Not approved for consumption by the Orthodox Union, Star-K, or ecclesiastical authority of any kind. Unkosher Jesus is an online forum for members of the worldwide interfaith community to explore and share various points of view relating to interfaith relationships and experiences, faith traditions, politics and popular culture.
Much to the amused delight of his fellow assembled Republicans, then-Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) allowed a clearly staged cell phone call to interrupt his introductory remarks at a 2004 Republican Governors Association fundraiser. Unlike Rudy Giuliani, who recently pulled a similar stunt during an appearance with the National Rifle Association (and to a much less amused response), Gov. Huckabee didn't allow his remarks to be interrupted merely by his third wife. No, when Mike picked up the phone, it was GOD HIMSELF on the line. And from what we're able to overhear from Gov. Huckabee's half of the convesation, it sounds like GOD IS A REPUBLICAN!
How cute. And, in case you thought this little prank is an isolated incident, the rare occasion when Gov. Huckabee mixes religion and politics, here are some of the highlights from Gov. Huckabee's belief system:
You know, all things being equal, there is nothing inherently controversial about a member of the clergy running for elective office. The tipping point from reasonable to scary is when the candidate clearly can't see or otherwise refuses to acknowledge the line that separates Church and State, and who otherwise demonstrates that his or her religious beliefs are going to be front and center as a part of the decision and policy making processes. For American voters who are looking for the latter type of candidate, I think you've found your man.
- Doug L.
(Tony Auth editorial cartoon, November 9, 2007)
FOR FURTHER REFERENCE (UPDATED, December 15, 2007):
This just in: today's Washington Post reports that opponents of presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) are spreading "rumors" that he is a Muslim. "Muslim" is obviously being used to associate Senator Obama with radical Islamic terrorists, and to otherwise smear him as un-American. How vile. And, given the current state of political discourse in the United States, how sadly predictable.
And, not to quibble, but although the definition of the word "rumor" is technically applicable to the particular innuendo and insinuations being made about Senator Obama, I think that the Post erred in its usage. You spread rumors about the teacher who is thought to be a child molester. You spread rumors about the mayor's alleged affair with a member of the city council. You spread rumors about the doting old biddy church volunteer who is suspected of pilfering donations from the collection plate. You don't spread rumors about what faith someone supposedly belongs to. So, please, writers and editors of the Post, stick to (return to?) accurate reporting and analysis. FOX, The Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, and other conservative "news" outlets have the rumor mill and character assassination beat covered.
(Tom Toles editorial cartoon: Washington Post, November 30, 2007)
So, now that we've got that settled, think this is the last time we'll see an American politician's alleged connections to the Muslim faith used against him or her? Sadly, no. There are loads of conservative Republicans who are all too happy to keep fanning the flames of ignorance, hate and divisiveness, such as:
Tarring all members of a given faith or ethnic group with the same hateful brush is part and parcel of all of history's fascist movements and governments. Sowing the seeds of hatred and mistrust, fanning the flames of suspicion and fear: what good, constructive purpose can this possibly serve? And how can people who willingly engage in this type of behavior look at themselves in the mirror or sleep at night?
"The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much." Heart of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad
"It's the lie of evolution that all man are just evolved and that they're all equal, and that all creatures are equal."
"People recognize something's going to happen, and they'd better get ready." - "Rev." Tim LaHaye
E Pluribus Unum. That's still the unofficial motto of the United States, right? I mean, I know that 9/11 was supposed to have "changed everything", but I didn't think that actually meant EVERYTHING. I pull a quarter out of my pocket, there it is, E Pluribus Unum. The last time I checked, this phrase is still found on the Great Seal of the United States. But do we even remember what it means these days? Of many, one. Can we honestly say that at this moment in our history, this phrase fittingly describes the state of our union?
This question confronts us as our nation continues to reel from the aftershocks of 9/11, which are perpetuated by mendacious, opportunistic politicians who exploit the memory of that horrible day in order to harvest votes and maintain power for its own sake. Mitt Romney recently stated that he would not appoint a Muslim to his prospective Cabinet, because "based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified." This from a member of the Mormon Church, United States membership of which currently stands at approximately 5.7 million. By Mitt's own informal reckoning process, American Mormons, like their Muslim brethren, fall well short of mathematically qualifying for Cabinet consideration (at least according to Kevin Drum of The Washington Monthly). Romney has since tried to spin the content and character of his comments, but I think it is fair to speculate that Romney's motives for marginalizing American Muslims might have something to do with playing to anti-Muslim sentiment among the Evangelical Christian voters he is so desperate to court.
