An essay by yours truly, over at Patheos.
His anti-Islamism versus his allies' Islamophobia. My view.
What's scary about the satirical website Christwire is imagining how many people who ran its page views up to 27 million in August actually take it seriously. "A close reader of ChristWire will soon figure out (one hopes) that the site is not serious," Mark Oppenheimer wrote in his New York Times "Beliefs" column Saturday. "But many of the columns are deft enough, just plausible enough, to fool the casual reader. Even--or perhaps especially--a reader whose beliefs are being mocked."
Sure, the Christwire "riposte" to Oppenheimer, "Satire, Poe's Law and the New York Times Campaign to Discredit the Evangelical Message of Christwire," attributes to the Gray Lady "a recklessly pro-Zionist, anti-Christian agenda." Pro-Zionist is hardly a term of opprobrium in conservative evangelical circles these days. Such missteps notwithstanding, it's clear from Oppenheimer's reporting that plenty of people who should know better take Christwire at face value.
And why shouldn't they? Head over to Doveworld, the website of the World Outreach Center, the tiny church in Gaineville, FL, that has generated worldwide attention for announcing its intention to burn a pile of Korans on 9/11. There you'll find a blogpost on "Ten Reasons to Burn a Koran," which is comparable to Christwire's viral "Is My Husband Gay" post (with its 15-point checklist)--except that it's no satire.
David Petraeus has informed the AP that that images of burning Korans could be exploited by Muslim extremists to inflame popular passions in Afghanistan and endanger American troops. From which Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, blogging on the Renew America website, deduces that Gen. Petraeus is making the case that Islam is a religion of violence. Not that Fischer is himself advocating the burning of Korans. No satire there either.
Sure, the Christwire "riposte" to Oppenheimer, "Satire, Poe's Law and the New York Times Campaign to Discredit the Evangelical Message of Christwire," attributes to the Gray Lady "a recklessly pro-Zionist, anti-Christian agenda." Pro-Zionist is hardly a term of opprobrium in conservative evangelical circles these days. Such missteps notwithstanding, it's clear from Oppenheimer's reporting that plenty of people who should know better take Christwire at face value.
And why shouldn't they? Head over to Doveworld, the website of the World Outreach Center, the tiny church in Gaineville, FL, that has generated worldwide attention for announcing its intention to burn a pile of Korans on 9/11. There you'll find a blogpost on "Ten Reasons to Burn a Koran," which is comparable to Christwire's viral "Is My Husband Gay" post (with its 15-point checklist)--except that it's no satire.
David Petraeus has informed the AP that that images of burning Korans could be exploited by Muslim extremists to inflame popular passions in Afghanistan and endanger American troops. From which Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, blogging on the Renew America website, deduces that Gen. Petraeus is making the case that Islam is a religion of violence. Not that Fischer is himself advocating the burning of Korans. No satire there either.
I confess that I'm always a little bit embarrassed by the propensity of the American leadership of my people (the Jews) to try to get Christians to grant us admission in the, ah, club. The president of the Southern Baptist Convention opines that God doesn't hear our prayers...well, why should we give a shit? Sorry.
So my feelings are mixed about the agreement announced this week between the LDS Church and the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Their Descendants, making Jewish victims of the Holocaust the only group exempt from the Mormon doctrine permitting the baptism of the dead, thereby enabling them to win a place in heaven. Unless, I guess, you're a Mormon with a forebear who was a Jewish victim of the Holocaust, in which case you're entitled to request the baptism. In Mormonism, Family trumps just about everything.
Over at Religion Dispatches, the estimable Joanna Brooks thinks this is a good thing. She's a Mormon woman married to a Jewish man, and she takes the occasion to wish us all a happy new year. L'shana tova to you too, Joanna. The hard question has to do with how far and under what circumstances one religious group should alter or suppress a teaching or practice or right in deference to the feelings or doctrines of another group--or to the norms or greater good of society at large--be it in Salt Lake or in lower Manhattan. And let's not pretend this is not a hard question.
