Last night Middle Tennesseans for Religious Freedom held a rally in support of the First Amendment, religious diversity, and our local Muslim community whose property was vandalized yet again this past weekend. I was invited to be one of the speakers.
It was a different venue for me: standing outside on the steps of the Court House without a sound system speaking loudly to a crowd of three to four hundred people. My talk was extemporaneous so I have to written speech to share with you here, and, to be honest, if the local newspapers had quoted me accurately I wouldn’t even bother with this post. But I want to go on record saying what I said, rather than what I was quoted as saying.
I made two points last night. First, we are living through a time when fear is gripping the lives of more and more Americans. Whenever that happens demagogues rise up to manipulate the fearful in order to grow their own power. This demagoguery usually involves demonizing the “other.” Who that “other” is changes over time. It was the Catholics in the late 19th century, the Jews in the first half of the 20th century, and today the Muslims. Hating the other is, for some, as American as apple pie. So I urged people to have compassion on those who are being manipulated, and to take care not to be manipulated themselves.
But the main thrust of my talk, and the part that got lost in translation, was my use of Micah 6:8, “You know, O Humanity, what God requires, Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.” I emphasized “your God” and referenced the rabbinic tradition that interprets the use of the word “your” to be a warning against taking your personal belief system too seriously. Be humble about what you say you know, because when it comes to God, no one can know anything definitively. The God who is God cannot be reduced to theology or religion or any set of ideas or concepts. I am no opposed to theology, religion, or ideas, but I don’t want to allow them substitute for Truth, which is ultimately beyond words.
So I urged people to listen carefully to the teachings of their gurus, priests, pastors, rabbis, and imams, and to pay close attention to what is being said and read in their respective religious institutions and challenge anything that smacks of violence and demonization of the other. All this was predicated on the use of “humble” in the book of Micah.
What did every newspaper in middle Tennessee quote me as saying? Not “walk humbly with your God,” but “walk comfortably with your God.” Comfortably? Are you serious? This is the problem: people are too comfortable with their gods; so comfortable that they don’t challenge them or the insanity of much of what they have to say. And the true God, Reality itself, is discomforting. God challenges you to step out of your comfort zone: to leave nationalism, ethnicity, and parental bias behind, and to travel into the unknown and ultimately unknowable realm of divine mystery (Genesis 12:1). The only response to this call is an uncomfortable humility.
I loved standing with all these people. I loved sharing what I had to say with them. And now at least some of you will actually know what it is that I did share.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Why I Can't Own Canadians, Part 2
OK, you’ve read and I hope chuckled at the previous “letter” to Dr. Laura from Dr. Kauffman. His point is simple: the Bible is an outmoded relic of the Iron Age, and its values, mores, and ethics are completely irrelevant to modern life. Anyone who claims to base her ethics on the Bible is either a brute or a liar or both.
This line of thinking isn’t new. In fact it is more than 2000 years old. The Pharisees were the first to come up with it when they invented the idea of a second revelation to Moses on Mt. Sinai that they then used to undermine the authority of Torah and the Levitical Priesthood that derived its power from it. They called this second revelation the Oral Law and juxtaposed it to the Written Torah about which both Drs Laura and Kauffman are concerned. Whenever the Pharisees or their heirs, the rabbis, found a Written Law they didn’t like they “remembered” an Oral Law that ether rendered the Written Law moot, or made the implementation of it impossible.
For example, the Written Law says that adulterers are to be killed (Leviticus 20:10), something the rabbis found repellant. So they remembered an Oral Law that says that this can only be done if the adulterers are repeatedly interrupted mid-coitus by several witnesses who proceed to explain in detail the nature of the crime the couple is committing and the penalty to which they are leaving themselves open. Since few adulterers invite witnesses, the law as written cannot be implemented.
The rabbis were not alone in this subterfuge. Early Christians, themselves Jews, continued the effort of freeing themselves from Torah by using Jesus to undermine and even demonize the Written Law. Later Christians, by then mostly Gentile, went on to demonize the Oral Law as well, though they themselves were never subject to it. The very idea that Jews could still claim to be heirs to God’s revelation after the birth of Christianity was anathema to them.
The point is no one follows the Written Law. Instead they use it to give the aura of sanctity to their own opinions. Rather than have the guts to say, “I despise all homosexuals and wish to see them killed,” as the good folks of Uganda are doing, they feign helplessness before the word of God. “I don’t hate homosexuals, but God does, and I have to side with God.”
The fact is religion is all too often a way of ginning up one’s own opinions and clothing prejudice in the garb of piety. Stop taking your cues from demagogues and ancient tomes, and start thinking for yourselves.
This line of thinking isn’t new. In fact it is more than 2000 years old. The Pharisees were the first to come up with it when they invented the idea of a second revelation to Moses on Mt. Sinai that they then used to undermine the authority of Torah and the Levitical Priesthood that derived its power from it. They called this second revelation the Oral Law and juxtaposed it to the Written Torah about which both Drs Laura and Kauffman are concerned. Whenever the Pharisees or their heirs, the rabbis, found a Written Law they didn’t like they “remembered” an Oral Law that ether rendered the Written Law moot, or made the implementation of it impossible.
For example, the Written Law says that adulterers are to be killed (Leviticus 20:10), something the rabbis found repellant. So they remembered an Oral Law that says that this can only be done if the adulterers are repeatedly interrupted mid-coitus by several witnesses who proceed to explain in detail the nature of the crime the couple is committing and the penalty to which they are leaving themselves open. Since few adulterers invite witnesses, the law as written cannot be implemented.
The rabbis were not alone in this subterfuge. Early Christians, themselves Jews, continued the effort of freeing themselves from Torah by using Jesus to undermine and even demonize the Written Law. Later Christians, by then mostly Gentile, went on to demonize the Oral Law as well, though they themselves were never subject to it. The very idea that Jews could still claim to be heirs to God’s revelation after the birth of Christianity was anathema to them.
The point is no one follows the Written Law. Instead they use it to give the aura of sanctity to their own opinions. Rather than have the guts to say, “I despise all homosexuals and wish to see them killed,” as the good folks of Uganda are doing, they feign helplessness before the word of God. “I don’t hate homosexuals, but God does, and I have to side with God.”
The fact is religion is all too often a way of ginning up one’s own opinions and clothing prejudice in the garb of piety. Stop taking your cues from demagogues and ancient tomes, and start thinking for yourselves.
Why I Can't Own a Canadian, Part 1
My holy brother Rich sent this to me. This “letter” or ones similar to it have been floating around for a long time. This one uses Dr. Laura (Queen of the N-Word) as its foil. Dr. L claims to be an Orthodox Jew (I don’t know this for a fact, but I take her at her word) who, so I am told, opposes homosexuality on the basis of Leviticus 18:22 which calls homosexuality an abomination. I want to share this letter with you in this post, and then comment on it in the next one.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia
Friday, August 27, 2010
Keeping Up with the Jones
Keeping Up with the Jones
Several days ago (August 10) I wrote about Terry Jones, the Gainesville, Fl. pastor who is sponsoring Burn the Koran Day on September 11th. Today I listened as he explained to Chris Matthews on Hardball (MSNBC) that the purpose of Burn the Koran Day is to send a message to Muslims that America is opposed to Sharia positions such as killing people who are homosexual simply because they are homosexual.
Good for Pastor Jones! I too am opposed to such horrendous anti-homosexual laws, and that is why I want to add a sacred text to Pastor Terry’s Burn a Koran Day. I want to burn Christian Bibles as well, and in so doing send a message to Christians that America is opposed to their homophobia.
And just as Paster Jones rightly points to the barbarism of stoning in some Islamic countries as reason why Americans should fear American Muslims, I will point to the bill written by Christians in the United States and soon to be passed in Uganda, a nation whose population is 84% Christian, that makes it legal for the state to kill homosexuals, as reason to fear and oppose all things Christian here in the United States.
If we are to fear Muslims bringing Islam–sanctioned murder of homosexuals to our shores, and I agree we should; we should be no less fearful of Christians bringing Christian sanctioned murder of homosexuals to our shores as well. And make no mistake, the Ugandan leaders are acting from their faith, and are backed by the Christian extremist and politically powerful group known in this country as The Family, who, one can only assume, would like to see their good work in Uganda become the norm here in the United States. Indeed, the Ugandan President said that his country is only doing what any God-fearing country would do. The United States, he opined, is loosing its faith by not killing its homosexuals.
If Pastor Jones is correct that burning Korans will send a clear message to Muslims, then I urge those who, like Pastor Jones, wish to protect the lives of homosexuals, to burn Christian Bibles and send a similar message to Christians everywhere: we Americans don’t want your laws in our land.
Several days ago (August 10) I wrote about Terry Jones, the Gainesville, Fl. pastor who is sponsoring Burn the Koran Day on September 11th. Today I listened as he explained to Chris Matthews on Hardball (MSNBC) that the purpose of Burn the Koran Day is to send a message to Muslims that America is opposed to Sharia positions such as killing people who are homosexual simply because they are homosexual.
Good for Pastor Jones! I too am opposed to such horrendous anti-homosexual laws, and that is why I want to add a sacred text to Pastor Terry’s Burn a Koran Day. I want to burn Christian Bibles as well, and in so doing send a message to Christians that America is opposed to their homophobia.
