=20 Please accept the enclosed It is an original, as yet not published =20 written by G. David Schwartz - the former president of Seedhouse, the onlin= e=20 interfaith committee. Schwartz is the author of A Jewish Appraisal of Dialo= gue, and=20 coauthor, with Jacqueline Winston, of Parables In Black and White. Currentl= y=20 a volunteer at Drake Hospital in Cincinnati, Schwartz continues to write.=20 His new book, Midrash and Working Out Of The Book is now in stores or can b= e =20 ordered.=20 =20 =20 Philo-Semitism =20 G David Schwartz=20 If the alien, Jean Amery says, =E2=80=9Cis the unfamiliar, and therefore by= =20 definition also threatening=E2=80=9D (pg. 55, =E2=80=9CEternal Outcasts and= Emigrants=E2=80=9D in his book, =E2=80=9C Radical Humanism (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1984, edited by=20 Sidney R. and Stella P. Rosenfeld) one might conclude that those who saved=20= Jews=20 were the highly educated, those who allowed their reason to make them=20 familiar with =E2=80=9Cthe different=E2=80=9D and therefore to have seen th= e difference as=20 familiarly human.=20 The first=3D-step in characterization of the philo-semetic is to approach =20 negativity. Philo-semetic can be characterizing largely by the absence of =20 projection, displacement, and rationalism. Philo-semetic, then, are those f= rom who,=20 for some =E2=80=98mysterious=E2=80=99 reason, have inhibitions to clear tho= ught.=20 Several radical sources present themselves as conducted for the reason of =20 this absence of inhibition. Alienation from environment (but this is negativ= e =20 and to an extent empirically invalid), a high degree of education (but Nazi=20= =20 sympathies are called intelligent), moral (but we prefer to see them as norm= al),=20 having penetrated radical root of real religion (while vague, perhaps even=20= =20 mystifying, this is it! Even if not religious, these people have presented t= he=20 essence of religiosity, to continually work art imposing human =20 relationships).=20 Whether is being a Christian person venturing thought pagan territories or=20 petit-bourgeois nationalist confronting progressive, or any weak people =20 standing before a more powerful group, anti-Semitism is an effort to assert,= =E2=80=9CI am=20 not as bad as you think. There are others who are worse than myself.=E2=80= =9D =20 This is why, for example, Moslems were not traditionally anti-Semitic. The= y=20 were conquerors. They were not weak people. Anti-Semitism is an expression=20 of weakness. That is why Philo-semetic exist, they have nothing to prove.= =20 They are secure and confident. As Christians, they are confident in their=20 faith. As humanists they are confident in the abilities of human beings to= work=20 together and advance. =20 Nachama Tec (When Light Pierces the Darkness: Christian Rescue of Jews in =20 Nazi Poland (NY. Oxford University Press, 1986), cites a source that says=20 anti-Semitism was so common, that only an exceptionally independent person=20= can=20 perceive a Jew as an individual to be judged dispassionately on the same ba= sis=20 as anyone else.=E2=80=9D =20 Programmatic extension of the conditions contributing to the advance of =20 philo-semetic proceeds through pluralism that is, in microcosm, democracy an= d =20 achievement of the good life is good. Pluralism denotes tolerance and =20 acceptance of the other, which is a measure of sensitivity, and nutrition, =20 friendliness, and quality =E2=80=93 all the concrete and abstract ideas, ide= als, and practices,=20 which suggest an end to frustration, misery, alienation, and =20 dissatisfaction. =20 Philo-semetic is what government and organizations did not do, individuals=20 not only did, but also did in spite of obstacles placed by organizations an= d=20 governments. Compassion may cause one to pause, the turn off the light and=20 weep privately. Courage does not occur in the dark. One may close ones eyes= and=20 be astonished by sensitivity. Courage draws one into the open-eyed world=20= of=20 pain and suffering. =20 We find it easy to praise the courage of those who fought the wars of the =20 countries, who were on the side of right and justice, decency, and good. It=20= is a=20 little ironic that every person who is a good citizen thinks he or she is o= n=20 the side of, or always rooting for, the good, the true, and the just. We ar= e=20 stunned, on the other hand, by those whose courage consisted on saving=20 lives. =20 Just as the term =E2=80=9Canti-Semitism=E2=80=9D is intact, the term =E2=80= =9Cphilo-semetic=E2=80=9D is as=20 well. Is a philo-Semite one who loves Jews? Or one who merely admires Jews?= =20 Or likes some Jews, like Albert Einstein or Karl Marx or the like. Or is he= =20 one who dislikes all Jews, but has acted on the imperative to rescue Jews f= rom=20 the flames? We are in an area of extreme inexactitude. =20 This is precisely as it should be. No one can =E2=80=9Clove=E2=80=9D am enti= re people. Nor,=20 properly speaking can one hate an entire people. This is shown in the =20 example of the person who says he or she loves Groucho Marx, not knowing he=20= was a=20 Jew. Sometimes people just don=E2=80=99t think about the religion of a perso= n who may =20 be =E2=80=9Cone of those.=E2=80=9D =20 Potential rescuers of Jews in Nazi Germany had to overcome several layers=20 of obstacles. The outer and strongest layer was the Nazi prohibition that m= ade=20 helping Jews a crime punishable by death. Next came the explicit anti-Jewis= h=20 ideologies and the pervasive anti-Semitism that made help to Jews both a=20 highly dangerous and a disloyal activity. Last, these Poles had to overcome= =20 their our diffuse cultural anti-Semitism.=E2=80=9D (Pg. 69, Tec, op, cit.=20= =20 Tec=E2=80=99s conclusion that =E2=80=9Cthe discussion to continue their prot= ection in the =20 face of special changers was modified by compassion and courage.=E2=80=9D (= P.81). =20 Indeed, the reality between compassion and courage is so integral one might= =20 argue that there is no courage without compassion, and that all compassion=20= (mere=20 emotion) committed to action leads to courage. Courage without compassion= =20 is fool heart, or whatever, but not real or useful courage. =20 =E2=80=9CThe majority of reducers I studied extended their aid for more than= six =20 months, while a very small minority limited their aid to a single act. Jewis= h =20 sources confirm these results among the survivors single helping acts were l= east=20 common. (Pg. 82, Tec) =20 This is ironic.=20 It indicates compassion was a long-term commitment. Indeed, compassion saw=20 the rescuer thought. The anti-Semites (or those practically infected with =20 anti-Semitism (or those arterially ionic works of anti-Semitism) had nothing= =20 personal to carry thought. They submitted to the fear, acquiesced to the sta= te of=20 siege, capitulated to the temporary vectors.=20 This raises an interring issue: those afflicted by anti-Semitism either =20 became brutes, or became victims. Only those harassed by compassion avoided= such=20 victimization in spite of adversary. =20 We do not expert the church to impose monolithic, rigid responses upon her=20 practitioners, but it seems fair to ask how are respondents can clam that t= he=20 prosecutors of Jews =E2=80=9Cwas Gods will, and Hitler was his tool. How cou= ld I =20 stand by and be against the will of God?=E2=80=9D (Tec, p. 137) and the con= trary attitude=20 of unmarried sisters who agree to harbor Jewish children because, they=20 reasoned,=E2=80=9D this way may be God would save us.