September 11, 2008 | 2:40 pm

Sarah Palin’s favorite anti-Semite

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Follow me on

As if being a gun-toting Christian who supported Pat Buchanan’s 2000 presidential race wasn’t enough for Sarah Palin to give many American Jews the heebie jeebies, she’s now got the creds to pitch them it fully hysteria. It turns out that a portion of Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention was cribbed, with unidentified credit, from an early 20th century right-wing anti-Semite, Westbrook Pegler.

Thomas Frank explains in the Wall Street Journal.

“We grow good people in our small towns, with honesty and sincerity and dignity,” the vice-presidential candidate said, quoting an anonymous “writer,” which is to say, Pegler, who must have penned that mellifluous line when not writing his more controversial stuff. As the New York Times pointed out in its obituary of him in 1969, Pegler once lamented that a would-be assassin “hit the wrong man” when gunning for Franklin Roosevelt.

There’s no evidence that Mrs. Palin shares the trademark Pegler bloodlust—except maybe when it comes to moose and wolves. Nevertheless, the red-state myth that Mrs. Palin reiterated for her adoring audience owes far more to the venomous spirit of Pegler than it does to Norman Rockwell.

Turns out Pegler was such a nut that even the John Birch Society considered itself to sober-minded.

“So,” Gawker states. “Quoting an old anti-Semite is obviously proof of nothing—people still say nice things about Lindbergh, Henry Ford, Walt Disney, and Richard Nixon—but the larger question here is who put those words in her nice speech, where did they find them, and what the hell were they thinking. Like… did they think no one would notice? Who even reads Pegler anymore?

“Answer: Pat Buchanan! Buchanan, that lovable old coot, used that same line in a 1990 book. Buchanan, of course, did not mind being associated with a crazy old anti-Semite, and the passage was quoted in a section quite complimentary to the reactionary columnist.”

Suddenly, Barack Obama doesn’t have a Jewish problem.

(Thanks, Rachel, for sending the link.)

September 11, 2008 | 1:41 pm

Rev. Wright, sexual affairs and professional hitmen

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

First, let me be clear: The Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a bad man, but he’s not that bad a man. (Apologies to King David.) The alleged affair refers to Wright, the now notorious former pastor to Barack Obama whose black liberation theology manifest itself in anti-American tirades from the pulpit. But he’s not a murderer. The hitman has to do with another story that I will get back to after I quote from the New York Post’s story about the latest scandal from Rev. Wrong:

He almost wrecked Barack Obama’s presidential dreams, and now firebrand pastor Jeremiah Wright has helped destroy a Dallas church worker’s marriage—and her job, The Post has learned.

Elizabeth Payne, 37, said she had a steamy sexual affair with the controversial, racially divisive man of the cloth while she was an executive assistant at a church headed by a popular Wright protégé.

When word of the unholy alliance got out, Payne’s husband dumped her, and she was canned from the plum job at Friendship-West Baptist Church, she told The Post.

I could find no response from Wright. It’s not even clear if The Post or the agencies that followed this story made an effort to reach him. But sexual dalliances alone—and that is if this woman’s allegations are true—were not the reason I started this post. It was something that William Lobdell mentioned in his commentary on this news:

When I worked the religion beat, I never went wanting for these kind of stories. In fact, one summer, we had an intern who worked at the cubicle next to me. Before she went back to school, she turned to me and said, “I never thought I’d hear so many interviews about sex conducted by the paper’s religion writer.”

Probably my best story was one that was never published.

I read a lot of Lobdell’s stories when he was at the L.A. Times. They were typically thoughtful and sensitive and moving and, often, disturbing. I particularly remember your investigation of “A Missionary’s Dark Legacy.” He never appeared a timid reporter or even one who couldn’t, given enough time, nail a story that included religion and sexual abuse. At this point in his post, my curiosity was, understandably, piqued.

A semi-famous evangelical pastor was being investigated for putting out a contract on his former sex male lover, who had taken up with another man. The former lover was murdered, but police and prosecutors could never quite make an air-tight case against the preacher (despite some strong evidence).

What?!? A recognizable pastor—not somebody who might host a presidential faith forum but a guy who has likely spent some good time preaching on TV or hawking his books or training other pastors—was suspected of putting out a jilted hit on his former gay lover and the story never got out?

For better or worse, this is unfathomable today—not that a pastor could be (suspected of being) so wicked but that a mere investigation wouldn’t become common knowledge that ruined the guy’s career.

Please, Bill, I need to know more.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

September 11, 2008 | 1:22 pm

Seven years ago ...

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

This morning seven years ago forever changed our world. I don’t think anyone has viewed religion the same since.

