THE CAROLINERS

When I first heard about the Christian Exodus movement last year, my reaction ranged from incredulity to the mandatory few laughs (it is funny, in a perverse manner). And I promptly forgot about it. Unfortunately, they have not forgotten about their quest for a pure, sanctified, Christian fundamentalist version of the United States in... South Carolina (yes, the same Carolina where until not long ago the Bob Jones University administration shamelessly prohibited interracial dating; which in turn leaves me frantically wondering, why would anyone think of attending such a school? Especially anyone non-WASPy?).

This past Sunday, the Los Angeles Times ran a piece on a family of five who recently relocated to South Carolina from Pennsylvania, and during the interview they and Cory Burnell (the founder of Christian Exodus) again talked about the possibility of secession - from the Union. According to them, two counties in the southern state have been identified by the movement as being prime candidates for their Christian takeover.

And now, the inevitable association (and again quoting my work colleague and political alter-ego): the last time something remotely similar came out of South Carolina, it wasn't really that successful...

Upon reading the piece, I decided to browse the Christian Exodus website and Cory Burnell's blog, and both confirmed that these people take themselves extremely seriously. Some of their favorite words are sodomites/sodomy, Satan (and proper derivations), sinfulness, and so forth. They also seem to dislike everybody outside of their movement (and that includes El Presidente, Supreme Court nominee John Roberts etc), and apparently no one is as righteous and as Christian as they should be. And on they rant.

In the end, they come across as a group of disgruntled fanatics whose leader lives with his family in California, of all places (who knows, maybe South Carolina is nothing but a diversion)... And interestingly enough, Christian Exodus is a non-profit organization incorporated in Texas.

In a non-Bush world, their talk of secession and Christian fundamentalism would hardly make the news. Under El Presidente, however, anything and everything is possible. In truth, his tenure is proving to be a case for the survival of free speech. If it is able to endure trials and tribulations of such "biblical" proportions, then those religious, xenophobic and conservative rantings will be all well worth it. If not, we'll have to find a way to shut these lunatics up because they are all undeniably mad, free speech aside. Actually, in the worst case scenario, they can have South Carolina. And we'll throw away the key.

BIAS IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER

I guess the article on fetuses and pain published this week in a medical journal must have hit a note. Anti-abortion groups are rallying up and accusing it to be biased since two out of the five doctors behind it are linked in one way or another to abortion-related activities. Life activists claim these doctors should have disclosed this “crucial” information together with their analysis of when fetuses first feel pain.

As if it made any difference. Plus, should doctors/scientists really be required to disclose their politics whenever making a scientific assessment? What’s next? “State your name, number, creed and gender for the record”? “Now proceed and make your case”?

Two doctors out of five – anti-abortion activists make it sound as if the other “defenseless” doctors in the panel are being massacred by a vast majority of doctors with pro-abortion connections… And if conflict of interests is the basis for argument here, then it logically follows that a panel composed of the same number of doctors linked to the anti-abortion movement would also present a biased report…

The findings of the current panel are no news. The report published in The Journal of the American Medical Association merely corroborates facts already known to the medical community for a few years now. Science is all about confirming the reproduction of previously observed information, which in turn is gathered through observations and experiments (what we know as empirical methodology). Independent studies in the last few years have been successful in determining, in that fashion, that fetuses cannot feel pain until they are roughly 28 weeks old. This latest reevaluation and reiteration of several such findings is no doubt prompted by the proposed abortion legislation introduced by Senator Brownback of Kansas.

Given the medical conclusions on this issue, not only of this latest panel but of various other ones, this legislation would serve only one purpose – to single out and ostracize the women seeking abortion and the doctors performing it. Talk about bias…

THE ICEBERG COMETH

There is a new generation of politicians looming on the horizon. After reading a piece on the Statesmanship Institute's presence on Capitol Hill (more specifically at the House speaker‘s private dining room every Monday evening for the last six months), I understood that El Presidente is only the tip of the iceberg. Quite the iceberg, by the way.

