[I wrote the following article for a new website dedicated to Jewish news. Due to editorial disagreement, the piece appears at http://www.thetribevibe.net/ in a redacted form. I remain committed to the missing pieces, so I thought it worthwhile to post the original version to my personal blog, as well. In the interest of seeing that I am not competing with my own client, I would like to point out that this piece is merely an expansion to an article written for and first published at . And I ask that anyone who is interested in Jewish affairs visit that site for more such news in the future.]
In August, the controversial conservative commentator Glenn Beck embarked on a highly-publicized tour of Israel, which he had dubbed “Restoring Courage.” Before the event even concluded it elicited a wide range of responses from Israeli and world media, Jews of different political stripes, and followers and opponents of Beck within the United States. Much of the media in Israel gave only light coverage to Beck’s visit because most people outside of the U.S. simply don’t have reason to recognize or attach significance to his views or activities.
The evident purpose of Beck’s rally was to encourage an international movement to resist criticism and pressure being leveled against Israel by the United Nations, the European Union, human rights groups, and others. Because of his staunch support of Israel in context of the perception of overwhelming opposition, Beck was warmly welcomed by some prominent Israelis, even having addressed the Knesset on July 11th in an event organized by the Likud party’s Danny Danon. Commentary from the Jewish community suggests that some people are eager to support any non-Jewish voice that firmly sides with the state of Israel.
On the other hand, many have been wary of his personal intentions and the possibility of a Christian doctrinal interest in Israeli affairs. Heshy Rossenwasser, editor of the conservative Arutz Sheva news service effectively summarized both perspectives in an op-ed the week before the Restoring Courage rally:
“Any voice in the wilderness sounding a note of support to us comes as a breath of fresh air, and we welcome it with such ardor that we are willing to overlook potential faults and pitfalls – namely, that his seemingly pure and good-hearted motives just barely conceal political agendas and religious ideologies that ought to give Jews much pause.”
Beck’s opponents in America, both Jewish and non-Jewish, take issue with his seeming messianic mission and a strong tendency to intertwine his Mormon faith with his politics and social views. His stated support of Israel may well be in earnest, but there is a serious question of motivation at hand. Christian Zionism has a long history, grounded in evangelical and other conservative Christian beliefs regarding the end times and the second coming of Christ. The associated Christian prophecies range from vague frameworks of assumption about what is to come, to bizarrely specific accounts, but generally reflect the idea that the full restoration of the state of Israel must occur before the Christian prophecy of the second coming can be fulfilled. It is not clear whether Glenn Beck’s personal view reflects this idea, or how thoroughly formulated his beliefs about it are.
It’s also not clear what his views are regarding Judaism and the Jewish people in general. While he is presently being embraced by some members of the Jewish community for his vocal outrage against poor treatment of Israel in the world community, he has formerly come under fire from groups within the United States for ignorant language and commentary that evokes persistent notions of a Jewish conspiracy. In February of this year, Beck was quickly compelled to apologize for remarks that he made on his radio show comparing Reform Judaism to “radicalized Islam” and saying that they were akin to each other by virtue of both being politically-oriented.
Taking his distaste for social justice-oriented Jews farther while speaking on his show more recently, which now broadcasts online, Beck dismissed the housing protests that began in July in Israel, identifying the participants as far-left radicals, and drawing connections between them, communist ideology, and Islamists. The conspiratorial bent evoked by these kinds of statements is familiar in Glenn Beck’s broadcasts. Another fine example that is relevant to his unclear relationship with Judaism comes from January, when he was still employed by Fox News, at which time he claimed that a group called “the intelligent minority” had been conspiring to control people through propaganda for the past century. Eight of the nine people whom he implicated as prominent members of this minority were Jewish.
