As Israel nears her 60th birthday, this is major food for thought: Hamas airs a "documentary" showing that Jews supposedly plotted the Holocaust to weed out the weak and gain international sympathy. They release it just a couple of weeks before the day when the world remembered the victims of the Holocaust. The media largely ignores this outrage, because Hamas represents the "persecuted" Palestinians. I write about the lessons we need to learn from this -- with the insight of my pal Valerie Harper, who took her amazing Golda Meir character to the big screen recently -- in my column this week:

"Sadly, as we marked this year's Holocaust Remembrance Day, 'never again' seems further from reach than ever. Jews continue to be targeted, be it in the 1994 bombing of the Jewish center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, or the repeated desecration of Jewish graves in Berlin. Holocaust denial has became accepted as legitimate thought in some circles and has become a foreign-policy talking point in the regimes of others.And when I, a gentile columnist, have written about the outrage of Holocaust denial, I've received far too many letters defending the deniers.

'Jews don't care about anybody but the Jews,' wrote one Canadian reader. '...Only a fool would trust a Jew to play fair with gentiles. ... They're laughing at you for falling for their lies. Don't be such a sap.'

Hamas is doing its best to stoke that disbelief in the true nature of the Holocaust, while fanning the flames of hatred for the Jewish people.

On April 18, Al-Aqsa TV - which brought Palestinian kiddies Farfour the martyr mouse and Assoud, the Bugs Bunny rip-off who vowed to 'eat' the Jews - aired an 'educational' program that accused Jews of perpetuating the Holocaust to weed out the weak among their ranks and simultaneously gain international sympathy.

This, of course, walks a fine line with Hamas' contention that the Holocaust never happened..."

Read the whole thing!

And if you want to be even more depressed, read the reader comments, which include this gem from a woman in Redondo Beach:

"Holocaust 'denial' is a misnomer. Nobody denies the Holocaust. Some people have noticed irregularities with some aspects of the official holocaust story and have raised questions. For example, why haven't the mass graves at the death camps been opened up to estimate the number of victims and see what we can find out about who they are or how they died? Why hasn't anybody demanded information about a relative they believe was murdered in one of the death camps? How exactly did the gas chambers work and how did they dispose of all the bodies?

All reasonable questions but instead of answers, you get called a bigot and anti-semite for asking them. For that reason, people will continue questioning the holocaust. It's not bigotry that leads people to holocaust revision, it's simply curiosity."

To which one reader from New York responded:

"Christina, I could not agree with you more. It's not bigotry to find the truth. The real bigots here are the stiff-neck mutated counterfeit jews that reasons with their own vile vehement that spews forth without intelligences, along with their brain dead following.."

Feeling truly ill yet? There was a positive comment over at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer to lift one's spirits (the last line cracked me up, anyway):

"I'm surprised the PI let Bridget Johnson's opinion on here.

The popular opinion on the far left is that the Jewish people and Israel are the root cause of all violence, poverty and hate in the Arab world. Without Jews, none of it would exist.

I'm sure they would have felt sorry for them as they were being cooked early in the late 30s, had they been around to see it, but now that they have recovered, prospered and are white and wealthy, they are a target.

Hamas could fry babies, and they do in a sense, and they would be the noble ones to the far left, because they aren't wealthy.

Keep the faith Bridget and if your letters smell of lattes and incense, save yourself some grief and throw them away."

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 7:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My column from a few weeks' back about Ben Stein's "Expelled" -- which posited that the movie should be taken as satire -- has been affirmed by none other than its screenwriter, Kevin Miller, who calls my review "brilliant."

This is, I think, a remarkable endorsement, considering that I called the movie's tactics "nasty" and "unfair," and described some of its main arguments "a stretch" and "a cheap shot."

That Miller doesn't take offense to these descriptions suggest that I was right in my understanding of the movie:

Stein's film is part parody of, part rebuttal to, the crusading atheists who have risen to prominence in recent years - such as Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. And it employs the same nasty tactics they have perfected.

By the way, some have asked where they can find the video I wrote about in my column's lead. Here ya go:

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 5:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

And momentarily, the smell of sulphur left by Hugo was washed away...

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 12:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

On Easter Saturday, Pope Benedict XVI baptized Magdi Allam, an Italian newspaper editor and a former Muslim, into the Christian faith. And ever since, various Muslim, secular, and even Christians have denounced this high-profile conversion as reckless and needlessly provocative. Allam, they argue, should have received the sacraments quietly, without all the attention and papal fanfare that could harm interfaith dialog and offend Muslim sensibilities.