Among the young aspiring congressmen, governors, and even presidents, some wear wristbands saying “Jesus is my homie” and others believe that eradicating the Department of Education is not only a Republican objective but, first and foremost, a Christian duty. These are all well-educated and certainly very well-positioned young people I am referring to, and their agenda is all about God. And a Christian one at that, to be sure.

Before I proceed - I am not against religion of any kind, much to the contrary; I am very fond of my own and of its values and teachings. But Capitol Hill is not the place for religious activism (Christian and otherwise), despite the fact that this sort of event is allowed in the House as long as it is noncommercial, nonpolitical and nondiscriminatory (the usual race, creed, color and national origin clauses).

Rest assured, there is absolutely nothing nonpolitical about these Monday evening gatherings. Unless the term has gained a whole new semantic dimension, the Statesmanship Institute's program reflects the most unabashedly conservative Christian politics there is: topics discussed (or better yet, attacked) include stem cell research, abortion, evolution and the like. For example - on a recent lecture on bioethics, the central theme was the same as in all the other ones: federal regulations should be based on biblical (read Christian) precepts.

The evangelicals behind the Statesmanship Institute (an offspring of the Center for Christian Statesmanship), most notably hotshot televangelist Rev. D. James Kennedy, are having great success with their message - which by their own admission is to establish a Christian state in America (skeptical? Just observe the resonance of Christian and statesmanship together). The majority of graduates from their bible-oriented political programs are obtaining reasonably strategic placement in the nation’s capital after completion of their studies (should we be surprised? Let’s take one more look into this administration, please).

It is obvious that the symbiosis between the Republican agenda and Christian activism is growing stronger each day; and at the risk of sounding repetitive, the legislative lunacy that resulted in the Palm Sunday Compromise (read Terri Schiavo) is a frightening example of the consequences of this damaging association.

The iceberg is closing in, El Presidente on board. Either the man loves conflict, or he is just oblivious to it. Or both.

MIDDLE AGES - AGAIN??

A work colleague with a particular grim outlook claims the United States is plunging back into the Middle Ages. Is that so? Certainly the fact that El Presidente sees nothing wrong with Teach the Controversy - the Discovery Institute’s foray into the teaching of evolution – does not help dilute such impressions.

Teach the Controversy is the major component of the Wedge Strategy, a political action campaign put forward by the Discovery Institute (a conservative Christian think tank based in Seattle, WA and funded by big names such as the Orange County Christian fundamentalist Howard Ahmanson Jr. and the MacLellan Foundation). Its goal is to change public-school science curricula through introduction of intelligent design (the concept that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent). According to the proponents of Teach the Controversy, the theory of evolution is in crisis…

Sure it is. It is under attack by an increasingly culturally scary government led by a president who, for all his apparent ignorance on almost any given subject, seems to be very knowledgeable of anything that contradicts either his personal religious beliefs or the beliefs of those who helped him win the White House…. Make no mistake: evolution is under attack by a highly organized – and very well paid for - campaign to reshape American culture by influencing public policy to reflect conservative Christian values.

Let’s face it: intelligent design is nothing more than some new breed of creationism in disguise. It reeks of religious ideology and many of its advocates don’t even care to conceal their underlying theological motivations. Also, critics have argued that many points raised by intelligent design proponents strongly resemble arguments from ignorance, where one claims that the lack of evidence for one view is evidence for another view (e.g. "Science cannot explain this, therefore God did it"). In this way, any perceived failure of evolution becomes a victory for intelligent design (don’t all this sound dangerously reminiscent of revisionist history?).

Teach the Controversy is supposedly about questioning, about providing students with an alternative. But frankly, an alternative to what? The theory of evolution is fully accepted by the scientific community, and therefore there is no controversy here. Regrettably, some scholars have decided to back intelligent design, such as Phillip E. Johnson of U.C. Berkeley and Frank Tipler of Tulane University. And the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, which began as a student organization at UCSD, helps establish student IDEA clubs on university and high school campuses.

