October 31,.2021 Kelley Kidd

“O Man of my own people, I alone

Among these alien ones can know thy face,

I who have felt the kinship of thy race

Burn in me as I sit where they intone

Thy praises–those who, striving to make known

A God of sacrifice, have missed the grace

Of thy sweet human meaning in its place,

Thou of our blood-bond and our own,

Are we not sharers of thy Passion? Yea,

In spirit-anguish closely by thy side

We have drained the bitter cup, and, tortured, felt

With thee the bruising of the heavy welt,

In every land is our Gethsemane,

A thousand times have we been crucified.”

THE JEW TO JESUS BY Florence Kiper Frank (about 1912)

I am the son of a devout Southern Baptist Mother and a Father who was once Superintendent of Sunday School in his Methodist Church. According to these good Christian people who raised me, the Jewish people were “chosen” by God at their beginning in the life of Abraham. And I was taught that they were chosen by God from all the peoples of the earth to fulfill the task of becoming the religious culture into which Jesus, the Only Begotten Son of God, eventually would be born. And. of course, at least one of those Jewish people about two thousand years later did become the Mother of Jesus. God himself, not Mary’s husband Joseph, was said to be the other parent of Jesus. His Mother was a Jew and he had no human Father, which made him the child of a Virgin. Oddly enough two out of four of the Jesus stories (ie, gospels) in my Bible recited the ancestors of Joseph as the ancestors of Jesus! None of them traced the ancestry of Jesus’ Mother. but the earliest gospel, Mark, neither asserted nor denied the Virgin birth story. Only one of the four Jesus stories, the gospel of John, asserted that Jesus was as eternal as the creation of the universe and a part of God himself! Nevertheless the function of many hundreds of years of Jewish history, according to my Christian upbringing, was to produce the Mother and the cultural context into which Jesus was eventually to be born.

According to the Christian litany all the families and nations of the world and all humans thereafter would be blessed by the opportunity to adopt certain beliefs about Jesus, since these beliefs would guarantee each believer with eternal life and happiness. The doctrine was also that the lack of those beliefs would leave every nonbeliever in a condition called “original sin”, a status which doomed the nonbeliever to eternal death and torture in eternal fire. This scheme of salvation was said to be the ultimate worthwhile product of Jewish history and divine grace–according to my Christian mentors. Of course this point of view reduced the Biblical “Old Testament” to little more than a lengthy and very complicated literary preface to the doctrine of salvation for those who accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Both the ancient Jews and their scripture were thereby relegated to semi-curious background, not as either my history nor the guide for my behavior. Some of my mentors went so far as to proclaim that the theology and ethics of the New Testament replaced any expressed in the Old Testament. But the creed of these Christian believers is perhaps better expressed by the ancient Nicene Creed, which has been a part of Christian liturgy for more than 1200 years now. Although this creed is perhaps less often recited these days than the less explicit Apostle’s Creed, this statement of the beliefs expected of Christians also verbalizes what my mentors stressed as the truly important points of the religion I was asked to accept as the foundation for my life. Anyhow the Creed follows:

“I believe in one God,

the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Chris, the only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father: through him all things were made. For us men and our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. I believe in one, holy , catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life in the world to come. Amen.”

To my way of thinking the centrality of these beliefs relegated both ethics and actions to marginality. Nevertheless this and similar expressions of the central doctrines of the church were also understood to distinguish good people from bad. According to my teachers the Jews had rejected Jesus, which of course left them condemned by those same teachers as both damned and among the bad people. By the time I was 12 or 13 I had seen enough of humans to know that this simple scheme did not correlate with what I saw of human behavior. I began even in the American South of the 1950s and 60s to encounter church going bigots and despisers of anyone who disagreed with them about much of anything. And I also began to encounter nonbelievers who seemed to me to be compassionate, tolerant and scrupulous.