=E2=80=9D (Tec 145)= Two different forms=20 of, or attitudes toward religion are outlined here? =20 It seems not. It seems the former is self-proactive, and the latter =20 self-directive. The former locates Gods will in Hitler and an event the latt= er =20 locates Gods will in the demands of the moment. The former is selfish foreg= oing of =20 responsibility and blindness. One is tempted to say it is a case where=20 religion did not =E2=80=9Ctake=E2=80=9D precisely because the onus of event= s were placed in the=20 events rather than in the individuals activity throught events. The later i= s=20 sustained and ennobled by religion. =20 Tec also says (pg 148) that in the name of religion, some Polish Catholics=20 protected Jews, but others remained indifferent to the suffering of the Jew= s=20 while others we pleased to denounce the Jews. But what is happing with this= =20 denouncements of Jews? If religious conviction and human involvement makes =20= so=20 many different interpretations how can any rational human being see the way=20= =20 clear enough to be better than the people in the dark old days? What makes=20= a=20 person so awkward, or so frightened to just forget how to be human in the t= ime=20 just before the apocalypse? =20 Concerning those rescuers who were devout, Tec says, =E2=80=9Ctheir compassi= on and=20 strong moral convection, thought expressed in terms of religious values, =20 seemed stronger than correct teachings and images of the church.=E2=80=9D (P= p. 148-9) =20 But what does =E2=80=9Cstronger=E2=80=9D mean here? =20 Altruistic behavior finds a paradigm in the soldiers who jump on hand =20 grenades to save his buddies life. This is called altruism but it could just= as =20 easily have been called the height of friendship. But it could just as easil= y be =20 called the height of morality. To give your life to save another is not=20 suicide but belief that something beyond the thought of human beings will s= ave=20 the =E2=80=9Chero=E2=80=9D at the same time, as the =E2=80=9Cvictim=E2=80= =9D was about to end. =20 Altruism is said to be frequently performed by religious people, but =20 atheists and others also perform it. With some altruism is more highly valu= ed than=20 oneself. Their behavior was not instructive and short-lived but rationally= =20 committed over an extended period of time. Their behavior was not suddenly=20 done, but achieved an element of defiance, which is available to soldiers.=20= =20 The protector did something which was courageous simply because he or she =20 intended, and planned, to life after the event. The rescuer did something mo= re =20 honorable than jump on a hand-grenade. He or she walked throught the world=20= as=20 it was, and was not discouraged. The act, which brings certain death,=20 calls for an admittance that we are not brave enough to do something like t= hat,=20 which leads to certain death and just believes death will pass you by. =20 The altruist values another more highly. His or her time is more valuable= ,=20 and better filled. That life is more important. Thus, the altruist is=20 selfless. The rescuers, on the other hand, act to create his or her world=20= with=20 less suffering and pain. The rescuer saw suffering and was disturbed by it= , and=20 he wished suffering would end not only for himself, but also for all forms=20 of life. He does not want to simply escape but wants it to be diminished an= d=20 made never to return. =20 The issue of pleasure is null. Does the person who rescues achieve pleasure= =20 in helping? Does the altruist rescue pleasure? Perhaps, but the implici= t=20 goal of all altruism is alleviation of the self. The implicit goal of the=20 person who rescues is the elevation of all wrong conditions in the world. I= n=20 neither is personal suffering a primary consideration.=20 Was protection altruism? We have consistently seemed that while a sadist an= d=20 necrophilia and anti-Semites had had to be charitable, low self-esteem, the=20= =20 Philo-semetic and protectors were extremely independent. It would be a shame= =20 to construct the capacity for courage and self-motivation just to throw the= m=20 away in an abstract self-lessens. I believe, rather, that the prosecutors w= ere=20 motivated to create a void out of their vision. =20 This led them to deeds where a mere idealist may have been content to sit i= n=20 his or her rocking chair and bemoan the condition of the world. These peopl= e=20 acted, because an independent person is not tied down by fear and doctrines= =20 or absence of external stimuli. An in dependent person sees error around=20 himself or herself and sets out to correct it. This is not altruism.=20 Tec (p 154) cites six characteristics of the rescuer:=20 1. =E2=80=9CThe inability of the rescuer to blend into the environment.=E2= =80=9D - =E2=80=9C Individualization.=E2=80=9D=20 2. =E2=80=9CA high level of independence and self-reliance=E2=80=A6=E2=80= =9D =20 3. =E2=80=9CAn enduring, strong commitment to help the needy that be= gan=20 before the war and that included a wide range of activities.=E2=80=9D =20 4. Sees rescue as a duty, not extraordinary or heroic. =20 5. =E2=80=9CAn unexplained beginning to rescue efforts.=E2=80=9D =20 6. =E2=80=9CA universalistic perception of the needy; the ability to= =20 disregard and set aside all attribute of the needy except their dependant a= nd=20 helpfulness.=20 Are not being considered if we consider rescuers as those who are=20 significantly different from their environment while we regard the brutes a= s paradigm=20 cases, or extremes, of their environment. I do not think this is the case.=20= =20 The brutes rely on at least a majority of people observing the status quo.=20= =20 Hence, they are in an extension of the status quo. The rescuers did not rel= y on=20 the status quo, fought the given, refused to accept the =E2=80=9Cas is=E2= =80=9D and in their=20 behavior designed a world more combatable with their beliefs, and a world=20 better than the status quo.=20 In these terms, the mere altruistic person finds his analogy in the person=20 who, upon doing a good deed, criticizes those who benefited from the deed f= or=20 not saying something like "Thank you=E2=80=9D Thus those who benefit are=20 inconsiderate! Consideration becomes the rule. Selfishness becomes the baro= meter of he=20 who does, and he to whom the deed was done. =20 On the other hand, it is difficult to understand =E2=80=93 as was a fact in= several =20 instanced =E2=80=93 how one click of anti-Semitism can have failed to know,=20 encourage, and work with another group of anti-Semites. For example, Hans R= ast, a =20 centralist Catholic in Germany =E2=80=9Cwas the most vehement and persiste= nt=20 anti-Semite =E2=80=A6 but was a staunch opponent of the Nazi=E2=80=99s=E2= =80=9D (pg 224, fn. 10, James C.=20 Hurst, =E2=80=9CBetween the Ghetto and the Nation: Catholics in the Weimar=20= Republic, in=20 Towards the Holocaust. Edited by Michael N. Dibkowski and Isador Wallinmann= =20 (Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press, 1983). =20 The question is not merely what motivated the individual to save Jews, but=20 the status of theses individuals. Some were Christens, who functioned witho= ut=20 guidance of their church; others were atheists and therefore without the =20 support of a transcendent being, and finally some were anti-Semites. The qu= estion=20 is not simply about individuals, but individuals without sanctions or =20 benefit of church or state, and without resource to a support group of like= -minded=20 human beings. Not only did these individuals not have the support of church= =20 or state but also they frequently acted against the =E2=80=9Cmoral majority=20= of =20 leaderships (tacitly or overt) and acted during a period of history wherein=20= =20 philosophers appeared to degrade individuality, and government did certainly= diminish=20 the potential for righteous action.=20 Many descriptions of prisoners are given in the literature. John Bierman, i= n=20 his Righteous Gentile: The Story of Raoul Wallenberg N.Y. Viking Press, 1981= )=20 describes Wallenberg as =E2=80=9Ca man brought up in the assurance that he=20= had the =20 background and personal qualities to do great things.=E2=80=99 (Pg. 5). =20 Tec tells of one rescuer, Zymunt Rostal who, growing up in utter poverty, =20= =E2=80=9C remembered his early years warm and full of love.