Category Archives: Religion

After B*R*A*S*H

Image result for trump and netanyahuOne thing I never thought I would ever have to do in America was figure out, by virtue of being born and raised in the Jewish faith, whether I am “uniformed” or “disloyal” or both.  But there is no doubt I am one of the people Donald Trump has been referring to this week.  Though a strong supporter of Israel having been there four times (dare I say more than Trump has),  I disagree with many of Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies. I believe such challenges to the status quo make me neither un-American nor anti-Israel.  But according to the self-proclaimed “chosen one,” I am now a traitor to my own people.  Maybe I should ask a Trump supporter if I can borrow his “Proud to be a Deplorable” t-shirt.

Trump’s comments have been rightfully denounced by civil rights organizations (e.g. ADL and NAACP), the mainstream media and others with two exceptions, Republican in Congress and white Evangelical leaders such as Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell, Jr.  But their selective support for religious freedom is a story for another day.  Among the concerns raised is whether Trump’s rhetoric will trigger retaliation from his most extreme followers ala Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh or El Paso.  However, being a student of political science versus a theologian or psychologist, I am less concerned about the present than the near future.

So, let’s go to the video tape or, in this case, the CNN exit poll.  In 2016, the Jewish vote made up three percent of total ballots cast.  Of those who went to the polls, 71 percent voted for Hillary Clinton, 23 percent for Trump and six percent for other candidates.  Did they write-in Netanyahu?  After all, in an April 2019 address to the Republic Jewish Coalition, Trump referred to the Israel leader as “your prime minister.”

Fast forward to 2018 and according to CNN, the Jewish vote split 79 percent to 17 percent in favor of Democratic congressional candidates.  It is hard to make a statistical case based on two elections, but the trend is unmistakable.  Clearly the assault on a Pittsburgh synagogue carried out by someone echoing Trump conspiracy theories about Jews funding illegal immigrants two weeks before the election did not help Republicans.  As a result, Jewish support for Democrats was higher than any other religious denomination including non-believers with a 70 percent pro-Democratic vote (which as a devout agnostic, I also find hard to believe).

From a counter-intuitive perspective, while I share others’ concerns,  the “stable genius” occupying the Oval Office must realize that more violence against Jewish targets will push this demographic’s anti-Trump vote even higher.  The Jewish share of the population in three states Trump must win to reach 270 electoral votes rank in the top 13–Florida (3.0 percent), Pennsylvania (2.3 percent) and Ohio (1.3 percent).  An energized anti-Trump Jewish electorate could mean an inside straight (as was the case in 2016) will not be enough.  His campaign will need a royal straight flush to stay in power.

Which brings me to the near future.  Imagine exit polling during the 2020 election shows the difference in battleground states was a greater deterioration of Trump support among Jewish voters.  What if Jewish turnout increases by half a percent from 2016 and the partisan split is 85 percent for the Democratic candidate and 13 for Trump?  We already know Trump will blame everyone but himself for the defeat.  But so will the all-right media and that is where the true danger lies.

Breitbart news and the Daily Stormer will surely claim Jewish money and an international Zionist cabal brought Trump down.  I can already hear Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson bemoaning the fact “Jews turned their backs on Trump after he did so much for Israel.”  And how will their audience receive this message?  We know many already feel their situations or misfortunes are the fault of “the others.”  How will some react if they believe those same forces of evil have deprived them of the one person in American politics who, on a national stage, vocally agreed with them?

That is why a counter-intuitive view of the next presidential election is critical.  As much as I and many others think a second Trump term, unencumbered by the need to run for re-election, will be a disaster, a Trump defeat could be even worse.  That is why silent Republican leaders must speak up now.  If post-Trump, radical right domestic terrorists, deprived of their #1 spokesperson, still believe their cause is just, the past three years may be looked back on as “the good old days.”

For what it’s worth.



(Chutzpah)…that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.