So my feelings are mixed about the agreement announced this week between the LDS Church and the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Their Descendants, making Jewish victims of the Holocaust the only group exempt from the Mormon doctrine permitting the baptism of the dead, thereby enabling them to win a place in heaven. Unless, I guess, you're a Mormon with a forebear who was a Jewish victim of the Holocaust, in which case you're entitled to request the baptism. In Mormonism, Family trumps just about everything.
Over at Religion Dispatches, the estimable Joanna Brooks thinks this is a good thing. She's a Mormon woman married to a Jewish man, and she takes the occasion to wish us all a happy new year. L'shana tova to you too, Joanna. The hard question has to do with how far and under what circumstances one religious group should alter or suppress a teaching or practice or right in deference to the feelings or doctrines of another group--or to the norms or greater good of society at large--be it in Salt Lake or in lower Manhattan. And let's not pretend this is not a hard question.
According to my take on the latest Gallup numbers.
According to the latest Newsweek poll,
24 percent of Americans think Obama is either Muslim or a follower of
Islam. And 31 percent think it's definitely or probably true that he
"sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to
impose Islamic law around the world." I'm guessing that the Obamas will
be joining a church in Washington after Labor Day.
What's up with Glenn Beck? The Washington media were shocked by the
religiosity of his "Restoring Honor" rally last Saturday--but what do
you expect from a press gang that only knows how to fight the last war. It overlooked last year's Beck rally--and so hyped this one as Beck's Second Coming. (See Douthat, Ross). But according to
the professional crowd counter hired by CBS, less than 100K showed up.
And what transpired on stage lacked the populist zip that we've come to
expect from Glenn & Friends. It was a pretty feckless show, if you
ask me.
Maybe the problem was that Glenn told them to leave their placards at home. What's a Tea Party Rally without placards? Sarah Palin was scripted into portraying the mother of a combat vet, and sounded like her heart wasn't in it. As Glenn said, this was a rally not about what's wrong with America but with what's right about America. How the hell do you get to restore honor when you don't talk about how "they" took it away?
Michael Sean Winters has noted that "Restoring Honor" harked back to the "I Love America" rallies that Jerry Falwell held at all 50 state capitols in the mid-1970s, and indeed there was something retro about the God-and-Country themes that Saturday's event endlessly hammered home. But the Falwell rallies came in the wake of the Vietnam war--and the anti-war counterculture. They were Nixon's Silent Majority gearing up for the Reagan Revolution. The Beckian summons came with the other side--the Democrats--doing their level best to embrace God and conducting the war that the Republicans started with more vigor than the country appears to want. Except for some professional atheists, no one is disrespecting God. If there's an antiwar movement, it's keeping to itself.
Sure, Glenn has moved from fixing on "social justice" to identifying liberation theology as the fly in Obama's religious ointment--but denouncing liberation theology is a pretty 70s thing too, and too fancy for one of those Tea Party placards. "Obama is a Liberation Theologian"? I don't think so. Pace Douthat, but I'd say that Glenn Beck the Preacher of Spiritual Uplift is not what his fans want, nor what the GOP needs. To me, he seems like one Fox guy who actually believes what he says--and at the moment what he's saying is off message.
Maybe the problem was that Glenn told them to leave their placards at home. What's a Tea Party Rally without placards? Sarah Palin was scripted into portraying the mother of a combat vet, and sounded like her heart wasn't in it. As Glenn said, this was a rally not about what's wrong with America but with what's right about America. How the hell do you get to restore honor when you don't talk about how "they" took it away?
Michael Sean Winters has noted that "Restoring Honor" harked back to the "I Love America" rallies that Jerry Falwell held at all 50 state capitols in the mid-1970s, and indeed there was something retro about the God-and-Country themes that Saturday's event endlessly hammered home. But the Falwell rallies came in the wake of the Vietnam war--and the anti-war counterculture. They were Nixon's Silent Majority gearing up for the Reagan Revolution. The Beckian summons came with the other side--the Democrats--doing their level best to embrace God and conducting the war that the Republicans started with more vigor than the country appears to want. Except for some professional atheists, no one is disrespecting God. If there's an antiwar movement, it's keeping to itself.