Now, there is no denying that the 9/11 attacks radically impacted America's relationship with the Islamic world. And when the Saudi embassy funds a private Muslim school just outside of Washington, DC, and won't allow an independent inspection of the textbooks it uses, even the casual observer may grow alarmed and in turn begin to view all Muslims on American soil with suspicion.
It isn't the casual observer who is sounding off with hysterical diatribes, however. A cursory Google search with the phrase "americans hate muslims" generated the following links, among others:
Enough. Incendiary comments and attitudes, like the inferno they are forged in, suck all of the oxygen out of the air and stifle healthy discussion of alternatives that are available right here, right now. The majority of Americans are not born with a hard-wired predisposition to hate Muslims any more than Muslims are born hard-wired to hate America. The majority of Americans OPPOSE the very notion of transforming America into a theocratic police state. While we were all busy arguing about who is more patriotic, about whose religion is better or right, others have been working to lay the foundation for a fully-functioning pluralistic society, the kind that the American nation was founded to sustain in the first place. Those of us who count ourselves as members of the interfaith community need to get on board with this. If we value notions such as freedom to worship and freedom from worship; if we value the notion of the Common Good and the types of institutions it takes to sustain this; if we value participating in and contributing to a society where, as Dr. Eboo Patel puts it, all members enjoy equal dignity and mutual loyalty, then we need to put our money where our collective mouth is and do what it takes to make pluralism more than an unofficial motto for our country. There are some links to resources below that will hopefully get you started. The YouTube video with Dr. Patel is over an hour long, but if you've got the time it is definitely worth watching and listening to. So, read, inform yourself, and then let's get to work. There is no time to waste, and we have a lot of ground to make up. Salam.
- Doug L.
Dr. Eboo Patel: The Faith Line
FOR FURTHER REFERENCE (UPDATED, November 30, 2007):
A womanpriest, a rabbi and a canon lawyer walk into a bar. When they are seated the canon lawyer turns to the rabbi and says, "The Church finds you guilty of providing sanctuary for the ordination of this womanpriest. You are hereby excommunicated from the Catholic Church and separated forever from the earthly Body of Christ."
The rabbi returns a puzzled look and says in response, "But, I'm not Catholic. What's to excommunicate?"
With this, the canon lawyer twitches a bit in his seat. "Very well," he says, regaining his composure. "As a punishment for your actions, the Church will cease all interfaith dialogue and ecumenical outreach with the Jews of the world until you have apologized."
Again, the rabbi returns a confused stare. "But, monsignor," she protests. "The Church has already declared that it alone is the one true faith, effectively eliminating any common ground for engagement and dialogue with non-Catholics. Are you proposing that the Church will do this once more simply in order to spite me?"
The canon lawyer is now almost fit to be tied. "Dear Lord!" he finally exclaims. "Is there no punishment the Church can mete out that will adequately permit Her to express Her displeasure with you?"
At this point the womanpriest, exasperated and embarrassed on behalf of her Church, suggests, "There certainly is, monsignor. You could ordain her as a priest that has to work within an organization as crazy as the Church."
Ha ha, I just made that up that little joke (I know, it shows). But do you really think I'm kidding? The punchline may be made up, but the overall backdrop to this little chestnut is already unfolding in St. Louis, MO, where two female Roman Catholic priests, their rabbi hostess and a host of Diocesan and Vatican canon lawyers may be duking things out in the weeks and months to come. On November 11, the Central Reform (Jewish) Congregation hosted the ordination ceremony of two Roman Catholic Womenpriests.
There are two issues at hand here: Roman Catholic canon law which expressly restricts priestly ordination to men alone; and the potential affront to Jewish-Catholic relations by the actions of Rabbi Susan Talve, senior rabbi at Central Reform Congregation. I think that on both counts, the Church has painted itself into an ideological corner from which it will have a difficult time establishing constructive engagement with women (Catholic and non-Catholic alike) and with non-Catholic faiths (Protestant and non-Christian alike).
On the question of the ordination of women as Catholic priests, Pope Benedict has make it crystal clear that this question is out of the question, period. In his roll as the head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in 1995: "it cannot be forgotten that the Church teaches, as an absolutely fundamental truth of Christian anthropology, the equal personal dignity of men and women, and the necessity of overcoming and doing away with 'every type of discrimination regarding fundamental rights' (Gaudium et Spes, 29). It is in the light of this truth that one can seek to understand better the teaching that women cannot receive priestly ordination. A correct theology can prescind neither from one nor from the other of these doctrines, but must hold the two together; only thus will it be able to deepen our comprehension of God's plan regarding woman and regarding the priesthood -- and hence, regarding the mission of woman in the Church. If however, perhaps by allowing oneself to be conditioned too much by the ways and spirit of the age, one should assert that a contradiction exists between these two truths, the way of progress in the intelligence of the faith would be lost."