If Glenn Beck is the friend to Jews and to Israel that he claims to be, such discomforting beliefs and statements as these must be no more than coincidence and purely secular politics. If, however, they belie his fondness for the Jewish people, then his Restoring Courage tour and further advocacy for Israel must hide an ulterior motive. Beck’s devout Mormonism should be able to tell us something about his possible eschatological views. On the one hand, Mormon prophecy says that Zion, the new Jerusalem, will rise in North America, and thus one might suppose that there would be no explicit role for Israel to play in their end times scenario. However, Mormonism holds that the new covenant with Jesus does not supersede the covenant with Abraham, and that the Jews remain G-d’s chosen people, though destined to ultimately accept Jesus. This notion of eventual universal acceptance of the Mormon faith underlies Mormon belief in the baptism of the dead, which put the Church at odds with Judaism when it was revealed that they were baptizing holocaust victims.
There is a passage in the Mormon scripture called the Doctrines and Covenants, which says, “Let them, therefore, who are among the Gentiles flee unto Zion. And let them who be of Judah flee unto Jerusalem.” In addition, Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, stated in a talk in 1843 that Judah must return and Jerusalem be rebuilt along with its walls and Temple before the second coming of Jesus can occur. Thus, it is common Mormon belief that Israel will have a significant role to play in the fulfillment of Mormon prophecies, which must be preceded by the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy through the restoration of the Temple. Though religious interpretations are always certain to vary, these statements, together with the expectation that Jews will convert before the end times, suggest that some Mormons may advocate for the expansion of Israel on the same view as certain evangelicals, believing that the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy through the restoration of the Temple on the Mount is necessary to the fulfillment of their own prophecies of a second coming.
If Glenn Beck has such an idea in mind, it could give added meaning to his seeming embrace, in a broadcast immediately preceding his rally, of the Temple Institute, which is run by Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, who ran for the Knesset in the eighties as a member of the far right-wing Kach party, and “has argued that Jewish law does not allow Christians or Muslims to live in the land of Israel.” Without knowing more about Beck’s personal views regarding eschatology, it is mere speculation, but if he is interested in seeing gentiles flee to his own homeland in the United States, while Jews gather in an Israel with Biblical borders, then it makes good sense that he would align himself with Israelis who share a similar vision of racial exclusionism. No doubt his critics would see this as in keeping with his broader worldview, as well. Glenn Beck has a well-established history of drawing stark lines, whether between conservatives and liberals, communists and capitalists, believers and unbelievers, or Christendom and Islam.
If Glenn Beck is indeed engaged in a campaign in defense of Israel for reasons quite distinct from his personal feeling towards Jews and Judaism, it is little more than an alliance of convenience. And if one thinks that that is a far-fetched scenario, it is worth remembering that that is exactly the alliance being entered into by those Jews and Israelis who have embraced Glenn Beck on account of his presenting himself as a courageous, non-Jewish defender of Israel, despite their either not knowing who he is and what he stands for, or disagreeing with him outright on his various other controversial opinions.
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Monday, September 12, 2011
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Agree With Us and the Calls Will Stop
After yesterday, someecards.com will have to change its card that reads, “This gay pride month, lets dream of a day when New York and California are as progressive as Iowa and Maine.” I am thrilled to see that my home state has, at long last, joined the right side of history and civil rights. This is an inspiring watershed moment, and it is made more satisfying for me personally by the thought that it may signify the end of a long series of aggravating robocalls I’ve been received.
Over the past few weeks, there have been a number of times at which the phone in my home office rang, and before I am able to complete the word “hello” a recorded voice announces that it is the National Organization for Marriage calling with a brief survey. “Are you registered to vote in New York State?” it asks. And having been confused by the abruptness and lack of instruction the first time or two, I paused awkwardly before tentatively speaking the word “yes” into the receiver. “Do you agree,” the recording then continues, “that only marriage between one man and one woman should be legal in New York State?” Again I paused at first, this time wondering why the tone of the recorded voice seemed so cavalier, so evidently expectant of an affirmative response. Had they gotten my number confused with that of some archconservative they were trying to rally? I thought this to myself as I answered no.
