Religious divisions show up in 2024 U.S. presidential election

As reported by John Longhurst in the Winnipeg Free Press, November 16, 2024:

The U.S. election is over. How did religious people vote?

Exit polls from news outlets found a majority of those who identify as Christians voted for Donald Trump, including 63 per cent of Protestants and 58 per cent of Catholics. For white Protestants, that figure was 72 per cent, while for white Catholics it was 61 per cent.

For Catholics, that was a jump of eight per cent over 2020, when 50 per cent favoured Trump while 49 per cent supported Biden. Some of that increase may be because of the increase in support for Trump among Hispanic voters, with 53 per cent voting for him in 2024 compared to 28 per cent in 2020. (Trump also saw a surge among Latino Protestants, from 48 per cent in 2020 to 64 per cent this year.)

Unsurprisingly, 81 per cent of evangelicals overall also voted for him, similar to the figures for 2016 and 2020.

Jews went the other way, with 78 per cent voting for Kamala Harris. So did those who claim no religious affiliation — 71 per cent of the “nones” voted for her. A majority of Muslims voted for her as well (63 per cent), with 32 per cent voting for Trump. Four per cent of Muslims voted for a third-party candidate such as Jill Stein.

About six in 10 members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supported Trump, while about eight in 10 Black Protestants supported Harris.

It may be too early to tell exactly why people voted the way they did. But Robert Jones of the Public Religion Research Institute suggested that it might come down to economics for Hispanics, while Trump’s message about being tough on immigration and crime may have appealed to some white Christians. Harris’s support for reproductive rights may have caused Conservative Christian voters to vote for her opponent.

For Jones, the 2024 election once again showed the close allegiance between white Christians and the Republican Party. “They have not moved a centimetre,” said Jones. “And they get out and vote.”

Not all religious people supported Trump. Some lamented his victory, worried that he will implement a Christian nationalist agenda by giving Christians a privileged position in the government and the country and that he will flout the separation of church and state.

They base that fear on comments from Trump himself, who told a Christian group in October “the more powerful you become, the better the country is going to be.” In February he told evangelical Christian broadcasters they would experience “power at a level that you’ve never used before” if he was elected.

According to prominent evangelical supporter Lance Wallnau, Trump’s win would give Christians in America an opportunity to tear down the “gates of Hell” in the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service. “We have to see these strongholds come down,” he said. “God’s giving us a chance to see it happen.”

For Christian nationalist leader Joel Webbon, Trump’s victory paves the way for the church “to instruct civil authorities regarding their identity and duties,” he said.

Trump did nothing to tamp down that kind of speculation. On the campaign trail, he pledged to “protect Christians in our schools and in our military and our government” and in “our public square.” Meantime, while the Republican platform pledged to protect the right to “pray and read the Bible in school” — no other holy scriptures or forms of prayer were mentioned.

Comments like that prompted Andrew Whitehead, author of Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States, to wonder if those who do not embrace that expression of Christianity will “feel marked as not truly American.”

Whitehead, who is also an associate professor of sociology at Indiana University Indianapolis, went on to ask if that Christian nationalist view might result in a pro-Christian stance that includes restrictive immigration policies against non-Christian immigrants in the name of protecting traditional American culture — something along the lines of the first Trump administration’s ban on travel from several Muslim-majority countries.

But Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas and one of Trump’s most prominent evangelical supporters since 2016, tried to squelch those worries. “People who are not Christians are unduly worried he’s going to institute some kind of oppressive theocracy,” said Jeffress. “He has no interest in doing that.”

As for Donald Trump himself, in his victory speech he stated that “God spared my life for a reason,” referring to the two assassination attempts he survived on the campaign trail. “And that reason was to save our country and restore America to greatness. And now we’re going to fulfil that mission together.”

Over the next few years, we will see how that turns out for everyone in that country — religious and non-religious alike.

It's worth noting that while the majority of those who identified themselves as Christians voted for Donald Trump, the majority of Jews voted for Kamala Harris, in larger numbers than even those who profess no religion, providing yet more evidence that there is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian" values; Judeo values are not Christian values. Since Mr. Trump is much more pro-Israel in his views than Ms. Harris and incumbent Preisdent Joe Biden, whom she succeeded as the Democratic Party candidate, one might wonder why Jews insist on voting the way they do.

As for the 80% of black Protestants who voted for Ms. Harris, it's quite apparent that they were voting for reasons of race rather than principle. As flawed a candidate as Donald Trump is, I don't understand how any true Christian could possibly vote for Kamala Harris, who has made it quite clear that the Lord Jesus Christ and His people are not welcome where she is.

Progressive Jews use holiday for animals to promote vegetarianism

As reported by Sharon Chisvin in the Winnipeg Free Press, August 31, 2024:

Exactly one month before Jews worldwide gather in synagogues to commemorate the major holiday of Rosh Hashana and the start of a new Jewish calendar year, a smaller contingent of mostly progressive members of the faith are gathering online to celebrate a lesser-known Jewish holiday.

That holiday is Rosh Hashana L’Behemot, the New Year for Domesticated Animals. Rosh Hashana L’Behemot occurs each year on the first day of the Hebrew month of Elul, and, as a result, is also referred to as Ehad b’Elul. This fall, that date corresponds to Sept. 4.

Rosh Hashana L’Behemot dates back to the days of the ancient holy Temple in Jerusalem when it was customary to tithe every tenth animal in a flock and offer it up as a sacrifice to God. Tithing, and animal sacrifices, like many of the ancient rites and customs associated with the Second Temple, came to an end with the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. and the subsequent dispersion of the Jewish people into exile. Commemoration of Rosh Hashana L’Behemot, naturally, fell into decline as well.

The day itself, however, according to Aharon Varady, director of the Open Siddur Project—a grassroots initiative that digitizes diverse Jewish liturgy and texts—remained “documented but dormant, just waiting for the right moment to be revived.”