At the same time as an American I was also occasionally being taught that the human being was God’s greatest creation, and that all people were created equal, and all were entitled to live in freedom and dignity. These latter beliefs were the premises of the democratic country I lived in, or at least the premises my forebears claimed for my country.. Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence seemed to me to be at odds with the Christian creeds of the white churches I attended. If these democratic teachings were true, then the world in which I lived must somehow be either very confused or at least was being operated by people whose beliefs contradicted each other. My world was mostly the neighborhood and small towns in which I was raised. And most of the people who lived in my home town were poor, and most of these poor people were at least faintly despised by my Mother and Father and the other ‘saved’ Christians that I knew from my middle class schooling and social life. Yet when I took the time to listen to the church services and the conversations of these poor people, I usually found them to be devout believers in salvation through Jesus Christ. And every Jew I saw seemed to be at least pretty good folks. These contradictions were not the only reasons I found to doubt most of the doctrines of the Christian Creed taught by my parents and my class of white American citizens. That particular view of Jesus and the Jewish people seemed echoed s well by even the teachings of the Puritan pioneers of the Yankee New England my Southern forebears had been teaching me to despise for their racial views.

The prevailing political and social attitude of my Christian teachers was far removed from Jefferson’s vision of equality.A short clip from the sermons of Governor Winthrop, a respected religious leader of the Massachusetts Bay Colony should suffice to illustrate the founding fathers’ posture as it was projected through my early Christian indoctrination: “…some were meant to rule, others to serve their betters. God Almighty…so disposed the condition of mankind, as in all times some must be rich, some poor, some high power and dignity; others mean and in subjection.” If this Puritan approach to the Christian faith were to be believed, then Jesus was the heir to a God ordained social order at complete odds with the Declaration’s proclamation that “all men were created equal.” Later I discovered that the same Thomas Jefferson who had written the Declaration had also edited the gospels to produce a portrait of Jesus drawn directly from the text who was a man completely at odds with the teaching of both Nicene Creed and Winthrop pronouncements. The gospels it seemed contained two entirely different portraits of Jesus which were incompatible with each other and which produced totally different world views.

There was also the doubt biology I learned in high school and later in college. There was the caste system features of churches which preached these doctrines and excluded Blacks and the poorly dressed of all races, the seeming cruelty of a doctrine which ignored the ethical and moral behavior of non-believing sinners, and the cruelty so many Christians showed towards animals and foreigners, assertive Black folks and folks deemed to be insufficiently patriotic or devout. Then too, I could not help but wonder why Jews seemed to be so unwilling to convert to Christianity. After all, the story did assert that Jesus was one of them and that his life and mission was foretold by their prophets.

In time my studies and ruminations would lead me to the conclusion that the New Testament contained two different personalities which had been conflated to produce the Jesus portrayed by the gospels.

THE GRECO-ROMAN LEGEND OF JESUS One of these personalities I will refer to as the Greco-Roman Legend, whose character and nature are described in the Nicene Creed. This was the Jesus of the Nicene Creed and the model held up by my mentors. I believe that Jesus character–who the poetess above calls “a God of sacrifice”–was an invention of preachers who were appealing to the sympathies of a Greek and Latin world dominated by the very Roman Empire whose functionaries had unjustly killed Jesus for defying them and their allies among the contemporary Judean elite. See HOW JESUS BECAME GOD, by Bart Erdman. Christianity almost simultaneously became the religion of Rome and the enemy of Judaism, the religion of the rebellious (against Roman domination) Jews, In my upbringing of course this Greco-Roman Jesus was predominant. It was also eventually rejected by me as a legend and not a very helpful one.

JESUS, THE FIRST CENTURY JEWISH RABBI Gradually I have learned from and about the other characterization of Jesus> I eventually came to believe that the human being who was the historical Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi who inspired many of his contemporary Jewish followers by demonstrating an incandescent faith and practice rooted in Biblical and post biblical Jewish traditions and teaching. I will refer to him here as Rabbi Jesus. While the Legend was certainly the principle figure in the religion of my youth, Rabbi Jesus was and is a powerful influence on my own spiritual journey. Until fairly recently and in my lifetime few educated Americans seemed very impressed with the Jewish Jesus. Many recent books use the New Testament and Jewish writings in the Talmud and elsewhere to demonstrate that Jesus was a somewhat radical but devout and committed practitioner and proponent of Judaism. My favorite of the recent books on the Jewishness of Jesus is Jesus: First Century Rabbi by Rabbi David Zalman.

