Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

July 21, 2009

CANTOR WANTS A 'JUDEO-CHRISTIAN' FOREIGN POLICY.... I don't expect much in the way of depth from House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.), but if he could explain what a "Judeo-Christian" foreign policy would look like, I'd sure appreciate it.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told Christian Zionists that U.S. policies in the Middle East must be "firmly grounded" in Judeo-Christian principles.

"Reaching out to the Muslim world may help in creating an environment for peace in the Middle East, but we must insist as Americans that our policies be firmly grounded in the beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which this country was founded," said Cantor (R-Va.), the House minority whip and the only Jewish Republican in Congress, in a speech to the Christians United For Israel annual conference in Washington.

Now, Cantor has never been a Jeffersonian when it comes to honoring the separation of church and state, but to argue publicly that the foreign policy of the United States must be "firmly grounded in the beliefs of the Judeo-Christian tradition" is pretty out there for anyone, much less a member of the congressional leadership.

Cantor added that the "real stumbling block" to peace in the Middle East isn't "settlements or Jerusalem or refugees," but rather, "those who vehemently deny the nation of Israel's historical right to the land of Zion."

Remember, a while back, when Republicans would say that Eric Cantor, more than most GOP policymakers, is a credible, serious voice, who deserves to be taken seriously? Good times, good times.

* Update: Jon Chait notes that Cantor's position is "perfectly explicable." Chait adds, "It's also perfectly nuts."

Steve Benen 2:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (73)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

The Cantor sees himself as a presidential candidate -- let's hope he doesn't crash and burn right off the plate, because that should be a fun run.

Posted by: SteinL on July 21, 2009 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told Christian Zionists that U.S. policies in the Middle East must be "firmly grounded" in Judeo-Christian principles.

Can't he just buy a giant bag of foreskins on Ebay?

Posted by: JM on July 21, 2009 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

Jesus F'ing Christ Almighty!

Posted by: CJColucci on July 21, 2009 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

"...the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which this country was founded".

Not positive, but I don't think there are many Indians left to pillage. Because if there is one thing the J-C God HATES, it is Indians. OK, two things; Indians and Blacks. No, make that 3 things; Indians and Blacks and Gays. Wait. Indians and Blacks and Gays and Democrats. Better just make that 100 things.

Posted by: Chopin on July 21, 2009 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

I agree with Cantor. The Christian thing to do is cut off funding to Israel ($3 billion/year) until they stop expanding settlements on Palestinian land.

Posted by: Chris on July 21, 2009 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

That's funny "Judeo-Christian foreign policy" as if the Jews and the Christians have had ANY foreign policy in common for the last 2000 years. Until the last 50 years, As I understand it, the Christian's foreign policy towards Jews has been to toss them out of nation after nation.

He's a real comedian. I suspect though, it's one of those code phrases the Republicans use to indicate the end of the world is at hand or something along those lines.

Cantor should be cool though, abovid the abstruse, and talk about something useful.

Posted by: Kurt on July 21, 2009 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

There may not be much depth in Cantors utterings, but the meaning of his statement of a 'Judeo-Christian foreign policy' with respect to Palestine is pretty clear:

If Israel has a 'historical right to the land of Zion', then Judea and Samaria as well as the whole of the city of Jerusalem belong to the state of Israel, ergo there is no place for an independent Palestinian state and possibly also no place for the Palestinian people in Palestine.

Rightwing Likud ideology at its worst.

Posted by: SRW1 on July 21, 2009 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

Numbers 33:55, baby!!!!

Go old school!

Posted by: toowearyforoutrage on July 21, 2009 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Plus I sure would like to know how Cantor defines 'Zion' and where he draws the borders between it and Greater Israel. Is it the Jordan or as Genesis suggests the Euphrates?

This kind of distinction is especially important when talking to groups of Christian Zionists who are likely to take a more expansive view.

Posted by: Bruce Webb on July 21, 2009 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

From the office of Eric Cantor:

As I have said...

The "real stumbling block" to peace in the Middle East isn't "settlements or Jerusalem or refugees," but rather, "those who vehemently deny the nation of Israel's historical right to the land of Zion."

Or even moderately deny our right to the land of Zion. Or even slightly deny our right to the land of Zion. Or who not vehemently proclaim our right to the land of Zion.

A real framework for peace in the Middle East must recognize that:
- The land of Zion includes all of Jerusalem.
- The land of Zion includes all territories so deemed by our religious scholars to be so.
- The land of Zion stretches from the Negev desert to the Golan Heights.