And just as Paster Jones rightly points to the barbarism of stoning in some Islamic countries as reason why Americans should fear American Muslims, I will point to the bill written by Christians in the United States and soon to be passed in Uganda, a nation whose population is 84% Christian, that makes it legal for the state to kill homosexuals, as reason to fear and oppose all things Christian here in the United States.
If we are to fear Muslims bringing Islam–sanctioned murder of homosexuals to our shores, and I agree we should; we should be no less fearful of Christians bringing Christian sanctioned murder of homosexuals to our shores as well. And make no mistake, the Ugandan leaders are acting from their faith, and are backed by the Christian extremist and politically powerful group known in this country as The Family, who, one can only assume, would like to see their good work in Uganda become the norm here in the United States. Indeed, the Ugandan President said that his country is only doing what any God-fearing country would do. The United States, he opined, is loosing its faith by not killing its homosexuals.
If Pastor Jones is correct that burning Korans will send a clear message to Muslims, then I urge those who, like Pastor Jones, wish to protect the lives of homosexuals, to burn Christian Bibles and send a similar message to Christians everywhere: we Americans don’t want your laws in our land.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Height Speech
I was speaking with an opponent of the so-called “Ground Zero” mosque who told me that she wasn’t opposed to Islam, a hater of Muslims, or even an enemy of mosques in general. It was this mosque in particular that bothered her because it would cause needless pain to those affected by 9-11 by being located two blocks from Ground Zero; ground she considered hallowed.
Fair enough. I can understand and even respect that opinion, so I didn’t disagree, but simply asked her why a mosque was offensive while a strip club, bar, fast food restaurants, and an off-track betting parlor, all as far away from Ground Zero as the mosque, did not violate her sense of hallowed ground.
“Well, she said, ignoring my question, “I just don’t think people want to see this mosque from the new structure when it’s built.”
“That is an interesting point,” I said. “Since the new building will be a huge tower, when you say you don’t think people want to see this mosque from the new building, do you have a specific floor in mind? I mean, you won’t be able to see it from the first floor, so how many floors up should we go when deciding when the mosque would be offensive? Because if you count the entire building, all the floors, well you can see the entire city from the top floors, so if you are thinking of the feelings of those who might work on the top floors you’re really against this mosque entirely.”
“No, I’m not saying that,” she said. “I’m just saying that you shouldn’t be able to see a mosque from the new tower.”
“Even the top floors?”
“Of course. If you can see the mosque it is hurtful. So, yes, the top most floors as well.”
“So no mosque anywhere.”
“Not really. I just don’t think it should be seen from the tower. It isn’t my fault they want to build a tall tower. “
“You’re right,” I said. “So how about we help each other out. I will join you in your crusade to make sure the mosque isn’t built within view of the new tower, and you join me in a new effort to insure that the new tower is only two stories tall. Fair enough?”
She looked at me as if I was insane. Then she turned and walked away. I don’t fault her for this. I was looking at her the same way.
Fair enough. I can understand and even respect that opinion, so I didn’t disagree, but simply asked her why a mosque was offensive while a strip club, bar, fast food restaurants, and an off-track betting parlor, all as far away from Ground Zero as the mosque, did not violate her sense of hallowed ground.
“Well, she said, ignoring my question, “I just don’t think people want to see this mosque from the new structure when it’s built.”
“That is an interesting point,” I said. “Since the new building will be a huge tower, when you say you don’t think people want to see this mosque from the new building, do you have a specific floor in mind? I mean, you won’t be able to see it from the first floor, so how many floors up should we go when deciding when the mosque would be offensive? Because if you count the entire building, all the floors, well you can see the entire city from the top floors, so if you are thinking of the feelings of those who might work on the top floors you’re really against this mosque entirely.”
“No, I’m not saying that,” she said. “I’m just saying that you shouldn’t be able to see a mosque from the new tower.”
“Even the top floors?”
“Of course. If you can see the mosque it is hurtful. So, yes, the top most floors as well.”
“So no mosque anywhere.”
“Not really. I just don’t think it should be seen from the tower. It isn’t my fault they want to build a tall tower. “
“You’re right,” I said. “So how about we help each other out. I will join you in your crusade to make sure the mosque isn’t built within view of the new tower, and you join me in a new effort to insure that the new tower is only two stories tall. Fair enough?”
She looked at me as if I was insane. Then she turned and walked away. I don’t fault her for this. I was looking at her the same way.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Nonbeliever or Different Believer?
I got an interesting piece of hate e-mail the other day. Most of it is too nasty to print, but the part that I found interesting was the claim that I am a nonbeliever. This in and of itself marked me for death and eternal damnation, and disqualified me from making any honest comments upon anything.
I’ve heard this many times. The God of Love seems to attract followers filled with hate no less so than does Allah, the All Compassionate and All Merciful. It is an irony not unique to Christianity or Islam, but one that Christians and Muslims must (but usually don’t) deal with in public. It is much easier to deny the authenticity of hate filled Christians and Muslims than to admit that one’s religion has a shadow side given to hate, death, and murder.
Anyway to the question at hand: Am I an unbeliever? The answer depends on what it is I am supposed not to believe in. If you are Christian who believes that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, and expect me to believe the same, then I am a nonbeliever. If you are Muslim who believes that the Qur’an is the final word of God, and expect me to believe the same, then I am a nonbeliever. If you are a Jew who believes that Torah is the only revelation from God and the Jews are God’s Chosen, and expect me to believe the same, then I am a nonbeliever. If you are a Hindu who believes that Krishna is Lord, and expect me to believe the same, then I am a nonbeliever. But if you believe that the universe is a single system of intelligence evolving toward greater and greater levels of consciousness, and that it is possible to realize yourself as a manifestation of this intelligence, and that doing so makes you a vehicle for compassion and justice, then I am a believer after all.
In other words, a nonbeliever is simply a person who doesn’t believe as you believe. There is no absolute standard for belief or nonbelief, and labels such as believer and nonbeliever are relative to the particular standard held by the person doing the labeling. The only value such labeling has is to make the person doing the labeling feel a bit more secure in her position. It is totally self-serving and without any objective truth-value whatsoever.
The whole thing saddens me. I would like to retire the words believer and nonbeliever in favor of different believer. Everyone believes something. No one believes in nothing unless Nothing is what you believe in, which, of course, makes that person, too, a believer. It is not right to call atheists nonbelievers. They have beliefs. Just not ones at home with a supernatural Supreme Being.
So please lets begin to speak of one another and ourselves as different believers. Let us believe differently if we choose. And, if we must label (and I sense that we must) let that be the only label we toss around.
I’ve heard this many times. The God of Love seems to attract followers filled with hate no less so than does Allah, the All Compassionate and All Merciful. It is an irony not unique to Christianity or Islam, but one that Christians and Muslims must (but usually don’t) deal with in public. It is much easier to deny the authenticity of hate filled Christians and Muslims than to admit that one’s religion has a shadow side given to hate, death, and murder.
Anyway to the question at hand: Am I an unbeliever? The answer depends on what it is I am supposed not to believe in. If you are Christian who believes that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, and expect me to believe the same, then I am a nonbeliever. If you are Muslim who believes that the Qur’an is the final word of God, and expect me to believe the same, then I am a nonbeliever. If you are a Jew who believes that Torah is the only revelation from God and the Jews are God’s Chosen, and expect me to believe the same, then I am a nonbeliever. If you are a Hindu who believes that Krishna is Lord, and expect me to believe the same, then I am a nonbeliever. But if you believe that the universe is a single system of intelligence evolving toward greater and greater levels of consciousness, and that it is possible to realize yourself as a manifestation of this intelligence, and that doing so makes you a vehicle for compassion and justice, then I am a believer after all.
In other words, a nonbeliever is simply a person who doesn’t believe as you believe. There is no absolute standard for belief or nonbelief, and labels such as believer and nonbeliever are relative to the particular standard held by the person doing the labeling. The only value such labeling has is to make the person doing the labeling feel a bit more secure in her position. It is totally self-serving and without any objective truth-value whatsoever.
The whole thing saddens me. I would like to retire the words believer and nonbeliever in favor of different believer. Everyone believes something. No one believes in nothing unless Nothing is what you believe in, which, of course, makes that person, too, a believer. It is not right to call atheists nonbelievers. They have beliefs. Just not ones at home with a supernatural Supreme Being.
So please lets begin to speak of one another and ourselves as different believers. Let us believe differently if we choose. And, if we must label (and I sense that we must) let that be the only label we toss around.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Is Obama a Muslim? Yes we can!
According the Pew Research Center there is widespread and spreading confusion over the religion of President Barack Obama. Eighteen per cent of Americans say Mr. Obama is a Muslim (up 7% from six months ago), while only 34% knew he was Christian (down from 48%). Now some of you may believe this is yet another example of the growing plague of stupidity that is rampaging through the United States, but I think it is due to the growing influence of Islam in America and the consequent decrease of the power of Christianity.