~Leo Rosten/The Joys of Yiddish

I have been pretty tough on white evangelicals the past few weeks.  And with good reason as most recently evidenced by the latest Pew Research Center survey on attitudes toward refugees in which 68 percent of white evangelicals do not believe the United States has a responsibility to accept refugees.  Which makes you wonder if they are channeling Bill Clinton when citing the sermon on the mount. “It depends on what the meaning of ‘welcome the stranger into your house’ is.”

However, it is unfair to single out one group when there are equally hypocritical representatives of all the major religions and among the unaffiliated.  Today, my focus is the domination of which I am most familiar.  Although my adherence to religious practice associated with Judaism becomes more distant daily, I still consider myself a “member of the tribe,” with deep historical and cultural ties.  Among the latter is the concept of “Tikkun Olam” which roughly translates into “heal the world.”  The concept first appears in Orthodox Judaic commentaries as a call to eschew all forms of idolatry.  In “Tikkun Olam: Social Responsibility in Jewish Thought and Law (1997)”, the four authors write, “In the modern era, this concept calls for Jews to bear responsibility not only for our own moral, spiritual and material welfare, but also for the welfare of society at large.”

Sadly, there are anecdotal instances in which individuals raised in Jewish households–e.g. Bernie Madoff, Jeffrey Epstein–by virtue of their greed and perversity result in disgrace and embarrassment and, most unfortunately, affirm the stereotypes of those who hate and have persecuted Jews throughout history.  Don’t believe me?  Readers’ comments on The Daily Stormer website in response to coverage of the Epstein story include, “Jews do not fear wrongdoing…they fear getting caught and exposed for who they are…jews.”  Or, “If it wasn’t Epstein, it would be another Jew.” It is unconscionable this kind of bigotry is given cover in Donald Trump’s America.

So, how do you fight prejudice?  With role models.  John F. Kennedy’s election forever debunked the fear a Catholic president would be more beholden to the Vatican than the Constitution.  And Barack Obama’s eight years in the White House demonstrated that a black man with power did not have to be angry a la Putney Swope who, in the 1969 movie of the same name, said, “I’m not going to rock the boat.  I’m going to sink the f***ing ship!”  Equally important, the Obama family stood in stark contrast to many of the images we see of the African-American experience on the news and in popular culture.  My favorite commentary on inauguration day 2017 accompanied a picture of Obama and Trump on the White House steps before heading to the Capitol.  “Guess which man has five children by three different women?”

Which brings me back to Judaism.  Would the election of the first Jewish president affirm or refute the prejudicial memes spouted by those who believe in the international Zionist conspiracy?  An “N” of zero makes any empirical analysis impossible.  But we do have data on Jewish-Americans in or near positions of national power.  And the reviews have been less than glowing.  For example, Abe Fortas was nominated by Lyndon Johnson to become the first Jewish chief justice of the Supreme Court.  His confirmation was derailed when Judiciary Committee chairman James Eastland (yes, the same James Eastland Joe Biden referenced last month) opposed Fortas’ promotion from justice to chief justice.

Unfortunately, Fortas brought his own nails to seal his coffin when it was revealed he had accepted speaking fees from business interests presenting a conflict of interest if and when these interests had cases before the court.  By today’s standards, this indiscretion would barely make the news.  But opponents used it to suggest Fortas could be controlled by moneyed interests.  And eventually Johnson withdrew the nomination.

Then there is the case of Joe Lieberman who came within a hanging chad of becoming vice-president.  Instead of continuing to support the Democratic agenda, Lieberman became an independent and supported John McCain in 2008.  I understand they had become close compadres while serving together in the Senate.  But that does not explain Lieberman’s endorsement of Sarah Palin, saying, “She is the leader we can count on to help John shake up Washington.”  As we now know, his affinity for McCain was more than support for a personal friend.  In 2016, he tossed aside years of progressive ideology and backed Trump amid rumors he might become the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.  Can you spell “opportunist?”  I knew you could.

