I just saw where Gore picked Sen. Lieberman to be his running mate. All politics aside, I was stunned that in the Reuters article, they referred to the fact that there was a Gallup poll which said that something like 92% of Americans would be willing to vote for someone who was Jewish, up from 42% back in 1947. I'm stunned that in America, a Gallup poll was done on someone's religion and whether or not it mattered -- that in the article quoted, he was deemed to have been an even bigger slam dunk / shoo-in for the job had he been something like Episcopalian.

I know this looks like it mixes politics and religion, but what I'm really asking is -- how could this even be an issue? In a country founded on religious freedom, among others -- a country which has gone through such negatives as betrayals and lies by politicians, if a man's record is good and he is respected by his peers, what difference should his religion even make? Does it appall you that they even brought it up?

What sorts of things show up as an issue to you that just shocks you?

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

Answers

On this issue, remember, Jewish can be both a religious affiliation or an ethnic classification. Not all Jewish people are of Jewish ancestry, and vice-versa. Also, some folks might make a voting opinion about either issue.

A person's religious affiliation does matter. Especially if it provides some insight on how they approach life. I would be shocked if reporters did NOT ask about religious affiliations! In fact, my vote could change based upon what I learn of one's religious outlook. For example, I would never knowingly vote for someone who worshipped Satan, evil, or pecans. Neither would I vote for someone who would be holding animal sacrifices in the Orifice Office. As lonmg as what the individuals did was not too against MY outlook on life, I defer the basis for my decisions to their public record. However, character is bone deep, and I think a scoundrel will be a scoundrel in many, many ways. It's not something I think they can turn on and off at will.

Few items shock me anymore with regard to politics. It's a brutal game and I'm not sure I can tell if there are any good folks left in it. Bush seems like a "Good" guy so far ... but I'll wait until the election to see what dirt is sniffed up. If anything dirt is there, I am confident our media will find it on all conservative candidates.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

Lieberman is good news for "Hillary!", he will help her in New York.

Lieberman is good news for the kids of America because he supports school choice.

He was a bit slower to fall to his knees for Clinton during impeachment than most of the other congressional demos.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

Religion is so much of an issue because Protestants make it such an issue. Just like when Kennedy, our only Catholic president, was elected, the Catholic thing is a big deal.

People don't trust what they don't know, especially self-righteous, right wing Protestants, led by the likes of Jerry Falwell (sp?), Billy Graham, and Jimmy Swaggert, who encourage and perpetuate misinformation about other denominations, specifically Catholics and Jew peoples.

Narrow-minded, self-centered, uneducated bigots is what they are...

...in my most humble opinion. (please no mone flame me, even though I'm inviting it by my rant.)

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

For more information on the religious right, go to an article on Mother Jones(of course, you'll get a new window.)

Among things they note this about Pat Robertson...

"After his failed 1988 presidential bid, Pat Robertson founded the Christian Coalition. Robertson's 1991 book, The New World Order, charged that a cabal of Freemasons and Jewish bankers is leading the Western world to ruin."

And people believe him!

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

JewISH peoples....

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

Please note that my description of these ideas in no way constitutes endorsement of same.

There will be folks out there who will assume that a Jewish candidate is going to spend his entire time in office capitulating to Israel. I don't think these feelings are as strong as they used to be, but they are definitely out there. When I was in college (a mere 10-12 years ago), I took a class on U.S. politics and the Arab/Israeli conflict, and I was astonished by the amount of vitriol and hatred on all sides of the issue -- from those of Arab descent, from Jewish students, from other students who felt Israel had too much control over our foreign policy. There was definitely a feeling that Jewish members of congress had divided loyalties.

And having attended such a church for some time in my youth, I can guarantee you that some (by no means all or even a majority) Protestant churches will be having sermons about turning our government over to Israel. Count on it.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

Yes Beth, just like Protestants thought that a Catholic President would have divided loyalties between America and Rome. Growing up Catholic I never understood this as all Christians are called on to put God above all else...including country. Catholics are just more obvious about it. However, as the recent religion polls showed Catholic views now come second to last for me (after conservative protestant ha) so I don't know why I am talking about it.

