For all that I thrill to hear mean things said about Donald Trump, it isn’t at all clear to me that he has it coming in connection with some recent remarks he made regarding Jews.
Trump made the following statement during an Oval Office meeting with the press.
Five years ago, the concept of even talking about this — even three years ago — of cutting off aid to Israel because of two people that hate Israel and hate Jewish people — I can’t believe we’re even having this conversation. Where has the Democratic Party gone? Where have they gone where they’re defending these two people over the State of Israel?
I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat — it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.
Well.
Disloyalty to whom? Disloyalty to the United States? Judaism? Israel? Since he plainly means to disparage Democrats and portray Republicans as friends of Israel, it’s not at all clear to me where he locates the disloyalty. The Anti-Defamation League CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, shares my confusion.
It’s unclear who @POTUS is claiming Jews would be “disloyal” to, but charges of disloyalty have long been used to attack Jews. As we’ve said before, it's possible to engage in the democratic process w/o these claims. It's long overdue to stop using Jews as a political football.
— Jonathan Greenblatt (@JGreenblattADL) August 20, 2019
I don’t understand, either, the insistent refusal to acknowledge that all of the major Abrahamic faiths — Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism — do, in fact, demand preeminence in the lives of their followers. Al Smith’s Catholicism torpedoed his presidential ambitions, and very nearly torpedoed John Kennedy’s presidential ambitions; not unreasonably, a very great many Americans wondered if Smith or Kennedy would place the Pope ahead of the Constitution.
A few years ago, the Southern Baptist Convention considered a resolution condemning display of the Confederate flag, and the conversation soon digressed into a discussion of loyalty — and a great many Southern Baptists were definite that Jesus comes first and the Good Ol’ U.S. of A. can have the leftovers.
-
“I am a Christian first and an American second.”
-
“Following Christ will always trump being an American.”
-
“If I ever have to choose between the cross and the American flag, I will choose the cross every time.”
And let’s not forget what Albert Mohler has to say about loyalties, and what the graduates of Southern Baptist seminaries are taught:
In 2 Corinthians 6:14, the Apostle Paul commands that Christians must “not be unequally yoked with unbelievers.” This command reaches far beyond marriage, but it certainly includes the covenant of marriage within its span. Paul’s principle is clear: The Christian’s commitment to Christ is determinative of his or her other commitments. A believer must not marry an unbeliever, for this violates the very logic of the Gospel and the believer’s union with Christ.
The believer in Christ acknowledges him as Savior and Lord, with an allegiance that exceeds any earthly commitment. When two believers are married, they share this mutual commitment and are commonly dedicated to the Lordship of Christ.
Mohler’s language is plain, unambiguous, and exactly what is howled and bellowed from every Southern Baptist pulpit in the land every Sunday morning.
So, please: Spare me the indignation regarding complaints of divided loyalties and marvel, instead, that most of the Pious readily see it in others but wonder why anybody would think it of themselves. We would do better to frankly acknowledge that the Enlightenment ideals that America is founded upon are incompatible with the cult-like demands of the Abrahamic faiths, and be grateful that most believers have too much sense and decency to take all that nonsense seriously when it actually matters.