I have to admit I too have a problem with Jews for Jesus. I respect people’s right to convert yet do mind the Trojan horse technique. Why can’t they simply be Christian? Just imagine how ridiculous would a group called Shikses for Moses be.
The shtick of Jews for Jesus is identical to the one of born again atheist or Hozrim Betshuva. Its the premise that by being born into something and later deciding to leave it you obtained access to some special knowledge hidden from the rest of society.

I think Shikses for Moses is the funniest thing I’ve heard all year. And yes, what kind of religion, no matter what it is can tear apart the relationship between a mother and son. Obviously, neither of them are very religious or have an understanding of what Judaism is all about. Whether you are a Jew who believes in Jesus or not. Juasism preaches love, especially love of family and Jesus preached love as well. So where does the hatred come from?

It helps, when talking about things like this, that you know what your talking about. Although the case has religious overtones, the decision has nothing to do with religion. Neither did Mr. Rapp call his mother a ‘bad Jew’. He merely reported, truthfully, that his step-mother had prayed to accept Jesus as Saviour with him.
Please don’t proliferate lies – check your facts. See also: http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1976617/
P.S. God cares about family ties, but our allegiance must first and foremost be with God. If our family will persecute us for that allegiance – that is not the fault of those who believe.
Y’shua (Jesus) said (Matthew 10:32-37):
“Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn
‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.’”

Respectfully, I’d disagree slightly with the assessment. Either (1) the court should have dismissed the case because ruling EITHER way would be to act as theologian. Ruling in her favor for the reasons you mentioned, but equally so if ruling in his favor because to do so would be to suggest that the stepson’s suggestion that Edith is a ‘bad Jew’ isn’t defamation … which can only be ruled thusly if the court determines it to be true. Otherwise it’s slander, which is unacceptable whether of a religious nature or not.
Or, (2) The court should have ruled in Edith’s favor because the stepson’s article would be exhibiting a conscientious effort to discredit Edith’s reputation within her community, however she chooses to define it. It seems he made the statement with full knowledge that it would be hurtful to her, and if it’s false in any respect, it’s additionally slanderous and libelous.
However, I must agree that it’s a shame to have reached adjudication at all, and both of their religious leaders should’ve been more proactive in mediating the situation.

You fail to focus on the fact that this was a STEP-MOTHER/Son issue, a far different situation than a MOTHER/Son issue…
That being said, and, yes, I speak from experience, perhaps this wasn’t a religious issue at all!!
Mark

Rabbi Hirschfield,
I agree with Richard’s comment above: “Please don’t proliferate lies—check your facts.” You state in the very first sentence of your column that Edith Rapp’s stepson “claimed that she was a bad Jew who had denounced her faith.” I am a staff worker with Jews for Jesus. Bruce Rapp, one of our staff, was visiting his father in Southern Florida. His father had been very ill, and Bruce was talking with him about spiritual matters. Here is what Bruce reported in our July 2002 Newsletter regarding that visit: “On this visit, whenever I talked to my father, my stepmother, Edie (also Jewish), was always close by, listening quietly. Finally, one morning Edie began to ask me questions about Jesus. I explained how God gave us Y’shua (Jesus) as the final sacrifice for our atonement, and showed her the parallels with the Passover lamb. She began to cry, and when I asked her if she would like to ask God for forgiveness for her sins and receive Y’shua she said yes! My stepmother repeated the sinner’s prayer with me—praise God!”
Where, Rabbi Hirschfield, in that account, does Bruce Rapp call his stepmother, Edith Rapp, “a bad Jew”? Those are your own words. You may think that a Jewish person who comes to believe in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah is a “bad Jew,” but that’s your opinion. It isn’t Bruce Rapp’s opinion. Your first sentence makes it sound as if Bruce was criticizing his stepmother. If Bruce was upset with Edith’s decision to, as you put it “denounce her faith,” why does he say “Praise God!” This is bad reporting on your part, and you need to apologize to your readers.

Her stepson could be sued for libel since he put into print basically insulting and possibly damaging claims that could imperil any real or potential gain to the stepmother. This isn’t a matter of religion, so much as damage to her reputation.

Richard and Matt,
I don’t lie, and will assume that you simply don’t know the defintion of the word, which is why you toss it around so loosely. You certainly do not know my inner intent, which is central to the definition of a lie. And for the record, I was simply reporting the coverage of the case in law.com and from the trial transcript. But apparently you are not interested in those.
You do however demonstrate the real challenge of my post e.g. the proven track record of relgious leaders to speak from anger and mistrust rather than love and kindness. I wish it wasn’t so, especially because I am a rabbi and ultimately we all share the same brand — one which is damaged when any of us engages in this kind of behavior.
Looking forward to your healing a mom and her son. Do you have anything in the tradition in whose name you lash out, that might do that?

the court made a mistake on even allowing this, the case should be thrown out. in fact any conclusion will probubly be thrown out in a higher court should it ever come to that.
sad state of affairs. it is not even for something that should be talked over by others in a setting such as thing-and is only because of the suit.
it has nothing to due with religon or jews for jesus or those against such groups.
it has to do with a sad family matter.
MYOB should be the tone here
hugs
Laura

MISTAKE-reread the article and am glad the courts did the right thing
hugs
Laura

I’m waiting to see “Methodists for Mohammad”.

Belinda,
In Judaism, one of the worst things a child can do to a parent, for a person to do to themselves, is become a Xian, which we consider idolatry for Jews. Such an action can destroy a parent-child relationship. In fact, many of us believe it can destroy a soul.
So yes, a conversion can destroy a bond between a mother and a son. If a child embraces that faith, many of us feel we must draw back and put that person out of the family, as they are a threat to the cohesion of the Jewish people.
It was done to me when I went astray (I returned, Baruch Hashem), and I would be forced to do the same if my child embraced Xianity.

OMG (no pun intended), I also burst out laughing at “Shikses for Moses”. So clever!

Rabbi Brad -
It is a shame that people need to start throwing accusations and mistatements around without researching the ground they stand on. Shame on those who would call a man a liar or spreader of lies without knowing his intent. And shame on those who would attribute a statement to someone and build a case against him without determining his actual words and intent. It seems to me that both positions here are very similar and I am waiting to see whether Rabbi Brad or Richard and Matt are the first to humble themselves and apologize to the other.
After researching this I can find nothing in this court case that indicates the court was meddling with religious theories – it was simply dealing with cases where true reports or statements in news media unfortunately cause difficulty and harm to another. It ruled correctly that allowing suppression of free speech rights under the first amendment creates a greater harm than allowing them and that no such doctrine as “false-light” exists in Florida law.
How this got turned into an issue of purposeful defamation between a mother and son indicates the propensity of many to eagerly use “religion” to create a soap box for their personal beliefs. I do not believe – given his record – that Rabbi Brad had any intent to do this, however it was in poor form to invoke the “bad jew” controversy promulgated by others without printing the original article and letting it speak for itself.
Who will be the one to post the original article from “Jews for Jesus” so that we can all lay this to rest and know the facts?
Jeremiah

Alone Sequence,over nose educational publication very few religious crisis black yourself flat society benefit past year limit above coal reading scientific step machine potential full really on prove consider steal ship leg surprise forward scene teach recognition part effort usually apart academic rare area largely raise remind module prime outcome where warm convention together surround book legal museum sit attempt look method walk space worth argument try phone office observation great further small appropriate mental therefore through effort main last mental jump minister nobody plan offer