A note about Pat "the Giant Leprechaun" Robertson. He is looney. I grew up in the city that Pat has decided to call home, Virginia Beach. Pat actually goes around telling people that a hurricane hasn't hit Virginia Beach since he moved there because he is there. All those people whose homes and lives have been destroyed over the past 15 years by hurricanes must not be GOOD enought to turn away hurricanes. Whatever.



-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

I think it's a good thing to break the non-Christian barrier here. However, I'm not too sure about Lieberman.

The press is referring to him as a "moderate Democrat" these days, but twelve years ago when he ran for the Senate, William F. Buckley, Jr. backed him against the Republican candidate, Lowell Weicker. Imagine that: Buckley supporting the democratic candidate against the republican incumbent. Granted, Buckley and other Republicans were still angry with Weicker for his role in taking Nixon down, but still. In the election, there was massive voter crossover: Democrats voted for Weicker, and Republicans voted for Lieberman. It was truly odd.

It's possible that Lieberman's record since then has been moderate; I moved across the country soon after he took office and haven't been keeping track. But I've still got a bad taste in my mouth from 1988, and it'll take some convincing to make me feel comfortable with him.

That campaign, incidentally, was one of the nastiest I've ever seen. Lieberman can be a brutal competitor. He may liven the race up quite a bit.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

Apparantly a Louisana senator said, in response to a similar question that religion isn't that big a deal anymore and it "doesn't matter what church you go to on Sunday."

So I guess ignorant people are at all levels.

Also, Jim, I got the impression from the cnn.com transcript of his speech that Lieberman came down pretty hard on Clinton, especially considering they are personal friends.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

I kinda assume these things ARE issues when there is such a statistical rarity.. I mean isn't he the only jewish person to be nominated for vice prez? the only one ever? by its absence, jewishness (religion and/or ethnicity) was already an issue, just like race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc, etc.

I'm actually impressed that the percentage (of polled folks who said they would be willing etc) was so high. I was kinda assuming there is still anti-semitism, racism, classism and many systems of discrimination in our society. It's one explanation for the homogeneity (albeit better in some ways than in the past) you still see at the top. If you don't think religion/race/gender/class etc are still issues, how do you explain the complexion of especially our senate and presidents (and our Death Rows)?

But apart from the point xeney makes (about perceptions), people's religion does affect the decisions they make while in office. of course. so it's obviously an issue. I mean if someone was running whose religion dictated certain moral absolutes that you don't (or do) believe in, why wouldn't you be concerned?

and also, which part of this country was founded on religious freedom? The part that hanged Quakers on the Boston common? The part that shot Catholics as supposed agents of Spain? The part that kidnapped native american children in the interest of converting them away from their own religions?

I'm not shocked that people are discussing Lieberman's religion. I'm interested that someone Jewish has been chosen now, when never before. I'm also interested in the mythologies --about what is fundamentally "American"-- that rise to the surface during election time.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

Flash: Conservative protestants are rejoicing about the selection of Lieberman as Algore's VP. Lieberman has been their best friend in the Democrat party for years, agreeing with them on school choice, gay marriage, parital birth abortion and abortion notification, SDI, and the need for a cultural return to traditional values.

Anyone thinking that Jerry Faldwell or Pat Robertson will be upset about Lieberman is just living in cloud-cuckoo land.

The VP debate will be pretty dull, since Cheney and Lieberman agree on almost everything.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

When Lieberman's name was first raised a week or so ago, the main thing I heard mentioned was his Orthodox faith. It was reported that, as an Orthodox Jew, he uses no technical devices on the Sabbath. The question was raised, how would he handle this aspect of his life if he were president.

I haven't heard that mentioned again, do I don't know if he's not "that" Orthodox, or if it was answered, or ... if it will be asked again. I found it a matter of curiosity, not a problem.

I'm thrilled to see that we've made this step forward, that there's a belief that a candidate's non-Christian status won't be a hindrance.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

I don't think it matters what religion a candidate claims, but it matters very much how that religion affects the candidate's political views. I want to know if a candidate is a Christian fundamentalist, for example, because then I know to pay close attention to his views on abortion, gay rights, etc. It doesn't automatically win or lose anyone my vote, but it does focus my thinking on those issues the religion is likely to influence. C. Everett Koop, for example, was a conservative Christian, but he was also the only one in the Reagan White House to approach AIDS as a public health issue rather than a moral one. Had he ever run for elective office, I would have been inclined to vote for him, wheras I'd vote against Pat Robertson. In Lieberman's case, I am not so concerned about his views on Israel, but if he is a conservative Jew, he could be as dangerous as a conservative Christian. I have already heard (and have to check this out) that he favors legislating the media and curtailing free speech.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

Anyone thinking that Jerry Faldwell or Pat Robertson will be upset about Lieberman is just living in cloud-cuckoo land.