But in terms of shock value and provocation, Allam’s conversion has nothing on Bl. Anthony Neyrot’s.

Neyrot, who celebrates his feast day today, was a Dominican brother living in Sicily in the Fifteenth Century. While sailing to Naples, Moorish pirates captured his ship, then sold him into slavery in Tunis. There, Neyrot would win back his earthly freedom by rejecting Christianity in favor of Islam. He was adopted into the Tunisian king’s family and took a wife, leaving his vocation, his order, and his faith behind.

It's quite possible Anthony would have died an apostate were it not for the intervention of his former Dominican prior, who had only recently passed away — St. Antoninus. Antoninus appeared to Anthony in a dream, the message of which was so profound that it spurred Anthony’s repentance. Neyrot sought out a priest, confessed his sins, sent his wife back to her family, and was readmitted to his order.

But his reversion didn’t end there. Anthony wanted his return to Christ to be as public as possible. On Palm Sunday of 1460, Anthony appeared at a procession before the Tunisian king, wearing his white Dominican habit for all to see. He publicly denounced his conversion to Islam and proclaimed his restored devotion to Christ.

Now that's a provocation.

Continue reading "A Patron for Magdi Allam and Benedict XVI" »

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 10:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Writing for public consumption is always interesting. What I intend and what the readers get are often at odds. Usually I take full responsibility for this, since it is my job to communicate. Yet, when readers “get” such wildly different understandings of my message, I put some of it on the readers. Writing is, something of a Rorschach test and what someone sees or understands may say more about them than what is on the paper.

)">">That some people read my piece on Obama (Can Obama win with a third impression? Daily News April 6: as strongly anti-Obama, while others thought I was being overly kind to him, is pretty normal. People can see my observations, criticisms and suggestions as hypercritical or defensive. I think that his actions and inactions raise legitimate questions for all voters—and we will answer them differently.

My piece was very specifically a report on how I saw a portion of the electorate, the Jewish portion, reacting to Obama and the questions raised by Pastor Wright’s repeated clips. It was not about what it was not about; which is to say I was not reporting on all Jews, all Californians or all Democrats. I was not making a judgment on the fitness of the candidate. It was a limited topic, but I believe a valid one, and apparently it was both interesting and controversial. It is somewhat pleasing to have responses from London, England, Johannesburg, South Africa, Washington DC, Dallas and San Antonio, Texas—as well as the more expected Van Nuys, California.

That said, some of the comments both to my personal email and on the discussion page raise troubling questions about how we see each other as citizens of the world, Americans, Christians, Muslims and Jews and how we communicate with each other. Is communication meant to build a bridge, change a mind or to insult and punish? Writers and speakers should know their objective before writing or speaking.

I was disheartened by Chris in Dallas who wrote: “We Americans are getting tired of hearing from Jews about this politician or that politician loosing (sic.) support from Jews. Who cares if a politician is loosing support from Jews.”

Here’s the thing about this kind of unkind locution: Jewish citizens of America are, well, Americans. Those of us who are citizens are fully American and have viewpoints that give us a right to have and share our views and perspectives. Jewish Americans have legitimate interests. Remember that citizens of our nation who live in California are Americans, and Texans can be proud Texans, loyal Americans and Jews—all at the same time. I know this since I have family from Corpus Christi, now in The Woodlands who are patriotic Americans, life-long Texans and Jews.

My neighbors in the San Fernando Valley have particular concerns about services in the Valley and how we are treated or ignored by greater Los Angeles. These are narrow concerns but none-the-less they are real and important.
I believe that Texas, California and the District of Columbia can have special interests and make requests of our national candidates to see how they will serve our interests. We then get to decide for whom—or more often, against whom—to vote.
Gabi wrote from Johannesburg: “As usual, the Jewish community is only concerned about what is best for Israel. Not what is best for America.” This comment, like Chris’, assumes that the Jewish community (or the Muslim community or the San Fernando Valley community) is both monolithic and monomaniacal. Neither is true. Gabi’s comment asserts that American Jews are only concerned with Israel and not patriotically attached to America. This is an unwarranted assertion. We can care about more than one thing at a time. We can care about family, tribe, community, state nation and even foreign nations. I must assume that Gabi in South Africa cares about both South Africa and the larger world—particularly the Middle East. If he can multi-task, so can we.

