February 29, 2012 | 5:06 pm

Priest denies lesbian Communion at mother’s funeral

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Follow me on

Michelle Boorstein of the Washington Post has an absolute must-read story about a lesbian who was denied Communion at her mother’s funeral.

Barbara Johnson was at St. John Neumann Catholic Church with her partner, and the Rev. Marcel Guarzino learned of her relationship just before the service. When Johnson went up to take Communion, the priest reportedly put his hand over the bread and said he wouldn’t give it to Johnson because she lived with a woman. He then left the service while Johnson delivered the eulogy and didn’t attend the burial or find a replacement priest.

Boorstein reports on a letter that Johnson sent Guarzino and one Johnson got back from the D.C. archdiocese in return:

“You brought your politics, not your God into that Church yesterday, and you will pay dearly on the day of judgment for judging me,” she wrote in a letter to Guarnizo. “I will pray for your soul, but first I will do everything in my power to see that you are removed from parish life so that you will not be permitted to harm any more families.”

Late Tuesday, Johnson received a letter of apology from the Rev. Barry Knestout, one of the archdiocese’s highest-ranking administrators, who said the lack of “kindness” she and her family received “is a cause of great concern and personal regret to me.”

“I am sorry that what should have been a celebration of your mother’s life, in light of her faith in Jesus Christ, was overshadowed by a lack of pastoral sensitivity,” Knestout wrote. “I hope that healing and reconciliation with the Church might be possible for you and any others who were affected by this experience. In the meantime, I will offer Mass for the happy repose of your mother’s soul. May God bring you and your family comfort in your grief and hope in the Resurrection.”

This story is obviously a talker and it’s immediately been followed by debate—and good Catholics are on opposite poles on this one. Boorstein follows up on that here.

Denying Communion might have been within the priest’s discretion—in fact, I think that it probably was—but I agree with the apology from the archdiocese.

February 29, 2012 | 4:38 pm

What Jerusalem tomb has to say about early Christians

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Here we are a full five weeks from Easter, and the maker of the “Lost Tomb of Jesus” documentary is publicizing new findings from a first century tomb in Jerusalem. Doesn’t he know that you’re supposed to time that stuff for Easter?

They will also be published in a book by Simon & Schuster entitled “The Jesus Discovery: The New Archaeological Find That Reveals the Birth of Christianity” and detailed in a fresh documentary to be aired by the Discovery Channel in spring 2012.

Oh, well I guess that explains it. Thanks, Fox News.

So why should we care about this story? Well, it’s possible that the tomb and the ossuary inside it have something to tell us about early Christianity. James Tabor and his team found a four-line Greek inscription on one of the ossuaries that referred to “raising up” of someone and a depiction of a man being swallowed by a large fish.

A statement from UNC Charlotte, where Tabor is a professor:

In the earliest gospel materials the “sign of Jonah,” as mentioned by Jesus, has been interpreted as a symbol of his resurrection. Jonah images in later “early” Christian art, such as images found in the Roman catacombs, are the most common motif found on tombs as a symbol of Christian resurrection hope. In contrast, the story of Jonah is not depicted in any first century Jewish art and iconographic images on ossuaries are extremely rare, given the prohibition within Judaism of making images of people or animals.

The tomb in question is dated prior to 70 CE, when ossuary use in Jerusalem ceased due to the Roman destruction of the city. Accordingly, if the markings are Christian as the scholars involved believe, the engravings represent – by several centuries - the earliest archaeological record of Christians ever found. The engravings were most likely made by some of Jesus’ earliest followers, within decades of his death. Together, the inscription and the Jonah image testify to early Christian faith in resurrection. The tomb record thus predates the writing of the gospels.

That’s pretty interesting, and I could see that being used in an argument that Christians were ready to believe that Jesus had raised from the dead and in fact deceived themselves into believing it. Which actually makes this the typical archeological Easter story. I’m just surprised it wasn’t on the cover of Newsweek.

1 Comments — Leave your comment

February 29, 2012 | 12:03 pm

Daniel Pearl posthumously baptized by Mormons

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Daniel Pearl’s famous last words left know doubt about who he was: “I am Jewish.”

