Historically, The Jews Can Not Catch A Break

In the New Testament Jews are skewered for not believing Jesus was their anticipated savior.  I can understand why  they did not buy in. Because Jews did not write the New Testament they are portrayed in an unfavorable light.

This being the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, there are events commemorating it. One is about art reflecting Jews during the revolution. The art reflects the dilemma Jews faced and the unfortunate consequences of the choices some Jews made at the time.

The Jews in Russia had suffered a lot under Tsar Nicholus II. As with any political thinking there were disagreements on how to improve things.

One group came to believe Jews would be better off under socialism because people at the bottom would have a voice in the country’s direction. They formed the United Jewish Social Workers Party. Several complicated events led up to the “October Revolution” of 1917 but at least a part of what followed involved the UFSWP.

After the Bolsheviks took over, the lot of the Jews was no better and in some ways worse. Things were made even worse outside of Russia because Jews became known as Communists due to the participation of some in the Revolution.

We all know what later followed in Germany. Today in the U.S. some Christians take as history a tale in the Bible telling of the Jew’s desire to kill Jesus.

The tale obviously was an effort by ancient writers to curry favor with ruling Rome. But, the Jews lost again.

26 Responses

  1. Jinx II

    My husband taught and is a historian, he is very knowledgeable of European and North American history, especially the history surrounding conflicts and wars. He completely agrees with you Jon. I have a lifelong love of history and am especially interested in the events that led up to WWI and WWII……..probably because my Dad was and talked about it all the time. Dad was horrified by the Holocaust and the suffering of the common people in invaded and bombed countries. Both Dad and I agree with you, I know this even though he died almost 10 years ago…..he often said the Jews have come through hell for over 2000 years and they have earned my respect.

  2. Juan Ruiz

    One would think that religionists would be content to derive whatever spiritual comfort they can from their beliefs, and leave it at that. But history has proven otherwise. There always has to be an “Other,” a competitor religion, a villain, and enemy. This is not just a Jewish/Christian, Arab/Hindu split; it goes back to other beliefs which no longer exist. In most cases it’s just a premise for money and power: the Crusades, the Albigensian massacre, the Spanish Conquests, jihads by the Almoravides and Almohades.

      1. Juan Ruiz

        I’d propose that there would not be “ffrf folk” if religionists did not insist that secular government enforce their doctrines.

        1. Juan 11:18 I’d propose there would not be ffrf folk if religionists did not insist that government enforce their doctrines.

          Exactly what I was thinking, Juan. Good post.

        2. Henry

          JR, I guess I was just talking about personal expression. See above. Now, why would personal expression be construed as enforcing doctrine? Does personal expression have the same force as Congress making law? Please, sign me up! Then, there is the separate issue of historical work being destroyed. The historical veterans memorials all over the place are subject to being destroyed by the ffrf’s zeal and beliefs.

          1. Juan Ruiz

            I have no problem with (courteous) personal expression. It’s when it becomes lobbying for legislation based on theology that it becomes problematic.

          2. Henry

            Well, I think we can agree we cannot have a state church. However, limiting “lobbying based on theology” solves some problems, and opens some others. So, if we are to adhere to that principle, why are atheists given a free pass? Their beliefs are impressed onto citizens under the force of government and a lawsuit from the ffrf. Are their beliefs enacted into legislation and/or case law more important than my beliefs?

          3. Juan Ruiz

            I can’t recall any atheist lobbying directed toward establishing as law theological doctrine. Now, you and others might say atheism is a theology, when that is an oxymoron. Meanwhile religionists cite their scriptures as the basis for their lobbying, or exegeses of those scriptures.

          4. Henry

            JR:”I can’t recall any atheist lobbying directed toward establishing as law theological doctrine. Now, you and others might say atheism is a theology, when that is an oxymoron.” Well that kind of surprises me. They tend to leap out of their easy chair while waiting for evidence and instead take on a more active role in advocating their worldview. The textbooks present their worldview of origins of life and the universe despite a lack of evidence or reasonable timelines without a mass of personal bias to compensate and bring their theories along. We can’t bring our own bias, but they apparently sure can.

          5. Henry

            1961 Torcaso v. Watkin declared secular humanism a religion. 2003 JAMES J. KAUFMAN v. JEFFREY PUGH, Warden, et al. declared atheism a religion.

          6. Henry

            Certainly not using the extreme of Dred Scot. However, now we have the “validity” of the ffrf cases as they are adjudicated. Yet, we can’t seem to ascertain simple definitions as determined by case law? The same dilemma is present that you are skirting around: The atheists get their worldview not only personally expressed, but exacted onto society, yet they cry foul when Christians make personal expression. I do not believe the ffrf is really concerned about first amendment rights.

          7. Juan Ruiz

            One more time, we are not talking about the right of personal expression, but the inclusion of the doctrines of one specific religion into legal codes.

          8. Henry

            We? ((One more time)). See 12:06 about what I was talking about. Neither have you addressed any questions, just moving on with new arguments. This is getting boring.

      2. Henry 8:28 All is well

        We have Hillary on a world wide book tour–her book selling millions–and she slips on some ancient stone steps. Republican politicians continue their careers of sexual conquest. This Senator’s wife and 3 teenager children are keeping their family farm going while he is kissing lobbyists in bars:


        We can be so grateful here in Iowa that this Republican Senate Majority Leader usered through anti abortion bills and fired a woman employee of the legislature who blew the whistle of Republican butt pinching. She was fired for “job performance”, not whistle blowing. The court ordered the Republican majority to pay her $1.5 million. All is well indeed.

        1. Henry

          11:44, Republican butt pinching? Let’s look at the great blue state of Minnesota where it is legal to grab another’s ass, where a teacher can legally have sex with some of her students, and massage parlors are unlicensed. Bordering Minnesota may have corrupted the poor majority leader.

          1. Henry re:Being close to MN –That might be the explanation. Then again it might be the support of Bible believing Republicans for their make-every-skirt-in-sight President.

    1. Soylent Green Now In Chicken Flavour

      Write. It’s the duality, good vs evil, remove the duality and the game is over. Its sliding to the wrong-end currently, im afraid. cohesion is key.

  3. Soylent Green Now In Chicken Flavour

    Only 5% of the population identifies as having hebrewic origins but are everywhere from the take over of mtv after kurt cobain died, to media, to finance, to government even bruno mars is hebrewic. They’re the only ones that have to change their given names…perhaps they should be the one’s self reflecting, not us, just some constructive criticism on how they can do it better next time. So when America gets a reality show president, I’m looking around to see who’s basking. My 1st amendment right is given for this moment.

  4. Willard Bolinger

    Many Christians continue to break the law by insisting on teaching Christianity of some form and praying Etc in the public schools of our nation. They are and have been “serial law breakers” or criminals. Then they complain when groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation, American Atheists, and other sue them in court! The threat that the city may have to pay the legal expenses does not seems to bring forth the concept that these Christians should consider to quit breaking the law and become law-abiding citizens.

    1. Henry

      WB12:18, and by force rather than vote, the historical and personal expressions of Christianity are removed and the atheist theology is enforced. (Not a clear-cut issue.) I guess the judge made the law, not congress making a law. Therefore, the atheist theology in government must be legal. The judge said so. Strange thing though, the judge also said that black slavery was legal. However, the military and the executive fortunately said “no”.

Comments are closed.