That Muslims and Christians occupy parts of Jerusalem is unacceptable and they must depart.

Anyone who questions our settlements must come to accept that the Palestinians are squatters in these parts of the land of Zion and must be removed.

It matters not whether these intruders upon the land of Zion leave peaceably or from force or from burial, they must leave and then we can have peace in the Middle East.

And if any f*cking Arab or Iranian denies this, they must die!

Posted by: Erik Canter on July 21, 2009 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

The Judeo christian foreign policy would come from the 10 COMMANDMENTS The first two as noted by GOD are Thou shalt LOVE thy lord , thy God with all thy heart , with all thy mind and with all thy soul. The second commandment is Thou shalt LOVE thy neighbor as thyself. I doubt Mr, Cantor understands this concept.

Posted by: ML johnston on July 21, 2009 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

There is no historical right, just an old testament right and books of fiction don't really give anyone rights!!!

Posted by: lilybart on July 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, Senator? How 'bout this..."Article I/Amendment I/
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Not there is such a religion as "Judeo-Christianism", but Cantor is full of crap, anyhow. The face of the "New" Republican party, huh?

Posted by: Epicurus on July 21, 2009 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

He probably wasn't talking about "thou shalt not kill" either, but it would be a good place to start.

Posted by: tomeck on July 21, 2009 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

Cantor is Jewish so I don't think he buys into the End Times or the Rapture, since he won't be Raptured and in the End Times, jews are tossed into the lake of fire, so, good on him to align himself with the Christians!!

Posted by: Lilybart on July 21, 2009 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

If Cantor's snippet of a quote says anything, it says he knows shit about our heritage and polity! Any person who tries to sell anyone the proposition our nation was established first and foremost on a Judeo-Christian doctrine is ignorant to the historical facts, and perhaps stupid to verifiable evidence that undermines their misnomered perception of our nation's origin.

To Cantor, for his fantacized view of our history, I say, what a fucking idiot - go home and stop embarrassing your nation and its ideals! -Kevo

Posted by: kevo on July 21, 2009 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Cantor added that the "real stumbling block" to peace in the Middle East isn't "settlements or Jerusalem or refugees," but rather, "those who vehemently deny the nation of Israel's historical right to the land of Zion."

At least he's up front with the bullshit. It's the new Republican style: premature & incomplete proposals, cartoonish theatrics, bipolar personal upheavals, blatant hypocrisy, and a refusal to confront the destructive effects of consumption. Their fatal attraction to destruction draws them to the Middle East year after year to whack at every hornet's nest.

Given the total bankruptcy of the Republican program, "Israel's historical right to the land of Zion" is as good a lie as any to cover whatever deeper forces drive him to foment conflict.

Posted by: Boolaboola on July 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

OT...my best bumper sticker for Repugs...
WHAT WE SAY DOESN'T NEED TO BE TRUE...IT JUST NEEDS TO BE HEARD!!! For their followers/dittoheads that's all it takes when your brain is on HOLD...

Posted by: Dancer on July 21, 2009 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

If there were no oil in the Middle East, the USA and the other Great Powers would have absolutely zero interest in the squabbling between ethnic and religious groups over their land claims.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on July 21, 2009 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Could somebody please explain to me, exactly what the hell does "Judeo-Christian" mean? There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian" traddition. There is a Jewish tradition and a Christian tradition, but aside from a period of about 3-4 decades two thousand years ago there really hasn't been much overlap. (Makes about as much sense as speaking of a Islamo-Buddhist tradition!)

Why don't people stop with the "Judeo-Christian" drivel and just come out and say anti-Muslim.

Posted by: Chesire11 on July 21, 2009 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Cantor probably actually wants Numbers 31:

7 And they warred against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew every male.
15 And Moses said unto them: 'Have ye saved all the women alive?
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.'

Posted by: Editer on July 21, 2009 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

'Christian Zionists' has all the intellectual credibility of 'Jews for Jesus.'

I thought Republicans were going to rebrand themselves; begging support from anti-Islamic groups is like rebranding ice as frozen water.

Posted by: Monty on July 21, 2009 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

I'm all for it: A Judeo-Christian foreign policy would mean no unjust wars; no invasion of nations or peoples who are not our enemies; no torture under any circumstances; dedication to feeding the hungry, protecting the homeless, and coming along side immigrants seeking a better life; fighting disease; protecting the earth from environmental spoilage. That's what the Bible commands.

Go for it, Eric.

Posted by: TomC on July 21, 2009 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

Eric Cantor is a Crazy Cracker.