=E2=80=9D (Pg 73). =20 The people talked about, anti-Semites and rescuers, have something in =20 conmen: their childhood was impoverished. The conditions were ripe for hun= ger,=20 tedium, frustration, and such terrible things. The later, however, were a= ble=20 to rest in the true luxury of love, warmth, family, and the implied presenc= e=20 of values and encouragement. The others lashed out, sought blame, found fau= lt,=20 revenged on victims. =20 Access the extent to which war =E2=80=93 sheared away leisure, reducing all=20= involved=20 to concerns of immediacy, undoing the hierarchy of needs or values =E2=80= =93 reduce=20 people to, of you will, their basic instincts. In this pool of humanity, =20 there is less room for Christians and Jews, and others, but a depleted comm= unity.=20 Any value, which survives, is basic. E.g. survival instincts or compassion= ,=20 whichever was matured in the person before the war began. =20 Tec says, in =E2=80=9CWhen Light=E2=80=9D (pg 107), =E2=80=9C=E2=80=A6the Na= zis throught their polices of =20 extermination transformed the image of the Jew from a completive, aggressive= =20 being into a suffering, deprived and totally helpless individual. This chang= e=20 in turn was compatible with their predisposing to protest the underdog. =20 What is important is to devise tests to prove or disprove the theory. Then=20 to devise means of maximum allowance to create conditions contusive to =20 engendering such people. =20 The term =E2=80=98philo-semetic=E2=80=99, of course, is inexact. Unlike the=20= word =E2=80=98philosophy =E2=80=99 which can designate a love, which can be directed toward a specifi= c =20 entity, there can be as little a =E2=80=98general=E2=80=99 love of Jews as t= here can be rationally=20 a =E2=80=98general=E2=80=99 hate of Jews. One may like or dislike Jewish mus= ic =E2=80=9Cin general,=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 in specific, one can only like Hava Negella, or dislike it; like=20= the =E2=80=9C Dreidle. Dreidle. Dreidle song, or dislike it. This is like Jewish literatu= re.=20 But one cannot direct oneself to like or dislike anything about Judaism. By= =20 direction I mean make an attempt to like or dislike anything, which is not=20 naturally likable, or dislikeable by you. =20 Arland Ussher, in The Magic People, (N.Y. The Devin-Adair Co, 1957) says=20 the Jews in business =E2=80=9Can irritant =E2=80=93 but I think he can be a=20= most valuable =20 irritant; at any rate. I have no patience with gentiles who =E2=80=A6 are pe= rpetually =20 bloating to be shielded from his competition=E2=80=9D (p. 138). =20 Ussher also says, (ibid, page 127) =E2=80=9Cwho appreciates the intelligenc= e and=20 urbanity of the (better-type) Jew. (Pg. 123) and can associate with on the=20 grounds of =E2=80=9Cculture, =E2=80=9Cif only culture (pg. 126) finds the a= nti-Semite =E2=80=9Cgenerally=20 a philistine boor.=E2=80=9D (p. 127) =20 Philo-semetic, initially, assert the respectful image of Judaism over the =20 negative. Thus, the great antiquity (the traditional character), the asserti= on =20 of a high morality, and the codes, which define and protect the people as a=20= =20 people among people is more highlights than identity in the negative sense o= f =20 nationalism, parochialism and restricted autonomy to detail and cultist. The= =20 ubiquitous human, then, is asserted over the limited =E2=80=98different.=E2= =80=99 This =20 similarity is dissimilar is an attitude of perceptions which is developed fr= om a =20 number of influence, but is essentially a-Semitic. =20 Even Johannes Reuchlin (1455-1522) who was an expert in biblical knowledge,= =20 defense for Jews against the apostate, Johannes Pefferkorn=E2=80=99s attemp= t to burn=20 the Jewish books, and a genuine feeling of responsibility for the treatment= =20 of the Jews attempted =E2=80=9Cto prove with kabalistic methods that the co= nquest of=20 Judaism by Christianity had been hinted at in the names of God and the Jews= =20 themselves=E2=80=9D (Pg. 99, Hallo op, cit.) =20 It is not mysterious to call attention to famous or neglected Philo-semetic= .=20 Rather I want to think about those non-Jews who seemed to respect and/or=20 protect the Jews. It is the fault of other; better scholars if more=20 Philo-semetic than I have known about deserve mention. Or it is the fault o= f a theology,=20 which calls for too much overcoming of culture and popular detriments to=20 create of oneself a Philo-semetic. Since the emphases of reasoned human=20 relations ought not be burdened with exclusive consideration towards Jews,=20= it would=20 be better to call such individuals =E2=80=9Cmenchim.=E2=80=9D =20 As the case of Wallenberg indicates =E2=80=93 sometimes a sense of decency a= nd =20 humanity overwhelms one and compels one to act in contradiction to owns own=20= best =20 interests. Yet decency demands not only that we act correctly in our subject= ive=20 lives (deal honesty, courageously, etc.) but that honesty, courage, justice= =20 and loving-kindness are so very important that we are called upon (if we on= ly=20 hear the voice) to act these over top our daily lives. To act against ones= =20 subjective interests, in desperate times, is to act in the interest of thos= e=20 moral values, which, in the long run, preserve all the human race, includin= g=20 my family and my friends. =20 This is not to say that it is legitimate to qualify the acts of =20 righteousness as a trade off. One Wallenberg for 2000 Jews is as illuminate=20= as the=20 obverse assertion that one Wallenberg evidenced more humanity than, perhaps=20= those=20 2000 lives saved. Nether quality nor qualitative are justified except as=20= =E2=80=98 interim.=E2=80=99 Yet precisely =E2=80=98interim=E2=80=99 perspectives qual= ity and quantity are, as=20 philosophers say, in progress. Hence, they are not precisely definable. T= hey=20 are not definite. All we can agree upon is the so very abstract point: we=20= all=20 want things more and better. =20 Precisely what issuers are involved (more and better candy bars, more and=20 better whiskey bottles, technology. etc.) is indefinite. And more to the po= int,=20 precisely the dialectic between =E2=80=9Cpreferred=E2=80=9D and =E2=80=9Chi= storic=E2=80=9D (or hope and=20 reality, wish and event, or whatnot) is left to the accident of history as=20 planned out between the reasoned acts and all participants. Obviously form=20= our=20 perceptions; the desired end would have been Wallenberg at home with his=20 wife and children, and two thousand Jews in safety. It could have ended wor= se=20 than it, perhaps, did. =20 Rudolf Hallo, in =E2=80=9CChristen Hebraists=E2=80=9D (Modern Judaism, Vol.= 3, #1, Feb =E2=80=9983.=20 page 97) said =E2=80=9CInnocent IV, the greatest of all popes, protected th= e Jews=20 against persecution because throught them=20 =E2=80=9Dour faith is truly verified.=E2=80=9D =20 A Christian Hebraist cannot automatically be deemed a Philo-semetic. =20 Otherwise Hitler=E2=80=99s professors and all of those who throughout histor= y reached the=20 Talmud in order to rip (out of context) demanding statements would be so =20 considered. Indeed, if we take the term =E2=80=9CChristian Hebraist=E2=80= =9D as a praiseworthy=20 term, they may not be deemed by so noble a term. Indeed, if the term =E2= =80=9CChristian=E2=80=9D is a value they may not be categorized as Christians. =20 =E2=80=9CSir Walter Scott=E2=80=99s knowledge of it (Judaism) was, one canno= t but feel, far=20 less imitate than George Elliot=E2=80=99s, but his poetic insight kept him =20 marvelously straight in his appreciation of Jewish life and character.=E2= =80=9D (Pg. 246,=20 Israel Abrahams, The Book of Delights and Other Papers, (Pa. The Jewish=20 Publication Society of America 1912) =20 Tolstoy granted that Philo-semetic see in the Jew someone who replicates to= =20 some degree, the persons image of a worthwhile humanity.