There were a lot of religious currents flowing out from Ground Zero; here’s one image I know we’ve all seen.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

September 11, 2008 | 9:24 am

Barbie and the Jews

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

I know Peter Coyote as head of the Jewish Justice League in “Hebrew Hammer.” Not a good movie, but worthy a rental. A more resonant film on Coyote’s resume—also about the American Jewish experience—is “The Tribe.” The documentary traces the Jewish people from Abraham to Sacha Baron Cohen and uses the history of the Barbie doll, whose mother was Jewish, to ask: “What does it mean to be an American Jew today?”

“The Tribe’s” editing is clever and the non-linear narration enhances some humorous clips. The short has won countless awards and been the subject of a healthy dose of newspaper articles during the past three years, and now it’s available on YouTube, which

The Web Guy mentioned the other day and I embedded after the jump.

It’s worth the cost—nothing—and the 17 minutes it will take you to watch it. The last five minutes, in particular, focus on the diverse identities of the New Jews, both in terms of supporting Israel:

These Jews may not be sure how they feel about Israel. To their parents, Israel was clearly heroic. for today’s young Jews, things may look less clear. When speaking to those who aren’t Jewish, they may defend it. But internally, they may be unsure. They can believe in Israel and not agree with all of its politics, just as they can believe in America and not agree with all its politics. Among their Jewish friends, they don’t really talk about it.

And how they describe themselves:

“I’m an agnostic.”

Or.

“I’m an American.”

Or.

“I’m Jewish.”

Or.

“I’m a feminist.”

Or.

“A Jewess.”

Or.

“I’m unaffiliated.”

Or.

“I’m a bad Jew.”

Or.

“I’m a bad Jew.”

Some, who rather than saying they are a Jew, might prefer to say they are “Jew-ish.” Before answering they may ask: “Who wants to know? Are you Jewish?”

I’m not much for the slam poetry that follows, but the message of the woman, who has been told she doesn’t look Jewish and doesn’t act Jewish, is salient. The film is after the jump. Watch it.

Read more of this post

1 Comments — Leave your comment

September 10, 2008 | 6:39 pm

Temple 420’s Craig X Rubin lives!

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Well, the cat is out of the bag.

After I blogged Sunday about Temple 420, where Craig X Rubin, a Jewish convert to Christianity, preaches that marijuana is a sacrament that carries our prays to God and has the ability to alleviate much of the world’s resource scarcity, I got in touch with the reverend. His situation had changed a lot since we last spoke, and I was planning to blog about this today. But then Rubin commented on the previous post and revealed the biggest news: that he never served a day in jail.

This is a far cry from his worst fears last year.

“I am willing to preach the Bible and go to jail if it means getting my message out there,” he told me in February 2007. “I’m a Jewish kid from Beverly Hills who went to UCLA. I could have been a lawyer making $250 an hour like the rest of my friends, or a TV producer. Instead, I’m teaching the Bible, selling weed on Hollywood Boulevard, facing seven years in jail—of course I’m crazy.”

But now things are looking up for Rubin, even if my friends, and others, think he’s faking religious sincerity in search of a legal protection for smoking pot. (Newsflash: A really effective loophole already exists.)

Craig X Rubin

Rubin said the judge gave him permission to “own and operate a marijuana facility” and that he’s raised some cash to lease a building south of his old stomping grounds in Beverly Hills. He said he’s also been working as a pastor at The Family Church, an apparently non-denominational outreach-oriented church that I’m not familiar with, and teaching would-be pastors at its Union Bible College.

“I was ordained by their church too, so I don’t have to say, ‘Universal Life Church’ ordained me any more,” Rubin added, referring to the organization that offers free ordinations online. “Also, I have been attending an orthodox synagogue….I just love G-d….anyway, life sure is interesting…”

7 Comments — Leave your comment

September 10, 2008 | 6:08 pm

Congressman compares Obama to Jesus, Palin to Pontius Pilate

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

It appears U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen reads Politico.com. In the above video, in which Cohen—yeah, that Steve Cohen—compares Barack Obama to Jesus and vice-president hopeful Sarah Palin to Pontius Pilate.

Watch the video and tell me his statement doesn’t sound a lot like this comment from Jonathan Martin’s blog: “Mrs. Palin needs to be reminded that Jesus Christ was a community organizer and Pontius Pilate was a governor.”

Read more of this post

6 Comments — Leave your comment

September 10, 2008 | 3:13 pm

Obama’s Jewish problem: 300 rabbis endorse him *

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

As The Web Guy pointed out in the post about the Alliance Defense Fund challenging preacher to sermonize on political candidates, 300 rabbis have signed a list showing their support for Barack Obama.

I’m not sure what the legal implications are here—I believe ministers can back particular candidates but can’t preach it from the pulpit—and I’m waiting for an answer from the IRS.