Around the world, scholars and individuals observe the developments, perplexed that evolution is being challenged in 2005, and in the United States of all places. Here, this insane debate has gained new momentum in the last few weeks with the Kansas Board of Education approval of a draft of new science standards proposed by supporters of intelligent design. Definitive approval is expected in October; in the meantime, we should not forget that this is the same state and board which, back in 1999, deleted most references to evolution from textbooks and course outlines. See a trend here?

In truth, Teach the Controversy is not about science: it is about politics. If what its proponents seek is to foment a civil discussion about science, then history and philosophy courses could very well deal with it. But the official introduction of creationist views in science education across the nation can seriously undermine one of the core teachings of evolution: that all living things share a common ancestry. Assigning a Christian value to science could lead to isolation and ostracism of certain religious and ethnic groups, among other things. I believe we have all seen the results of such positions in the past, and they were not edifying in the least.

BREAD vs. MATZAH

Sharon's disengagement plan has prompted the religious community- from the chief rabbis to every last lunatic who claims to be a "rabbi" - to invent religious arguments against the withdrawal from Gaza and the territories. These arguments vary from halakhic rulings that sanctify resisting the evacuation and disobeying orders, through rulings that graves should be covered with concrete, and even to Kabbalistic curses. In the best of situations, "moderate" rabbis called for peaceful resistance.

Still, there is no hint of a humanistic world view of Judaism focusing not on reverence for the land, but on a range of principles dealing with relationships among men and between man and God. It is obvious that the rabbinical establishment has gradually become more radicalized in the last three or four decades, and more so since the Oslo Accords were signed. Why?

One possibility is the claim that holding onto the territories in the name of the religion of Israel is the correct interpretation of Judaism. In other words, Judaism equals the complete Land of Israel, and giving up parts of the homeland will bring divine retribution down upon our heads.

Another, that a community of false prophets is controlling the interpretation of Judaism. As we know, this would not be the first time such has happened in Jewish history. The religious leadership in Eastern Europe during the18th century also advocated an extremist interpretation of Judaism that drove ordinary people away. It was not until the onset of the Hasidic movement, which for a long time was the target of unrestrained attacks by the fanatic establishment, that a significant Jewish reformation began. The irony is that the descendants of the Ba'al Shem Tov's liberal Hasidism are among the greatest extremists of our day…

And yet another: it is a fact that every organized religion, including Judaism, has a desire for anti-democratic political control, with the religious oligarchy setting the rules of behavior not only in the realm of faith, but also in society, law and politics.

The logical conclusion? It is impossible to mix religion and democracy. And so, what does the future hold for Israel? One possible outcome is that the radicalization of the religious body, together with the growing numbers of extreme nationalists and ultra-Orthodox in the Jewish population, will lead to the end of democracy. Democracy will either die a slow and natural death, as the religious parties - aided by the apathy and rivalry of the secular ones - will eventually oust democracy through democratic means; or a violent revolt will put an end to it.

Another outcome: a major reform of Judaism, explicitly defining and limiting the religion's role in the state, and allowing for a more rational coexistence between religious and democratic values.

Finally (and one we should all work for): upon realizing that a Jewish and democratic state is just not possible, Israel's secular parties will rise above their petty ideological differences and personal issues and unite to enact constitutional legislation that would definitively separate religion and state. A democratic state allows complete freedom of religion, but a Jewish state (and any other religious state, for that matter) would not (and does not) allow complete democracy. In need of a pertinent example? The Vatican.

Looking back, I have experienced first-hand what it means to live in the Jewish state for a secular Jew such as myself (and even though most of the population is somewhat in the middle, between orthodoxy and secularity). In the early 90s, I spent two years and a half in Israel between a kibbutz, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. It is funny, but I vividly recall not being able to purchase bread during Passover, at least not in the mainstream stores. I also recall not being able to find non-kosher foods and the like. Granted, I was young and having a wonderful time, and did not think much of it until I moved to the United States. Needless to say, the contrast was glaring. And I realized I will always prize my complete freedom of choice, down to the last crumb of bread - or matzah.

DIKLA COHEN AND THE LIKE

Dikla Cohen, dragged away by the Israeli soldiers in Neve Dekalim, had the nerve to say that the Gaza pullout is a progom, adding: “we are now refugees of the state of Israel.”

