July 12, 2007 | 3:21 pm

‘Finding Religion on the Campaign Trail’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Follow me on

The NY Times had another story yesterday about why presidential candidates should get religion.

Some of the presidential candidates, eager to refresh their church-going, God-fearing credentials, have been talking a lot about religion and some are even showing up in church. Whether they’re going to pray for endurance, or for votes, polls suggest it’s a good idea for them just to show up. After all, that’s where a considerable number of voters spend their Sunday mornings, too.

In 2004, voters who attended religious services weekly represented 41 percent of the electorate, and 61 percent of them voted for George W. Bush. Historically, they vote Republican. But recent polls suggest the ground may be shifting, due in part to the war in Iraq, and that many of these voters are drifting away from Mr. Bush and the Republicans.

This may be true. But, as I’ve naively said before, the religious practices of politicians—purported practices, that is—shouldn’t matter.

July 12, 2007 | 2:14 am

‘Out of the closet’ goes out to the ballgame

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

It’s not often my hometown of San Diego gets national media attention. But it is right now thanks to a “controversy” that arose Sunday night when Padres baseball team invited gays and lesbians to the park. San Diego Pride dubbed the event “Out at the Park,” and a few Christians protested.

Roughly 75 protesters showed up outside Petco Park’s front gate dressed in red T-shirts emblazoned with the message “Save Our Kids.” They handed out fliers. A few attempted to talk with Padre fans as they arrived for the 5:05 p.m. game that was nationally televised on ESPN.

“We’re here to inform parents, to warn them about what’s happening inside (the ballpark),” said James Hartline, a self-described Christian activist who directed the protest. “Bringing together homosexuals with baseball and kids is beyond bounds. We’re trying to get people to turn around, not go to the game, and we’re succeeding.”

Bill O’Reilly led with the news as his top story. A master of articulation, he simply referred to the Padres as “dumb.”

Meanwhile, across the nation, non-Christians are upset that more baseball clubs are inviting Jesus to the park. The Washinton Nationals’ Faith Night—which will include Christian college booths, characters from the “Veggie Tales” and the band MercyMe—is being called “offensive and exclusionary.”

I’m sorry. Did I miss something? When did baseball clubs, which sell for hundreds of millions of dollars, become public goods? If a business owner thinks it best to market to certain people, regardless of whether that is socially admirable, isn’t that his right?

(Photo: Union-Tribune)

0 Comments — Leave your comment

July 12, 2007 | 1:21 am

Divas for Christ get the gear

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

A friend forwarded me an e-mail announcing that Ask Deanna!, ”a gifted from above dedicated lifestyle of empowerment and motivation” channeled through an L.A.-based syndicated advice columnist, is launching a merchandise line Aug. 1.

Ask Deanna! will sell tote bags, clothing and bumper stickers under a brand called Diva for Christ, because, as my friend noted, “nothing says ‘devout Christian’ like a lipstick kiss…”

(Divas for JC are not to be confused with the Bratz, pictured.)

0 Comments — Leave your comment

July 11, 2007 | 9:13 am

Neocons for Rudy

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

There are people who really like Norman Podhoretz. They’re called security hawks.

Podhoretz is an intellectual leader of neoconservatism, the political ideology credited with getting the US into Iraq. Last month, he made the case in Commentary for a preemptive strike on Iran. Yesterday he signed on to be an adviser to presidential-hopeful Rudy Giuliani.

Rudy is starting to look a bit like President Bush with the people he chooses to surround himself with. I wonder if he already has his plan of attack laid out.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

July 10, 2007 | 2:35 pm

Pope says other churches not “true”

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Not cool, Zeus. Pope Benedict XVI didn’t quite say today that I’m not a real Christian because I’m not Catholic, but he might as well have when he approved a document that reversed a Vatican II principal and said non-Catholic denominations are “not true churches.”

“Christ ‘established here on earth’ only one church,” the document said. The other communities “cannot be called ‘churches’ in the proper sense” because they do not have apostolic succession — the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ’s original apostles.

I’ve always thought my fellow Protestants were ignorant or prejudiced when they treated Catholics as non-Christians, like Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses. But now the pope has turned the table. It seems centuries of bloodshed are no longer reason enough for Christians to respect their differences.

