Jesus the Jew
I posted my essay about Jesus the first-century Jew last year, but it seems timely again.

by Donald Sensing, 2/29/2004 10:35:00 PM. Permalink |

"God hates shrimp"?
That what these folks say, citing Leviticus chapter 11 and linked by Glenn Reynolds. (Personally, I hate shrimp myself, but not because of Leviticus.) Paul Golba emailed me asking me to respond to the site's assertion that "Shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, mussels, all these are an abomination before the Lord," just as much as homosexuality. Therefore, Christians should boycott seafood restaurants. Asked Paul,

I feel that this argument is ridiculous and false and I have some sense why (the Kosher laws were lifted in the New Testament?), but I want to know for sure. Could you tackle this issue in your blog? I would greatly appreciate it.

I can tackle this with one hand tied behind my back, but I won't because my site is called One Hand Clapping, not One Hand Typing.

One, the "hates shrimp" site is somebody's idea of a joke and deserves to be treated that way. Ha, ha. Now I've laughed.

Two, Christians are not bound by Jewish dietary restrictions (says so here.)

Three, the New Testament repeats, not lifts, the sanction against homosexual practice here and here. (The second reference's meaning is a little obscure, though.)

I would also point out that while Paul lists homosexual practice as a sin, he gives it no special weight; it's just a listed item, along with many others.

by Donald Sensing, 2/29/2004 02:49:00 PM. Permalink |

Jews speak out on The Passion of the Christ
Jewsweek magazine has a whole issue devoted to discussing the movie and its implications. Well worth reading. Pieces run the gamut. Rabbi Daniel Lapin predicts that in addition to making a lot of money and being regarded as "the most serious and substantive Biblical movie ever made,"

The Passion will propel vast numbers of unreligious Americans to embrace Christianity. The movie will one day be seen as a harbinger of America's third great religious reawakening.

I say yes to the first prediction, not so sure to the second, and no to the third. Vast numbers of non-Christians will not convert because of this movie.

Lapin has a lot more to say about the brickbats thrown at the movie and Christianity by Jewish groups and leaders and writes he considers it "crucially important for Christians to know that not all Jews are in agreement with their self-appointed spokesmen."

by Donald Sensing, 2/29/2004 02:27:00 PM. Permalink |

Whatv is a rabbi, and was Satan leading Mel Gibson astray?
A Jewish reader has some thoughts, and I respond

I'm not sure how it started, but I've had a brief email exchange with a gentleman named Ronnie Schreiber on the clerical status of rabbis - are they laity or clergy? I appreciate Ronnie's compliment emailed yesterday, "I have to say that you are one of this Jew's favorite pastors. Your writing is always thoughtful, even when I rarely disagree with it." Thank you! (I have received similar compliments from Buddhist readers and practitioners of other Easterm traditions as well, which I find very heartening.)

I claimed recently that rabbis in Jesus' time were laymen. Jesus himself was called rabbi by many people. Ronnie said the distinction that we make between clergy and laity today doesn't really overlay on first-century Judaism. So here is Ronnie's "insider" look at the rabbinic tradition; it's quite read-worthy for anyone interested in religious matters.

In the sense of not having a pulpit, yes they were mostly laymen with 'day jobs' like R. Yose HaSandlar (Yose the sandal maker), and other sages whose professions were mentioned.

I recall one, whose name escapes me, who was a tanner, not a very nice job. However, calling it a lay movement is not fully descriptive since the sages were, in fact, the primary religious authorities of their day [it was actually the Pharisees, not rabbis, I described as a lay movement - DS]. The priests of the Temple simply administered the temple rite. It was the rabbis who adjudicated the law.

Also, I have a hard time believing that those sages with very large schools of students (e.g. Akiva, Hillel, Shammai, Rava, Abaye, Rabban Gamliel, and of course Yohanan ben Zakai, aka "Rebbe") were anything other than full time scholars. They might have had business interests, but their primary pursuit was scholarship.

Of course, most rabbis throughout history, including today, were not professional clergymen in the sense of how Christians use the term. Even today, the vast majority of those with Orthodox ordination do not hold pulpits. Some teach in Jewish schools (the primary role of a rabbi, anyway), and many have secular jobs. Ordination in the Orthodox community is no big deal. You go to a yeshiva high school, continue with your studies at a mesivta or beis medrash gevoha, and sooner or later you get ordained.

Actually, there are two levels of ordination, yoreh yoreh [I think it's from the same source as Teacher, like Moreh and Torah are], and yadin yadin [capable of being a rabbinic judge]. Even many with the higher level of ordination aren't professional clergy. Also, the title "reb" is an
honorific that is often appended to just about any male (orthodox) Jew's name in many contexts.

For example, an internet friend of mine is a former minister who converted to Judaism. While studying at a yeshiva in J'lem, just before his conversion ceremony he was walking down the street, dressed in the black suit that is the 'uniform' of the yeshiva student, someone approached him and said, "Excuse me, Reb Yid, do you know what time it is?" Amos replied, "It's not Reb Yid, it's Reb Goy and it's 9 a.m. So between the many who are ordained and the many who carry the title as an
honorific, we just don't make a big deal about who is and who isn't a rabbi (at least in the Orthodox community).

That being said, rabbis should be accorded some level of honor, not for them, but in recognition of their status as a 'living book of Torah'. When your own rabbi enters a room you should stand and also stand in recognition of any great Torah scholar. R. Shmuel Irons, considered one of North America's great Torah scholars is a friend of mine. He's the Rosh Kollel (dean) of a post-ordination Jewish seminary here in Detroit. I've been at weddings when he's been called up to the bridal canopy to recite one of the seven wedding blessings and the entire audience will rise, very briefly, in his honor, or rather in the honor of the Torah he has learned.

Ronnie also had a thought about The Passion of the Christ:

I'm too lazy to go in the other room and get out my Jeremiah, but I think the verse is in Chap. 29, and it talks about someone or something that appears, at first, to be Godly, but is in fact the opposite. [Maybe this is what he is thinking of. Jer 29:8-9:

Yes, this is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: "Do not let the prophets and diviners among you deceive you. Do not listen to the dreams you encourage them to have. They are prophesying lies to you in my name. I have not sent them," declares the LORD. - DS

Is it possible that Gibson has let his personal vision become an obsession to make the film. Obsession is not a healthy state and can bring with it many unhealthy influences. Is it possible that this obsession has resulted in something that will harm relationships between Christians and Jews?

To use a Christian concept, is it possible that Satan sent Gibson to sow strife? The film is not evangelical in the sense of trying to spread the faith, but rather it seems to be directed at those who are already Christians, and may do the opposite of evangelism to those who are not Christians. It certainly won't convince any Jews to accept Christianity.

Ronnie, thank you for this thoughtful and informative missive.

Whether The Passion will harm Christian-Jewish relations has yet to be seen. I predict, with all care, "not from our end." Over and over, prominent Christians have emphasized that there is no justification for blaming the Jews for what happened to one man two millennia ago.

