Good Friday - Religion 101

"As a Christian I don't condemn you for saying or thinking what you have, you certainly have that right, but don't be taking away my rights as a Christian to believe and say what I want to. Besides, why do you hate a God that loves you and wants the best of everything for you?" Jennifer Vance

Whoa, Jennifer. That's a big leap, equating my argument against celebrating Good Friday as a national holiday with hating God.

Last year I wrote a piece called Good Friday - Not A National Holiday. It continues to provoke responses from people of mostly sincere beliefs who don't seem to have understood my point.

So I'll try again. I'm not anti-Good Friday or anti-Christian or anti-religion. I'm certainly not anti-God. Far from it. I proudly celebrate my own Jewish faith while respecting others who hold different beliefs and practices.

Why not? Christians, Jews and Muslims historically came from the same place after all. Our teachings aren't so very different. One God, adherence to religious laws, faith, conviction, love, tolerance.

It's that last one where the problem usually lies. Religious oneupsmanship. My God's better than yours. Or worse, my God thinks you should die.

Whether Christian, Jew, Catholic, Muslim or Buddhist, religion can have such a positive effect on our lives. It gives us meaning, guidance, support, comfort, direction, strength. What it should never provide is an excuse to kill. Or to hate. Or punish. Or even to judge.

That's why our founding fathers, while recognizing their own and their country's predominant Christianity, tried to take religion out of the governing equation. They wanted to abide by its principles but not to rule America by its laws.

A very sane--and safe--view of separating Church and State. They guessed correctly, as it turns out, that overly zealous religious leaders might run their country with very narrow evangelical tunnel vision. And thus without true tolerance.

I say again, I respect Good Friday as a day of profound significance to Christians. But exactly by virtue of its personal religious significance, it should not be elevated or legislated by government.

The world has learned the hard way that allowing a single religion to rule a nation is to give its fanatics a platform from which to launch unspeakable acts. There's nothing God-like about that.

Happy Chanukah and Peace To All

Holy Temple Lights - Chanukah with Aish

"The windows of the Temple were backward to signify that more than the Temple needed the light of the sun, an often darkened world needs the light of Torah. Let there be light!" Rabbi Shimon Apisdor

As luck would have it, you'll have to tawk amongst yourselves throughout Chanukah while I'm offline.

I hope to return feeling like buttah.

By the way, no matter what you see on TV or hear from your children, Chanukah is not the Jewish version of Xmas. It's a reminder and a celebration of persecution, perseverance and faith.

Well, wait.

Not so different in the end. But that refers to the beginning, not to the commercialized drek both solemn holidays have become in today's modern world.

It's all right here. Chanukah Primer

Discuss.

Feeling Haggard

"Hear ye, sinners. Love is the inspiration of poets and philosophers. Love is the voice of music. I'm talkin' about divine love - not carnal love." Sinclair Lewis, Elmer Gantry

It looks like 30 million Christians can be wrong. Again. They already proved it by supporting George W. Bush in two elections. Now it seems they overestimated the Christian values of another Born-Again leader and sometime Bush religious advisor, Evangelist Ted Haggard.

If you've been on a desert island, Haggard resigned this week as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and pastor of his own megaministry in Colorado amidst allegations of drug use and gay assignations with a prostitute.

Haggard denied having sex, but admitted he received massages and bought methamphetamine from a male prostitute in a Denver hotel.

Can't you just feel the love?

Let's be clear. I don't care if a minister is gay, as long as he (or she) practices safe sex with another consenting adult. But a married man, father of five, spiritual leader to millions consorting with a prostitute and buying illegal drugs? Hooboy, that's off the chart.

The devil in this story, Internet-based gay prostitute Mike Jones says he went public about his sex- and-drugs relationship with Haggard in protest over Haggard's opposition to gay marriage.

Some background on Pastor Ted from the AP:

Haggard was appointed president of the evangelicals association in March 2003. He has participated in conservative Christian leaders' conference calls with White House staffers and lobbied members of Congress last year on U.S. Supreme Court appointees after Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement.

After Massachusetts legalized gay marriage in 2004, Haggard and others began organizing state-by-state opposition. Last year, Haggard and officials from the nearby Christian ministry Focus on the Family announced plans to push Colorado's gay marriage ban for the 2006 ballot.

At the time, Haggard said that he believed marriage is a union between a man and woman rooted in centuries of tradition, and that research shows it's the best family unit for children.

Can't you just feel the devotion?

Let's be clear again. I'm not opposed to gay marriage. Two adults in a committed homosexual relationship deserve the same legal protections as the rest of us, including the right to raise children.