One single geographic, political, social, international or religious issue might or might not be decisive. There being no perfect candidates, we all have to come to our own best sense of what serves our complex constellations of interests and concerns.

In the American Jewish community, most of us are interested in Israel, in its survival and in peace. This does not imply a rejection of Arab, Muslim or Palestinian needs and desires. Peace will involve their interests, and they too have every right and responsibility to ask questions of the candidates and express their own concerns. It would be un-American for them not to.

I believe we communicate—or try—in order to build bridges. It is simply self-indulgent to burn them. Bridges are difficult because while under construction they are supported by a flimsy scaffolding. As we build bridges with words made of air, ink or vibrating electrons, they are precarious structures. We can only bridge the real and important gaps with an attitude of good will, generosity and respect.

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 4:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I discovered long ago that the mainstream media are, by and large, so illiterate on religious issues as to make most religion reporting untrustworthy. This is doubly so for the British press. So I suppose I shouldn't be shocked that the story I cited the other day about Mikhail Gorbachev's supposed conversion to Christianity is a phony. From the Chicago Tribune:

"Over the last few days some media have been disseminating fantasies—I can't use any other word—about my secret Catholicism, citing my visit to the Sacro Convento friary, where the remains of St. Francis of Assisi lie," Gorbachev told the Russian news agency Interfax. "To sum up and avoid any misunderstandings, let me say that I have been and remain an atheist."

Well, that makes matters pretty clear, doesn't it? Yet I don't see how Gorby's re-professed atheism squares with this quote from the original Telegraph story: "It was through St Francis that I arrived at the Church, so it was important that I came to visit his tomb." Either Gorbachev has quickly changed his tune, or, more likely, that quote and others similar to it are simply fraudulent. (Perhaps a deliberate mistranslation?)

Oh well. As Russian Orthodox patriarch Alexei II put i, "(Gorbachev) is still on his way to Christianity. If he arrives, we will welcome him." And I will never trust the British press on a religion story again.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 3:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Be sure to read today's L.A Times account of the release of Willie Earl Green from San Quentin -- 24 years after a wrongful murder conviction. There are a few stunning things about this piece. The first is Green's fascination with all the trappings of modern life he's missed out on:

It was a day of firsts for Green. He drank his first cup of Starbucks coffee. He took it with cream and sugar -- two treats forbidden in state prison. His wife told Green that she would teach him to use her newfangled coffee maker and washing machine when they got home....

He asked a reporter to let him hold a cellphone, a contraption he had never touched before. He fingered the keypad a bit and carefully relinquished the phone. "Take it back before I drop it," he said....

An investigator for Green's legal team demonstrated a remote device to unlock the car. Green watched with delight as the investigator showed him how to open the doors and pop the trunk.

"That is something," Green said. "Teach me that someday."

More remarkable still is Green's under lack of bitterness, despite having so much of his life taken away:

"The system that put me in here was the same system that got me out," he said. "It's not perfect, but it's the best system in the world."

And finally, there's this chilling thought: What if Green had been executed? Wrongful imprisonment is terrible enough, but at least it can be corrected. The death penalty is irrevocable. Once applied, mistakes can never be undone.

Something to ponder on this, the commemoration of the day when Christ Himself was wrongly executed ...

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

... comes a newly revealed devotion to Jesus Christ.

God bless Mikhail Gorbachev, shown here paying a visit to the tomb of St. Francis of Assisi:

"It was through St Francis that I arrived at the Church, so it was important that I came to visit his tomb," said Mr Gorbachev.

"I feel very emotional to be here at such an important place not only for the Catholic faith, but for all humanity."

I'd say that Lenin must be rolling in his grave, but I suspect that the USSR's first leader has come to know the reality of God even more profoundly than has its last ...

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've posted the toon above because it neatly encapsulates an argument I've heard from various Obama apologists, namely that Barack's association with Pastor Wright is no more odious than John McCain's receiving the endorsement from Rev. John Hagee. It's a nice try at moral equivalence, but it's just not true.

To put it simply: There is a big difference between receiving someone's endorsement and giving someone your own. And it was Hagee who endorsed McCain -- not the other way around.

If Obama had simply received the endorsement of Rev. Wright, this would be a non-issue -- you can't control who likes you, and no cause is so noble that it won't attract bad people. This is why few people much care that Louis Farrakhan has endorsed Obama, even though Farrakhan's views make Wright's look positively mild.

