At the Intersection of Faith and Culture

At the Intersection of Faith and Culture


“Anti-Semitism” and Anti-Christian Bigotry

posted by Jack Kerwick

I recently received a very disturbing response to an article of mine.  In “The Catholic Church and the Left,” I had argued that in spite of its infiltration of the Church in which I have spent my life, the radically egalitarian notion of “Social Justice” has no foundation in the Gospel of Christ.  Unlike the contemporary leftist, the Christian most certainly does not value equality as an end in itself, for there is nothing in either his Sacred Scriptures—the Old and New Testaments—or his millennia-old tradition that warrants this.

There is, however, ample justification in these sources for his affirmation of charity.  That the Christian has an obligation to help the needy no one would dare deny.  Yet there is all of the difference in the world between, on the one hand, a believer’s fulfilling his obligation to help those of his acquaintances who happen to be worse off in whatever respects from himself and, on the other hand, a person’s coercing others via law in order to realize a distribution of material goods that more closely approximates his ideal of Equality. 

In reply to this position, a Jewish reader charged me with “anti-Semitism” and concluded his brilliant response by telling me to send his regards to my “good friend” Mel Gibson. 

I suppose that, being a Jew, my interlocutor is capable of detecting “anti-Semitism” even when it proves to be impenetrable to the naked eyes of non-Jews.  Being a Christian, then, I am reduced to speculating as to how he discovered these dark feelings lurking in the depths of my subconscious. 

My guess is that it was my use of the term “Old Testament”—“the correct term is the Hebrew Bible,” my reader insists—that disclosed my “anti-Semitism.”  And perhaps my rejection of his account of the reason for the Jubilee recorded in the book of Leviticus could have amplified it further.

Let’s start with the last consideration first. The Jubilee was not designed to promote a condition of “radical equality,” as my critic asserts.  It was designed to render life easier for those living under intolerable burdens.  The idea behind it, in other words, was not to reduce the wealthiest to the level of the poorest or elevate the latter to the level of the former.  The very suggestion that either Christianity or the Judaism from which it grew require their adherents to labor toward insuring that all of the planet’s human inhabitants should have comparable possessions—i.e. radical material equality—is preposterous on its face.

The other reason my critic deems me an “anti-Semite” is dealt with even more easily than its partner.  If one is a Christian, then the Bible does indeed consist of two “testaments,” an old and a new.  If, however, one is a Jew, then, obviously, there is no New Testament and, thus, no “Old Testament.”  That is, this propriety of this term, “Old Testament,” like that of “the Hebrew Bible” and, for that matter, every other term, derives from its context.  To imply otherwise is the height of arrogance, it is true, but it is no less the height of ignorance.

Hopefully, this anti-“anti-Semite” will forgive me for questioning his psychological assessment of a Gentile like myself, but the considerations that inform his verdict no more indict me for “anti-Semitism” than Mel Gibson’s depiction of the Passion of his Lord condemns him for the same. Yet maybe this is the point.

Perhaps my Jewish detractor thinks that I am guilty of “anti-Semitism” for exactly the kind of reason that Gibson is guilty of it.  I take no satisfaction in having come to this conclusion, but the hysteria with which I am charged with “anti-Semitism,” like that with which Gibson’s production of The Passion of the Christ was met, makes it all but impossible to circumvent: the “anti-Semite,” according to the Jewish anti-“anti-Semite,” is, simply, a Christian. 

To put this another way, since those Jews most prone to hurling it around invariably aim exclusively at Christians, the charge of “anti-Semitism” is really nothing more or less than a smoke screen designed to achieve two objectives.  First, because it has acquired in contemporary American society the power to wreck unimaginable havoc upon people’s reputations and livelihoods, the term “anti-Semitism” is wielded to intimidate and silence.  Second, and less obviously, it conceals the anti-Christian animus of those disposed to avail themselves of it.

Gibson’s Passion is a faithful adaptation of the Biblical narrative of Jesus’ death and resurrection.  When I refer to “the Old Testament,” I employ the same term of reference that has been used by Christians from the earliest Christian centuries until the present day.  If we are “anti-Semites” for these reasons, then the whole of Christianity, from the New Testament on, is inherently “anti-Semitic.” 