And now, although not elected, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner are perhaps in the highest position of national influence than any Jewish couple in the nation’s history.  And how would they use that influence?  In May 2017, Jodi Kantor, Rachel Abrams and Maggie Haberman wrote the following in a New York Times article titled, “Ivanka Trump Has the President’s Ear. Here’s Her Agenda.”

In interviews last week, she said she intended to act as a moderating force in an administration swept into office by nationalist sentiment. Other officials added that she had weighed in on topics including climate, deportation, education and refugee policy.

I know, Ivanka was not born into Judaism.  She converted when she married Kushner.  However, it is said that converts often become stronger believers of their chosen theology than those who come to a religious denomination by birth. And based on the 2017 Times report, Ms. Trump would seem to support the principle of “Tikkun Olam.”  But like her father, selective amnesia runs deep.

  • Where was she when daddy decided to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords?
  • What happened to the “moderating force” when Trump demonizes refugees and authorizes raids to deport immigrants whose only crime is wanting a better life for themselves and their families?
  • When has she ever spoken out against Betsy Devos’ proposals to slash funding for public education, deregulate predatory for-profit colleges or weaken protections against sexual assault and harassment under Title IX of the education act?

Not to be outdone by his wife, Kushner, a modern-day Shylock, is more than willing to use his connection to his father-in-law to grease his own financial position.

You have to appreciate the irony.  I, born and raised as Jewish, find myself wondering if, based on the attitudes and behaviors of some at the doorstep of national influence, there is a kernel of truth in the negative stereotypes of my people promoted by the alt-right.  Equally ironic, Jared and Ivanka are Jews only a white supremacist or neo-Nazi could love.

For what it’s worth.


Putting a Human Back on the Story

The common journalistic technique of focusing on one individual in order to bring attention and clarity to a global, complex issue is referred to as “putting a human face on the story.” There are numerous examples, many Pulitzer Prize winners, which remind us behind every statistic there are living, breathing human beings.  Perhaps the most iconic was Nick Ut’s photograph, taken during the Vietnam War of a young, naked girl suffering from napalm burns running down a road ahead of U.S. soldiers.  Some claim the image was a factor in their own shift of sentiment away from supporting the war effort.  Something the daily U.S. and Vietnamese casualty rates could not initially do.

Sometimes we need not even see the face.  Consider Jeff Widener’s 1989 picture of “tank man,” a solitary protester standing in front of four Chinese tanks the day following the massacre of students in Tiananmen Square.  Or Spider Martin’s snapshot of a woman’s blistered feet after a day of marching in Selma, Alabama on “Bloody Sunday.”

Many people prefer not to look.  Some find the pictures more obscene than the events they chronicle.  They are shocked the media would reproduce the images.*  But that is the point.  They are designed to shock us.  Shock us out of our apathy.  Our complicity.  And out of our lack of connection to the individuals, often innocent people, captured in horrific situations and unbearable conditions.

This morning we were again exposed to one of these personal moments behind the headlines.  The Associated Press “put a human back,” actually two backs, on the narrative of the continuing and unnecessary tragedy on our Southern border.   Julia Le Duc’s photograph depicts an El Salvadoran father Oscar Ramirez and his 23-month old daughter Valeria who drowned attempting to cross the Rio Grande River, only because the family had been denied access at a border crossing to the LEGAL (yes LEGAL) procedure by which refugees can seek asylum under UNITED STATES and INTERNATIONAL LAW.

If their sacrifice in any way contributes to an easing of the suffering Donald Trump has inflicted on those who look to America with hope and promise, it makes me wonder, when Trump refers to “bad hombres” invading America, should we be more worried about the “bad hombres” in the White House?


In recent posts, I have been highly critical of both the media and the evangelical community, but coverage of the Trump administration’s actions and defense of those actions which require infants and children to live in sub-human conditions seems to have turned a few hearts, even among Donald Trump’s staunchest supports.  Yesterday, in response to the Associated Press stories about the detention center in Clint, Texas, Dr. Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, tweeted:

The reports of the conditions for migrant children at the border should shock all of our consciences. Those created in the image of God should be treated with dignity and compassion, especially those seeking refuge from violence back home. We can do better than this.