But because Obama has held Wright out as a spiritual and political mentor, Wright's intemperate views are relevant. They suggest that even though Obama might not share these views, he is all too accommodating and comfortable with them. As I noted earlier, this is not just a friendship, but a religious/ideological connection. Certainly it tells us something about what Obama thinks, even if the meaning of that something is in dispute.

Meanwhile, that some crazy likes McCain tells us very little about McCain -- and it's hardly something for which the Arizona senator need apologize.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 2:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Just got this e-mail from a very dear friend, with whom I differ on a great many issues:

I was thinking -- just think of the Arabs that I am friends with and the views they hold -- some of them I'm so close with I'm going to Tunisia with them next year to visit their familiies, and I would never disown them, even if I were running for president -- is that comparable to Obama's situation?

She writes of some Arab neighbors who have become her good friends, and who are dear in every way -- except that they hold some truly frightening, ignorant viewpoints about Jews. (My friend strongly rejects these views, and vehemently disagrees with them whenever they are expressed, but still values these neighbors' friendship.) Here's my response:

I don't think the analogy you set forth is appropriate. It's one thing to have friends and loved ones who hold beliefs you find offensive -- I've got them in spades. (Starting with you!) It's another thing, though, to set these people up as your "mentor" or "spiritual adviser."

A friend is someone whose company you enjoy regardless of ideology, politics, or worldview. A political and/or spiritual mentor is just the opposite -- it's someone whose advice you take seriously precisely because of beliefs (regadless of whether you like the person on a personal level or not).

If this were Obama's brother-in-law or golfing buddy, it wouldn't be much of an issue. But it's a man he considers a source of wisdom and inspiration -- and that's what makes it problematic.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I find fascinating the polarizing and unpredictable division of opinions in the Obama-Wright kerfuffle. Just look at what we have here at FF and in the Daily News. First there's Jasmyne Cannick, who in today's paper lines up strongly behind Jeremiah Wright and his heated rhetoric, and denounces whites who would criticize it:

It seems that it's not enough that we've adopted their religion and most blacks are worshipping to their white, blue-eyed Jesus, but now they want to dictate the message that we receive as well. And in the process, they've backed Obama against a wall, forcing him to publicly distance himself from his pastor in order to prove that he's not an angry black man in disguise.

Then in a post yesterday that became an op-ed in today's paper, Jonathan offers what is, I think, the perfect counterpoint:

This is not about an endorsement from a person with distasteful ideas. This is about belonging to a community that presents an angry and aggrieved face to the world. That anger may be justified is not the point. The public face of his church is far different from the face that Obama presents to the nation.

Exactly. Jasmyne may be right that Pastor Wright represents an authentic voice for part of black America, but he stands in stark contrast to the hopeful, unifying, race-transcending themes that have been the centerpiece of Obama's campaign. If Obama had run as "an angry black man" (as Jasmyne puts it), he would never have made it to frontrunner status. Indeed, angry candidates of any race seldom do well in a country that craves optimism from its leaders.

Meanwhile, I find myself agreeing with Rob, to an extent, that Wright's anti-American statements are not entirely bad. There is something noble, even patriotic, about not looking past the evils of one's own people. And while I disagree with Wright about what some of those evils are (the idea that the CIA created AIDS to wipe out blacks is vile, noxious hookum), I do find myself uncomfortable with certain Republican-types who react furiously to any suggestion that America might be anything less than immaculate.

Christopher Hayes makes the point nicely in this article in The Nation:

Imagine for a moment that you are pro-life. You believe that each abortion represents the murder of an innocent child. ... If you were religious, you might think that God judged America harshly for this crime, for the nation's continuing indifference, and you might even think that God damns America for its tolerance of a holocaust.

It's hard to imagine, though, that if a Republican presidential candidate were running for president and had a preacher with the views spelled out above, that it would cause much of a stir, or even register a blip in the brain-dead oscillations of the twenty-four-hour, scandal-cycle EKG. And yet here we are, five or six news cycles into an ongoing firestorm over a few seconds of two different sermons delivered by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of Barack Obama's (and Oprah Winfrey's) Chicago church, and a man who Obama says "brought me to Jesus."

Although I would argue with some of Hayes' language and conclusions, he has a point. I, for one, do believe that America's abortion regime is an abomination. And a pastor who says as much, even if he uses overheated and harsh language, is speaking the truth.