I have talked personally with a large number of Christian people who have seen the movie, and none have indicated the movie made them think "the Jews" are responsible for Jesus' death. They understand that whomever had a hand in killing him, the events were closed two millennia ago. After all, the prophet Jeremiah said in foretelling the new covenant embodied in Jesus Christ, punishment for sins does not carry down through generations.

But this kind of issue cuts both ways. Will most Jews harbor ill will toward most Christians for one Christian's movie? Are Christians in aggregate to be held responsible for one man's movie? So far I haven't seen such suggestions, but chew on the implications awhile. . . .

A near-universal reaction from Christians has been that the movie makes them ponder introspectively about whether the life they are leading was worth the suffering Jesus endured to give them salvation.

(BTW, this is exactly the same question Jewish director Steven Spielberg wants the audience to ask itself at the end of his even more violent and bloody movie, Saving Private Ryan, though the question is secularly phrased rather than religiously. However, I think it's no accident that only character whose religion we specifically know is the Jewish GI, Pvt. Stanley Mellish. Like all but one of his squad mates, Mellish dies in battle, brutally knifed to death by an SS soldier. Was Spielberg sending a not-too-subtle message to Americans not to forget that Jews died for their liberty along with Gentiles?)

(Also BTW, the actress who play Mary in The Passion, Romanian Jewish actress Maia Morgenstern, is the daughter of Holocaust survivors. Her grandfather perished at Auschwitz.

Like her, she says, both her mother and her father found the script moving, philosophical, and not the least bit anti-Semitic.

As for satanic influence on the set - whether most Jews think that Satan is a real, external influence at work in the world today I can't say. My guess (not having looked up research on it) is that a very substantial number of Christians do not; in fact, I'd say easily the majority. We moderns have pretty much rejected "the externality of evil," as French philosopher Paul Ricouer termed satanic concepts, in favor of psychological and social explanations.

If though, Satan is a really-existing being as the Gospels indicate (i.e., Luke 4:1-13), then I would have no doubt that Satan was trying to lead Gibson astray throughout the whole process. The passage I cited indicates that Satan tempted Jesus pretty much throughout his whole ministry, and for that matter, tempts me to stray with every sermon I write.

I think Ronnie is right that Gibson was not making an "outreach" movie. As is said in my review, the movie assumes the viewers are already familiar with the whole Jesus story. Like Ronnie, I don't expect any Jews to see the movie and convert to Christianity, but I am also sure that is not what Gibson was trying to do. I don't think he was trying to covert anybody, actually. This movie is his very personal statement of faith and understanding that I think he was offering for the edification of the already-believing. I understand that a large number of viewers, especially but not only non-Christians, don't find it edifying. That's okay by me, but they have no very persuasive argument against it edifying others.

As I indicated before somewhere, Roman Catholic theology, orthodox or post-Vatican II, draws a much clearer distinction between the events of Holy Week (the week preceding Easter) and Easter than almost all Protestant denominations. Protestants generally tend to gloss over the passion-and-death part to get straight to the party on Easter morning. Christ's suffering figures more prominently for Roman Catholics during Holy Week than it does for Protestants.

As I said, though, I wonder what a movie of Christ's passion would be like if it was made by Steven Spielberg. I think it would be a better movie than Gibson's.

by Donald Sensing, 2/29/2004 02:08:00 PM. Permalink |

Mel Gibson, blacklisted? Never happen.
The New York Times reported that

The chairmen of two major [movie] studios said they would avoid working with Mr. Gibson because of "The Passion of the Christ" and the star's remarks surrounding its release.

Neither of the chairmen would speak for attribution, but as one explained: "It doesn't matter what I say. It'll matter what I do. I will do something. I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of. Personally that's all I can do."

Bill Quick, who has experience in tinseltown as a screenwriter, says that's just bunkum:

Speaking as a longtime writer and produced screenwriter, let me tell you a little secret: Despite the supposed threats against Gibson emanating from certain Hollywood quarters, if this flick does anything like the now-predicted gross (which would stick 50-75 million dollars in Gibson’s personal pockets), not only will Mel Gibson have no trouble finding work, he’ll have to fend it off with a club.

And ten bloody religious Christian epics will be greenlighted immediately by everybody from Disney to Sony, with Spielberg being the biggest name to dive into the “First In Line To Be Second” pool.

Actually, I was wondering today what The Passion would have looked like if Spielberg had made it; I have a gut feeling that I'd find it more satisfying than Gibson's movie because I think Spielberg has a better sense of timing and nuance than Gibson.

While on a hospital call today, a gentleman told me that in Tullahoma, Tenn. this week the line to get into the theater stretched around the block. Anyone paying attention in Hollywood? You bet your sweet bippy they are, even Martin Scorcese, whose 1988 passion-of-Jesus movie, The Last Temptation of Christ had a total gross for its whole run of - get ready - $8.4 million, or $11.6 million in today's dollars.

Gibson's movie made $26 million just last Wednesday, more than twice as much as Scorcese's flick made total. You betcha movie producers of all faiths or no faith at all are paying careful attention. I have no doubt that come Monday, producers' inboxes will be filled with 20-page screenplay treatments of the next great Jesus movie. "Jesus Returns" anyone? Maybe "Son of Ben Hur - bar Judah's Revenge."

Link via James Joyner, who says "there won’t be a sequel." Why not? The New Testament has a sequel.

by Donald Sensing, 2/28/2004 08:55:00 PM. Permalink |

Now your car works for the police
And cooperates with them in giving you a ticket. At least, that what Toyota's new concept car does.

Wireless technology would allow the car to communicate with the speed camera, and the fine could be deducted from the driver's credit card before he or she even made it home. But would anyone buy such a car?

Which is one darn good question.

by Donald Sensing, 2/28/2004 07:41:00 PM. Permalink |

Works in progress
I have a fair amount of non-blog writing and family things to do today, so don't look for a lot more posting. But I thought I'd cue you in on some "upcoming attractons:"

Christ, Capt. Miller and Oskar Schindler - the unifying themes of The Passion of the Christ, Saving Private Ryan and Schindler's List.

Why the Gospels are not "objective" biographies

And a closing thought, not a post: why are so many people upset with the dramatic liberties that Christian Mel Gibson took with the story of Jesus, who had no objection to the much greater number of dramatic and non-scripturally-justifiable liberties that Jewish Steven Spielberg took with the story of Moses in The Prince of Egypt?

by Donald Sensing, 2/28/2004 02:24:00 PM. Permalink |

This is a problem
Headline and lead paragraph:

Bishop says church's sex-abuse problem mirrors society's

The sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests reflects a sad episode in the church's history and underscores the prevalence of child sex abuse in society, Bishop Edward Kmiec of the Nashville Diocese said.