People want their president to be like them. The fact that more Americans think President Obama is a Muslim may simply reflect the fact that more Americans are converting to Islam. To find out just how crazy my idea is, I too turned to the Pew Research Center (www.pepelepewresearchcenter.org) to conduct another poll. Here are some of the findings:
• 63% of those polled believed that Rahm Emanuel is the unborn child referenced in Isaiah 7:14
• 87% identified the religion of Rush Limbaugh 87% Republican, while 3% answered Methodist
• 54% identified Sarah Palin’s religion as Assemblies of God (AG), while 11% said Assemblies of God (USA)
• 99% correctly identified Ronald McDonald as Irish Catholic
• 87% of Americans surveyed could not identify the religion of the Pope, though the same number did know that a bear shits in the woods, and
• while 97% of Americans could identify the religion of the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel as Jewish, only 2% could further identify him as Sephardic.
What does this tell us? I asked the Pepe le Pew Research Center to ask this question also, and it turns out that 100% of Americans had no idea, while another 75% had no opinion, which leaves me free to make up whatever I want. And what I want is to scare the crap out of you over how stupid, bigoted, and xenophobic Americans are.
So let’s recap: President Obama was almost half Christian six months ago, while today he is only one third Christian. This on-going loss of Christ is of great comfort to American Muslims who are trying to impose Sharia on America in order to get the First Lady to stop going sleeveless and start wearing a chador in hopes of increasing chador imports into this country and thus help improve the economy of Chadoria.
America: love it or leave it, it really won’t help either way.
People want their president to be like them. The fact that more Americans think President Obama is a Muslim may simply reflect the fact that more Americans are converting to Islam. To find out just how crazy my idea is, I too turned to the Pew Research Center (www.pepelepewresearchcenter.org) to conduct another poll. Here are some of the findings:
• 63% of those polled believed that Rahm Emanuel is the unborn child referenced in Isaiah 7:14
• 87% identified the religion of Rush Limbaugh 87% Republican, while 3% answered Methodist
• 54% identified Sarah Palin’s religion as Assemblies of God (AG), while 11% said Assemblies of God (USA)
• 99% correctly identified Ronald McDonald as Irish Catholic
• 87% of Americans surveyed could not identify the religion of the Pope, though the same number did know that a bear shits in the woods, and
• while 97% of Americans could identify the religion of the Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel as Jewish, only 2% could further identify him as Sephardic.
What does this tell us? I asked the Pepe le Pew Research Center to ask this question also, and it turns out that 100% of Americans had no idea, while another 75% had no opinion, which leaves me free to make up whatever I want. And what I want is to scare the crap out of you over how stupid, bigoted, and xenophobic Americans are.
So let’s recap: President Obama was almost half Christian six months ago, while today he is only one third Christian. This on-going loss of Christ is of great comfort to American Muslims who are trying to impose Sharia on America in order to get the First Lady to stop going sleeveless and start wearing a chador in hopes of increasing chador imports into this country and thus help improve the economy of Chadoria.
America: love it or leave it, it really won’t help either way.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Su Casa Mi Casa
“I won’t support the building of any mosque anywhere in the United States unless and until the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen allow me to build a church and a synagogue in their countries.”
This is one of the rallying cries of Americans who oppose the building of mosques in the U.S. I, for one, find it compelling. The logic is unassailable, and free from bias. If Saudi Arabia won’t allow me to build a synagogue in their country why should I allow them to build a mosque in mine? We are not saying there will not come a time when mosques will be welcome here. We are only saying that that time will come only when Muslim despots and dictators turn their countries into full-fledged democracies.
This logic is so compelling that I believe we should apply it to other areas of life as well. Here are just some of them:
I won’t support true democracy anywhere in the United States unless and until the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen do so as well.
I won’t support the drinking of alcohol anywhere in the United States unless and until the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen do so as well.
I won’t support the full equality of women anywhere in the United States unless and until the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen do so as well.
I won’t support the State of Israel anywhere in the United States unless and until the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen do so as well.
I won’t support the freedom of worship anywhere in the United States unless and until the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen do so as well.
In fact, I won’t support the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights unless and until the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen do so as well.
My list could go on, but you get my point: Why should the United States be more moral, egalitarian, free, or democratic than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen? Why should we support democracy, liberty, human rights, civil rights, religious freedom, etc. when these and so many other nations around the globe do not? Why should we set the bar of human rights so high when other countries set them so low? I, for one, am sick of it. If theocracy and totalitarianism are good enough for Iranians, they are good enough for Americans as well.
I want to applaud our brave leaders in the anti-Islam movement for bringing this kind of thinking to my attention, and I want to urge all Americans to adopt it. The best way to affirm and support American values is to bring them in line with Saudi, Iranian, and Yemeni values. You just can’t argue with logic like this.
This is one of the rallying cries of Americans who oppose the building of mosques in the U.S. I, for one, find it compelling. The logic is unassailable, and free from bias. If Saudi Arabia won’t allow me to build a synagogue in their country why should I allow them to build a mosque in mine? We are not saying there will not come a time when mosques will be welcome here. We are only saying that that time will come only when Muslim despots and dictators turn their countries into full-fledged democracies.
This logic is so compelling that I believe we should apply it to other areas of life as well. Here are just some of them:
I won’t support true democracy anywhere in the United States unless and until the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen do so as well.
I won’t support the drinking of alcohol anywhere in the United States unless and until the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen do so as well.
I won’t support the full equality of women anywhere in the United States unless and until the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen do so as well.
I won’t support the State of Israel anywhere in the United States unless and until the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen do so as well.
I won’t support the freedom of worship anywhere in the United States unless and until the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen do so as well.
In fact, I won’t support the Constitution of the United States or the Bill of Rights unless and until the governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen do so as well.
My list could go on, but you get my point: Why should the United States be more moral, egalitarian, free, or democratic than Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen? Why should we support democracy, liberty, human rights, civil rights, religious freedom, etc. when these and so many other nations around the globe do not? Why should we set the bar of human rights so high when other countries set them so low? I, for one, am sick of it. If theocracy and totalitarianism are good enough for Iranians, they are good enough for Americans as well.
I want to applaud our brave leaders in the anti-Islam movement for bringing this kind of thinking to my attention, and I want to urge all Americans to adopt it. The best way to affirm and support American values is to bring them in line with Saudi, Iranian, and Yemeni values. You just can’t argue with logic like this.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Burn a Koran Day
Next month on September 11th the Dove World Outreach Center, a church in Gainesville, FL, is sponsoring Burn a Koran Day. Now some will say that doing this is an offense to Muslims everywhere, and while that may be so, it is not the intent of these good Christians to offend anyone. They are burning the Koran to draw attention to the fact that it is not a holy book and is in fact keeping Muslims from eternal salvation under the loving grace of the one and only Jesus Christ.
The church gives ten reasons to burn a Koran. 1) The Koran says Jesus isn’t the Son of God and was not crucified; 2) The Koran is of human origin; 3) The Koran includes aspects of pre-Islamic religion; 4) Historical proof of Muhammad’s existence is lacking, and the earliest writings about him came 120 years after his death; 5) Muhammad had worldly ambitions, something God hates; 6) Islam does not promote the separation of church and state; 7) The Koran supports the second class status of women; 8) a Muslim is not free to convert to another religion; 9) Islam hates the West; 10) Islam is imperialistic and supports the suppression and persecution of Jews and Christians.
I have to hand to Dove World Outreach Center, this is a very compelling argument. My only question is this, why limit ourselves to burning Korans? Let’s burn every so-called holy book that disrespects Jesus, women, and democracy, denies the separation of church and state, is of human origin, and was written decades after the events its relates. Based on these criteria we could have one hell of a bonfire. In fact let’s pick a date, say, September 11th, and hold a nationwide Bonfire of the Inanities in which we burn every holy book ever written, since all of them, including the New Testament, meet many if not most of the reasons given for burning Korans.
But as cool as this sounds, will it really change hearts and minds? Even though they are inviting Muslims to join them at Burn a Koran Day, the good people at Dove World Outreach know that simply freeing people from their false holy books isn’t enough. Christians, they write on their blog, “are called to live and speak the truth, and to tear down the strongholds of the kingdom of darkness. Islam is of the devil and the Koran is a lie.”
This is more like it. We have to tear down the strongholds of Islam. It isn’t enough to burn their books; we have to burn their strongholds. Books are only the beginning. Our wars with Iraq and Afghanistan are only preludes to the bigger wars we are planning against Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Dearborn, Michigan.
The only problem I have with what Dove World Outreach is doing is their claim that they are doing what early Christians did in Acts 19:19. They are too modest. In Acts the converts to Christ who had been practicing magic didn’t burn books held sacred by others, but gathered and burned their own books as a sign of their love for Jesus. The people at Dove Outreach are far more bold and true to their Christian principles than those early Christians. They want to burn their enemy’s books, and more power to ‘em!
So let the burning begin: paper today, tomorrow the whole planet. Ain’t religion grand?
The church gives ten reasons to burn a Koran. 1) The Koran says Jesus isn’t the Son of God and was not crucified; 2) The Koran is of human origin; 3) The Koran includes aspects of pre-Islamic religion; 4) Historical proof of Muhammad’s existence is lacking, and the earliest writings about him came 120 years after his death; 5) Muhammad had worldly ambitions, something God hates; 6) Islam does not promote the separation of church and state; 7) The Koran supports the second class status of women; 8) a Muslim is not free to convert to another religion; 9) Islam hates the West; 10) Islam is imperialistic and supports the suppression and persecution of Jews and Christians.