Rabbi Jesus of Nazareth spoke Aramaic and may have been familiar with Biblical Hebrew, a very closely related language which had long been the principle literary and liturgical language of a people that had once spoken it in everyday conversation. He was the child of a devoutly Jewish Mother and a Father who made his living as a carpenter in the Galilean town of Nazareth. Jesus began a ministry of preaching, teaching and healing when he was about 30 years of age. He worked mostly among poor people, and was killed a few years later by a Roman colonial despot named Pilate. He lived a life of devotion to God and to service among the despised, marginalized and persecuted Jews of his time. He never claimed to be divine in any way, talked little about himself, avoided temptation to pursue wealth of social prestige, was a humble follower of his understanding of the Bible of his people, the Hebrew Scriptures that my mentors called the Old Testament—a collection of books written by Jews and for Jews about the acts of God in relationship to God’s beloved people, the Jews. He no more intended to start a new religion than Abraham Lincoln intended to start a new country. Like many other Rabbis in his time, Jesus welcomed gentiles who were genuinely interested in living as devout Jews, and thought of religious attitudes as being centered primarily on the attention and actions of the devotee, not his beliefs. The so-called synoptic gospels are primarily about the life and teaching of this Jewish Rabbi. I have not found this life and teaching unbelievable and at odds with my democratic idealism.

What follows is a list of some of those gospel teachings and episodes which have provided my life with direction and boundary since my childhood:

The Sermon of the Mount and its compassionate appeal to living in the here and now with charity for all and malice towards none. Lessons in tolerance and forgiveness and mercy from parables like the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son.

The Lord’s prayer with its emphasis on a vision of God as the loving Father of us all and its expression of willingness to seek universal peace and brotherhood among all of the members of a human race bound by a common creation and hopefully capable of striving towards a common destiny of equality and peace.

A humility that admits that none of us are perfect and a willingness to strive for improvement.

A theology that sees love of God and others as the keys to eternal life.

The Rabbi from Nazareth revered the commandments and directions of the Torah and said his fellow Jews should try to faithfully follow them, revered the Sabbath and never suggested that the first day of the week (Sunday in the Gregorian calendar) should be a special day of worship services, taught that returning to God through repentance and atonement was possible and desirable, and had strong criticism for attitudes like Governor Winthrop’s.

The whole course of human history may eventually be decided by whether or not the values of the real and Jewish Jesus gain strength in the affairs of people and nations and economies. After nearly 80 years of living and watching life I sense more deeply than ever that the best values of the Jewish people are the greatest hopes for the survival and flourishing of life on this little and ever-shrinking planet. In that sense I believe the old teaching that the Creator has “chosen” the Jews. And their martyred son Jesus has exerted and will continue to exert a very powerful influence in he struggle for that life. L’chaim.


The closer I have drawn to eternity, the more I have come to believe that God can be trusted to take care of eternity, and that my job is to help God to make this planet a place in which God’s will is done now in this life. I have sought direction for that task from many sources, but virtually all of them appear now to me to be springs of inspiration and guidance from the same deep source –the writings of ancient Jews.

And For the last 46 years I have been living as though the most important story to the quality of life on this planet has been the story of the birth of the Jewish people—the principal story of the first five books of the Christian Bible, a collection that Jews call Torah. That word–Torah–has been variously translated Law or Teaching. I think that the best translation would probably be something like “Teaching that Embodies God’s Instruction to Jews”.


July 2021 KELLEY KIDD Although born and raised in a conservative white Southern home, I have considered myself to be an American of progressive/liberal persuasion for my entire adult life. Martin Luther King’s speeches at the 1963 March on Washington and a few years later at Riverside Church against American prosecution the War in Vietnam were turning points that launched my activities for years to come. My activities in the struggle to change American policy towards the poor would have been enough to give me the reputation of a leftist and a political radical in the late 1960s. Continued involvement in the employ of progressive educational institutions extended that work through 1982.

