June 4, 2010 | 12:09 am

Lisa Miller’s idea of ‘Heaven’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Follow me on

Lisa Miller, the religion editor for Newsweek was on “The Colbert Report” last night talking about her new book “Heaven.” She said things like:

“The ideas we have in our culture about heaven are very silly, childlike.”

And:

“This is something that is going to surprise you: The Jews invented heaven.”

Cartman would certainly disagree with that. But what I found most surprising is that Miller is Jewish. Why did this surprise me? Well, because Miller, whose reporting has drawn a lot of scorn over at GetReligion, often interjects her opinions when writing about liberalizing Christianity.

To me, it’s always come off as Miller was a Christian. I guess I missed her article titled “Who is Jewish?”

June 3, 2010 | 7:51 pm

Muslim woman can get headscarved driver’s photo

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Remember when your fourth-grade teacher made you take off your Dodgers cap for you class photo? Well, this is sort of like that:

A Muslim woman who was erroneously told to remove her headscarf for a driver’s license photo will be allowed to retake her photo with the head covering on.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said Thursday that a Department of Motor Vehicle employee in Oceanside insisted that the woman remove her headscarf, even though state rules allow for religious head coverings in ID photos.

In fact, this may have been a bit of a non-story. Just a misunderstanding. The DMV employee said she asked the Muslim woman to “move” her head covering, not “remove” it.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

June 2, 2010 | 9:17 pm

Flotilla incident as justification for Israelis and Palestinians

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

The beat goes on for the flotilla raid aftermath. A lot of developments here. (The above video is from this story about a pro-Israel rally outside the consulate in L.A.) But my favorite bit of media about the incident is this satirical piece from blogger Wayne Myers:

What the attack shows, plain as day, is that my own opinions on the issue are the only correct ones, and everyone else is painfully wrong. The failure of everyone else to see how right I am can lead only to tragic consequences.

First, a little historical background. The side of the conflict that I support comprises nothing but honourable and courageous men and women. They are motivated by nothing more than a desire to defend their own families and rich culture. Their cause is right and these people are completely justified in every action, no matter what they do. By contrast, the other side is composed entirely of amoral murderous thugs who will stop at nothing to achieve their ends. Far from achieving a just settlement and a lasting peace, these thugs are only interested in perpetuating the cycle of violence and brutality.

(skip)

The biased reporting from the BBC should come as a surprise to no-one. Time and again they give those on the other side of the conflict an easy ride. At the same time they twist the words of those speaking for my side in order to make them look ridiculous, belittling the importance of our just cause. This is an insult - the facts of the situation are clear and easily found on Google. Yet the BBC seems to ignore facts, preferring instead to act as if they are actually part of the other side’s own propaganda machine. Is this what we pay our licence fee for?

The newspapers are no better. Only yesterday the Guardian printed an editorial article in the Comment Is Free section of its website which made me more angry than anything I have read on this subject in weeks. Unbelievable though it may seem, this article was actually trying to defend the indefensible. The piece made it seem as if the side of the conflict which I do not support had some kind of justification for its actions.

Read the rest here. Myers never says what side he supports, which is the whole point.

3 Comments — Leave your comment

June 1, 2010 | 9:47 am

Gelb: ‘a mistake in pursuit of a legal goal, not a war crime’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

About Israeli commandos raiding a flotilla off the coast of Gaza, Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes:

Israel had every right under international law to stop and board ships bound for the Gaza war zone late Sunday. Only knee-jerk left-wingers and the usual legion of poseurs around the world would dispute this. And it is pretty clear that this “humanitarian” flotilla headed for Gaza aimed to provoke a confrontation with Israel. Various representatives of the Free Gaza Movement, one of the main organizers of this deadly extravaganza, have let it slip throughout Monday that their intention was every bit as much “to break” Israel’s blockade of Gaza as to deliver the relief goods.

The Israeli commandos who stormed the ship, where fighting erupted, badly mishandled the situation. But theirs was a mistake in pursuit of a legal goal, not a war crime. And as for calls for international investigations, they represent the usual hypocritical nonsense that will go nowhere. Except for those who routinely fool themselves about the judiciousness and effectiveness of action by the United Nations or the European Union, everyone understands their “investigations” will amount to nothing. Only the United States might do something useful—if the White House would only seize quickly the practical solution staring it in the face.

Read the rest at The Daily Beast.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

June 1, 2010 | 8:46 am

Kenyan court holds constitution can’t include Islamic courts

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

It’s always a good idea when drafting your country’s constitution to exempt a judicial arena from the constitution’s limitations. From FaithWorld:

Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga has attacked the country’s judiciary as an obstacle to reform after its high court ruled it would be discriminatory to entrench kadhi courts — Islamic courts that rule on the basis of sharia — in Kenya’s constitution. The ruling came three months before Kenyans vote in a referendum on a proposed new constitution, seen as an important step towards ensuring that post-election violence which shook east Africa’s largest economy in 2008 is not repeated.

Opposition to the Muslim courts brought together Christian clergy and some politicians to oppose the proposed constitution. The kadhis’ courts deal with matters of marriage, divorce and inheritance among Muslims.

A three-judge panel of the high court said religious courts should not be enshrined in the constitution because it ran counter to the principle of separation of state and religion.

Bad logic by the high court. But let’s take a step back. It appears that the Christian leaders who opposed extending the constitution to Muslim courts would prefer to not have the Muslim courts exist at all. And, for some reason, they believe that by ignoring the courts, they will just go away.

Not likely. What is likely, though, is that the subjects of those courts won’t be granted the same rights and protections and non-Muslim Kenyans.

A full report here.

1 Comments — Leave your comment