So I go to the GOP convention in NYC to see what I can see and where I can go without being run out of town on a rail. You know, just to see how the other half lives. I figured it would be fun to impersonate a Republican at the events, knowing that my usual work attire of business suit with Tricia Nixon pearls and tasteful but sorority-sexy footwear would stand me in good stead with the other GOP attendees. I was not to be disappointed, as my evil plan came together in ways I could only have dreamed—and also in ways that I could only have conceived in a nightmare.
I had earlier heard about the party thrown by David Dreier which apparently featured nearly-naked women hanging from trapeze-style rafters in a bowling alley-themed party, according to the breathless report I received. WHAAAAT?!?! Isn’t this the party of morals, manners and What Would Jesus Do? How would the Pat Robertsons of the party react to the news that their very own members were throwing a Pussycat Dolls-style show—to reportedly positive reactions from the faithful?! I was SHOCKED, I tell you! And these were the same people “disgusted” by the “theatrics” at Paul Wellstone’s funeral. The GOP doth protest too much methinks…
So, unwilling to miss another T&A affair, I attended the BAMPAC event, honoring Senate candidate Alan Keyes, and featuring Virginia Senator George Allen, in the hopes of seeing some hot girl-on-girl action. Dang. It was not to be. Instead, the room was a veritable who’s who of both African-American and Caucasian “serious” conservative glitterati. Armstrong Williams, Secretary of Education Rodney Paige, Texas Railroad Commissioner, the Chief of Staff to Dennis Hastert, not to mention Allen and Alan.
DC Mayor Anthony Williams also attended, and just narrowly escaped my hilarious attempt (as a DC resident) to make his life a living hell by interrupting any huzzahs for him with “Hey! Why don’t they pick up my garbage on time?! What’s going on at City Hall? Huh?!” I sort of feel for Mayor Williams, because the guy could cure cancer and show up to accept his Nobel Prize, and he would still face yuppie wieners like me saying, “Well, that’s all well and good, but my recycling hasn’t been collected in weeks! Are you asleep at the wheel?!’
So—getting back to the attempt to pass for a ‘Pub. It was all going so well, even without the naked chicks hanging from the rafters. I was clapping lightly for “limited government! Lower taxes! Sanctity of Life!” It was all good. And then it started to unravel. My first sign that things were going downhill was a “gentleman” who started talking to me at the bar, telling me that Barack Obama is a “closet Muslim” because Barack was the name of “Muhammad’s flying horse.” He rolled his eyes and couldn’t hide his contempt: “I mean, he SAYS he’s Christian, but his name is Barack; it’s like the most popular name for Muslims besides Muhammad. Who is he kidding? And, I mean, who rides a flying horse, right? That right there shows that the whole religion is a crock—and so is he.” Okaaaaaay. My first Compassionate Conservative.
And then Ambassador Alan Keyes gets up to speak. He is doing his as-expected dog-and-pony about the Illinois race, riffing on the glowing introduction provided by Senator Allen, offering platitudes about personal responsibility and self-reliance. I clapped politely. Then he offers his one sentence answer to the question, “Why should we re-elect George W. Bush?” And it mirrors exactly the Republican noise machine’s message: “If you want this country to survive the war on terror; if you want to be secure and to keep your families safe, there can be no choice for you but George W. Bush.” WHAT????!!! That is the living definition of “tautology” if ever I have heard it. You need to vote for the guy who started the war on terror in order to survive the war on terror, which was started by the guy who you need to vote for in order to survive the war on terror which you will not survive without voting for the guy who started the war on terror…. And then, as if that wasn’t enough, he breached the prime directive of fair play in politics. He walked up to the line of common courtesy, of basic human decency and morality…and he leapt over it with gusto. He bolstered his “you have to vote for GWBush” argument with “because you can’t trust someone who went to Vietnam and then came home and dishonored every single brave man with whom he served. That is wrong and you can’t trust a man with your security who would do that to his brothers in arms!” Again: WHAAAT?!!!! I would think that the ONE PERSON who does get carte blanche for eternity to protest a war is the man who has fought it. Wouldn’t you? Where was “Ambassador Keyes” during Kerry’s time of distinguished service in Vietnam? Perhaps he was dishonoring the men who served by finding ways not to join them? Where was his sense of personal responsibility then?