Where Hayes comes up short, though, is in his suggestion that a Republican whose pastor said God was damning America for abortion would not suffer for it politically. It's one thing to say abortion is evil. It's another, from a political standpoint, to say America is evil, whatever the reason. As Jonathan aptly asks at the end of his article:

Senator Obama, is there any conceivable way that you could place on your ticket as Vice President a person who attended The Rev. Jerry Falwell’s Church for twenty years?

The answer is no, and not just for Obama, but for anyone running for president. Falwell's suggestion that America brought 9-11 upon itself went over the line for how much national self-condemnation the public will tolerate -- from the left or the right, black or white.

Here we return to Rob's discussions of national self-criticism and patriotism. As far as I'm concerned, the most toxic words Rev. Wright has uttered are not the anti-American ones we've heard on TV the last few days, but the racialist and arguably anti-Semitic ones I wrote about two months ago. Yet clearly those never generated the same level of fury.

Go figure.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 9:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

John McCain was quick to distance himself from an obnoxious radio host making cracks about Barack Obama before a campaign rally. He should be even quicker to distance himself from the endorsement of anti-Catholic televangelist John Hagee:

McCain released the following statement Friday:

"Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas. However, in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee's views, which I obviously do not.

"I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and all people of faith who share my vision for the future of America will respond to our message of defending innocent life, traditional marriage, and compassion for the most vulnerable in our society."

Please, senator, make clear which views about which you disagree. Because I'm hopeful that all politicians who have a vision for the future of America will see that campaigning shouldn't include standing up with bigoted televangelists -- er, fundraisers who preach.

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 2:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Today in my column I write about the constitutional change pushed through Turkey's parliament by the Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party, the party to which the president and prime minister also belong, to allow Islamic head scarves in universities. It seems like a cut-and-dry religious freedom issue, but it's not so simple for the secular Muslim republic established by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.

Do proponents of keeping the head-scarf ban relish the thought of limiting religious expression? No. They're operating out of a real fear of the snowball effect in which Islamic movements have pressured those perceived to be less pious to follow their interpretation of Islam.

In other words, they fear those who will see it as their religious duty to ensure that women cover up.

"The heads of many girls are shaved by their brothers to force them to wear head scarves," Turkish opposition lawmaker Nesrin Baytok said.

And we see what's happened in places like Iran, where top cleric Hojatolislam Gholam Reza Hassani said in December, "Women who do not respect the hijab and their husbands deserve to die."

In Iraq, women who don't wear the head scarf face outrageous threats. "Next time, I want to see you wearing a hijab or I swear to God the three of you will be killed immediately," the Times of London reports a Shiite militia member telling a group of Christian girls at the entrance to a university in Basra. Iraqi journalists report of women being shot or even killed for not wearing the hijab.

This is what Turks, like the tens of thousands who marched against the constitutional change over the weekend, fear. In a secular society, they fear extremists using a personal expression of modesty as a weapon to subjugate women.

There's also an interesting column from Saturday by Turkish Daily News writer Gila Benmayor that responds to Deputy Prime Minister and State Minister Cemil Çiçek's assertion that proponents of keeping the headscarf ban were "spreading terror and radioactive fear like the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant." Benmayor notes how the number of women working in public institutions has dropped during the rule of Islamist Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and notes other signs of increasing conservatism: "As of April 1 an alcoholic beverage ban will be enforced in sports clubs, social facilities, bars and restaurants. The Supreme Board of Radio and Television (RTÜK) also bans scenes with alcoholic drinks in television series and films. To utter the word 'drinks' in dialogues is part of this ban."

Benmayor cites research that pokes holes in Islamists' contention that the head scarf ban was keeping women out of universities:

"Failure in the university entrance exam is the main reason for girls not attending university. Among the reasons for them not having university education are marriage and work requirement but the one listed at the bottom is the headscarf issue.

Only 1 percent of female students do not enroll in universities due to headscarf concerns."

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 5:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Mariel writes that Barack Obama is "the man who was meant to be the next president" -- the Chosen One, if you will. Jonathan adds, "There is an ineffable spiritual dimension" to his candidacy. And now we have a new blog to answer the question that seems to burn in the heart of many a Barackophile:

Is Barack Obama the Messiah?

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 4:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first time I set eyes on Los Angeles Police Department Officer Randy Simmons, he was lifting a 200-pound man off the ground. In an enthusiastic bear hug.

Simmons, a large, gregarious rock of a man was warmly embracing a long-time friend, and fellow LAPD SWAT officer, who had graciously invited me to take a peek inside their fraternity, at the annual SWAT Dinner.

