It would seem that the "Democratic" in NJDC refers specifically to the party, not the system of government--all 18 people on the list are Republicans.

It would further seem that the NJDC is actually interested in promoting the political interests of a portion of secular Jews, not really promoting "Jewish issues," and especially not concern for the state of Israel.

How exactly did Cynthia McKinney not make this list? She's had plenty of instances that were unfriendly to Judaism, the most recent of which is that her campaign website links to an anti-semitic blog.

Then again, she's a Democrat.

Seth is correct that few are targeted for their views on Israel. I counted only one: Ron Paul, because he (like Tony Judt) says out loud what many only say in private regarding some Israeli lobbies' undue influence on American policy.

The rest are guilty of being too close to the Christian Right. American Jews have simply remembered that they have traditionally been the most vocal proponents and vigilant guardians of the wall separating church and state because they see it as the key to their equality. So their list of most Backwards 18 makes perfect sense. And it is a Democratic (as in party) pac.

Thinking people ought to reconsider the automatic pass Jewish organizations are given. A relating of the story about the little boy who cried wolf would be in order to those Jewish groups that are,in fact, shouting wolf.

Boy who cried wolf, anonymous? Are you familiar with the situation at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs?

Jewish organizations put up with much of the Christian Right's antics regarding church/state separation because of their unwavering support for hard-right hawks in Israel. Not so much any more, thank goodness.

Methinks the NJDC is not so much a "Jewish organization" as it is an adjunct of the DNC. The same could be said for some "Christian" groups, as well.

Um... what's the big deal supposed to be here? The group is entirely up front about being the voice of the Jewish sub-bloc of the Democratic Party; see, e.g., their "About" statement here:
http://www.njdc.org/about/

Their views on church-state separation and abortion rights (and the idea that those two issues are closely connected) is typical of the U.S. Jewish community on the whole -- which is probably part of why Jews are such a reliably Democratic group on the whole.

Moreover, the right likes to pretend that "support for Israel" and "support for the most hardline Likkudnik policies for Israel" are one and the same.
A great many American Jews, and of course a great many Israeli Jews, do not see things that way.

So, a group that claims to speak for Democratic Jews does, in fact, speak for Democratic Jews; and most of the views they express are those of the majority of American Jews more generally. And the problem with this is... what?

They may be up front about their affiliation with the Democratic Party, but they claim that their Backwards 18 selections are based "on issues of importance to the American Jewish community," and that these 18 people "are the worst of the worst for the Jewish community in the 109th Congress." Also, "Their priorities are out of touch with the Jewish community."

No, it not surprising that a bunch of Democrats would compose a list of Republicans who they oppose, or that they would select people primarily for taking conservative or arguably conservative positions on a small number of issues. However, this group claims that the issues and positions that cause people to be placed on this list are important to and opposed by the "Jewish community," and that these people are "the worst of the worst for the Jewish community," even though most of the issues and considerations that appear repeatedly in the explanations are no more relevant to the "Jewish community" than to anyone else, and would be relevant to the members of this Jewish community as individuals only (not in their capacity as members of the Jewish community), and do not involve hostility to Jewish people.

The problem with this is that it is misleading, and it implies that these 18 people take positions that are hostile to the Jewish community, as opposed to positions that Jewish people are statistically unlikely to support.

"The problem with this is that it is misleading, and it implies that these 18 people take positions that are hostile to the Jewish community, as opposed to positions that Jewish people are statistically unlikely to support." But your gloss of "hostile to the Jewish community" is not at all a good rendering of their "issues of importance to the American Jewish community". Your gloss would be a very loaded one, tantamount to an accusation of anti-Semitism. And I think the site is pretty careful not to be making that kind of accusation.

It's also different from issues that are merely involve "positions that Jewish people are statisticaly unlikely to support". There are certainly issues that meet that minimal description that are not a focus of any of the discussion on their site -- the war in Iraq being the most prominent such example. Rather, they are concerned with positions that Jewish Americans are unlikely to support _for reasons connected to their own understanding of Jewish values & experience_. You can't tell me that separation of church & state isn't a position of obviously relevant importance to Jewish Americans, and that's clearly the overwhelming issue of importance throughout the list of the 18. And as I suggested above, their views on abortion rights (and stem cell research) is often connected to the idea of church/state separation, i.e., seeing the pro-life movement as attempting to impose their own version of Christian values on the rest of the nation. A broad commitment to social justice is also frequently seen as part of what it means to be a good Jew, which is why things like the Katrina reconstruction are relevant. So it's really not misleading at all.

This also shows that Seth's initial word choice "hijacked" is really very badly mistaken. While on the topic of that last sentence: I read the abstract of the Klinghofer book on amazon, and honestly I have no idea what the point of citing it here was meant to be. So Seth may want to spell that out a bit more, if it was supposed to be important.