So. How did my grand experiment as a Republican interloper end? As suddenly and as fanfareless as it began: I walked out. Disgusted. Sad. Sickened. Ready to get back to my own people. Ready to stop pretending that Choice is evil and that government is evil and that people who don’t support GWBush are evil. And ready to write another check to Kerry Edwards ’04.
Short Story Long: It is at first hysterically funny and then bowel-lurchingly scary to hang out with people who vehemently and vitriolically demand personal responsibility and morality in everyone’s behavior but their own…and who wield the power of the Supreme Court to make it happen. They put a happy, compassionate Laura Bush face on it, but theirs is a scary, scary party. If being a GOP mole has taught me one thing it is that Democratic failure in 2004 is not an option.
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Sunday, August 29, 2004
Smorgasbord: "Smells Like Boy"
I travel a lot for work. Spend inordinate amounts of time on planes, trains and automobiles. Have more than my share of quasi-intimate encounters (ie, side-by-side eating, drinking, sleeping) with what I shall politely call “Men of a Certain Odor.”
I don’t know what it is, but a good portion of the men I have the misfortune to sit near while travelling, quite simply stink. And they all seem to have that same odor that my good friends Carol, Julie and I have named pithily: “Smells Like Boy.”
Ask any woman and she will know what you mean when you say that a room or a car “smells like boy.” Women whose husbands have a basement or attic “Man Town” where he and his buddies drink beer and watch games and play video games will understand Smells Like Boy. Women who attended colleges with all-male dorms or floors will understand Smells Like Boy. Women dating men who live alone and don’t get the chance to clean up before we come over will understand Smells Like Boy. Women who have parented even one male child through adolescence will understand Smells Like Boy.
Be it pheromones, hormones, or the sweating out of last night’s buffalo wings hot sauce, men in general have a “boy smell” that is as distinctive as any odor on earth. I can neither describe nor deconstruct it, but to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of p**nography: “I know it when I smell it.” It is not the well-earned and completely understandable smell of a post-workout guy, or a just-walked-home-from-the-train-station-in-90-degree-heat guy, or (Dad, don’t read the next sentence) the kinda yummy just-spent-20-minutes-making-out-with-me-like- high-school-kids-at-the-movies guy. Nope. It is a smell all together sui generis.
Short Story Long: The travelling men in question tend to be between the ages of 16 and 36. They are usually dressed in what look like clean clothes, but upon further olfactory reflection, were probably worn a few times and picked up off the floor for today’s outing. Their breath is usually fine, but their hair/scalp odor is usually not. Maybe they shower but don’t shampoo? Their armpits usually don’t reek, but their feet usually do. But not in the way that you can pinpoint that it is indeed footstink more than perhaps shoestink. It is essentially a generalized miasma surrounding their entire person that is neither BO nor halitosis nor athlete’s foot. It is just, honestly, no offense intended, “Smells Like Boy.”
I don’t know what it is, but a good portion of the men I have the misfortune to sit near while travelling, quite simply stink. And they all seem to have that same odor that my good friends Carol, Julie and I have named pithily: “Smells Like Boy.”
Ask any woman and she will know what you mean when you say that a room or a car “smells like boy.” Women whose husbands have a basement or attic “Man Town” where he and his buddies drink beer and watch games and play video games will understand Smells Like Boy. Women who attended colleges with all-male dorms or floors will understand Smells Like Boy. Women dating men who live alone and don’t get the chance to clean up before we come over will understand Smells Like Boy. Women who have parented even one male child through adolescence will understand Smells Like Boy.