Here’s the letter from Rabbis for Obama:

We join together to support Senator Obama for President, and we do so in the belief that he will best support the issues important to us in the Jewish community.

Some of us know Senator Obama personally, and we recognize that he has been inspired by Jewish values such as Tikkun Olam and the pursuit of justice, and he is deeply committed as well to a civil discourse between opposing arguments. We also know that Senator Obama will inspire young people, both in the Jewish community and the wider American community, to become more involved in improving this country and repairing the world.

We know that Barack Obama’s longstanding, stalwart support for Israel is a testament to his own principles as well as the strong bi-partisan pro-Israel movement in America, and we fear that the attempts by some to use Israel as a wedge issue against him - unjustifiably - is dangerous in that it politicizes the pro-Israel position. Most importantly it has completely distorted Senator Obama’s record. With his tough but pragmatic approach to Iran, Senator Obama is in the best position to restore faith in America as a leader in the fight against serious threats to Israel, our allies, and the United States.

Senator Barack Obama inspires in us the hope for an America once more called to its best values. We know him to be a man of incredible integrity, born of a deep and abiding spiritual faith based on the teachings of the Hebrew Prophets, and committed to achieving a world of peace with justice for all people.

*Updated: The IRS e-mailed me Section 501 of the tax code. This pertains to—you guessed it—501c3 organization. In regards to politicking preachers, this is an example of an acceptable endorsement:

Minister C is the minister of Church L, a section 501(c)(3) organization and Minister C is well known in the community.  Three weeks before the election, he attends a press conference at Candidate V’s campaign headquarters and states that Candidate V should be reelected.  Minister C does not say he is speaking on behalf of Church L.  His endorsement is reported on the front page of the local newspaper and he is identified in the article as the minister of Church L.  Because Minister C did not make the endorsement at an official church function, in an official church publication or otherwise use the church’s assets, and did not state that he was speaking as a representative of Church L, his actions do not constitute campaign intervention by Church L.

The rabbis names, many of which are familiar, appear after the jump:

Read more of this post

11 Comments — Leave your comment

September 10, 2008 | 2:41 pm

Answering Hitchens on moral superiority

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

By now, everyone knows the name Christopher Hitchens. That’s an impressive feat for a print journalist not named Woodward or Bernstein or at least Hersh. But Hitchens notoriety—and to the God-fearing it is notoriety—stems from his membership in the corps of New Atheists. One of Hitchens main arguments is that man doesn’t need God to be moral. He has made that claim many times, including here, often invites his critics to prove him wrong.

“Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever,” he says.

How about worshiping God?

I wish I could say that was my response; it’s a good one. But I can’t claim credit. That goes to Amy Hall of the Stand To Reason Blog, who in responding to Hitchens points out that he doesn’t really want a response because there is no response he would accept:

By the definition of the answer required, we must come up with something that is moral, but that atheists do not recognize as being moral.  But if atheists do not recognize it as moral, Hitchens won’t recognize it as moral.  Therefore, any true example (if it exists) of a moral good that meets the criterion of not being recognized by atheists will, by definition, necessarily be rejected by Hitchens, and any answer that fails to meet the criterion will be easily refuted by him.  It is unanswerable.

Since it is logically impossible to give an answer that will satisfy Hitchens, he may as well ask us to draw him a square circle and then declare himself the winner when we fail.  In the end, his challenge is nothing but a rhetorical trick, and it should be exposed and dismissed as such.  Hitchens should never get away with even asking it, let alone demanding we give him an “acceptable” answer in order to defend theism.

As it happens, there is an answer to Hitchens’s question—one that seemed obvious to me immediately—and it illustrates perfectly the problem with the challenge.  The highest moral good a person can do is to worship the living, true, sovereign God—to love Him with all one’s heart, soul, mind, and strength.  Not only will no atheist ever do this, no atheist can do this.  But of course, since they do not recognize worship as a real, valid moral good, no atheist would accept this response to Hitchens’s challenge.  They necessarily reject it precisely because it correctly answers the challenge; because it succeeds, it fails.  Any correct answer that exists will necessarily fail.  Only an invalid question could lead to a paradox like this.

10 Comments — Leave your comment

September 10, 2008 | 1:18 pm

Ministers to challenge tax laws, preach on Obama and McCain

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Thanks, Rev.

I wonder if Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund (mentioned yesterday), is one of those people who think the Internal Revenue Service lacks the authority to enforce tax laws and, therefore, we should just stop paying taxes.

Stanley’s position on this is unstated, but he wrote Monday on TownHall.com that “IRS Rules Don’t Trump the Constitution.”

In that, he put out a call to pastors bold enough to preach politics from the pulpit Sept. 28. Not just the politics of social conservatism: he wants pastors to actually advocate specific candidates. The ADF, a sort of evangelical ACLU, will pick up the legal defense.