=20 A Christian who converts to Judaism is not a Philo-semetic. Even in his =20 pre-conversion state, he is a future Jew. Since Jews are pro-Judaism, t= hey=20 cannot adequately be described as those against the common lot of apathy,=20 ignorance and/or hate, love for the Jews while yet retraining their beloved= =20 conventions. =20 Jews are prone to speech as if the anti-Judaic utterances of John Chrysosto= m=20 are a bit exaggerated, a bit over the norm. If so, if anti-Judaic sentiment= s=20 are stereotypic, then, it will be fruitfully to discover how and why some=20 Christian people overcome =E2=80=9Ctheological desperation of traditions=E2= =80=9D as well as=20 environment conditions in order not to assert anti-Judaic remarks, but to =20 assert positive concerns with regard to the Jews. =20 Indeed, we may ask how some Christians discovered their =E2=80=9Cphilo-Semit= ism =E2=80=9C =20 out of the contours of their Christian belief. It is but a step to just as= k=20 what it is within philo-Semitism, which makes these people true Christians.= =20 Insofar as this =E2=80=93 and subsequent study =E2=80=93 suggests that the=20= Christianity or=20 Chrysostom is somehow defective, it may be the case that study of philo-Sem= ites=20 will allow us to develop a criteria of what constitutes true Christianity.=20= =20 Stephen George sent =E2=80=9Chis refusal to serve as president of Goebbels= =E2=80=99s =20 Academy of Letters through a Jewish disciple. (Nationalism and Sexuality,=20= George=20 L. Mosse (N.Y Howard Fertig, 1985). But was this a malicious insult or an=20 indication that his own: =E2=80=9Cacademy of letters=E2=80=9D was more enco= mpassing? =20 In asserting, =E2=80=9CJews have the right to exist,=E2=80=9D the =E2=80=98P= hilo-semetic,=E2=80=99 to be =20 sure, opposed the anti-Semite, but he also legitimized him at the same time.= =20 Who could ever dream of going about saying that Enlightenment or Frenchmen=20= have=20 the right to exist?=E2=80=9D (Pg. 299, =E2=80=9CDiaspora and Nations=E2= =80=9D in The Jewish=20 Though of Emil Fackenheim, edited by Michael L. Morgan. (Detroit, Wayne Sta= te=20 University, 1987).=20 The study of philo-semetic may be a misnomer. The term suggests a love of =20 Jews (or the race of Semites in general) analogous to the love of chocolate=20= =20 candy or other personal fascinations. Anti-Semitism seems less a fascination= =20 than philo-semetic. I suggest that Jews are a viable are a viable area for= =20 defense of humanity. In this regard, the question =E2=80=9Cwhy=E2=80=9D som= e of the non-Jews=20 should have been/or are so friendly to Jews do not express a prejudice =E2= =80=93 not=20 even the Jewish prejudice of ubiquitous anti-Semitism.=20 Anti-Semitism relies on dualism of them and us. Philo-semetic, or speech =20 about Philo-semetic does not so much overcome that dualism as offer an =20 alternative formulation of a dualism: not Jew-lover and Jew hater. In philo= -semetic,=20 the Jewish individual disappears!=20 Duality is rare contrary equalities. We call the later equality, and talk =20 about tolerance and helpfulness. Duality always assumes one aspect of the=20 reality overrides the other. If the emphasis is on the dreams of men or/and= women=20 then one or the other is assumed to be supreme. In the case of=20 philo-semetic, one assets itself better than the other. Yet if what one cal= ls=20 philo-semetic is an assertion of humanism, then it doe not want anti-Semiti= sm to end. =20 =20 Douglas K. Huneke, in The Moses of Rovno (N.Y. Dodd, Mead and Co., 1985) =20 cites Perry London=E2=80=99s characters of a typological rescue. He says th= at they all=20 have =E2=80=9Ca spirit of adventuress =E2=80=9Cidentified with a morally st= rong parent,=E2=80=9D and=20 one who is =E2=80=9Csocially marginal=E2=80=9D (pg 178), then Huneke adds s= even of his own=20 (pp, 180ff) =20 1. =E2=80=9CAn empathetic imagination=E2=80=9D=20 2. =E2=80=9CA persons ability to present himself or herself, and con= trol a=20 critical situation =E2=80=9C=20 3. =E2=80=9CPreviewing for a purposeful life=E2=80=9D=20 4. =E2=80=9CSignificant personal experiences with suffering and de= ath=E2=80=9D=20 5. =E2=80=9CAbility to confront and manage their prejudices=E2=80=9D=20= =20 6. =E2=80=9CThe development of a community of compassion and support= .=E2=80=9D=20 And 7. =E2=80=9CThe ability to offer hospitality.=20 Under number 3, Huneke says: =E2=80=9CIn order to be altruistic, a person =20= must be=20 both proactive and proactive (its opposite is reactive) and personal (its=20 opposite is antisocial.) Behavior is characterized by:=20 (1) Careful planning to act in or compensate and responsive war; =20 (2) Anticipating opportunities for having positive and beneficial impact= =20 in the lives or circumstance of others; and =20 (3) Actively promoting the well-being of self and others.=E2=80=9D(pg.18= 2) =20 The argument that we ought to make allowable for an author because his=20 writings reflect his times=20 may refer to three faults -- only one of which is legitimate:=20 1. His use of issues;=20 2. His examples =20 3. The questions he asks =20 His use of logical (historical) methods. The question he needs no apology.=20 He is, after all, not a victim of his times but a child of his times. This=20= is,=20 in fact a second level of his examples. Examples also need no apology, as i= t=20 is. A second level of us examples. =20 It would be interesting to go the other way in and investigate =20 philo-Semites, or repute philo=3DSemitism to see what makes them tick, where= philo-Semitism=20 fits in their life and thoughts. =20 How much more valid and entertaining would it be to compare a white trash =20 Alabama coon with a white trash New England Jew-hater? What is it that they=20= have=20 in common? What, if any, political, psychological and glandular=20 maladjustments belong to both of these citizens? (Pp. 243-4 in Ben Hecht A=20= Guide for the =20 Bedeviled (N.Y. Charles Scribner=E2=80=99s Sons, 1944). =20 In the case of Bonhoeffer a change in his perception of Christian theology=20 allowed in a different perspective of the Jews indicates:=20 A.) The common (traditional) acceptance of Christianity was capable of =20 anti-Semitism, but B.) That weak statement is the best we can=20= say. We=20 cannot say Christianity is anti-Semitic because C.) Alternative=20 ideals or practices of Christianity are not anti-Semitic. =20 Jean-Paul Sartre believes Jews used anti-Semitism. But Sartre could not see= =20 Jewish life without the idea of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semites were wrong in =20 thinking their ideology was responsible. Rather is was caused by the Jews.=20 While brotherhood and tolerance may be a logical deduction or inference fro= m=20 Christianity, there is not the crux of Christianity. Aside from the =20 commandment to love even enemies, one would be hard pressed to find a direct= =20 statement of brotherhood and tolerance.=20 The message of the gospels was individualistic preparation for heaven. The=20 message of the church was belief in Jesus as the Christ and the message of =20 Judaism would be something like: Do not belittle Jesus. He was just a Jew=20= =E2=80=93 your =20 brother =E2=80=93 who was trying to bring people closer to God. No one shoul= d be =20 criticized for trying to do that. =20 -------------------------------1114659849 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Language: en
 Please=20 accept the= =20 enclosed It is an   original, as yet not published  written b= y G.=20 David Schwartz - the former president of Seedhouse, the online interfaith=20 committee. Schwartz is the author of A Jewish Appraisal of Dialogue, and=20 coauthor, with Jacqueline Winston, of Parables In Black and White. Currently= a=20 volunteer at Drake Hospital in=20 Cincinnati<= /st1:City>, Schwartz continues to write.= His=20 new book, Midrash and Working Out Of The Book is now in stores or can be=20 ordered.
 