I have to hand to Dove World Outreach Center, this is a very compelling argument. My only question is this, why limit ourselves to burning Korans? Let’s burn every so-called holy book that disrespects Jesus, women, and democracy, denies the separation of church and state, is of human origin, and was written decades after the events its relates. Based on these criteria we could have one hell of a bonfire. In fact let’s pick a date, say, September 11th, and hold a nationwide Bonfire of the Inanities in which we burn every holy book ever written, since all of them, including the New Testament, meet many if not most of the reasons given for burning Korans.
But as cool as this sounds, will it really change hearts and minds? Even though they are inviting Muslims to join them at Burn a Koran Day, the good people at Dove World Outreach know that simply freeing people from their false holy books isn’t enough. Christians, they write on their blog, “are called to live and speak the truth, and to tear down the strongholds of the kingdom of darkness. Islam is of the devil and the Koran is a lie.”
This is more like it. We have to tear down the strongholds of Islam. It isn’t enough to burn their books; we have to burn their strongholds. Books are only the beginning. Our wars with Iraq and Afghanistan are only preludes to the bigger wars we are planning against Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Dearborn, Michigan.
The only problem I have with what Dove World Outreach is doing is their claim that they are doing what early Christians did in Acts 19:19. They are too modest. In Acts the converts to Christ who had been practicing magic didn’t burn books held sacred by others, but gathered and burned their own books as a sign of their love for Jesus. The people at Dove Outreach are far more bold and true to their Christian principles than those early Christians. They want to burn their enemy’s books, and more power to ‘em!
So let the burning begin: paper today, tomorrow the whole planet. Ain’t religion grand?
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Voting Basil, Tennessee's Best Hope for Governor
Today my fellow Tennesseans and I go to the polls to determine whom among us will run for governor of the Volunteer State. My choice is Basil Marceaux. Let me share a few reasons why.
First, I like a man whose parents’ weren’t afraid to name him after an herb.
Second, Mr. Marceaux is going to make carrying guns mandatory for all Tennesseans. I know some liberals hate this, but why should only the most violent among us pack heat? Do you think Jesus would have let the Romans crucify him if he and his posse had AK-47s? Read the Book of Revelation: when God comes back to earth He comes loaded for bear (Russian Bear not Sister Sarah’s momma grizzlies). Who says there are no second chances?
Third, Mr. Marceaux promises that, should he win the election and become governor, anyone who votes for him will receive lifetime immunity from all criminal prosecution under state law.
Fourth, while in favor of universal health care, Mr. Marceaux promises to keep the size of one’s waistline out of any health considerations.
Fifth, Mr. Marceaux plans to remove all traffic lights believing that they make slaves out of those of us forced to abide by them.
I could go on, but you can find out more about my candidate by visiting his website, http://politics.freesitenow.com/basilmarceauxforgovernor/.
Mr. Marceaux isn’t the only Republican running for governor, but I can’t see myself voting for Mr. Ramsey who says that Islam is a cult out to subvert America, or Mr. Zack Wamp who, despite incredible name recognition among fans of the 1960s Batman television series, is building his campaign on the secession of Tennessee from the United States if Mr. Obama’s healthcare bill isn’t repealed.
Of course I could always vote Democratic, and maybe I will. I admit, however, that I have no idea who is running on the Democratic ticket, or what he or she may stand for, but given the candidates on the other side does it really matter?
First, I like a man whose parents’ weren’t afraid to name him after an herb.
Second, Mr. Marceaux is going to make carrying guns mandatory for all Tennesseans. I know some liberals hate this, but why should only the most violent among us pack heat? Do you think Jesus would have let the Romans crucify him if he and his posse had AK-47s? Read the Book of Revelation: when God comes back to earth He comes loaded for bear (Russian Bear not Sister Sarah’s momma grizzlies). Who says there are no second chances?
Third, Mr. Marceaux promises that, should he win the election and become governor, anyone who votes for him will receive lifetime immunity from all criminal prosecution under state law.
Fourth, while in favor of universal health care, Mr. Marceaux promises to keep the size of one’s waistline out of any health considerations.
Fifth, Mr. Marceaux plans to remove all traffic lights believing that they make slaves out of those of us forced to abide by them.
I could go on, but you can find out more about my candidate by visiting his website, http://politics.freesitenow.com/basilmarceauxforgovernor/.
Mr. Marceaux isn’t the only Republican running for governor, but I can’t see myself voting for Mr. Ramsey who says that Islam is a cult out to subvert America, or Mr. Zack Wamp who, despite incredible name recognition among fans of the 1960s Batman television series, is building his campaign on the secession of Tennessee from the United States if Mr. Obama’s healthcare bill isn’t repealed.
Of course I could always vote Democratic, and maybe I will. I admit, however, that I have no idea who is running on the Democratic ticket, or what he or she may stand for, but given the candidates on the other side does it really matter?
Monday, August 02, 2010
ADL and Cordoba House
The Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish organization devoted to fighting bigotry, has come out against the building of Cordoba House, a proposed Muslim center, on a cite two blocks from Ground Zero. The ADL gave two reasons for its opposition, both of which deserve comment.
First, the ADL said that building a Muslim center so close to Ground Zero would unnecessarily hurt the feelings of those who lost loved ones there. I have two problems with this argument: 1) many among the 9/11 families support the center, so why side with one group and not the other? And, 2) this argument links all Muslims to the acts of extremists among them. Any mosque of any kind would be offense simply because it is Muslim. This is the kind of thinking that even President Bush warned us against, and this is the kind of libel against which the ADL fights; how sad that it would use it against Muslims.
Everyone should oppose any religious institution that supports terrorism and preaches hatred, but the Cordoba House is nothing of the kind, and deserves the support of progressives everywhere. Including the ADL.
The ADL’s second concern regarding Cordoba House’s funding is rooted in the fact is that Saudi Arabia funds Wahabi mosques around the globe, and these mosques do promote hatred, misogyny, and terror. The fact that the United States supports the Saudi dictatorship which in turn buys the support of Wahabists who agree not to topple the House of Saud as long as they fund Wahabist activities is just one of many geo-political absurdities that plague our world. And while the concern is genuine, it is also loaded.
Just asking the question, “Who funds Cordoba House” raises doubts in the minds of people. Who does fund Cordoba House? We don’t know. Why don’t they list their donors on their website? We don’t know. What have they got to hide? Well, it must be something…
But the same can be asked of the ADL. Who funds them? We don’t know. Maybe they get money from right wing extremist groups in Brooklyn or Jerusalem. We don’t know. And why don’t they list the names of their donors on their website? What have they got to hide?
I know Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, the leader of Cordoba House. I have taught with him, dined with him (and his wife), and argued with him about the Middle East. And I am proud to call him a friend. I believe we need more ventures like Cordoba House, not less. I believe it is long past time for progressive clergy to come together and support one another, and condemn and actively oppose the work of those hate-mongers in all faiths. And I am saddened that the ADL lacked the guts to do so in this case.
First, the ADL said that building a Muslim center so close to Ground Zero would unnecessarily hurt the feelings of those who lost loved ones there. I have two problems with this argument: 1) many among the 9/11 families support the center, so why side with one group and not the other? And, 2) this argument links all Muslims to the acts of extremists among them. Any mosque of any kind would be offense simply because it is Muslim. This is the kind of thinking that even President Bush warned us against, and this is the kind of libel against which the ADL fights; how sad that it would use it against Muslims.
Everyone should oppose any religious institution that supports terrorism and preaches hatred, but the Cordoba House is nothing of the kind, and deserves the support of progressives everywhere. Including the ADL.
The ADL’s second concern regarding Cordoba House’s funding is rooted in the fact is that Saudi Arabia funds Wahabi mosques around the globe, and these mosques do promote hatred, misogyny, and terror. The fact that the United States supports the Saudi dictatorship which in turn buys the support of Wahabists who agree not to topple the House of Saud as long as they fund Wahabist activities is just one of many geo-political absurdities that plague our world. And while the concern is genuine, it is also loaded.
Just asking the question, “Who funds Cordoba House” raises doubts in the minds of people. Who does fund Cordoba House? We don’t know. Why don’t they list their donors on their website? We don’t know. What have they got to hide? Well, it must be something…
But the same can be asked of the ADL. Who funds them? We don’t know. Maybe they get money from right wing extremist groups in Brooklyn or Jerusalem. We don’t know. And why don’t they list the names of their donors on their website? What have they got to hide?
I know Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf, the leader of Cordoba House. I have taught with him, dined with him (and his wife), and argued with him about the Middle East. And I am proud to call him a friend. I believe we need more ventures like Cordoba House, not less. I believe it is long past time for progressive clergy to come together and support one another, and condemn and actively oppose the work of those hate-mongers in all faiths. And I am saddened that the ADL lacked the guts to do so in this case.
Friday, July 30, 2010
My God Bless America
I want to hand it to Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey of the great state of Tennessee for finally telling us Tennesseans the truth about Islam—it isn’t a religion at all, it is a cult.