While not exactly excusing the church's abuse because "society does it," I saw nothing in the story indicating the bishop understood that the church, especially its clergy, are supposed to transcend the standards of society, indeed, set standards for society to follow. Because I also know that reporters don't write every quote, I give Bishop Kmiec benefit of the doubt, but it needs to be more clearly stated, and not just by Catholics.

In related news, a study commissioned 20 months ago by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops reveals that more than four-fifths "of sex crimes committed against children by Roman Catholic priests during the past 52 years were homosexual men preying on boys." Link

Martin Luther in the 1500s urged the Roman Catholic Church to permit priests to marry (Luther was a Catholic monk) partly because so many priests were holding mistresses covertly and siring children. Luther believed that the Bible held marriage a sacred, positive and desirable estate and that Scripture did not justify the church's celibacy requirement.

Some homosexual activists such as Andrew Sullivan, who is Catholic, have urged the R. Catholic Church to accept homosexual marriage. I wonder whether he'll try to use this study to buttress his argument.

BTW, the church's prohibition of priests being married was made official only about a thousand years ago, although it was a non-doctrinal practicde for some centuries before. Its origins are mainly twofold.

In the first place, having a wife and children ties you down, but the priesthood was always understood to be itinerant; priests must be available on short notice to be sent where they are needed. I see little doubt that predominantly married priests would have been unable to expand the reach of Christian evangelism in the first several centuries AD nearly as well as it was done. Married men, whether priests or not, are much less likely to uproot themselves from their families and property, especially when the journey is very long and dangerous. Did I say, "very long"? I meant, "permanent," because an evangelical trip for priests in the first millennium was likely a lifetime commitment.

An even earlier origin of celibate priests actually springs from Greek asceticism, founded upon radical Greek philosophical dualism. Greek philosophy was the dominant world view of the Mediterranean world at the time fo Christ and for a long time afterward. It held a sharp distinction between the spiritual realm, which was divine and permanent, and the physical world, which was corrupt and temporary. Since there is nothing more, well, physical, than sex, spiritual purists maintained that sex was a corrupted way of flesh and polluted the pure spirituality of the human soul. Priests were supposed to be the most spiritual of men, so priestly celibacy found a niche in the church early.

(Greek philosophy was the religion of the Roman world's intelligentsia, who controlled the political apparatus of an empire hostile to Christians. The early church relied heavily on Greek philosophy to explain itself to them. It was the language they spoke and was the world view most of the post-apostolic church father were raised in, anyway.)

However, it was economics and politics that impelled celibacy to be decreed a doctrine, rather than merely an approved practice. With the rise of European feudalism, kings, barons and other nobility began exerting economic control over priests, many of whom were married, through taxes of various kinds, including estate taxes. The church's hierarchy saw a danger that their priests' fealty was being misdirected to the feudal Lord rather than the authority of the church. The main impetus to acquire property, which the feudal Lord could control through taxation and contract, was marriage and family. Remove that and the foundation of feudalism itself was removed.

So to keep the church independent of political control the decree was made that priests could not be married. Acquisition of property by priests was also suppressed.

by Donald Sensing, 2/28/2004 10:40:00 AM. Permalink |

Jeff Jarvis - Christ figure?
Jeff wrote a lament:

I supported the war and people called me a right-winger and refused to accept my liberal credentials. Now I go after the Bush administration over free speech and Howard Stern and also don't like Gibson's Passion and the right-wingers call me a left-winger. Those who hated me one week love me the next; those who loved me one week hate me the next.

Does that make Jeff a Christ figure? To wit:

Matt 11:16-19:
16 "To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others: 17 "'We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn.'

18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." 'But wisdom is proved right by her actions."

And -

John 12:12-13:
12 The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. 13 They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, "Hosanna!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Blessed is the King of Israel!" ...

John 19:15a:
15 But they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!"

Fortunately, Jeff, no one is coming after you with whips and nails.

by Donald Sensing, 2/28/2004 09:17:00 AM. Permalink |

Yep.



by Donald Sensing, 2/27/2004 05:38:00 PM. Permalink |

More on liberal anti-Semitism
Just read "Peddling anti-Semitic Myths" by Thomas Lifton, Harvard Ph.D. and former faculty member of Harvard and Columbia University’s Graduate School of International Affairs. The essay is short but fierce, as it should be, considering the subject.

by Donald Sensing, 2/27/2004 05:26:00 PM. Permalink |

Thanks!
Norman Geras profiles blogger James Joyner, who is a former artillery officer as I am (ergo, a class act). James says my blog is one of his three favorites. The others are PoliBlog and VodkaPundit.

by Donald Sensing, 2/27/2004 05:12:00 PM. Permalink |

Maureen Dowd needs therapy. Now.
The anti-Semitic character of the American Left stands exposed

Continuing the saga of Mel Gibson's movie, The Passion of the Christ, and the charges that the movie will inflame viewers to anti-Jewish violence, I have to wonder, who will be inflamed?

Well, the New York Times' Maureen Dowd, apparently.

But this is a Mel Gibson film, so you come out wanting to kick somebody's teeth in.

In "Braveheart" and "The Patriot," his other emotionally manipulative historical epics, you came out wanting to swing an ax into the skull of the nearest Englishman. Here, you want to kick in some Jewish and Roman teeth. And since the Romans have melted into history . . .

Why does Ms. Dowd tend toward such violence? Lord forbid she ever obtains a real weapon - who could feel safe? Why does a movie - a movie, for crying out loud! - whip her into such a killing frenzy? She admits that Braveheart made her want her to axe-murder the nearest limey! Now she, yes she, the oh-so-liberal, "tolerant" (hah!) and exquisitely correct Maureen Dowd confesses that The Passion made her want to kick in some Jewish teeth. That's what she said.

This woman needs some serious therapy. Quickly.

Funny though. I saw all three movies Dowd cites and I didn't exit the theater wanting to hurt anyone - and I'm a retired Army officer! I know how to hurt people in carload lots! Maybe Dowd has some character defect that allows her to be sent over the edge by audiovisual media. I guess if she watched German director Leni Riefenstahl's propagandistic masterpiece and paean of praise for Hitler, Triumph of the Will, Dowd would head straight for the nearest skinhead chapter and try to join the Neo-Nazis. Maybe even become a Holocaust denier. Who knows?

On the other hand, I remember what my mother always said when I was a lad. "People tend to find fault in others what they see in themselves." So why does Dowd, a solidly established member of the Eastern upper-class, liberal Establishment, see an anti-Semite inside this movie? Could it be that the combination of Catholic Mel Gibson and The Passion's subject matter provide her with the happy confluence of two deeply rooted prejudices of the Eastern upper-class, liberal Establishment - anti-Catholicism and anti-Judaism? George Will recently observed,

It used to be said that anti-Catholicism was the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals. Today, anti-Semitism is the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals.

But they haven't discarded anti-Catholicism, either, have they, Maureen?

I am serious here: this kind of vitriol from Dowd seems to me to be indicative of a deep sickness in the liberal soul. In fact, anti-Semitism is about the only point of contact between the religious left and religious right, expressed by the Left in hatred of Israel, and by the Right in opposition of and intolerance for the Jewish faith itself.

