and discussed, and Jewish public figures compelled to distinguish their points of view: My rabbi tells me we have a biblical deed to all of Jerusalem, but I understand that Muslims see this differently, so I will put my teaching aside. Jeffrey Goldberg struck a blow on all this when he called out the Sheldon Adelsons of the world in the NY Times last spring. Finally, some controversy. Connie Bruck promptly followed suit in the New Yorker.
Most of these religious teachings are nonsense. They are goobledygook or doctrine. Maybe life begins at conception, but what kind of life at conception? How many of us who quail at the idea of even second-term abortion care about the morning-after pill? Jerusalem is similar stuff. Jewish religious/political beliefs are helping to burn down the Middle East. I look forward to a time when American Jewish political figures show the responsibility of Catholic ones.
P.S. One other religious point. My friend Mark passed on this WSJ article saying that Sarah Palin was born Catholic but went in for Aseembly of God then another non-demoninational evangelical church in adult life. Catholicism seems to be delaminating some. Earlier this year I noted that Episcopal churches are losing numbers rapidly. This is evidence of the secularization of the elites. Joe Biden, Catholic, and my wife, Protestant, and I, Jew, probably agree on a number of critical social norms that violate our natal doctrines–from abortion to the historical Jesus to the right to intermarry. But our groups have merged, and necessarily, because we are part of the privileged consort that is now running the U.S. and those norms don't comply with leadership of multicultural information-age America. Except for the Land of Israel beliefs. Which are almost never called out.
There is no possible Biblical deed to land.
The most that Torah can instruct is that Jews should endeavor to acquire land legally in Jerusalem. And, that Jews should bear a to the bone affinity sentiment to Jerusalem.
But, title is a human institution, and a temporal one.
There is also the ten commandments, which compel Jews to "not covet thy neighbor's possession" and "to have no other gods before thee".
I regard the ten as firm, authoritative, intrinsic and possible to be institutionalized in ethic and law.
The rest is by adoption, and consent of the adopters, but not in law of land or of humanity, more of law of specific community.
A Reality check on Liberal Zionism:
From the Angry Arab Blog (angryarab.blogspot.com): As'ad Abu Khalil responds to Eric Alternam:
The American Left and the Middle East: the case of Eric Alterman who blames the Palestinian people for being victims of clebrated and glorified Israel. This long article by Eric Alterman explains the fundamental and deep problem that advocates of the Palestinians have–and will always have–with the American Left. I have written critically about the National magazine before in its (mis)treatment of the Palestinians, and Arabs in general, but this is a new low. This is a long rambling tribute to Israel on its "birthday": to celebrate the birthday of Israel is like celebrating the birthday of a murderer, with cakes and fireworks and poetry.
Read this long article and you shall notice that Eric Alterman in his long travel or trip to Israel he did not speak to ONE PALESTINIAN—not one Palestinian. This is the typical colonial mentality that characterizes the writings of the American left on Palestine. The Palestinians are not not human, and certainly they are not full human beings for Mr. Alterman. Oh, no: in fact, he tells you that the Palestinians in Israel (in the pre-1967 occupation lines) were better off before 1967, that is when they were placed like people in a large prison camp. The Palestinians inside Israel were better off when they were placed under military occupation on their own land, in their own homeland.
These liberal American writers would be called blatant racists if they were writing about apartheid South Africa, but they are called liberals when they write about the Palestinians. Only in America, indeed. This underlying contempt for Palestinians explains why he (Alterman) would refer to Benny Morris (a proud justifier of ethnic cleansing) "controversial". Would Mr. Alterman refer to David Irving or some other white supremacist or anti-Semite merely as "controversial"?
But it is wrose, he not only blames the Palestinains for their own tragedy, but he even blames them for the few mistakes or shortcomings that he finds in Israel. He tells you (citing the authority of some other Israeli he spoke to) that: ""When Arabs stopped voting for Jewish parties in the middle of the '80s…" In other words, Arabs are blamed for not voting for parties that believe in Jewish supremacy and in the fundamental inferiority of the Paelstinian people. What chutzpah.
And then he says: "The increasing strength of Hamas, the weakness and corruption of Fatah, a rash of suicide bombings, the shelling of Israeli cities from Lebanon and hateful rhetoric emanating from so much of the Arab world have all but drained Israelis of their compassion and patience for the Palestinian "other."" This last passage makes it all clear. Notice for Mr. Alterman not a word about the words, discourse, speeches of hate that are regularly emanting from the Israeli political class about Arabs/Muslims. It is because racism against the interfior people is always justified.
Notice his logic: the Arabs are not only responsible for their own tragedy in their land, but they are also responsible for the non-existence of the peace movement on their other side. This is like saying that blacks in apartheid south Africa are responsible for the racist political system under which they suffered.