That moment has been taking its time to arrive, but Rosh Hashana L’Behemot has gradually begun to gain traction again. In recent years, the holiday has primarily evolved into a day on which Jewish community members are encouraged to pause and consider both their relationship with and their responsibility towards domestic animals.

“As Rosh Hashana L’Behemot is still evolving there is no usual way (to celebrate),” explains Rabbi Jonathan Bernhard, Executive Director of the Jewish Initiative for Animals (JIFA), “but common elements include some type of reading, prayer, teaching, or the blowing of the shofar.”

“Most congregations,” he adds, “do not do anything. We are trying to change that!”

JIFA’s determination to make that change is the reason it is partnering for the first time ever with the organization, Jewish Veg, in presenting the on-line, Alep B’Elul, Rosh Hashana L’Behemot celebration on Wednesday morning.

Similar to JIFA, Jewish Veg encourages compassion for animals and the adoption of plant-based diets — which, significantly, also will help alleviate the climate crisis — through the lens of Jewish teachings and values. The organizations’ shared hope is that their Zoom event will increase awareness about and actions aligned with their shared goals.

The 90-minute event will be hosted by Bernard and features a keynote address by Dr. Beth Berkowitz on the topic of “Making Animals a Part of the Jewish Family.” Berkowitz is a Jewish and religious studies scholar at Barnard College and the author of the book What Animals Teach Us about Families: Kinship and Species in the Bible and Rabbinic Literature.

The online event also will honour Dr. Richard Schwartz, a life-long animal rights activist, the founder of Jewish Veg, and a co -founder of the Society of Ethical and Religious Vegetarians.

The author of significant writing on the topic of animal advocacy and the Jewish plant-based movement, Schwartz has repeatedly argued that veganism and vegetarianism is the highest manifestation of the Jewish dietary laws of kashrut.

This is yet more evidence that Judeo values are not Christian values. In contrast to JIFA and Jewish Veg, the Bible does not promote vegetarianism. Although God gave man "every herb bearing seed...and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed" for food (Genesis 1:29), by the time of Noah and his sons, God says to them, "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things." (Genesis 9:3). By the time of Moses, God commands the people of Israel to eat the Passover lamb (Exodus 12:8-11); vegetarianism was not an option. Addressing the Jews of his time, the Lord Jesus Christ said,

“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?
For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.) Mark 7:18-19 (NIV)

One of the signs of the end times is the command to abstain from certain foods (I Timothy 4:3), although "every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving" (I Timothy 4:4). The only dietary restrictions given to Christians are those in Acts 15:20: ...that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

Jewish groups protest, praise U.S. Supreme Court's affirmation of high school football coach's right to lead post-game prayers

This has been a bad month in the United States for those who promote the idea of "Judeo-Christian" values, as recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have provoked responses that make it obvious that Judeo values are not necessarily Christian values. In 1962, Jewish organizations were opposed to mandated prayer as part of the public school day (see post below), resulting in the Supreme Court decision in Engel v. Vitale. In 2022, Jewish organizations are opposing voluntary prayer on the school grounds after football games, following another Supreme Court decision, 60 years and 2 days after the earlier ruling. As reported by Ron Kampeas of Jewish Telegraphic Agency, June 27, 2022 (links in original):

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Seattle-area football coach who lost his job after leading prayers on the field following his team’s victories, in a decision that could have ramifications for Jews in public schools and the military.

A number of Jewish groups say the 6-3 ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton, issued Monday, could roll back church-state separations that have protected schoolchildren from religious coercion for decades.

“This is a significant change in how we approach prayer in public schools, and one that will have a negative impact in particular on students of marginalized faiths and non-religious students,” said Rachel Robbins, the chairwoman of the Anti-Defamation League’s Civil Rights Committee. The ADL, which joined a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the school district, said it was “deeply disturbed” by the decision.

The expressions of concern came despite reassurances by Justice Neil Gorsuch that the ruling was in line with a famous 1992 Supreme Court decision in favor of a Rhode Island Jewish family who objected to clergy leading prayer at their children’s public school.

Writing for the court’s conservative majority, Gorsuch quoted from that decision, Lee v. Weisman, in which the court held “that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the State.” The ruling Monday in favor of Joseph Kennedy, an assistant coach in the Bremerton, Washington, school district, Gorsuch wrote, similarly protects First Amendment religious freedoms.

Jewish groups were not buying it.

“The Court’s see-no-evil approach to the coach’s prayer will encourage those who seek to proselytize within the public schools to do so with the Court’s blessing,” said Marc Stern, the chief legal officer of the American Jewish Committee, which had joined a friend-of-the-court brief on the side of the school district.

“That is no advance for religious liberty,” Stern added.

The Bremerton case centered on the activities of Kennedy, who started out by praying alone at the 50-yard line and did not call on others to join him. But soon after, students and others started joining Kennedy in prayer, alarming the school district. It proposed alternatives, including allowing him to pray after the game, but he declined and continued to pray to increased media attention. The school district decided not to renew his contract.

The court concluded, essentially, that by preventing a Christian high school coach from praying, the school district had violated his civil rights no less than had it forced other children to pray.

“Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance,” Gorsuch said, emphasizing that Kennedy had not explicitly urged students to join him in prayer.

“It seems clear to us that Mr. Kennedy has demonstrated that his speech was private speech, not government speech,” Gorsuch wrote. “This case looks very different from those in which this Court has found prayer involving public school students to be problematically coercive,” he said, specifically citing Lee v. Weisman.

Lee v. Weisman involved a Baptist clergyman who said at a 1986 middle school graduation ceremony in Providence, “Please rise and praise Jesus for the accomplishments of these children today.”

Merith Weisman’s parents, Vivian, the assistant executive director at the local Jewish Community Center, and Daniel, a social work professor, were unnerved, and the prayer triggered a series of events and lawsuits that culminated in the landmark 1992 case.