At a campaign stop in Chattanooga the Lt. Governor said that “he’s all about freedom of religion,” but one “could even argue whether that being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, cult or whatever you want to call it”. Damn straight! Islam isn’t a religion, and because it isn’t a religion it merits no protection under the First Amendment. Amen Brother Ramsey!
Of course by his definition Judaism isn’t a religion either. And neither is Evangelical Christianity or Catholicism, both of which want to convert the world and bring it under their respective life stytles and laws. A religion, the Lt. Governor seems to be saying, is a private affair between people and their god, and no religious institution should seek to bring the larger world under its influence or jurisdiction. Amen to that, too.
Like the Lt. Governor, I don’t want to live under Sharia (Islamic Law) or halachah (Jewish law). And I don’t want one Christian sect or another deciding for the rest of us what we can read, or learn in science or history classrooms. I certainly don’t want any religion deciding for nonbelievers and otherbelievers whom we can marry, or to restrict nonmembers from gaining access to medical services or contraceptives or morning after pills because such access violates that religion’s moral sensitivities. I don’t want some religious group determining what sciences to fund, what clothes we can wear, and what television shows we can watch. If they want to impose rules on their members, fine. But if I choose not to be a member, they should not be allowed to force me to live by their rules.
Honestly, Ron Ramsey’s got my vote. Anyone whose got the guts to deny religious status to any religion that seeks to impose its will on the rest of society has what it takes to be governor of one of the fattest and stupidest states in the Union. (Though as rival gubernatorial candidate Zach Wamp seems to have suggested—and when challenged ultimately denied ever suggesting it—we Tennesseans may well secede from the Union if Obama’s healthcare bill isn’t repealed.)
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t care what Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, or Rastafarians do in the privacy of their religious institutions and homes, but when they walk on the streets of America they should dress and eat and act like Americans. Real Americans not those faux Americans in Boston, New York City, or San Francisco, but real overweight and undereducated Americans who never met a sausage we couldn’t eat; those Americans who know in their ever expanding guts that the greatest threat to the greatest nation that ever was is freedom and we ain’t gonna have no truck with that. My God bless America.
At a campaign stop in Chattanooga the Lt. Governor said that “he’s all about freedom of religion,” but one “could even argue whether that being a Muslim is actually a religion, or is it a nationality, way of life, cult or whatever you want to call it”. Damn straight! Islam isn’t a religion, and because it isn’t a religion it merits no protection under the First Amendment. Amen Brother Ramsey!
Of course by his definition Judaism isn’t a religion either. And neither is Evangelical Christianity or Catholicism, both of which want to convert the world and bring it under their respective life stytles and laws. A religion, the Lt. Governor seems to be saying, is a private affair between people and their god, and no religious institution should seek to bring the larger world under its influence or jurisdiction. Amen to that, too.
Like the Lt. Governor, I don’t want to live under Sharia (Islamic Law) or halachah (Jewish law). And I don’t want one Christian sect or another deciding for the rest of us what we can read, or learn in science or history classrooms. I certainly don’t want any religion deciding for nonbelievers and otherbelievers whom we can marry, or to restrict nonmembers from gaining access to medical services or contraceptives or morning after pills because such access violates that religion’s moral sensitivities. I don’t want some religious group determining what sciences to fund, what clothes we can wear, and what television shows we can watch. If they want to impose rules on their members, fine. But if I choose not to be a member, they should not be allowed to force me to live by their rules.
Honestly, Ron Ramsey’s got my vote. Anyone whose got the guts to deny religious status to any religion that seeks to impose its will on the rest of society has what it takes to be governor of one of the fattest and stupidest states in the Union. (Though as rival gubernatorial candidate Zach Wamp seems to have suggested—and when challenged ultimately denied ever suggesting it—we Tennesseans may well secede from the Union if Obama’s healthcare bill isn’t repealed.)
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t care what Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, or Rastafarians do in the privacy of their religious institutions and homes, but when they walk on the streets of America they should dress and eat and act like Americans. Real Americans not those faux Americans in Boston, New York City, or San Francisco, but real overweight and undereducated Americans who never met a sausage we couldn’t eat; those Americans who know in their ever expanding guts that the greatest threat to the greatest nation that ever was is freedom and we ain’t gonna have no truck with that. My God bless America.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Two Jews Three Opinions One Theocracy
The theocratic madness that is Israeli domestic politics has once again pitted the Jewish Taliban against the rest of us over the issue of who is a Jew. In an effort to break the logjam of conversions to Judaism in Israel (primarily caused by Russian immigrants who cannot prove their Jewish status), the Israeli government is seeking to both broaden the number of rabbis empowered to perform conversions and to place the whole matter of conversion (and thus who is a Jew) under the control of the Chief Rabbinate.
The fact that largely liberal nonOrthodox Diaspora Jewry is upset over this should come as no surprise. The government is siding with the Orthodox and legalizing the disenfranchisement of nonOrthodox rabbis and religious institutions. This isn’t new. The Israeli government doesn’t fund nonOrthodox Judaisms even as it does fund Orthodox Judaism (and other religions). The difference is that this pending legislation makes law out of what is at the moment mere custom. If the law passes, nonOrthodox rabbis have no hope of getting their converts recognized as Jews.
Why does this matter? Because being able to convert a person to Judaism legitimizes one’s status as an authentic rabbinic authority. Reform and Conservative rabbis want the same status as their Orthodox counterparts. Why don’t they have it? Because Israel’s parliamentary system is so broken that it requires huge coalitions in order to govern, and hence tiny parties can hold the nation hostage. This is something the smaller rightest religious parties are very good at doing.
Solutions? Here’s one: Israel could try becoming a secular democracy and follow the American ideal (albeit forever threatened by the Christian Taliban) of separating church and state. It is not for the Israeli government to determine who is a Jew, only who is an Israeli, and these are not the same thing at all.
In the US Orthodox rabbis do not recognize as Jews, those Jews converted to Judaism by nonOrthodox rabbis. So what? People who convert to Reform Judaism have no desire to be part of an Orthodox community. And, if at some point in the future they do so desire, they can convert to Orthodoxy. What is the big deal? Let the same thing happen in Israel.
Of course since 90% of Jewish Israelis are nonOrthodox, opening up the Jewish marketplace would be bad for the Orthodox monopoly, and they would fight any such change. But that is life in a true democratic secular state.
The real threat is that the more theocratic Israel becomes, the less Jews around the world will identify with her. Do I really want to support a state that has bus lines that force women to sit in the back of the bus? Do I really want to support a state that lets theocratic bullies determine who can marry whom and how? The more “Jewish” Israel becomes, the less compelling the idea of a Jewish state becomes. This is not a problem that will go away soon.
The fact that largely liberal nonOrthodox Diaspora Jewry is upset over this should come as no surprise. The government is siding with the Orthodox and legalizing the disenfranchisement of nonOrthodox rabbis and religious institutions. This isn’t new. The Israeli government doesn’t fund nonOrthodox Judaisms even as it does fund Orthodox Judaism (and other religions). The difference is that this pending legislation makes law out of what is at the moment mere custom. If the law passes, nonOrthodox rabbis have no hope of getting their converts recognized as Jews.
Why does this matter? Because being able to convert a person to Judaism legitimizes one’s status as an authentic rabbinic authority. Reform and Conservative rabbis want the same status as their Orthodox counterparts. Why don’t they have it? Because Israel’s parliamentary system is so broken that it requires huge coalitions in order to govern, and hence tiny parties can hold the nation hostage. This is something the smaller rightest religious parties are very good at doing.
Solutions? Here’s one: Israel could try becoming a secular democracy and follow the American ideal (albeit forever threatened by the Christian Taliban) of separating church and state. It is not for the Israeli government to determine who is a Jew, only who is an Israeli, and these are not the same thing at all.
In the US Orthodox rabbis do not recognize as Jews, those Jews converted to Judaism by nonOrthodox rabbis. So what? People who convert to Reform Judaism have no desire to be part of an Orthodox community. And, if at some point in the future they do so desire, they can convert to Orthodoxy. What is the big deal? Let the same thing happen in Israel.
Of course since 90% of Jewish Israelis are nonOrthodox, opening up the Jewish marketplace would be bad for the Orthodox monopoly, and they would fight any such change. But that is life in a true democratic secular state.
The real threat is that the more theocratic Israel becomes, the less Jews around the world will identify with her. Do I really want to support a state that has bus lines that force women to sit in the back of the bus? Do I really want to support a state that lets theocratic bullies determine who can marry whom and how? The more “Jewish” Israel becomes, the less compelling the idea of a Jewish state becomes. This is not a problem that will go away soon.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Shocked. Just shocked.
Several posts ago (July 5, 2010) I spoke about my new venture 144KJews. This was a network of Jews who volunteer to fly to Israel in time to certify that it is indeed Jesus who is returning to earth at the end times. All I asked was that each of 144,000 Jews send me $10 to have their names put on the initial contact list.
Normally no one responds to my ideas. Especially when money is involved. I think you think I’m kidding, which I might be unless and until 144,000 Jews send me $10 each. But this time something very unusual happened. I actually got a check! Not for $10, but for $1,440,000!!!!
I’m serious. $1,440,000!!!!
You can imagine how surprised and happy I was to receive this. Or, if you can’t imagine this, invite me to your house, hand me a check for $1,440,000 and see for yourself how I surprised and happy I get.