The most vociferous verbal hostility I have ever personally heard against Israel came from some of my liberal-to-Leftist colleagues in ministry. I can hardly describe the venom I have seen and heard poured out about Israel from pastors who spend other time claiming how tolerant and peace-loving they are. Yet many of the Left have excellent personal relationships with individual Jews and in domestic politics often are allied with them. It's Israel they despise.

OTOH, the religious right generally supports the state of Israel, but is deeply suspicious of Jewish people. They tend to see Jews as misguided religious rivals who must be converted to Christianity. (Just so you know where I stand, I would like everyone to respond to the Gospel, but see no particular reason to single out Jews for special conversion efforts.)

About a year ago, Lawrence Kaplan wrote in The New Republic (not exactly a journal of the VRWC),

From the musty precincts of the Old Right, the contention that Israel and a powerful "cabal" of its American supporters have manufactured the present crisis with Iraq has become canonical. [Pat] Buchanan, who writes that President Bush has become a client of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and the "neoconservative war party," has transformed his new magazine, the American Conservative, into a regular forum for those who share this conviction. One of its contributors, University of Illinois history professor Paul W. Schroeder, deems it self-evident that the plan for an invasion "is being promoted in the interests of Israel." . . .

Meanwhile on the left -- where many cannot fathom why, absent the urging of Israelis and their American co-religionists, the Bush administration would be so eager to topple Saddam Hussein -- the socialism of fools has been enjoying something of a vogue. Writing in The Nation, Jason Vest reports that the Bush team's "attack-Iraq chorus," working in tandem with "far-right American Zionists," subscribes to "articles of faith that effectively hold there is no difference between U.S. and Israeli national security interests." The respected liberal intellectual Ian Buruma has managed to locate the reasons for a U.S. war against Iraq in, among other places, "Jewish-American hysteria" and the fact that "macho images of suntanned Jewish soldiers gathered round laughing tough guys such as Ariel Sharon wiped out, as it were, 2,000 years of being Woody Allen."

Nor is this sort of fare the exclusive property of the political fringe. The ubiquitous talk-show host Chris Matthews pins blame for the impending war on "conservative people out there, some of them Jewish, who are very tough on foreign policy. They believe we should fight the Arabs and take them down. They believe that if we don't fight Iraq, Israel will be in danger." Matthews even thinks that Sharon is "writing [Bush's] speeches sometimes" and that Sharon's cabinet ministers are "in bed with the vice president's office and the Defense Department." . . .

But the real problem with claims such as these is not just that they are untrue. The problem is that they are toxic.

Harvard University President Larry Summers decried in September 2002,

But where anti-Semitism and views that are profoundly anti-Israeli have traditionally been the primary preserve of poorly educated right-wing populists, profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities. Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent.

Hello, Maureen, you listening?

David Brooks, a Jew who regularly appears on NPR and PBS, wrote,

Not long ago I was chatting with a prominent Washington figure in a green room. "You people have infested everywhere," he said in what I thought was a clumsy but good-hearted manner. He listed a few of "us": "Wolfowitz, Feith, Frum, Perle." I've never met Doug Feith in my life and Wolfowitz and Perle I've barely met. Yet he assumed we were tight as thieves.

He says in the same column,

Now I get a steady stream of anti-Semitic screeds in my e-mail, my voicemail, and in my mailbox. ... Anti-Semitism is alive and thriving. It's just that its epicenter is no longer on the Buchananite right, but on the peace-movement left.

This is no mere American phenomenon. Across the big pond revulsion of the Jews is growing stronger every day. Wrote a French essayist in "The Coming Anti-Semitism,"

After a brief interlude, the grand simplifiers are back. We have seen, since the end of Communism, a stupefying re-Stalinization of part of the intelligentsia and the progressive movement… [The] image of an all-powerful America breathes new life into the pernicious notion that politics is responsible for everything: all disasters are perceived as crimes; the objective universe appears to be made up of subjective wills, those that fight against evil and those that foment it. Thus conspiracy thinking is again taking over simple minds, and conspiracy leads sooner or later to the Elders of Zion.

I find it informative and more than revealing that not one right-of-center editorialist - not one - has said that The Passion of the Christ has made him/her want to commit violence against Jews. The only writers who have said that the movie makes them think about attacking Jews are liberal writers.

And that fact is indeed very revealing about who really feels what about the Jews.

by Donald Sensing, 2/27/2004 04:21:00 PM. Permalink |

My review of The Passion of the Christ
My senior year in college I took a one-month, concentrated English course on movies and movie criticism. We watched four or five movies every day, including mandatory viewing of every Alfred Hitchcock film ever made (except his final one, which he had not yet made) and had to write scholarly papers on two movies. Most of the films were silent, many of them very obscure, including some Eastern European silent flicks.

Despite all this training, I confess that I am not a skilled movie reviewer. Roger Ebert's job is safe from me. So what follows about The Passion of the Christ is less a real review, really, than my impressions and thoughts.

I tried hard to dismiss all the buzz, pro and con, that we've been force fed for months, especially in the last two weeks. Maybe I succeeded. So here goes:

Jesus' mother, Mary, is a meta-narrator of the movie. In fact, the events are almost told through her eyes. She is present at every moment of Jesus' suffering. She is also the only character except Jesus who knows, theologically, what is going on. Hence, she alternates between shock and grief at what is happening to her son, and acceptance of its necessity. I found very powerful and moving a scene when Jesus falls while carrying the cross, evoking a flashback memory of Mary. At the end, when Jesus is lowered dead from the cross into her arms, Gibson reproduces Michelangelo's Pieta, one of the most sublime works of sculpture in Western art.

Is it anti-Jewish? Well, neither my son nor I (he is 18) left the theater angry at Jews or thinking that "the Jews" were - or are - responsible for Jesus' death. Anger simply is not an emotion I experienced during or after the movie, and I saw and heard no indication that any other viewer did.

That being said, the Jewish hierarchy is presented almost uniformly flat-charactered. In Jesus' arraignment just after he is arrested, two or three members of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high council, protest vehemently that the proceeding violates both Jewish law and common sense. They are quickly marginalized by the others. After some reflection, I have to agree substantially (not completely) with one of my former professors, Dr. Susan Bond, who told The Tennessean, referring to the visual presentation of Jews in movies,

Historically, Jesus movies have done a very bad job of this by caricaturing the Jews. One of the ways you know who the bad guys are is that you see the guys with the big hats, guys with too many jewels on their robes. Mel managed to make the religious leaders in this movie even more grandiose than in other movies, which I would interpret as an anti-Jewish spin on it. He made the additional artistic decision of giving them all bad teeth, and making them less physically attractive as a distinct group. ...