That decision was 5-4. Antonin Scalia, the late conservative justice whom Gorsuch replaced, said for years it was wrongly decided, and the religious right agreed. President Donald Trump named three conservative justices, and with the new balance of power, the Supreme Court has in recent weeks ticked off a wish list for religious conservatives, from school choice to overturning abortion rights.

The AJC’s Stern said Gorsuch was cherry-picking quotes from the earlier decision to make his own opinion sound less far-reaching than it was.

“There’s a tendency to sanitize a practice, rip it out of its historical roots and look at it in splendid isolation, and so it [appears] not so terrible,” Stern said in an interview.

Kennedy, as an assistant coach, may not have the same power as the principal in the Rhode Island case who invited clergy, Stern said, but the coach still had coercive power over students, and it was disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

“Kids will do anything to get on a coach’s good side and get playing time,” Stern said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for the liberal minority in the dissent, made a similar point, illustrating it with a photo of students surrounding Kennedy in prayer.

“Several parents reached out to the District saying that their children had participated in Kennedy’s prayers solely to avoid separating themselves from the rest of the team,” Sotomayor wrote. “No [Bremerton High School] students appeared to pray on the field after Kennedy’s suspension.”

The National Council of Jewish Women, also a signatory to a friend-of-the-court brief, said the latest decision was one in a series that eroded church-state separations, citing among others the recent decision directing the state of Maine to pay for religious schooling for students for whom reaching public schools is arduous.

“No student should have to choose between their religious freedom and being part of school activities,” Jody Rabhan, the group’s chief policy officer, said in a statement. “But today’s ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton could force children enrolled in public schools to do just that.”

Mikey Weinstein, the Jewish veteran who leads the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which advocates for religion-state separations in the military, said the ruling will undercut his years-long efforts to remove Christian prayers from military academy athletic events.

The decision “will serve to utterly and expeditiously destroy the precious wall separating church and state in our country and especially the U.S. military,” he said.

For once, I hope Mikey "Whine"stein is correct, in his assertion that the Supreme Court's ruling in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District will undercut his anti-Christian efforts. Go here to see the text of the Court's ruling.

June 28, 2022 update: In contrast to liberal Jewish organizations, an Orthodox Jewish group is praising the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. As reported by Ron Kampeas of Jewish Telegraphic Agency, June 28, 2022 (links in original):

WASHINGTON — Agudath Israel of America praised the reversal of a judicial standard that came about as a result of a Supreme Court ruling backing a public high school football coach who prayed on the fifty-yard line.

Abba Cohen, the Washington director for the haredi Orthodox umbrella body, said the group was pleased that Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the decision for the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, did away with a decades-old standard for assessing whether a government authority violated church-state standards.

Cohen clarified later that this did not mean his organization was praising the entire ruling. “Agudath Israel has long expressed concern about and opposition to denominational public prayer and the proselytization in schools,” he said.

The “Lemon test,” stemming from the 1971 Lemon v. Kurtzman decision, assesses whether a government action advances or inhibits religion. Orthodox groups have long said the test was overly restrictive.

“Rather than offering protection, ‘Lemon’ too often resulted in Establishment Clause hostility toward religion, which itself is constitutionally prohibited,” Cohen said. “The First Amendment is stronger with its demise.”

Gorsuch in his decision said the Lemon test should be superseded by more recent traditions that refer to “historical practices and understandings.”

“The Constitution and the best of our traditions counsel mutual respect and tolerance, not censorship and suppression, for religious and nonreligious views alike,” Gorsuch wrote.

Monday’s ruling backed Joseph Kennedy, an assistant coach in the Seattle area who was let go from his job because he would not stop on-field prayers. The coach asserted, and the Court majority agreed, that his prayers were “private,” even though his players would join in. Jewish civil rights groups said the ruling put at risk a 1992 ruling banning clergy from praying in schools. That ruling, which the groups said protected children from proselytizers, was spurred by Jewish parents in Rhode Island.

The Orthodox Union, the umbrella body for Modern Orthodox groups and synagogues, declined to comment on Gorsuch’s decision, named Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.

Rabbi Levi Shemtov, the executive vice president of American Friends of Lubavitch (Chabad), said he had mixed feelings about the ruling. Chabad has advocated for years for moments of silence in public schools, seeing them as a means for reflection and promoting more considered behavior.

But Shemtov said the coach’s Christian prayer was not quite the same. “A parochial prayer can present some real problems while a moment of silence is all but unassailable,” Shemtov said in an interview. A moment of silence “gives each individual the right to worship in the privacy of their own mind even in the presence of others.”

60 years ago--The U.S. Supreme Court, in Engel v. Vitale, prohibits mandated prayer in public schools

When Americans think of the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that had the effect of removing God from public schools, the name that comes to mind is Madalyn Murray O'Hair, founder of American Atheists, who filed suit on behalf of her son Bill Murray, who was in a public school system that mandated Bible-reading. Her case, Murray v. Curlett, was folded into Abington School District v. Schempp, in which Edward Schempp, a Unitarian Universalist and a resident of Abington Township, Pennsylvania, filed suit against the Abington School District in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to prohibit the enforcement of a Pennsylvania law that required at least 10 verses of the Bible to be read without comment at the beginning of each public school day. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8-1 on June 17, 1963 in favour of the plaintiff, concluding that public schools cannot sponsor Bible readings and recitations of the Lord's Prayer under the clause in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The Court, in Abington School District v. Schempp, upheld its ruling from a year earlier in a related case. On June 25, 1962, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Engel v. Vitale, ruled by a 6-1 margin that the state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if it is not required and not tied to a particular religion. As reported by Justia (bold in original):

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations

Annotation

Primary Holding

The state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if it is not required and not tied to a particular religion.

Facts

The state board of regents in New York wrote a voluntary prayer to Almighty God that was intended to open each school day. A group of organizations joined forces in challenging the prayer, including families and institutions dedicated to the Jewish faith. They claimed that this violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, but the New York Court of Appeals rejected their arguments. While nearly half of the state governors in the U.S. contributed to an amicus brief asking the Court to uphold this finding that the prayer was constitutional, several national Jewish organizations submitting opposing briefs seeking its invalidation.

