[MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM LEONARD PEIKOFF!]
Christma$ should be commercial, [$ sign in original title]
by LEONARD PEIKOFF [Peikoff is Jewish and "founder of the Ayn Rand Institute." Ayn Rand was also Jewish]
Globe and Mail, December 24, 2002, Page A15
"Christmas in America is an exuberant display of human ingenuity, capitalist productivity and the enjoyment of life. Yet the real meaning of the holiday, we are told, is assorted Nativity tales and altruist injunctions (such as 'Love thy neighbor') that no one takes seriously. In fact, Christmas as we celebrate it today is a 19th-century American invention. The freedom and prosperity of post-Civil War America created the happiest nation in history; people wanted to revel in the goods and pleasures of life on Earth. And Christmas (which wasn't a U.S. federal holiday until 1870) became the vehicle for this feeling. Ancient people celebrated the winter solstice as the time when days begin to lengthen, indicating the Earth's return to life. But early Christians condemned these feasts; awaiting the end of the world, they scorned earthly pleasures ... For the first time, gift-giving became a major feature of Christmas. Christians had denounced it, but Americans would not be deterred. Thanks to capitalism, they were rich enough to afford presents, had the productive apparatus to advertise them, and were so content they gave gifts on an unprecedented scale. Although St. Nicholas (and a feeble Dec. 5 holiday connected with him) has been around for a long time, Santa is a U.S. invention ... Santa implicitly rejects Christian ethics ... Santa's no champion of unconditional Christian love. On the contrary, he is for justice, and gives only to good children. The best customs of Christmas, from carols to trees to decorations, have their root in pagan ideas and practices. America's tragedy is that its intellectual leaders have tried to replace happiness with guilt by insisting that the spiritual meaning of Christmas is religion and self-sacrifice for Tiny Tim or his equivalent. But the spiritual must start by recognizing reality. Life requires reason, selfishness, capitalism. That's what Christmas should celebrate -- and underneath the pretense, so it does. It's time to take the Christ out of Christmas, and turn the holiday into a guiltlessly egoistic, pro-reason, this-worldly, commercial celebration."

[THE BLIND CHRISTIAN OF THE YEAR AWARD GOES TO "THE CHRISTIAN COALITION OF AMERICA"]
The Christian Coalition and the Jewish Community,
by Ronn Torossian, October 18, 2002, Israel Report (Arutz Sheva)
"As a political consultant, I often am perplexed at the attitude of the Jewish community to many of the conservative causes that I work for. As one who works for The Moledet Party, Zionist Organization of America and many others, at no time I have been so perplexed as in my current position as Media Director for The Christian Coalition of America. As Israel faces terrorist bombings day after day, Anti-Semitism like we haven't seen since World War Two, assimilation and so many other evils, Abraham Foxman and many others tell us 'Beware of the Christians, they want you to convert.' As one who speaks with the Coalition's President ten times a day and maintains a working relationship with Pat Robertson and all of the leading Evangelicals in the United States, I can personally tell you that never once has the leadership of the Coalition asked me to convert ... As I managed the hundreds of media correspondents, and made statements on behalf of the Christian Coalition countless times this past weekend at the organization's annual conference, I felt at home, and in fact more at home than I do in many Jewish events ... The Christian Coalition has 2 Million pro-family supporters, and have influence in the White House. I know on a first hand basis that their Pro-Israel rally this past weekend at which 10,000 people attended had more influence on The White House and world leaders than the Jewish community's pro-Israel rally did a few months ago. One Christian rally does more than 100 Jewish rallies ... As a God fearing Jew, I see eye to eye with them, not only on their Israel agenda, but also on their pro-family agenda, and urge the rest of the Jewish community to join me, and utilize real politick when analyzing their support. Pass the bible, pass the ammunition, and pass the Christians your tickets to Israel, for while we condemn them, they are going and spending money keeping Jewish families safe and financially secure in the Jewish state. When the other issue comes up, let's deal with it. Till then, urge them to support us and let's help them."

[FROM PAPER EDITION]
Price, Stanley. There's Snow Getting Away from It [Book Review of White Christmas: The Song that Changed the World, by Jody Rosen],
Jewish Chronicle (UK), December 6, 2002, p. 32
"No Christimas haters should be put off by [Jody] Rosen's title ["White Christmas. The Song that Changed the World"]. Her book is much more than just 'the story of a song.' She cleverly uses 'White Chrismas' [written by Irving Berlin] as a focus to explore the phenonenon of Jewish assimilation into Americn life in the first half of the twentieth century ... As Rosen shows, in the world of entertainment and culture, it was more a take-over than an assimilation. In that golden era of musical theatre and film, almost the only truly successful gentile was Cole Porter. The Jews owned most of the theatres and almost all of the movie studios. For the Jews there was truly 'No business like show business,' another Irving Berlin hit. America has always been the most comfortable place to be Jewish, and this fascinating book emphasizes Berlin's contribution to this process of subtle Judaisation -- what Rosen calls a 'Yankee Doodle Yiddishkeit.' Rosen quotes, as follows, from Philip Roth's 'Operation Shylock': 'God gave Moses the Ten Commandments and then he gave Irving Berlin 'Easter Parade' and 'White Christmas,' the two holidays that celebrate the divinity of Christ -- and what does Irving Berlin do? He de-Christs them both! Easter turns into a fashion show and Christmas into a holiday about snow.'"