Mormons, though, appear to want to leave the door open for Pearl to change his mind from the grave. Via JTA:

Daniel Pearl was baptized in a Mormon proxy ritual in another case of a prominent deceased Jew discovered to have been baptized posthumously in recent weeks.

Pearl, a Wall Street Journal reporter kidnapped and executed by terrorists in Pakistan in February 2002, was baptized by proxy on June 1, 2011 at a Mormon temple in Twin Falls, Idaho, the Boston Globe reported Wednesday.

The rite was discovered by Helen Radkey, a former member of the Mormon church who has become a whistleblower on such activity.

Only Mormons have access to the church’s genealogy database, which also can be used to submit a deceased person’s name for proxy baptism.

The discovery comes in the same month that it was discovered that the parents of Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal were posthumously baptized last month, and Anne Frank was posthumously baptized earlier this month.

Also earlier this month, the names of the father and grandfather of Holocaust survivor and author Elie Wiesel were found to have been submitted for proxy baptism.

Pearl’s parents, Judea and Ruth, told the Boston Globe that learning of the proxy baptism was “disturbing news.”

“To them we say, we appreciate your good intentions but rest assured that Danny’s soul was redeemed through the life that he lived and the values that he upheld,” the Pearls told the newspaper in an email. “He lived as a proud Jew, died as a proud Jew and is currently facing his creator as a Jew, blessed, accepted and redeemed. For the record, let it be clear: Danny did not choose to be baptized, nor did his family consent to this uncalled-for ritual.”

The reaction should come as no surprise to Mormons. Jews have for years fought the efforts of Mormons who want to leave the door open to deceased Jews through posthumous baptism. It’s also a religious conviction for them, as Mark Paredes explained at his Jews and Mormons blog in December:

Mormons have an obligation to perform temple ordinances for their deceased relatives. Indeed, we believe that we will not reach heaven without our kindred dead who have accepted the rites. However, church members have no such duty towards others’ relatives. For decades church leaders have asked members to perform temple ordinances only for their own ancestors. In the past, a small number of Mormons inappropriately performed temple ordinances for Holocaust victims who were not related to them, in violation of church policy (for more details, please see my first and second blogs on the subject). This understandably raised the ire of Jews, and a series of discussions took place between LDS and Jewish leaders over many years.

Mark writes more here, and Samuel Brown has a general backgrounder on the practice at the Huffington Post.

The posthumous baptisms obviously do not convert the deceased into Mormons—nor do Mormons believe that they do. But they look and sound like a forced conversion, especially to those who aren’t familiar with the details of the practice, and Jews have had too long and painful a history of forced conversion to let this one go.

3 Comments — Leave your comment

February 28, 2012 | 1:08 pm

Zombie Muhammad judge suggests free speech at risk when people speak too freely

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Judge Mark Martin. Photo from Youtube

The Judge Mark Martin is still going public in defense of his dismissal of the harassment charge against a Muslim who allegedly attacked an atheist dressed up as Zombie Muhammad and his berating of the atheist in court. Martin told CNN that free speech is a right that could be lost if people abuse it. In that, he is suggesting that the atheist was abusing freedom of speech by mocking the Muslim Prophet.

That’s concerning on it’s own. Further, Eugene Volokh, who continues to follow this story, writes that Martin in mischaracterizing the issue:

I don’t think that we’re in danger of losing our free speech rights because some people say things that are offensive to Muslims. I do think that free speech rights are in danger when judges berate alleged crime victims for their anti-Islam speech, and thus convey the message that the legal system may be biased against those who engage in such speech and may fail to protect those people because of such speech.

I have to agree—and not just because I’m in Volokh’s First Amendment course this semester.

The Supreme Court has established exceptionally narrow carveouts for content-based restrictions. Mocking Muhammad isn’t obscene. It’s not libel. It’s not fighting words as the Court has understood it. It’s certainly not child porn. And even if this was hate speech, there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment—uncomfortable as that has been at times. Holy as religion is, mocking it is a pretty core First Amendment right.