I recognize that most people—and no one more so than the anti-“anti-Semite”—is willing to think through the irony of a Christian being accused of “anti-Semitism,” but ironic it is, for as a friend mine once told his Jewish girlfriend’s family, “You may be Jews but I’m a Super Jew!”  Or, as I told my Jewish critic, it makes as much sense to accuse a Christian of being hostile toward Jews as it makes sense to accuse, say, Louis Farrakhan of being hostile toward blacks.  If Louis Farrakhan or his disciples in The Nation of Islam really were hostile toward blacks, they would not conceive God as a black man.  Similarly, since it is Christians, and Christians alone, who identify the God of all creation as a Jewish man—since it is Christians alone who worship a Jew—it is ludicrous to characterize them as hostile to Jews.

Not only aren’t Christians hostile toward Jews; they really can’t even be said to oppose Judaism.  By their lights, Christians are Jews, “perfected” or, as my friend said, “super” Jews, if you will, but Jews all the same.  Christians don’t engage in the same rituals that many Jews do, but that is only because they believe that the advent of Christ rendered them obsolete. 

In stark contrast, Jews do oppose or reject Christianity.  Now, this in itself is fine, but the Jewish anti-“anti-Semite” rejects Christianity not just because he views it as a corruption of his religion, not just because he regards it as false, but because he regards it as a threat.  He regarded it as a threat when Christianity first began to achieve a distinctive identity as a Jewish sect during the first century—this is what lead him to wage a campaign to stamp out “the cult” of Christ by the most brutal of means before it would grow—and he apparently continues to view it as a threat to be neutralized.

What I wish for readers, both Jews and, especially, Christians, to recognize, is that in his quest to marginalize and, eventually, relegate Christianity to the dustbin of history, today’s anti-Christian bigot has set aside the violence and torture of his ancestors in favor of the pejorative “anti-Semitism.”

And what’s sad is that this one little phrase has the potential to do more damage than all of the weaponry of yesteryear.       

Jack Kerwick, Ph.D. 

 



  • http://www.jackkerwick.com Jack Kerwick

    Jennifer,

    Thanks for your thoughts. But Jesus could not have been a “good” man given what He is credited with having said. And if He did not really say the things for which He is credited, then we can know nothing about Him–least of all that He was a “good” man. A man who said what Jesus is supposed to have said–”I AM,” “I am the Truth, The Way, and The Life,” etc.–is not a good man unless He is telling the truth.

  • http://www.jackkerwick.com Jack Kerwick

    Ha! Ha! Thanks “Doc G!” Considering how clearly and coherently you string words together to form such elegant sentences and profound thoughts, I take your indictment of me as the highest compliment.

    Please visit again!

  • http://www.jackkerwick.com Jack Kerwick

    Thank you Pastor Bettty. God bless you as well.

  • http://www.jackkerwick.com Jack Kerwick

    Thank you Mr. Parris.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Mike L.

    Some Jews simply use “anti-Semite” as an easy tag for anyone they thinks is disparaging their people; others deliberately choose it to try silencing those whom would dare disagree with them, or proffer an opinion they don’t agree with. Regardless, it’s thrown around too much and needs to be used with more discretion.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Donald Parris Sr

    Yhis is some of the best understanding that I have read in a long time. We were all created by GOD & as He Said “Let us make man in our own IMAGE”. You know Bob Dylan said that after his motor cycle crash that he recieved OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST as his SAVIOR, he said he was “A COMPLETED JEW”. The way to beat Satan his being in 1 frame of mind not two different People of GOD.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Pastor Betty Lipke

    I couldn’t have said it better. God Bless

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment DocG

    Dear Mr. Kerwick,

    I find your responses perfectly in harmony with your blog postings. They are condescending, arrogant, and reasoned not from a realistic regard to facts, but more to a wish to justify your existing resuppositions. Each point is begun with a straw man you provide, then you show you intellectual acumen by knocking down what you erected for that purpose.
    Social Justice is the main source of authority for everything in scripture, from the laws of Moses to the teachings of Paul. Yet, you seek to undermine that authority in an effort to promote your Beckian world view, stating that the principle is not with scripture.I would wonder what sort of institution awarded you a Ph.D., since such a profoundly self serving dissertation would be thrown out of any accredited institution. You must be a graduate of Kerwick University and employed by the Discovery Institute of philosophy!