Anyway, I took the check directly to my bank. The spaces provided on the deposit slip were insufficient for an amount this large, so I went to a teller for help. That’s when things got a bit dicey. It seems that check was bogus. Seriously. Somebody sent me a bogus check for $1,440,000.
You can imagine how shocked and unhappy I was to receive this news. Or, if you can’t imagine this, invite me to your house, hand me a bogus check for $1,440,000, accompany me to the bank, and see for yourself how shocked and unhappy I get when I try to deposit it.
I can’t imagine why anyone would do this. Here I was trying to help by recruiting 144K Jews to attest to the return of Christ, and someone does this. Well, it has ruined my faith in humanity, and now I have decided to let Jesus find his own 144K Jews. Really, Cousin, just do it your own damn self.
Of course, now that I think about it, having $1,440,000 without having 144,000 Jews wouldn’t have done Jesus any good. Sure, the money is nice, but the point was to help out with the Jewish witnesses. I mean what would I do with $1,440,000 anyway?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What would I do with $1,440,000? I’d spend it! That’s what I’d do. Oh, sure, I’d give a couple of bucks to save some starving kids in some godforsaken country where flies stuck to their faces as if their skin were made of flypaper, but mostly I’d spend it.
What would I spend it on? Ice cream. Ice cream and some starving kids. And the new MacAir when it comes out. So Ice cream and some starving kids and a computer. And I’d leave some left over to contact 144,000 Jews if they ever contact me. But ice cream for sure.
Normally no one responds to my ideas. Especially when money is involved. I think you think I’m kidding, which I might be unless and until 144,000 Jews send me $10 each. But this time something very unusual happened. I actually got a check! Not for $10, but for $1,440,000!!!!
I’m serious. $1,440,000!!!!
You can imagine how surprised and happy I was to receive this. Or, if you can’t imagine this, invite me to your house, hand me a check for $1,440,000 and see for yourself how I surprised and happy I get.
Anyway, I took the check directly to my bank. The spaces provided on the deposit slip were insufficient for an amount this large, so I went to a teller for help. That’s when things got a bit dicey. It seems that check was bogus. Seriously. Somebody sent me a bogus check for $1,440,000.
You can imagine how shocked and unhappy I was to receive this news. Or, if you can’t imagine this, invite me to your house, hand me a bogus check for $1,440,000, accompany me to the bank, and see for yourself how shocked and unhappy I get when I try to deposit it.
I can’t imagine why anyone would do this. Here I was trying to help by recruiting 144K Jews to attest to the return of Christ, and someone does this. Well, it has ruined my faith in humanity, and now I have decided to let Jesus find his own 144K Jews. Really, Cousin, just do it your own damn self.
Of course, now that I think about it, having $1,440,000 without having 144,000 Jews wouldn’t have done Jesus any good. Sure, the money is nice, but the point was to help out with the Jewish witnesses. I mean what would I do with $1,440,000 anyway?
ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What would I do with $1,440,000? I’d spend it! That’s what I’d do. Oh, sure, I’d give a couple of bucks to save some starving kids in some godforsaken country where flies stuck to their faces as if their skin were made of flypaper, but mostly I’d spend it.
What would I spend it on? Ice cream. Ice cream and some starving kids. And the new MacAir when it comes out. So Ice cream and some starving kids and a computer. And I’d leave some left over to contact 144,000 Jews if they ever contact me. But ice cream for sure.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Imagine Torah
I was listening to "On Point with Tom Ashbrook" today as he interviewed Wendy Doniger and Arshia Sattar, two great scholars of Indian culture. The topic was the recent film interpretations of India's two national epics the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. What struck me was the sophisticated way these women could enter into and appreciate the text without for a moment insisting on their historicity. The genius of these epics has nothing to do with history. Their wisdom has noting to do with reading them literally. Why can't we read the Bible the same way?
Of course many people do, and universities that teach Bible as literature do this for sure. But the religious world that I live in--the world of Christian fundamentalism and Jewish historicism demand (each in its own way and for its own ends) that the Bible is at least representative of actual historical events.
This is easy to understand in the context of religious fundamentalism, Jewish and Christian: the Bible is the word of God. ‘Nuff said. But why do liberal and largely secular Jews, Jews who have no interest in keeping any of the commandments of God found in the Torah, insist that the Torah is history rather than epic and myth like the Mahabharata and the Ramayana?
My guess is that their sense of identity depends on the historical accuracy of these texts. After all if we Jews weren’t enslaved in and escape from Egypt, and if we didn’t conquer Canaan under the leadership of Joshua, then our claim to Israel is weakened, and our sense of identity brought into question. We have so tied ourselves to history and real estate that we have closed ourselves to the deeper spiritual wisdom that transcends both.
This is dangerous. First it is dangerous because it links our identity to a false view of history which will become harder and harder to maintain as the facts become more and more irrefutable. Second it is dangerous because when that history is debunked (as many Israeli archeologists and scholars are doing right now) we will have nothing on which to base our identity as a distinct people. If you don’t believe in the supernaturalism of the Torah—and most Jews don’t; and you don’t feel obligated to adhere to the commandments legislated by this God you don’t believe in—and most Jews don’t, all you have to cling to is a history that is slipping through our fingers like sand through an hourglass. Then what? Judaism dies, and Jews disappear.
But a Judaism rooted in brilliant myth, epic storytelling, and deep and on-going argument over what it means to be human and how to live justly and compassionately is dependent on nothing but the imaginative genius of its people.
The Torah is the Jews’ Mahabharata and Ramayana, the Jews’ Iliad and Odyssey. We should look to Torah for wisdom not law, for insight into the human condition not glimpses of God’s nature. Judaism will die when the imagination of the Jews die. And it is the death of the Jewish imagination that is the greatest crisis of Jewish life today. Judaism won’t die because Jews intermarry or reject halachic rulings and rabbinic authority. Judaism will die because Jews can no longer imagine Torah.
Of course many people do, and universities that teach Bible as literature do this for sure. But the religious world that I live in--the world of Christian fundamentalism and Jewish historicism demand (each in its own way and for its own ends) that the Bible is at least representative of actual historical events.
This is easy to understand in the context of religious fundamentalism, Jewish and Christian: the Bible is the word of God. ‘Nuff said. But why do liberal and largely secular Jews, Jews who have no interest in keeping any of the commandments of God found in the Torah, insist that the Torah is history rather than epic and myth like the Mahabharata and the Ramayana?
My guess is that their sense of identity depends on the historical accuracy of these texts. After all if we Jews weren’t enslaved in and escape from Egypt, and if we didn’t conquer Canaan under the leadership of Joshua, then our claim to Israel is weakened, and our sense of identity brought into question. We have so tied ourselves to history and real estate that we have closed ourselves to the deeper spiritual wisdom that transcends both.
This is dangerous. First it is dangerous because it links our identity to a false view of history which will become harder and harder to maintain as the facts become more and more irrefutable. Second it is dangerous because when that history is debunked (as many Israeli archeologists and scholars are doing right now) we will have nothing on which to base our identity as a distinct people. If you don’t believe in the supernaturalism of the Torah—and most Jews don’t; and you don’t feel obligated to adhere to the commandments legislated by this God you don’t believe in—and most Jews don’t, all you have to cling to is a history that is slipping through our fingers like sand through an hourglass. Then what? Judaism dies, and Jews disappear.
But a Judaism rooted in brilliant myth, epic storytelling, and deep and on-going argument over what it means to be human and how to live justly and compassionately is dependent on nothing but the imaginative genius of its people.
The Torah is the Jews’ Mahabharata and Ramayana, the Jews’ Iliad and Odyssey. We should look to Torah for wisdom not law, for insight into the human condition not glimpses of God’s nature. Judaism will die when the imagination of the Jews die. And it is the death of the Jewish imagination that is the greatest crisis of Jewish life today. Judaism won’t die because Jews intermarry or reject halachic rulings and rabbinic authority. Judaism will die because Jews can no longer imagine Torah.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Mutant Judaism
My post on misogyny in some versions of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism generated a few comments that got me thinking about Reform Judaism as a model for religion in the 21st century.
Reform Judaism was the second mutation of Judaism in the past 3000 years. The first was the Judaism of the Two-Fold Law invented by the early rabbis. This Judaism argued that God gave two revelations to Moses on Sinai, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah that came to be known as the Talmud. While pure fiction, this new Judaism became THE Judaism for the next 2000 years. *
Reform Judaism was no less bold, replacing the authority of God, revelation, and rabbis with the autonomy of the individual. This shift was huge, and accounts for the freedom that Reform Jews have vis a vis Judaism. In Reform Judaism the individual Jew rather than God (Orthodoxy), Torah (Conservative), or community (Reconstructionist) decides for herself how to be a Jew. Of course this also accounts for the low level of traditional observance by Reform Jews, but this cannot be avoided. The failure of Reform Judaism is its unwillingness to radically and continually redefine Judaism (and by this I mean redefine the meaning of God, Torah, Israel, community, and mitzvot) in line with the humanism at its core.