OTOH, these are also stock ways that movie makers help the audience identify the antagonists to the hero; the Jews who sympathize with Jesus or who attempt to show him compassion are visually more appealing than those who oppose him. The Roman soldiers are visually as repulsive as Jesus' Jewish foes - except for one who is compassionate toward Mary. He's a handsome fellow.

It also needs to be recognized that Jesus himself is not visually presented as a Jewish man - he wears no fringes that I saw (as the Gospels explicitly say he did), no headcovering, has no phylacteries, worn by every male Jew more than 13 years old.

While I see why critics claim anti-Judaism on Gibson's part, I think it is just as likely that he simply used a stock movie-maker's paradigm to help the audience keep track of the sides, even if a little crudely or insensitively done. Does that mean he thinks the audience is too stupid to keep track on its own? Well, yeah. Directors generally think that. (Alfred Hitchcock said that actors and the audience alike were "cattle.")

(However, a writer in Christianity Today, an evangelical magazine, observes, "... concerns about The Passion stirring anti-Semitic attitudes in the American movie-going public have been largely misplaced, but I do not for a minute hold these fears to be misbegotten or disingenuous." Read the whole thing.)

Is the movie accurate to the Gospels? On the whole, yes, in the main events: Jesus was arrested, tried, condemned, probably flogged, condemned and crucified. But the movie conflates the Gospel accounts together and dramatizes them strongly. Gibson tried to make a single, coherent film narrative out of four accounts that don't always match.

Gibson obviously picked some scenes and not others from the Gospels. The result is a movie that, while generally according with the Gospels, isn't really a movie of the Gospels. Gibson is Catholic, as critics have endlessly reminded us, and Catholic tradition about the passion influences the screenplay quite a bit: the Gospels, for example, do not relate Mary following Jesus along the Via Dolorosa but some Catholic tradition does. Again, it makes for some compelling drama and I have no problem with it, but it is not in the Gospels. Neither do the Gospels relate that Caiaphas the high priest himself went to Golgotha as he does in the movie. The scene where Caiaphas personally accosts Jesus on the cross is not in the Gospels, although Matthew says other priests were there:

41In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking him, saying, 42‘He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him.a 43He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to; for he said, "I am God’s Son."

However, one authority of the Jewish practice of the day whom I trust emailed me that the presence of Caiaphas himself at the cross was quite unlikely because the high priest was never to contact corpse uncleanness (even by accident, I might add),

In addition to including scenes in the movie that aren't in the Bible, Gibson does omit some things that are: Judas does hang himself, but does not fall and burst open upon the rocks, for example, and the centurion at the crucifixion does not proclaim, "Surely, this man was the son of God" (a really curious omission, I think). At Jesus' death we do see the earthquake that splits the veil in the Temple, but the Gospels do not say the Temple itself was wrecked as the movie shows. Nor do see the dead of Jerusalem come forth from their tombs. The crowd around the cross disperses before Jesus cries out to Elohim, but in the Bible the crowd debates the meaning of what Jesus is saying.

So IMO, the quote attributed to the Pope about the movie, "It is as it was," is problematic because it presumes we know with certainty exactly how it was in the first place.

I personally did not care for the satanic figure who hovered over many of the scenes, though I know what Mel was trying to do dramatically with it. There are a lot of other invented sequences, a necessity since a movie made strictly according to the Gospels' narrative would be pretty short. Hence, this movie is not a documentary of any kind. It is Mel Gibson's imaginative retelling of the passion story.

The movie ends with a very brief resurrection scene. While I found the scene very powerful, it is not biblical. So as not to ruin its impact for you, I'll not describe it here. It is a wonderfully imaginative scene, but strays from the book.

The flogging scene was overdone and dramatically overshadows even the crucifixion. Three Gospels say Jesus was flogged but provide no details. In the movie, Jesus' beating begins with rods, severe enough in themselves, but they are discarded at a count of 32. Then the Roman flagellum is used, which shreds his flesh. However, the Gospels don't agree on the context of the flogging. If the flogging was done after Jesus was condemned by Pilate, then using the flagellum would have been expected, because the Romans generally wanted prisoners to die quickly on the cross. The scourging alone would half kill a man. But if a man was not condemned, just sentenced to be punished, a flagellum would not have been used because it was potentially lethal itself. Matthew and Mark agree that Jesus was flogged before being sentenced to die, but John says he was condemned after being flogged. Gibson's movie goes along with John, but he has to account for the discrepancy of the Gospels. Hence, when the soldiers see that Jesus isn't properly subdued by the rods, they turn to the flagellum. The centurion enters and halts the flogging precisely because Jesus was not condemned. By then, however, Jesus has been flogged to a bloody rag of a human being.

Luke says, though, that Pilate said he would have Jesus flogged, but the crowd insisted he be crucified. So Pilate caved and sent him straight to die without being flogged.

A longstanding Christian tradition says Jesus received 39 lashes. The precision of the figure springs from the fact that Jewish law (Deut. 25:3) forbade more than 40 lashes; by stopping the count at 39, the possibility of a missed lash was accounted for. But Jesus was flogged by the Romans, not the Jews. Roman law had no count limit. We do not really know how many lashes Jesus really received; in the movie it is close to 100.

David Whidden wrote that this movie badly needs a prequel. I somewhat agree. It does appear to me that Mel presumed that viewers would know Jesus' story before the point his movie begins. Yet this assumption is not justified, I think. Huge numbers of Americans do not.

What viewers never discover within the movie is just why some Jews were so enraged by Jesus as to call for his death at Roman hands, apart from Jesus claiming he is the son of God - but this happens after he is arrested, not before. Clearly, the Sanhedrin (most of it, anyway) believes he has committed blasphemy, but crucifixion for that? Even Pilate rolls his eyes at that one.

In fact, Jesus had a substantial record of challenging the Jewish power structure of the day; he called some Pharisees, a socially powerful laity group, children of hell one day, certainly not something that would make them feel kindly toward him. Jesus drew large crowds as well; Pilate had sent cavalry to ride into other leaders' crowds with swords swinging. The details of all that are more than I want to go into in this post, but there is reason to believe there was a fear on the part of the high priest and others that Pilate would see Jesus as an insurgent leader and falsely think he was sponsored by the hierarchy. They seemed to fear that Pilate's well-known bloodthirstiness would fall upon them and the people because of Jesus. (John's Gospel is clear that a large number of ordinary Jewish people, not just the hierarchy, were hostile to Jesus because he claimed divine identity. Luke 4:18-29 relates that even the people of his own synagogue tried to throw him off a cliff - because he promised God's blessings not only for Jews but equally for Gentiles.)

Again, though, none of this presents in the movie, and I believe that lack is a major shortcoming. Just why do they want Jesus dead? We aren't really told. (Pilate kills him just to placate the Sanhedrin.)