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Jennifer

    Actually, this is incorrect as many of Jewish descent simply get tired of proselytization – whether they are religious or secular. No other religion actively seeks converts, and it becomes rather tiring to defend why one doesn’t believe Christ is the Messiah, despite having been a good man of Jewish descent. Thus, defensiveness doesn’t mean anti-Christian, rather, and most don’t have a problem with Christians, Christian charity, Christian organizations. Perhaps both Jews and other individuals have a problem with being told that Jesus Christ is the “way,” and that the rest of us are forever damned if we do not follow. Every other religion has tolerance that extends past that – believing perhaps that different people have different ways of finding what is needed. Even Jews seek that knowledge in various ways – and, I was once told that the number one rule of being a Jew is to question. There are a lot of interpretations of the texts of the scribes. So – to judge someone as “anti-Christian” is a little rash, because perhaps in defensiveness, they also misunderstood an intent.

    Also, another fact is that Christians are not the only ones that worship a Jew. Some religions, secular Jews, pagans and their “great rite,” and a number of other eastern religions remember the Holy Act is the truest form of worship. And, there are a lot of Jewish bodies in this world that aren’t dead.

  • http://www.jackkerwick.com Jack Kerwick

    You’ve exposed me Aziz! I give up: I am a secret member of Hamas.

    In all seriousness, as anything less than a hyperdefensive read of my piece readily yields, I never even so much as remotely suggested that Jews haven’t been subjected to hostilities directed at them by Christians (and others). My point was simply that Jews are no less guilty of being hostile towards non-Jews, and that the charge of “anti-Semitism” is today used much more often than not as a smokescreen designed to conceal that hostility that many Jews have toward Christians.

    I never spoke of Zionism or anything of the sort; nor did I or would I suggest, as this “HAMAS-affiliated website” implies, that Jews are uniquely guilty of oppression.

    Read the article and drop your name-calling.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment aziz

    Good news:

    readers of this blog might be interested to learn that a HAMAS-affiliated website WHOLEHEARTEDLY agrees with Dr. Kerwick’s analysis!

    “…the Jews have created a serious, ugly accusation that they called ‘antisemitism,’ and they use it to smear anyone who dares criticize the Zionist entity, or any Jewish organization or body for any reason, regardless of whether or not they are right and whether or nor their evidence is conclusive.

    “Thus, the Jews have succeeded in creating a dangerous [mechanism], whereby the hangman takes on the identity of the victim and allows himself to commit every ugly transgression and crime….”

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment ace

    Between the penetrating historical analysis of Beck and the poignant 1st-person witness of profGene: are you now ready, Dr. Kerwick, to reconsider – i.e., retract- your original comments about anti-Semitism being a ‘smokescreen’, and the bloated certitude which drove those comments?

    Don’t be so proud. Isn’t that what true Christianity is supposed to be about? Not being boastful; and forgiving and asking forgiveness for mistakes, including one’s own?

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment ProfGene

    Antisemitism is not a smokescreen but what a young Jewish boy or girl experienced growing up in America. I lived in Washington DC in the early forties and though my family were not religious Jews the neighbors called called out from their deck chairs in the apartment complex we lived in, “there go the Jew boys,” every time we passed by. My best friend in grade school one day informed me the Jews killed Christ. When I was in High School in Alexandria VA in the late forties a boy in the hallway pointed to me and said, “Jew.” When I caddied for the rich golfers at the country club and they missed a shot they hollered out, “G– D—–, Jews” I saw signs that read dogs and Jews keep out. And despite this I did not grow up hating all Christians but saying that Anti-Antisemitism is a smokescreen or even “used” as a smokescreen is watering down an evil and a gross injustice just like saying he is playing the “N” card.

    It is true that one has to rise above the damage done by racial or religious hatred and go on with life. I have, but some people can’t they have been too damaged and to condemn them is wrong and to say that Anti-Antisemitism or Racism has been defeated or is no longer a problem is wrong. It exists as strongly as it ever did. You cannot legislate love. You cannot legislate away hatred. It is the duty of parents and churches and schools to teach children not to hate but it must be done by example because children can see through hypocrisy.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Mark T. Whittington

    Kudos, Mr. Beck.

    The whining of Paul and Jim Kato, notwithstanding you got it right- the proof being that Dr. Kerwick refused to respond to any of your irrefutable points.

    Brilliant work, sir. As you note, the intrinsic root of Christian anti-Semitism lay in the charge of deicide/ “Christ-killer” leveled against the Jews (when it was the Roman authorities who are the true culprits); and the Church’s ‘identity theft” : in portraying itself as the ‘true Israel’ and thus claiming that the Jews and Torah were now outdated and therefore their existence was no longer necessary, the early Christians could only establish their own theological identity by robbing the Jewish people of theirs!