Well, well. I waited, patiently, for my preconceptions about the settlers’ behavior to become misconceptions – I truly hoped they would prove me wrong. But reading about Dikla Cohen, or her irate husband who cut his shirt in mourning, or the settler in Atzmona who had a Nazi poster on his door (in his mind, Israel is making Gaza a “Jewish Free” zone), or the woman who set herself on fire – the list goes on and on – I understood that these people don’t even know that it is possible to behave some other way. That’s it.

I confess – I have absolutely no compassion and no sympathy for them. None whatsoever. Actually, I can’t even understand how their minds work. These people are in this situation now because they placed themselves in it. No one forced them to move to the area. They chose to. The fact that the Israeli government stood behind them in the past – politically and financially and so forth – does not mean they were misled. They knew all along they were residing in a politically unstable area, where the lives of their children and loved ones were in constant danger, and where things could change anytime (especially if one takes into account the fact that Israel has given land back before).

Now they are clearly disobeying the Israeli government. They are disrespecting (cursing, slapping, even stabbing) Israeli officers and officials who are only doing their job. As in the past, I am shocked and also disgusted at these settlers. They have no respect for democracy, their intolerance is horrendous, their ethnocentrism is appalling and their prejudice, unlimited.

For all I care, Dikla Cohen (and the like) can leave. If she so disagrees with Israeli policy and the democratic process which culminated in the disengagement plan, she should just go. Who knows, she might qualify for refugee status somewhere else…

NO ROOM FOR BIBI NOW

So Bibi Netanyahu left. And it is rare, but there's actually a consensus between the Israeli right and left now: they both rejoice in the fact he resigned, even if for different reasons...

The right is happy because Bibi's departure from the Ministry of Finance signals his formal split with Sharon and all those who stand behind the Gaza withdrawal. The left is celebrating because they see Bibi's resignation as long overdue - as a leading opponent of the Gaza withdrawal, they claim Bibi should not be part of the government in any capacity.

The truth is, Bibi's timing is off. He's late - before the plan's final approval, his resignation would have had a greater impact. Now, critics and observers in general are convinced his exit will not disrupt the disengagement process. Their assessment seems to be correct.

In any case, and even with all the controversy surrounding the Gaza pullout, most polls place Israeli support for the plan above 50%, somewhat around 60% (obviously, some higher, some lower). That alone should be sufficient indication that there is no room for Bibi now in the current political situation (which, let's face it, revolves around the pullout).

To be fair, he seems to have done (or more to the point, led) a reasonable job with the economy (although critics contend he seriously cut social welfare programs, crediting him with the responsibility for the rise in the percentage of Israelis living below the poverty line). Still, Bibi is old school anti-Palestinian. There is no way around that. He has carved a place for himself in Israeli politics based on his extreme right-wing views, and if that is what placed him in power before, that might well be what keeps him away from it now.

Let us hope I am not speaking too soon.

THE GAZA PULLOUT

It is almost here. On August 17, the IDF will begin coordination of the Gaza Strip pullout. The disengagement, as it is often called by the media, is controversial because it touches on several issues of relevance for both Palestinians and Israelis. For me, this is a historical moment. However complicated and painful this pullout is right now, it is also the culmination of a process perhaps best represented by Ytzhak Rabin's efforts. Rabin's commitment to the cause of peace ended up costing him his llife. I only wish he were here to see it wasn't all in vain.

The arguments against the withdrawal usually fall under 3 categories: 1) religious: Israel was promised to the Jews by God, and no government has the privilege to waive this inalienable right; 2) political: the areas to be evacuated constitute Israeli territory as legitimately as Tel Aviv or Haifa, and relocating settlers is at best illegal, and violates their human rights; and 3) military: the plan is disastrous to Israeli security (and also an important moral victory for Hamas and other organizations, and will encourage them to continue executing terrorist attacks against Israel).