“The truth is, the Pulpit Initiative is not about serving any candidate or political party or turning a church into a political action committee,” Stanley wrote. “The initiative is about restoring the constitutional right of pastors to speak freely from the pulpit without any fear of punishment by the government for doing what churches do: speak on any number of cultural and societal issues from a biblical perspective—and that includes commenting on the positions of electoral candidates, if they so choose.

“Arguing that a tax agency should hold veto power over sermon content is like arguing that the Department of Transportation should decide a school lunch menu. Pastors spoke freely about the policy positions of candidates for elective office throughout American history, even endorsing or opposing candidates from the pulpit, without anyone ever questioning whether churches should remain tax exempt. It was commonplace—indeed expected—for pastors to speak in support of or in opposition to candidates until the Johnson Amendment was inserted quietly into the tax code in 1954 with no legislative analysis or debate.”

This effort is rooted in the oppressed-Christian myth, and it is nonsense.

Practically speaking, church is he last place I want to hear about the presidential election. That’s not why I go to church. I go to worship God and commune with others and, believe it or not, study the Bible. The Bible—not a pastor’s application of one verse from and omission of another for political purposes. If I wanted that, I’d go to campaign rallies.

4 Comments — Leave your comment

September 10, 2008 | 9:15 am

Comparing the lives of Sarah Palin and Queen Esther

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Jon Wiener at The Nation has some fun, and intimates some fear, breaking down the preposterous claim that Sarah Palin is a latter-day Esther.

In a way, Wiener seems to imply that Palin, if she were like Esther, would actually be a champion of the Jewish people. This, he writes, should make Iran, descendant of the great Persian empire central to Esther’s story, very scared.

The thing is: As far as anyone can tell, Palin has no opinion about foreign politics. And looking to the Bible for a blueprint of her imagined Middle East is unlikely to accomplish much.

Nonetheless, a significant portion of Wiener’s blog post is after the jump:

Read more of this post

5 Comments — Leave your comment

September 9, 2008 | 8:44 pm

Wait a minute: Nigerian Muslim told he can keep 86 wives, at least for now

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

The saga of 84-year-old Mohammed Bello Abubakar, the Nigerian Muslim ordered to divorce all but four of his 86 wives, continues. Abubakar had until Sept. 7 to choose which wives he would keep or else be banished from his village. But Abubakar had challenged that edict, and a court today granted him immunity from Islamic authorities while the court determines whether his rights were violated.

Oddly, Yahoo! News billed the development as “Preacher with 86 wives gets court reprieve,” which caused me a lot of confusion until I clicked on the link sent to me by The Web Guy and saw what the story was about. I mean, when I think preacher, I think Billy Graham or at least Benny Hinn ... Graham is about the same age as Abubakar but, fortunately, was a one-woman guy.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

September 9, 2008 | 8:34 pm

Former Nation of Islam leader dies

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

From the AP:

Imam W.D. Mohammed, who succeeded his father as leader of the Nation of Islam but abandoned its teachings of black supremacy and moved thousands of its followers into mainstream Islam, died Tuesday. He was 74.

Sultan Muhammad confirmed his uncle’s death, but did not immediately offer details. He said the family planned to issue a statement later in the day.

The Cook County Medical Examiner said 74-year-old Wallace Mohammed was pronounced dead Tuesday. Mohammed went by both Warith Deen Mohammed and Wallace Muhammad. An autopsy was planned for Wednesday.

“Obviously, it’s a great loss for the entire Muslim community,” said Dawud Walid, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Michigan, where Mohammed led a convention last month. “He was encouraging his followers to accept the best of their humanity and to extend the moral and ethical values of Islam to the general American public.”

When Mohammed’s father, Elijah Muhammad, died in 1975, his son was named leader of the Chicago-based Nation of Islam, which promoted self-reliance and black supremacy, a belief that mainstream Muslims consider heretical.

Mohammed quickly abandoned that teaching and led the Nation toward orthodox Islam, emphasizing the faith’s message of racial tolerance. He had been a friend of Malcolm X, who abandoned the Nation to embrace mainstream Islam before he was assassinated in 1965.

Minister Louis Farrakhan, who broke with Mohammed over the change, separately revived the old Nation of Islam.

No one knows the size of Mohammed’s movement, which was decentralized with many leaders and many entities, including The Mosque Cares. However, the number of his followers is believed to be in the tens of thousands.

The movement included not only mosques nationwide, but many business projects, which reflected the continued emphasis on black economic self-reliance that had been part of the Nation of Islam’s mission.

The movement’s decentralization makes it unclear who will succeed Mohammed.

8 Comments — Leave your comment