    As one famous Holocaust scholar pithily summarized it: Christians first said to the Jews: ‘you are no longer allowed to allow among us as Jews” – and so sought to convert them; they then said to the Jews: ‘you are no longer allowed to live among us’ – and expelled them (France, England, Spain, etc.; and finally said to them ‘you are no longer allowed to live’- and so the Nazis sought to exterminate them.

  • http://www.jackkerwick.com Jack Kerwick

    I never deleted your posting. And while the truth in some cases may very well be deserving of fear, I welcome it. It is precisely because of this that I refuse to allow the discussion to get destroyed by thoughtless insults.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Jonathan E. Grant, ESQ

    Being a forgiving person, I am giving you another chance.

    “Believer in Christ” is a bona-fide liar when he/she claims that
    “They saw Jesus and what he was teaching as a threat, it was the Jewish religious leaders of the time who cruicified (sic)” Jesus.

    FACTS: Crucifixion was a uniquely and distinctively Roman, not a Biblical/Jewish means of execution. (Examples of the latter are strangling and stoning.) Imperial Rome was the occupying power in Palestine in the first century. It employed Sadducean courts priests as quislings to help control the native population. Rome executed Jesus because it saw Jesus as a political threat, given claims made on his behalf to be “King of the Jews.”

    Moreover, the current Pope declared recently- negating centuries of previous practices- that “the Jews” were NOT responsible for Jesus’ demise.

    So even the POPE(!) agrees with me that “B-in-C” lied!

    Further, her allegorical examples of “Old Testament” stories are silly: that technique has long been discredited, since it can be used to prove that “up” is “down” and “black” is “white”.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Jonathan E. Grant, ESQ

    Fred Davis was right- why did you delete my posting refuting “Believer in Christ’s” factual lies, in blaming Jews for Jesus’ death?

    why are you afraid of the truth?

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Jim Kato

    To Doctor Kerwick: This Jewish complainant seems to me to be trying to “pick a fight” for a reason that lacks merit in his definition. He seems to be putting blame on you for the use of the nouns and pronouns the writers of Christian Bibles choice of words, in using “Old” & “New” Testiment when organizing the content of our version. You hit the nail right on the head by stating that Christians believe in the 1st Testiment, (after all, we are all waiting for the next coming…)so we do not complain to the Jews about it. Some people, like grampa used to say,”… just like to hear themselves complain, for the sake of complaining.”
    In this case, I honestly think the complaint he renders is based on predgudice and anti-semitism, intended to cause friction to you as well as any other concern. I’m sure the intended use of words you took were not intended to be slanted in any way, shape or form. Rather, it seems you were mearly using the common, easy to understand terminoligy of the English language, for all religions.
    Keep in mind grampas other old great cliche, “One bad apple doesn’t spoil the whole bushel.” and I would imagine the majority of Jewish practishoners would not agree with this complainant.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment M. Beck, son of a holocaust survivor

    talk about blaming the victim!

    Kerwick claims – presumably, NOT tongue-in-cheek, since it is clear that he lacks a sense of humor- in a comment that “What I deny is that there is anything in Christianity per se that so much as remotely lends itself to the charge of “anti-Semitism.”

    Rubbish.

    Let us, on this score, e.g., compare Islam with Christianity.

    The Qur’an is exactly that, NOT an ultra-New Testament. Muslims do not claim to be the Ultra-New Israel. As I understand it, the New Testament asserts that there is One God, with One covenant. The recipients of that (“OLD”) covenant used to be Israel (after the flesh); now, reNEWed, it is the Church, Israel after the Spirit, Verus Israel. Plus, the Jews were declared ‘deicides.’ The Jew-hatred which arose from all this has been documented by Jules Isaac in his classic work “Teaching of Contempt.” (have you heard of it?)

    This contempt was official, disseminated top-down; it was NOT the case that the population was inherently anti-Semitic, DESPITE the best efforts of the religious leadership: it was because of such teachings about the “perfidious Jews” (to quote the old Easter Catholic liturgy).

    During the Nazi period, individual Christians- righteous Gentiles, such as those who helped the Frank family in Holland – saved Jews, because of their own human decency, not per any directives of a Lutheran or Catholic Church hierarchy instructing them to do so. The institutional Church remain silent (for political or whatever other reasons).

    If Christians had asserted that they had a different covenant with God, rather than superseding that of the Jewish people, no inherent conflict or identity problem would exist. But Christians did not. And, as such, the result was the ‘teaching of contempt’ and its historical outcome in pogroms and the Holocaust.