Those in favor argue that the pullout is the necessary first step in the direction of peace in the area. For one, it would put an end to the enormous financial and emotional drain of protecting those 9,000 settlers (surrounded by roughly 1 million Palestinians). Among supporters of the plan, the consensus on national security is that the pullout will be beneficial in the long run. Also, Israel will no longer be responsible for the Palestinians in Gaza (a diplomatic relief, no doubt); and most hope that the pullout will result in less friction with the Palestinian population, which in turn can result in the improvement of the Palestinian economy and living conditions.

It is a fact that Gaza suffers from a weak economy caused by a combination of robust growth and low income. More than 6 children are born to the average Gaza woman. At the same time, the imposition of border closures in response to security incidents in Israel has produced an unemployment rate of 50%. Consequently, approximately 60% of Gaza residents live under the poverty line. The complete collapse of the economy was prevented by an international grant of $2 billion to the Gaza Strip and West Bank in 2001-02. There are those who believe that economic growth for the Palestinians is crucial if there is to be lasting peace with Israel. I happen to agree with them.

Sadly, a lot of the financial support Palestinians receive has been traditionally redirected at the fighting of their cause rather than the building of their community and strengthening of their population. And also sadly, the Jewish settlers were backed and encouraged by the Israeli government until very recently. Still, as the saying goes, it is never too late to change.

I confess - living in Israel (1992 to 1994) reinforced my previous stance on the peace process. Sure, the settlers will lose their homes and their greenhouses and their holy ground, but let's be honest here: the government is compensating them for the move (among several other incentives and benefits such as paid-for movers and storage, families can receive between $200,000 and $350,000) and they can find more holy ground up north. I mean no disrespect by this. But these people need to realize that the peace process has reached a stalemate. And that they do not live in biblical Israel, this is 2005 and they are citizens and residents of modern day Israel (with all the responsibilities and privileges this entails).

All the same, the Palestinians will need to show evidence of their own support of the peace process; to do that, they will need to suppress the influence of organizations such as Hamas, which traditionally sabotages any negotiation that doesn't stipulate the handing over of all Israeli territory to the Palestinians.

In any event, I have no patience for Israeli and Jewish ultranationalism, extremism and prejudice. After all we Jews have been through, such behavior is inexcusable.

Justice Stevens and the Death Penalty

Justice Stevens decided to issue a criticism of the death penalty on Saturday evening, claiming there are serious flaws in the way it is used. Among other things, he questioned the competence of the legal representation defendants in death penalty cases received; he also questioned the fairness of jury selection for capital punishment cases, saying that potential jurors with qualms about the death penalty can be excluded by prosecutors. Such exclusions could deem a capital punishment trial unbalanced from the onset.

Isn't it interesting, this coming from the same justice who in 1976 voted to reinstate the death penalty in Gregg v. Georgia? Justice Stevens is the oldest in the Supreme Court (he is 85) and throughout his tenure, he has gone from moderate with liberal tendencies to moderate with conservative tendencies and back. I find it hard to keep up with him. I've heard the argument that the court is a living thing and that it adapts to society changes etc... But it troubles me. I mean, I'd love to see the end of the death penalty. But similar changes of heart could suddenly overturn Roe v. Wade, and for that I am fearful. Among other things.

John Roberts' nomination is not exactly calming me down. Anything coming from El Presidente, as Andrew aptly calls him, compels me to intense scrutiny... The man (Roberts) is obviously brilliant and has an impeccable record - but, a conservative by all accounts, even if a fair one. My only hope is that he will morph into a big surprise once in the court...

Another thing to consider - the fact that Supreme Court justices can remain active for as long as they themselves see fit. There is something not quite right about this. The world has changed much since Justice Stevens' first year in the court, and so did American society. Long tenures are at least partially responsible for the changes in a justice's opinions/positions over time, but isn't one - anyone - inherently a product of his/her upbringing, his/her formative years? I am only 33, and yet I find myself constantly reverting back to the way things were, back when I was growing up... I am constantly amazed at how much the world has changed, and how challenging it is to change with it and not against it (a sometimes irresistible pull, I must add)...