“Thank you for your time and views,” said the robot, followed by silence. Generally, I expect a serious survey to consist of more than one opinion question, so it took me a long moment after the first call to realize that the machine was then no longer speaking to me. It didn’t even have the courtesy to say goodbye. It must have been quite disappointed with my response.
The day after the first call, I got another, which was absolutely identical. I shrugged, imagining that some hiccup in their system must have caused the auto-dialer to fail to recognize that my number had already been called. I answered the two questions the same as I had before, but more quickly, and hung up feeling perhaps ignobly gratified by the fact that my answer had counted twice. After three or four more repetitions of the same call, however, I began to wonder whether this was being done by design. Was the National Organization for Marriage perhaps only counting the yes votes, and giving the others unlimited chances to change their minds? Did they think that by bothering me repeatedly, and seeing to it that the machine typically called at least twice on a given day, they would wear me down and get me to answer yes just in the hope that the calls would stop thereafter, or that the survey would continue and give me a chance to speak to someone, and complain?
Perhaps I’m being silly and conspiratorial. It may well be that they were just using an extremely poorly designed system. But if they were trying to prompt a reversal, they had quite the opposite effect. My no vote became louder, firmer, and angrier each time. I considered trying to register my recorded response as “absolutely not, you callous, homophobic bastard,” or something along those lines.
I’m not the only one who experienced this ridiculous repetition, and it’s fun to think that it is a deliberate stratagem on the part of the National Organization for Marriage, because it would be indicative of both their stunningly narrow worldview and their desperation in the face of the increasing momentum of social change. I imagine a person assigned to review the recordings each morning playing back the denials of their position and reacting with disbelief that the weight of popular opinion is so firmly against them. “This must be a mistake,” I hear him saying each time he hears my voice or another speaking the word “no.” “He doesn’t sound gay. He must have misunderstood the question. Call him back.” Or else I imagine him deleting the record of numerous denials of their viewpoint, eagerly tallying up the statements of agreement, whether genuine or false, and starting the process over again in the morning, hoping that soon it will add up to an adequately manipulated show of agreement so as to justify their assertion that they are the ones being repressed, to indicate that the tyranny of an outspoken minority makes appropriate Bishop Joseph Mattera’s statement: “We look at it like we’re the victims.”
The National Organization for Marriage may not have put as much forethought into their campaign as I am imagining. They may not have conceived of the robocalls as harassment, and the constant repetition may have been little more than a technical flaw. But whether by design or not, it paints a fair picture of the inability of conservative evangelicals and regressive traditionalists to process other points of view. And whether they pestered me by design or purely by accident, I am hopeful that now that gay marriage is legal in New York State, these calls will come to an end. I am less hopeful about the end of the bigotry and ignorance underlying them.
Over the past few weeks, there have been a number of times at which the phone in my home office rang, and before I am able to complete the word “hello” a recorded voice announces that it is the National Organization for Marriage calling with a brief survey. “Are you registered to vote in New York State?” it asks. And having been confused by the abruptness and lack of instruction the first time or two, I paused awkwardly before tentatively speaking the word “yes” into the receiver. “Do you agree,” the recording then continues, “that only marriage between one man and one woman should be legal in New York State?” Again I paused at first, this time wondering why the tone of the recorded voice seemed so cavalier, so evidently expectant of an affirmative response. Had they gotten my number confused with that of some archconservative they were trying to rally? I thought this to myself as I answered no.
“Thank you for your time and views,” said the robot, followed by silence. Generally, I expect a serious survey to consist of more than one opinion question, so it took me a long moment after the first call to realize that the machine was then no longer speaking to me. It didn’t even have the courtesy to say goodbye. It must have been quite disappointed with my response.