    REPEAT: In the Muslim case – notwithstanding Muhammed’s hostility toward some Jewish tribes- the Jews (as well as Christians) are recognized as People of the Book. As such, they are provided for, within the schema that eventually became the millet-system of Ottoman times. The belief system of the Muslim can allow and account for the continued existence of Jews (and Christians), even if their role in the divine dispensation accorded them has been withdrawn. NOT so the Christian. The fact that Jews continue to exist is a living denial and fundamental contradiction of traditional Christian truth and self-understanding. Unlike the Christian, the Muslim does not have to deny Jews their history in order to establish the credibility of his own. There have been persecutions of Jews in the Islamic world over the centuries, but none can REMOTELY compare in scope or duration to the Inquisition, massacres and pogroms (culminating in the Holocaust) which took place on Christian soil, with the tacit or overt approval of Christian clerical and political officials.

    Related matter: neither Jesus nor Paul knew anything about a document called the “New Testament”- or even “Old Testament” for that matter. What they were familiar with, was “Torah.” If a Christian is someone who regards themself as a disciple of Christ, then it seems “logical”- to use one of Dr. Kerwick’s favorite terms- that a usage that was good enough for Jesus (divine, second Person of the Trinity according to Christian belief), should be good enough for any Christian.

    Finally, Dr. Kerwick: your arrogance is deeply offensive (and I might add, ‘un-Christian’: How many sermons have been preached on the theme of humility as a prime Christian virtue? Very many! ) It is not your role to tell Jews what to think or believe. What constitutes “anti-Semitism” is for Jewry to decide, not you.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Jonathan Grant, ESQ

    “Believer in Jesus Christ” is a bona-fide liar when he/she claims that
    “they saw Jesus and what he was teaching as a threat, it was the Jewish religious leaders of the time who cruicified my Lord.”

    Crucifixion was a ROMAN means of execution (Biblical law speaks of stoning, strangulation and like).

    As the occupying power in Palestine in the first century, Rome called all the shots. It set up a kangaroo court of Sadducces to act as its quislings to help control the populace. The Romans viewed Jesus as a political threat, which is why they executed him.

    Even the Pope- negating years of Church teaching- noted recently that “the Jews” were not to be held responsible for Jesus’ demise.

    As to “believer’s” allegorical interpretation of Scripture, it is worthless. By that silly standard, you can argue that “black” means “white” and “up is down.”

    As to the comment that “because it is just a play on words that mean nothing” : the WORD of God means NOTHING??

  • fritz

    In addition to the article being too wordy and lengthy (sounds like it was written by a college professor)it would read better if his selection of words were specific. IE: catholic? or Roman Catholic? There’s a big difference. The Roman church doesn’t own the word, C/catholic. Christ is a title not a name. Referring to Jesus, he is THE Christ. Meaning, (The Anointed one). Anti-semitism, includes Palestinians and Arabs as well as Jews. Too inclusive. If you’re talking about Jews, don’t beat around the bush. Are you or aren’t you? Then say so and get it over with. Fritz

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Paul

    There seems to be a battle of wits involving only one side being armed. The Leftist position hides its true goals while trying to smear the other side by revealing its “true nature” vis a vie, the charge of “anti-semitism”. The Leftist most definitely fights for “social justice” being defined by bringing “equality” for all. It seeks to rob the achiever by forcibly taking their possessions to give it to others, thus achieving “fairness”. When confronted, the Leftist either because he is deluded, or simply dishonest, downplays the goals of the Left by claiming they simply want to help the needy. A goal christians, jews, hindus, buddhists, and most of the rest of the world’s religions have advanced through their teachings and their leaders. There seem to be perecious few who are against helping the needy. The simple fact is, that when the needy are helped by Leftist socialistic agendas, the end result is there are more needy people not less. The reason for this is human nature. When a person is simply given what they need, they stop trying to achieve it for themselves. This not only promotes more people remaining needy, as it places a greater burden on the rest of society, some who were formally producers are dragged down into the ranks of the needy. (as businesses close or reduce their workforce in response to this increased burden placed on them by Leftist policies.) If what I saw were untrue, how can anyone with an IQ above room temperature explain why after spending 3 Trillion dollars in “stimulys” spending designed to “level the playing field” and achieve “social justice” (the President’s own words) has there been no economic recovery? Simple fact, socialism, social justice and other Leftist ideals DO NOT WORK! (no pun intended) The stimulus was supposed to provide a “jobless recovery” (Vice President Joe Biden’s claim, not mine)ludicrous! The way to improve a family in need is to get that family WORKING! Any nation filled with people not working (many of whom are in the ranks of the unemployed through no fault of their own.) is a nation that is disfunctional and in decline. St Paul said if a man will not work (willfully negligent of his responsibilty to provide for himself and his own family) then he should not eat. Leftists say “that’s not fair” We must rewrite the famous parable of the ant and the grasshopper by punishing the ant by taking from him what he dilligently labored for and give it the grasshopper who refused to labor in the summer months. This thinking will never make productive grasshoppers but it will reduce the working ant population. Jesus taught personal responsibility “every man shall give account of himself…” Christianity is not “anti-semitic” by nature, regardless of how many who claim to be “christians” and the commit evil acts against Jews or anyone else for that matter.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Beliver in Christ Jesus