Opinions

Majority

Hugo Lafayette Black (Author)
Earl Warren
William Orville Douglas
Tom C. Clark
John Marshall Harlan II
William Joseph Brennan, Jr.

Relying on historical analysis, Black emphasized the significance of separating church from state and identified a school prayer as a religious activity, no matter its specific wording. As a result, the state of New York had used its power to promote a certain set of religious beliefs by encouraging children to comply with its own. Black was not persuaded that the general wording of the prayer and the fact that the prayer was voluntary were enough to insulate it from the First Amendment. He observed that not every religion recognizes a God, so some are necessarily excluded even with this wording.

Concurrence

William Orville Douglas (Author)

Dissent

Potter Stewart (Author)

Recused

Byron Raymond White (Author)
Felix Frankfurter

Case Commentary

While students theoretically could have opted out of participating in the prayer, the majority and proponents of its decision recognized that children are unlikely to choose not to engage in a teacher-led activity. The outcome might be different if the case had involved an educational institution with adult students.

The Court's general antipathy toward prayer in schools would be extended by later decisions that struck down clergy-led prayers at graduation ceremonies, student-led prayers at football games, and time set aside during the school day for prayer or meditation.

U.S. Supreme Court
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962)
Engel v. Vitale

No. 468

Argued April 3, 1962

Decided June 25, 1962

370 U.S. 421

Syllabus

Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day -- even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited. Pp. 370 U.S. 422-436.

10 N.Y.2d 174, 176 N.E.2d 579, reversed.

Page 370 U.S. 422

In 1951 and again in 1955, the Board of Regents of New York adopted a resolution calling for reading the following nondemoninational prayer in classrooms to begin the school day:

Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.

The plaintiffs, residents of North Hempstead, New York, were parents Steven Engel, Monroe Lerner, Lenore Lyons, Dan Lichtenstein and Larry Ross. Mr. Engel, who was Jewish, was named the lead plaintiff because his name came first in alphabetical order. The American Civil Liberties Union (surprise!) aided the plaintiffs, who lost in the Supreme Court of New York (1959); Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division (1960); and Court of Appeals of New York (1961). However, the highest court in the nation reversed the New York rulings. Roman Catholic writer Paul A. Fisher, in his book Behind the Lodge Door (1994, pp. 161-162), argued that the Supreme Court's anti-religious rulings during the post-World War II era came at a time when the Court was dominated by Freemasons. According to Mr. Fisher:

The truth is, prayer and Bible reading were integral to the "Protestant" public school system in the United States until the Supreme Court's Engel decision in 1962 and its Schempp ruling in 1963-a period when Masons dominated the Court by a six-to-three ratio.

The U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp were heavily criticized by Christians and other American at the time, and have been accused of playing a major role in changing the country for the worse, and no longer being "a nation under God." The critics turned out to be right.

Those who like to use the phrase "Judeo-Christian" may be surprised to learn that not only did the plaintiffs have a disproportionate number of Jewish-sounding names, but in appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, they were joined by the American Jewish Committee, the Synagogue Council of America, and the American Ethical Union, each of whom submitted briefs urging the Supreme Court to reverse the New York rulings (which is an example of why this blogger no longer uses the phrase "Judeo-Christian"--Judeo values are not Christian values). While Madalyn Murray O'Hair is still remembered for her role in removing mandated Bible-reading from public schools, the role of Jews in the case that removed mandated prayer from public schools has been airbrushed from history. To quote Sherlock Holmes out of context, "Most singular! Most remarkable!!"

Anglican Church of Canada General Synod votes overwhelmingly to remove prayer for the conversion of the Jews from the Book of Common Prayer

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Romans 1:16

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. II Timothy 3:5

The Lord Jesus Christ and His apostles initially targeted Jews--almost exclusively--for evangelism. The following is more evidence that the Anglican Church of Canada isn't a Christian church at all; as reported by Ron Csillag of Canadian Jewish News, July 26, 2019:

The Anglican Church of Canada’s move to expunge a prayer for the conversion of the Jews from its liturgy is being hailed as a milestone.

Meeting in Vancouver, the church’s General Synod – its governing body – approved a measure on July 16 to delete an invocation calling for the conversion of Jews from the Book of Common Prayer, and replace it with a prayer entitled “For Reconciliation with the Jews.”

Successful resolutions before a synod must pass in all three of the church’s “houses.” This one was approved with near unanimous support: Among the laity, it passed by a 99 per cent plurality, and by 100 per cent among both clergy and bishops.

The amendment will require ratification at the next General Synod in 2022. But Edward Simonton, the church’s Vicar General of Quebec, told The CJN the resolution’s passage at the next synod will be “just a formality,” given its overwhelming support this time.

Besides, he added, only 230 of nearly 2,800 Anglican churches in Canada still use the Book of Common Prayer. The rest use the Book of Alternative Services, introduced in 1985.

A similar resolution failed at the church’s 2016 General Synod. The following year, Right Rev. Bruce Myers, the Anglican bishop of Quebec, spearheaded a formal consultation to remove the old prayer and replace it with a new one.

Addressing the 2019 synod, Rev. Myers said persecution of Jews “is not a thing of the past, nor is it restricted to other parts of the world,” citing last year’s mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, which left 11 people dead.

Changing the prayer exhorts Anglicans “to acknowledge and repent of the church’s participation in anti-Semitism, to stop singling out Jews as a target for our evangelistic efforts, and to assume a humble and reconciliatory stance with our Jewish elders in the faith,” Rev. Myers said in a statement. “It also invites Anglicans to be ever mindful of Christianity’s deep Jewish roots.”