The day after the first call, I got another, which was absolutely identical. I shrugged, imagining that some hiccup in their system must have caused the auto-dialer to fail to recognize that my number had already been called. I answered the two questions the same as I had before, but more quickly, and hung up feeling perhaps ignobly gratified by the fact that my answer had counted twice. After three or four more repetitions of the same call, however, I began to wonder whether this was being done by design. Was the National Organization for Marriage perhaps only counting the yes votes, and giving the others unlimited chances to change their minds? Did they think that by bothering me repeatedly, and seeing to it that the machine typically called at least twice on a given day, they would wear me down and get me to answer yes just in the hope that the calls would stop thereafter, or that the survey would continue and give me a chance to speak to someone, and complain?
Perhaps I’m being silly and conspiratorial. It may well be that they were just using an extremely poorly designed system. But if they were trying to prompt a reversal, they had quite the opposite effect. My no vote became louder, firmer, and angrier each time. I considered trying to register my recorded response as “absolutely not, you callous, homophobic bastard,” or something along those lines.
I’m not the only one who experienced this ridiculous repetition, and it’s fun to think that it is a deliberate stratagem on the part of the National Organization for Marriage, because it would be indicative of both their stunningly narrow worldview and their desperation in the face of the increasing momentum of social change. I imagine a person assigned to review the recordings each morning playing back the denials of their position and reacting with disbelief that the weight of popular opinion is so firmly against them. “This must be a mistake,” I hear him saying each time he hears my voice or another speaking the word “no.” “He doesn’t sound gay. He must have misunderstood the question. Call him back.” Or else I imagine him deleting the record of numerous denials of their viewpoint, eagerly tallying up the statements of agreement, whether genuine or false, and starting the process over again in the morning, hoping that soon it will add up to an adequately manipulated show of agreement so as to justify their assertion that they are the ones being repressed, to indicate that the tyranny of an outspoken minority makes appropriate Bishop Joseph Mattera’s statement: “We look at it like we’re the victims.”
The National Organization for Marriage may not have put as much forethought into their campaign as I am imagining. They may not have conceived of the robocalls as harassment, and the constant repetition may have been little more than a technical flaw. But whether by design or not, it paints a fair picture of the inability of conservative evangelicals and regressive traditionalists to process other points of view. And whether they pestered me by design or purely by accident, I am hopeful that now that gay marriage is legal in New York State, these calls will come to an end. I am less hopeful about the end of the bigotry and ignorance underlying them.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)
Has everyone repented of their sins and settled their affairs with God and Man? This is the day the world ends, or so says Harold Camping. I had heard about his apocalyptic pronouncement some time ago, but it was only yesterday that I learned just how oddly specific his end times scenario is. I'd naturally assumed that the Rapture would be universal, and that whatever global calamity brought all unrepentant sinners to their knees, it would happen at once, so that no one got first dibs and no one got shoved to the back of the line on the Day of Judgment. Apparently I was wrong about that.
According to Camping, six o'clock isn't what time it will be in his part of the world when the whole Earth shakes and Jesus reveals himself to all mankind and rends the dead of all nations from their peaceful rest. Instead, six o'clock is the time that it needs to be for that to happen in every time zone. Armageddon is going to work its way around the world, East to West starting at the international date line. Those lucky bastards in Tonga will get the tribulation out of the way early on. We in the United States will be left to tremble in anticipation as the eschaton draws closer, and Harold Camping, broadcasting out of California, will be one of the last people left un-raptured on the Earth.
Unless anybody decides to just go party in Samoa until the whole thing is almost over, then take a leisurely boat ride into Sunday morning, on an Ocean that no doubt will have turned to blood by then.