    He is right. They saw Jesus and what he was teaching as a threat, it was the Jewish religious leaders of the time who cruicified my Lord, who I know was Jewish, but He is my Lord and Savior. Anti-Semite, I think not. You all don’t believe in him, did not believe in him at the time and continue to not believe in the Son of God. So….deal with it! or stop searching for pity and shouting anti-semite, because you don’t like what history offers. Even in the old Testament, oops Hebrew Bible…many stories point to my Lord And Savior Jesus Christ. God asked Abraham to sacrafice Isaac (Abraham represents God and Isaac, Jesus) What about when you were in the desert and the snakes were biting and killing many Hebrews? You were told to look upon a stake (we use the term “cross” in Christianity, but the Bible calls it a stake) and those that looked upon or toward the stake didn’t die of the snake bits. There are many such stories in the Bible that point toward my Savior, and many are in the Hebrew Bible (to me referred to as the Old Testament). Jesus ushered in the New Testament (a will)with his death on the “Cross” or “Stake” which ever you prefer because it is just a play on words that mean nothing.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment Bruce

    Jack Kerwick does not deny the fact of Christianity’s past and the anti-semitism that was. He may be projecting his view point onto many other Christians who do not necessarily see things his way. I know Jesus is Jewish but God is not necessarily of that persuasion. Many Christians are less inclined to be anti-semitic in light of the hatred shown by certain members of Islam.
    Hitler had Hebrew blood in him if the historical records are correct. He wanted the Jews wiped off the face of the Earth. What many militant muslims do not realize is that once the Jews were gone they were next for extermination.
    I can agree with the basic logic of Mr. Kerwicks work. Exception can be taken on various points but I leave that for those who enjoy picking nits.

  • http://ThankfultomyForefathers Karollyn

    As a Christian, I too think of all the promises made to our great forefathers, Abraham, Moses, and am proud to count myself as one among them.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment bill daroff

    “What I deny is that there is anything in Christianity per se that so much as remotely lends itself to the charge of “anti-Semitism.”

    What an imagination you have, Herr Kerwick. Start with the bogus charge of “deicide” leveled against Jewry by the Church down through the ages. Which was the cause of pogrom after pogram encouraged by
    Church officials.

    Add to that the baseless accusation of ‘blood libel’.

    Seeing that history refutes your absurd claim, no wonder you ignore the overwhelming evidence it presents.

    On more thing. Adolf Hitler died a Catholic in good standing; and for many years after his death Franco of Spain even had memorial masses conducted in his memory.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment fred davis

    that’s right, Kerwick. suppress all critical comments- in the spirit of that great neoconservative, Kim Jong Il !

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment jake jones

    let me get this straight: according to Dr. Kerwick’s misology posting, he is against the use of POLITICALLY CORRECT verbiage such as “racism,” “anti-semitism.” etc.

    Yet he endorses (in his June 1 8;15 comment) the notion of a
    “hate crime” – which is the poster child for the notion of Political Correctness!!

    what impeccable “logic” !!

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment matt brooks

    Seymour a “bully”?

    I happened to see Seymour’s posting. All it did was. logically, put you in your place. And his info about Mel Gibson’s Holocaust-denying daddy exposed the fallaciousness of your June 1 comment.

    I will be in Philly soon. Is your Temple Ph.D. thesis available in the library there? or online? If so -and I can spare some of my precious time -I will ‘google’ and otherwise compare its content vis-a-vis Andy Sullivan’s and others’ work on the same subject.

    If you plagiarized – or even came close- you are toast.

    (oh, wait: it that a ‘bullying’ comment? Seeking the truth, according to you, constitutes ‘bullying’? And you have the gall to protest about ‘political correctness’? Double standard, anyone?)