The “Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews,” among some 50 prayers in the Book of Common Prayer that are recited discretionally, beseeches God to “hasten the time when all Israel shall be saved,” and that his “ancient people…open their hearts that they may see and confess the Lord Jesus to be thy Son and their true Messiah.”

The prayer “For reconciliation with the Jews” was a joint effort between the Anglican Church, the Prayer Book Society of Canada, and the Canadian Rabbinic Caucus, an affiliate of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

It reads: “O God, who didst choose Israel to be thine inheritance: Have mercy upon us and forgive us for violence and wickedness against our brother Jacob; the arrogance of our hearts and minds hath deceived us, and shame hath covered our face. Take away all pride and prejudice in us, and grant that we, together with the people whom thou didst first make thine own, may attain to the fulness of redemption which thou hast promised; to the honour and glory of thy most holy Name.”

Rabbi Adam Stein of Congregation Beth Israel in Vancouver, who addressed the synod on behalf of the Canadian Rabbinic Caucus, praised the new prayer and the hope and friendship it offers to Jews, reported the Anglican Journal.

“I think it’s just such a wonderful thing, and a really wonderful feeling for us, that a prayer that certainly made the Jewish community quite uncomfortable might soon be replaced with one that’s so beautiful and so positive,” Rabbi Stein said.

Rabbi Reuben Poupko of Montreal, speaking on behalf of the Canadian Rabbinic Caucus, commended the synod for its “principled decision, which represents a milestone in Anglican-Jewish relations.”

The church “has sent a strong signal to the Jewish community that it stands with us against anti-Semitism – both past and present.”

In 1992, the Anglican Church of Canada deleted a prayer recited on Good Friday that asked for God’s mercy on Jews for wilfully rejecting and denying Jesus.

August 26, 2023 update: As reported, with his usual liberal bias, by John Longurst in the Winnipeg Free Press, August 12, 2023:

This summer, the Anglican Church of Canada voted to remove a prayer calling for the conversion of Jews from its Book of Common Prayer.

The vote, which took place at its synod in Calgary in late June and early July, was actually the second vote, or confirmation vote, about its removal. The first vote to expunge it took place at the previous Synod in 2019.

Practically speaking, that makes it old news. And few, if any, Anglicans today were actually using the prayer, titled “For the conversion of the Jews.” But given the rising tide of anti-Semitism in the world today, it’s no surprise its removal was greeted enthusiastically by Jewish media and community leaders — even if this year’s vote was just a formality.

Among those praising the move was the Canadian Rabbinic Caucus and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, which released a statement about the vote.

“We commend the General Synod for this important decision,” said Rabbi Adam Stein of Congregation Beth Israel in Vancouver, on behalf of the two groups.

“Authentic interfaith dialogue requires respect. Any attempt by one to convert the other is the antithesis of respect. Changing this prayer represents a milestone in Anglican-Jewish relations and invites Anglicans to assume a reconciliatory stance with the Jewish community.”

In place of the old prayer is a new one, called “For reconciliation with the Jews.” Written in consultation with the Canadian Rabbinic Caucus, among other things it calls on Anglicans to pray for forgiveness for how the Church has treated Jews over the centuries.

I reached out to Primate Linda Nicholls, head of the Anglican Church of Canada, to hear her thoughts about the removal of the prayer and current relations with the Jewish community.

The removal of the prayer, and its replacement with a prayer for reconciliation, reflects “our inheritance as Christians” from the Jewish faith, she said, noting the two religions share the Hebrew scriptures.

While not abrogating the church’s traditional view of Jesus as saviour of the world, Anglicans want to “honour” the special relationship Jews have to God, she added.

Nicholls also emphasized the change is a way to address anti-Semitism, and any contribution the church might make to it through its official prayers and liturgies.

“We want to look out for any role we might play in it,” she stated, adding the church for too long has contributed to the persecution of Jews by blaming them for the death of Jesus. In that regard, “we have much to redress,” she said.

Nicholls went on to say she condemns anything that denies the right of Jews to exist as a people, or to practise their faith. “I stand strongly with them,” she said.

There are no specific Jewish-Anglican actions or dialogues planned now that the prayer has been removed, she said.

In fact, any followup has been made more difficult over tensions between the Canadian Jewish community and the Anglican Church over the church’s support for human rights in Palestine, Nicholls said.

This included a letter sent in by her and Bishop Susan Johnson of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada to the Canadian government in July about the situation in Palestine and Israel.

In the letter, the two voiced concern about settler violence against Palestinian communities and people, which “is increasing daily.” They also described how Christians in the Holy Land “are increasingly targeted for abuse and violence including their places of worship.”

While recognizing the right of the state of Israel to exist, and opposing violence by both sides in this conflict, the two church leaders urged the Canadian government to call to take a “just, constructive and human rights-based approach on Palestine-Israel issues, taking into account the extreme imbalance of power between Palestine and Israel and in line with international law and official Canadian foreign policy.”

The letter concluded by acknowledging “this is a complex conflict and believe Canada has an important role to play in advocating for peace and setting policies that will guide our voice and actions.”

For Nicholls, it’s important for the Anglican Church to “find a path that allows legitimate critique of Israel,” while advocating for Palestinian rights. She admitted it’s “not an easy line to hold,” and that some members of the Jewish community in Canada have been critical of the church’s stance.

No doubt, that Middle Eastern conflict will continue to make dialogue difficult. But maybe the formal removal of the prayer to convert Jews can be seen as a positive step. That’s how the Jewish Independent of Vancouver saw it. It called the decision a “monumental” move in the context of Jewish-Christian relations.

“The idea that Christianity is a replacement theology to Judaism — and that Jews should convert or disappear, with all that implies — prevailed for nearly 2,000 years,” it stated.

The “generosity of spirit evidenced by Canadian Anglicans (in expunging the prayer) are a welcome ray of light and warmth in a world that too often seems lacking in these elements.”