        &= nbsp;            = ;            &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;=20 Philo-Semitism=20

 &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =             &nbs= p;            &n= bsp;            =        G=20 David Schwartz

        &= nbsp;      =20 If the alien, Jean Amery says, = ;=20 =E2=80=9Cis the unfamiliar, and therefore by definition also threaten= ing=E2=80=9D (pg.=20 55, =E2=80=9CEternal Outcasts and Emigrants=E2=80=9D in his book, =E2=80=9CR= adical Humanism=20 (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1984, edited by Sidney R. and Stella= P.=20 Rosenfeld) one might conclude that those who saved Jews were the highly=20 educated, those who allowed their reason to make them familiar with =E2=80= =9Cthe=20 different=E2=80=9D and therefore to have seen the difference as familiarly=20 human.

        &= nbsp;      =20 The first=3D-step in characterization of the philo-semetic is to appr= oach=20 negativity. Philo-semetic can be characterizing largely by the absence of=20 projection, displacement, and rationalism.=  =20 Philo-semetic, then, are those from who, for some =E2=80=98mysterious= =E2=80=99 reason,=20 have inhibitions to clear thought.

        &= nbsp;      =20 Several radical sources present themselves as conducted for the reaso= n of=20 this absence of inhibition. Alienation from environment (but this is negativ= e=20 and to an extent empirically invalid), a high degree of education (but Nazi=20 sympathies are called intelligent), moral (but we prefer to see them as norm= al),=20 having penetrated radical root of real religion (while vague, perhaps even=20 mystifying, this is it! Even if not religious, these people have presented t= he=20 essence of religiosity, to continually work art imposing human=20 relationships).

        &= nbsp;      =20 Whether is being a Christian person venturing thought pagan territori= es=20 or petit-bourgeois nationalist confronting progressive, or any weak people=20 standing before a more powerful group, anti-Semitism is an effort to assert,= =E2=80=9CI=20 am not as bad as you think. There are others who are worse than myself.=E2= =80=9D=20

        &= nbsp;      =20 This is why, for example, Moslems were not traditionally=20 anti-Semitic.  They were conqu= erors.=20 They were not weak people. Anti-Semitism is an expression of weakness.   That is why Philo-semetic ex= ist,=20 they have nothing to prove. They are secure and confident.  As Christians, they are confident=20= in=20 their faith.  As humanists the= y are=20 confident in the abilities of human beings to work together and advance.=20

        &= nbsp;      =20 Nachama Tec (When Light Pierces the Darkness: Christian Rescue of Jew= s in=20 Nazi Poland=20= (NY.=20 Oxford University Press, 1986), cites a source that says anti-Semitism was s= o=20 common, that only an exceptionally independent person can perceive a Jew as=20= an=20 individual to be judged dispassionately on the same basis as anyone else.= =E2=80=9D=20

        &= nbsp;      =20 Programmatic extension of the conditions contributing to the advance=20= of=20 philo-semetic proceeds through pluralism that is, in microcosm, democracy an= d=20 achievement of the good life is good.   Pluralism denotes tolerance=20= and=20 acceptance of the other, which is a measure of sensitivity, and nutrition,=20 friendliness, and quality =E2=80=93 all the concrete and abstract ideas, ide= als, and=20 practices, which suggest an end to frustration, misery, alienation, and=20 dissatisfaction.

        &= nbsp;      =20 Philo-semetic is what government and organizations did not do,=20 individuals not only did, but also did in spite of obstacles placed by=20 organizations and governments. =20 Compassion may cause one to pause, the turn off the light and weep=20 privately. Courage does not occur in the dark. One may close ones eyes and b= e=20 astonished by sensitivity.  Co= urage=20 draws one into the open-eyed world of pain and suffering.

        &= nbsp;      =20 We find it easy to praise the courage of those who fought the wars of= the=20 countries, who were on the side of right and justice, decency, and good. It=20= is a=20 little ironic that every person who is a good citizen thinks he or she is on= the=20 side of, or always rooting for, the good, the true, and the just. We are=20 stunned, on the other hand, by those whose courage consisted on saving lives= .=20

        &= nbsp;      =20 Just as the term =E2=80=9Canti-Semitism=E2=80=9D is intact, the term=20= =E2=80=9Cphilo-semetic=E2=80=9D is=20 as well. Is a philo-Semite one who loves Jews?  Or one who merely admires Jews? Or= likes=20 some Jews, like Albert Einstein or Karl Marx or the like. Or is he one who=20 dislikes all Jews, but has acted on the imperative to rescue Jews from the=20 flames?  We are in an area of=20 extreme inexactitude.

        &= nbsp;      =20 This is precisely as it should be. No one can =E2=80=9Clove=E2=80=9D=20= am entire people.=20 Nor, properly speaking can one hate an entire people. This is shown in the=20 example of the person who says he or she loves Groucho Marx, not knowing he=20= was=20 a Jew. Sometimes people just don=E2=80=99t think about the religion of a per= son who may=20 be =E2=80=9Cone of those.=E2=80=9D  <= /SPAN>

        &= nbsp;      =20 Potential rescuers of Jews in Nazi=20 Germany had=20= to=20 overcome several layers of obstacles. The outer and strongest layer was the=20= Nazi=20 prohibition that made helping Jews a crime punishable by death.  Next came the explicit anti-Jewish= =20 ideologies and the pervasive anti-Semitism that made help to Jews both a hig= hly=20 dangerous and a disloyal activity. Last, these Poles had to overcome their o= ur=20 diffuse cultural anti-Semitism.=E2=80=9D&n= bsp;=20 (Pg. 69, Tec, op, cit.

        &= nbsp;      =20 Tec=E2=80=99s conclusion that =E2=80=9Cthe discussion to continue the= ir protection in the=20 face of special changers was modified by compassion and courage.=E2=80=9D  (P.81).  Indeed, the reality between compas= sion=20 and courage is so integral one might argue that there is no courage without=20 compassion, and that all compassion (mere emotion) committed to action leads= to=20 courage. Courage without  =20 compassion is fool heart, or whatever, but not real or useful courage= .=20

        &= nbsp;      =20 =E2=80=9CThe majority of reducers I studied extended their aid for mo= re than six=20 months, while a very small minority limited their aid to a single act. Jewis= h=20 sources confirm these results among the survivors single helping acts were l= east=20 common. (Pg. 82, Tec)  =

        &= nbsp;      =20 This is ironic.

        &= nbsp;      =20 It indicates compassion was a long-term commitment. Indeed, compassio= n=20 saw the rescuer thought. The anti-Semites (or those practically infected wit= h=20 anti-Semitism (or those arterially ionic works of anti-Semitism) had nothing= =20 personal to carry thought. They submitted to the fear, acquiesced to the sta= te=20 of siege, capitulated to the temporary vectors.

        &= nbsp;      =20 This raises an interring issue: those afflicted by anti-Semitism eith= er=20 became brutes, or became victims. =20 Only those harassed by compassion avoided such victimization in spite= of=20 adversary. 

        &= nbsp;      =20 We do not expert the church to impose monolithic, rigid responses upo= n=20 her practitioners, but it seems fair to ask how are respondents can clam tha= t=20 the prosecutors of Jews =E2=80=9Cwas Gods will, and Hitler was his tool. How= could I=20 stand by and be against the will of God?=E2=80=9D (Tec, p. 137)  and the contrary attitude of unmar= ried=20 sisters who agree to harbor Jewish children because, they reasoned,=E2=80= =9D this way=20 may be God would save us.=E2=80=9D &n= bsp; =20 (Tec 145)  Two differen= t=20 forms of, or attitudes toward religion are outlined here?

        &= nbsp;      =20 It seems not. It seems the former is self-proactive, and the latter=20 self-directive. The former locates Gods will in Hitler and an event the latt= er=20 locates Gods will in the demands of the moment.  The former is selfish foregoing of= =20 responsibility and blindness. One is tempted to say it is a case where relig= ion=20 did not =E2=80=9Ctake=E2=80=9D precisely because the onus of events were pla= ced in the events=20 rather than in the individuals activity throught events. The later is sustai= ned=20 and ennobled by religion.

        &= nbsp;      =20 Tec also says (pg 148) that in the name of religion, some Polish=20 Catholics protected Jews, but others remained indifferent to the suffering o= f=20 the Jews while others we pleased to denounce the Jews. But what is happing w= ith=20 this denouncements of Jews? If religious conviction and human involvement ma= kes=20 so many different interpretations how can any rational human being see the w= ay=20 clear enough to be better than the people in the dark old days?  What makes a person so awkward, or= so=20 frightened to just forget how to be human in the time just before the=20 apocalypse?

        &= nbsp;      =20 Concerning those rescuers who were devout, Tec says, =E2=80=9Ctheir c= ompassion=20 and strong moral convection, thought expressed in terms of religious values,= =20 seemed stronger than correct teachings and images of the church.=E2=80=9D (P= p.=20 148-9) 

        &= nbsp;      =20 But what does =E2=80=9Cstronger=E2=80=9D mean here?   