  • http://www.jackkerwick.com Jack Kerwick

    You are a bully Seymour, plain and simple. You are probably accustomed to intimidating others with your threats. I am sure you enjoy it, for it makes you feel like a “big man (or woman?).” That will notwork on me. I relish in tackling troublemaking bullies like yourself.

    So you go ahead and talk to whomever you wish. In the meantime, keep your threats to yourself.

    Your post is now trashed.

    Jack

  • http://www.jackkerwick.com Jack Kerwick

    Gibson was slurred as an “anti-Semite” long before his run in with the police. And he wasn’t slurred untilhe made The Passion. That is, it wasn’t until he gave expression to his Christian faith that he invited this charge.

    Jack

  • http://www.jackkerwick.com Jack Kerwick

    Ben, I posted a cautionary note yesterday to all who visit this blog. I appreciate those of you who have taken the time out to come here. I really do. But I also decided that I ad hominem attacks–e.g.’s charges of “anti-Semitism,” “racism,” and the like–and incivility generally would not be tolerated. What this in turn means is that when any postings including such language will be deleted as soon as I get around to reading them. But this post of yours sounds dangerously close to a threat, and maybe even a hate-crime. I will leave it here, for if I may very well pursue this matter.

    Jack

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment ben shapiro

    “Goy hamerim yad al yisrael chayav mita”-(A gentile who raises his hand against an Jew must be put to death).

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment jenny rubin

    Dr. Kerwick mentions the Gibson film, but without reference to Mel’s subsequent notorious Malibu DUI anti-Semitic meltdown.

    An artist, such as Mel Gibson, is as (s)he does. His/her work reflects her/him.
    Thus, Mel Gibson’s drunken anti-Semitic tirade put on public display the true bigoted animus which drive the PASSION film!

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment nnmns

    “What I insist upon is that the Christian is the least likely person to dislike Jews considering that it is he alone who embraces as God a Jew. If Christians do dislike Jews it hasn’t anything at all to do with either their Christianity or Jews’ Judaism.”

    Actually I’d think the atheist is one of the least likely people to dislike the Jew because Jesus is nothing special to us. But your claim was “it makes as much sense to accuse a Christian of being hostile toward Jews as it makes sense to accuse, say, Louis Farrakhan of being hostile toward blacks” i.e. no Christian is hostile toward Jews. Patently wrong.

    And much as you’d like to disassociate Christianity from the Holocaust that dog won’t hunt. Hitler was raised a Christian, schooled in Christian schools and repeatedly said he was Christian. And more to my point there had to be a lot of Christian Germans willing to do terrible things to Jews.

    I urge you to think a lot more carefully before you post again.

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment st. george

    Kerwick’s arrogance knows no bounds: now he claims to know better than God what Holy Scripture says! to wit:

    1. “The Jubilee was not designed to promote a condition of “radical equality,” as my critic asserts. It was designed to render life easier for those living under intolerable burdens. ”

    How do you know that to be the fact? That is NOT what the context suggests. He is trying to shoehorn the text into his preset ideology. Kerwick does not even know Hebrew, and yet claims to know
    what the text is “supposed” to TRULY mean. This folly is known as EISOGESIS, not to confused with the authentic hermeneutic device of exegesis.

    2.”Gibson’s Passion is a faithful adaptation of the Biblical narrative of Jesus’ death and resurrection. ”

    “Faithful” ? Wrong again, wafer breath! It was an interpretation of Gospel material
    as filtered through the wacko visions of Church lady Anne Catherine Emmerich. (btw, how is it that if this gospel material is so holy, the synoptics and John disagree when the Last Supper took place in relation to Passover?)

  • http://www.jackkerwick.com Jack Kerwick

    First of all, you confuse fallacies: what you accuse me of is not a red herring; it is a straw man.

    Second of all, it is you, not I, who is guilty of setting up a straw man, for you utterly misrepresent the position that I critiqued. There is no onewho doesn’t believe that on at least some occasions and for some purposes, it is not only permissible for the government to deploy tax dollars toward the end of treating social problems, but obligatory for it do so. But there is all of the difference in the world between this and the socialist’s commitment to using government for the sake of equalizingsociety’s resources, or leveling“the playing field,” so to speak.

    Third, you have not addressed my remarks that you cite. Your “history” is a piece of Politically Correct, anti-Christian bigotry: Hitler was an atheist who lamented what he perceived to be the pacific flavor of Christianity. On at least one occasion, he openly expressed his wish that it was a militant religion like Islam that had imbued the German consciousness over the centuries. It isn’t that he believed in Islam; rather, he realized that it is with far greater ease than Christianity that he could have exploited it for his purposes. But in any event, it was the humiliation that Germans experienced after the first World War upon which Hitler principally seized to advance his campaign.