Somewhat earlier than Dr. King’s 1963 speech, however, several people had influenced me in ways that helped set me up for Dr. King’s influence and that of other spokespersons of the left. First was Henry David Thoreau. Reading WALDEN and his essay of civil disobedience led me to convictions about the value of choosing conscience over the shared racial and economic ideology of my forebears and contemporaries. Then in 1962 a Methodist Bible teacher surprised me by suggesting that to me that Dr. King was the modern day American equivalent of an Old Testament prophet. And of course both he and Thoreau were unique echoes of the prophets’ concerns in many ways. But making that connection for me took many more years. And many more years have been necessary for me to come to the conclusion that the people who wrote what Christians call the Old Testament not only created Judaism, but also created (or passed on from the Creator) all of the humanistic and progressive sentiments and ideals of Western civilization.

These few paragraphs are the prelude to a series of mini essays that may show the reader the bones of an extended thesis that the Jews have given us virtually all of the cultural, political and spiritual foundations for a humane, just and compassionate civilization.



July 2021 KELLEY KIDD I was only a first grader in a small Southern town when Ben Gurion declared the creation of the State of Israel in May 1948. At that moment I was six years old and the child of white Southern conservative protestants. It was very exciting to me, despite my tender age and fledgling education. My Bible upbringing taught me that the land of Israel had been promised by God to the descendants of Abraham. After thousands of years of exile from that land, it now appeared that the ancient promise of God was coming true–and in my lifetime!

According to the Biblical story God spoke to a man named Abram, an inhabitant of a city in the Tigris and Euphrates River Valley in present day Iraq. And God told Abram to leave the city of his forbears and to take himself and his family to live in Canaan, the strip of land between the Jordan River and the Mediteranean Sea. When Abram obeyed, God then promised to give that land to him and to his offspring. One of his sons ,Isaac, received the same promise, and one of Isaac’s sons named Jacob became the heir to the same promise. After Jacob had fathered numerous sons, he was renamed Israel, and God promised to give this land to his descendants, who were then referred to by his name Israel. Collectively then they were the Israelites. My Mother told me that currently those people were called Jews. Many folks referred to this new state in the promised land as “a Jewish State” and its name was Israel, after the patriarch of the same name.

Although only six years old, I was thought old enough to be told that this new state was a refuge for survivors of anti-Jewish persecution which had lasted for several thousands of years and recently culminated i the slaughter of six million of them–almost all noncombatants, including millions of mothers, small children and old people. This horrifying story of persecution added a second justification to the re-creation of the long hoped-for “Promised Land ” of the early covenants.

There were other stories, including dramatic ones from my Mother’s Bible, which helped me to understand how the Jews came to establish a much earlier nation, and how that nation was destroyed by the military aggression of imperial powers. The dramatic Bible stories of the descendants of Israel and his sons continued with a famine in Canaan which drove them to seek help from Egypt. There through God’s miraculous employment of one of the sons’ apparent misfortune, the government of Egypt welcomed the Jews to live as sojourners in Egypt, but with the clear understanding that they would eventually be restored to live in the land of Canaan. On his deathbed Israel got his children to promise that his body would be returned to Canaan to be buried with his father and grandfather, Isaac and Abraham. These stories occupied Genesis, which comprises most of the first book within the Hebrew Bible.

Genesis is the first of five “books” which I later learned form the “Torah”, the most sacred portion of the Hebrew Bible to Jews And the other four tell the story of how the prophet Moses led the Israelites out of the bondage imposed by Egypt’s Pharaoh, the Egyptian Empire’s priest/king. This escape from bondage happened hundreds of years after the Egyptians took the Jews captive and enclaved them. So these four books were apparently the first revolution against dehumanizing imperial power. To a little boy who was also learning about the birth of his country through revolt against a demeaning empire, the story of Moses and the Jews bore strong resemblance to the story of Washington and the American patriots. Equally heroic and thrilling was the fact that the Jews were struggling to be free to worship their god, who of course I understood to be our own God, the only one there really is.

Through Moses these Jews received holy law codes by which they were asked by God to shape their personal and communal life in the land of Canaan. The codes in turn were to intended make of them a people “chosen” by God to set an example of personal and communal ideals. According to this story God intended their lives to become models for the other “families of the earth” to emulate. The codes were accompanied by a divine warning that failure to live by those codes would be punished by exile from their promised land of Canaan. And this exile would be laden with their suffering and humiliation until they turned back to God. Their returning to live by God’s instructions would then be rewarded with God’s help in returning to the land to live in peace and prosperity once again.