2 Comments — Leave your comment

February 28, 2012 | 11:23 am

Texas basketball players pass on championship to observe the Sabbath

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

If I remember correctly, the Jewish Jordan left the University of Maryland because he found that he couldn’t both observe the Sabbath and meet his commitments to the basketball team. God came first. Basketball was always a distant second.

But here’s a whole team of Jewish ... well, not Jordans—maybe Fishers, who are skipping the Texas state high school basketball semifinals because the game is scheduled for 9 pm Friday night.

The Robert M. Beren Academy, an Orthodox Jewish day school, had filed an appeal to have the game time changed, but the Texas Association of Private and Parochial Schools rejected the appeal Monday. The director of the association defended the decision to the New York Times:

“When Beren’s joined years ago, we advised them that the Sabbath would present them with a problem with the finals,” Edd Burleson, the director of the association, said. “In the past, Tapps has held firmly to their rules because if schedules are changed for these schools, it’s hard for other schools.

“If we solve one problem, we create another problem.”

Membership in the association is voluntary, Burleson said.

“If the schools are just going to arrange their own schedule, why do we even set a tournament?” Burleson said. “Over a period of time, our state tournament, which is a highlight of our association, deteriorates to nothing. That’s the whole point of having an organization.”

That’s well and good. Beren was on notice years ago that this could be an issue, and they presumably agreed when they joined to abide by scheduling decisions. But I hear something concerning in Burleson’s comment, particularly the last one. Beren didn’t ask for a scheduling change out of convenience—it was out of conviction. At best, this evinces a poor understanding of why Beren filed the appeal.  At the other end, it could be religious discrimination, even if not intentional.

And Burleson’s parade of horribles is nonsensical. How would adjusting the scheduling process to move the semifinal and finals to mid-week the following week if and only if a Jewish day school team has made it to that level deteriorate the association to nothing.

This is, of course, an old problem in youth sports. It feels like every few months I read a story like this. In some instances, there are colorable questions of religious discrimination. Patrick Sterk, author of To Pray or to Play: Religious Discrimination in the Scheduling of Interscholastic Athletic Events (18 Sports Law. J. 235 (2011)) discussed this last year at The Legal Blitz.

Without knowing more, it’s difficult to say whether the Texas association would be a government actor because it’s an association of private schools, and unless the association is a government actor, there can be no constitutional or statutory violation. (A little background from the Volokh Conspiracy on religious exemption law.) However, assuming that the association is a government actor, the claim would be either that the association failed to make a reasonable accommodation or that the policy has a disparate impact on those who observe the Sabbath.

Litigation, though, is not on the minds of the Beren basketball players. As the school’s Rabbi Harry Sinoff told the NYT: “The sacred mission will trump excellence in the secular world.”

(Hat tip to Marta Godecki, the awesome editor of this piece.)

1 Comments — Leave your comment

February 28, 2012 | 10:59 am

Santorum, the presidency and the campaign politics of religion

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

In a very good piece about Rick Santorum’s religious-oppression scarecrow tactics, Steve Shaw, co-author of “Presidents and Their Faiths,” writes at the Huffington Post that he’d like to see Santorum acting “both a bit more presidential and a bit more Christianly”—“a bit more James Madison and a lot less Machiavelli.”

In recounting the role of religion in past presidential elections—who doesn’t remember the election of 1800?— and looking at how a candidate’s religious beliefs have become campaign fodder, Shaw takes issue with Santorum attacking Obama’s “phony theology” and alleged war on religion.

He concludes:

Santorum has not declared, as have others, that Obama is a Muslim or an atheist or an agnostic; he has not questioned directly Obama’s Christianity. Rather, he calls into question Obama’s theology, as if this were a contest for an endowed chair at a seminary and not a contest for our highest constitutional office. A “Theologian-in-Chief” is not what Madison and his colleagues had in mind nor is it what we need today. John Kennedy broke the stained glass ceiling in 1960, and in 2012 Mitt Romney may perform a similar feat with respect to Mormonism. But there should not and must not be any kind of theological litmus test for occupying the Oval Office.