Lieberman is an anomaly in the Democratic party in that regard. That was not my point... Many people who are right wing, or unknowingly influenced by the right wing, will be turned off by Lieberman simply because of his religious preference – regardless of his voting history, his stance on the issues, party affiliation, etc... They'll be afraid, like Beth said, that he'll pander to Israel the whole time and try to use his power in office to promote his faith & beliefs across America.

And just because someone has a strongly held belief system does not mean that they use only *that* in discerning important decisions. Alan Greenspan's fiscal policy belies his dedication to Objectivism & everything Ayn Rand, for prominent example.

-- Anonymous, August 07, 2000

I forgot to finish making my point... which is they will hear "Orthodox Jew" and that's the very last thing they'll hear, unless it is negative.

Not all right-wingers are going to do this, but I can guarantee you it will be a prominent issue.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

I think that Lieberman's Orthodox Judaism will be an issue for the left, as well. It is not exactly the most woman-friendly religion in the world. While there is no indication that Lieberman is sexist in his work or social interactions, he belongs to a faith which propagates some very archaic beliefs about women. I would feel the same way if he were a Southern Baptist or a member of any other conservative religious group.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

My mum told me a story once of how, back in 1960 when Kennedy was running for president, the Baptist church she attended instructed all its members to pray that Kennedy wouldn't become president. Not because he was thought to be the wrong man for the job and would lead the country to hell, but purely and simply because he was Catholic. Best part of the story? Mum lived in Scotland at that time. Whether or not Kennedy became president had no effect on her anyway.

Sadly, this sort of bigotry doesn't go away easily. A person's professed religious beliefs don't matter to me, I place more value in their deeds and conduct separately from their belief system. However, the world is full of people for whom a person's religious beliefs are the deciding factor in how they treat them, and I think Lieberman's going to brush up against a lot of people like these. I personally wish him well but plenty more people won't, and he should be careful of those ones

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

I am not "appalled" that Lieberman's religion was brought up. Can you imagine someone NOT bringing up the religion issue if Jerry Falwell or Jim Bakker, or any born-again Christian, were the vice- presidential candidate? Religion would be the number-one issue in that case, and I doubt that anywhere close to 92% of the people would be willing to vote for a born-again, conservative Christian. So why should it be appalling to bring up the fact that Lieberman is an orthodox Jew?

(Someone could probably make the argument that in the case of a born- again Christian it's not the religion per se, but rather the beliefs such as anti-woman, anti-gay, etc. But I would not buy the argument.)

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

Thanks, everyone, for the perspectives. I agree, though I guess I hadn't really thought about it that way, that I would want to be aware of someone's religious affiliation and want to know how that religion mandated they behave. I guess my surprise about this is more due to the fact that politicians seem all too willing to forgo whatever religious behaviors they're supposed to uphold whenever it suits their needs / political philosophy / political expediency. We've seen this for so many years, seen so many so-called "religious" presidents (and other leaders in all areas of the community) completely abandon whatever tenets they were supposed to uphold, that it seems, well, naive, to base a Gallup poll based on that alone. I guess that's what ultimately appalled me -- the very narrow view of the poll, which doesn't take into account the fact that there are variations in the way the Jewish faith (and all faiths, for that matter) are practiced, that there's no guarantee anyway that the person of Jewish decent would participate in or uphold the tenets of that faith and so on. The particular way the poll asked the question *seemed* to be stereotyping a faith and that's appalling because it's so misleading. *Any* stereotyping of a faith based on media gloryhounds, political maneuvering of conventions, etc., is dangerous because it diminishes the capacity of the person stereotyping to see the individual and that person's record of behavior. (To be crystal clear - I think those of you who've said you'd like to know what they believed and see how that affects their decisions are right and it is one more tool to use to get to know the candidate and I don't think that's stereotyping by any means. It's the blanket way the poll was presented that appalled me.)

