September 18, 2007 | 6:18 pm

Olmert to forfeit Jerusalem’s Old City?

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Follow me on

The word from Israel Insider is that ever-popular Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has agreed with PA chief Mahmoud Abbas to hand over the Old City.

The independent Palestinian news agency Maan published a Hebrew document late last week that purports to represent the “principles” apparently agreed on in negotiations between Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. While the offices of both men denied any connection to it, comments by Israeli President Shimon Peres confirm some of the main points. On one of the most controversial points, that Israel has agreed to surrender sovereignty the Old City of Jerusalem, Peres pointedly refused to comment.

Despite the denials, then, there is reason to believe that the draft does represent or approximate, the emerging joint declaration between Olmert—who has kept negotiations from almost all of this minister—and Abbas, who has doubtful authority to negotiate a deal since his supporters were expelled from Gaza and his headquarters there conquered by Hamas. That apparently hasn’t stop the Israeli Prime Minister, evidently with the blessing of eminence grise Peres, who long has pushed for a deal that would redivide Jerusalem.

(skip)

The third point says that “There will be two capitals in Jerusalem, that of Israel and that of Palestine, and they will be sovereign over the Jewish and Arab neighborhoods, respectively. The two municipalities will cooperate for the enhancement of the quality of life of all the residents.” The language would seem to indicate that Israel has abandoned its position that the Palestinian capital would be in Abu Dis, not in the central part of Jerusalem.

Indeed, the document suggests that there would be a “special administration” presumably under the authority of an international or multinational authority to administer the holiest of sites in Jerusalem, and possibly the entire Holy Basin, including the Old City in its entirety. “Special arrangements will be emplaced to preserve free access to all the holy sites of the various religions. A special administration will be established to maintain the two nations’ bonds with the holy sites in the Old City of Jerusalem.”

Here was Robert J. Avrech’s response to the news on his blog Seraphic Secret:

I admit when I’m wrong. I’m enough of a man to step back and take responsibility for my mistakes.

I’ve libeled Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

I’ve said that he’s not fit to be Prime Minister.

I’ve said that he’s not a strong, decisive leader.

I was wrong.

He’s a great leader, a great Prime Minister—for the so-called Palestinian people.

For the Jewish people, he’s only suitable to lead some ghetto Judenrat.

 

Frankly, I don’t believe this could be true. Giving back Gaza was one thing: Even Egypt didn’t want that God-forsaken strip. The West Bank has been a slower process because Judea and Samaria represent much of the biblical Land of Israel. But the Old City, the section of Jerusalem that Ben-Gurion lost during the War of Independence and Israel regained in ‘67, the site of the Temple Mount, the holiest place in the world—no way an Israeli politician could give up sovereignty of that land.

Ariel Sharon was branded a traitor by some for the Gaza withdrawal; Yitzhak Rabin was shot dead because of the Oslo Accords. What would happen to the man who gave away God’s home?

September 18, 2007 | 3:57 pm

What’s that about foreskin?

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

This is from The Forward‘s review of Shalom Auslander’s memoir, “Foreskin’s Lament”:

Consider the poor foreskin: an object of desire for a few, a matter of indifference for many and anathema to the Jews. Like bacon and lobster, it serves as the very definition of treyf. Its rejection is the primordial sign of the Covenant.

Well, I can tell you what I’ll never be eating again. (Please, no stomach-turning, painfully obvious jokes.)

1 Comments — Leave your comment

September 18, 2007 | 12:37 pm

The president’s own personal Jesus

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I’ve kvetched quite a bit about the insincerity of presidential candidates playing the God card. I don’t want to hear about it, I said. But in this week’s Time magazine, Michael Kinsley writes that he wants to know more.

These days presidential candidates are required to wear their religion on their sleeve. God is a personal adviser and inspiration to all of them. They all pray relentlessly. Or so they say. If that’s not true, I want to know it. And if it is true, I want to know more about it. I want to know what God is telling them—just as I would want to know what Karl Rove was telling them if they claimed him for an adviser. If religion is central to their lives and moral systems, then it cannot be the candidates’ “own private affair.” To evaluate them, we need to know in some detail the doctrines of their faith and the extent to which they accept these doctrines. “Worry about whether I’m going to reform health care, not whether I’m going to hell” is not sufficient.