On Comments by Gwen and Sergey (Israel's Bill on Holocaust Denial)

Thank you both for your words. Gwen, I agree with you on freedom of speech (and with you, Sergey); however, it is really hard NOT to listen, don’t you think? Sergey’s suggestion about the “White Paper” is a great one, but my feeling is that European governments would not really be so keen on contributing to this enterprise. As it is, they disagree on a variety of issues, and the EU is a vivid proof of that. In any case, convincing (or reforming) deniers is not a possibility. I truly don’t think that is possible. In truth, I worry about the ones who are still looking for answers, who have not being exposed to historical evidence of recognizable and valid sources. As Vaard pointed out in his comment, that might be quixotesque of me, but I still stand behind the power of education.

ISRAEL PASSES BILL AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL

See Nina Gilbert's article here.

Well, here it is: Israeli Knesset approved unanimously a bill that allows the Israeli governement to pursue extradition of Holocaust deniers for prosecution. Let's take a moment and examine this.

In Germany, a law exists to deal with what they refer to as "Auschwitz Lüge" (the Auschwitz Lie). Simply put, defamation and denigration of the character of deceased persons is punishable by law. According to the German government, the statement that Jews were not persecuted during National Socialism is clearly false. The mass murder of Jews in the gas chambers of the Third Reich is a historical fact that has been proven by countless witness statements and documents, numerous court rulings and extensive historical research.

When dealing with Holocaust denial, German criminal law clearly finds itself in conflict with the right to express one's opinion. While recognizing that prohibiting the "Lüge" represents a limitation of the right to free expression, German jurisprudence holds that the injury to the personal honor of those defamed (Jewish citizens) weighs so heavily that it takes precedence over freedom of expression. And by the way - incitement in connection with Holocaust denial is also a punishable offense in Germany.

Germany is not the only nation that considers denial of the Holocaust to be beyond the limits of free speech. France passed a law in 1990 that makes it a criminal offense to dispute the facts of the Holocaust as recognized by French courts or the 1945 international war crimes tribunal held in Nuremberg. A similar law exists in Italy. On an international level, the European Union Council of Ministers agreed in March 1996 on a "Joint Plan of Action Against Racism and Xenophobia" that would cover both denial of the Holocaust and a wide range of other hate crimes.

I confess I am still unsure of how to think here. Clearly this issue is too close to home for me to form an objective opinion. I also confess that for me, deniers (and their manifestations of anti-semitism and racism) fall under two categories: the merely ignorant ones (increasingly hard to find in this age of information) and those who plainly lack decency, dignity and human empathy (the resentful ones, mostly). I live in the United States, and I have a degree in Journalism, which means that I have been indoctrinated in the sanctity of freedom of speech. It is the old dilemma: the balance between free speech and the protection/rights of the individual...

In the case of the new Israeli bill, free speech seems to be threatening preservation of Holocaust history. Is that so?

QUOTE OF THE DAY

Folks - I came across this one yesterday. It was part of an email sent to a friend who also spoke up against racism and anti-semitism; she forwarded it to me and I just have to share it, although due to copyright issues I have to paraphrase it:

Basically, history is far more complex than we believe. We were fed fairy tales about WWII. We were told that Hitler was evil and that the Jews were good people, but hey - it was not like that at all. In fact, Judea waged war against Germany already in 1933. The Jews were enemies of Germany for a long time and they got what they deserved.

Is that good or what?? This is one of the best I've seen so far... I did contact the author of this statement (who also wrote me some very amusing emails not long ago) if I could post our communication here, and also invited him to participate. Needless to say, he did not consent to my posting his words and info, and also declined my invitation (something about my forum being populated by "brainwashed conformist idiots")...

On Andrew's Comments

Andrew answered one of my questions - elderly Germans living here in America are some of those financing people like Irving. And I have to say, I just received a very unfriendly email from a certain "Henri The Celt" from a remote corner of Alaska who may fit the profile... I don't think he is German, but I am positive he is at least in his mid 70s, since he was kind enough to send me a picture of himself... Shouldn't this man be enjoying his golden years, I ask?

Now - how is Irving able to remain here in the US? What kind of visa is he using, and wasn't he denied entry here at least once?