Be it pheromones, hormones, or the sweating out of last night’s buffalo wings hot sauce, men in general have a “boy smell” that is as distinctive as any odor on earth. I can neither describe nor deconstruct it, but to paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of p**nography: “I know it when I smell it.” It is not the well-earned and completely understandable smell of a post-workout guy, or a just-walked-home-from-the-train-station-in-90-degree-heat guy, or (Dad, don’t read the next sentence) the kinda yummy just-spent-20-minutes-making-out-with-me-like- high-school-kids-at-the-movies guy. Nope. It is a smell all together sui generis.
Short Story Long: The travelling men in question tend to be between the ages of 16 and 36. They are usually dressed in what look like clean clothes, but upon further olfactory reflection, were probably worn a few times and picked up off the floor for today’s outing. Their breath is usually fine, but their hair/scalp odor is usually not. Maybe they shower but don’t shampoo? Their armpits usually don’t reek, but their feet usually do. But not in the way that you can pinpoint that it is indeed footstink more than perhaps shoestink. It is essentially a generalized miasma surrounding their entire person that is neither BO nor halitosis nor athlete’s foot. It is just, honestly, no offense intended, “Smells Like Boy.”
Political: Why The World Needs Confident Men
In September’s GQ magazine, John Kerry offers the following statement on what he looks for in a woman:
"Look for what gets your heart. Someone who excites you, turns you on. It's a quality of character. It's a kind of presentation. Sense of womanhood. Full woman. Confident. It's a woman who loves being a woman. Who wears her womanhood. Who knows how to flirt and have fun. Smart. Confident. Has a sense of self. Strong. And obviously sexy and saucy and challenging."
I was delighted to read that Senator Kerry agrees that a woman can be smart AND sexy AND confident AND challenging…AND consequently be devastatingly attractive to a man.
I have always detested the old adage that “behind every great man is a great woman” on the grounds that it was sexist, irritating bullsh**. Now I realize its essential truth, but in a different way than it was intended, and in the spirit of what I believe Senator Kerry was trying to say in GQ. I now believe it is true because only a man with true greatness in his future will have the stones to choose a smart, challenging and sexually-confident woman with whom to spend his life. Because if he has the sense of self to be challenged in his personal life by an equal, he will have the fortitude and emotional intelligence to achieve meaningful success in external pursuits. Courage in the former presages courage in the latter.
Or, to break it down, I’ll just say it like this and let the feathers fly how they may:
Any runt of a man can find a docile woman who constantly says yes and "whatever you want is fine with me and I will never call you on bad behavior” to marry. Sad to say, those women are out there and already have the Bride Magazine clippings in an alphabetized Wedding Binder awaiting your proposal over a romantic date that mirrors the latest episode of The Bachelor. If that’s what you want, by all means have at it, gentlemen. I know you are out there too.
But it takes a truly confident man to find a “saucy and challenging” woman attractive in the first instance, and to know in his heart that she is exactly what he needs in a partner in the second instance. Therefore, to my mind, men-as-potential-partners (and Presidents) can be characterized (and judged) on that one key value: Confidence. All other sought-after qualities will likely come under this one value (see Fidelity, Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, Intelligence, Kindness, Sensitivity). In love as in electoral politics, if you find a man with confidence, you will have struck gold in all the ways that matter.
I do not speak of “confidence” in the chest-beating, “hasta la vista baby,” get-her-in-bed-everytime-and-get-rock-hard-abs-this-month, Donald Trumpian-huge-ego definition shouted ad nauseum on the covers of “lad magazines” such as Maxim or FHM. Theirs is nothing but a pale imitation of the real thing:
Rather than develop it, here is how to fake it. Feeling less-than-confident? Get a load of these naked women looking at you seductively (albeit from the pages of this magazine…). Get better abs. Get better sex every time. Get more money. Get more people to like you.
But confidence does not come as a result of having these things; rather, these things come as a result of having confidence.
Let us catalog a few of the ways in which true, healthy confidence in a man is the foundation for a healthy relationship and a healthy Republic:
Truly confident men do not view success and fulfilment as a zero-sum game. In both love and in politics, a confident man understands that the best solutions, the best negotiations, the best situations are win-win. He does not minimize or impede another’s successes (or tell lies about their distinguished service to their country), because he already has confidence in his own (or not…).