And I guess, to be honest, I'm just as idealistic the other way, though I know it's naive to be so. I think of this country as having been founded on pursuit of freedoms, including religious freedom, and I recognize the truth from the person who posted "What freedom?" above, reminding that the early settlers used that freedom from Europe's domination to then turn around and try to dominate the new world, destroying whatever other beliefs got in their paths. It's just sad, really, that we haven't come much farther than that in more than 200 years. (And this includes the whole gender / ethnic bias built in, in subtext, to this whole persepective.)

(sigh)

Thanks,

--toni

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

Ah, Toni, you're naive, but don't worry, it's cute and charming :)

Lieberman has many faults, but he's never played his Judaism as an election card. Gore, however, definitely is doing so. That warm fuzzy feeling of inclusiveness is meant to cover the facts that (as has already been pointed out here) Lieberman has a voting record that looks like a conservative Republican on most of the particulars I care about, and is a dangerously staunch moralist.

My take on this is too long to put here in full; you can read it at mouth organ.

By the by, Lieberman has rabbinical dispensation to vote and/or debate on Saturdays when crucial. On days when that happens, he walks to the Capitol, since he isn't permitted to drive on the Sabbath.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

Columbine: There's no such thing as "rabbinical dispensation". Halacha [Jewish law] says that one can break the laws of Sabbath observance in a "life-and-death" matter. Lieberman's worked on some Sabbaths when a particularly important bill, etc., was being voted on.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

As has been pointed out earlier in this discussion, Hollywood is very cautious about the Lieberman nomination. Among other things, he has called for the television show FRIENDS to be moved to late night television because of its "raciness."

Since Lieberman called for an investigation of Al Gore's "China-gate" activities and stated that he suspected that laws had been broken -- this is a surprising pairing, to say the least. Surprising that Gore could be that forgiving, and surprising that Lieberman could be the moral mouthpiece for someone who he was accusing of crimes five years ago.

But the good news is -- the election has suddenly gotten interesting.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

Re: Lieberman's orthodoxy and fulfilling commitments: Judith Shulevitz wrote a pretty decent article explaining the situation in Slate: http://slate.msn.com/Code/Culturebox/Culturebox.asp?Show=03/29/2000&id Message=4974

And about being an orthodox jew: there are a zillion ways to be orthodox in Judaism and he's modern Orthodox, which, while I wouldn't exactly feel at home there, is far more women-friendly than one might imagine. For instance, his wife wore a short sleeve dress on the news yesterday (you may laugh, but here in New York, there are many orthodox women who wear long sleeves and skirts all year round, and they are not even Hasidic). Many modern orthodox women are very successful in their careers outside of the home (you often hear about them graduating medical school and having 5 kids, etc.) and basically live secular lives, aside from keeping kosher and keeping the holidays and sabbath. I think of modern Orthodox as more of a religious affiliation, where I wouldn't feel comfortable because within the synagogue, women are definitely not allowed to do certain things. Of course, they spin it differently than that, but that's kind of how it works out, in my opinion.

That said, there are certainly legitimate criticisms of both Orthodox Judaism and Lieberman himself. I unfortunately think a whole lot of people wouldn't vote for him because he's Jewish, but I don't think most of those people would vote for democrats anyway. I think its unfortunate but possibly true that some of the people who wouldn't vote for him because he's jewish would be african-american folks, but I gotta tell you, I'm sure that works both ways. See James Baldwin for more information on *that* issue.

On a personal level, I have to tell you, I never understood what the big deal was about Kennedy being the first Catholic until now. Although I probably won't vote for gore/lieberman (whoah, baby, he's way too right wing for me), I'm oddly ethnically proud about the fact that a jewish guy is even being considered! (also shocked, as Jews are a tiny portion of the U.S. population. I am pretty sure there are many more Muslims in the U.S., for example). I feel like a complete moron. Here's another guy for kids in Hebrew school to write reports about! As far as being shocked about people not wanting to vote for Jews (who admittedly, seem pretty innocuous to urban folk now in the U.S.), think about Muslims, for example. Unfortunately, its going to be a LONG time before there is a Muslim candidate. Or a candidate who says they are atheist! Can you imagine?

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

Jen says -- Or a candidate who says they are atheist! Can you imagine?

You know what I would absolutely LOVE? A candidate who has personally removed all the miracles from the New Testament because he refuses to asscept that they could possibly be true ....