Although the Hebrew Bible tells some of the story of the Israelite struggle until the end of the fifth century B.C.E., it does not deal with the efforts of the same religious and cultural group to live under the domination of the Persian, Greek and Roman empires during he more nearly 400 years between the return of many Jews to the Land after approximately 70 years of exile under Babylonian rule. During that long interval between the story told by the “Old Testament” and the Jesus years, Jews lived in substantial numbers as the majority population in the southern portion of the land that included Judah and Jerusalem. Since that period of Jewish living in the land had little apparent relevance to the history that Christianity valued, I did not learn until much later about the religious and spiritual growth of the Jewish people during that long period. But the political and religious setting portrayed by the Gospels does portray the dominance of Jews and Judaism in that Land throughout that period.


In short I was taught as a child that the Jews occupied most of the area between the Jordan River and the Mediteranian Sea for more than 1,000 years between the Moses era and the forcible eviction of the Jews from the area in the the first century A.D. During that long indwelling the Jews endured in the land by holding it against both other indigenous groups and outside invaders. At various times Philistines, Midianites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks and Romans –among others–tried to wrest the “Promised Land” from various Jewish governments, but all failed at doing more than temporarily weakening the grip of the Jews. Until Rome. This long struggle of the Jews to have and to return to the Land n the post-biblical period began to give me a third reason to think that Jews had a right to seek and to struggle for the right to have a government of their own in the land.

From extra-Biblical sources I also learned that the Jews had revolted against imperial domination from Rome in the late first century B.C.E. and again early in the second century–both rebellions coming during the time depicted in the Gospels as the life of Jesus. Rome put down the patriotic efforts of Jews to reclaim their sovereignty in their own land by slaughtering millions and by driving most of the survivors into exile.


By the middle of the 2nd century A.D. the European empire of Rome had renamed the area Palestine after the long vanished Philistines, who were themselves probably a migrant colony from Europe. Where the Jews had called the area Judea and Israel, the Romans underscored their slaughter and eviction by calling the area after one of the then vanished groups the Jews had previously displaced.

After the European Empire of Rome evicted the native Jews nearly two thousand years passed without the existence of any state in which Jews formed the majority of the populattion or had the protection of any government committed to their well being nd safety. On the contrary wherever Jews lived their presence has been tolerated at most, but usually resented and frequently resisted violently. More often they have been been marginalized as second class citizens. Frequently they have been despised, persecuted and subjected to unofficial and official violence. On the whole Christian nations and regimes have been much worse than Moslem ones, but nowhere have they lived long without considerable resistance from non-Jewish institutions and majorities.

Throughout the two millennia since their expulsion by Europeans the Jewish people have maintained their ancient expectation that they would some day be restored in peace in “the promised land” generally referred to by others as Palestine. And throughout those many centuries other political powers have dominated Jerusalem and the Promised Land without once ever establishing a local government capable of being considered an independent entity or state. No religious or ethnic or language group has given its identity to the land in any manner other than inclusion within a much much larger framework that relegated Palestine to a province or a satrapy.

Since the destruction of the Jewish State by Rome, the land has been ruled from afar by dynasties in Rome and Constantinople and Egypt and Baghdad and London, but never again by an indigenous government that represented the people who actually lived in the land. Palestinian never meant Jews in any political sense, and no Palestinian individual or group ever ruled Palestine. Even now the term Palestinian simply refers to those whose birthplace or family background includes residency in the land coupled with ANY ethnic or religious identity OTHER than Jewish. And the Palestinian identity comes not from Jews or their allies, but from those opposed to the existence of the State of Israel. There are many Israeli citizens who are Arabs and members of the religion of Islam; there are no Jews who are members of any political organization which represents Palestinians. The fact that Jews were relatively a small part of the population of Palestine for two thousand years was the result of the exclusion and marginalization of Jews within Palestine by political powers seated elsewhere.

In the early 19th century there was a brief tendency in Europe to give Jews the rights of non-Jewish citizens. But by the late decades of that century repression took on racial as well as religious justifications. “Antisemitism” became a popular ideology and practice in virtually all European countries, including those within the Russian and German nations and spheres of influence.