Typically, Mr. Alterman focuses on the case of Samir Quntar, repeating verbatim the Israeli official story, which contradicts with Quntar's own version which he told in court, and that testimony was closed off for years, only to be released a few weeks ago. Notice that he mentioned several Israeli killers (Sharon, Barak, and others) but nothing about their victims or about their killings. Because their victims are Arabs who don't count for Mr. Alterman.
You can easily argue that liberal Zionism, a la Mr. Alterman's, does not really differ from say the Zionism of Meir Kahane. Both share a firm belief in the inhumanity of the Palestinian people, and both only see one set of victims: the expensive victims in the conflict.
But you can tell where this writer is going with his piece from the very beginning: notice his nostalgia for the "golden era" of Israel prior to 1967. The era of Kafar Qasim (I doubt that he has even heard of it, or if he did he would not care a hoot about it becuas the vicitms were members of the cheap expendible race) and the destruction of villages, and the shooting at Palestinian civilians who were trying to check on their lands, and the era of military rule and the arrest of poets, like Mahmud Darwish, was an era that Mr. Alterman is fond off.
But in the larger scheme of things: what does this change? I here only remember the words of Lebanese poet Shawqi Bazi` in the poem, Ayman: about the child who refuse to die and who "caries his corpose and fights". And if Mahmud Darwish once warned Israelis in a poem that we are writing down in a notebook all the masscares that they are committing, we should in the same vein say: that we–those who belong to the critical anti-Zionist left–and who care for peace and justice will never forget the insults that the Nation magazine and other liberal outlets have hurled at Arab victims over the years. Personally, I will never foget or forgive that Tom Hayden, for example, was cheering Israeli soldiers on an Israeli warship when I was being mercilessly bombarded by Israeli warships in the summer of 1982.
Posted by As'ad at 9:06 PM (9/7)
How can the belief in a scriptural right of Jews to land be compared to a religious belief that abortion is wrong? That's weak.
If I'm not mistaken, it's usually a crime to kill an unborn child in an assault on a pregnant woman- even if the killing is not intentional.
I guess that in the case of unintentional infanticide, the mother is considered the victim, and for pro-abortion types, there is no victim in an abortion. I don't think anyone even needs to ask who the victim is according to Jewish doctrine.
What does modernity have to do with anything?
You say:
"Joe Biden, Catholic, and my wife, Protestant, and I, Jew" . . ..
You are doubtless right about the last two, but Biden is probably better characterized as a crypto-Jew. Zionist-controlled Wikipedia refers to him as of English heritage on his father's side and Irish heritage on his mother's, and he has not objected. But then see this about his Iraqi Jewish grandfather:
link to judicial-inc.biz
"I mean, I don't think these people really think it's murder; they're modern; so why don't they take on their church?"
Abortion is an economic crime, in that women understandably feel that, lacking the support of our rapacious, solipsistic society, they will be placed at economic jeopardy by having the child. Also, (obviously), it involves killing the developing baby in the mother's body. If you don't want to refer to such an action as 'murder,' then call it what you like. Call it a chocolate chip cookie. But keep in mind that calling a dog a cat doesn't make it a cat.
Why should either politician "take on their church?" Possibly they understand something that you don't, Phil: that, despite the awful hypocrisy and shame of the pedophilia scandals, the Church might just be right about the nature of human dignity?
I like to contrast Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale' with P.D. James's 'Children of Men.'
Abortion is not a creative act. Ask ANY woman who elected NOT to have an abortion, 10, 15 years down the road, whether they regret their decision.
As an aside, this anti-war papist would include Nazism, Communism, and all forms of collectivism under the rubric 'modern.' Tens of millions of deaths engineered by despotic collectivism. Why ally yourself with the forces of death?
Flame away, boyz.
http://genealogy.suite101.com/article.cfm/joe_bidens_ancestry_irish_catholic_heritage
Judicial Inc is notoriously unreliable.
Great post Oarwell. Abortion is murder, just look at a sonogram. The image appears to be a baby, not a blob.
And some of the greatest proponents of abortion in our country were/are Jews (Betty Freidan and the rest of the gang at NARAL).
You can only have two grandfathers. Biden's father's side of the family was living in Maryland for over a century before he was born. His mother's side of the family, the Finnegans, came over from Ireland at about the time of the potato famine. There's no Iraqi Jewish grandfather in his family tree that I can find.
Both Cindy McCain and Laura Bush have said they oppose the repeal of Roe v Wade, but McShrub promises to appoint the guys who'll do that. Narrowing the issue to repeal or not to repeal should help Obama, even if McShrub can rightfully say that he's the only one in favor of change on that issue. Of course, the mainstream media won't let this issue get much attention.
–
Aloha ~~~ Ozzie Maland ~~~ San Diego
Judicial Inc is often unbalanced in its views, but it makes up for it by uncovering secrets no one else will discuss. Do look at the link. What is one to make of the pictures?