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 Times -- and, following its lead, countless other media organizations -- have made it out to be.

For starters, the address isn't about the environment. Primarily, it's about the role of the family in society. Secondarily, it's about the state of the human family in the era of globalization. Within this context, the pope writes about the human family's "home," the earth, and concludes:

We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves.

That's a sentiment that most greens, save for the most rabid and misanthropic among them, would entirely agree with, no? As for the subject of global warming, the Holy Father has this to say:

Continue reading "The Pope v. Al Gore?" »

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Encino residents Judea and Ruth Pearl lit the Pearl family menorah at the White House tonight. The menorah dates back to Judea Pearl's grandfather, Chaim Pearl, who was cited in the last words of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was beheaded in Pakistan in 2002: "I am a Jewish American from Encino, California. My father is Jewish, my mother is Jewish, I am Jewish. Back in the town of Bnai-Brak there is a street named after my great-grandfather Chaim Pearl who is one of the founders of the town."

Below, Ruth Pearl gets a nice smooch from the prez...

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 5:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Although no fan of Mitt Romney's, my take on his JFK Part Deux speech is a little more favorable than Jonathan's. That's not because I think it was a great speech. It wasn't. it was clumsy, and left itself far too open to interpretation, the result of which is criticism like Jonathan's, which boils down to this:

Major premise: We should tolerate religious differences

Minor premise: Secularism is a new religion

Conclusion: We cannot really tolerate secularism because they are trying to take away our common faith.

I don't think this is what Mitt was trying to say, although it's a fair interpretation, given his ambiguity. But as a religious conservative -- the group, really, that I think the speech was directed toward -- I think I have a sense of what Mitt meant to say, or was trying to say, or at least should have said. And I think it was this:

Continue reading "Making Sense of Mitt" »

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 3:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Today's Daily News features an op-ed from a local dad who was surprised one day to hear his girls' singing the following from their school's upcoming holiday concert:

"Rockin' around, the holiday tree, have a happy holiday..."

Yep, you read that right -- "holiday" tree. And with that, SoCal gets the first local skirmish of the annual War on Christmas, in which aggressive secularists and/or the hyper-sensitive try to banish every hint of the reason for the season. As the dad in this story, Johnny Knight, notes, this purgation is the antithesis of the tolerance we say we want to teach our children:

I want my children to be able to accept that other people have different beliefs, and I hope they have meaningful and fulfilling relationships with these other children as they grow up together. ...

I am bothered, however, about how our children are being taught what seems to be the complete opposite of tolerance in their schools. The lesson they are being taught is not that differences should be honored, celebrated and appreciated, but hidden and squelched. They are learning that to "get along," we all must check our differing beliefs and cultures at the door.

Obviously the rantings of some right-wing Christianist, right? Wrong. Mr. Knight is a practicing Jew raising his girls in his faith. This is not, as he notes, ultimately a question about religion, but tolerance -- and whether we are willing to tolerate beliefs contrary to our own.

Happy Hanukkah, Mr. Knight -- and merry Christmas, too.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 8:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

We have come a long way in the last 47 years since people wondered if America was ready for a Roman Catholic president. JFK had to promise that as president he would not be too Catholic. Today the controversy around Rudy is not that is a Roman Catholic but that he doesn’t seem Catholic enough. I mean this in terms of how he lives his life and not the outward trappings of religiosity that all the candidates seem to don as a garment.

This season’s race has seemed to have forgotten the Article 5 section 3 of the Constitution that says “..no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Today the private faith of every candidate is on display. And while it is good that we no longer worry about electing a Catholic, we have shifted our anxiety to Mormons, and also, just under the surface, to a man with two traditionally Muslim names.

The religion question has come center stage, but a candidate’s private faith really is not the business of public politics. We have the right to know what a candidate’s values are. His or her character is certainly admissible into our national dialogue. But the individual faith of a potential president is really not any of our business.