This follows his relaxing Saturday of restrictions on saying the Latin Mass. Add to this recent list Benedict’s Islam is “evil” comment last fall, and the former Cardinal Ratzinger is beginning to look like the pope people expected.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

July 10, 2007 | 1:41 pm

Israel and the LA Times

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

The LA Times had two stories today that caught my eye.

The first, in the California section, reported that the Beverly Hills mayor, a Persian Jewish refugee of the Islamic Revolution, was going to introduce a measure to divest city pension funds from companies doing business in Iran. This wasn’t surprising; L.A. did it two weeks ago; Iranian divestment is the new eco-friendly. What I found odd was that the Times described the proposal as a response to “Iran’s widely perceived role in sponsoring terrorism.”

I didn’t realize there was any debate there. Unless Hezbollah and Hamas aren’t terrorist organizations.

Segue: The second article of interest was an op-ed by Mousa Abu Marzook, a piece that many Jews, particularly those on the right, will see as proof that the Times and its Jewish op-ed editor are anti-Israel. That’s because Abu Marzook is Hamas’ political deputy, and in his column he lays out the Islamic Resistance Movement’s goals for Palestine.

(Quick Palestinian primer: Hamas is the “radical” Muslim political wing that does not accept Israel’s legitimacy; Fatah represents the secular pragmatists, the descendants of Arafat, who were violently expelled last month from Gaza.)

Damascus, Syria — HAMAS’ RESCUE of a BBC journalist from his captors in Gaza last week was surely cause for rejoicing. But I want to be clear about one thing: We did not deliver up Alan Johnston as some obsequious boon to Western powers.

It was done as part of our effort to secure Gaza from the lawlessness of militias and violence, no matter what the source. Gaza will be calm and under the rule of law — a place where all journalists, foreigners and guests of the Palestinian people will be treated with dignity.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

July 10, 2007 | 10:05 am

Hillary Clinton on faith

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

This is a gripe I will return to throughout the 2008 presidential election, in which hopefuls already are pandering to Americans’ desire to connect religiously with the commander-in-chief (probably because of this). I personally think it is dangerous to put too much stock in anything pols say. That goes double when they’ve talking about religion, something they know you want to hear but have no means for measuring their sincerity.

That being said, proceed at your own peril with this 2,093-word story in the New York Times about how Sen. Hillary Clinton’s Christian faith taught her to forgive and much, much more.

“We all have things that oftentimes we’re upset about, or ashamed of, or feel guilty over, and so many people carry these enormous burdens around,” Mrs. Clinton said in a recent interview. “One of the great gifts of faith is to let it go.”

The themes of wrongs, forgiveness and reconciliation have played out repeatedly in Mrs. Clinton’s life, as she has endured the ordeal of her husband’s infidelity, engaged in countless political battles and shared a deep, mutual distrust with adversaries.

Her Methodist faith, Mrs. Clinton says, has guided her as she sought to repair her marriage, forgiven some critics who once vilified her and struggled in the bare-knuckles world of politics to fulfill the biblical commandment to love thy neighbor.

Mrs. Clinton, the New York senator who is seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, has been alluding to her spiritual life with increasing regularity in recent years, language that has dovetailed with efforts by her party to reach out to churchgoers who have been voting overwhelmingly Republican.

Mrs. Clinton’s references to faith, though, have come under attack, both from conservatives who doubt her sincerity (one writer recently lumped her with the type of Christians who “believe in everything but God”) and liberals who object to any injection of religion into politics. And her motivations have been cast as political calculation by detractors, who suggest she is only trying to moderate her liberal image.

“Many people have developed opinions about her,” said John C. Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. “Senator Clinton has a long history of involvement in religious matters and appears to be a person of deep and sincere faith, but a lot of people don’t perceive her that way.”

Obviously her husband and Monica Lewinsky are not far from the story, from Clinton’s tales of trials overcome. Thematically, the article ends right where it began.

“The whole idea of the new covenant was really a new relationship with God, a sense that we could be forgiven, that we could seek both personally and through our relationships with others that gift of forgiveness,” she said. “It’s instrumental in life.”

(A Google image search for “hillary clinton praying” doesn’t turn up photos of the senator in prayer but instead, it appears, web pages for people praying she doesn’t end up in the White House.)