It’s a really interesting piece, and not just for the current stuff. Check it out.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 27, 2012 | 12:45 pm

Congressman urged to get Jewish staffer to give ex-wife a get

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

It’s not often that you see Politico reporting on the legal aspects of a Jewish divorce. But Rep. Dave Camp is feeling the heat over his staff aide, Aharon Friedman, who has refused to give his wife a get. Without the get Friedman’s ex-wfe, Tamar Epstein, cannot remarry.

Politico reports on the social media campaign urging Camp to step in and push his staffer to do the right thing:

After the failure of years of quiet efforts in the Jewish community — including a nonbinding request from D.C.’s rabbinical court for Friedman to consent to the get and a national rabbinical court’s “declaration of contempt” against him — Epstein’s supporters have increasingly turned to more public methods, including openly pressuring the congressman to intervene.

The situation is awkward for Camp because it is rare that the personal lives of congressional staffers become political issues for members of Congress. But the influential committee chairman is being dragged into the highly unusual situation now that Friedman’s opponents have decided to thrust it into the public sphere.

(skip)

“We aren’t asking Dave Camp to fire Aharon Friedman. All we want is for Camp to require that Friedman stop abusing his wife. It is a pity to be known as the congressman who employs and encourages abuse of women,” reads a petition that has steadily increased the number of signatories over the past few days. As of Sunday, nearly 1,500 people have signed the petition.

Read the rest here. As many of you know, this is sadly not an uncommon problem in the Orthodox Jewish community. Even after a couple has received a civil divorce, they remain married religiously until and unless the man gives the woman a get. Some never do.

3 Comments — Leave your comment

February 27, 2012 | 12:00 pm

Transcript of Santorum spelling out views on church-state separation

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Rick Santorum during a campaign stop at a Knights of Columbus hall in Lincoln Park, Mi. Feb. 24. Photo by REUTERS/Rebecca Cook

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum created quite the stir yesterday with his comments on the separation of church and state. I posted a clip of his interview with George Stephanopoulos, but the sound bite left a lot of details out. ABC News has shared the full transcript. Here’s the pertinent part, as excerpted by Howard Friedman at Religion Clause:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You have also spoken out about the issue of religion in politics, and early in the campaign, you talked about John F. Kennedy’s famous speech to the Baptist ministers in Houston back in 1960. Here is what you had to say….

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SANTORUM: Earlier (ph) in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech. (END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: That speech has been read, as you know, by millions of Americans. Its themes were echoed in part by Mitt Romney in the last campaign. Why did it make you throw up?

SANTORUM: Because the first line, first substantive line in the speech says, “I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute.” I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.

This is the First Amendment. The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion. That means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square. Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, no, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate. Go on and read the speech. I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith. It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent (ph) at the time of 1960. And I went down to Houston, Texas 50 years almost to the day, and gave a speech and talked about how important it is for everybody to feel welcome in the public square. People of faith, people of no faith, and be able to bring their ideas, to bring their passions into the public square and have it out. James Madison— ...

... [T]o say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up and it should make every American who is seen from the president, someone who is now trying to tell people of faith that you will do what the government says, we are going to impose our values on you, not that you can’t come to the public square and argue against it, but now we’re going to turn around and say we’re going to impose our values from the government on people of faith, which of course is the next logical step when people of faith, at least according to John Kennedy, have no role in the public square.

STEPHANOPOULOS: We got a lot of questions on this on Facebook and Twitter, and I want to play one…. What should we do with all the non-Christians in this country? If I do not hold this belief, which I do not, how does he plan on representing me?

SANTORUM: Yes, I just said. I mean, that’s the whole point that upset me about Kennedy’s speech. Come into the public square. I want, you know, there are people I disagree with. Come to my town hall meetings, as people have done, and disagree with me and let’s have a discussion. Let’s air your ideas, let’s bring them in, let’s explain why you believe what you believe and what you think is best for the country. People of faith, people of no faith, people of different faith, that’s what America is all about, it’s bringing that diversity into and challenge of the different ideas that motivate people in our country. That’s what makes America work. And what we’re seeing, what we saw in Kennedy’s speech is just the opposite, and that’s what was upsetting about it.