We have effectively created a religious test and all the pretenders to the throne would be thrown off the hustings if they confessed to atheism or even agnosticism. There is, in fact, only one avowed atheist in the Congress—and that is H. Fortney “Pete” Stark of California. There are, I’m certain, many more, but like gays and lesbians, they are closeted by an implicit understanding of “Don’t ask. Don’t tell.”

Aside from the Constitutional impropriety of religious tests, the more immediate concern is that they are worthless. We seem to believe that someone’s religion or denomination conveys valuable information about both their character and their future policies. This is demonstrably false. Knowing that Rudy calls himself Catholic does not tell us what he would do about abortion, stem cell research, the death penalty or war. Christopher Dodd is also Catholic, and I suspect he and Rudy would govern differently.

Nor does Huckabbee’s Baptist ordination tell us anything about him that is intrinsic. Bill Moyers is also an ordained Baptist minister. I suspect they come to different conclusions on some values issues—even though their values are legitimately and sincerely derived from the same source. George W and Hillary Clinton are both Methodists. And from this we can infer exactly what?

Expecting policy and character to proceed predictably from religious affiliation or public displays of religiosity is like assuming all Americans see the Constitution as saying the same thing. We may all be lovers of the Constitution but we certainly understand that precious document differently.

Remember that Jesus warned against the ostentatious displays of piety by the hypocrites and said in Matthew 6:6, “But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.” Good advice from the Good Book.

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 2:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Rob's post about Mitt Romney mentions a piece Rob wrote back on 7-04-04 called The American Bug. It was a great column, and so, for the benefit of our readers, I've posted it after the jump. Enjoy!

PS -- A prediction: Romney's Mormonism will matter far less to conservative Christians voting in the GOP primaries than it will to secular liberals voting in the general election (assuming he gets there).

Continue reading "Re: Romney's Religion" »

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 1:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wow, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post (whose syndicated column runs Wednesdays in the Daily News) must really have it out for Mike Huckabee. This week, he essentially regurgitates his hit piece from two weeks ago on the former Arkansas governor, trashing him on mostly religious grounds.

And why does Cohen feel the need to go after Huckabee again? Because Huckabee behaved tactfully, and refused to use religion as a campaign wedge issue.

Seriously.

Cohen's objection is that, when on "This Week," Huckabee declined to answer host George Stephanopoulos ' question about whether GOP rival Mitt Romney is a Christian. “Mitt Romney has to answer that.... It's not for me to determine what somebody else's faith is," Huckabee answered.

To which Cohen goes apoplectic:

Mike Huckabee knew precisely what was being asked of him, and he also knew, because he is a preacher, what the right -- not the clever, mind you -- answer should be. But Huckabee merely smiled that wonderful smile of his and punted. This, with apologies to George W. Bush, is the soft demagoguery of low expectations.

Stephanopoulos ... provided the perfect opportunity for Huckabee to make some ringing statement in support of religious tolerance. He might have made some reference to the ugly anti-Catholic campaigns run against Al Smith (1928) and John F. Kennedy (1960).... In other words, Huckabee might have preached.

Sure, that might have been nice --- had Huckabee actually been asked something like, "Can a Mormon be president?" But he wasn't. Instead, Stephanopoulos tried to set him up with an entirely theological question about what qualifies as authentically Christian belief. It was a question of zero relevance to the presidential race, and one which, if Cohen had an ounce of integrity, would offend him far more than Huckabee's diplomatic response.

Because if anyone was trying to use religion to divide here, it was Stephanopoulos. Stephanopoulos knows full well that Mormons think themselves -- and strive to be -- followers of Jesus Christ. But he also knows that Mormonism holds numerous tenets, about the nature of Christ and other issues, that are so at odds with orthodox Christianity that most Christian denominations don't consider it a Christian faith. This would certainly be the case of Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister.

What Stephanopoulos was trying to do was stir up an old religious debate, and put Huckabee in a pickle: If Huckabee says Romney is a Christian, he offends many Christian believers who see Mormonism as something radically different from what they believe; but if he says Romney is not a Christian, he offends Mormon voters.