Truly confident men do not need the empty adoration of multiple partners to feel attractive and virile (Fidelity). They do not need to taint their honor for a meagre allotment of ego boosting, be it from women, alcohol, gambling, certain swing states or special interest groups (Honor, Integrity). They do not abdicate their responsibilities, because they know that they are doing the best they can with the best of intentions (Responsibility). They do not blame others for their shortcomings, but rather take the lessons they have learned and inculcate them into their behavior moving forward (Honesty, Sensitivity). They do not view simple human kindness, in national policy or personal practice, to be a sign of weakness (Compassion). They know their limits and therefore comfortably surround themselves with people talented in all they ways they are not (Intelligence). In short, confident men are not perfect. They simply know the difference between making it and faking it.
I’ve been with both kinds of men; I’ve loved them, worked with them, taken classes with them, reported to them, done business with them, voted for them. I’ve seen the harm a man without confidence can do; the type of harm that ripples out in every direction imaginable, with consequences he can’t erase, pain he can’t undo, and subsequent corrective decisions he can’t bring himself to make because he doesn’t have the confidence to admit his mistake, learn his lesson, and take his lumps like a man. Whether the result is a war in Iraq or a shady business dealing or a deceitful sexual fling, a man without confidence is a man without moral or ethical boundaries.
In love as in electoral politics, a confident man can love a confident woman (or a confident, smart electorate), admit when he is wrong, turn the tide of hurt feelings (or public opinion) on the credibility of his word, and give those around him their own confidence to do their best work.
Short Story Long: John Kerry, you had me at Hello.
"Look for what gets your heart. Someone who excites you, turns you on. It's a quality of character. It's a kind of presentation. Sense of womanhood. Full woman. Confident. It's a woman who loves being a woman. Who wears her womanhood. Who knows how to flirt and have fun. Smart. Confident. Has a sense of self. Strong. And obviously sexy and saucy and challenging."
I was delighted to read that Senator Kerry agrees that a woman can be smart AND sexy AND confident AND challenging…AND consequently be devastatingly attractive to a man.
I have always detested the old adage that “behind every great man is a great woman” on the grounds that it was sexist, irritating bullsh**. Now I realize its essential truth, but in a different way than it was intended, and in the spirit of what I believe Senator Kerry was trying to say in GQ. I now believe it is true because only a man with true greatness in his future will have the stones to choose a smart, challenging and sexually-confident woman with whom to spend his life. Because if he has the sense of self to be challenged in his personal life by an equal, he will have the fortitude and emotional intelligence to achieve meaningful success in external pursuits. Courage in the former presages courage in the latter.
Or, to break it down, I’ll just say it like this and let the feathers fly how they may:
Any runt of a man can find a docile woman who constantly says yes and "whatever you want is fine with me and I will never call you on bad behavior” to marry. Sad to say, those women are out there and already have the Bride Magazine clippings in an alphabetized Wedding Binder awaiting your proposal over a romantic date that mirrors the latest episode of The Bachelor. If that’s what you want, by all means have at it, gentlemen. I know you are out there too.
But it takes a truly confident man to find a “saucy and challenging” woman attractive in the first instance, and to know in his heart that she is exactly what he needs in a partner in the second instance. Therefore, to my mind, men-as-potential-partners (and Presidents) can be characterized (and judged) on that one key value: Confidence. All other sought-after qualities will likely come under this one value (see Fidelity, Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, Intelligence, Kindness, Sensitivity). In love as in electoral politics, if you find a man with confidence, you will have struck gold in all the ways that matter.
I do not speak of “confidence” in the chest-beating, “hasta la vista baby,” get-her-in-bed-everytime-and-get-rock-hard-abs-this-month, Donald Trumpian-huge-ego definition shouted ad nauseum on the covers of “lad magazines” such as Maxim or FHM. Theirs is nothing but a pale imitation of the real thing:
Rather than develop it, here is how to fake it. Feeling less-than-confident? Get a load of these naked women looking at you seductively (albeit from the pages of this magazine…). Get better abs. Get better sex every time. Get more money. Get more people to like you.