‘Donahue’ for Dec. 17,
MSNBC, December 17, 2002
[Transcript of the "Phil Donahue" Show]
Today's Guests: Al Mohler, Shmuley Boteach, Michael Brown, Joe Hough, REVEREND MOHLER: You know, the real question, given our understanding of what God thinks about human beings that are sinful, the real question is how can any be saved. Not how can any bear God’s judgment. And the reality is that God made provision for us to find salvation through Jesus Christ ... DONAHUE: What does the rabbi say about this? RABBI SHMULEY BOTEACH, NATIONAL TALK RADIO HOST: Well, Phil, sadly, Reverend Mohler is a spiritual racist. And it’s not enough for him for Jews to be at the back of the heavenly bus, and not only can they not drink from the good old water fountain, he wants nothing less than a spiritual lynching. The Jewish soul is going to burn in hell forever and ever. And think about how perverse this is. You take a Middle Eastern Jew named Jesus, one of the greatest teachers the world has ever known. You give him blond hair and blue eyes. You then put a Ku Klux Klan outfit on him with a hood and a white sheet, and you make him into the chief enforcer of anti-Semitism the world has ever known ... DONAHUE: But if that faith-You know, then if everybody gets, goes to heaven, then this or that particular faith doesn’t have anything to sell. If it doesn’t matter which faith you’re in, then who gets the most contributions? BOTEACH: But this transcends issue, Phil, of just people making decisions about faith. We are talking about Jews being persecuted, slaughtered... DONAHUE: I agree with you. BOTEACH: ... massacred, turned to bars of soap (ph) because of 2000 years of Christian anti-Judaism. The Holocaust didn’t take place in Buddhist Europe or in Hindu Europe. It took place in Christian Europe. By their fruits you shall know them."

On the Political Stupidity of American Jews,
by Irving Kristol, Azure, Autumn 1999
[Mr. Kristol is one of the most prominently credited Jewish "neo-conservatives" in today's political life]
"It is a fairly extraordinary story when one stops to think about it. In the decades after World War II, as anti-Semitism declined precipitously, and as Jews moved massively into the mainstream of American life, the official Jewish organizations took advantage of these new circumstances to prosecute an aggressive campaign against any public recognition, however slight, of the fact that most Americans are Christian. It is not that the leaders of the Jewish organizations were anti-religious. Most of the Jewish advocates of a secularized 'public square' were themselves members of Jewish congregations. They believed, in all sincerity, that religion should be the private affair of the individual. Religion belonged in the home, in the church and synagogue, and nowhere else. And they believed in this despite the fact that no society in history has ever acceded to the complete privatization of a religion embraced by the overwhelming majority of its members. The truth, of course, is that there is no way that religion can be obliterated from public life when 95 percent of the population is Christian. There is no way of preventing the Christian holidays, for instance, from spilling over into public life. But again, before World War II, there were practically no Jews who cared about such things. I went to a public school, where the children sang carols at Christmastime. Even among those Jews who sang them, I never knew a single one who was drawn to the practice of Christianity by them. Sometimes, the schools sponsored Nativity plays, and the response of the Jews was simply not to participate in them. There was no public 'issue' until the American Civil Liberties Union—which is financed primarily by Jews-arrived on the scene with the discovery that Christmas carols and pageants were a violation of the Constitution. As a matter of fact, our Jewish population in the United States believed in this so passionately that when the Supreme Court, having been prodded by the ACLU, ruled it unconstitutional for the Ten Commandments to be displayed in a public school, the Jewish organizations found this ruling unobjectionable. People who wanted their children to know about the Ten Commandments could send their children to heder. Since there was a powerful secularizing trend among American Christians after World War II, there was far less outrage over all this than one might have anticipated. The Jewish campaign against any suggestion that America was a Christian nation won one battle after another; eventually it made sufficient headway in the media and the legal profession—most importantly on the Supreme Court—that today there is widespread popular acceptance of the belief that this kind of secularism, which is tolerant of religion only so long as it is practiced privately and very discreetly, was indigenously and authoritatively 'American,' and had always been so ... Jewish day schools have become more popular, and the ritual in both Reform and Conservative synagogues has become more traditional. But this Jewish revival does not prevent American Jews from being intensely and automatically hostile to the concurrent Christian revival. It is fair to say that American Jews wish to be more Jewish while at the same time being frightened at the prospect of American Christians becoming more Christian. It is also fair to say that American Jews see nothing odd in this attitude. Intoxicated with their economic, political and judicial success over the past half-century, American Jews seem to have no reluctance in expressing their vision of an ideal America: A country where Christians are purely nominal, if that, in their Christianity, while they want the Jews to remain a flourishing religious community. One can easily understand the attractiveness of this vision to Jews. What is less easy to understand is the chutzpah of American Jews in publicly embracing this dual vision. Such arrogance is, I would suggest, a peculiarly Jewish form of political stupidity. For the time being, American Jews are getting away with this arrogance. Indeed, American Christians—and most especially the rising Evangelical movements—are extraordinarily tolerant, if more than a little puzzled, by this novel Jewish posture. And the lack of any negative Christian reaction has only encouraged American Jews in the belief that they have discovered some kind of universally applicable formula for dealing with non-Jews."