What exactly should we worry about? Most important, we need to know what forms of conduct a candidate’s religion forbids or requires and how the candidate interprets that injunction. Is it a universal moral imperative or just a personal lifestyle choice? Every religion has its list of no-nos. Mormonism’s is very long and includes alcohol, coffee, tea and such forms of sexual behavior as “passionate kissing” outside wedlock. If Romney‘s church doctrines require efforts to impose these restrictions on others, Romney has a Cuomo problem: he cannot be a good Mormon and a good President. ...

It will be amusing if Romney is done in by a fear of his religious values because, as near as we can tell, he has no values of any sort that he wouldn’t happily abandon if they became a burden. But in politics, you are who you pretend to be.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

September 18, 2007 | 10:12 am

Is God in our DNA?

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

It’s Science Tuesday at The Times. Today’s topic: Morality. Not mortality, but the basis of rules and ethics that govern our lives. Yes, The Times says, scientists now think they have an explanation for our understanding of good and evil.

Where do moral rules come from? From reason, some philosophers say. From God, say believers. Seldom considered is a source now being advocated by some biologists, that of evolution.

At first glance, natural selection and the survival of the fittest may seem to reward only the most selfish values. But for animals that live in groups, selfishness must be strictly curbed or there will be no advantage to social living. Could the behaviors evolved by social animals to make societies work be the foundation from which human morality evolved?

 

The article focuses on the work of Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist at University of Virginia and author of “The Happiness Hypothesis.” Haidt began researching the evolution of morality by exploring the phenomenon of “moral dumbfounding”—when people know something is wrong but can’t explain it.

He makes a big leap from there to human morality riding the “elephant” of biological evolution, and I’m not buying it. But this is an evocative description.

“Imagine visiting a town,” Dr. Haidt writes, “where people wear no clothes, never bathe, have sex ‘doggie style’ in public, and eat raw meat by biting off pieces directly from the carcass.”

He sees the disgust evoked by such a scene as allied to notions of physical and religious purity. Purity is, in his view, a moral system that promotes the goals of controlling selfish desires and acting in a religiously approved way.

Notions of disgust and purity are widespread outside Western cultures. “Educated liberals are the only group to say, ‘I find that disgusting but that doesn’t make it wrong,’ ” Dr. Haidt said.

 

0 Comments — Leave your comment

September 17, 2007 | 10:32 pm

Nebraska senator sues God

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I thought once was enough with this ridiculous lawsuit. But, no, the case of man sues God—that’s right: Not man bites dog, but man sues God—is back. And it was filed by ... wait for it ... an elected official?

There is no way to read this without detecting the writers tongue-in-cheek tone. And, really, there’s no need to. That is state Sen. Ernie Chambers’ intention.

LINCOLN, Neb. - The defendant in a state senator’s lawsuit is accused of causing untold death and horror and threatening to cause more still. He can be sued in Douglas County, the legislator claims, because He’s everywhere.

State Sen. Ernie Chambers sued God last week. Angered by another lawsuit he considers frivolous, Chambers says he’s trying to make the point that anybody can file a lawsuit against anybody.

Chambers says in his lawsuit that God has made terroristic threats against the senator and his constituents, inspired fear and caused “widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth’s inhabitants.”

The Omaha senator, who skips morning prayers during the legislative session and often criticizes Christians, also says God has caused “fearsome floods ... horrendous hurricanes, terrifying tornadoes.”

He’s seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty.

 

Does Chambers have a case?

1 Comments — Leave your comment

September 17, 2007 | 4:36 pm

‘Holy Hampton Hostilities’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

“Goldman Ex-Partner, Hedge-Fund Chief Sender Fight Over Church.”  That’s a headline on Bloomberg.com this morning, and the issue at hand is as ridiculous as it might suggest. 

Dennis Suskind, formerly of Goldman Sachs, has bought a Methodist church in Sag Harbor, New York with plans to turn it into a house, and Adam Sender, the manager of Exis Capital, is pouting because he says he wanted to buy it for the purpose of showcasing his collection of contemporary art.

The fact that two money machers are arguing over gets to rip apart a place many consider holy in order to satisfy personal ambitions may just be the most telling sign yet that we are in the thick of an age of excess. But that’s beyond the scope of this blog.

That might be the case for the Figure Painting blog on Portfolio’s site, where I found this post, but its not outside the scope of The God Blog.

This reminds a little bit of the money changers doing business in the Temple. And yet, if churches are not being used for religious services, there is nothing inherently sacred inside their walls. Regardless of any amount of sacrilege, I thinks it’s safe to we’re living in a time of “irrational exuberance.”

0 Comments — Leave your comment

September 17, 2007 | 12:10 pm

Scary evangelicals?

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Remember that post from earlier this month about Patrick Henry College? Well, today the author of “God’s Harvard” debates on Slate whether American’s should be scared of “Evangelical Elites” with “a real, live evangelical who worked at the White House and lived to write about it.”

I certainly met some Patrick Henry students who would be happy to establish a theocracy. But they tend not to be chosen for White House jobs. As you well know, there is usually an inverse relationship between vocalized extremism and political success, which is why the impending theocracy thesis is not all that convincing. That said, the Bush administration accomplished something unique in American history. It provided formal training for hundreds of what I call the evangelical elites, the first generation of conservative Christians who take political power for granted and feel entitled—in fact, compelled—by their faith to hold public office.

Patrick Henry kids were usually transformed by their White House internships. They went out drinking with Republican staffers or argued with them about Iraq. Theologically, the first thing to go was the six-day creationism. But they didn’t change their views about homosexuality or the environment or taxes, or the overall view that a Christian could feel at home only among Republicans.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

September 17, 2007 | 11:40 am

Redefining success in Iraq

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

This is a rather long “Daily Show” sketch, and only marginally worth the six and a half minutes I just spent watching it at work (from an employer’s standpoint; not mine). But it offers yet another in the drumbeat of satirical pieces on the ever shifting target for “success” in Iraq.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

September 17, 2007 | 11:22 am

Chemerinsky the Osama bin Laden of law?

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

The rescinded offer for liberal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky to be the founding dean of UC Irvine’s law school has been quite the cause celebre during the past week. I don’t want to wax too much on the issues—here‘s a bunch of links that do—but did want to make note of what LA County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, who had sent an e-mail to two dozen Orange County folk urging them to oppose Chemerinsky, told the Associated Press:

Making Chemerinsky the head of the law school “would be like appointing al-Qaida in charge of homeland security.”

Frankly, I don’t see the resemblance.

* Updated: Chemerinsky gets the job back.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

September 17, 2007 | 9:12 am

Christian insurance

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

From the depths of my e-mail inbox:

According to statistics released earlier this summer, religious books were the publishing industry’s fastest-growing category last year, with Bible sales alone exceeding 25 million copies. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg for the $4.5 billion Christian products industry, which runs the gamut from books and videos to toys, games and, now, even insurance.

Launched two years ago in select test markets, GuideOne Insurance’s FaithGuard Auto and Home product is now offered to churchgoers in 19 states. FaithGuard offers customers a number of unique benefits including waiving policyholders’ deductibles in crashes that happen on the way to church (or Sunday school) and doubling medical payments to persons injured during at-home church activities.

OK, there may be some benefit to having auto insurance that erases the deductible if you’re driving home from church. But how common are at-home, church-related injuries?

2 Comments — Leave your comment

September 16, 2007 | 10:09 pm

IDF deep inside Syria

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Remember that alleged Israeli bombing deep inside Syria two weeks ago. Here’s some of the continually emerging details from The Times of London.

IT was just after midnight when the 69th Squadron of Israeli F15Is crossed the Syrian coast-line. On the ground, Syria’s formidable air defences went dead. An audacious raid on a Syrian target 50 miles from the Iraqi border was under way.

At a rendezvous point on the ground, a Shaldag air force commando team was waiting to direct their laser beams at the target for the approaching jets. The team had arrived a day earlier, taking up position near a large underground depot. Soon the bunkers were in flames.

Ten days after the jets reached home, their mission was the focus of intense speculation this weekend amid claims that Israel believed it had destroyed a cache of nuclear materials from North Korea.

The Israeli government was not saying. “The security sources and IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] soldiers are demonstrating unusual courage,” said Ehud Olmert, the prime minister. “We naturally cannot always show the public our cards.”

 

Actually, Israel rarely shows the public its cards—except for when Olmert lets it slip that Israel has nuclear bombs. When I was in Israel last month, an IDF captain talked about how no one in the government actually expected a war this summer; they just kept talking about it so their neighbors would know they were ready.

That’s smart. The question is: What are the planning to do next the neutralize the nuclear threat from Iran? And what role will the United States play?

(Hat tip to Seraphic Secret.)

0 Comments — Leave your comment

September 16, 2007 | 1:30 pm

The morals of an atheist

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

In this 20-minute Q & A with the Hoover Institution, atheist spokesperson and journalist Christopher Hitchens takes on “the appalling insinuation that I would not know right from wrong if I was not supernaturally guided.”

I can’t embed the video, but here is the link. Let me know what you think.

3 Comments — Leave your comment