But confidence does not come as a result of having these things; rather, these things come as a result of having confidence.
Let us catalog a few of the ways in which true, healthy confidence in a man is the foundation for a healthy relationship and a healthy Republic:
Truly confident men do not view success and fulfilment as a zero-sum game. In both love and in politics, a confident man understands that the best solutions, the best negotiations, the best situations are win-win. He does not minimize or impede another’s successes (or tell lies about their distinguished service to their country), because he already has confidence in his own (or not…).
Truly confident men do not need the empty adoration of multiple partners to feel attractive and virile (Fidelity). They do not need to taint their honor for a meagre allotment of ego boosting, be it from women, alcohol, gambling, certain swing states or special interest groups (Honor, Integrity). They do not abdicate their responsibilities, because they know that they are doing the best they can with the best of intentions (Responsibility). They do not blame others for their shortcomings, but rather take the lessons they have learned and inculcate them into their behavior moving forward (Honesty, Sensitivity). They do not view simple human kindness, in national policy or personal practice, to be a sign of weakness (Compassion). They know their limits and therefore comfortably surround themselves with people talented in all they ways they are not (Intelligence). In short, confident men are not perfect. They simply know the difference between making it and faking it.
I’ve been with both kinds of men; I’ve loved them, worked with them, taken classes with them, reported to them, done business with them, voted for them. I’ve seen the harm a man without confidence can do; the type of harm that ripples out in every direction imaginable, with consequences he can’t erase, pain he can’t undo, and subsequent corrective decisions he can’t bring himself to make because he doesn’t have the confidence to admit his mistake, learn his lesson, and take his lumps like a man. Whether the result is a war in Iraq or a shady business dealing or a deceitful sexual fling, a man without confidence is a man without moral or ethical boundaries.
In love as in electoral politics, a confident man can love a confident woman (or a confident, smart electorate), admit when he is wrong, turn the tide of hurt feelings (or public opinion) on the credibility of his word, and give those around him their own confidence to do their best work.
Short Story Long: John Kerry, you had me at Hello.
Friday, August 27, 2004
Smorgasbord: Fun Facts for the Wonk-Inclined
Trivia, miscellany, and plain old fun facts from the good people at Harper's Weekly.
As Abraham Lincoln once said: "People who like this sort of thing will find that this is the sort of thing they like."
Harper's Index
As Abraham Lincoln once said: "People who like this sort of thing will find that this is the sort of thing they like."
Harper's Index
Political: John Kerry's 1971 Speech Revisited
Click this link to read an update of John Kerry's speech from 1971. It is a fantastic piece of work by Edgar's End Notes.
EdgarNewt.com
EdgarNewt.com
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Religious: Jews for Jesus OR, More Accurately: Christians
Y'all. This is where my gloves come off.
I was just given the missionary treatment by two Jews for Jesus representatives at the Foggy Bottom metro station. For the first woman, I just gave her the "Talk to the Hand" move and kept walking. The guy saw me coming and persisted in trying to give me literature. I stopped in my tracks and said, "Emphatically Not." I would have kept talking but I felt like I would say too much, too angrily, too publicly.
So here I am. Telling you. Jews for Jesus are what I respectfully call *CHRISTIANS.* I will not even discuss the slamdunk fact that proves my point (the group's origins as a Christian evangelical offshoot), but will focus on the basic beliefs that make their claims to be Jews for Jesus impossible.
Jews for Jesus are not Jews. If they want to be Former Jews Who Have Accepted Jesus As Their Lord and Savior, then I will throw them the renaming party myself and give them all the honor and respect that conveys. Truly. I think it goes without saying that in this day and age, most of us (at least the people I would associate with anyway), firmly believe in and would fight for anyone's right to practice and devoutly believe in the religion of their choice. That is not the issue. The issue is that Jews For Jesus are, as the first page of their web site says, committed to "evangelizing unsaved Jews." They believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Jews do not. Which, therefore means, quite easily and simply: they are not Jews.