Huckabee, to his credit, saw through this trap and offered the response that was not only politically savvy, but also spiritually sound: It's not his place to judge another man's faith or heart, period.

Good answer. A tolerant one, too. And one that directly responded to the question being asked -- a rarity in politics these days. Had Huckabee blathered on about the need for tolerance, he would have simply been dodging the question, for which Cohen surely would have blasted him.

Continue reading "Richard Cohen, anti-Christian Bigot?" »

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

This picture comes from the Lowe's holiday catalog. It's and ad for, um, "Family Trees." You know, those lovely firs (or synthetics) that people tend to put up sometime between Thanksgiving and New Year's Day for, um, no reason in particular.

And with that, the annual debate can begin: Is there a 'War on Christmas?'

Well, not to sound Clintonian, but it depends on how you define "war." In some instances, such as when ACLU-types in Seattle fought to purge the airport of any holiday symbols, yes, I would say there is an aggressive sort of secularism at work, one that wants to rid the world of any and all public religious expression, especially the Christian kind.

That said, what's taking place at Lowe's and countless other stores is less an aggressive form of secularism than plain-old dumb capitalism. Retailers want it both ways, appealing to believers and the hyper-sensitive at the same time. They think they can do it by calling objects something other than their obvious names. ("Christians will keep buying the trees, and the perpetually offended won't notice!")

It's a silly approach, and a doomed one, too. Other stores have been burned by bad publicity from such decisions in the past, and Lowe's is the latest, now apologizing, while insisting that its catalog was a "mistake." Sure.

Rest assured, Lowe's won't make this "mistake" again. But even if the company responds by printing glorious pictures of the Nativity on the cover of next year's catalog, believers would be fools to think Lowe's has "come to Jesus." This is all about making bucks -- nothing less, nothing more -- and Christmas, like Memorial Day or any other event, is solely an opportunity to move product, as far as corporate America is concerned.

For the life of me, though, I can't understand why anyone would be offended by a Christmas tree, a creche, being wished a "merry Christmas" or any of the other benign occurrences that can become capital offenses this time of year. Isn't part of living in a pluralistic, diverse society being tolerant of people with different beliefs?

My last name, though Austrian in origin, is often mistake for Jewish. As such, every year, several Jews will wish me a happy New Year on Rosh Hashanah, mistaking me for a fellow Jew. This has never offended me in the least. Nor have the Hindu celebrations I've attended at my Indian friends' houses. I don't feel threatened by other faiths -- I am grateful for them, and grateful to live in a country where, for the most part, different sorts of people can get along nicely.

In my experience, the overwhelming majority of non-Christians -- be they Jews, agnostics, atheists, or anything else -- are very tolerant, and wouldn't be the least bit offended by the word "Christmas" in a Lowe's catalog. Unfortunately, the small group of hyper-secularists who wage the 'War on Christmas' tend to get an undue share of the public's attention -- and corporate America's, too.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

As much as I respect Jonathan's views and insights, he makes a tragic blunder in his take on the Coulter-Deutch brouhaha. Namely, he takes Ann Coulter seriously.

Ann Coulter is a bomb-thrower, nothing more. She makes millions by saying outrageous things, and the people who most claim to despise her are her best allies, as they shower her in undeserved publicity. But while Coulter is a bomb-thrower and a lightning rod, she is most certainly not an authority on Christian theology. Indeed, the naked way she uses her faith to fan the flames of her self-serving controversies ought to be offensive to everyone, Christians most especially.

That said, Jonathan errs when he takes Coulter's incendiary remarks as somehow representative of Christianity as a whole. Please, Jonathan, that would be like my taking Madonna as an authority on Judaism! Coulter's claim that Christians are "perfected" is an outrageous, theologically illiterate howler for a faith that believes none of us is "perfect" but the saints in Heaven. It alone ought to immediately disqualify her as someone whose opinion represents anything authentically Christian. (For a good read on Coulter's religious illiteracy, see what Mark Shea has to say here.)