Posted by: The Galloping Trollop on July 21, 2009 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Cantor added that the "real stumbling block" to peace in the Middle East isn't "settlements or Jerusalem or refugees," but rather, "those who vehemently deny the nation of Israel's historical right to the land of Zion."

Well, if we're going to go that route we'll need to concede that native Americans own all of the Americas...

BTW, I find it funny as hell/tragic that the Zionists deny "right of return" for the Palestinians but claim it for themselves after 2000 years. Chutzpah, no?

Posted by: John Doe on July 21, 2009 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Cantor added that the "real stumbling block" to peace in the Middle East isn't "settlements or Jerusalem or refugees," but rather, "those who vehemently deny the nation of Israel's historical right to the land of Zion."

I see Cantor's unusual understanding of land rights and raise him:

"trex added that the "real stumbling block" to peace in North America isn't "reservations or Manhattan Island or casinos," but rather, "those who vehemently deny the Native Americans' historical right to the land of Turtle Island."

Posted by: trex on July 21, 2009 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

"Cantor is Jewish so I don't think he buys into the End Times or the Rapture, since he won't be Raptured and in the End Times, jews are tossed into the lake of fire, so, good on him to align himself with the Christians!!" Lilybart

So, since the Christian Zionists only support the existance of the State of Isreal to bring about the end times and the rapture, they must be using him because they believe ...

... and he must be using them because he doesn't.

But considering the anti-Semitism of Christian Zionists (every Jew is going to hell basically) I really find Cantor to be the scuzzer of them.

Posted by: Lance on July 21, 2009 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

The Middle East, bringing Jews, Christians, and NeoCons together in perfect harmony.

I am pretty sure the 'Judeo-Christian tradition' Cantor is referring to is the build up to WWII when we stopped allowing Jew entry into the US.

Posted by: ScottW on July 21, 2009 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

A Judeo-Christian foriegn policy would be marked with righteousness and benevolence to one's brother man (or sister/woman):

* Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
* If your brother (or sister) strikes you, turn thy cheek
* S/he who is without sin may cast the first stone
* Judge not that ye be not judged
* And something about pounding swords into plowshares

Sound about right? Of course, there's lots of evil bits in the Bible we can select from, too.

Posted by: Marko on July 21, 2009 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

considering the anti-Semitism of Christian Zionists (every Jew is going to hell basically)

Insofar as I understand it, 'anti-Semitism' is a term referring to hating people of Jewish ancestry (i.e. race), not to people who believe in the tenets of Judaism (specifically, Zionism).

But even that's wrong: Semitism refers to a language set which includes, among other ethnic groups, Arabs.

Posted by: Monty on July 21, 2009 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Art. 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli ratified by the Senate and signed into law by then-President and Founding Father John Adams: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

Go back to the history books, Mr. Cantor.

Posted by: Piper on July 21, 2009 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

You mean Cantor actually wants American foreign policy to follow the teachings of Christ?! The whole helping the poor and sick, turning the other cheek toward those who have done you wrong, etc. etc. etc.?

Oh ... not so much, huh?

Guess I shouldn't be surprised that yet another Republican failed to get the message (even if the dude's Jewish). Maybe some day.

And can we pllleeeeaaaaaaasssee stop thinking there is ANY Republican out there who is "a credible, serious voice, who deserves to be taken seriously"? There is no such thing any more.

kthxbai

Posted by: Mark D on July 21, 2009 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

By "Judeo-Christian" Cantor means a biblically-based foreign policy. "Judeo" is the Old Testament and "Christian" is the New Testament.

And by biblically-based Cantor means his and only his interpretation of the Bible. It's the absolute Word of God, which as we all know only Cantor can interpret for us.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on July 21, 2009 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

This should be front page news: it's the first time I've ever actually seen a Judeo use the term "Judeo-Christian."

Posted by: The July Fool on July 21, 2009 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

Just as one cannot comfortably fit a square peg into a round hole, so one cannot craft a uniform foreign policy based on Judeo-Christian principles. That's because the main Christian philosophical principle is "Turn the other cheek", while the main Judean philosophical principle is "Smack the other cheek too". The twain shall never meet.

Posted by: exlibra on July 21, 2009 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

I always wonder about Jews who derive comfort from Christian funadmentalist support for the Israel considering that they favor the state of Israel in pretty much the same way a fox is in favor of chicken coops.