There are far too many self-avowed "good Christians" who lie, cheat, divorce and abuse each other and their children to make a case for heterosexuality as the gold standard of decent, honorable behavior.

Just look at Pastor Ted. This self-righteous man of God betrayed the sanctity of his church and his position in it--not to mention his congregants--when he started believing in his own power and glory over the tenets of his religion and the laws of the land.

And here's the best part, in his own words: "I bought it [meth] for myself but never used it. I was tempted, but I never used it."

Can't you just feel the lies?

And, as my pal Beth wants to know, Is this the same as not inhaling???

I can't wait to see how Bush and the Bushettes spin this one. Their dedication to Christian Values and their use of same to justify anti-Christian, possibly criminal acts would hoist them on their own petard if they came to Pastor Ted's defense. So they won't. They'll avoid him like the plague while they pray for Republican victories on November 7.

Which is their loss, since according to Reuters, Haggard recently told the president that if the Evangelicals get out and vote they will determine all elections in America. Haggard also expressed his disdain for homosexuals and homosexual marriage to the president.

Can't you just feel the hypocrisy?

You don't have to be a Christian to know right from wrong. I'm Jewish but I treat all houses of worship and the religions they represent--not to mention my own marriage and family--with respect. Too bad Ted Haggard was unable to do the same.

Ted Haggard, Evangelical Born-Again standard bearer for millions of Christians seems to have felt a little too much love for his, um, fellow man.

Can't you just feel the ... well ... Blech.

Pope on the Ropes

"[I]t is impossible to carry out a sincere dialogue with those who have contempt for any actions on the part of their opponents other than abject surrender." Marvin Folkertsma, Ph.D.

What's happened to religious tolerance in the world? First Mel Gibson, now the Pope.

Okay, so the analogy's a little soft. The Pope wasn't drunk when he made his alleged anti-Muslim remarks. And Jews didn't threaten to blow up the Western world when Mel spewed his anti-Semitic vitriol.

But that's the basic difference in a nutshell. Verbally attack Jews and our leaders demand reason and redress and justice. Verbally attack Muslims and their radical leaders call for violence and death and destruction.

Which in essence is what the Pope was trying to say. The Vatican, through Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo spins it this way, ''His real intention was to explain that 'not religion and violence, but religion and reason go together.'''

I'm not a big supporter of the Catholic Church, given its appalling past and current record on pedophile priests. But in this case, no one was hiding anything.

During a lecture at the German University of Regensburg, the Pope was trying to shed light on the historic and present danger to society of religious extremism. He quoted an obscure 14th Century Byzantine emperor.

It was an academic reference. It was not a religious slur. But it gave Islamic religious extremists an opening to cry foul and incite terror against the Western world -- in effect, proving the Pope's point.

As Archbishop Lajolo also said:

''It falls to all interested parties - to civil society as well as to states to promote religious freedom and a sane, social tolerance that will disarm extremists even before they can begin to corrupt others with their hatred of life and liberty.''

I don't know about you, but I'm solidly on board with that.

Before Carl or some other comment Nazi attacks me: I'm not anti-Islam. I'm anti-violence. And when the words of any Western leader are twisted into insults by Muslim militants in order to rally extremists into more violence, I say Enough!

Let's not forget that these same Islamic leaders by their own actions--not just words--are anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-American. Anti anything that gets in the way of their own evil agenda.

If he were smart, the Pope would have stepped up and said, "I wasn't talking about the millions of decent, law-abiding, faithful Muslims of the world ... and if I insulted them, I apologize. I don't apologize for exposing their leaders--the worst among them--for perpetrating a culture of violence and ignorance."

But sadly, with their pointless focus on public relations damage control, the Pope and the Vatican are giving the Islamic zealots exactly what they want -- more international chaos.

Good Friday - Not A National Holiday

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." George Washington

"...the loathsome combination of Church and State. Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone." Thomas Jefferson

I was surprised today by a seemingly nationwide shutdown for a Christian holy day. I might take some hits for this, but I don't think Good Friday should be a national holiday. It's started to creep in as one under the radar and that's a bad precedent, especially now -- the Christian Right has too much power as it is.

Private business owners can do what they please, but neither the US government nor any other public institution or industry should close--or provide employees with a paid vacation day--for a purely religious observance.

Most Jews are required to take an unpaid "personal day" for Yom Kippur, the most solemn and sacred of all Jewish holidays. Why should Christians get a pass on Good Friday at taxpayers' expense?

Yes, everybody gets time off for Christmas, but that's become essentially a secular holiday worldwide -- not to mention a retail bonanza that literally impacts America's GNP.

Our sanctioned national holidays honor tradition and history (Thanksgiving, President's Day), those who've fought for our country (Memorial Day, Veteran's Day), those who work for it (Labor Day) and our nation's birthday (July 4th.) They make sense. They're relevant to all of us, regardless of race, creed or religion.