Continue reading "On Coulter and Conversion" »

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 1:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

One of the major tenets of therapy is that you cannot repair or heal if you do not engage in a fearless conversation with yourself. This is true also of the psychic hurts on our body politic. If we cannot talk about our truths, our complaints, our hurts, then we have no chance of remediating the problems. So thank you Ann Coulter for bringing anti-Semitism and religious intolerance to the front, so that we may gaze into our souls and the soul of this nation.

What can I say about Ann Coulter that hasn’t already been said…about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Joseph Stalin, Father Coughlin and David Metzger? They are, or were, all purveyors of hate, intolerance, in general, and anti-Semitism, in particular. And yes, I am intentionally leaving Adolph Hitler off this dishonor list. He stands alone and beyond Coulter’s aspirations or abilities.

In many ways those who characterize her as a comedian, or a performance artist who says outrageous things for the effect—and the money—are probably partially right. She certainly knows that what she says will be greeted by appalled cries from her targets but taken as Gospel by her base. She is playing to her base, and base are their instincts. Looking at her book sales and TV appearances, her act is working.

There is a pattern to her hateful patter. She uses a deadpan delivery and knowingly speaks outrages as if they were self-evident truths. Whether or not she believes the vile effluence of her mouth is not important. She is part of the pollution problem that corrodes our society and poisons the possibility of civil discourse. Her targets, to her, are not merely wrong, but bad, evil and we as a society would be better off if they either went away or got some sense and agreed with her.

There is neither an ounce of respect in her social commentaries, nor tolerance of another viewpoint or of those who hold a different viewpoint. Yet her latest calculated emission offers an opportunity to learn something—or recognize something about society and religion.

Coulter’s M.O. is to demand that anyone who is different should change. Hence the title of her most recent book: If Liberals had any brains they’d be Republicans. Riffing on that theme last week she said that Jews should become Christians. Judaism had been okay before Jesus, but now there is a New Testament, new rules (No attribution to Bill Maher on the New Rules thing) and Christianity is Judaism perfected. When challenged on this and given the chance to back down or rephrase, or worst of all to avoid a controversy that would give her visibility, she stuck to her theological guns.

The reaction has been fierce. She has been called all kinds of names and characterized as dangerous. Well, I’m happy to call her names (as indeed I did at the start), but the danger is not that she is saying this. The real issue is that her viewpoint, as expressed in regards to Judaism is pretty mainstream.

It is not simply wacko far right Christians who believe that Judaism is wrong and can only be set right by conversion. It is mainstream Christians who believe that Judaism is theologically fatally flawed and its followers will likely be damned—or at least not get the really good seats near God’s Holy Throne, but will, at best, be in the back balcony.

This is not far out, but intrinsic to their belief that the New Testament replaced the Old one and that Jesus’ death was a Temple blood offering that created a New Covenant leading to a New Jerusalem in Heaven. And that is the only way to get there.

Recently, while conducting an interfaith dialogue at the university, it was instructive that the Liberal Christian (Methodist minister) said she believed that God would save all good people. The Muslim Imam said he believed that God the Merciful and Compassionate would grant peace to all the children of the Book—meaning Jews and Christians. It was only the Catholic priest who looked embarrassed and confessed that he could not be a Catholic if he didn’t believe that it offered something unique and true in it’s instruments of salvation. This characterization included not just Jews and Muslims but also other Christians.

Coulter opened up the sad fact that nearly every religion believes that its positions are unique, true and the only complete instruments of salvation and ticket to paradise. This is not a matter of just Christianity versus Judaism, Islam or itself. Muslims, though the Qur’an teaches otherwise, clearly are able to kill, persecute and enslave each other over issues of who has the best, the real, the only true understanding of God. The Sunni believe that Shiite theology is dangerously corrupt and way too Christian in style—elevating both Ali and Hussein to positions that are heretical to the Sunni. The Shiites have as little patience with the Sunni and don’t understand why they don’t get how Ali and Hussein suffered for the sins of all and their great redemptive sacrifices.