70 years ago: U.S. Supreme Court rules against religious instruction in public schools

On March 8, 1948, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8-1 in McCollum v. Board of Education that public school involvement in religious instruction was unconstitutional. The case was brought by Vashti McCollum, an atheist, against the school board of Champaign, Illinois. Champaign, like some other cities, had a practice in its schools called "release time," in which class time was set aside for religious instruction--Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish. Mrs. McCollum complained that her son James was being ostracized for not attending.

The Supreme Court's ruling in McCollum v. Board of Education was one of a series of such decisions that began in the 1940s and culminated with the rulings in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) against compulsory prayer and Bible reading, respectively, in American public schools. The Supreme Court hadn't moved in that direction before, so it's curious that from the 1940s through the '60s it acted in a consistently anti-Christian direction. A Roman Catholic writer, Paul A. Fisher, perceived a definite anti-Catholic bias in the Supreme Court's actions, and attempted to find why this was. His research, which included examination of judges' diaries and papers, comprised much of the content in his book Behind the Lodge Door (1988, 1989, 1994).

Mr. Fisher discovered that Supreme Court became composed disproportionately of Unitarians and Universalists, with considerable crossover between that and membership in Scottish Rite Freemasonry. From 1941-1971, at least five of the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court were Freemasons, with the number rising to 7 from 1946-1949; 8 from 1949-1956; 7 from 1956-1957; and 6 from 1957-1969. Mr. Fisher was particularly outraged by the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Everson v. Board of Education (February 10, 1947), where the Court ruled that it was a violation of the separation of church and state to have public financing of transportation of children to private religious schools.

In the case of McCollum v. Board of Education, Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion, joined by Fred Vinson, Frank Murphy, William O. Douglas, Wiley Rutledge, and Harold Burton. Felix Frankfurter wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Robert Jackson, and Justices Rutledge and Burton. Justice Jackson also wrote his own concurring opinion. Stanley Reed wrote a dissenting opinion. Justices Black, Vinson, Douglas, Rutledge, Burton, Jackson, and Reed were Freemasons. Justices Frankfurter and Murphy were not Masons, but Mr. Fisher argues that their thinking parallelled that of Freemasonry, and that the Court's rulings reflected a Masonic or unitarian/universalist point of view.

It's worth noting the groups that supported Mrs. McCollum's petition: American Unitarian Association; Synagogue Council of America; General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists; and Baptist Joint Committee of Religious Liberty. The Baptist Joint Committee of Religious Liberty might strike the reader as an odd name to be part of this, but this is an organization of liberal Baptist denominations--the kind that produced people such as Tony Campolo and Ron Sider. The presence of the Synagogue Council of America is also worth noting; the Synagogue Council of America was also involved in the Engel v. Vitale case in 1962. It might come as a shock to those who talk about America's "Judeo-Christian" values to see the extent to which Jewish organizations have been at the forefront in trying to eradicate the public influence of Christianity in the United States.

The reader may conclude--especially in light of recent events--whether the Supreme Court's rulings against religious instruction in public schools has been good for the schools or for American society.

Usual religious suspects support sodomite/lesbian "marriage" in Rhode Island

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination...
...Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you:
(For all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;)
That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.
For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people. Leviticus 18:22, 24-29

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Proverbs 14:34

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Romans 1:24-28

As reported by Associated Press, March 6, 2013:

A Rhode Island Jewish organization has come out in support of gay marriage in the state.

The Community Relations Council of the Jewish Alliance of Greater Rhode Island on Thursday announced its endorsement of a bill pending in the General Assembly that would allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Director Marty Cooper says the group’s support is grounded in the biblical idea that all humans were created in the image of God and are worthy of respect.

The group joins the Board of Rabbis of Greater Rhode Island, the Episcopal bishop and the Rhode Island State Council of Churches in supporting the legislation.

The Roman Catholic church stands opposed the bill, which has passed the House but has not yet been scheduled for a vote in the Senate.

Jewish Democratic county chairman in Florida resigns after inflammatory remarks about Christians

As reported by Jewish Telegraphic Agency, September 9, 2012:

The chairman of the Palm Beach County Democratic Party resigned after saying that pro-Israel Christians want to see Jews "slaughtered and converted."

Mark Alan Siegel resigned on Friday, a day after he apologized for the remarks he had made two days earlier during an interview on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention.

“My comments merely served as a distraction to the good work of Democrats in Palm Beach," Siegel said in a statement released Friday by the state party, according to the Palm Beach Post. "Again, I express my deepest apologies to anyone I may have offended.”

Siegel, an attorney, had apologized the day after making the comments but reportedly refused to resign, instead offering to take an extended leave of absence.

Siegel had told the conservative Patriot Update website that as a Jew, he was "not a fan of any religion other than Judaism." Asked if he is a fan of Christianity, Siegel responded, according to the Palm Beach Post, "No, I'm not. The Christians just want us to be there so we can be slaughtered and converted and bring on the second coming of Jesus Christ."

He continued, “They’re not our friends. They want Israel to pursue policies which are antithetical with its security and existence. The worst possible allies for the Jewish state are the fundamentalist Christians, who want Jews to die and convert so they can bring on the second coming of their Lord. It is a false friendship. They are seeking their own ends and not ours."

Member of Israel's Knesset rips up the New Testament

At least one member of Israel's Knesset isn't shy about displaying his hatred for part of God's word. As reported by Tzvika Brot of Ynet News, July 18, 2012:

MK Michael Ben Ari (National Union), a member of the Israeli parliament tore up a copy of the New Testament and threw it in the trash, an act that was apparently caught on camera.

Ben Ari and several other Knesset members received by mail on Monday a copy of the New Testament, sent by the Bible Society in Israel, an organization that distributes religious books.

In the letter sent with the book, director of the Christian organization Victor Kalisher wrote that the new edition “sheds light on the Holy Scriptures and helps understand them."

“We hope the book will help you and illuminate your way,” Kalisher furter wrote.

However, while most MK's chose to ignore the book or return it to its sender, the rightist lawmaker chose to term the book a "provocation," tore it up into shreds and then threw it out.