        &= nbsp;      =20 Altruistic behavior finds a paradigm in the soldiers who jump on hand= =20 grenades to save his buddies life. This is called altruism but it could just= as=20 easily have been called the height of friendship. But it could just as easil= y be=20 called the height of morality.  To=20 give your life to save another is not suicide but belief that something beyo= nd=20 the thought of human beings will save the =E2=80=9Chero=E2=80=9D at the same= time, as the=20 =E2=80=9Cvictim=E2=80=9D was about to end.=  =20

        &= nbsp;      =20 Altruism is said to be frequently performed by religious people, but=20 atheists and others also perform it. = =20 With some altruism is more highly valued than oneself.  Their behavior was not instructive= and=20 short-lived but rationally committed over an extended period of time. Their=20 behavior was not suddenly done, but achieved an element of defiance, which i= s=20 available to soldiers. 

        &= nbsp;      =20 The protector did something which was courageous simply because he or= she=20 intended, and planned, to life after the event. The rescuer did something mo= re=20 honorable than jump on a hand-grenade.&nbs= p;=20 He or she walked throught the world as it was, and was not=20 discouraged.  The act, which b= rings=20 certain death, calls for an admittance that we are not brave enough to do=20 something like that, which leads to certain death and just believes death wi= ll=20 pass you by.

        &= nbsp;      =20  The altruist values an= other=20 more highly.  His or her time=20= is=20 more valuable, and better filled. =20 That life is more important. Thus, the altruist is selfless.  The rescuers, on the other hand, a= ct to=20 create his or her world with less suffering and pain.  The rescuer saw suffering and was=20 disturbed by it, and he wished suffering would end not only for himself, but= =20 also for all forms of life. He does not want to simply escape but wants it t= o be=20 diminished and made never to return. = =20

        &= nbsp;      =20 The issue of pleasure is null. Does the person who rescues achieve=20 pleasure in helping?   Do= es the=20 altruist rescue pleasure?  Per= haps,=20 but the implicit goal of all altruism is alleviation of the self. The implic= it=20 goal of the person who rescues is the elevation of all wrong conditions in t= he=20 world. In neither is personal suffering a primary consideration.

        &= nbsp;      =20 Was protection altruism? We have consistently seemed that while a sad= ist=20 and necrophilia and anti-Semites had had to be charitable, low self-esteem,=20= the=20 Philo-semetic and protectors were extremely independent. It would be a shame= to=20 construct the capacity for courage and self-motivation just to throw them aw= ay=20 in an abstract self-lessens. I believe, rather, that the prosecutors were=20 motivated to create a void out of their vision.

        &= nbsp;      =20 This led them to deeds where a mere idealist may have been content to= sit=20 in his or her rocking chair and bemoan the condition of the world.  These people acted, because an=20 independent person is not tied down by fear and doctrines or absence of exte= rnal=20 stimuli. An in dependent person sees error around himself or herself and set= s=20 out to correct it. This is not altruism.

        &= nbsp;      =20 Tec (p 154) cites six characteristics of the rescuer:

        &= nbsp;            = ;          =20 1. =E2=80=9CThe inability of the rescuer to blend into the environmen= t.=E2=80=9D   - =E2=80=9CIndividualization= .=E2=80=9D

        &= nbsp;            = ;          =20 2. =E2=80=9CA high level of independence and self-reliance=E2=80=A6= =E2=80=9D

3.      &n= bsp;=20 =E2=80=9CAn enduring, strong commitment to hel= p the needy=20 that began before the war and that included a wide range of activities.=E2= =80=9D 

4.      &n= bsp;=20 Sees rescue as a duty, not extraordinary or he= roic.=20

5.      &n= bsp;=20 =E2=80=9CAn unexplained beginning to rescue ef= forts.=E2=80=9D=20

6.      &n= bsp;=20 =E2=80=9CA universalistic perception of the ne= edy; the=20 ability to disregard and set aside all attribute of the needy except their=20 dependant and helpfulness.

Are not being considered if we consider rescuers as= those=20 who are significantly different from their environment while we regard the=20 brutes as paradigm cases, or extremes, of their environment. I do not think=20= this=20 is the case.  The brutes rely=20= on at=20 least a majority of people observing the status quo.  Hence, they are in an extension of= the=20 status quo. The rescuers did not rely on the status quo, fought the given,=20 refused to accept the =E2=80=9Cas is=E2=80=9D and in their behavior designed= a world more=20 combatable with their beliefs, and a world better than the status=20 quo.

In these terms, the mere altruistic person finds hi= s=20 analogy in the person who, upon doing a good deed, criticizes those who=20 benefited from the deed for not saying something like "Thank you=E2=80=9D Th= us those who=20 benefit are inconsiderate! Consideration becomes the rule. Selfishness becom= es=20 the barometer of he who does, and he to whom the deed was done. 

On=20 the other hand, it is difficult to understand =E2=80=93 as was a fact in sev= eral=20 instanced =E2=80=93 how one click of anti-Semitism can have failed to know,=20= encourage,=20 and work with another group of anti-Semites. For example, Hans Rast, a=20 centralist Catholic in=20 Germany =E2= =80=9Cwas the=20 most vehement and persistent anti-Semite =E2=80=A6 but was a staunch opponen= t of the=20 Nazi=E2=80=99s=E2=80=9D (pg 224, fn. 10, James C. Hurst, =E2=80=9CBetween th= e Ghetto and the Nation:=20 Catholics in the Weimar=20 Republic, in Towards the Holocaus= t.=20 Edited by Michael N. Dibkowski and Isador Wallinmann (Westport, Conn., Green= wood=20 Press, 1983).

        &= nbsp;      =20 The question is not merely what motivated the individual to save Jews= ,=20 but the status of theses individuals. Some were Christens, who functioned=20 without guidance of their church; others were atheists and therefore without= the=20 support of a transcendent being, and finally some were anti-Semites. The=20 question is not simply about individuals, but individuals without sanctions=20= or=20 benefit of church or state, and without resource to a support group of=20 like-minded human beings. Not only did these individuals not have the suppor= t of=20 church or state but also they frequently acted against the =E2=80=9Cmoral ma= jority of=20 leaderships (tacitly or overt) and acted during a period of history wherein=20 philosophers appeared to degrade individuality, and government did certainly= =20 diminish the potential for righteous action.

        &= nbsp;      =20 Many descriptions of prisoners are given in the literature. John Bier= man,=20 in his Righteous Gentile: The Story of Raoul Wallenberg N.Y. Viking Press, 1= 981)=20 describes Wallenberg as =E2=80=9Ca man brought up in the assurance that he h= ad the=20 background and personal qualities to do great things.=E2=80=99   (Pg. 5).

        &= nbsp;      =20 Tec tells of one rescuer, Zymunt Rostal who, growing up in utter=20 poverty,  =E2=80=9Cremembered=20= his early=20 years warm and full of love.=E2=80=9D = ; (Pg=20 73).

        &= nbsp;      =20 The people talked about, anti-Semites and rescuers, have something in= =20 conmen:  their childhood was=20 impoverished. The conditions were ripe for hunger, tedium, frustration, and=20= such=20 terrible things.  The later,=20 however, were able to rest in the true luxury of love, warmth, family, and t= he=20 implied presence of values and encouragement. The others lashed out, sought=20 blame, found fault, revenged on victims.

        &= nbsp;      =20 Access the extent to which war =E2=80=93 sheared away leisure, reduci= ng all=20 involved to concerns of immediacy, undoing the hierarchy of needs or values=20= =E2=80=93=20 reduce people to, of you will, their basic instincts. In this pool of humani= ty,=20 there is less room for Christians and Jews, and others, but a depleted=20 community.  Any value, which=20 survives, is basic. E.g. survival instincts or compassion, whichever was=20 matured   in the person b= efore=20 the war began.