Remember, though, that Gibson is emphasizing not the historical explanation for Jesus' death but a theological one. Jesus' death is presented more as a self-sacrifice than a murder. He is undergoing his passion deliberately. Arising from the ground along the road to Golgotha he tells Mary, "Behold, I am making all things new." However, this saying of Jesus comes from Revelation 21:5, not the Gospels, and refers to the coming again of Christ into the world. This isn't a criticism per se, just a clue that the historical question is not of primary interest to Gibson. A theological interpretation of Christ's suffering and death is.

I found the use of flashbacks very effective. Several times in his suffering, a glimpse of something reminds Jesus of an event in his ministry. A Roman sandal, for example, takes him back in memory to his foot washing of his disciples recorded in John's Gospel. Some of the flashbacks are of Jesus' moral teachings, such as to love one's enemies, not just friends. Others are of his teaching about himself. I thought the sequencing and selection of the flashback scenes were exquisitely well done; they deeply moved me.

About the violence: apart from the overdone scourging, there are scenes where Jesus is beaten by Temple police en route to the Sanhedrin, they even throw him off a bridge and Jesus is painfully stopped just short of the ground by his chains. Neither the blows nor the fall are biblical, although it's believable that his captors struck him since Jesus' disciple Peter had offered armed resistance. But the bridge toss isn't credbile at all and serves no purpose other than to bring Jesus face to face with a disciple hiding under the bridge. What's the point? None. Gratuitous violent scene? Unquestionably.

Jesus is struck and spat upon at the Sanhedrin hearing. That's biblical. Roman soldiers strucks and whipped him along the Via Dolorosa, en route to die. Not specifically biblical but completely credible. These blows are not very graphic. The crucifixion is graphic and indeed illustrates why even Roman political leaders worked for decades to abolish the practice. Said Seneca,

Can anyone be found who would prefer wasting away in pain dying limb by limb, or letting out his life drop by drop, rather than expiring once for all? Can any man by found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree, long sickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly wounds on shoulders and chest, and drawing the breath of life amid long drawn-out agony? He would have many excuses for dying even before mounting the cross (Dialogue 3:2.2).

What the movie does not show, though, is just why crucifixion was so, well, excruciating. Painful with the nails and all, no doubt, but why were even its ancient advocates agreed it was the worst death a person could suffer?

The crucified person could not exhale properly and this eventually would lead to painful muscle cramps. Furthermore, adequate exhaling required the crucified to lift his body by pushing up on the feet and rotating his elbows. This, of course, resulted in searing pain in both feet and hands. ... On the cross every breath would be an agonizing affair and finally in combination with exhaustion would lead to asphyxia. This also explains why the legs of the crucified were often broken, as was the case with the two robbers who were crucified with Jesus (John 19:31-33;). ... Without the support of their legs, the crucified were unable to raise up their bodies, which in turn made it impossible for them to exhale properly thus greatly speeding up death, often within minutes. All of this means that the seven sayings of Jesus were uttered with great difficulty, for speaking takes place during exhalation. [link]

There can be no question that hanging on the cross was the greatest suffering Jesus endured, yet the movie mostly glosses over his cross agony. Yet, as Gibson has said, unblinkingly showing Jesus' suffering is a major dramatic intention of the movie.

Roger Ebert says that the movie is the most violent film he has ever seen. I simply don't see how. Saving Private Ryan was by far more violent and more graphically, revoltingly violent in my view; Ryan had a far more powerful effect on me emotionally than The Passion. In fact, I think Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch (1969) was considerably more violent. Other commentators have mentioned last year's Kill Bill as more gratuitously violent than The Passion, but I have not seen it.

Where does the movie leave me? One day in class, Dr. Bond told of a classmate in her undergraduate days who had never been to church, never read the Bible. She loaned him a Bible and advised him to start with the Gospel of Mark, it being the shortest and simplest to read. She said that he told her later that he opened Mark not long before bedtime and became so engrossed in it that he couldn't put it down. He read through the passion with increasing dismay at what was happening to Jesus.

When he read of Jesus' death on the cross, he said he was too shocked to continue. He put the book down and went to bed.

But, he said, he discovered the story did not end there. The next morning he learned that death did not conquer Christ.

Tonight, as the credits rolled (we stayed until they ended) I was filled with a deep sadness - indeed, shame - at the profound deficiency of my own discipleship. Gibson has said that the movie's answer to the question, "Who killed Jesus?" is, "We all did." That is not what I felt at the end. Instead, I felt a deep sense of having betrayed the great trust given me by Christ, a enormous awareness of my own sin and sinfulness and my total reliance on God's gracious mercy.

Ah, holy Jesus, how hast thou offended,
that we to judge thee have in hate pretended?
By foes derided, by thine own rejected,
O most afflicted!

Who was the guilty? Who brought this upon thee?
Alas, my treason, Jesus, hath undone thee!
'Twas I, Lord Jesus, I it was denied thee;
I crucified thee.

Lo, the Good Shepherd for the sheep is offered;
the slave hath sinned, and the Son hath suffered.
For our atonement, while we nothing heeded,
God interceded.

For me, kind Jesus, was thy incarnation,
thy mortal sorrow, and thy life's oblation;
thy death of anguish and thy bitter passion,
for my salvation.

Therefore, kind Jesus, since I cannot pay thee,
I do adore thee, and will ever pray thee,
think on thy pity and thy love unswerving,
not my deserving.

"Ah, Holy Jesus," Johann Heerman, 1630

Update: I meant to include this little episode: As my son and I entered the theater, we met a classmate of his coming out. She had just seen the movie. She told my son that she had read the Gospels but did consider herself a Christian. But she said the movie made her understand for the first time what Jesus' story meant.

Update: The United Methodist Church's General Board of Discipleship has published a special web site devoted to issues related to The Passion of the Christ. The GBOD's site is called, "The Passion - Opportunities for Discipleship." A review published by the UMC's communications agency is here.

by Donald Sensing, 2/26/2004 10:58:00 PM. Permalink |

Off to see The Passion
I'll post about it tonight.

by Donald Sensing, 2/26/2004 03:57:00 PM. Permalink |

Guide to Passover
Passover is still a little ways off, but for those who are interested, The Jerusalem Post has a 2004 Guide to Passover online. You can even win a Passover Vacation for Two to Disneyworld (I am not making this up),

At Disney's Contemporary Resort in Orlando, Florida.

MatzaFun Tours and TotallyJewishTravel.com together offer two adults the opportunity to win a world class Passover 2004 vacation at Disney's Contemporary Resort.

Passover is a crucial thing for Christians to understand the saving work of Christ, so I always urge my Christian brethren to learn as much about it as they can.

by Donald Sensing, 2/26/2004 03:56:00 PM. Permalink |

Bringing a knife to a gunfight
Yep, it still happens (via Instapundit):

A senior citizen using the men's room yesterday at a popular Middletown eatery was approached by a would-be robber waving a knife. The potential victim responded by pulling out his own weapon - a handgun. ... No shots were fired and the suspect fled.

The senior citizen was 68 years old. I posted (with pictures!) about a news report that said for the first time ever, Americans 65 and up are more likely to own a gun than any other age group.