That was barely 10 days ago. No one in that room at the Police Academy, no matter how tactically cynical, could anticipate that less than two weeks later, Simmons would be the first man from the Metropolitan Division’s “D Platoon,” as SWAT is officially known, to die in a gun fight.

Simmons, with more than 20 years on the team, was hardly the picture of a SWAT cop the media would have you believe. You certainly would not think him to be one of the Neanderthal brutes that LAPD brass considers them. While he looked every part the former pro-football player he was – a rock-solid athletic physique that, though nearly two-decades my senior, put mine to shame – he was warm, tender even, to those around him.

As he and my host spoke, I looked around the room and noticed 20-feet away a graying man of Asian descent at a table of mostly Hispanic officers. “Wow,” I thought to myself. “I wish I could have brought the LA Times Editorial Board down here. Let them see the brutal, racist, lily-white LAPD that they so often blast. Let them see a black cop hugging a white cop like long lost brothers.”

That Asian cop, Jim Veenstra, now lies in the same hospital where Randy Simmons succumbed, a bullet having felled him in the same fusillade.

The hate-filled Westboro Baptist Church -- you know, that scruple-less group that stands outside soldiers' funerals with signs declaring that the deceased is in hell because America tolerates gays (I think that's the seven degrees of separation excuse, anyway) -- plans to protest Heath Ledger's funeral:

"Members of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan., are trying to find out where the 28-year-old actor's funeral will be held and have already made signs to hold outside the Oscars that read 'God Hates Fags and Fag Enablers,' 'Heath in Hell' and 'Mourn for Your Sins,' Shirley Phelps-Roper, daughter of the church's controversial founder Pastor Fred Phelps, told ABCNEWS.com.

Though Ledger was not gay, the church believes he 'misused the giant megaphone given to him by God Almighty to speak the truth about fags,' Phelps-Roper said, and instead 'used his position of prominence to say God is a liar and that homosexuality is not an abomination.'"

Rumor has it the funeral will be held in Ledger's native Australia, so if the Westboros can figure out where that is in relation to Topeka, I hope they meet with a few well-aimed boomerangs.

More on Heath's death from our entertainment guru Greg Hernandez at Out in Hollywood...

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 6:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Kudos to Jonathan for his excellent post on identity politics. I think the distinction he makes between letting identity politics dictate whom we'll consider voting for -- as opposed to whom we'll vote against -- is key.

I can see why Mormons would be attracted to Romney, the way African-Americans may be attracted to Obama, or evangelicals to Huckabee, or even women to Hillary. Each of these groups believes -- rightly, to varying degrees -- that it has been kept on the fringes of society, disrespected or even discriminated against by the political establishment/mainstream/majority. For each group, the election of one of its own to the presidency would confer a sense of having "made it," and having overcome its outsider status.

No doubt, this attracted many Catholics to JFK. Surely it's what makes Antonio Villaraigosa so popular among Latinos. I even remember back in 1984, hearing Italian-American groups gush over Walter Mondale because he had named Geraldine Ferraro as a running-mate.

This is natural, and dare I say, not all bad. It's the melting pot in action. And it also tends to dissipate over time.

The real trouble, as Jonathan notes, is not when people want to see a member of their group succeed, but when they refuse to consider members of certain other groups due to their own bigotry. Romney, no doubt, has received this bigoted treatment from some evangelicals/fundamentalists. (Should he get the nomination, he can expect much more from various secular liberals.) But by far, the biggest victim of this negative kind of identity politics has been Huckabee. I have heard multiple intelligent, educated people say they would never vote for him because of his religion -- a statement that seldom arouses any controversy, but imagine if it were made about, oh, Mike Bloomberg or Keith Ellison.

The other dangerous side of identity politics is when it is used as a cheap campaign wedge. Think of the Clinton campaign's efforts to portray all criticisms of Hillary as sexist. Or think of the Obama Spanish-language radio ads that claim, "Hillary Clinton does not respect our people."

This is dangerous talk which poisons our democracy -- and it's far more destructive than members of a put-upon group pulling for one of their own.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 11:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I just wish there was a good explanation for this that doesn't indicate religion voting for religion:

"Mormons comprised 26 percent of those attending Nevada's GOP caucuses, and 95 percent voted for Romney. ... Half of Romney's overall vote in Nevada came from Mormons."