1 Comments — Leave your comment

July 10, 2007 | 9:29 am

Bad to worse for surgeon general nominee

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

President Bush’s pick for surgeon general has been getting bashed by the left since the Bible Belt Blogger outted Dr. James Holsinger as having taken a strong stance of homosexuality, particularly its incompatibility with the Bible. The Huffington Post later reported that Holsinger is a proponent of “ex-gay” therapy, which “puts him in direct conflict with virtually the entire American medical community.”

But today Holsinger’s political career appears to have hit the permanent skids. The Washington Times, whose conservative editorial pages are never far from its news coverage, reports that conservative advocates and Republican politicians also thinks the good doctor also has some ‘splaining to do. It seems his positions on stem-cell research and human cloning are too lax.

“We’re not supportive of his nomination right now,” (Family Research Council’s Tom) McCluskey said, adding that “we’ve been told he’s come around on the issue, but the surgeon general is such a strong bully pulpit position that we want to be sure.”

Holsinger, who once served on the Judicial Council of the United Methodist Church, has a confirmation hearing Thursday before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. It’s not looking good.

There appears to be little overt support for Dr. Holsinger among the committee’s 21 members, largely because Dr. Holsinger has been accused of being anti-homosexual.

 

 

Two of the committee’s three Democratic presidential candidates — Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut — oppose Dr. Holsinger. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois said he has “serious reservations.”

 

 

Five other Democrats did not respond to requests for comment and two did not take a position.

 

In addition, the five Republicans who did respond to requests for comment — including ranking member Sen. Michael B. Enzi of Wyoming — were noncommittal and gave no indications of support for Dr. Holsinger.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

July 9, 2007 | 9:49 am

The rise of Republican Jews

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I’m not sure my wife believed me Sunday night when I threw on a suit for a late meeting at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library & Museum. I told her I was going to talk with conservative pundit Hugh Hewitt and former Knesset member Natan Sharansky, that I was covering a banquet for California Republicans who happen to be Jews.

“Who’s going to be there?” she asked. “All eight of them?”

A year ago, I might have cracked the same quip. Sure, Jews have figured prominently in Republican White Houses since Nixon, and we’re all familiar now with President Bush’s band of neoconservatives—a derogative as synonymous with Jews as “New York liberals.” But 15 years ago, the possibility of Jews voting Republican was rare. In LA a little farther back—like Bradley-Westside coalition days—it was a statistical blip.

The times, though, have changed. Pollsters debate numbers, but it’s clear the percentage of Jews voting Republican in presidential races has increased each of the past four elections—from 11 percent in 1992 to as much as 25 percent in 2004. In the past three plus years, the California chapter of the Republican Jewish Coalition has swelled from 1,500 members to 8,500.

Bush might be an unpopular politician, but among Republican Jews he remains a venerated figure. Why? Because Bush is seen as a proactive warrior in the fight against Islamic militants. And that, they believed, is good for Israel.

“I’m not a one-issue voter,” my tablemate Rick Richman said, “but I’m close. What they do right about Israel is they support it. And you’ve got a president who recognizes that Israel is on the frontline of the war on terror, whose future will set the course of the 21st century.”

2 Comments — Leave your comment

July 9, 2007 | 8:52 am

Mayor Villaraigosa getting prayers

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Tony Castro was ahead of the LA press corps on poking holes in Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s gilded facade. He wrote this story in November that questioned the authenticity of the mayor’s rags-to-riches story, and in January, he was the first to get the story-that-never-ran about Villaraigosa’s failing marriage.

Last week, Castro’s colleague at the LA Daily News, editorial page editor Chris Weinkopf, called on the mayor, a fellow Catholic, to end his affair with a local (suspended) newscaster and repent. It seems plenty of others think Villaraigosa needs to get right with God, Castro reports today.

A black lace mantilla draped over her head, Matilda Salas knelt at a side altar of downtown’s Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, immersed in solemn prayer, a rosary of crystal beads clutched in her tiny hands.

When she finished, she carefully lit two votive candles, as she had done since Tuesday, the day she learned of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s admitted extramarital affair.

“I light one candle for Antonio and one candle for (his wife),” said Salas, 56. “I pray that with God’s help, they find a way of reconciling.