Still, Reform’s focus on the sovereign self is enough for Orthodox Judaisms to claim that Reform isn’t Judaism at all. That is to say there is nothing in the history of Judaism prior to Reform Judaism that lends legitimacy to Reform Judaism. They are correct. That is why Reform is a mutation. Of course the same can be said of Rabbinic Judaism as well, as the adherents to the more ancient and authentic Torah Only school of Priestly Judaism argued right up to their demise at the hands of Rome. Mutations don’t have precedents. That is why they are called mutations.
Judaism is not the only religion to mutate, but it is among the very few that have done so with the sovereign self at the center. Most religions still seek to subjugate the individual to the will of others. Such mutations cannot be planned or staged. Revolutions that shift power from one group of leaders to another are not yet a sovereign self mutation. My own sense of things is that without such a mutation religions will continue to oppress the “other” (most often women) within their ranks and seek to dominate the other (the nonbeliever, heretic, etc.) outside their ranks. What do you think?
* Some argue that Zionism is the second mutation and Reform the third. I am ignoring Zionism here because it rejected religion while Reform did not.
Reform Judaism was the second mutation of Judaism in the past 3000 years. The first was the Judaism of the Two-Fold Law invented by the early rabbis. This Judaism argued that God gave two revelations to Moses on Sinai, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah that came to be known as the Talmud. While pure fiction, this new Judaism became THE Judaism for the next 2000 years. *
Reform Judaism was no less bold, replacing the authority of God, revelation, and rabbis with the autonomy of the individual. This shift was huge, and accounts for the freedom that Reform Jews have vis a vis Judaism. In Reform Judaism the individual Jew rather than God (Orthodoxy), Torah (Conservative), or community (Reconstructionist) decides for herself how to be a Jew. Of course this also accounts for the low level of traditional observance by Reform Jews, but this cannot be avoided. The failure of Reform Judaism is its unwillingness to radically and continually redefine Judaism (and by this I mean redefine the meaning of God, Torah, Israel, community, and mitzvot) in line with the humanism at its core.
Still, Reform’s focus on the sovereign self is enough for Orthodox Judaisms to claim that Reform isn’t Judaism at all. That is to say there is nothing in the history of Judaism prior to Reform Judaism that lends legitimacy to Reform Judaism. They are correct. That is why Reform is a mutation. Of course the same can be said of Rabbinic Judaism as well, as the adherents to the more ancient and authentic Torah Only school of Priestly Judaism argued right up to their demise at the hands of Rome. Mutations don’t have precedents. That is why they are called mutations.
Judaism is not the only religion to mutate, but it is among the very few that have done so with the sovereign self at the center. Most religions still seek to subjugate the individual to the will of others. Such mutations cannot be planned or staged. Revolutions that shift power from one group of leaders to another are not yet a sovereign self mutation. My own sense of things is that without such a mutation religions will continue to oppress the “other” (most often women) within their ranks and seek to dominate the other (the nonbeliever, heretic, etc.) outside their ranks. What do you think?
* Some argue that Zionism is the second mutation and Reform the third. I am ignoring Zionism here because it rejected religion while Reform did not.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Canary Feminism
I find it both ironic and fascinating that the anti-Muslim forces often cite the oppression of women as a cause for resisting Islam. Ironic because many branches of Christianity and the Orthodox branches of Judaism could be accused of the same thing. Fascinating because it suggests that the truth-value of any religion is linked to its treatment of women, something no biblical or Qur’anic text would suggest.
For example, the Catholic Church has just issued new rules that declare the ordination of women priests as a “grave crime,” and the Episcopal Church is caught up in an internal battle over whether or not to have women bishops. Should we resist Catholicism and Episcopalianism because of their treatment of women?
You can find similar issues of control in other Protestant denominations, some of which seek to control women’s dress, their position within the home and church, and their God-ordained submission to their husbands. So for Christians to decry Islam because it restricts women’s freedom is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
In Israel the government has instituted a religious bus service that forces woman to ride in the back of the bus, so as to not entice Orthodox men to sexual thoughts (or worse) between stops. And then there is the ruling that prohibits women from becoming rabbis. And let us not forget the extreme Orthodox insistence that married women cover or better yet cut their hair short and wear wigs so as not to entice men. So if we are going to oppose Islam on feminist grounds lets take on Christianity and Judaism as well.
Buddhism and Hinduism fair no better, with many Buddhist nuns being forced to play second fiddle to monks, and some Hindu women being sold into virtual slavery to their in-laws, and Hindu female fetuses being aborted to avoid the expense of having to marry the fetus off when she comes of age.
Yes, you can argue that these are cultural problems not intrinsic to the religions themselves, but this is no less true of Islam. Nowhere does the Qur’an demand that women wear the same protective gear as beekeepers, and yet so many do.
But let’s not restrict our concern to religion. Western democratic secular societies are not exactly bastions of women’s freedom. So the more you look the more appealing the idea that women are the canaries in the religious/political/cultural mine. I think the status of women, i.e. the degree to which they are denied the same rights and privileges and status as men in their respective faiths, countries, ethnicities, etc. is an excellent barometer for gauging the morality of those faiths, countries, etc. And I would go even further and hold these religions and countries up to the standard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
So if you are among those who pretend to some moral high ground by pointing out the oppression and exploitation of women in Islam, please broaden your gaze. Let all of us agree to reject any ideology that denies women the same freedoms it grants to men, and any that denies Universal Human Right to either gender or both.
Whew, I think I just freed myself from every ideology on the frigging planet.
For example, the Catholic Church has just issued new rules that declare the ordination of women priests as a “grave crime,” and the Episcopal Church is caught up in an internal battle over whether or not to have women bishops. Should we resist Catholicism and Episcopalianism because of their treatment of women?
You can find similar issues of control in other Protestant denominations, some of which seek to control women’s dress, their position within the home and church, and their God-ordained submission to their husbands. So for Christians to decry Islam because it restricts women’s freedom is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
In Israel the government has instituted a religious bus service that forces woman to ride in the back of the bus, so as to not entice Orthodox men to sexual thoughts (or worse) between stops. And then there is the ruling that prohibits women from becoming rabbis. And let us not forget the extreme Orthodox insistence that married women cover or better yet cut their hair short and wear wigs so as not to entice men. So if we are going to oppose Islam on feminist grounds lets take on Christianity and Judaism as well.
Buddhism and Hinduism fair no better, with many Buddhist nuns being forced to play second fiddle to monks, and some Hindu women being sold into virtual slavery to their in-laws, and Hindu female fetuses being aborted to avoid the expense of having to marry the fetus off when she comes of age.
Yes, you can argue that these are cultural problems not intrinsic to the religions themselves, but this is no less true of Islam. Nowhere does the Qur’an demand that women wear the same protective gear as beekeepers, and yet so many do.
But let’s not restrict our concern to religion. Western democratic secular societies are not exactly bastions of women’s freedom. So the more you look the more appealing the idea that women are the canaries in the religious/political/cultural mine. I think the status of women, i.e. the degree to which they are denied the same rights and privileges and status as men in their respective faiths, countries, ethnicities, etc. is an excellent barometer for gauging the morality of those faiths, countries, etc. And I would go even further and hold these religions and countries up to the standard of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
So if you are among those who pretend to some moral high ground by pointing out the oppression and exploitation of women in Islam, please broaden your gaze. Let all of us agree to reject any ideology that denies women the same freedoms it grants to men, and any that denies Universal Human Right to either gender or both.
Whew, I think I just freed myself from every ideology on the frigging planet.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Thanks, Glen Beck
Dear Glenn Beck,
I was watching your program last Tuesday when you reminded America that we Jews killed Jesus. It has been a long time since anyone dared to deny history so blatantly and resurrect that anti-Semitic canard. I really missed it.
Of course you did say that Jesus being Christ chose not to return to “make the Jews pay for what they did,” but that doesn’t excuse my people from murdering him. Let me tell you how we did it.
We just couldn’t do it outright. Jews in Jesus’ time didn’t have the power to kill people and crucifixion was strictly a Roman practice. So if we wanted to crucify Jesus we would first have to pass ourselves off as Romans. That took decades of planning.
First we forged Roman birth certificates and put fake birth announcements in Roman newspapers that made Jewish babies look like they were Roman citizens. Then as our people grew into adult Roman citizens we had them run for the Roman Senate and get themselves appointed as governors of various Roman provinces, Palestine being one of them.
Then when Jesus started to annoy us we worked with the High Priest and had Jesus turned over to us so we, pretending to be Romans but really being Jews, could crucify him. We thought this ruse would fool everyone, but clearly it didn’t. Christians started slaughtering Jews to avenge the murder of their God as soon as they could. To put a stop to this we had to infiltrate the Church so that we could get a Jewish Pope elected so he could officially deny that Jews killed Jesus. This took us centuries, and we didn’t pull it off until 1965. But even this failed to fool you.
You are one dogged genius, Mr. Beck. And I can’t thank Fox enough for giving you a pulpit.
I was watching your program last Tuesday when you reminded America that we Jews killed Jesus. It has been a long time since anyone dared to deny history so blatantly and resurrect that anti-Semitic canard. I really missed it.
Of course you did say that Jesus being Christ chose not to return to “make the Jews pay for what they did,” but that doesn’t excuse my people from murdering him. Let me tell you how we did it.