Sure, Glenn has moved from fixing on "social justice" to identifying liberation theology as the fly in Obama's religious ointment--but denouncing liberation theology is a pretty 70s thing too, and too fancy for one of those Tea Party placards. "Obama is a Liberation Theologian"? I don't think so. Pace Douthat, but I'd say that Glenn Beck the Preacher of Spiritual Uplift is not what his fans want, nor what the GOP needs. To me, he seems like one Fox guy who actually believes what he says--and at the moment what he's saying is off message.
Since it covered itself with obloquy by taking a stand against the proposed Islamic community center in lower Manhattan, the ADL has been eager to put some distance between itself and its co-opponents. Franklin Graham, for example, who seized the occasion to issue his latest denunciation of Islam in general:
Now comes Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, founder and now spiritual head of Israel's ultra-orthodox Shas Party and, mutatis mutandis, Franklin Graham's Israeli equivalent when it comes to Islam. Yesterday, he declared that God should send a plague to strike down the Palestinians and their leader, Mahmoud Abbas. Shas happens to be a member of the current Israeli governing coalition, whose leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is about to enter into formal peace talks with Abbas. Netanyahu issued a mild statement to the effect that R. Yosef's comments "do not reflect Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's view or the position of the government of Israel." Let it be known that the current government of Israel is not pro-plague.
To its credit, the ADL's Israel office has not been shy about criticizing Yosef's incendiary rhetoric in the past, and not only when he has, for example, called down God's wrath on the likes of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Back in April of 2001, the office denounced both a Passover sermon in which Yosef called for all Arabs to be annihilated and his subsequent "clarification" that he was only talking about terrorists. It is to be expected that a similar criticism will be forthcoming about the latest Yosef effusion.
But it would be more than appropriate if, this time around, Foxman himself stepped up to plate. What goes for Franklin Graham should go for Ovadia Yosef.
P.S. After a couple of weeks in Maine, it's great to be back. I guess.
Update: And Foxman does it.
President Bush and President Obama made great mistakes when they said that Islam is a peaceful religion. It is not. There is no evidence in its history. It's a religion of hatred. It's a religion of war.In response, ADL national director Abe Foxman took to the Huffington Post to denounce "groups with extreme anti-Muslim agendas," including those protesting with vile words and deeds the construction of mosques and Islamic centers in other parts of the country.
Now comes Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, founder and now spiritual head of Israel's ultra-orthodox Shas Party and, mutatis mutandis, Franklin Graham's Israeli equivalent when it comes to Islam. Yesterday, he declared that God should send a plague to strike down the Palestinians and their leader, Mahmoud Abbas. Shas happens to be a member of the current Israeli governing coalition, whose leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is about to enter into formal peace talks with Abbas. Netanyahu issued a mild statement to the effect that R. Yosef's comments "do not reflect Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's view or the position of the government of Israel." Let it be known that the current government of Israel is not pro-plague.
To its credit, the ADL's Israel office has not been shy about criticizing Yosef's incendiary rhetoric in the past, and not only when he has, for example, called down God's wrath on the likes of former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Back in April of 2001, the office denounced both a Passover sermon in which Yosef called for all Arabs to be annihilated and his subsequent "clarification" that he was only talking about terrorists. It is to be expected that a similar criticism will be forthcoming about the latest Yosef effusion.
But it would be more than appropriate if, this time around, Foxman himself stepped up to plate. What goes for Franklin Graham should go for Ovadia Yosef.
P.S. After a couple of weeks in Maine, it's great to be back. I guess.
Update: And Foxman does it.
My position on the "Ground Zero Mosque."
For most of the next couple of weeks. Sunny with (at most) intermittent blogging.