But Good Friday? It is a day of profound significance to the Christian religion. And I respect that. But what about separation of Church and State? If we're going to ignore that constitutional imperative in order to make Good Friday a national holiday, why don't we celebrate the day Moses received the Ten Commandments -- the foundation of practically all faiths and civilized cultures?

Frankly I'm not totally comfortable with Martin Luther King day either. No, don't accuse me of racism, that's not my point. Of course Dr. King was a giant in the fight for civil rights and should be honored for his achievements.

But we've had many, many other giants who've contributed hugely to our culture, often to our very lives. Why not honor Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk, Marie Curie, Susan B. Anthony, Benjamin Franklin, Rosa Parks? The list is virtually endless.

I sincerely believe there's a touch of racism--or at least pandering--in singling out one person of color above all others of any race for the honor of a Federal holiday. The creation of Martin Luther King Day was a political move meant to placate one segment of the population.

It goes without saying that African Americans are owed this country's most sincere apologies for the abomination of slavery and our equally sincere gratitude for their many outstanding contributions.

But what about Japanese and Chinese Americans? Hispanic Americans? Irish Americans, Polish Americans, Italian Americans? That list is pretty endless too. Each group has its own heroes and nationally observed celebrations, but none are ratified by the US government as a Federal holiday on the taxpayers' dime.

And let's go back to Moses for a moment. The Jewish holiday of Passover celebrates not only freedom from slavery but also God's delivery to Moses of the Ten Commandments -- arguably the most pivotal event in the creation of Western civilization, certainly of modern religion. The Last Supper was a Passover Seder, in case you didn't know. So if we're going to justify a religious observance as a national holiday, why not Passover?

I'll tell you why. Because no matter what the Constitution says or our founding fathers intended, America is a Christian country. Run by Christians in deference to Christian values and sensitivities. Anybody who thinks otherwise hasn't been listening to our own president and his cohorts in Congress.

And from what we've seen of their brand of Christianity, the last thing we need is more of the same.

Church or State?

"The right of an individual to conduct intimate relationships in the intimacy of his or her own home seems to me to be the heart of the Constitution's protection of privacy." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun

A friend just emailed this to me:

On Wednesday, March 1st, 2006, in Annapolis at a hearing on the proposed Constitutional Amendment to prohibit gay marriage, Jamie Raskin, professor of law at American University, was requested to testify.

At the end of his testimony, Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs said: "Mr. Raskin, my Bible says marriage is only between a man and a woman. What do you have to say about that?"

Professor Raskin replied: "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible."

What else is there to say?

The Sin of Pride

deadly sins.com

"The root of pride is found to consist in man not being, in some way, subject to God and His rule." Thomas Aquinas

According to deadlysins.com, Pride is "excessive belief in one's own abilities that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise."

Merriam-Webster defines Pride as "inordinate self-esteem; conceit; disdainful behavior; showing scorn for inferiors" -- and "an arrogant display of power."

Bring anybody to mind? Say, George W. Bush? Karl Rove? Bill Frist? Rick Santorum? Tom DeLay? Yep. The God Squad. The very same men who claim to make critical decisions for America based primarily on their dedication to fundamental Christian beliefs are guilty of the worst kind of hubris.

Where exactly do pride and arrogance--not to mention lying and betrayal--fit into the Christian value system? Where in the bible are leaders of nations encouraged to make war for personal and political gain -- at the wanton expense of thousands of lives? Somebody tell me, please, when did Jesus ever say, "Love thy brother as thyself unless he didn't vote for you, in which case you may crush him like a bug"?

There's a great weight of hypocrisy on America's shoulders. Day after day, year after year we've been listening to radical right wing leaders pontificate on their own Personal Relationship with God and on their definition of Christian values. And all the while they've been breaking Commandments ... and the backs of average Americans whose lives are in their hands.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning their faith. I'm expressing serious doubts about how well they practice what they preach.

Where will we find tolerance and virtue and understanding and TRUTH in the Karl Rove investigation, in the process of choosing a new Supreme Court nominee, in the stem cell research quest, in adequate Homeland Security, in the war in Iraq?? Not, I fear, among the Republican Christians who deign to lead us on a wing and a prayer.

They would all do well to remember that Pride Goeth Before A Fall.

A Tale of Two Churches

Baptist? No, Republican. Democrat? No, Baptist.

"A church has no right to make anything a condition of membership which Christ has not made a condition of salvation." A. A. Hodge

A radical Republican minister in North Carolina put himself front and center in the Politics Vs Religion debate. He told his Baptist congregation just before last year's presidential election, "...if you vote for John Kerry this year you need to repent or resign. You have been holding back God's church way too long." Then he ousted church members who disagreed with him.