Benedict's comments were written in support of the pastoral letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, issued by Pope John Paul II in 1994, in which the late pope stated, "I declare that the Church has no authority (emphasis added) whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." However, John Paul II's claim, and Benedict's support for the doctrine that the Church has "no authority" to ordain women is specious at best. The claim that Jesus selected only male disciples is based upon a selective reading of scripture and other documents describing his teachings and those who followed him during his time in Israel. In the end, the Church establishes its own authority and to lay this inherently sexist practice at the feet of Jesus Christ is a shameful and cowardly dodge. It gives the lie to Benedict's claim that the Church stands for and supports "the equal personal dignity of men and women". Actions speak louder than words, and the Church's actions with regard to womenpriests is deafening.
Which brings us to the question of interfaith relations between the Church and non-Catholic religions and faith traditions. In reacting to Central Reform's decision to host this event, Rev. Vincent Heir, "who directs the Catholic Church's interfaith efforts in St. Louis, said the archdiocese will not participate in any more interfaith events if Central Reform Congregation is 'a leading player.'" Fair enough. I would posit, though, that members of the Jewish faith could choose to grandstand on a similar point of procedure with regard to the Church's teaching that outside the Church there is no salvation. In order for true dialogue to occur, interfaith or otherwise, all parties must regard the other or others as equals. The Church's insistence on a self-referential position of superiority to all other faiths, Christian and non-Christian alike, precludes this necessary ingredient for dialogue and relationship.
Throughout its history the Church has stubbornly held fast to its teachings, for both good and for ill. For example, in recent memory the Church provided brave and steadfast leadership on questions of economic justice and society's moral obligation to address the material needs of the poor. However, honesty compels us to acknowledge that the Church has also been on the wrong side of some of history's most epochal human rights issues:
The Spanish Inquisition was approved by the Vatican in 1481. By the time the Vatican ordered that the Inquisition cease in 1834, approximately 5,000 "heretics" had been executed. These, along with thousands of other Inquisition victims, endured unspeakable torture in the name of Catholic purity.
The 15th Century saw the publication of three separate papal bulls that established the foundation for the imperialistic invasion of the New World by Catholic European nations and the enslavement of indigenous peoples by their Catholic conquerors. (It should be noted that these bulls remain in good standing to this day.):
Dum Diversas (1452)
Romanus Pontifex (1455)
Inter Caetera (1493)
Physicist, astronomer and mathematician Galileo Galilei was officially tried as a heretic in 1633 for advancing the notion of heliocentricism. As a condition of his sentence, his body of written work remained banned in its entirety until 1718, 76 years after his death. His work remained heavily censored by the Church until 1835, when all versions of Galileo's works were stricken from the Vatican's Index Librorum Prohibitorum ("List of Prohibited Books"). It wasn't until 1992 (350 years after Galileo's death) that any pope (in this case, John Paul II) apologized on the Vatican's behalf for the treatment that Galileo and his work had received from the Church.
These historical references are offered as evidence of the fact that the Church can and has reversed its teaching on matters of great social significance. The worrisome characteristic of these reversals is the fact that in each case it took the Church hundreds of years to reach the conclusion that it was wrong. The damage had already been done after such a great length of time. How many victims might have been spared torture and execution had the Church not waited to halt the Inquisition? How might the indigenous peoples of Central, Latin and South America and Africa have fared, and even fare today, had the Church not provided ecclesiastical sanction for the subjugation and enslavement of native lands and peoples? And, if the Church is wrong about the ordination of women priests and its sole role as the arbiter of human salvation, why should anyone have to wait 300 more years before the Church finally reverses its respective positions on these issues?
- Doug L.
A New Model of Priestly Ministry: Roman Catholic Womenpriests
Much to the amused delight of his fellow assembled Republicans, then-Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR) allowed a clearly staged cell phone call to interrupt his introductory remarks at a 2004 Republican Governors Association fundraiser. Unlike Rudy Giuliani, who recently pulled a similar stunt during an appearance with the National Rifle Association (and to a much less amused response), Gov. Huckabee didn't allow his remarks to be interrupted merely by his third wife. No, when Mike picked up the phone, it was GOD HIMSELF on the line. And from what we're able to overhear from Gov. Huckabee's half of the convesation, it sounds like GOD IS A REPUBLICAN!
(Tony Auth editorial cartoon, November 9, 2007)