Rest assured Karl, chuch/state separation is "highly relevant" to the Jewish community, as is the public financing of religion, stem cell research, and the teaching of 'intelligent design' as science in public schools. Somehow I'm getting the impression from this thread that the Christian Right is a little upset that their honeymoon with certain American Jewish groups appears to be over. Abe Foxman of the non-partisan ADL has been openly warning about efforts to `Christianize America', and now the partisan NJDC is running into the pocket he opened.

Ralph Reed was the fresh, moderate face who was able to provide cover for those Jewish leaders who got under the covers with his Christian Coalitian. Well, Ralph's gone now and these same Jewish leaders are left with the likes of James Dobson and D. James Kennedy and Jewish leaders are uncomfortable and ordinary Jews are angry. It didn't go unnoticed BTW, that after Foxman made critical remarks directed at the Christian Right, a Focus on the Family leader (in an interview in the (Jewish) Forward, threatened to pull his organization's support for Israel.

My word choice was not really very badly mistaken at all. Klinghoffer stresses the point that groups such as the NJDC and the Anti-Defamation League do not represent "Judaism" in the least. Their members espouse liberal social policies as well as theological tenets, baptizing them "Jewish" simply becuase a number of the constituiency darken the threshold of the local synagogue twice a year. Klinghoffer (raised a secular Jew who rediscovered the fullness of his Faith during a failed engagement to a lapsed Catholic) notes such a "Jewish" identity has historically never been considered "Jewish" at all, but rather indicative of the failed reformed congregational Judaism of 19th-century Germany. See, generally, Moses Mendelssohn. In Europe this movement died with WWII: Those left either became completely secular or more pious; the attempt to assimilate with the kulturprotestantismus was untenable.

In America Judaism never experienced such a change, and the belief that a Jew can embrace the secular/protestant zeitgeist of America, all the while remaining "Jewish," still entices. As Klinghoffer opines, such a construction of Judaism is at odds with the recognized historical identity of Judaism, which embraces more than a title or synagogue registration - Judaism includes diet, dress, worship (with regards to the German chorale tradition of the reformed congregations), and familial identity far beyond what this new "Judaism" includes.

And this is Klinghoffer's central point: Call a spade a spade. As the Talmudic sources have consistently stated, the Temple authorities were responsible for the death of Christ, and rightly so - under the Law anyone leading the People astray should be "hung from a tree." And, similarly, becuase of this event, Judaism has been able to continue as Judaism in the Western culture that such an event fostered. Don't waste our time and christen something "Jewish" when it has absolutely no relation to any historical, theological, or social Jewish identity, but rather reflects a pixelated conception of Judaism no different than the Herodian Jews of yore.

Who ever claimed that the NJDC and the ADL represent "Judaism?" They represent Jews. And sorry, but these days Jews are just not very happy with the Christian Right.

And I'm sure all of Jewish America is anxiously awaiting Klinghoffer's upcoming Doubleday book, “Why God is a Republican: An Honest Look at the Politics of the Bible.”

JohnS,

I realize Dr. James Dobson is the boogeyman of the moment on the left, but could you explain to me why you think he's worse than Ralph Reed was?

Also, please provide a link for your claim that "a Focus on the Family leader...threatened to pull his organization's support for Israel." I did a search in The Forward and the only article I found that mentioned Focus on the Family was this one:

http://www.forward.com/articles/evangelicals-launch-voter-drive-to-boost-conservat-1/

OK, upon looking again I found it:

http://www.forward.com/articles/blasts-campaign-to-%E2%80%98christianize%E2%80%99-american-lif/

"Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family’s vice president of government and public policy, called Foxman’s speech 'perplexing.' Noting that the evangelical groups Foxman cited are staunch supporters of Israel, Minnery told the Forward, 'If you keep bullying your friends, pretty soon you won’t have any.' He suggested that Foxman is prone to exaggeration. With his effort against 'The Passion,' Foxman 'predicted the sky would fall, and the sky has not fallen,' Minnery said."

I don't think Minnery was threatening to pull FotF's support of Israel (I don't see that happening any time soon for any reason) as much as he was pointing out that Fox's rant against Christian groups was miguided, but you're welcome to your own opinion.

As phil pointed out, this is really all much ado about nothing. Conservative Jews like Don Feder and Michael Medved are still allied with conservative Christians, while liberal Jews are still opposed to their agenda.

"Don't waste our time and christen something "Jewish" when it has absolutely no relation to any historical, theological, or social Jewish identity...."

Um, except for the main historical, theological, and social Jewish identities of the last couple hundred years or so of one of the main extant Jewish demographics (i.e., diaspora Ashkenazim), which is also the main Jewish demographic in this country. If you don't understand the contemporary practices of reform Judaism, well, I'm sorry, but that's just a reason for you not to blog about it. It's not an excuse to label it non-Judaism.

To believe that only practices that trace back to the templar days of the religion -- and the practice of the templar classes was itself only one element of even the Judaism of its day! -- is just plain silly. It's about as philosophically well-founded as those who urge contemporary Christians to adopt first-millenium practices as getting back to the "real" church.