Read the full transcript here.

0 Comments — Leave your comment

February 26, 2012 | 2:44 pm

Santorum: ‘I Don’t Believe in an America Where the Separation of Church and State is Absolute’ ***

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Rick Santorum says: “I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.” Which is frightening.

But he seems to be misinformed. I haven’t seen the rest of the above clip, so it’s impossible to tell how Santorum finished that thought, but I see two possibilities of how Sanoturm is misinformed.

Possibly about the objectives of the religion clause in the First Amendment. But also possibly just with what the separation of church and state applies to. It is not a bar to religious individuals being involved in U.S. politics. It’s a prohibition on the government picking winners among religious groups.

***UPDATE: Here’s more from the Washington Post about why Santorum “almost threw up” when he read JFK’s separation of church and state speech.

2 Comments — Leave your comment

February 25, 2012 | 10:50 pm

Judge dismisses charge in ‘Zombie Muhammad’ case; defends decision

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

A federal district court judge this week dismissed a harassment charge against a Muslim man who allegedly attacked an atheist who had dressed up as “Zombie Muhammad” for Halloween, while leaving Zombie Pope unharmed.

Judge Mark Martin said that the evidence was entirely he-said, he said, and that it wouldn’t be enough for a reasonable trier of fact to convict Talaag Elbayomy, 46. He also had a few words for Zombie Muhammad—that would be Ernest Perce V.

From the Daily Caller:

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam,” Martin said. “In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it. It makes you look like a doofus… In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.”

Eugene Volokh, my First Amendment professor, took issue with the judge’s comments toward Perce. And now the judge has reportedly spoken out to defend his dismissal of the case and verbal treatment of Perce, also via the Volokh Conspiracy:

When I asked him why he dressed up as “Muhammad zombie,” he told me that it was because he was reflecting the Muslim belief that Muhammad rose from the dead, walked as a zombie, and then went to heaven. That was one of the reasons I tried to spend 6 whole minutes trying to explain and de-mystify Islam through my own knowledge, and in an attempt to prevent an incident like this recurring in my community. Unfortunately, the message was obviously not received in the vein that I had intended. And, in the interest of full disclosure, I did use the word “doofus,” but didn’t call him that directly; I said something akin to “ if you’re going to mock another religion or culture, you should check your facts, first- otherwise, you’ll look like a doofus.”;

In short, I based my decision on the fact that the Commonwealth failed to prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the charge was just; I didn’t doubt that an incident occurred, but I was basically presented only with the victim’s version, the defendant’s version, and a very intact Styrofoam sign that the victim was wearing and claimed that the defendant had used to choke him. There so many inconsistencies, that there was no way that I was going to find the defendant guilty.

It’s unusual to see a federal judge publicly defending a decision. Did he need to?

3 Comments — Leave your comment

February 24, 2012 | 3:43 pm

Baron Cohen character outraged with ‘the Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts and Zionists’

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

Sacha Baron Cohen as Admiral General Aladeen. And he’s not happy with the “Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts and Zionists.”

2 Comments — Leave your comment

February 23, 2012 | 5:32 pm

Braun wins MLB appeal of failed drug test

Posted by Brad A. Greenberg

If sports commentators are an accurate gauge, most people expected Ryan Braun to lose his appeal of a failed drug test. Not so.

Today, Major League Baseball announced that Braun won his appeal and would not face a 50-game suspension for failing a drug test amid his MVP season. JTA reports:

The decision, announced on Thursday, means that Braun, the reigning National League most valuable player and the first Jew to earn that distinction in nearly five decades, will avoid a 50-game suspension.

Braun’s suspension was overturned by an an arbitrator in what is believed to be the first time a baseball player has successfully challenged a drug-related grievance. No reasoning was given.

Read the rest here.

0 Comments — Leave your comment