        &= nbsp;      =20 Tec says, in =E2=80=9CWhen Light=E2=80=9D (pg 107), =E2=80=9C=E2=80= =A6the Nazis throught their polices of=20 extermination transformed the image of the Jew from a completive, aggressive= =20 being into a suffering, deprived and totally helpless individual. This chang= e in=20 turn was compatible with their predisposing to protest the underdog. =

        &= nbsp;      =20 What is important is to devise tests to prove or disprove the theory.= =20 Then to devise means of maximum allowance to create conditions contusive to=20 engendering such people. =20

        &= nbsp;      =20 The term =E2=80=98philo-semetic=E2=80=99, of course, is inexact. Unli= ke the word=20 =E2=80=98philosophy=E2=80=99 which can designate a love, which can be direct= ed toward a specific=20 entity, there can be as little a =E2=80=98general=E2=80=99 love of Jews as t= here can be=20 rationally a =E2=80=98general=E2=80=99 hate of Jews. One may like or dislike= Jewish music =E2=80=9Cin=20 general,=E2=80=9D =E2=80=93 in specific, one can only like Hava Negella, or=20= dislike it; like the=20 =E2=80=9CDreidle. Dreidle. Dreidle song, or dislike it.  This is like Jewish literature. Bu= t one=20 cannot direct oneself to like or dislike anything about Judaism. By directio= n I=20 mean make an attempt to like or dislike anything, which is not naturally=20 likable, or dislikeable by you.

        &= nbsp;      =20 Arland Ussher, in The Magic People,   (N.Y. The Devin-Adair Co, 19= 57)=20 says the Jews in business =E2=80=9Can irritant =E2=80=93 but I think he can=20= be a most valuable=20 irritant; at any rate. I have no patience with gentiles who =E2=80=A6 are pe= rpetually=20 bloating to be shielded from his competition=E2=80=9D (p. 138).

        &= nbsp;      =20 Ussher also says, (ibid, page 127)&= nbsp;=20 =E2=80=9Cwho appreciates the intelligence and urbanity of the (better= -type) Jew.=20 (Pg. 123) and can associate with on the grounds of =E2=80=9Cculture, =E2=80= =9Cif only culture=20 (pg. 126) finds the anti-Semite =E2=80=9Cgenerally a philistine boor.=E2=80= =9D (p. 127) 

        &= nbsp;      =20 Philo-semetic, initially, assert the respectful image of Judaism over= the=20 negative. Thus, the great antiquity (the traditional character), the asserti= on=20 of a high morality, and the codes, which define and protect the people as a=20 people among people is more highlights than identity in the negative sense o= f=20 nationalism, parochialism and restricted autonomy to detail and cultist. The= =20 ubiquitous human, then, is asserted over the limited =E2=80=98different.=E2= =80=99 This=20 similarity is dissimilar is an attitude of perceptions which is developed fr= om a=20 number of influence, but is essentially a-Semitic.

        &= nbsp;      =20 Even Johannes Reuchlin =20 (1455-1522) who was an expert in biblical knowledge, defense for Jews= =20 against the apostate, Johannes Pefferkorn=E2=80=99s attempt to burn the Jewi= sh books,=20 and a genuine feeling of responsibility for the treatment of the Jews attemp= ted=20 =E2=80=9Cto prove with kabalistic methods that the conquest of Judaism by Ch= ristianity=20 had been hinted at in the names of God and the Jews themselves=E2=80=9D (Pg.= 99, Hallo=20 op, cit.)

        &= nbsp;      =20 It is not mysterious to call attention to famous or neglected=20 Philo-semetic. Rather I want to think about those non-Jews who seemed to res= pect=20 and/or protect the Jews.  It i= s the=20 fault of other; better scholars if more Philo-semetic than I have known abou= t=20 deserve mention. Or it is the fault of a theology, which calls for too much=20 overcoming of culture and popular detriments to create of oneself a=20 Philo-semetic.  Since the emph= ases=20 of reasoned human relations ought not be burdened with exclusive considerati= on=20 towards Jews, it would be better to call such individuals =E2=80=9Cmenchim.= =E2=80=9D

        &= nbsp;      =20 As the case of Wallenberg indicates =E2=80=93 sometimes a sense of de= cency and=20 humanity overwhelms one and compels one to act in contradiction to owns own=20= best=20 interests. Yet decency demands not only that we act correctly in our subject= ive=20 lives (deal honesty, courageously, etc.) but that honesty, courage, justice=20= and=20 loving-kindness are so very important that we are called upon (if we only he= ar=20 the voice) to act these over top our daily lives.  To act against ones subjective=20 interests, in desperate times, is to act in the interest of those moral valu= es,=20 which, in the long run, preserve all the human race, including my family and= my=20 friends.

        &= nbsp;      =20 This is not to say that it is legitimate to qualify the acts of=20 righteousness as a trade off. One Wallenberg for 2000 Jews is as illuminate=20= as=20 the obverse assertion that one Wallenberg evidenced more humanity than, perh= aps=20 those 2000 lives saved.  Nethe= r=20 quality nor qualitative are justified except as =E2=80=98interim.=E2=80=99 Y= et precisely=20 =E2=80=98interim=E2=80=99 perspectives quality and quantity are, as philosop= hers say, in=20 progress.  Hence, they are not= =20 precisely definable. They are not definite. All we can agree upon is the so=20= very=20 abstract point:  we all want t= hings=20 more and better. 

Precisely what issuers are involved (more and bette= r=20 candy bars, more and better whiskey bottles, technology. etc.) is indefinite= .=20 And more to the point, precisely the dialectic between =E2=80=9Cpreferred= =E2=80=9D and=20 =E2=80=9Chistoric=E2=80=9D  (o= r hope and reality,=20 wish and event, or whatnot) is left to the accident of history as planned ou= t=20 between the reasoned acts and all participants. Obviously form our perceptio= ns;=20 the desired end would have been Wallenberg   at home with his wife and=20 children, and two thousand Jews in safety. It could have ended worse than it= ,=20 perhaps, did.

Rudolf Hallo, in =E2=80=9CChristen Hebraists=E2=80= =9D (Modern Judaism,=20 Vol. 3, #1, Feb =E2=80=9983. page 97) said =E2=80=9CInnocent IV, the greates= t of all popes,=20 protected the Jews against persecution because throught them
=E2=80=9Dou= r faith is=20 truly verified.=E2=80=9D

        &= nbsp;      =20 A Christian Hebraist cannot automatically be deemed a Philo-semetic.=20 Otherwise Hitler=E2=80=99s professors and all of those who throughout histor= y reached=20 the Talmud in order to rip (out of context) demanding statements would be so= =20 considered.  Indeed, if we tak= e the=20 term =E2=80=9CChristian Hebraist=E2=80=9D as a praiseworthy term, they may n= ot be deemed by so=20 noble a term. Indeed, if the term =E2=80=9CChristian=E2=80=9D is a value the= y may not be=20 categorized as Christians. =20

        &= nbsp;      =20 =E2=80=9CSir Walter Scott=E2=80=99s knowledge of it (Judaism) was, on= e cannot but feel,=20 far less imitate than George Elliot=E2=80=99s, but his poetic insight kept h= im=20 marvelously straight in his appreciation of Jewish life and character.=E2= =80=9D (Pg.=20 246, Israel=20 Abrahams, The Book of Delights and Other Papers,=20 (Pa. The Jewish Publication=20 Society of=20 America 1912= )=20

        &= nbsp;      =20 Tolstoy granted that Philo-semetic see in the Jew someone who replica= tes=20 to some degree, the persons image of a worthwhile humanity.

        &= nbsp;      =20 A Christian who converts to Judaism is not a Philo-semetic. Even in h= is=20 pre-conversion state, he is a future Jew.     Since Jews are=20 pro-Judaism, they cannot adequately be described as those against the common= lot=20 of apathy, ignorance and/or hate, love for the Jews while yet retraining the= ir=20 beloved conventions.