Posted by: Chesire11 on July 21, 2009 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

Whenever a Repugnantcan brings out the "J-C" concept for whatever reason...remind them that this country was founded on English Common Law: those that owned property made all the rules while everyone else (chattel) obeyed.


Everything else is bullsh*t

Posted by: Blueslover on July 21, 2009 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

---the nation of Israel's historical right to the land of Zion.---

The oldest documents we have clearly establish that the Egyptians have the oldest historical right to what is now Israel. (Treaty of Kadesh, between the Egyptians and Hittites.) The current state of Israel does not exist by the grace of god, it exists by the grace of Arthur Balfour.

Posted by: Tim H on July 21, 2009 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

...Numbers 31:

God is into genocide?? Oh, wow, that explains a lot. No wonder the world is so f*ed up.

Posted by: slb on July 21, 2009 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

Just read about Gideon in yer Bible. And the Crusades. That should cover it.

Posted by: diamond joe quimby on July 21, 2009 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

The Republican Party isn't particularly partial to Jews in the first place. Kinda Anti-Semitic in real life.

Eric Cantor is the only Jewish Republican in either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate. All other Jews in Congress are Democrats...

Posted by: wilson46201 on July 21, 2009 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Cantor has unwittingly revealed his entire reason for being in government.

Posted by: opeluboy on July 21, 2009 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

Forget it, Mr. Cantor. The people you're sucking up to are still gonna think you helped kill Jesus.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on July 21, 2009 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

Somebody should tell Cantor what the term Zion means in Utah.

Posted by: EJ on July 21, 2009 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

I'm guessing the balance would be a little more Judeo (smiting our enemies!) and a little less Christian (turning the other cheek?).

Posted by: Mikey on July 21, 2009 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

My representative....I dislike him intensely and always vote against him but he's pretty popular and extremely well-funded. The Dems can't seem to find anyone compelling enough to take the district away from him (and I think they believe it's a losing proposition anyway). Maybe we should look for a "Green"?

Posted by: VaLiberal on July 21, 2009 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Guys, (and gals, and anyone else not self identifying with either) the whole 'judeo' part of Christian has nothing to do with Jews. It's the way the nuts get the old testament into the picture. Your average old testament foreign policy? god hates them. Let's kill them all. 'christian zionists' care about Jews like Torquemonda cared about Jews: as a convenient tool. If you really believe Jews will be cast into a lake of fire for all eternity, then what the f@ck do you care about them?

Posted by: Northzax on July 21, 2009 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

That's great. In a region of the globe peopled almost entirely by Muslim's the Republicans are demanding a foreign policy reflective of Jewish and Christian principles. Could they be any more obvious that what they want is a religious crusade?

Posted by: Ted Frier on July 21, 2009 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

Chopin, if you believe THE FAMILY (C Street), God/Jesus also hates the poor and disenfranchised of the world, as evidenced by his many blessings for the rich and powerful.

Posted by: Always Hopeful on July 21, 2009 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

It's not a Judeo-Christian foreign policy of which Cantor speaks -- it's a racist foreign policy, and has been since the beginnings of this country.

If there was anything even vaguely Christian (in only the purely chauvinistic sense) about US foreign policy, the US would stand up for brown Palestinian Christians and brown Lebanese Christians against the slow-motion genocide by white European Zionist colonists.

Instead the US continues to underwrite the cleansing of the holy land of all people of color, and no one should expect that to change under Obama.

Posted by: Disputo on July 21, 2009 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK

Eric Cantor is the only Jewish Republican in either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate. All other Jews in Congress are Democrats... -- wilson46201, @17:40

Yeah, but that's *only* because the Spectral Boy Wonder has deserted the party and that terrible comedian Franken has managed, somehow, to oust the Every Jewish Mother's Dream, Coleman... And we're still waiting for Joe LIE's other shoe to drop :)

Posted by: exlibra on July 21, 2009 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

I am embarrassed that Eric Cantor is Jewish. It's clear that it's only by ancestry because his political positions violate every principle of Judaism.

Posted by: DiL on July 22, 2009 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

The Judeo-Christian policy the right has been spewing for the last decade has made me sick to my stomach. Let's leave religions out of this and just make policies for all based on the "golden rule" or something that the moderate Muslims can buy into also. Or leave all spirituality out and do the things we learned in kindergarten. I'm non-religious so can live with anything but what we have as long as it is ethical and neighborly but doesn't leave us open to the bad guys.

Posted by: rain39 on July 22, 2009 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

go USA go!