I will simply say this: Jews are waiting for the Messiah. Christians already know who he is and await his RETURN. The two are, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. If my messiah has not yet arrived, I cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ. If you believe that Jesus is the Christ/the Messiah, then you cannot, by definition, be Jewish.
Obviously there are so many other tenets that comprise both Judaism and Christianity, but can we all agree that these would be, oh, the kinda important, elemental ones? Imagine if you will, a group called Muslims for Jesus. Sound ludicrous? You bet it does. Why? Because "there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet." Islam 101. Kind of rules out the Jesus thing, right? Imagine if you will Christians for Simon Bar Kokhba (check your Roman/Jewish war history for military leaders as putative messiahs-based-on-military-victories). Christians for Bar Kokhba just makes no sense, to Christians as well as Jews.
So--why is that everyone is so easily led down the primrose path by Jews for Jesus? Because Jesus was a Jew? Because it sure would help in the "can't we all just get along?" effort? I don't know. But here's what I do know: the straight dope on Jews and the Messiah, right outta the Torah. So hear me out--and then I can get off this topic because it raises my blood pressure, which creates broken capillaries, which mars the face and legs, which detracts from the radiance of my milky white complexion. Many Thanks for hearing me out.
(Thanks to the good people at Jews for Judaism for helping me with the specifics here):
The Jewish tradition of "The Messiah" has its foundation in numerous biblical references, and understands "The Messiah" to be a human being - without any overtone of deity or divinity - who will bring about certain changes in the world and fulfill certain criteria before he can be acknowledged as "The Messiah".
First of all, he must be Jewish - "...you may appoint a king over you, whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you." (Deuteronomy 17:15)
He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - "The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet..." (Genesis 49:10)
To be a member of the tribe of Judah, the person must have a biological father who is a member of the tribe of Judah.
He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13).
He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)
Are all Jews living in Israel? Not yet.
He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - "...and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.." (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)
At last check, there is NO Temple in Jerusalem.
He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)
How are we doing on this one?
He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)
The Torah is the Jewish guide to life, and its commandments are the ones referred to here. Do all Jews observe all the commandments? No we don't. I ain't proud, I'm just speakin' the truth.
He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23)
There are still millions, if not billions of people who practice Hinduism, Buddhism, and many other religions. It is clear that we have not yet seen this period of human history unfold.
All of these criteria are best stated in the book of Ezekiel Chapter 37 verses 24-28:
And David my servant shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. they shall also follow My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Yaakov my servant, in which your fathers have dwelt and they shall dwell there, they and their children, and their children's children forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an everlasting covenant with them, which I will give them; and I will multiply them and I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore. And my tabernacle shall be with them: and I will be their G-d and they will be my people. Then the nations shall know that I am the L-rd who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary will be in the midst of them forevermore.
If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah." A careful analysis of these criteria shows us that to date, no one has fulfilled every condition.
Short Story Long: And so, as Jews, we wait....while avoiding the green T-shirted missionaries in the train stations and airports!
I was just given the missionary treatment by two Jews for Jesus representatives at the Foggy Bottom metro station. For the first woman, I just gave her the "Talk to the Hand" move and kept walking. The guy saw me coming and persisted in trying to give me literature. I stopped in my tracks and said, "Emphatically Not." I would have kept talking but I felt like I would say too much, too angrily, too publicly.
So here I am. Telling you. Jews for Jesus are what I respectfully call *CHRISTIANS.* I will not even discuss the slamdunk fact that proves my point (the group's origins as a Christian evangelical offshoot), but will focus on the basic beliefs that make their claims to be Jews for Jesus impossible.