Phil, thank you for your kind response, but the statement you quoted was my attempt at summarizing Kinghoffer's argument, not my personal observation. If you find this to still warrant your comment that I hold no understanding of current Jewish demographics, so be it.

Eric

I realize Dr. James Dobson is the boogeyman of the moment on the left, but could you explain to me why you think he's worse than Ralph Reed was?

I frankly don't know that Reed shouldn't have been considered just as threatening as Dobson to those who regard to church/state separation as fundamental to their religious freedom. He just APPEARED less threatening and more moderate, and that provided the cover some Jewish leaders needed back then to ally themselves with the Christian Coalition.

And I agree with you that this is much ado about nothing. NJDC is a Jewish PAC allied with the Democratic Party. What's so hard to figure out with regards to their choice of most backward 18 members of Congress? Don Feder and Michael Medved notwithstanding, well over 70% of Jewish voters went with John Kerry in the last election.

But your gloss of "hostile to the Jewish community" is not at all a good rendering of their "issues of importance to the American Jewish community". Your gloss would be a very loaded one, tantamount to an accusation of anti-Semitism.

In the introduction to the list, it also approvingly quotes the organization's executive director as he calls these 18 people the "worst of the worst for the Jewish community."

Rest assured Karl, chuch/state separation is "highly relevant" to the Jewish community, as is the public financing of religion, stem cell research, and the teaching of 'intelligent design' as science in public schools.

In general, the separation of church and state (when it is an accurate characterization of the issues involved -- and in the way they use it to explain how each of the 18 was chosen, it apparently is not an accurate characterization) probably is "highly relevant" to the Jewish community, but the other three examples you give (and abortion, which actually seems to be this organization's most important issue, since it was raised in each of the 18 brief profiles, even when the individual's pro-life voting record wasn't particularly impressive) are far less relevant, and are relevant only as a part of the church/state concern.

The "public financing of religion" does not even seem to be discussed by NJDCPAC, though a few of the objections that NJDCPAC does raise are arguably public financing of religion (intelligent design, the Ten Commandment monument on public property, and what NJDCPAC calls the proselytizing of religion in the military academies).

The teaching of intelligent design is probably relevant, but it is only mentioned in reference to 3 of the 18.

Finally, the stem cell research and abortion issues have no apparent relevance to members of the Jewish community in their capacity as Jewish people. Individual Jewish people surely have their own beliefs about whether these things should be allowed, and they may even be statistically more likely than other Americans to think that they should be legal, but that does not mean that taking that position has anything to do with Judaism or any of the things that make them Jewish. Second, unlike the other issues, abortion and stem cell research bans are not the imposition of religion in any meaningful sense. If abortion and stem cell research were banned, the only connection between religion and the bans is that religious voters and activists would probably have been an important factor in creating it. The religious freedom of Jewish people would be no more affected than if the same bans had been passed for any other reason.

Seth, you seemed to be citing it approvingly, so I thought that it was a statement of your own views as well as the author's; I'm happy to restrict my comments to Klinghoffer, if you are not in fact endorsing them.

Karl, "worst for the Jewish community" strikes me as at best ambiguous between having badness that is aimed directly at Jews, and just being bad by the light of Jews. And the other statements of what they have in mind are pretty clearly in the latter category. Again, I think they are being exceedingly careful not to be playing the antisemitism card loosely.

I gave a quick gloss above on how issues like stem cell research and abortion are connected in the mind of many Jews, but let me try it unpacked a bit more. I'd start with the idea that if one does not hold that the earliest stages of a pregnancy involve a human person, then restrictions on abortion rights and on stem cell research are going to seem morally abhorrent, as unjustified restrictions on women's freedom and on scientific/medical research. Then consider that, according to much of Jewish tradition and also the considered views of most Jews, embryos do not have the moral status of human persons. Finally, from a contemporary Jewish perspective (and indeed the perspective of most liberals), the dominant public justifications for the claim of personhood for embryos is patently religious, and much of the funding and organizing for the pro-life movement is derived from religious, explicitly Christian sources. Add that all up, and these issues are ones that are both very politically important, and tied up with trying to keep the religious views of particular faiths from setting the terms of public policy. Many Jews are going to disagree with your statement that "unlike the other issues, abortion and stem cell research bans are not the imposition of religion in any meaningful sense", and such bans seem very much like an imposition of a specific religion's values on the rest of the nation. Separation of church & state doesn't just mean the preservation of freedom of religious expression, after all.

You might well disagree with this way of viewing the relations between these issues, and I haven't even tried to argue here that it is a correct way of viewing those relations (though I guess I am partially sympathetic to it). But I am suggesting that it is a coherent way of looking at things, and is a way that is easily available to most American Jews.

Though Seth, if you aren't still willing to endorse Klinghoffer's argument, then perhaps you are also not still willing to endorse your defense of your choice of "hijack"?

hehehe. wat is this webbie about? i mean half the stuff me dont get. ima blonde.