Said one of the men interviewed, "I can't run and I can't fight 'em. ... What a burglar fears the most is a homeowner who has a gun." Not only in the home, but in public restrooms too, I guess.

by Donald Sensing, 2/26/2004 03:50:00 PM. Permalink |

"The Passion of the Christ" - United Methodist web site
The United Methodist Church's General Board of Discipleship has published a special web site devoted to issues related to The Passion of the Christ. The GBOD's site is called, "The Passion - Opportunities for Discipleship." A review published by the UMC's communications agency is here.

I'll post my own review tonight, after viewing the 5 p.m. showing.

by Donald Sensing, 2/26/2004 10:33:00 AM. Permalink |

How can we know anything about the historical Jesus?
Dr. Mark Roberts has a detailed, excellent, six-part series. Not a quick read, but highly rewarding.

by Donald Sensing, 2/25/2004 08:54:00 PM. Permalink |

Passion of the Christ - reviewing the reviewers
Two pieces that I am aware of today discuss the review of the A. O. Scott's NYT review of The Passion of the Christ , which, as everyone knows who isn;t in a coma, opened in 2,800 theaters today. (I drove by the local 20-screen cineplex at 1 p.m. today and the parking lot looked like it looks Friday night.)

Disclaimer: I have not yet seen the movie. Today being Ash Wednesday, my work load is a little higher than most Wednesdays. I will see it tomorrow.

First is Doug Payton's post. Doug characterizes his post as a fisking of the NYT review and I would agree that it is critical thereof, but not wholly. Citing Scott, who dwells at length upon the graphic violence of the suffering and death of Jesus,

The Gospels, at least in some interpretations, suggest that the story ends in forgiveness. But such an ending seems beyond Mr. Gibson's imaginative capacities. Perhaps he suspects that his public prefers terror, fury and gore. Maybe Homer Simpson was right after all.

Or maybe Mr. Scott would like a revisionist ending, contrary to any of his protestations. The problem is, the story of Jesus' life isn't simple, isn't neatly packaged, and is frankly not all that sanitary. Early on in this review, Mr. Scott said "Mr. Gibson did not need to change the ending", and now says that the ending ought to be "forgiveness". Yet the violence he decries here is, in fact, the conduit for that forgiveness. I have to wonder what Mr. Scott would consider to be the real ending.

Actually, forgiveness is not the end of the passion story, resurrection is. Having said that, though, I should point out that Catholic theology has always tended to distinguish story of the suffering and death of Christ from his resurrection more than Protestants do. Gibson, as we have been exhaustively reminded, is a Catholic - worse an "extreme, traditionalist" Catholic, according to Scott. Personally, I am sure that had an "extreme, traditionalist" Protestant made the movie the resurrection would be the pi éce de resistance of the movie.

Next, Michael Williams "meta-reviews" Scott's review because Williams hasn't seen the movie either, but since he's read the book, okay. Scott says,

But without their fathomless cruelty, the story would not reach its necessary end. To halt the execution would thwart divine providence and refuse the gift of redemption.

To which Williams replies that speculation about halting Jesus' execution is basically futile, but,

It would have been far more just and right if Jesus' life had been spared and if all of humanity were forced to stand, unredeemed, before God's perfect judgement.

I don't agree with this at all because it uses a fallen, sin-ridden concept of "just" and justice. God is just, no doubt, but on his terms, not our own. God's justice is gracious rather than judicial because God's justice redeems and saves rather than condemns. In God's justice we do not get what we deserve, which is sort of the whole point of the Jesus story.

At any rate, Bill Hobbs has a capper to the discussion:

In the end, the important question to be answered is not: Who killed Jesus? The important question is: WHO raised Jesus from the dead?

And also, "Why, and what does it show?"

BTW, Blogs4God has an extensive collection of links about this and other "Christ and culture" posts by a wide variety of bloggers.

Update: Theology student David Whidden saw the movie and says it left him "deeply ambivalent." About its violence: "The phrase that went through my mind right after watching the movie was, 'it’s a religious snuff film.'" This is an essay written with perceptiveness and insight, especially when he says the movie badly needs a prequel. As I said, I'll see the movie tomorrow afternoon and report afterward.

by Donald Sensing, 2/25/2004 04:40:00 PM. Permalink |

What's the threat?
Ask the wrong question and you get unusable answers;
why I think the state should issue me a license to practice medicine, just because I want one

Neal Boortz, who otherwise seems mostly sane (example, his idea to repeal the 17th Amendment), asks a question which he says has no answer:

I've been trying for weeks to get listeners to explain just how their marriages will be adversely affected by the presence of "married" gays and lesbians in their community. Thus far I've had no good examples of potential damage.

Okay, fine, no one has called in to his show to be granted 25-30 seconds to explain a complicated issue. How unsurprising.

But consider: Marriage is licensed by the state. The practice of medicine is also licensed by the state. Tomorrow I will go to the state office concerned and apply for a license to practice medicine. I have no medical training above first aid, but so what? Equal protection under the law means that if the state issued medical-practice licenses to some people, it has to issue them to all.

Homosexuals comprise between one-two percent of Americans, so I have read. (The old "10 percent" claim was a canard from the beginning). So let's imagine that 1.5 percent of Americans without medical training apply for a get a license. Using Boortz's rationale, I would like any medical doctor reading this blog to explain just how your practice will be adversely affected by me and the maybe four million others simply being given a medical license and hanging out a shingle.

So Dr. Smith or whatever your name might be, how would granting a medical-practice license to anyone who wants one adversely affect your practice?

There is, or course, an answer, but before I post it I'll give readers a chance to comment their own.

Hint 1: Don't waste your time posting that there is a compelling public interest in regulating medical practice but not in regulating marriage practice. That dog don't hunt. As I have explained, society's interest in what marriage is and what it is for is in fact its premier interest, trumping all others.

Hint 2: Boortz and others who frame the question in that way - the same way I framed the medical license question - proceed from false premises. See whether you can identify what they are.

Update: I knew my brilliant readers would home like a laser on the real issue, and you did (see comments). The question is not whether "come one come all" issuing of medical licenses will injure Dr. Smith's practice in particular, but whether it will adversely affect the practice of medicine overall to the detriment of public health.

Likewise, whether SSM will injure the marriage of any particular couple is not the point. The queston is whether it will injure marriage as a social institution itself, to the detriment of the public good. I see little doubt that it will. More on that later; I've got to go abck to work now.

by Donald Sensing, 2/25/2004 02:23:00 PM. Permalink |

Why it has come to amending the Constitution
President Bush today endorsed amending the US Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.

On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. ...

I instinctively shy away from amending the Constitution on this issue for much the same reason that I oppose the proposals to amend to forbid protest-burning of the American flag: that's not what the Constitution is for. The Constitution was written to set forth the form and nature of the government and by its first 10 amendments guarantee that certain rights should never be abridged.