I wish I could explain the rest of this candidate's theology, but that's the only thing I remember specifically about one of our so-called-Christian founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson.

If anybody has a reference to a webpage that debunks the idea that our founding fathers were "Christian" according to today's right-wing conservative definitions, please give me the URL. I know many were deists, and were also Masons (which is an occultist group and quite the no-no to aforementioned right-wingers). But I've long since forgotten the particulars. Accept for Jefferson's personal New Testament. I've always loved that one.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

Re: rabbinical dispensation - I'll take your word for it, Joy. I was quoting my local paper (which has been proven fallible in the past).

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

On CNN last night they reported that Lieberman would work Saturdays as needed as Vice President, but that he would not be doing any campaigning on the Sabbath.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

Pooks asks about Thomas Jefferson's Christianity or lack thereof. Some little blurbs from his writing related to the subject can be found here.

-Bill

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

Bill --

Thanks ever so ta (been wanting an excuse to use that, ever since I read it in Journal of a Writing Man ) --

That's a great site that does exactly what I was looking for. It debunks the idea that all our great leaders and forefathers were Christian, complete with quotations from their own writings. I highly recommend the site to any who want a little handy ammunition in the form of a URL to fire at the next right-winger who claims we were founded as a Christian nation.

-- Anonymous, August 08, 2000

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/08/09/lieberman/index.html

Another article on the issue.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

I'm looking forward to seeing the holiday broadcasts of Hadassah Lieberman flipping the switch to light the National Menorah and Chanukah Bush. But I would have been so much happier to see Dianne Feinstein do it.

And no, I'm not surprised that they brought up religion as an issue. I don't think any Jew would be surprised. For most of the country, it's always an issue.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Toni --

You had to ask? Okay, try this one on for size, from the President of the Dallas chapter of the NAACP. By the way, he is about to get in big trouble with the national NAACP for obvious reasons:

Appearing on a Dallas radio show Monday, Mr. Alcorn said: "I'm concerned about, you know, any kind of Jewish candidate, you know, and I'm concerned about the Democratic Party. I'm sick of the Democratic Party taking the African-American vote for granted. ...

"If we get a Jew person, then what I'm wondering is, I mean, what is this movement for, you know? ... I think we need to be very suspicious of any kind of partnerships between the Jews at that kind of level because we know that their interest primarily has to do with, you know, money and these kinds of things."

Mr. Alcorn said Tuesday that his comments have been "taken pretty much out of context."

For complete coverage (and audio) check out the Dallas Morning News:

http://dallasnews.com/metro/136510_alcorn_09met.A.html

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Oh, God, I remember Mr. Alcorn (for the longest time, I thought it was "Al Corn"; I'm so stupid sometimes) from my days at the University of Texas at Arlington. There was a scandal involving the president of the university that eventually led to his resignation, and when his provost (an African American) found himself on the chopping block as well, he cried "racism!" and enlisted Alcorn to help create disturbances on the campus.

I worked in the administration building, in the basement. I remember the day that the protesters were threatening to take over the admin building, we had Arlington Police in full riot gear using our floor as a staging area. It was all very surreal and, really, unnecessary, since race had nothing to do with any of it.

It's nice to see that Alcorn's inflamatory style has changed very little. I know a lot of African American students were embarrassed over what went on at UTA; I hope they are equally embarrassed at his remarks today.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Don't worry, Rob. I don't think many people take Lee Alcorn seriously. In fact, he's been in trouble with national NAACP on several occasions. The fact is, he IS (until they yank his creds later today) the president of a local chapter of a very large metropolitan area, so he gives the appearance of being representative of a lot of people.

I heard an AfricanAmerican caller on a radio talk show yesterday (when Alcorn's remarks hit the airwaves) complain that he's tired of the media "annointing" different African Americans (he named off Farrakhan, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson) as "leaders." His point was that these people are largely self-appointed, not elected by any popular vote, and simply have high visibility. But just because they say it, doesn't mean the majority believe it. Yet their every utterance is taken seriously by the national media.

I don't know. Alcorn probably was elected, and Farrakhan may be -- not sure how that works. But they guy's frustration (and also condescending amusement at the media) was evident.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Lieberman's religion is an issue because it tantalizes liberals -- even non-Jewish liberals -- with the prospect of putting an unwashed heathen one heartbeat away from the Presidency. (And a Second Lady named "Hadassah." The mind boggles.) It also makes Gore look non-bland. These things might shore up Gore's support among Democrats -- the Democrats who are wondering whether to vote for Gore, vote for Nader, or just throw up their hands and stay home.