During almost all of the first and second millennia after the Roman expulsion from “the Promised Land” Jews lived in “other people’s countries” as second class citizens– at best. They were always the outsider, the oddball, the “stranger in a strange land”. Usually they were despised. To Christians they were usually seem as “God killers” or nit-picking “Pharisees” , rejecters of God’s Messiah, a sect that misinterpreted their own sacred Hebrew scriptures, or perhaps at best as a people whose Old Testament had been happily reinterpreted by a New Testament that replaced Jewish legalism with a gospel of love and forgiveness through the sacrificial death of God’s only son. No matter what version of Jewish inadequacy you imbibed, most non-Jews saw Jews as stingy or dirty or clannish or stiff necked or cowardly or evil communists or just as evil greedy capitalists. Maybe the average Jew despiser saw these people several of those negative images. The point is Jews were taken to be deserving of the marginalization they received from many nations and from many people and institutions even in nations which permitted Jews to be “permanent. residents”. Jew were often the targets of mob violence and individual. expressions of disgust and hatred. Jews not only survived, they kept their religion alive and growing in depth of insight and practice. And they contributed intelligence and often rare decency wherever they went. And always many of them longed for the messianic age when Jews would be restored to live in their Promised Land in peace with each other and the nations.

So the addition of anti-Semitism in a racial sense to the religious and cultural animosities of earlier centuries led to the ultimate assault on the Jews, those people whose roots and many of their aspirations remained in the Land. Zionism was born out of this combustible mix of difficulties, as well as the secular aspirations of young Jewish socialists. The latter yearned for a society in which Jews would be organized in collectives and cooperatives–a socialism of worker control and social equality. Finding their way back to the promised land, Zionists created a Hebrew speaking extended community in the very land their religious forebears had cherished as home. The Land in the late 19th and early 20th century was a backwater and unrepresented province of the weak Turkish Empire. it was relatively poorly populated and its resources relatively undeveloped.

The late 19th Century nurtured some growth in Arab nationalism, a movement which extended throughout the much larger region of the Middle East, an area in which the “Palestine” of Roman control was a very small portion. The Promised Land of the Jews and the projected “Zion” of modern Jewish aspirations was not the scene of a strong Arab “Palestinian” identity until after the Jews had established a state in 1948. The first and strongest leader of the Arab “Palestinian” movement was in fact born in Egypt in 1927 and necessarily led a movement which has never required birth in Palestine, and which has permitted membership only to non-Jews.

“Palestine” from mid 19th century to 1948 seemed ripe for the location of a democratic state in which Jews would be free from persecution for either their ethnic identity or religious practices and beliefs, a state which would be democratically run by a population of many backgrounds and diverse nationalities, but, nevertheless a state in which a majority Jewish population would endure safety and respect for Jews.

The seal on the deed of the Zionists to their state was the Holocaust of course. Six hundred thousand Jews in Palestine reacted to the slaughter of 10 times that number of Jews for simply being Jews. They claimed their right to a state which would protect and welcome Jews, and were met with the resisance of the Islamic and Arab world. Recently the State of Israel has also faced considerable resistance from Western leftists and progressives. But that is the subject of a later posting.


July 4. 2021 I have recently found the delightful views of one Ben Shapiro, a prominent Jewish contributor to current American conservative thinking. He postulates that the cornerstone of American freedom and unique position in world progress and well being comes from Greek science and Biblical religion. While i agree with his premise, I also see a world in which many Biblical values he omits have contributed as much of more than the ones he has spoken for.


Kelley Kidd May 28, 2021 I believe that large segments of the American Progressive movement have abandoned principle for misguided opposition regarding Israelis and Jews.