What's getting me -- and perhaps someone more familiar with Mormonism can offer insight into this -- is that Catholics don't just vote for Catholics (47 percent voted for John Kerry), Jews don't automatically vote for Jews (79 percent voted for Gore-Lieberman in 2000), and even just 22 percent of evangelicals in Nevada voted for Mike Huckabee. So I don't think I've ever seen such a religiously loyal vote like this.

NOTE: Over at the WaPo's The Trail blog, the mere mention of these stats has turned into a referendum on religious bigotry. *sigh*

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 4:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yesterday was Religious Freedom Day. You might have overlooked it, but President George W. Bush didn't. He even issued a Religious Freedom Day proclamation -- from that bastion of religious freedom, Saudi Arabia.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yesterday, Bridget, Jonathan, and I had an interesting discussion on how relevant a candidate's religious views are -- or aren't -- to the campaign. Specifically, we were talking about Mike Huckabee, who alone among the presidential candidates is asked about the tenets of his faith, including such matters as who goes to heaven or hell, and what's a real Christian anyway?

Well, imagine if we learned that Huckabee currently attends a church where the following are preached:

• A commitment to a "White Value System"
• Pledge Allegiance to All White Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the White Value System

And what's more, what if Huckabee's church had named, oh, David Duke as its man of the year for 2007, saying he "truly epitomized greatness," and praising him for his "integrity and honesty."

Think that would raise some public concern?

If so, then perhaps it's time everyone stopped asking Huckabee about his religious preferences, and instead turned their attention to Barack Obama. Those quotes above come not from Huckabee's church, which has a history of commitment to racial equality, but to Barack Obama's -- I just substituted the word "White" for "Black" and David Duke's name for Louis Farrakhan's.

As London's Spectator explains in this article, Obama's parish, Trinity United Church of Christ, and its pastor, spout some rather odious racialist rhetoric. And as Richard Cohen notes in his weekly column (which will appear in tomorrow's Daily News), Obama's church magazine recently honored Farrakahn, the rabid race-baiter and anti-Semite whose own church's theology holds that white people are a race of devils created by an evil scientist.

Now, in yesterday's discussion, Jonathan raised the remote possibility that someone who thinks members of X or Y religion won't be saved might, in public office, not treat those people very well. It's a fair point, in theory and in history, but as I responded, there's no evidence for that concern among modern American Baptist leaders. Moreover, who goes to heaven is not the president's decision to make -- so his opinion on the matter is irrelevant to our election.

A far more troubling concern, though, is a would-be president who belongs to a church that espouses arguably racist or anit-Semitic views. Obama claims to not share these views, and if presssed, he will no doubt explicitly distance himself from them. (He'll probably also condemn his pastor's visit, with Farrakhan, to Muammar el-Qaddafi in 1984.) But is that good enough, when he hasn't protested these odious views all the years he was sitting in the pews?

Would it be enough if Huckabee attended a similar, white church?

Or is it only conservative Christians whose religious preferences are scrutinized this way?

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 3:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

How to vie for evangelical votes: Hit the pulpit!

Mike Huckabee did so Sunday, delivering not a political message to one of those megachurches but a regular ol' sermon, returning to his preacher roots in hopes that pastors would tell their flocks to flock to the polls. His message? Being good ain't enough to get into heaven. From the AP:

"Asked by reporters later if he thinks only Christians will go to heaven, Huckabee refused to say. He often says that as a minister, he joked that he doesn't even believe all Baptists are going to heaven.

'I'm going to stick to the things that make it critical for me to be president of the United States,' Huckabee said Sunday. 'I have deep convictions about who goes and who doesn't, but as far as who makes that decision, it isn't me, it's God. I'm going to leave that up to him.'

He argued that the Constitution forbids a political candidate from being subjected to a religious litmus test. And he claimed to be the only candidate who gets asked about specific tenets of his faith."

A few thoughts:

• If you're going to stick to things that are critical to being president, pulpit preaching or salvation predictions ain't included.
  
• He's the only candidate being questioned on his faith? Is he SERIOUS??
  
• As long as he keeps bringing the faith up, I'd like to know if he thinks Catholics and Jews are damned. Sorry, but no man who tries to play casting director for the Pearly Gates would ever get my vote for president of the United States.
  

As long as Huckabee is using the pulpit as a campaign tool, then questions about how he'd view his potential constituents are fair game.

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 9:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

Yes, Virginia, there is a “War on Christmas,” and it dates back to well before political correctness, secularism, squeamish retailers, hyper-sensitive believers, or even Bill O’Reilly.