Turmoil ensued. Even his opponents agree he was a dedicated and vigorous minister, if badly misguided. "He was energizing [church members]," their lawyer said, "but he was not energizing them with religion, he was energizing them with hate."

He could have preached sin. Or hell. And he should have preached forgiveness. Understanding. Love. But lordy, lordy, why do clergy members with impassioned political views have to turn them into hate-filled rants?

Now he's resigned, along with like-minded Republican church members, leaving behind a confused congregation of mostly Democrats. To those still there, the temporary guest pastor said, "It's time to quit taking sides. The only side here that's worth anything is the side of Jesus."

I'm a Jewish person, not a Jesus person. But hearing those particular words in that particular situation, from a Christian minister in a Baptist church, I am compelled to add: Amen!

Hosanas? No, Horrors.

"For where God built a church, there the Devil would also build a chapel." Martin Luther

What is it about the South? Dateline Louisiana this time.

A pastor, his wife, six church members and a deputy sheriff have been arrested and charged with abusing children and animals. They targeted kids, from toddlers to teenagers, in what was described as a cult-like sex ring. Don't even ask about the animals.

From what I can understand, this is a fairly small Holy Roller church. The confessed pedophile's father was once the pastor. By all accounts a good man. When the son took over the post, he fired his mother as church secretary. And started having sex with the church's children.

Last week, he walked into the local sherrif's office and confessed. "I don't really know what motivated him," said the parish's Detective Supervisor.

Guilt? Let's hope so. But too little, too late.

There's a special place in Hell for a clergyman like that. Or, he can join the Catholic church and get off scot free.

Saints and Sinners

"We must have a real living determination to reach holiness. 'I will be a saint' means I will despoil myself of all that is not God." Mother Teresa

The new Pope wants to put the newly late Pope up for Sainthood. Immediately. This year. Not in five years, as is customary. One wonders, what's the rush? Could it be.......... POLITICS?

Is it possible the former Joseph Ratzinger sees the move as a good way to deflect scrutiny from his own past? And perhaps share some reflected glory from the recently passed Pope? Scores of the faithful are calling for John Paul II's sainthood, what better way to score some major points with them.

As I understand it, canonization signifies that a person was heroically virtuous in life, is now in heaven and worthy of true veneration. The process was speeded up one other time, for Mother Teresa, but that was a no-brainer, to Catholics and non-Catholics alike. The woman was a saint when she was alive.

As for John Paul II, the jury's still out. And should stay out. I'm not Catholic, but I know the nominee's background is investigated, and proof of miracles -one for beautification, another for sainthood- is sought. I'm curious, in the case of John Paul II, where on the application for beautification might one denote "refused to help save millions from genocide"? And how would one describe that all important second miracle, "gave succor and protection to pedophile priests"?

In the Yiddish vernacular of my religious culture, the very idea of sainthood for John Paul II is a shonda. A shameful idea. An embarrassment. An act of bringing dishonor on your house. By anybody's definition, it's major league chutzpah. (For the uninformed, or residents of Wyoming, chutzpah means balls, big brass ones.)

And adding shonda to chutzpah, Pope Benedict XVI named San Francisco Archbishop William Levada to the post of Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. A monumentally political post. Benedict's job when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. As the late Pope's policy wonk, "God's Rottweiler" was responsible for enforcing church doctrine, punishing wayward sinners and oh yes, dealing with the pedophile priests scandal -- which apparently the Vatican felt wasn't one and the same thing.

Cardinal Ratzinger was big on tossing politically incorrect dissident theologians out on their ears for not toeing the party line. But pious child molesters? C'mon in fellas, we'll cover your tracks and hide your disgraceful acts.

Just as the new Pope passed the buck on that hot potato, he's now passed the torch to Archbishop Levada, another harshly conservative doctrinarian. Here's what they stand united against: abortion, euthanasia, feminism, homosexuality and lifting the celibacy requirement for priests. Uh, guys? About those last two. Horse is out of the barn in your own back yard, don't you think?

Levada was also a principal player in the pedophile scandal cover up. A statement from The Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, ''Regarding abuse in the San Francisco archdiocese, Levada has been slow to act, harsh to victims and committed to secrecy.''

And get this: Levada's on record as having said that priests should seek counsel from their bishops on refusing communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion.

Yikes! No wishy-washy stance on separation of Church and State for this guy. What a trinity of traits: unyielding, unforgiving, underhanded. Just the person you want at the right hand of the Pope, inspiring the faithful, following in the footsteps of a seriously flawed predecessor.

