Jeffrey Goldberg notes that the number of Jewish members of congress is at an all-time high and seemingly set to rise. The same, I note, is also true of Mormons. Apparently mainstream Christianity can't get ahead in America.
« It's Not You, It's the Gays | Main | Alternatives to Law Enforcement »
Minority Report
19 Jun 2008 11:11 am
Comments (19)
Unfortunately the number of atheists in Congress is still disproportionately low.
Just looked it up and there are only two mainline Protestants on the Court.
http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html
I wonder if it has much to do with the communitarianism of those two religions, and the individual focus of Christianity. Actually, I'm quite sure that's the reason why.
Why is this considered okay whereas it's considered anti-semitic to note the high % of Jews in media and movie business? And what is the purpose of Goldberg's Atlantic blog? Is it to give Clive Crook a race in the "fewest looks" competition? Or does the Atlantic want a "professional Jew" blog, and if so, why, given that New Republic and Commentary are entire magazines devoted to this value proposition?
Gene, noting that Hollywood was started by primarily Jewish businessmen and that a lot of entertainers are Jewish is not considered anti-semitic. It's considered historic and demographic fact.
However, noting that Hollywood bears an immoral and corrupting influence on our culture primarily because it is run by Jews... now that would be considered anti-semitic.
It's a distinction that tends to escape anti-semites.
"Why is this considered okay whereas it's considered anti-semitic to note the high % of Jews in media and movie business?"
Bigots have tin-ears.
Imagine that there was someone you worked with that a loud minority didn't like irrationally. For example, because it was an effeminate male.
Now compare two guys standing around the water-cooler sharing rumors about this guy. One rumor is that he's not a team-player because he's not aggressive enough. Another rumor is that customers like him.
It's not that you can't say anything about him, good or bad. Or share rumors about him, good or bad. It's that there's a difference between rumors that say bad things about him because of people's irrational dislike and rumors about him that are just like rumors about anyone. There can be bad rumors about him that aren't based in the irrational dislike—the problem is, though, is that it's necessarily difficult to tell those apart from those which are motivated out of irrational dislike. Most (but not all) good rumors don't have that burden.
When there's an oppressed minority about whom bigots promulgate vicious falsehoods, the bigots don't understand that this dramatically skews all public discourse about this minority. All negative speech becomes suspect because so much of it is motivated by bad-faith. All positive speech is not so suspect (although there is positive discrimination and apparently positive speech that is actually subtly negative). This strikes the bigot as terribly unfair because he rightly knows that there are both true negative and true positive things to be said. But it's the bigots own fault that no negative things can be said without suspicion. They've poisoned the waters. It's their own responsibility and not the fault of those who are allegedly "PC".
There's a long history of bigoted discussion of jews dominating the entertainment and media industries as a means of furthering an argument that this influence has a negative effect on American life. There is no such similar argument with regard to jews active in politics (although, of course, there is such an argument with regard to their influence on politics with regard to secondary influence via contributions and PACs and such). There's no obvious bigoted agenda (yet) in pointing out how many jews there are in politics today or on the SCOTUS.
People that want to make negative arguments about certain groups who are not bigoted and whose arguments are not motivated by bigotry first must act against those who are bigoted. Because the bigots poison the well and dramatically reduce the credibility of legitimate negative arguments.
But in my experience and observation, there's usually just not that many non-bigoted people who are strongly motivated to make negative arguments about demographic groups of people.
You can even see this on the left. Many of us dislike the influence of evangelical Christians, Israeli hawks who are Jewish, and southerners. But it's mostly only the bigots who go on and on about these groups. Which, I might make clear, makes it difficult for the larger portion of us to ever make legitimate negative arguments, as I say above.
Bigotry is truly poisonous. It very disproportionately distorts public discourse and renders whole categories of speech problematic. This is why bigotry of all types should be constantly resisted. I don't think that we on the left do enough to resist the bigotry that comes from our side, but then it appears to be human nature not to do that much to resist it. Mostly, people just look aside.
It's interesting to note that the motion picture industry was actually started by establishment Protestants (Edison, George Eastman, et al) whose Motion Picture Patents Company was a cartel designed to freeze out competition. Hollywood was conveniently a continent away from the headquarters of the MPPC, and the Jewish movie theater owners went there to make their own movies, far from Edison's goons. I think we curretly call this "entrepreneurship."
Yup. And Catholics (and Jews) pretty much have the Supreme court sewn up. - David
Now all we need is to convince Souter and Stevens to switch teams, religiously speaking. I think Souter would make a good Jew. Maybe Stevens can convert to Mormonism?
Seems like a lot of popular comedians are Jewish.
"Souter would make a good Jew. Maybe Stevens can convert to Mormonism?"
I'll give you Souter, but, as a nominal Catholic, I'd like a Catholic liberal on the Court, so I'd prefer if Stevens went that direction.
BTW: The reason there are so many Conservative Catholics on the Court is not that all (or even most) Catholic jurists are Conservative, but rather, that many of the right's best Conservative legal minds are Catholic and not, oh, say, Baptist. Wonder why.
DAS:
After further consideration, I think you are right, we do need a Mormon on the Supreme Court. I nominate Clarence Thomas.
I'll just note that daniel pipes sounds like one of those wacko republicans who believe that if we leave Iraq, then sharia law will start being imposed in the US the next week.
Might have something to do with the influence Jews have in the Democratic Party. 13% of the Senate is a great return for only being 1.5% of the population. More important than the overrep of Jews is the underrep of Asians.
Its also interesting to note that the 109th Congress has the institution's first Buddhists (H. Johnson, Hirono), Muslim (Ellison), and open atheist (Stark).
Lev,
"Individualism" isn't a feature of Christianity, it's a feature of certain types of Protestant Christianity. The Catholic and Orthodox branches of Christianity (and to some extent Anglican and Lutheran as well) are much more committed to the idea that Christian values need to be lived out in the collective life of society.
BTW: The reason there are so many Conservative Catholics on the Court is not that all (or even most) Catholic jurists are Conservative, but rather, that many of the right's best Conservative legal minds are Catholic and not, oh, say, Baptist. Wonder why.
Posted by David | June 19, 2008 2:28 PM
******************
Republicans like to be able to claim that opposition to their Supreme Court nominees' hardcore social conservative views is motivated by bigotry. Democrats oppose candidates who are likely to trash gay rights and overturn Roe? "No Catholics Need Apply!"
Strikingly similar to the late 30's situation in France (PM Leon Blum) that Celine excoriated in his malevolently anti-Semitic pamphlet "Trifles For A Massacre". A European parliamentarian was in attendance one particular Jewish holidays and noted that there were so many members of Congress wearing yarmulkes it looked like the Knesset, only more religious.
Muslims also have an all time high in Congress (2!)
Comments closed July 03, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Yup. And Catholics (and Jews) pretty much have the Supreme court sewn up.
Posted by David | June 19, 2008 11:51 AM