One could expect no louder clarion call from the religious right to remind Donald Trump and Mike Pence of Jesus’ teachings.  Sadly, some turned the other cheek (or should I say a deaf ear).  Among those was Jerry Falwell, Jr., president of Liberty College, who responded to Dr. Moore as follows:

Who are you @drmoore? Have you ever made a payroll? Have you ever built an organization of any type from scratch? What gives you authority to speak on any issue? I’m being serious. You’re nothing but an employee- a bureaucrat.

Maybe Falwell missed the Bible lesson when, in John 2:16, Jesus says of money changers, “Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!”

Was I surprised?  No and yes.  No, this is the same faux Christian who gives more mulligans to Trump than revelers hand out strings of beads at a Mardi Gras parade. I am, however, bewildered he could not come up with a more clever retort.  Maybe, “I’ll say it with great respect, these children are not my type.”

*NOTE: USA Today, after warning readers of the graphic nature of Le Duc’s photograph, wrote, “We believe the photo is important in telling the story of what is happening at the border.”

For what it’s worth.


Karma Burana

The title of today’s post is a play on “Carmina Burana,” a collection of Latin poems and prose from the 11th and 12th centuries believed to have been written by traveling theologians and scholars.  Many are described as irreverent satires targeted at the Catholic Church.  I thought I would add three more to the collection based on events from the past week with a focus on American fundamentalists.

The first comes straight from the an article in Friday’s Washington Post, “Lawyers for Noah’s Ark theme park are suing its insurance company for rain damage.”  Although the deluge did not last for 40 days and nights, the nearby city of Williamstown, Kentucky recorded over 40 inches of rain during the preceding 12 months.  While the $120 million tourist attraction was unharmed, the road leading to it was washed out.

One cannot help but believe the Post writers Eli Rosenberg and Karen Heller viewed this assignment as an opportunity to have some creative fun.  In their background coverage of the origins of the project, Rosenberg and Heller report, “The theme park was met with no small amount of controversy when it opened, focused mainly on its sources of funding, including the $62 million in junk bonds that were floated by the town of Williamstown.”

So far, founder Ken Ham (not to be confused with his brothers Shem and Japheth) and his company Answers in Genesis have recovered only a small portion of the $1.0 million spent on a retaining wall to protect the entrance road from future damage.  Maybe he needs better lawyers.  I wonder if he ever considereed Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, LLP.

As a preface to the second story, let me say I find no joy in the pain and suffering of innocent people who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  But I do wonder if televangelists like Pat Robertson appreciate the irony when tragedy coincidentally strikes those to whom he caters.  Remember, Robertson blamed liberals for the September 11 attacks, claimed devil worshipers caused the 2010 Haiti earthquake, told viewers in 2012 tornadoes in a Pennsylvania town were the result of “divine wrath” for teaching evolution in public schools and most famously linked Hurricane Katrina and terrorist attacks to legalized abortion.

However, I doubt Robertson believes what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  As yet, he has not professed any connection between the death and destruction four days ago due to several tornadoes in Jefferson City to the recent enactment of draconian anti-abortion legislation by the Missouri legislature which just happens to convene in (drum roll) Jefferson City, Missouri.  Now that’s what I call divine targeting.

Which leads me to my third addition to Carmina Burana titled, “Does God Hate Red States?”  Since the beginning of 2019, the federal government has announced 27 emergency declarations based on “acts of God,” including floods, tornadoes and fires.  Of this total, incidents occurred in 14 states which voted Republican in the 2016 presidential election.  In contrast, only four states which supported the Democratic candidate have been subject to these types of natural disasters.  Do fundamentalists not see the theological contradiction?  Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, explains Donald Trump’s victory as follows:

For these states to go the way they did, in my opinion, I think it was the hand of God. It wasn’t hacking. It wasn’t Wiki-leaky or whatever. It was God, in my opinion, and I believe His hand was at work, and I think He’s given Christians an opportunity.