For beautification, Pope John Paul II had to have performed a confirmed miracle in his lifetime. I guess making pedophiles disappear from one parish only to appear in another could be termed miraculous. But a procedural loophole also demands that in order to qualify for sainthood, a miracle must have occurred after John Paul's death.

So far, the only miracle I can see is that Catholics everywhere haven't risen up in protest over his successor.

No Revelations Please!

Larry Horricks,© 2005 NBC Universal [graphic added]

"They're baaa-aaack." Steven Spielberg, Poltergeist

It's Wednesday, and that means Satan and his evil minions are set to invade American homes again tonight through the auspices of NBC. I haven't seen the miniseries and I don't plan to -- in fact, we had declared our house a Revelations-Free zone. Or so I thought.

But one of us has gone over to the Dark Side. It's my fault. Last week I went to Florida to visit my parents, leaving my husband home alone in charge of the remote control. And Satan got him. I called at 9pm last Wednesday to renew our anti-Revelations pledge and was roared off the phone, "I'M WATCHING IT NOW!"

Frankly, I'm still shaken, and filled with horror and disbelief. How did this happen? My intelligent, well educated husband, passionate devotee of The History Channel, Law and Order, The West Wing and The Sopranos, refusnik of the highest order when it comes to satanic claptrap, has been sucked into the commercial vortex of Religion on a Rope.

And I'm considering ... well, do you know anybody who performs Television Exorcisms? If they exist, they're probably busy ridding husbands nationwide of Demon NASCAR or the NBeelzebubA, maybe even the Devil Does Dallas.

But I'm so desperate, I'll try anything. So I tuned into a Today Show interview this morning with actress Natascha McElhone, who plays the protagonist nun. But she was no help, her character's too busy trying to "intercept the end of the world." And when Al Roker asked her why she thought Revelations was a hit, all she could come up with was this bit of insightful pop psychology:

American television commercials are all about consuming and making ourselves feel better, so maybe we've reached "consumer saturation" and have "nothing more to sate our senses" -- and thus we're "looking for something more spiritual."

Oh please. Like we're going to find succor for our souls on NBC. Take me now, Satan.

Though I may be a lone voice crying out in the darkness, I'll say it again: No Revelations Here!

Don't call me at 9pm, I'll be watching CSI.

Christians and Congress, Take 2

"Say nothing of my religion. It is known to God and myself alone." Thomas Jefferson

There it is, from the horse's mouth. Religion should be a private subject for the soul, not a public forum for partisan politics. Yet faith-besotted Conservative Christians, led by Senator Bill Frist have turned the political process into a game of religious oneupsmanship on the floor of the U. S. Senate.

Let's review.

President Bush has sent judicial nominees for the federal bench to the Senate for confirmation. Democrats -and some clear-eyed moderate Republicans- see most of the nominees as extremists who would favor corporate interests and right-wing fringe groups over the rest of the country's welfare. These potential judges represent a major threat, not only to hot-button issues like Roe V. Wade, but also to the future of environmental protection, our right to privacy, basic workers' rights like minimum wage and the 40-hour work week, and much more.

As the minority party in the Senate, Democrats will need the filibuster to keep those judges off the bench.The filibuster rule -unlimited debate- is a hallowed Congressional tradition in which the minority party attempts to block a vote until more review and, ideally, bipartisan cooperation can be achieved. It's not always used by the good guys (it was tried as a tactic to block civil rights laws). But it's the system the Constitution's framers put in place to address what they feared might become the "tyranny of the majority" -- especially if one party held both the White House and Congress.

Which is the case now. The framers must be spinning in their (predominantly Christian) graves. And it just gets worse. Which will surely send them rocketing right out of the ground.

The "Christians" in the Senate are threatening to exercise the "nuclear option" loophole to stop the minority party "Anti-Christians" from using the filibuster on judicial nominations. If they get away with it, Right Wing Tyranny will reign supreme in our federal courts, imperiling many of our most cherished freedoms for years to come.

Because federal judges are appointed for life. Let's all thank God that senators and congressmen are not.

Christians and Congress, Take 1

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." George Washington

What in God's name is going on here?? And I mean that literally. Congress is duking it out over religion while the country watches in--dare I say it--disbelief.

Christianity has gone from personal practice to partisan politics faster than you can say, "Bill Frist is a Right Wing nut." Seemingly overnight we have seen "Anti-Christian" and "Christian" replace the labels "Liberal" and "Conservative" in a partisan battle over choosing federal and Supreme Court judges.

And who's joined President Bush in leading the charge? "Christian" Senator Bill Frist. The Senate majority leader. Using religion to make political hay. Edward G. Robinson voice, "Where's your Separation of Church and State NNNOOOWWW?"