The real War on Christmas is so old, in fact, it’s older than Christmas itself. It began when Jesus was still in his mother’s womb. King Herod, learning that the Christ would soon arrive, dispatched the three wise men to find the newborn king — so that he might “come and worship him.”

The wise men, warned of Herod’s treachery in a dream, knew better than to comply with his wishes. So the king, “in a furious rage,” took matters into his own hands. As the Gospel of Matthew tells us, “He sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under.” Jesus only survived because Joseph — also warned in a dream — fled for Egypt by night.

Now that’s a war on Christmas.

And for 2000 years, with varying degrees of intensity, the war has raged on.

Continue reading "Thank God for the ‘War on Christmas’" »

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 11:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I guess with Stephen Colbert indefinitiely off the air, there's no one around to parody Bill O'Reilly -- so O'Reilly has decided to do the job himself.

That's the only explanation I can come up with for O'Reilly's latest column, which will appear in Sunday's Daily News. At issue is the town of Great Barrington, Mass., which is mandating that all Christmas lights be shut off by 10 p.m., so as to reduce the town's "carbon footprint."

A goofy bit of pointless eco-overkill? Without a doubt. But O'Reilly can't leave it at that. He sees much more sinister forces at work:

The real strategy here is to diminish the public display of Christmas in that secular town.

So how do I know that? Well, thanks for asking. As it happens, I sent a Factor producer, Jesse Watters, up to talk to this (town official):

Watters: Isn't this a just ruse to de-emphasize Christmas?
Dlugosz: These are holiday lights ... we don't think we should be putting lights all over the place and impacting our environment. We're taking a realistic approach to holiday lights."

Did you notice the term "holiday lights?"

Ah-ha! He said holiday lights -- clearly this is an anti-Christian pogrom!

Good grief, Bill. Let it go. Please, let it go. I'm begging you.

For the record, I don't deny that some sort of "War on Christmas" is afoot -- by which I mean that aggressive secularists are tying to purge any hint of religious expression, especially the Christian kind, from the public square, and some gutless corporations and school boards are knuckling under to them. As much as some liberals like to scoff at the idea of an anti-Christmas agenda, It is a real phenomenon, which is why O'Reilly strikes a chord when he talks about it.

But just because there are some grinches who want to do away with Christmas doesn't mean that one is lurking under every bed, in every closet, or at every town-hall meeting.

O'Reilly here reminds me a lot of certain ethnic activists, feminists, anti-communists, etc. who see evidence of their bogeymen -- be it racism, sexism, communism, or what have you -- everywhere, even where none exists. Those evils are real, to be sure, but sometimes we get so focused on rooting them out that we start chasing phantoms.

And when that happens, noble causes begin to look foolish.

Perhaps it's time for the "Culture Warrior" to take a break from the "War on Christmas." Because by sliding well into the world of self-parody, O'Reilly is now only hurting his cause.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 2:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The hot-heads so eager to stir up faux controversy about the pope's comments on global warming have actually missed what really was the controversial nugget in his message for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace. It's this:

Consequently, whoever, even unknowingly, circumvents the institution of the family undermines peace in the entire community, national and international, since he weakens what is in effect the primary agency of peace. This point merits special reflection: everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of a new life, everything that obstructs its right to be primarily responsible for the education of its children, constitutes an objective obstacle on the road to peace.

In short, you can't be both anti-family and pro-peace. And if you doubt that, just go to any neighborhood where the fatherlessness rate is high, and see how peaceful things are.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 2:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Having worked in the media for most of my adult life, I am well aware that the professionals in this business are a smart, well-educated bunch. Which is why, for the life of me, I can't understand why they seem to turn into blithering idiots whenever the subject of religion arises. For the latest case in point, see this widely cited Times of London piece, The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom, and its lede:

"Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

"The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering."

Wow, next thing you know BXVI will be putting a fatwa on Al Gore's head!

The sensitive green souls over at Wonkette responded with a post titled The Pope Sucks, in which they call Benedict a "Nazi," and quote the Times' paraphrase of his remarks as though it were verbatim. They sign off by wishing His Holiness "a jolly f***-you," albeit theirs in uncensored.

But wait in a minute. The subject of the Times article is the Pope's Message for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace, which he will deliver on January 1. You can read it for yourself here. But be forwarned: You will be disappointed, as it bears almost no resemblance to the anti-green screed that the Time