Nor is Judaism immune from this internecine intolerance. Too many Reform Jews believe, and say, that the Orthodox are old fashioned and superstitious. They will look at the Hasids with contempt—at their life-style, their treatment of women and even stereotype and assail their business practices (just like non-Jewish anti-Semites!). Some Orthodox and Hasids return the non-favor by characterizing Reform and Conservative Jews as not real Jews.

There is probably no need to go into the various calumnies heaped on members of other faiths—as each claims the exclusive franchise for the radio station for tuning in the invisible messages from God Almighty.

It seems next to impossible for people not to believe their own views to be superior and to work for others to come to the truth and either accept or give up whatever we accept or give up.

There is nothing unique in Coulter’s screed—other than its visibility and its source. Hers is the face of too many faithful of all faiths.

Is there any escape from this? If we all gave up religion would we make peace and find peace? Of course not. We would create other kinds of disputes—we could make it political or racial. We could fight about sports teams or trade policy or therapeutic systems.

Our great human flaw is our inability to understand the possibility of a multiplicity of truths—truths that do not annul each other but add to human wisdom and joy. Sadly Ann Coulter will not help facilitate such a conversation or such healing. I wish she’d come to her senses and see things my way—the right (or left) way.

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 5:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I've been a Catholic all my life, and I have to say I was ashamed to read this:

"While thousands of Buddhist monks have marched on the streets to protest against Myanmar's military regime, the Catholic Church has ordered its clergy not to take part in demonstrations or political activities.

Worshippers at Yangon's Catholic churches Sunday read posted bulletins from its hierarchy stating that priests, brothers and nuns were not to become involved in the monthlong protests, but that lay Catholics could act as they saw fit."

To think that Buddhist monks risked all in the name of human rights -- and rallied the people by example of their peaceful marches -- but the Church telling clergy to just not get involved is disquieting, to say the least. And apparently I'm not the only one who was disturbed by the directive:

"But at one Yangon church, a Western priest told a mostly foreign congregation of some 100 worshippers that the international community must speak out against the regime, criticizing those who remained silent.

'The situation now in Myanmar should not be deemed as "business as usual." What's happening can be likened to a rape,' he said in a sermon, asking not to be identified by name for fear of reprisals.

A handful of Myanmar residents were inside the church, and had apparently been sleeping there in recent days for fear their homes would be raided by security forces which set up a checkpoint about 10 meters (yards) from the church after the Mass."

The Church should be more than just a shelter, locking the doors and hoping the evil doesn't come inside. The Church should offer guidance, inspiration and strength, and lead by example. Yangon Archbishop Charles Maung Bo said that "in accordance to canon (church) law and the social teachings of the Catholic Church, priests and religious are not to be involved in any party politics ... and demonstrations." But this is not party politics, nor is it neo-Marxist "liberation theology." This is about basic human rights and elemental freedoms. This is a military junta that -- well, let's just say the death of Kenji Nagai speaks louder than words:

Posted by Bridget Johnson at 12:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It turns out that the San Francisco "leather" festival that's running the ad that mocks Jesus isn't just funded by Miller beer. The city of San Fran is kicking in taxpayer money, too. Natch.

And to think, when the City of Los Angeles got involved with a fund-raiser at Hooters, people went ballistic.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Miller Beer has pulled its logo -- but apparently not its money -- from the San Francisco S&M fair ad mocking Christ's last-supper.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If this poster were mocking Mohammad ...

... it would be an international incident. Muslim clerics would be issuing fatwas. Western leaders would be offering countless apologies. The media would be obsessively reporting every detail with a suitable air of shock and disgust.

But organizers of San Francisco's Folsom Street Fair -- "the world's largest leather event" -- have instead smartly chosen to mock Christ, depicting the Last Supper as some sort of kinky gay-sadomasochist fete complete with sex toys. And so press coverage -- and thus protest -- have been all but nonexistent. A Google News search finds only two news stories, one from a conservative news site, another from a Christian one. The MSM is seemingly not interested. Neither, apparently, are San Francisco city officials, or Miller beer, which is sponsoring the event.