I suppose that black voters who agree with that Dallas NAACP guy might switch from Gore to Nader, and if enough of them are in borderline states, that might contribute to throwing the whole election to Bush. But it seems unlikely, especially since black voters who are unsettled by the Jewish issue can be reassured by Lieberman's domestic politics. And the white antisemitic voters were never going to vote for Gore in the first place, right?

On the whole "dispensation" thing: as I understand it, the Pope (or, I suppose, his agents) can give "dispensations" because the Catholic Church has a sort of legislative apparatus unto itself, and so they can make general laws and then grant individuals exceptions to those laws. By contrast, if Lieberman explicitly got permission from a rabbi to vote on Saturday, that rabbi wasn't making an exception to the (Orthodox Jewish) Sabbath laws; he was saying that those laws, as written, don't apply to Lieberman's case.

Note that the precise rules for what an Orthodox Jew may and may not do on Shabbat map very poorly onto the average contemporary American's understanding of "work".

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Orthodox Jews often bend the rules. As one friend of mine said, "We can't ask our employees to keep the store open for us on Saturday, but we can hint. We can hint very strongly." And Ari Goldman (NYT religion reporter, now teaching I think, Orthodox to a point just shy of wearing a yarmulke) has written in a memoir about reporting on a legislative session after sundown on Friday and finally convincing himself that it was OK to be there if he wrote his notes in pencil, because pencil could be erased.

I dunno. I have no place in my heart for fundamentalist religion of any kind, nor for conservatives in Democrats' clothing, but I'm tantalized by the comic possibilities of a halachic near-Chief Executive. What if World War III starts on a Saturday? I bet Adam Sandler's already writing a song about it.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

It's kind of interesting to watch people [especially liberal Democrats] wrestle with the issue of Lieberman's "fundamentalism". I don't think being religiously observant makes one de facto "fundamentalist", and I'd that by his voting record. He seems not easily pigeon-holed.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Why is it an issue? Because he is the first, and because anti- Semitism in this country is still pretty widespread. Although, as a Jewish friend of mine one said after a trip to Europe "American's think they hate Jews, they're pikers compared to Europeans-- there they really know how to hate Jews!"

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Diana: Halacha clearly says that the Sabbath can be broken in life-and-death matters, so if there's WWIII, Lieberman can rush right over to the White House. But why is halachic observance any more or less "hilarious" then the VP going to church on Sunday?

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

I'm with Joy on this one. Actively observing the tenets of one's religion does not make one "fundamentalist." To me fundamentalism has a built-in level of intolerance. (And, to be fair, that definition shows MY intolerance - of fundamentalist religions. For example, Al Schroeder is a member of what I would normally consider a fundamentalist religion, but I cannot consider him a fundamentalist. For one thing, he never insists that his is the One True Faith, just the horse he has happened to pick.)

As far as I can see Lieberman has never insisted that anyone who's not an orthodox Jew is going to burn in hell (which I consider the primary fundamentalist trademark). If he thinks so privately, he keeps it to himself, which is acceptable. I don't care if you think I'm damned, but don't try to convert me or I'll spin my head 360 degrees and spit green bile at you.

The interesting thing is that I lived in the Deep South for most of my life and yet I have never, never seen this wellspring of anti-Semitism that some of you, and many of the media pundits, are postulating. Do you REALLY think that being Jewish is that much of a stigma in the heartland? Toni lives in the town where I spent most of my life (Baton Rouge), and the idea surprised her too. So that's two southerners who think it's a non-issue. What's odd is that my two friends who have been most dubious about this Jewish thing - Kymm and Shmuel - are both diehard New Yorkers, a group I would expect to be MOST complacent about it.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Forget the Hanukkah menorah lighting ceremony, how about the cookie making party with Tipper and Hadassah? Obviously Hadassah has a killer recipie for Hamantaschen (prune or apricot filling?) but I'm wondering about kosher for passover desserts. I hope she can make a decent chocolate mousse cake. Maybe they will be in Ladies Home Journal!

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

There are two different uses for the word "fundamentalist."