Jews for Jesus are not Jews. If they want to be Former Jews Who Have Accepted Jesus As Their Lord and Savior, then I will throw them the renaming party myself and give them all the honor and respect that conveys. Truly. I think it goes without saying that in this day and age, most of us (at least the people I would associate with anyway), firmly believe in and would fight for anyone's right to practice and devoutly believe in the religion of their choice. That is not the issue. The issue is that Jews For Jesus are, as the first page of their web site says, committed to "evangelizing unsaved Jews." They believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Jews do not. Which, therefore means, quite easily and simply: they are not Jews.
I will simply say this: Jews are waiting for the Messiah. Christians already know who he is and await his RETURN. The two are, for all practical purposes, mutually exclusive. If my messiah has not yet arrived, I cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ. If you believe that Jesus is the Christ/the Messiah, then you cannot, by definition, be Jewish.
Obviously there are so many other tenets that comprise both Judaism and Christianity, but can we all agree that these would be, oh, the kinda important, elemental ones? Imagine if you will, a group called Muslims for Jesus. Sound ludicrous? You bet it does. Why? Because "there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet." Islam 101. Kind of rules out the Jesus thing, right? Imagine if you will Christians for Simon Bar Kokhba (check your Roman/Jewish war history for military leaders as putative messiahs-based-on-military-victories). Christians for Bar Kokhba just makes no sense, to Christians as well as Jews.
So--why is that everyone is so easily led down the primrose path by Jews for Jesus? Because Jesus was a Jew? Because it sure would help in the "can't we all just get along?" effort? I don't know. But here's what I do know: the straight dope on Jews and the Messiah, right outta the Torah. So hear me out--and then I can get off this topic because it raises my blood pressure, which creates broken capillaries, which mars the face and legs, which detracts from the radiance of my milky white complexion. Many Thanks for hearing me out.
(Thanks to the good people at Jews for Judaism for helping me with the specifics here):
The Jewish tradition of "The Messiah" has its foundation in numerous biblical references, and understands "The Messiah" to be a human being - without any overtone of deity or divinity - who will bring about certain changes in the world and fulfill certain criteria before he can be acknowledged as "The Messiah".
First of all, he must be Jewish - "...you may appoint a king over you, whom the L-rd your G-d shall choose: one from among your brethren shall you set as king over you." (Deuteronomy 17:15)
He must be a member of the tribe of Judah - "The staff shall not depart from Judah, nor the sceptre from between his feet..." (Genesis 49:10)
To be a member of the tribe of Judah, the person must have a biological father who is a member of the tribe of Judah.
He must be a direct male descendant of King David and King Solomon, his son - "And when your days (David) are fulfilled, and you shall sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who shall issue from your bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will make firm the throne of his kingdom forever..." (2 Samuel 7:12 - 13).
He must gather the Jewish people from exile and return them to Israel -"And he shall set up a banner for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." (Isaiah 11:12)
Are all Jews living in Israel? Not yet.
He must rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem - "...and I will set my sanctuary in their midst forever and my tabernacle shall be with them.." (Ezekiel 37:26 - 27)
At last check, there is NO Temple in Jerusalem.
He will rule at a time of world-wide peace - "...they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Micah 4:3)
How are we doing on this one?
He will rule at a time when the Jewish people will observe G-d's commandments - "My servant David shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall follow My ordinances and be careful to observe My statutes." (Ezekiel 37:24)
The Torah is the Jewish guide to life, and its commandments are the ones referred to here. Do all Jews observe all the commandments? No we don't. I ain't proud, I'm just speakin' the truth.
He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one G-d - "And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, says the L-rd" (Isaiah 66:23)
There are still millions, if not billions of people who practice Hinduism, Buddhism, and many other religions. It is clear that we have not yet seen this period of human history unfold.
All of these criteria are best stated in the book of Ezekiel Chapter 37 verses 24-28:
And David my servant shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. they shall also follow My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Yaakov my servant, in which your fathers have dwelt and they shall dwell there, they and their children, and their children's children forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an everlasting covenant with them, which I will give them; and I will multiply them and I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore. And my tabernacle shall be with them: and I will be their G-d and they will be my people. Then the nations shall know that I am the L-rd who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary will be in the midst of them forevermore.