For Bush, Frist et al there isn't any, shouldn't be any; Christian faith rocks and everything else rolls. Frist headlined a telecast yesterday in Louisville, KY, called Justice Sunday, organized by Christian conservative groups to denounce the Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking radical right wing judicial nominees. The program was beamed out to millions of people in churches, over the internet and on Christian radio and television.

Here's a quote from Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, organizer of Justice Sunday:

"As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion for liberalism. For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups...have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms."

Ooookay. It's out in the open now. Christians are running the country and Anti-Christians are so pissed off they've joined forces with the courts to destroy them. How do you reply to such a bizarre claim?

New York Senator Charles Schumer has one answer, "No party has a monopoly on faith, and for Senator Frist to participate in this kind of telecast just throws more oil on the partisan flames."

Well of course I can agree with that. But when the hell did American politics become about Religion instead of ISSUES?

Right about the time George W. and Bill F. started having personal conversations with God on running the country, that's when. Can you imagine what our nation's first George W. would say about that?

The New Pope's Past

"Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty." Simone Weil

People have been asking me what I think about the new German Pope. My initial response: Nothing. He'll have little impact on me or my life. He's the head of the Catholic Church and I'm Jewish.

Well, wait a minute. There's the Hitler Youth thing.

We shouldn't hold that against him, pundits say. He was a teenager, not yet fully grown, incapable of forming mature, reasoned opinions. Lots of teenagers in Nazi Germany were caught up in the national fervor of the times, swept along more by the marching and the uniforms and the excitement than by the vicious, hate-filled rhetoric swirling through the air.

Historians would tell us that young people had little choice during Hitler's sweeping "reform movement" -- they were forced to join the Hitler Youth or be branded as unpatriotic, and Jew-loving. And that the universal German mindset is different: conformity typically overpowers personal primacy. So it would seem that German teens, including Joseph Ratzinger, were merely following orders.

Or were they? The dichotomy of the teenage years is the ultimate struggle between an intense desire to conform and the primal need to rebel. The teenage psyche is geared to discover individuality at least in part through conflict. Especially against authority.

A conundrum for sure. But think about this: our teenage years provide the most vivid memories of our lives, those formative experiences and feelings that shape the adults we will become. And just as we were touched by the inspirational teacher, the first kiss, the initial devotion to an idea or a cause, all of us were affected by the major historic events of the times in which we were coming of age.

German teens in the 1930s and 40s appeared to be perfect little automatons, goose-stepping in unison to the Party Line. But they were also individual human beings with the ability to think, and the passionate emotions unique to their age group. How could they possibly have escaped the streams of hatred, the stench of evil, the vile presence of anti-Semitism that pervaded their daily lives? It must have had an impact on their impressionable minds and hearts. Father Ratzinger claims he loathed the Nazi doctrine, that it turned him toward the moral theology of the Catholic Church.

But whether through rebellion or conformity, all teenagers inevitably absorb and mimic adult attitudes and behavior in their ongoing quest toward their own adulthood. So what truly motivated Joseph Ratzinger as a Hitler Youth, necessary conformity or ugly zeal?

Ironically, our best hope against the latter is that fundamentalist dogma ultimately prevailed.

No Revelations Here

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Steven Weinberg, US physicist

We won't be watching NBC's paean to religious sensationalism tonight -- or any night in the weeks to come.

There are some hard and fast television watching rules in our house; we've declared it a Bush-Free zone, a Mel Gibson-Free zone, a Reality Show-Free zone ... and now a Revelations-Free zone.

Television news -when it bothers to live up to its purported mandate of objective presentation of events- is difficult enough to stomach. You only have to pick up a newspaper any day of the week to feel your teeth grind at the horrific crimes perpetrated upon humankind in the name of government, business, technology, progress, expedience or religion.

It's bad enough out there, why subject ourselves to people who insult our intelligence and humanity with their self-righteous, self-serving claptrap. And why waste our precious down time on "entertainment" which serves only to frustrate and anger us more.

Television can, and has, risen to the challenge of depicting the battle between good and evil with sensitivity and gravitas. If you doubt that, take another painful but supremely enlightening look at Angels in America or Roots.

There's so much genuine evil in today's world that Satan may well exist, but NBC hasn't got him and we don't want their version of him in our house.

Armageddon Insurance

"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point." Friedrich Nietzsche

"They come into my tent as shit-scared sinners, and they leave feeling fully insured." Billy Bob Magdalene, fictional Evangelical preacher.

Blogmeister Swami Uptown asks: Is Christianity the only religion that seems to welcome the end of the world? ... what is it about Christianity--or some strains of it, anyway--that sees this world as ripe for purging?