    Fourth, I no more deny that there has been Christian hostility toward Jews than I deny that there has been and remains Jewish hostility toward Christians. What I deny is that there is anything in Christianity per se that so much as remotely lends itself to the charge of “anti-Semitism.” What I insist upon is that the Christian is the least likely person to dislike Jews considering that it is he alone who embraces as God a Jew. If Christians do dislike Jews it hasn’t anything at all to do with either their Christianity or Jews’ Judaism.

    So no, sir, my claims are far from “baseless.” On the other hand, yours views sound more like the function of some very raw motion (hatred of Christians?) than the function of reason.

    Jack

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment nnmns

    The red herring is the implication that those of us who want the problems of the country solved using tax money are in favor of everyone being “equalized”.

    The particular piece of tortured logic is pretty well encapsulated in

    it makes as much sense to accuse a Christian of being hostile toward Jews as it makes sense to accuse, say, Louis Farrakhan of being hostile toward blacks. If Louis Farrakhan or his disciples in The Nation of Islam really were hostile toward blacks, they would not conceive God as a black man. Similarly, since it is Christians, and Christians alone, who identify the God of all creation as a Jewish man—since it is Christians alone who worship a Jew—it is ludicrous to characterize them as hostile to Jews.

    First immense numbers of Christians have been hostile to Jews. It was the Catholics and Lutherans of Germany who had been taught in church Jews were “Christ killers” who provided the muscle for the Holocaust. If you really don’t think there has been widespread hatred of Jews by Christians you have no knowledge of history.

    Also the idea Christians view Jesus as having been Jewish in no way implies that they think “God” is a Jewish guy. I expect a few do, a lot don’t and many don’t think that way at all. Your claim is baseless.

  • http://www.jackkerwick.com Jack Kerwick

    My Ph.D. is in philosophy–a discipline that, by the way, most definitely does involve logic.

    But that is neither here nor there. What’s wrong with my logic? If my logic is really defective, as you claim, then you should be able to identify its defects without resorting to snide remarks and name calling. You mention “red herrings.” Where are the red herrings?

  • http://AddaURLtothiscomment nnmns

    This is some of the most tortured “logic” I’ve seen in a long time. Your Ph.D. is obviously not in any discipline involving logic.

    Oh, and it’s not the intention of most of us who advocate government help to equalize anything, just to give people the chance they need. To live, to get medical care, to have safe working conditions. You’ve set up some red herrings there.

Previous Posts

If I Am a Moral Relativist, So is God
Evidently, I am a moral relativist. In a recent article, I applauded a colleague for adapting to our school stage a play—Songs for a New World.  This play, I contended, marked a quite radical departure from the standard Politically Correct line insofar as it resoundingly affirmed “the morali

posted 9:23:32pm Apr. 17, 2014 | read full post »

Affirming Individuality: Reflections on "Songs for a New World"
Legions of Americans have, rightly, written off the entertainment and academic industries (yes, the latter is a colossal industry) as the culture’s two largest bastions of leftist ideology. Sometimes, however, and when we least expect it, the prevailing “Politically Correct” (PC) orthodoxy

posted 5:59:05pm Apr. 15, 2014 | read full post »

Pope Francis: A Socialist By Any Other Name
Pope Francis is once again insisting that he is not a communist, that his abiding concern for “the poor” is grounded in the Gospel of Christ, not the ideology of Marx, Engels, or any other communist. Back in 2010, while still a Cardinal, he felt the need to do the same. Why? It may very

posted 8:48:27pm Apr. 08, 2014 | read full post »

Pope Francis: As Clever a Politician as They Come
Much to the disappointment of this Catholic, Pope Francis balked on a golden opportunity to convey to the world just how fundamentally, how vehemently, the vision of the Church differs from that of President Obama when the two met a couple of weeks back. Why?  Can it be that Francis is the fello

posted 9:30:34pm Apr. 04, 2014 | read full post »

Jeb Bush: Disaster for the GOP
So, the word is that the fat cat GOP donors are eyeing up Jeb Bush as a presidential candidate for 2016. If there’s any truth to this—and, tragically, it appears that there most certainly is—then there is but one conclusion left for any remotely sober person to draw: The Republican Party

posted 10:05:38pm Apr. 01, 2014 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.