In 1971 I moved from Washington D.C. to take a job as a teacher at small educational program of Antioch College, a school founded by Horace Mann. By ant estimation Mann had been a pillar of the American progressive movement in education and in politics. The college had been establishing “satellite” campuses and programs outside its base in Yellow Springs, Ohio. The Baltimore program was one which focused on providing credit for life experience and tutorial training in a variety of fields, including music. That music education work was headed up by a young man who let me know quickly that he was as progressive as any Antioch teacher might be suspected of being and that he was also anti-Jewish, As the part owner of a bar near campus, he could and did introduce me to an assortment of usually white customers who shared his views on various subjects–including his general dislike for things Jewish

Fifty years ago I was stunned by negative attitudes towards Jews, especially those that came from self-proclaimed liberals or progressives or leftists. My upbringing in the deep South Bible belt had always leaned towards seeing negative images of Jews as either communists and unfashionable ultra-liberals or as greedy financiers and narrow minded legalists. My evangelical roots in those days had made me familiar with the tendency of some Christians to adopt a certain casual linking of Jewish identity with a legalistic and hypocritical sort of religiosity—ala the Pharisees as the Gospel of Matthew portrays them. My experience had also exposed me to many conservative Southern whites who saw Jews as representatives of Marxism in politics and Freudian in social/psychological orientation. And many of the same conservatives on social issues viewed Jews as the architects and principal beneficiaries of ruthless business and financial practices and power. Finally I had often heard complaints that Jews were the source of unwanted progressive media and movie characters and actors and themes. The presence of Jews in civil rights activities in the ’60s often provoked anti-Jewish remarks among outspoken segregationists and white supremacy advocates. Despite these early negative portraits of Jews, and perhaps because of them, I had always assumed that liberals would be at least tolerant of Jewish religious and ethnic identity, Adolph Hitler’s hatred of Jews and communists seemed to me to forecast liberal anti-authoritarian openness to all things Jewish. So I was not prepared for what I found instead–the widely shared view among liberals that Judaism was an absurdity and Zionism a form of ethnic and religious bigotry. My musical and bar owning friend turned out to be only one among many anti-Jewish “liberals” or “progressives” on other issues.

In the last half century I have converted to Judaism and continued to be the progressive that came North to Antioch College 50 years ago. I have watched with concern the growing tendency of progressives to continue to strongly favor religious tolerance as an abstract idea, but to disparage Judaism as a way of life, and to appreciate the need for strong democratic nations unless the nation is Israel.

My Life So Far


I am now 78 years old whose vocation is as a public defender lawyer in the small Georgia city of Statesboro. I have been a Jew since a brief ceremony in 1977. Of course I am a convert, one whose personal religious history had been rooted in a Southern protestant family and churches. This little essay is an effort to tell how and why I have been trying for more than forty years to be as good a Jew as i could be.

GETTING INTRODUCED BY THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE. For four hundred years the King James translation of the Bible has been the cornerstone of Protestant religion. When the old South is called the bible belt, it is that particular book that is being referred to. And there is no greater stronghold of evangelical fundamentalist Christianity than this region. There is no more greater concentration of those fundamentalist values than middle Georgia, and my home town of Milledgeville had been the capital of Georgia for sixty years. So my upbringing was soaked in the values of churches which had broken with national churches over slavery and continued traditions of white supremacy, although the words were never said out loud.


I believe 1968 was the single most crucial year in my eventual decision to convert to Judaism, although I did not formally take that step until nine years later. What makes that fact a bit more than odd is the fact that I had no close Jewish associates in 1968. To an outside observer my transformations that year were that I stopped working as a lawyer, although I passed the Bar Exam in that year and did not actually become a member of the Bar until two years later. I left my law related job and the office near the top of Atlanta’s tallest skyscraper in February and was living and working in one of Atlanta’s most poverty stricken ghettoes within six months. All of my residential neighbors in February were affluent white suburbanites in May, and all of my neighbors were poor and Black by July. I was working on a promising career in politics in February, and working every day in a hopeless campaign to elect Maynard Jackson to replace Senator Eugene Talmadge by September. I was a promising young moderate in the Winter, and a daily associate of very radical civil rights and Peace Now advocates by September.

So with all these transformations, a casual observer would see a man at a great turning point that had nothing to do with Jews or Judaism. But with more than half a century of hindsight, I can assure you these more visible life changes this year were absolutely necessary necessary changes that later enabled me to make the decision to become as Jewish as I can manage to be.

So I start with a few of the events and new acquaintances of 1968. And these were certainly extremely important to my life outside any consideration of their roles in my later conversion.


May 8. 2021

The Journal is an experiment in private publishing. When it goes unused the owner begins to fear his lack of IT skills will prevent him from publishing again. So he writes something like this little rant and tries to publish it.