• 1*In Protestantism, conservative religious movement that arose among members of various denominations early in the 20th cent. Its aim is to maintain traditional interpretations of the Bible and what its adherents believe to be the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. The movement developed (1909) in reaction to the emergence of liberal theology, which attempted to recast Christian teachings in light of the scientific and historic thought of the time.
• 2*In Islam, term encompassing various modern Muslim leaders, groups, and movements opposed to secularization in Islam and Islamic countries and seeking to reassert traditional beliefs and practices. There are both SHIITE and SUNNI fundamentalist leaders and groups, such as the Ayatollah KHOMEINI and the MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD.

— encyclopedia.com

As explained to me in school, fundamentalism's def. has expanded the include all sects of various faiths that strictly adhere to certain laws, practices, etc... A rather zealous conservatism, if you will.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

er... only a Fundamentalist Christian would have as a hallmark the idea that if you don't believe their way, you will go to hell. A fundamentalist anything means that you believe the proper observance of your faith is to follow its fundamentals... ie the letter of the law is valuable in its own light, as opposed to analysing events based on what the spirit of the law would be in that specific instance.

There does seem to be a trait among fundamentalists of whatever religion to believe that the law is more important than any individual's desire to practice it, so they aren't shy about considering it good or necessary for everyone even if they don't want to. But 'hell' as a result of failure to do so is only an issue for those who regard 'hell' as a fundamental.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

The interesting thing is that I lived in the Deep South for most of my life and yet I have never, never seen this wellspring of anti-Semitism that some of you, and many of the media pundits, are postulating. Do you REALLY think that being Jewish is that much of a stigma in the heartland? Toni lives in the town where I spent most of my life (Baton Rouge), and the idea surprised her too. So that's two southerners who think it's a non-issue.

May I respectfully suggest that this becuase you aren't Jewish? I am, have lived in New York my whole life. The anti-semitism I've been exposed to is so all-pervasive that the offenders don't even realize they're doing it, sometimes.

There are a painful number of people that really hate Jews.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

I'm reading that first definition and I disagree with it... what distinguishes a fundamentalist from a mainstream Christian is not "traditional" interpretation, which has always been non-literal, but rather a "literal" interpretation without regard to customs of the time, context, literary forms, etc.

Fundamentalist movement began in the U.S. as country ministers who traveled to towns on Sundays & Wednesdays attempted to give the "fundamentals" of the faith to their flock in their rather limited time frame. During this time, two brothers named Milton and Lyman Stewart wrote "The Fundamentals," an attempt to distill the faith. For more information, go here.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

And I live in the South and I've heard it time & time again. Anything that isn't Baptist is free fodder for wide-spread viscious criticism.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Sara: What sort of "all-pervasive" anti-Semitism have you experienced in NY? I grew up in SOuthern Calif and had relatively few experiences with it [more of the dumb "tell us about the Jewsih Christmas"] type. Here in San Francisco, everyone's way too enlightened to make such comments.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

I am not a Christian Fundamentalist, but I find it very amusing that these objective, open minded, non-mean-spirited liberals spew such hatred and bile at the Christian Fundamentalists whenever they can.

Lieberman can mention "God" 30 times in a short speech and no one says anything. Let Bush or any Republican let a "God" or "Jesus" slip out even once and the inhabitants of Hillary's village grab their torches and start looking for rope.

Liberal hypocrisy never ceases to amaze.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Joy: Is it that you want me to list every incident?

Here are a few examples that stick out:

"A can fell out of the cupboard and hit me in the nose. I look like a kike."

"Katzenberg is suing Disney. Fucking Jew."

"We used to beat on this Jewish kid in junior high." Sideways glance at me. "But not because he was Jewsih, of course." Cough.

"What? But you don't look Jewish!"

I've written about it some here as well.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000

Thanks for the kind words, Columbine. I certainly don't consider myself a Fundamentalist, which has a ring of intoleration that I don't think fits me. My religious beliefs are like my belief in the Big Bang theory; I have my reasons for believing, but I'm interested in other theories, too.

I was brought up in urban Nashville, and we always had a few Jewish kids per class, and my father's immediate bosses were Jewish, and I never heard anti-Semetic remarks. My wife, however, was brought up in urban Mississippi, and she was afraid Gore's decision might doom the ticket. She's encountered more active anti-Semites in her region than I have.---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, August 09, 2000