Honestly, if the End of the World is time-and-place-specific, doesn't that mean that with a little advance notice, like some senile nut whipping people into an absurd frenzy of millenialism, a person could simply dodge the entire event and opt not to show up for the final judgment? An airbus can make it three-fifths of the way around the damn equator in less than eighteen hours. Conceivably, couldn't a person leave Europe in the early afternoon and stay ahead of six PM for the entire day? Failing that, a simple expedition to sail around the arctic circle should allow a person to stay out of harm's way with a substantially lesser investment of time. Even if the wrath of God comes as a giant, Die Another Day-style solar death ray, it won't be that difficult to outrun if it can't move past wherever it's currently mid-evening. And even if everybody decides to just sit tight and wait for Christ to stop by their neck of the woods, what about people on the International Space Station? It's never six o'clock PM for them.
It boggles my mind that neither Harold Camping nor his small handful of very devoted followers considered any of these questions before starting on a media tour. Camping emphasizes that he has over fifty years of study of the Bible to lend him credibility, but how, in five decades, could he have not considered the glaring logical flaws in his prediction? This story is a profound testament to the power of blind faith. The idea that a person can believe something so strongly that no question enters his mind, even when those questions are damning and obvious, is fascinating, and it is frightening.
Faith of this kind softens the mind in a way that cushions it completely against breaking points. One of the greatest breaking points that a person can reach is the confrontation of difficult inquiry, which compels you to acknowledge that you don't know as much as you think you do. Your best means of making progress as a person is by challenging yourself, and that means analysis, it means inquiry. It means doubt.
I doubt that Harold Camping is anything but an evangelical loon, but if I'm wrong, we should already know it by the time you read this. If I am and anyone's looking for me, you can find me in the Pacific Ocean.
According to Camping, six o'clock isn't what time it will be in his part of the world when the whole Earth shakes and Jesus reveals himself to all mankind and rends the dead of all nations from their peaceful rest. Instead, six o'clock is the time that it needs to be for that to happen in every time zone. Armageddon is going to work its way around the world, East to West starting at the international date line. Those lucky bastards in Tonga will get the tribulation out of the way early on. We in the United States will be left to tremble in anticipation as the eschaton draws closer, and Harold Camping, broadcasting out of California, will be one of the last people left un-raptured on the Earth.
Unless anybody decides to just go party in Samoa until the whole thing is almost over, then take a leisurely boat ride into Sunday morning, on an Ocean that no doubt will have turned to blood by then.
Honestly, if the End of the World is time-and-place-specific, doesn't that mean that with a little advance notice, like some senile nut whipping people into an absurd frenzy of millenialism, a person could simply dodge the entire event and opt not to show up for the final judgment? An airbus can make it three-fifths of the way around the damn equator in less than eighteen hours. Conceivably, couldn't a person leave Europe in the early afternoon and stay ahead of six PM for the entire day? Failing that, a simple expedition to sail around the arctic circle should allow a person to stay out of harm's way with a substantially lesser investment of time. Even if the wrath of God comes as a giant, Die Another Day-style solar death ray, it won't be that difficult to outrun if it can't move past wherever it's currently mid-evening. And even if everybody decides to just sit tight and wait for Christ to stop by their neck of the woods, what about people on the International Space Station? It's never six o'clock PM for them.
It boggles my mind that neither Harold Camping nor his small handful of very devoted followers considered any of these questions before starting on a media tour. Camping emphasizes that he has over fifty years of study of the Bible to lend him credibility, but how, in five decades, could he have not considered the glaring logical flaws in his prediction? This story is a profound testament to the power of blind faith. The idea that a person can believe something so strongly that no question enters his mind, even when those questions are damning and obvious, is fascinating, and it is frightening.
Faith of this kind softens the mind in a way that cushions it completely against breaking points. One of the greatest breaking points that a person can reach is the confrontation of difficult inquiry, which compels you to acknowledge that you don't know as much as you think you do. Your best means of making progress as a person is by challenging yourself, and that means analysis, it means inquiry. It means doubt.
I doubt that Harold Camping is anything but an evangelical loon, but if I'm wrong, we should already know it by the time you read this. If I am and anyone's looking for me, you can find me in the Pacific Ocean.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