If an individual fails to fulfill even one of these conditions, then he cannot be "The Messiah." A careful analysis of these criteria shows us that to date, no one has fulfilled every condition.
Short Story Long: And so, as Jews, we wait....while avoiding the green T-shirted missionaries in the train stations and airports!
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Political: A Lie Can Travel Half Way Around The World...
...while the truth is putting on its shoes.
It stuns me that the media, who were so recently caught with their pants down in their failure to fulfill their role as the Fourth Estate in the now-discredited Bush Administration's "proof" of WMD-in-Iraq-as-justification-for-the-war saga, would STILL be repeating and re-airing the baseless charges by the Swift Boat Veterans.
It is ironic indeed that while John O'Neill of the SBVFT accuses Kerry of dishonesty and being unfit for command, he himself has been lying about his connection to and involvement with the GOP. If Mr. O'Neill is so confident in his charges levelled against Kerry, why not just be honest about his--and his cohorts--and his law firm's--connection to the Bush Campaign, the Bush Family, and the Republican Party in general?
O'Neill's Donations
This Just In: CNN's Aaron Brown aired this piece last night showing VIDEO proving that O'Neill has been lying.
JOHNS: Behind the scenes, Kerry's aides were fighting the swift boat charges with unusual ferocity. They say they have evidence one of the top members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is an outright liar.
The co-author of the book "Unfit for Command," former swift boat commander John O'Neill said Kerry made up a story about being in Cambodia beyond the legal borders of the Vietnam War in 1968.
O'Neill said no one could cross the border by river and he claimed in an audio tape that his publicist played to CNN that he, himself, had never been to Cambodia either. But in 1971, O'Neill said precisely the opposite to then President Richard Nixon.
O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.
NIXON: In a swift boat?
O'NEILL: Yes, sir.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JOHNS: Now, O'Neill may have an explanation for this but he has not returned CNN's calls. What does seem clear is that a top member of the swift boat group is now being held to the same standard of literal accuracy they've tried to impose on John Kerry
Short Story Long: How quaint. Holding yourself to the same standard of truth as your opponent. A novel and revolutionary idea in the lawless, reckless and feckless exercise that is now American politics.
It stuns me that the media, who were so recently caught with their pants down in their failure to fulfill their role as the Fourth Estate in the now-discredited Bush Administration's "proof" of WMD-in-Iraq-as-justification-for-the-war saga, would STILL be repeating and re-airing the baseless charges by the Swift Boat Veterans.
It is ironic indeed that while John O'Neill of the SBVFT accuses Kerry of dishonesty and being unfit for command, he himself has been lying about his connection to and involvement with the GOP. If Mr. O'Neill is so confident in his charges levelled against Kerry, why not just be honest about his--and his cohorts--and his law firm's--connection to the Bush Campaign, the Bush Family, and the Republican Party in general?
O'Neill's Donations
This Just In: CNN's Aaron Brown aired this piece last night showing VIDEO proving that O'Neill has been lying.
JOHNS: Behind the scenes, Kerry's aides were fighting the swift boat charges with unusual ferocity. They say they have evidence one of the top members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is an outright liar.
The co-author of the book "Unfit for Command," former swift boat commander John O'Neill said Kerry made up a story about being in Cambodia beyond the legal borders of the Vietnam War in 1968.
O'Neill said no one could cross the border by river and he claimed in an audio tape that his publicist played to CNN that he, himself, had never been to Cambodia either. But in 1971, O'Neill said precisely the opposite to then President Richard Nixon.
O'NEILL: I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border on the water.
NIXON: In a swift boat?
O'NEILL: Yes, sir.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JOHNS: Now, O'Neill may have an explanation for this but he has not returned CNN's calls. What does seem clear is that a top member of the swift boat group is now being held to the same standard of literal accuracy they've tried to impose on John Kerry
Short Story Long: How quaint. Holding yourself to the same standard of truth as your opponent. A novel and revolutionary idea in the lawless, reckless and feckless exercise that is now American politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)