If that is the case, why would God punish the very people who carried out his political directive?  I gave God an opportunity to respond to this post.  He did not return my call.  Maybe trying to understand the preachings of some American fundamentalists is above his pay grade.

For what it’s worth.


Sodom and King’s Landing

Spoiler Alert:  If you have not yet seen Season 8 of “Game of Thrones” and plan to do so, you may want to wait before reading this post.

“Game of Thrones” has certainly generated its share of post-finale press coverage.  Unfortunately, most of it has been about viewer reaction to the resolution of the question, “Who would eventually end up sitting on the Iron Throne?”  Or the pace of storytelling in the final season.  Yesterday, I had a little fun with those issues myself.  Following my mandatory post-episode debriefing with our daughter and one more night to sleep on it, this morning I realized the creators missed an opportunity to engage the 19.3 million viewers (live and delayed streaming) in a more important debate.

In Season 8, Episode 5, the major controversy centered on Daenerys Targarian’s “take no prisoners” approach to reclaiming King’s Landing, a theme which was reinforced at the beginning of Episode 6 when Grey Worm at his Queen’s command, slashes the throats of warriors who had been captured during the battle for the city.  Her justification being the need to rid the Kingdom of anyone who had been loyal to Cersei Lannister, even if it included the murder of innocent children.  Where would anybody get such an abhorrent idea?

How about the Old Testament?  Not once, but three times in the first two books (Genesis and Exodus), God takes Dany-like revenge against populations he feels have not been loyal to his laws.  [NOTE: I only use masculine pronouns to be consistent with the biblical narrative.  Daenerys proved the desire to unleash mass destructive forces is gender neutral.]  The first time is the great flood.  I have always wondered why any deity would instruct his servant to save two of each animal species while showing no compassion or mercy for innocent children.

Related imageThe second iteration is at Sodom and Gommorah, pictured here.  Look familiar?  The only difference is God did not need dragons to obliterate a city.

Perhaps the biblical story which best aligns with the death of innocent children at King’s Landing is the tenth plague in Exodus, when God takes the life of Egypt’s first-born sons to break Pharaoh’s will.  Only then are the Israelites freed from their bondage of slavery.  When Jon Snow asks Daenerys if she has seen the burnt bodies of the children, she says it was necessary to “break the wheel which enslaved them.”  Two mythological narratives which very well could have been written by the same author.

Did God snap like Daenyrus?  Was this an overreaction in the heat of the moment?  It’s hard to make that case when we find the descriptions of the plagues in Exodus 7:14 through 12:36.  And then, having had time to reflect on his own actions, in Exodus 34:7, God states that although he will lavish steadfast love for thousands,  he will, “…by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

“Game of Thrones” creators David Benioff and D. B. Weiss want us to believe the problem is solved through the election of a new monarch incapable of producing heirs.  As is too often the case today, those with the power to change the course of history are day traders, interested only in the next transaction.  The future is about the long game.

Having said all this, what do I believe would have been a more appropriate and meaningful conclusion to a story about power, revenge and destruction?  One that might have driven a more productive dialogue among fans of the show?  If, when Samwell Tarly presents Tyrion Lannister with the chronicle of the competition among rival houses for the Iron Throne (conveniently titled, “A Song of Ice and Fire”), Tyrion had said, “This is old history (read our “Old Testament”).  Perhaps it is time we tell a new story.  One that does not glorify death and blind obedience.  One that does not require a king or queen to tell us how to behave toward each other.  But lays that responsibility at our own feet.”  This is a dilemma every civilization from ancient times through the present has faced.

Yes, Samwell is soundly ridiculed when he suggests, “Maybe the decision about what’s best for everyone should be left to, well, everyone.”  The Seven (or Six) Kingdoms are not ready for democracy.  But a constitutional monarchy would have been a step in the right direction.  As we know, democracy is messy and takes time to accept and appreciate.

For what it’s worth.