First, a disclaimer: I don't know much about the world's religions, but I know what I like. Or to put it more bluntly, I know what makes sense and what sounds like dialectic hooey.

It seems to me that far too many Christians spend far too much time bingeing on purging. I don't think they're hungry for the end of the world so much as they like chomping on the idea of Divine Retribution for their perceived enemies.

So I would ask: Why do Christians -particularly Evangelical (Born Again) Christians- believe they have a corner on the morality market, and thus on the vengeance business?

I think it stems from fear. The kind of we're-surrounded-by-the-enemy mentality that usually signals a much more dangerous enemy within. And breeds an appalling lack of humanity or empathy. And absolutely zero conscience.

So they choose to imagine an Angry God, poised to punish them mightily at any time. Then they create the self-serving Born Again scenario: acknowledge your sins in the Here and Now, claim Jesus Christ as Your Savior, and become instantly forgiven. And protected from retribution in the Hereafter. And therefore morally superior.

What chutzpah. It takes a special kind of hubris to see yourself as bound for glory while all Non Believers are headed for eternal damnation. To assert that the only real measure of worth in God's eyes lies in following your path. And that everyone who doesn't is immersed in sin and corruption ... and doomed.

To Evangelicals, the outcome is preordained: God will choose Us over Them.

So there's your answer, Swami. Christians who welcome the end of the world do so for Other People. They won't be there when the rest of us burn in hell. They'll be enjoying their restricted Christian heaven, open to True Believers only.

The Pope and The Pop Star

"One who condones evil is just as guilty as the one who perpetrates it." Martin Luther King Jr.

There's some serious irony in the news these days; has anyone else picked up on it? I'm referring to the juxtaposition of stories about Michael Jackson's trial and the Pope's death.

Comparing the ridiculous to the sublime, you say? Maybe on the surface. But scratch a little deeper and you get the the same dirt.

Think about it: on the one hand we vilify a Pop Star who is accused of molesting children in his home. On the other we lionize a Pope who refused to vilify priests when there was irrefutable proof they molested children in the church.

Something's very wrong with that picture.

Is there anything lower on the human food chain than a pedophile? Not even in prison, a ringing indictment if ever there was one. And within the (yuck, this is getting nauseating) human food chain of pedophiles, is there anything lower than a privileged pedophile who has the means to alter his behavior yet does nothing? Not according to most offenders, who say they want to stop but get little genuine support.

And finally, is there anything truly lower on earth or in heaven than powerful people who claim to revile pedophiles, have endless resources to help them, yet instead harbor and protect hundreds, if not thousands of them within their own community? Not even in the hallways of Hell.

Michael Jackson: guilty; The Pope: innocent? Not so simple, is it?

Because here's the Supreme Irony: If Michael Jackson were a priest, he wouldn't even be on trial.

The Pope, Take Two - Wrong!

CNN - Biography - Pope John Paul II - Photo Essay (courtesy catholicnet)

"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." Dorothy Parker

I said some nice things about the Pope earlier. He was by all accounts a well meaning, decent man and a dedicated leader, at least to those in the conservative mainstream.

But to many Catholics, to women seeking full equality in the Church, to the rest of us who live and think outside the traditional box, and to those who represent the future of us all ... ehhhhhhhh, not so much.

First, a reality check: the man was 84 years old. He was a member of my parents' generation -maybe yours too, or your grandparents- raised on Tradition with a capital T. It's tough to relinquish such a long held, rigid belief system, and many in their generation still react with disbelief and outrage as the rest of us attack that system when we know it to be wrong.

Let's look at two examples:

Birth Control: forbidden as a traditional religious precept when pregnancy was the only outcome. Okay for True Believers willing to have ten kids. But when AIDS, Hepatitis and other STD's changed the stakes and the result could be death or horrible disease for individuals and entire nations, the concept became dangerous, and wrong.

Women Priests: unacceptable in a historically patriarchal religion. Okay as a plausible excuse for hidebound purists, especially in a society holding lesser views of women's rights and abilities. But when women took on roles equal to men in government, business, medicine, the arts, the military, in every facet of everyday life ... why not in the Church? It's outdated, and wrong.

And now we get to the Big One, the Church's dirty little internecine secret that became an international scandal, the worst crime imaginable ... priests molesting children. There's nothing traditional about that, no doctrine to cling to, no excuse in Heaven or Earth to justify such evil behavior. It's a horror that should never be tolerated, much less forgiven. It's just plain WRONG.

Practice birth control, get a divorce, commit adultery and you can be excommunicated from your church for life. But use your powerful position of authority to prey on innocent children for your own sick sexual gratification, and hey, you get a lifetime pension and a nice apartment to live out your days ... plus you can still take Communion whenever you want. That's not only wrong, it's despicable.