        &= nbsp;      =20 Jews are prone to speech as if the anti-Judaic utterances of John=20 Chrysostom are a bit exaggerated, a bit over the norm. If so, if anti-Judaic= =20 sentiments are stereotypic, then, it will be fruitfully to discover how and=20= why=20 some Christian people overcome =E2=80=9Ctheological desperation of tradition= s=E2=80=9D as well=20 as environment conditions in order not to assert anti-Judaic remarks, but to= =20 assert positive concerns with regard to the Jews. 

        &= nbsp;      =20 Indeed, we may ask how some Christians discovered their =E2=80=9Cphil= o-Semitism =E2=80=9C=20 out of the contours of their Christian belief.   It is but a step to just ask= what=20 it is within philo-Semitism, which makes these people true Christians. Insof= ar=20 as this =E2=80=93 and subsequent study =E2=80=93 suggests that the Christian= ity or Chrysostom is=20 somehow defective, it may be the case that study of philo-Semites will allow= us=20 to develop a criteria of what constitutes true Christianity. 

        =       =20 Stephen George sent =E2=80=9Chis refusal to serve as president of Goe= bbels=E2=80=99s=20 Academy of=20 Letters through a Jewish disciple= .=20 (Nationalism and Sexuality, George L. Mosse (N.Y Howard Fertig, 1985). But w= as=20 this a malicious insult or an indication that his own: =E2=80=9Cacademy of l= etters=E2=80=9D was=20 more encompassing?  =20

        &= nbsp;      =20 In asserting, =E2=80=9CJews have the right to exist,=E2=80=9D the=20= =E2=80=98Philo-semetic,=E2=80=99 to be=20 sure, opposed the anti-Semite, but he also legitimized him at the same time.= Who=20 could ever dream of going about saying that Enlightenment or Frenchmen have=20= the=20 right to exist?=E2=80=9D  (Pg.= 299,=20 =E2=80=9CDiaspora and Nations=E2=80=9D in The Jewish Though of Emil Fackenhe= im, edited by=20 Michael L. Morgan. (Detroit, Wayne State University, 1987).

        &= nbsp;      =20 The study of philo-semetic may be a misnomer. The term suggests a lov= e of=20 Jews (or the race of Semites in general) analogous to the love of chocolate=20 candy or other personal fascinations. Anti-Semitism seems less a fascination= =20 than philo-semetic.  I suggest= that=20 Jews are a viable are a viable area for defense of humanity. In this regard,= the=20 question =E2=80=9Cwhy=E2=80=9D some of the non-Jews should have been/or are=20= so friendly to Jews=20 do not express a prejudice =E2=80=93 not even the Jewish prejudice of ubiqui= tous=20 anti-Semitism.

        &= nbsp;      =20 Anti-Semitism relies on dualism of them and us. Philo-semetic, or spe= ech=20 about Philo-semetic does not so much overcome that dualism as offer an=20 alternative formulation of a dualism: not Jew-lover and Jew hater. In=20 philo-semetic, the Jewish individual disappears!

        &= nbsp;      =20 Duality is rare contrary equalities. We call the later equality, and=20= talk=20 about tolerance and helpfulness. &nbs= p;=20 Duality always assumes one aspect of the reality overrides the other.= If=20 the emphasis is on the dreams of men or/and women then one or the other   is assumed to be supreme. In= the=20 case of philo-semetic, one assets itself better than the other. Yet if what=20= one=20 calls philo-semetic is an assertion of humanism, then it doe not want=20 anti-Semitism to end.  =20

        &= nbsp;      =20 Douglas K. Huneke, in The Moses of Rovno (N.Y. Dodd, Mead and Co., 19= 85)=20 cites Perry London=E2=80=99s characters of a typological rescue.  He says that they all have =E2=80= =9Ca spirit of=20 adventuress =E2=80=9Cidentified with a morally strong parent,=E2=80=9D and o= ne who is =E2=80=9Csocially=20 marginal=E2=80=9D (pg 178), then Huneke adds seven of his own (pp, 180ff)   

1.      &n= bsp;=20 =E2=80=9CAn empathetic imagination=E2=80=9D

2.      &n= bsp;=20 =E2=80=9CA persons ability to present himself=20= or herself,=20 and control a critical situation =E2=80=9C

3.      &n= bsp;=20 =E2=80=9CPreviewing for a purposeful life=E2= =80=9D

4.      &n= bsp;=20   =E2=80=9CSignificant personal= experiences=20 with suffering and death=E2=80=9D

5.      &n= bsp;=20 =E2=80=9CAbility to confront and manage their=20= prejudices=E2=80=9D=20

6.      &n= bsp;=20 =E2=80=9CThe development of a community of com= passion and=20 support.=E2=80=9D

 

And        7.=20 =E2=80=9CThe ability to offer hospitality.

        &= nbsp;      =20 Under number 3, Huneke says: =E2=80=9CIn order to be altruistic, a pe= rson   must be both proactive and=20 proactive (its opposite is reactive) and personal (its opposite is antisocia= l.)=20 Behavior is characterized by:

(1)     Careful planning to act in or compensate and responsive war;=20

(2)     Anticipating opportunities for having positive and beneficial impa= ct in=20 the lives or circumstance of others; and

(3)     Actively promoting the well-being of self and others.=E2=80=9D(pg.= 182)=20

The argument that we ought to make allowable for an= =20 author because his writings reflect his times

may=20 refer to three faults -- only one of which is legitimate:

1.      &n= bsp;=20 His use of issues;

2.      &n= bsp;=20 His examples

3.      &n= bsp;=20 The questions he asks

His use of logical (historical) methods. The questi= on he=20 needs no apology. He is, after all, not a victim of his times but a child of= his=20 times. This is, in fact a second level of his examples.  Examples also need no apology, as=20= it is.=20 A second level of us examples.

        &nb= sp;            &= nbsp;           =20

        &= nbsp;            = ;            =20 It would be interesting to go the other way in and investigate=20 philo-Semites, or repute philo=3DSemitism to see what makes them tick, where= =20 philo-Semitism fits in their life and thoughts.    

        &= nbsp;            = ;            =20 How much more valid and entertaining would it be to compare a white t= rash=20 Alabama coon with a white trash New England Jew-hater? What is it that they=20= have=20 in common? What, if any, political, psychological and glandular maladjustmen= ts=20 belong to both of these citizens? (Pp. 243-4 in Ben Hecht A Guide for the=20 Bedeviled (N.Y. Charles Scribner=E2=80=99s Sons, 1944).  

        =      =20 In the case of Bonhoeffer a change in his perception of Christian=20 theology allowed in a different perspective of the Jews indicates:

        &= nbsp;            = ;            =20 A.) The common (traditional) acceptance of Christianity was capable o= f=20 anti-Semitism, but         &= nbsp;    =20 B.) That weak statement is the best we can say. We cannot say=20 Christianity is anti-Semitic because        &= nbsp; =20 C.) Alternative ideals or practices   of Christianity are not=20 anti-Semitic.

        &= nbsp;            = ;            =20 Jean-Paul Sartre believes Jews used anti-Semitism. But Sartre could n= ot=20 see Jewish life without the idea of anti-Semitism. Anti-Semites were wrong i= n=20 thinking their ideology was responsible. Rather is was caused by the=20 Jews.

        &= nbsp;            = ;            =20 While brotherhood and tolerance may be a logical deduction or inferen= ce=20 from Christianity, there is not the crux of Christianity. Aside from the=20 commandment to love even enemies, one would be hard pressed to find a direct= =20 statement of brotherhood and tolerance.

        &= nbsp;            = ;            =20 The message of the gospels was individualistic preparation for heaven= .=20 The message of the church was belief in Jesus as the Christ and the message=20= of=20 Judaism would be something like: Do not belittle Jesus. He was just a Jew=20= =E2=80=93 your=20 brother =E2=80=93 who was trying to bring people closer to God. No one shoul= d be=20 criticized for trying to do that.

 

-------------------------------1114659849--