“This abominable book (the New Testament) galvanized the murder of millions of Jews during the Inquisition and during auto da fe instances,” Ben Ari said adding that “Sending the book to MK's is a provocation. There is no doubt that this book and all it represents belongs in the garbage can of history.”

Meanwhile, MK Ilan Gilon (Mertez) condemned Ben Ari's actions, saying "it's shocking that someone like that is a member of Knesset."

"One could compare his actions to those of an extreme MP abroad tearing up the Bible. We would all cry out if that happened," he said.

Government spokesman Mark Regev said, "We totally deplore this behavior and condemn it outright. This action stands in complete contrast to our values and our traditions. Israel is a tolerant society, but we have zero tolerance for this despicable and hateful act."

As for the National Union party that Mr. Ben Ari represents, its platform, ironically, contains much that Christians can agree with:

The party aims to represent a broad consensus in the Israeli public which believes in the vital importance of safeguarding the security and national heritage of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. The party remains true to the ideals that have always defined Israel’s national camp

The party states that Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jewish people in the State of Israel. The party demands free construction in all parts of the city to ensure its unity and relocating all official Israeli bureaus, institutions and public organizations to Jerusalem. The party insists that all foreign embassies and consulates be established only in Jerusalem. The party will fight for guaranteed free access to all holy places, particularly the Jews' right to pray on Temple Mount. The party will work to prevent any illegal building by Arabs in east Jerusalem and in the areas of Judea and Samaria surrounding the city.

The party states that Israel's security cannot be met simply through a political solution, but that Israel must prevail militarily, since allowing the Arab war of attrition to drag on, threatens to weaken Israel, ruin its economy and encourage its Arab citizens to cultivate hostility against the people of Israel.

Israel must adhere to the following principles: The right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel is intertwined with their right to peace and security; all past agreements signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are null and void; Israel must strive to achieve peace with all its neighbors, but not at the price of security for its citizens; no foreign state will be formed between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The party vows to preserve Israel's Jewish and Zionist character. The party will demand that no political faction be allowed to bid for Knesset seats unless it affirms Israel's Jewish nature. The party will push for safeguarding and strengthening Israel's Jewish nature through religious legislation and a wide consensus.

The party regrets and condemns the uprooting and forced transfer of thousands of Jews from their homes in the Gaza and northern Samaria region and demands that no other government, no matter which party heads it, will ever again uproot any Jewish community or surrender parts of the Land of Israel.

The party believes in compulsory Military or National Service. While study of Torah is necessary in order to preserve the Jewish people's heritage, the unequal shouldering of mandatory service is unacceptable. The party will support and encourage frameworks offering a combination of military service and Torah study such as the hesder yeshivas and the Nahal Haredi Units.

The party states that Israel's foreign policy should focus on safeguarding Israel's sovereignty, while pursuing peace with the sorrounding Arab nations by means of "peace for peace." The National Union believes Israel should reinforce its ties with Jewish communities in the Diaspora; as well as its ties with African, Asian and European nations, in the interest of advancing its political and economic interests.

The National Union sees settlements as the realization of Zionism and a way for the Jewish people to ensure their hold on the land. The party sees the act of settling as crucial to Israel's economic and social wellbeing and will demand the expansion of the enterprise.

The party will push for the allocation of funds to the Negev and Galilee areas and for the developments of their industrial and agricultural areas. The party will push to ensure more Jews settle in the Galilee area and will act to abolish illegal construction in both regions.

The National Union will oppose any negotiation process suggesting Israel relinquish the Golan Heights in any way. The party will push for the allocation of additional development funds for the area. The party will support improving the status of the Druze residents of the Golan; while simultaneously giving local authorities increase mandate to thwart any pro-Syrian activity.

The party believes Israel's economy should be founded on principles of morality, social justice and strive to reduce our financial dependence on the United States. The party's financial creed calls for drastically reducing the government and public-sector machinery; encouraging private business activity; privatizing government companies and promoting national projects on a large scale.

American Conservative rabbis set guidelines for same-sex "marriage" ceremonies

As reported by Associated Press, June 2, 2012:

The Conservative branch of American Judaism has formally approved same-sex marriage ceremonies, nearly six years after lifting a ban on ordaining gays and lesbians.

The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards issued the ruling Thursday on a 13-0 vote with one abstention, said Rabbi Elliot Dorff, the committee chairman. The panel of scholars approved two model wedding ceremonies and guidelines for a same-sex divorce. Rabbis can adapt the marriage ceremonies for the couples.

"We acknowledge that these partnerships are distinct from those discussed in the Talmud as `according to the law of Moses and Israel,' but we celebrate them with the same sense of holiness and joy as that expressed in heterosexual marriages," the legal opinion states.

Conservative Judaism is the second-largest Jewish movement in North America and holds a middle ground between liberal and traditional groups. The Reform and Reconstructionist branches accept gay relationships, while the stricter Orthodox Jewish movement does not. The Conservative law committee lifted the ban on gay ordination in December 2006.

Called the "Covenant of Loving Partners," the Conservative same-sex marriage document bases the ceremonies on Jewish partnership law. In the covenant, the couple pledges to be faithful. A ring ceremony binds the pair.

And as with heterosexual couples, Conservative rabbis should not preside at the marriage of a Jew to a non-Jew.

However, the ceremonies do not include kiddushin, or sanctification, in which a groom "acquires" a bride by giving her a ring, which is considered the core of a traditional Jewish wedding. In recent decades, many rabbis have already been altering that part of the ceremony for heterosexual couples by having the bride and groom exchange rings, to signal equality in the marriage.

"The result is still a Jewish marriage," the legal opinion on gay marriage states.

Dorff, an author of the ruling, said the committee's discussions with gays and lesbians as the ceremonies were developed found a split in opinion that led the two templates for same-sex marriage. One adheres more closely to the traditional Jewish ceremony, while the other doesn't.