We just couldn’t do it outright. Jews in Jesus’ time didn’t have the power to kill people and crucifixion was strictly a Roman practice. So if we wanted to crucify Jesus we would first have to pass ourselves off as Romans. That took decades of planning.
First we forged Roman birth certificates and put fake birth announcements in Roman newspapers that made Jewish babies look like they were Roman citizens. Then as our people grew into adult Roman citizens we had them run for the Roman Senate and get themselves appointed as governors of various Roman provinces, Palestine being one of them.
Then when Jesus started to annoy us we worked with the High Priest and had Jesus turned over to us so we, pretending to be Romans but really being Jews, could crucify him. We thought this ruse would fool everyone, but clearly it didn’t. Christians started slaughtering Jews to avenge the murder of their God as soon as they could. To put a stop to this we had to infiltrate the Church so that we could get a Jewish Pope elected so he could officially deny that Jews killed Jesus. This took us centuries, and we didn’t pull it off until 1965. But even this failed to fool you.
You are one dogged genius, Mr. Beck. And I can’t thank Fox enough for giving you a pulpit.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Burqas Law
There is nothing so sexy as a woman in a burqa. Sorry, not sexy, seditious. There is nothing so seditious as a woman in a burqa, unless of course it is a woman wearing a nigab.
I know what you’re thinking: “B-u-r-q-a? I thought the letter ‘q’ was always followed by the letter ‘u’.” That’s why you suck at SCRABBLE. But never mind that, the issue at hand is the banning of the burqa (a full body cloak that covers the entire face, with a mesh screen for the eyes), and the nigab (a veil with a slit for the eyes). The ban the burqa movement started in Belgium and spread to France. The ideas behind the ban are three: first, if we cannot see a person’s face they are a threat to national security; second, going around with your face covered is anti-social; and third, burqa wearing women are being forced to dress this way by men, and thus banning it is a matter of women’s liberation.
Now I do think there are times when burqas and other head coverings must be removed. When getting a driver’s license, passport, or other photo ID a full-face photo makes sense. While I don’t oppose Muslim women driving cars (I’m not a Saudi prince after all), I do oppose them doing so in a burqa or nigab on the grounds these head coverings restrict one’s ability to see. If they must cover their faces, and they want to drive, let them drive motorcycles and wear full-face helmets. For you Muslim entrepreneurs out there, here is a great business opportunity: Muslim themed helmets and motorcycles. Very cool.
When boarding an airplane people must be identified and burqas and nigabs make this impossible, so they must be removed. But once we get full body scanners at all airports we might be able to ID people without removing anything.
If I were a Muslim woman I wouldn’t normally wear either a burqa or nigab. But, with the passing of these laws, I would do so as an act of protest. And if this law comes to America I plan to pull a Scooby-Do and wear multiple layers of what will be illegal religious garb from different religions so that as the authorities pull of one layer they will confronted by another and then another. Ultimately they will get down to my foreskin–free Jewish penis. Let them take that from me if they can!
———————
PS: I recently learned that the full body airport scanners actually cause penises to fall off, so there goes my last line of protest.
I know what you’re thinking: “B-u-r-q-a? I thought the letter ‘q’ was always followed by the letter ‘u’.” That’s why you suck at SCRABBLE. But never mind that, the issue at hand is the banning of the burqa (a full body cloak that covers the entire face, with a mesh screen for the eyes), and the nigab (a veil with a slit for the eyes). The ban the burqa movement started in Belgium and spread to France. The ideas behind the ban are three: first, if we cannot see a person’s face they are a threat to national security; second, going around with your face covered is anti-social; and third, burqa wearing women are being forced to dress this way by men, and thus banning it is a matter of women’s liberation.
Now I do think there are times when burqas and other head coverings must be removed. When getting a driver’s license, passport, or other photo ID a full-face photo makes sense. While I don’t oppose Muslim women driving cars (I’m not a Saudi prince after all), I do oppose them doing so in a burqa or nigab on the grounds these head coverings restrict one’s ability to see. If they must cover their faces, and they want to drive, let them drive motorcycles and wear full-face helmets. For you Muslim entrepreneurs out there, here is a great business opportunity: Muslim themed helmets and motorcycles. Very cool.
When boarding an airplane people must be identified and burqas and nigabs make this impossible, so they must be removed. But once we get full body scanners at all airports we might be able to ID people without removing anything.
If I were a Muslim woman I wouldn’t normally wear either a burqa or nigab. But, with the passing of these laws, I would do so as an act of protest. And if this law comes to America I plan to pull a Scooby-Do and wear multiple layers of what will be illegal religious garb from different religions so that as the authorities pull of one layer they will confronted by another and then another. Ultimately they will get down to my foreskin–free Jewish penis. Let them take that from me if they can!
———————
PS: I recently learned that the full body airport scanners actually cause penises to fall off, so there goes my last line of protest.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Gods Bless America
I was proud of my Murfreesboro community yesterday when hundreds of citizens turned out 98 degree heat to silently (mostly) support the expansion of our local mosque and the right of Muslims to worship as they choose. True there were three hundred or so marchers trekking from a local church to the town square to oppose both the mosque and Islam, but still this was civil democracy at its best: Two opposing groups staring each other down, chanting clever slogans at one another, and joining in a USA USA chanting contest that just brought us all together as one big unhappy family.
So many of us on both sides carried cool signs. All but one we hand made. The one exception was mine. I took my banner idea--an American flag with the words of the 1st amendment replacing the stripes and symbols of the world's religions replacing the stars- to a graphics design company and had them make me a full color banner complete with brass grommets. My banner won “Best In Protest” or it would have if there was such a contest. Runner-up was a sign from the other side that read, “Muslims Kill Converts! Tell it.” I love subtlety.
Anyway the pro-freedom of religion people gathered at the town square about thirty minutes before the anti-Islamic folks arrived. We were asked to meet them with silence, and we did. As they came onto the square they were greater with peace signs, posters that read, “All You Need Is Love,” and silence. Fearing for their lives the leader of the anti-freedom of religion marchers called to his followers to “Ignore the hate.” Maybe he meant to say, “Ignore the heat,” which was either a comment on the weather or on LeBron James’ decision to play basketball in Miami.
In any case the only thing that troubled me was the use of Israeli flags and references to Jews by the anti-Islam crowd. There is a sense that being pro-Israel is somehow being anti-Muslim despite the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of Muslim Israelis. We Americans are supposed to support Israel because she is a democracy like us. But the definition of democracy so many on the right use is closer to a Christian theocracy than anything Tom Jefferson or James Madison envisioned.
One anti-Muslim protester challenged us to think about how many Jews Muslims had killed. I don’t know why this idea was supposed to move us one way or another since I could identify only two Jews among the 1000 people at the dual and dueling protests (me and my son; I’m so proud). And, if Jewish body count is a concern, it should be noted that Christians have slaughtered more Jews then have Muslims, that Christianity has promoted Jew-hatred for 2000 years paving the way for genocide against the Jews by the Nazis and post-Nazi pogroms in Christian Europe, and that there are millions of Christians who hope to see the entirety of my people wiped out when Jesus returns (may it not be speedily in our day). So, if I have to choose between Islam and Christianity, I’d go with Islam.
All in all though it was a great day. No one really talked with one another. No one learned anything about the other. And we all got to chant USA USA. Gods bless America.
So many of us on both sides carried cool signs. All but one we hand made. The one exception was mine. I took my banner idea--an American flag with the words of the 1st amendment replacing the stripes and symbols of the world's religions replacing the stars- to a graphics design company and had them make me a full color banner complete with brass grommets. My banner won “Best In Protest” or it would have if there was such a contest. Runner-up was a sign from the other side that read, “Muslims Kill Converts! Tell it.” I love subtlety.
Anyway the pro-freedom of religion people gathered at the town square about thirty minutes before the anti-Islamic folks arrived. We were asked to meet them with silence, and we did. As they came onto the square they were greater with peace signs, posters that read, “All You Need Is Love,” and silence. Fearing for their lives the leader of the anti-freedom of religion marchers called to his followers to “Ignore the hate.” Maybe he meant to say, “Ignore the heat,” which was either a comment on the weather or on LeBron James’ decision to play basketball in Miami.
In any case the only thing that troubled me was the use of Israeli flags and references to Jews by the anti-Islam crowd. There is a sense that being pro-Israel is somehow being anti-Muslim despite the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of Muslim Israelis. We Americans are supposed to support Israel because she is a democracy like us. But the definition of democracy so many on the right use is closer to a Christian theocracy than anything Tom Jefferson or James Madison envisioned.
One anti-Muslim protester challenged us to think about how many Jews Muslims had killed. I don’t know why this idea was supposed to move us one way or another since I could identify only two Jews among the 1000 people at the dual and dueling protests (me and my son; I’m so proud). And, if Jewish body count is a concern, it should be noted that Christians have slaughtered more Jews then have Muslims, that Christianity has promoted Jew-hatred for 2000 years paving the way for genocide against the Jews by the Nazis and post-Nazi pogroms in Christian Europe, and that there are millions of Christians who hope to see the entirety of my people wiped out when Jesus returns (may it not be speedily in our day). So, if I have to choose between Islam and Christianity, I’d go with Islam.
All in all though it was a great day. No one really talked with one another. No one learned anything about the other. And we all got to chant USA USA. Gods bless America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)