Posted by: maritze on July 22, 2009 at 4:52 AM | PERMALINK

nfl jerseys

Posted by: ying on July 22, 2009 at 4:54 AM | PERMALINK

Benen doesn't understand the word "Jeffersonian" nor does he understand the concept of the "separation of church and state" (a phrase which occurs NOWHERE in the Constitution). Jefferson's letter in which he used the phrase was intended to keep the government out of the church, NOT the other way around. [Check it out!] Thus Benen's rantings are just so much hot air with no historical/Constitutional support. And I, too, as Cantor, am sick and tired of the current administration's philosophies and actions which undermine Israel's right to exist (and I'm not Jewish, just for the record). And the fact is that the basis of foreign policy cannot exist in a vacuum/neutrality. If not "Judeo-Christian principles", then what? Non Judeo-Christian (anti-Christian/anti-Judeo) principles? That perspective is just as "out there" and just as "perfectly nuts" as the accusations against Cantor's postition.

Posted by: Peter on July 22, 2009 at 5:27 AM | PERMALINK

From Judges 12:6 - "Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand."

Maybe for the good Congressman Cantor say now something smart and he said huh? for he could not frame to say anything intelligent.

Posted by: Don P on July 22, 2009 at 5:36 AM | PERMALINK

Steve Benen wants an explanation of the "ground[s]" of a "Judeo-Christian foreign policy"? (Those were Cantor's words. He did NOT say that the U.S. should have a "Judeo-Christian foreign policy". According to the article Cantor said that U.S. foreign policy should be "firmly grounded in [i.e., based on] Judeo-Christian principles.]Listen and read carefully, Mr. Benen.) OK, Mr. Benen, here ya go -- directly from the article -- foreign policy should be based on "the nation of Israel's historical right to the land of Zion." If that's too "out there" for Mr. Benen, then I'd conclude that Mr. Benen's opinions are just as "out there". What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Posted by: Tennisman on July 22, 2009 at 5:38 AM | PERMALINK

A "shande fur die goyim."

Posted by: Breindl on July 22, 2009 at 5:40 AM | PERMALINK

Most of you don't have a CLUE what you're talking about! Sitting over there in the US of A and being fed propaganda, when you don't know anything about the situation.

What Mr. Cantor said: the "real stumbling block" to peace in the Middle East isn't "settlements or Jerusalem or refugees," but rather, "those who vehemently deny the nation of Israel's historical right to the land of Zion," is COMPLETELy true! That's the crux of the matter!

Since the days of the Old Testament, before there were such religions as Christianity and Islam, Jewish people inhabited the part of the world known as Israel, even during the times when most Jews had been banished. As everyone knows, Jesus Christ - a Jew - was born in the Land of Israel. His disciples were all of Jewish faith. The New testament was founded on the Old Testament, in the Holy Land. The Jewish people have ALWAYS lived there.

On the other hand, there was no such thing as a "Palestinian people" before the State of Israel was declared. "The Palestinian People" is an anti-Zionist tool created by the (extreme) Arab world.

Yes, there are Muslims who have lived in that part of the world for many generations and they have the right to be there, but together with the Jewish people, not "instead" of them. And surprise, surprise, Arabs, Jews and Christians do all live in Israel and all are allowed to worship freely by Law, whereas if it was a Palestinian state Jews and Christians would NOT be allowed to worship freely.

I believe Jews, Christians and Muslims should all live in Israel together and in peace, but if extremist Muslims (Palestinians and others) do not accept, will not accept, Jewish sovereignty over the state, they should be dealt with and such people should NOT have any rights to live in a country they strive to destroy!

Posted by: bevs on July 22, 2009 at 5:47 AM | PERMALINK

Nowhere did Cantor indicate that Christians and Muslims and people of color "have to go". He simply indicated that the basic principle of Israel's right to exist (something denied by the Palestinians) should be the ground of U.S. foreign policy with regard to Israel.

Posted by: gypsyboyjon on July 22, 2009 at 5:47 AM | PERMALINK

The problem with a policy based upon Judeo-Christian values is whose Judeo-Christian values? The supposed Religious Right does not want to give money to the less fortunate which is in direct contrast with Jesus teachings. They want their taxes lowered, they don't want a National Health plan cause means more money of their pockets -- very little resemblance to a loving caring people. Additionally, many Christians keep talking about Jews and the "promised land" in anticipation of Jesus Second Coming once all Jews return to Israel, but this could be a misinterpretation. For the covenant Jesus speaks of is the covenant of those who come to the Father through Him, through His blood and His sacrifice. The gathering of peoples doesn't necessarily speak about Jews, but instead speaks about Believers in Messiah.