The divorce includes a "writ of dissolution" – similar to what is known in traditional Jewish marriage as a "get" – that either partner in the same-sex marriage can request.

Dorff said he did not know how many members of the movement's Rabbinical Assembly perform same-sex marriages. However, many rabbis had already been conducting ceremonies for gays and lesbians that they had developed on their own. Keshet, which advocates for gay and lesbian Jews, has started a public database of rabbis who would perform the ceremony called The Equality Guide.

Most American non-Orthodox Jews support same-sex "marriage"

As reported by Ron Kampeas of Jewish Telegraphic Agency, May 11, 2012:

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- As soon as President Obama wrapped up the television interview in which he endorsed same-sex marriage, he called an evangelical minister who advises him to offer a heads up. Jack Lew, the White House chief of staff, made a similar call to the Orthodox Union.

The calls, made Wednesday before excerpts from the interview hit the Internet, demonstrated the White House's determination to preempt any backlash that the endorsement might engender from religious groups. Obama administration officials have been careful to emphasize that the president also backs protections for religious groups that oppose same-sex marriage.

“He called to inform us about what the president was going to announce and put it in context,” Nathan Diament, the OU’s executive director of public policy, said of the call from Lew, himself an Orthodox Jew.

The move appeared to have yielded some dividends.

The OU said in a statement that it was “disappointed" by the president’s new stance and reiterated Orthodox Jewish opposition to "any effort to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions." But the group also said that it “appreciated” Obama's praise of New York State's same-sex marriage law, which offers some protections for religious institutions that oppose same-sex marriage.

The Jewish community's reactions to Obama’s remarks were auspicious for the White House: There was great enthusiasm from most quarters, along with restrained criticism from Orthodox Jewish opponents of same-sex marriage. Obama notably did not pair his endorsement of same-sex marriage with any nods toward a legislative effort, since he says the issue should be left to the states.

Polls have found that upwards of three-quarters of American Jews support same-sex marriage. Outside the Orthodox world, Jewish groups generally back it as well.

Words like “historic” peppered statements by Jewish groups welcoming Obama’s remarks.

“It is a significant and historic step forward in the pursuit of equal opportunity, individual liberty and freedom from discrimination,” the Anti-Defamation League said in a statement, “and underscores the fact that no American should be denied access to the benefits of civil marriage because of his or her sexual orientation...”

...The Reform movement’s Religious Action Center described the president's remarks as “a key moment in the advance of civil rights in America.”

"These rights are due no less to same-sex couples than heterosexual ones, as the president’s comments today acknowledge," the RAC said.

Among other groups praising the president's endorsement were the National Council of Jewish Women, Hadassah, the National Jewish Democratic Council and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism.

Another Orthodox umbrella group, Agudath Israel of America, refrained from directly criticizing Obama in its statement, noting that the president was expressing his “personal feeling.”

Rabbi Avi Shafran, Agudah’s director of public affairs, told JTA in an email that the president’s endorsement was “unfortunate” to the degree that it advanced the cause of same-sex marriage. But Shafran also noted that “The president was clear about the fact that he was sharing the fruits of his own personal contemplation of the issue, not advancing any new federal initiative. He is leaving the definition of marriage to each state's electorate.”

That was the balance sought by the White House, according to an administration insider. In addition to Lew's call to Diament after the interview was recorded and before ABC released excerpts, Obama called Joel Hunter, an evangelical megachurch pastor who has been one of the president's spiritual advisers.

Hunter told The Washington Post that while he disagreed with the president’s new position, it did not damage their relationship. But Hunter told the paper that he was concerned about the effect that the push for same-sex marriage would have on religious liberty.

“If there is a law that you cannot discriminate between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, then eventually there will be pressure on the Church to obey the law,” Hunter said. “And there will be lawsuits that come testing this thing, and we just know that we will certainly be pressured to conform to the law.”

While the White House tried to reassure religious conservatives by stressing the measured nature of the president's remarks, this did not seem to dampen the enthusiasm of Jewish supporters of same-sex marriage.

“It will be a milestone in American history for gay rights,” Rabbi David Saperstein, who directs the Religious Action Center, told JTA. “He was laying down a marker about his personal commitment and not trying to deal with the policy issue. His statement provides momentum.”

Deborah Lauter, the ADL’s civil rights director, said the president’s statement follows a series of legislative advances on gay rights issues.

She listed the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy that kept gay troops closeted, the extension of hate crimes laws to include gay victims, and the administration’s refusal to defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act in court. She noted the recent momentum in Congress to pass legislation that would protect gay employees from being fired on the basis of their sexual orientation.

“It is more of a symbolic statement, but the administration has been doing concrete steps,” she said.

Jewish groups that oppose same-sex marriage may have adopted a measured tone in response to the president’s remarks, but there were still signs that the issue can be divisive within the Jewish community.

Agudah blasted the National Jewish Democratic Council for describing Obama's statement as advancing "tikkun olam," or the Jewish imperative to make the world a better place.

"To imply that a religious value like 'tikkun olam' -- and by association, Judaism -- is somehow implicated in a position like the one the president articulated is outrageous, offensive and wrong," Agudah said. "We hereby state, clearly and without qualification, that the Torah forbids homosexual acts, and sanctions only the union of a man and a woman in matrimony."

The NJDC’s chair, Marc Stanley, had referenced Obama's "unmatched record of progress in favor of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans."

"President Obama has admirably continued to demonstrate the values of tikkun olam in his work to make America a better place for all Americans," Stanley said. "I am truly proud of President Obama and know that so many others in the Jewish community share my feelings.”

The Republican Jewish Coalition, which does not take a position on same-sex marriage, highlighted on its Twitter feed the statements of the OU and Agudah. Pressed by a Democratic activist on Twitter, however, the RJC said it did not necessarily support the groups' views. "But we do acknowledge that Orthodox Jews and traditional Jewish views exist," the RJC tweeted.