Wired Mesh

I'm impressed by just how terrible this article is, for at least three reasons (though with argumentation as bad as Mr. Abbot's, we probably shouldn't limit ourselves):

First, the crux of Abbot's contention rests in an ad hominem argument: Foxman is presented as a debauched, rotten specimen of a moralist, thereby 'proving' his opinion regarding "The Passion" to be incorrect. This type of argument is not only logically flawed, but embarassingly easy to see through.

Second, after citing a letter appealing to Foxman's Jewish ancestry, Abbot writes: "Of course, the fact that Abraham Foxman is Jewish has nothing to do with his ideology.... Indeed, the ideology of Foxman...stems...[from]the malady of liberalism."

In the first place, why bother to bring forward the issue of Foxman's Jewish identity only to declare it a moot point? Clearly Abbot expects the implicit title of "bad Jew" to support his own label of "bad moralist." His subsequent talk about an unconnected liberalism shows itself for the tinny, unsubstantial rhetoric that it is.

But say we take Abbot's contention about liberalism seriously: is it conceivable that Foxman's Jewish identity can have nothing to do with his liberal views? In the narrow conception of Judaism implied by Abbot, conservative Europeans cluster in swaying groups to hold theological discourse over Torah. But Judaism as expressed in 21st century America is every bit as much a social movement as a theological one. For better or for worse, a tradition concerned with social (rather than theological) ideology is a significant part of the heritage of American Jewry, and much of this social ideology has been politically and theologically liberal in nature. Regardless of how Foxman interacts with the Jewish culture, this facet of its history and social pressures will have some sway in the formation of his identity, and it is a significant possiblity that he views his Jewishness and his liberal views as compatible.

A third weakness in Abbot's article, and the one that renders it entirely unworthy of the reader's time, is it's complete dispensation with Foxman's original argument: Abbot clearly thinks that "The Passion" contains no element of anti-semitism, but rather than backing this opinion, he proceeds with a thesis both irrelevant and daft.

There is plenty to say about Christian anti-semitism and its ties to the story of the Passion. It's a topic too often ignored or perpetuated by members of the Church. Perhaps we'll soon see writing on the topic from a beliver in Christ whose comments show some appreciation for nuance, and whose opinions merit more than an discomfited cringe.

Have you noticed that this post looked a whole lot like an essay? It's the bottled-up verbiage that has no outlet at present. I'm reading a hell of a lot of Kant and not really talking to people... I'll try to refrain from pissy monologues (particluarly ones with with misspelled endings) in the future.

Hey, at least you have the internet for healthy, social interaction...

Clearly, you need:

a) a phone call.
b) a blog.

I can provide the first with ease, but I suspect the second will take some convincing. But here's a start: When did your writing get so sharp? Your little essay is superior to anything I've posted in ages.

Also, I'm wondering if your New College class on Judaism has provided you with any insights into why Jewish social ideology "has been politically and theologically liberal in nature."

And I think a worthwhile discussion could take place concerning the traditional Christian/conservative distinction between the "good" Jews who sway around the Torah, and the "bad" Jews who passionately support liberal causes. Is this distinction even halfway accurate, minus the value judgements? And is the semitophilia Christians lavish upon the "good Jews" perhaps even more dangerous than the dislike for the "bad" ones?

I have to go watch a French movie now. Ah, the things we do for NPR.

"And is the semitophilia Christians lavish upon the "good Jews" perhaps even more dangerous than the dislike for the "bad" ones?"

mesh, based on several recent conversations w/ an old Covenant friend (that's "old" modifying "Covenant friend", not "old Covenant" modifying "friend" - though the current context makes that (humorously) possible), i'd have to give a resounding YES to your question. perhaps you have something different in mind than i do...but it seems, oddly enough, that the semitophilia that Christians sometimes lavish on "good Jews" is often for social ideology that is politically conservative in nature - and thus more dangerous...

my apologies for not putting this as sharply as katie :)

also, aaron, were you aware that your name happens to be the acronym for the MEdical Subject Headings of the National Library of Medicine...?

I think I'd like to have more research under my belt before addressing the question of how Christians interact with different aspects of contemporary Judaism. I will say, as an inital response, that the danger to which you allude seems to have more to do with protestant confusion over Covenant theology than it has to do with genuine interaction with Judaism.

Hmm. More thoughts on this to come.

It seems that Christians and Jews alike are holding thier collective breath as they wonder about the possibility of historical accuracy in The Passion, which is scheduled for release next week. You might take an interest in the advice directed to rabbis by the Union for Reform Judaism:

http://rj.org/interreligious/pub/prepare.shtml

Or you might consider the comments of Amy-Jill Levine, "one of the Jewish members of the 'scholar's group' convened by the U.S. Catholic Conference." The article is long, but worth being read.

http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/RINVol6No3/Mel%20Gibson,%20Scribes,%20Pharisees.htm