Posted by: CJ on July 22, 2009 at 6:15 AM | PERMALINK

Another episode in the long-running saga of Republican guilt over the holocaust.

The Republicans feverishly opposed US involvement in WWII, which delayed the US entry into the war and condemned millions to death. As a result, ever since then, they've never found a war or an Israeli policy they didn't like.

They were cowards then and, as Cheney et al proved when they were asked to serve, they're cowards now. About time someone started pointing it out.

Posted by: ally on July 22, 2009 at 8:39 AM | PERMALINK

We need a Judeo-Christian foreign policy like we need a collective impacted hair follicle.

Posted by: biff diggerence on July 22, 2009 at 8:47 AM | PERMALINK

You people are deluded... including you, Mr. Benen. You are blissfully unaware of what's staring you ALL in the face.
How sad...
And I'm a Democrat and a liberal, not a Republican, for those who want to label everyone who doesn't think exactly the same as they do. I just take reality into consideration.

Posted by: bevs on July 22, 2009 at 9:14 AM | PERMALINK

Now you see what the non-interventionist Right is up again, politicians who belive in a meaningless, made up phrase like "Judeo-Christian" and believe that phrase should guide our foreign policy, especially in the Middle East.

It's too bad such "Christians" don't show the same amount of concern for their fellow Christians in Iraq who are being ran out of the country and elsewhere in the region.

Posted by: Sean Scallon on July 22, 2009 at 9:56 AM | PERMALINK

I do believe in Jebus, I do! I do! I do! I do believe in Jebus! I do! I do! I do believe in Jebus, I do! I do! Oh wait, it's all bullshit! Ah the religious, go ahead and defy explanation! It's simple (minded), you just have to believe!

Posted by: Gallop Trollop! on July 22, 2009 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

TO ML JOHNSTON: You've got your commandments mixed up. The Ten Commandments do not include "Loving God" and "Loving neighbor as self." Those commandments were issued by Jesus, who claimed that they summed up "the law and the prophets."

Over and over again, I've seen people who insist that our country (and others) need to live according to the "inerrant scriptures" don't even know what the scriptures say.

BTW, devout Christian here, a liberal, who believes that religion belongs in the church, not in our laws and foreign policy. Dudes, that's what church is FOR. It is NOT what the US Government is for.

Posted by: auntieslats on July 22, 2009 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

By the way, there is no question that the Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded, and their laws established, as a Christian polity. But pretty early they started kicking people out (Roger Williams, Anne Hutchinson) who disagreed on various points of doctrine.

But the United States was NOT founded on the principals of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, but by people whose knowledge of the colony's history made them careful to insist that church and state be utterly separate institutions.

Besides, it wasn't all that long before the Massachusetts Bay Colony's Calvinism evolved into Unitarianism, which, with the exception of Episcopalianism, is the least dogmatic, and even the least religious religion in the country.

BTW: For an excellent discussion of the colonial Puritans, read Sarah Vowell's "The Wordy Shipmates." Top-notch research. Also, wonderful humor peppered throughout.

Posted by: auntieslats on July 22, 2009 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and BTW ML Johnston, my comment about Christian government enthusiasm was NOT directed at you, although upon re-reading my post I see that it seems to be. I understand that you're pointing out that Christianists tend to ignore stuff in the Bible that doesn't conform to what they want to do.

My post was directed at them, and my "correcting" of your scripture quote was intended as an agreement with your opinion rather than an attempt to refute it.

Posted by: auntieslats on July 22, 2009 at 11:21 AM | PERMALINK

How about this to settle the issue: You want Judeo-Christian foreign policy? Then we want Judeo-Christian taxes.

Posted by: Marko on July 22, 2009 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

Judeo-Christian foreign policy?!! The traditions this country was founded on? Oh, please! I am so tired of this old moldy myth. My family has been here since before the Revolution. We were New Amsterdam Dutch and, believe me, we didn't come here for Judeo-Christrian principles. We came here for cash, cold hard cash in the beaver trade. And, oh yeah, land. We wanted land, a precious commodity in the Netherlands. My ancestors barely ever saw the inside of church and, quite frankly, I resent these Judeo-Christian newcomers. Pfui!

Posted by: Pickwick on July 22, 2009 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

"History" to Republicans is just making up whatever "facts" supports their political positions. The Founding Fathers were Deists. Modern Republican talking points have nothing to do with the nation's origins.

Posted by: Orley Allen on July 22, 2009 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly