July 2, 2008 | 11:03 am

Conversions up, African-American Jews on the move

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Follow me on

This spring, we saw a flashbang in Jewish-black relations with the saga of Daphna Ziman and the Rev. Eric Lee. Those waters have smoothed, and this week in New York, a former colleague of Martin Luther King Jr’s (no, not this one) said it is essential to both blacks and Jews that the communities identify their shared needs:

“As blacks and Jews, the wind may blow, the rain may beat down on an old house, be it a house in Brooklyn, Atlanta, America, Israel or Africa, but we all live in the same house,” Rep. John Lewis, a leader of the civil rights movement who stood behind Martin Luther King, Jr. on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, told a group of Jewish and black leaders in Brooklyn this week.

“We are one people, one family and we must stay together and build a society at peace with itself.”

Agreed. Interestingly, though, in an increasing number of cases, Lewis’ comment that “we all live in the same house” is especially true. What do I mean? Well, beside the reality that blacks and Jews have similar political sentiments, and the fact that Jews have historically felt the brunt of persecution whenever a society discriminated against anyone, there is a growing community of African American who are, in fact, Jewish.

Would you believe it numbers 150,000?

Read more of this post

July 2, 2008 | 10:11 am

Bulldozing terrorist kills three in Jerusalem

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Quiet for all of, oh, four months, terror returned to Jerusalem this morning. Three Israelis died, as did the rampaging driver a bulldozer that plowed through crowds and cars near Jaffa Road and Sarei Yisrael Street. An off-duty soldier ended the ordeal when he grab a security guards gun and jumped into the Caterpillar’s cabin:

“At one point he [the driver] yelled out “Allah Akhbar” [God is great] and stepped on the gas pedal,” Plesser recalled. “I drew the weapon of the civilian who was with me and shot the driver three times in the head. I think I did what is expected from every soldier and citizen.”

2 Comments — Leave your comment

July 2, 2008 | 2:01 am

Bishop knew about abortion for Catholic Charities ward

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Two weeks ago, Julia Duin, the religion reporter for the Washington Times, dropped a bombshell: Commonwealth Catholic Charities of Richmond arranged for a 16-year-old immigrant girl in its care to receive an abortion. These action clearly violated Catholic doctrine and also possibly Virginia law. But the story didn’t end there.

Duin kept on it and Monday unloaded an even bigger shocker: Bishop Francis X. DiLorenzo knew about the plans and “did not try to prevent the procedure.”

Both DiLorenzo and the head of Catholic Charities are now scrambling and hiding behind deflected responsibilities and feigned ignorance. “It is very awkward, it is very embarrassing. A human life was taken. He certainly has not taken it lightly in any way. He is clearly opposed to abortion,” the bishop’s flak told Duin.

The public isn’t really buying it, and rightfully so. Here’s what the Crunchy Con, Rod Dreher, had to say:

Bullsh*t. A bishop of the Church is told a day in advance that an abortion is going to take place under the Church’s auspices ... and he doesn’t try his damnedest to stop it?! The director of Catholic Charities is supposedly distraught about the planned abortion because it “went against all she stood for” ... and she didn’t try to stop it?! They’re covering their butts, and doing a poor job of it.

We may never know what really happened here. The U.S. Catholic Church has proven its skillfulness at covering up its mistakes—at least for a long time, until they fester and swell and burst in a public fiasco like the clergy sex abuse scandal. Easy lessons, it seems, are hard to learn for those afraid of owning up to their mistakes.

3 Comments — Leave your comment

July 2, 2008 | 12:58 am

Baron Davis to sign with Clippers

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

The Lord works in mysterious ways. Baron Davis, the best player to come out of UCLA since Reggie Miller, is set to make his return to Los Angeles. Suddenly, I think I’m a Clippers fan. The guy has more style than Jack Nicholson, who roots for that other L.A. team. Just watch Davis’ moves in the montage above from his Bruin days.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

July 1, 2008 | 1:07 pm

Joe Klein’s dual-loyalty assertion for Jews

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Time’s Joe Klein

Yeah, I’m late to this story, but talk about shaking a hornet’s nest. Last week, Time’s Joe Klein made claims about the Iraq war that has bloggers buzzing, burning,foaming, fuming and, a few, applauding. The reason: his blog post’s penultimate paragraph included some juicy charges of Jewish dual-loyalties prompting an unnecessary war. The Commentary folks—the clearest target of Klein’s attack—took particular issue, and Anti-Defamation League chief Abe Foxman has since chastised Klein.

Here is what Klein, who is Jewish, wrote in that Swampland paragraph:

The notion that we could just waltz in and inject democracy into an extremely complicated, devout and ancient culture smacked—still smacks—of neocolonialist legerdemain. The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives—people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary—plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel. And then there is the question—made manifest by the no-bid contracts offered U.S. oil companies by the Iraqis—of two oil executives, Bush and Cheney, securing a new source of business for their Texas buddies.

Later that day, Klein added this response to his critics:

You want evidence of divided loyalties? How about the “benign domino theory” that so many Jewish neoconservatives talked to me about—off the record, of course—in the runup to the Iraq war, the idea that Israel’s security could be won by taking out Saddam, which would set off a cascade of disaster for Israel’s enemies in the region? As my grandmother would say, feh! Do you actually deny that the casus belli that dare not speak its name wasn’t, as I wrote in February 2003, a desire to make the world safe for Israel? Why the rush now to bomb Iran, a country that poses some threat to Israel but none—for the moment—to the United States…

First off, the drumbeat for war with Iran, which I would argue had a lot more to do with protecting Israel than invading Iraq, has cooled. As for the issue of dual-loyalty, maybe Klein was ignorant about how sensitive Jews are to this charge, a major source of global anti-Semitism, long before Jonathan Pollard and even 1948. That, however, is not the question that needs to be answered. The real question is: Was Klein’s assessment correct?

Clearly, most of President Bush’s closest defense and foreign-policy advisers were neoconservatives. Many also were Jewish. But to say that Wolfowitz and Feith were neoconservatives because they were Jewish is as strained an argument as saying Tonya Harding became a screwed up skater/person because her mom allegedly dragged her off the ice by her hair (and as strained as that analogy). The Joint Chiefs of Staff, not Jewish. Donald Rumsfeld, not Jewish. Dick Cheney, not Jewish. You get the picture.

More importantly, American foreign policy for the past almost four decades has held that Israel’s best interest is in the U.S.‘s best interest. In other words, if the protection of the Jewish state from Saddam’s whims played a role in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq—an ill-advised act at that—it likely has as much to do with American policy as American Jewish interest or, as Joe Klein called it, dual loyalty.

This foreign-policy finger-pointing makes a column my editor wrote in 2002 seem all the more prescient. It was titled, “The Jewish War,” and it wasn’t about Judas Maccabeus. It was about my editor, Rob Eshman, noticing a lot of mainstream voices—not just conspiracy theorist Pat Buchanan but “Hardball’s” Chris Matthews and The Nation, for example—referring to Bush’s pro-war advisers mainly as Jews.

Whether you agree with the planned invasion of Iraq or not, to call it a war fomented by American Jewry to serve Israel’s interests is ludicrous. For one, American Jewish legislators are divided on the issue. While Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) is a strong supporter, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who chairs the important Senate Armed Services Committee, has consistently urged caution. Jewish groups are divided as well. All strongly oppose Saddam, but no major group has reached a consensus on the use of force to bring about his downfall or on unilateral action against him. And it’s fair to point out—as long as Matthews and others are checking IDs here—that the focus on Iraq is the policy of a Christian president, his mostly Christian advisers, his Christian Cabinet and a largely Christian Congress acting at the behest of a majority of their Christian constituents.

(skip)

But should America get sucked into a debilitating conflict, if Israel appears to have gained strategic ground at the expense of large numbers of American lives, the fringe will move onto center stage, and the calls to label Bush’s policy a Jewish war will rouse us, sharply and painfully, from our couches.

As I’ve written before, Jews clearly have mixed emotions when it comes to the place they call home. This is not a radical statement; it is reality. American Jews since the time of Haym Solomon have been blue-blooded patriots. But Israel, for many, will always be their spiritual home. Does this mean American Jews are loyal to both this country and that country? Of course. But does it mean that, as a point of policy, that Jews sacrifice one for the other? I don’t believe that for a minute—unless we are talking about giving up on Israel for the U.S. That is a quite common phenomenon.

10 Comments — Leave your comment

July 1, 2008 | 12:04 pm

Obama and Bush’s evangelicals *

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

It’s the same story, over and over again, now from The New York Times, and with this interesting tidbit:

Between now and November, the Obama forces are planning as many as 1,000 house parties and dozens of Christian rock concerts, gatherings of religious leaders, campus visits and telephone conference calls to bring together voters of all ages motivated by their faith to engage in politics. It is the most intensive effort yet by a Democratic candidate to reach out to self-identified evangelical or born-again Christians and to try to pry them away from their historical attachment to the Republican Party.

Yes, Obama has been a campaign rockstar. But can he be a Christian rockstar?

*Updated: Obama just delivered a speech in Zanesville, Ohio, in which he touted the value of faith-based programs:

The fact is, the challenges we face today – from saving our planet to ending poverty – are simply too big for government to solve alone. We need all hands on deck.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

July 1, 2008 | 9:47 am

God’s Blog #4: Leaving your father and mother

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I’m not one to brag, but it’s important to note before going on that I’m a bestselling author. You’ve know doubt heard of my book, The Bible, but it’s not always so clear you—that’s the universal you—know what is in it. For example: I told Adam quite early on that man would one day leave his father and mother (yes, this was confusing for Adam, who had no parents) to take a beautiful bride. Marriage and family and offspring, amen!

But too many of my children these days have missed a crucial part of that statement: “shall leave his father and mother.” You’ve heard of them. They’re called Twixters, and they are like Tom Hanks in “Big”—growing older and larger but not yet ready to forgo free rent, even, in many cases, after they have cleaved to a spouse.

I am not pleased.

(Fear not if you think this commentary a ridiculous topic; you will not be smited. Just leave your comments below.)

4 Comments — Leave your comment

July 1, 2008 | 9:03 am

A direct line with The God Blog

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Readers of this blog have likely noticed that the old RSS feed no longer works. It died with the launch of the new Web site. So, if you want to receive regular notifications of new content on The God Blog, click on the orange-and-white icon to the right, just below “contact,” or on this link.

I didn’t use to subscribe to RSS feeds, but since signing up for Google Reader last month, at the advice of LAist Zach Behrens, I’ve found it a lot easier to keep track of postings on my favorite blogs.

0 Comments — Leave your comment