Where was the Zero Tolerance? Where was the immediate and swift retribution? Where was the SHAME? And most importantly, where was The Pope?

Pope John Paul II faced and met some of mankind's greatest challenges with determination and piety during his reign. But when confronted with the highest and most fundamental test of a religious leader's obligation to God, to his flock, to humanity, he failed abysmally. He turned his back on children to protect the reputation of the Church.

That's so very wrong, it takes my breath away.

This Pope Was The Real Deal

I've been thinking a lot about the Pope. His death will have a profound effect on me, and I'm not Catholic, I'm Jewish

It goes without saying that Catholics everywhere will mourn the passing of John Paul II. He is an icon of their faith and a beloved spiritual leader. The rest of us -especially Jews- can mourn his death for another reason: he has been a valuable ally.

That wasn't always the case with Popes. Historically, from the Inquisition to the Third Reich to modern times, the Vatican has racked up a deplorable record of anti-Semitism. It wasn't always the case with Poles either. Poland has long struggled with an anti-Semitic national consciousness. It's no accident Hitler chose Poland as the locale for most of the Nazi death camps. He knew he'd meet little resistance to atrocities against Jews from a people steeped in an ages-old history of fear and hatred of them

But this Pope was different, and one senses that had an impact. As a Pole and as leader of the Church, he ordered his priorities on a human and a humane scale. He had an agenda for Humanity that crossed religious and national boundaries. And he led both by example and by design. He may have been a humble man, but his goals were lofty, and global.

This Pope was first and foremost the Father of Catholicism, but he saw that as an opportunity, not a limitation. He reached out to all of us, all faiths and countries, more than any Pope in history. Was he flawed, did he make some grevious mistakes? Certainly. But we can still applaud his efforts. He was, after all, a man, not a saint, a hard reality he clearly understood. And one that too many of his predecessors seemed to deny.

There's something else about him that has always struck a positive chord with me. While the Vatican is traditionally a hotbed of politics where personal agendas reign Supreme, he seemed genuinely above the fray. He took his obligations to a Higher Power seriously. He was a True Believer, a humanist, an optimist and a peace maker. You have to respect him for that, no matter your own belief system, or lack of one

He took care of his own, but he didn't forget the rest of us. And we will not soon forget him.

Laura The Good Christian

"In politics, absurdity is not a handicap." Napoleon Bonaparte

From The New York Times>Laura Bush Defends Gala in Time of War and Disaster

With less than a week to go until her husband's second inauguration, Laura Bush on Friday defended the decision to hold the $40 million celebration as planned despite a war abroad and the tsunami disaster in the Indian Ocean.

Inaugurations, Mrs. Bush said, are "an important part of our history. They're a ceremony of our history; they're a ritual of our government," she said. "And I think it's really important to have the inauguration every time. I think it's also good for Washington's economy, for people to come in from around the country, for the hotels to be full, and the restaurants to be full, and the caterers to be busy. I think that's important."

She added: "I think there's a symbolic aspect of the inauguration that - and because of that, the symbol of the inauguration, you never want to - for any reason - cancel it or not have it."

Well, that tears it. Do these people ever THINK before they speak? The First Lady wants to preserve the "symbol of the inauguration." For this administration, that symbol is greed, a paean to wealth and privilege and power -- not to mention religious hubris and an appalling lack of humanity. Does she imagine our soldiers in Iraq, Kuwait and all the other foreign war zones will watch the inauguration from their unprotected foxholes and inadequate tanks in order to take heart and comfort in its historic significance?

Makes you want to use the old expression, "Christ on toast!" One can picture such a dish being served on the groaning buffet tables at the Inaugural Balls For Good Christians and Token Minorities, while people around the globe -and right here at home- go needlessly hungry.

And speaking of balls... it takes some serious brass ones to claim that the 40 million dollar Republican Inaugural budget will have a meaningful impact on Washington's economy. Will the criminally crumbling inner city school system get a boost from that money? Will the jobless, the homeless, the hopeless of Washington benefit in any way from this wretched excess of corporate spending?

No matter how much we bleed for the victims of the recent tsunami on the other side of the world, what about the tsunami of poverty and crime that's been swirling through the streets of Washington -and other American inner cities- for decades, decimating the lives of countless citizens? What will the inauguration, and the Bush administration, for all its prayers and promises do about that? A great big zero.

So please, Mrs. Bush, as you don one of your costly inaugural outfits, take a minute to look in the mirror at a Good Christian who will hold a bible and say a prayer -- and then dance without a care while millions of your fellow human beings cry.. and die.