“If they don’t, Antonio is lost. He is lost to his family. He is lost to himself. Most importantly, he is lost to God.”

 

(Photo: AP)

0 Comments — Leave your comment

July 8, 2007 | 10:45 pm

Matisyahu talks to Christians about Messiah

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

In college, I subscribed to Relevant, a magazine for evangelical Christians trying to stay in touch with what’s hip though not necessarily holy. I found the magazine enjoyable, but the writing in want (probably because its freelance writers are paid about 10 cents a word).

This month’s cover carries an unexpected face. Not that of Jesus the Messiah but of Matisyahu the Hasidic rapper/reggae artist who’s praying for messiah. Inside Relevant asks the wildly popular musician about Hasidism, Zionism and what Jesus means to Judaism.

(W)ithin evangelical Christianity there’s a big lack of appreciation for the Jewishness of Jesus as a rabbi, as a prophet and so on and so forth. How does the historical character of Jesus fit into Judaism in a practical way?

I mean, practically, you see that a lot of times amongst religious Jews there’s a negative feeling toward Jesus, and I think the reason for that is because, you know, with anything there’s the initial thing, the initial idea, the initial person or whatever it is. And no matter how pure or good it is, you have to look at what’s the result five years down the line, a hundred years down the line. For example, Nietzsche was coming up with all types of ideas and stuff, philosophical ideas. But then later on down the line those ideas basically formed the basis for Nazism, even though he was against Nazis. So his ideas, at the end of the day—they didn’t really work. I think it’s kind of the same thing with Jesus if you look down the road a thousand years or five hundred years or whatever, the basis of what came out. Whether that’s what He wanted or not, what resulted was, in my eyes, not necessarily a positive thing. I don’t think it’s truth, and I think, therefore, you see how it led to all kinds of destruction and violence. And in terms of knowing what Jesus was really all about, I personally don’t really know because I wasn’t really in those times, and I don’t necessarily trust the sources that talk about it. But one thing that’s known is that He could see that there was corruption and He got turned off by it, which is understandable. And then He kind of started a new wave of Judaism, but it didn’t work, which is kind of a danger, I guess, with anyone that starts a movement, you know, a breakaway kind of thing.

Interesting to see Matisyahu refer to Christianity as “a new wave of Judaism,” as if it were the Reform movement.

(Hat-tip: DMN religion blog)

19 Comments — Leave your comment

July 6, 2007 | 2:44 pm

When the gay pastor refuses to leave

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

The Lutheran Church can’t figure out what to do with gays. The ELCA wants to welcome them as Christians, but chafes when a closeted member reveals their sexuality after being called to ministry. Two years ago, the Central City Lutheran Mission in San Bernardino lost its affiliation because the executive director refused to remove the mission’s associate pastor, a lesbian.

This is not only a Lutheran problem, but one affecting the Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopal churches as well. “The mainline churches are really struggling with this. It is a real rift, and it threatens to tear denominations apart,” Philip A. Amerson, former president of Claremont School of Theology, a United Methodist seminary, told me in 2005.

Yesterday the main branch of the Lutheran Church, the ELCA, voted to remove a gay Atlanta pastor from the city’s oldest Lutheran congregation. But the Rev. Bradley Schmeling is refusing to go.

“The congregation issued a call to me in 2000 and, as far as we are concerned, that hasn’t changed,” Schmeling said. “I’m disheartened [the decision] gives the impression the church is more interested in rules than in compassion.”

Decisions in the ELCA to strip a pastor of their pulpit are made at the discretion of the synod bishop; there is no national mandate. It’s a fickle standard and the reason why the Rev. Jenny Mason lost her job in San Bernardino (Pacifica Synod) and the Rev. Dan Hooper, the openly gay pastor of Hollywood Lutheran (Southwest California Synod), returned to the pulpit in 2002 after being “outed” and spending a decade and a half on hiatus.

Sexuality is one of the most contentious issues in Christianity. And the debate gets more heated as one recedes into smaller organizational units (denomination—congregation—Bible study—family). But I’ve never understood the formula with which the Lutheran Church has attempted to say it is OK for some but not for others, even though it’s really not OK for anyone, except for him ... and her ... except when ...

1 Comments — Leave your comment