Maybe the folks at Miller need to hear about this. Let's drop them a note.

* UPDATE: Miller Beer has pulled its logo -- but apparently not its money -- from the fair ad.

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 4:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

I was sitting in my temple during this High Holy Day service of Rosh Hashanah and thinking about Mother Teresa. Strange? Maybe not. The Jewish New Year and the 10 Days of Awe leading up to Yom Kippur, give us an opportunity to think about our lives, our values and commitments and the lives and value of all our sisters and brothers both near and afar.

As I examined my own heart, certainties and doubts, it is not surprising that the honest and agonizing introspection of Mother Teresa should swim into my meditations. There is a current controversy about Mother Teresa. Did her doubts, her loneliness and despair, and the painful absence of, what she understood as God’s presence, make her life a fraud and her piety a lie?

Let me break the rules of essay writing and give away my conclusion. She was not a fraud. Just the opposite. Her painful doubts honored her faithfulness. Faith without questioning is a lie. Everyone falls into despair. Our doubts are a compliment to faith. Faith is not belief or even certainty. It is involvement, relationship and engagement with the great and often terrible question of meaning and the Source of Meaning.

My Rabbi, and friend of over 35 years, Rabbi Michael Roth, spoke of the Rebbe of Lublin and how his particular Hasidic group celebrated life with singing and dancing. Yes, they studied the Law but were yet more interested in the direct experience of the divine, that feeling of connection which transcends mere belief and manifests in experience and ecstasy—ecstasy understood as being out of the static and moving to the music of the spirit. The Hasidic emphasis was on music, dance and joy.

Although, the Jewish world in Lublin in Poland was seldom overly joyous, the Rebbe believed we should find and celebrate such joys as were available. Don’t miss the wedding because there is a funeral. Don’t give up on a life of meaning, which is not so much about conventional faith, as faithfulness to life. In other words, despite the pogroms, the deprivation and the suffering, we can still shout L'Chaim! To Life!

Continue reading "Mother Teresa and the Rebbe of Lublin" »

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 10:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My favorite headline of the day comes via the Catholic EWTN website: No One Likes Taxes, Says Benedict XVI.

Hard to argue with that one! Hooray for Il Papa!

As the piece goes on to explain, B16 was making a historical joke:

The Pope jokingly made this comment Wednesday during his reflection at the general audience focused on St. John Chrysostom. Referring to the saint's homilies written during the so-called statue revolt, a third-century protest over the emperor's taxes, the Holy Father said with a smile, "You can see that some things never change throughout history."

At least the emperor had the good sense not to try to impose an anti-gang parcel tax ...

Posted by Chris Weinkopf at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

How can we keep life in perspective? I don’t really know how, because the world changes far too fast for me to find a very stable center.

Today a fine finish carpenter came to install the drawer pulls for the beautiful new desk and bookshelves my wife had made. He seemed to have brought the wrong pulls. It turned out that they were right but he only had half the number needed. Now whether to put in half, or wait for the rest to come in, or go with single pull larger handles seemed, given the cost of the furniture, important. We were discussing, as if it were important, whether they should be exactly 5 inches apart.

Then the phone rang, and a dear friend told me that her daughter, whom I’ve known from her pre-teens years, just died. Cancer. Six weeks from diagnosis to death. Nothing to do but attend her funeral. Kind of puts the drawer pulls in perspective. Right?

Minutes later I’m laughing hysterically if ruefully. I Googled the cemetery, and this being Los Angeles, (even in the Valley) the site gave a list of all the famous stars who are buried there! There is even an interactive map to get to the graves of the rich and famous, the once envied and formerly glamorous.

Laugh, cry, eat, dance and love. Sic transit gloria mundi and sic transit trivia mundi

Posted by Jonathan Dobrer at 2:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)