An amendment to define marriage Constitutionally is not "structural" in nature. So it does not seem to me to be Constitution-related business.

Except.

Except that the "full faith and credit" (FFC) clause of the Constitution's Article IV, Section 1 makes this issue a Constitutional one:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. ...

In the context of marriage, this clause has always meant that a couple married in, say, Michigan, who then moved to Tennessee, would not have to get a new marriage license from Tennessee. And that's the rub when it comes to homosexual "marriages."

What the FFC clause does, so pundits say at least, is this: compel legal recognition by all states of same-sex marriages done in San Francisco or Massachusetts. In effect, the Constitution would be used as the instrument to force a nationwide redefinition of the most fundamental way society is ordered, and it basically does so by fiat, by the whim of five judges in Massachusett's supreme court and of the mayor of a California city. Why, pray tell, should those persons have such enormous power over the people of Tennessee, or any other state?

In fact, the Congress agreed in 1996 that they shouldn't and passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which permitted states to decide on their own whether they would honor same-sex marriage licenses issued in other states. This act has been neither invoked by states nor challenged in court. The act's sponsors say that the Congress has the authority under the FFC clause, which in addition to the sentence quoted above, also says,

And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

In a calmer time, DOMA would be pretty much the end of it until a same-sex couple sued a state for failing to give full faith and credit to their union licensed in another state. I assume that federal rather than state court would have original jurisdiction because of the interstate character of the issue.

But these are not calm times. This issue became rapidly polarized to its extreme positions because of the scofflaw actions of San Francisco's Mayor Newsom and the provocative judicial overreach of the Mass. supreme court.

In legislative terms, the issue is settled at the federal level. DOMA is still on the books. But when President Bush denounced "activist judges" in his statement today, he was speaking for millions of Americans (we'll see whether a majority) who believe, as I do, that the very nature and character of the judiciary today far surpasses what the country's founders intended or envisioned, and hence traditional means of settling Constitutional questions have been abrogated. What else, they think, can they do but go to the source?

Yet there will be no quick resolution of this matter. Same-sex-marriage activists and proponents shut the electorate out of the decision by bypassing the hard legislative work they would have to do to win their case in the public mind. Instead, they went straight to courts and a usurping mayor. But their tactic has set the stage - and the justification - for opponents' strategy. For if courts and public officials can simply dismiss the law on one side, they can on the other.

A Constitutional amendment won't happen quickly, if it happens at all. Until then, it will be nothing but a backdrop to a culture war I fear has hardly begun. The possibility of a compromise is decreasing rapidly. Both sides are girding to fight for all-or-nothing victories. It won't be pretty.

Update: This quote of Gloria Steinem seems revealing as to why the SSM advocates deliberately shunned a legislative process:

“We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage…By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God…We must understand what we are attempting is a revolution, not a public relations movement.”

This from an article called, "The Left’s War on the Family." Take a look.

by Donald Sensing, 2/24/2004 07:16:00 PM. Permalink |

Worth remembering
Ralph Peters reminds us of The Best We've Got:

Iraq remains a brutally dangerous place, a country that will struggle for years with its disastrous past. Progress will be imperfect. Success will be inconsistent. Disappointments will intoxicate the media. But, when all is said and done, Iraq is now the only major country in the Middle East with hope for a better future.

Our soldiers created that hope. ...

Far from the crude babykiller of campus legend, the American soldier has proved that he is as humane as he is competent, as creative as he is valorous, and as optimistic as the best traditions of his - or her - country. Our troops have tracked down war criminals, turned the tables on ambushers, faced countless roadside bombs - and built schools, created jobs, picked up garbage and set an example that even those Iraqis anxious for us to leave will not forget.

The American soldier has an immeasurably greater impact than American bombs. ...

The American soldier is a historical anomaly - not a grasping conqueror, but a man or woman of courage and good heart who wishes only to do what must be done, and then go home. Our troops are inspiring in ways that no campaign speech or campus rally will ever rival. They live the virtues - courage, patriotism, love of freedom, self-sacrifice, honor - of which their critics are embarrassed to speak.

They have a wicked sense of humor. They're exuberantly politically incorrect. They're part of the most thoroughly integrated, representative American institution - our military. And when the American people and our leaders stand behind them, they can do any job on earth.

In November 1998, Stephen Ambrose wrote American Heritage's cover story, "I Learn a Lot from the Veterans." He quoted an unnamed World War II veteran:

"Imagine this. In the spring of 1945, around the world, the sight of a twelve-man squad of teenage boys, armed and in uniform, brought terror to people's hearts. Whether it was a Red Army squad in Berlin, Leipzig, or Warsaw, or a German squad in Holland, or a Japanese squad in Manila or Seoul of China, that squad meant rape, pillage, looting, wanton destruction, senseless killing. But there was an exception: a squad of GIs, a sight that brought the biggest smile you ever saw to people's lips, and joy to their hearts.

"Around the world this was true, even in Germany, even - after September 1945 - in Japan. This was because GIs meant candy, cigarettes, C-rations, and freedom. America had sent the best of her young men around the world, not to conquer but to liberate, not to terrorize but to help. This was a great moment in our history."

The moment is not over.

by Donald Sensing, 2/24/2004 03:36:00 PM. Permalink |

Full-circle collective cluelessness
Reid Stott recounts al Qaeda's record of its threats and action and says:

... amazingly, a mere two and a half years after thousands died in New York, DC, and Pennsylvania, many today say that we’re not at war at all. Our collective cluelessness has come full circle.

He has some observations about the combined US-Pakistan operations to trap Osama bin Laden going on now, too, including a caution against inflating the prospects of its success

But if you’re going to paint such a Big Face on this upcoming offensive, you better make sure you get some returns. When it comes to catching bin Laden and al Zawahiri, we’ve had enough disappointing and unnecessary failures.

Six years worth. And thousands of graves.

He right, of course. But as I said, I think there are certain factors working in our favor now that haven't been there before.

While you're there, read Reid's post about the Nader candidacy. Really.

by Donald Sensing, 2/24/2004 02:56:00 PM. Permalink |

Andy Rooney acts like Andy Rooney
Which is no surprise. Andy wants to know from Mel Gibson,

My question to Mel Gibson is: "How many million dollars does it look as if you're going to make off the crucifixion of Christ?"

Doug Payton has a question for Andy.

Well, OK, I'm doing more than that. I'm betting that either it didn't even show up on his radar or he was apathetic about it. I guess it's OK to make movies based on religious figures that make no pretense of accuracy, but try to be true to the text and the detractors come out of the woodwork. I'd really like to find out what, if anything, Rooney said back then and compare it to now. A search of CBSNews.com, and Google was no help either.

I'd be very interested to find this, but I gots my suspicions.

But Doug, don't you understand? The double standard is the standard from certain commentators.

Update: The text of Rooney's diatribe is posted on CBBSNews' site. It's reprehensible:

I heard from God just the other night. God always seems to call at night.

"Andrew," God said to me. He a