Christmas fails PC test in more public schools, An increasing number of public schools nationwide are becoming no-Christmas zones this year in an effort by school officials to accommodate different cultures and not offend non-Christians,
Washington Times, December 20, 2002
"Last week, several elementary teachers in Sacramento, Calif., said they had been banned from using the word 'Christmas' in class, and a mother in San Diego was barred from reading a Christmas story to a fourth-grade class. In New York, some school administrators asked teachers to limit holiday decorations to generic messages, such as 'Happy Holidays' or 'Season's Greetings,' and some city schools barred Nativity displays but allowed exhibition of the Jewish menorah and the Islamic star and crescent. As a result, a lawsuit has been filed. Meanwhile, music and band teachers in Maryland, Virginia and Michigan are not having students sing or play some carols, such as 'Silent Night' and 'The First Noel.' Instead, music selections are kept 'very secular' with songs such as 'Let It Snow,' 'Frosty the Snowman' and 'Jingle Bell Rock.' Critics of such school policies say they have had enough. 'We're at this point where no one wants to offend anyone, but you know what, I'm offended when teachers don't mention Christmas or pretend like it's not there,' said Karen Holgate, director of policy at the Capitol Resource Institute, a pro-family public policy center based in California. 'You will always offend someone whether you like it or not, that's just the way life is. So we need to get over this once and for all and learn to tolerate each other's differences."

A gloomy Christmas in Bethlehem,
Ha'aretz (Israel), December 23, 2002
"The Christian holiday of Christmas will start tomorrow night in Bethlehem in the shadow of Israeli tanks. The town of Bethlehem, holy to Christians worldwide, is still under curfew, and only the traditional convoy of the Latin Patriarch will be allowed to reach the Church of the Nativity. Instead of tourists, there will be Israeli soldiers in the city; instead of decorations and holiday cheer, a feeling of siege and war will be in the air. As far as the Israel Defense Forces are concerned, it will be just another busy day that soldiers hope to get through peacefully. Christians around the world are monitoring Israel's ability to allow free access to the Christian holy sites and freedom of religious worship during a difficult period of terror attacks ... During those years, the ruling concept was that the Christmas holidays were not merely a local event, but a showcase for Israel worldwide. Apparently, that concept is fading, along with Israel's good name in the world. This most important religious rite now appears to be at the mercy of the Israeli government, which can grant or deny the right to hold the ritual. True, the official formalities of the ceremonies will not be disturbed: The convoy will pass on time and the mass will be held as usual. But the formalistic side is incomplete without allowing believers from the territories, Israel and the world to freely attend the events at the holy site. As happened last year, the government decided to prevent Yasser Arafat from attending the ceremonies in Bethlehem, fearing that he would exploit the visit to restore some of the authority and leadership of which Israel has deprived him. This is also a blinkered approach, which regards the Christmas holiday as an alien event that can be handled in an uninspired military manner, ignoring the global symbolism of the holiday. It is impossible to ignore the contribution of Palestinian terrorism to the sad situation in Bethlehem. But even under those circumstances, it seems that the Israeli government is not doing enough to guarantee the rights of Christians to celebrate their holiday as they would like in an area under the IDF's complete control."

Russian city puts face of Christ on its flag,
The Washington Times, December 23, 2002
"Americans are not the only ones wrestling with religious symbols in public places. One Russian city has chosen to put the face of Jesus Christ on its regional flag, causing both joy and consternation among its residents, who include Christians, Muslims and Jews. The new flag may also indicate that Christ has become politically correct in a country on an official search for its Orthodox roots. Penza, an industrial center of more than 1 million people 400 miles southeast of Moscow, has officially adopted a simple, emerald-green flag with Christ in its center. 'The Orthodox Church, the Catholics and the Cossacks support it,' Culture Minister Yury Leptev told broadcast network NTV, which reported that the face of President Vladimir Putin had been considered for the flag. Local Muslim and Jewish communities, Mr. Leptev said, were in favor of the new version, which replaces a design emblazoned with the city's coat of arms: three sheaves of wheat surrounded by gold filigree and red accents. Communists were opposed to the new flag, Mr. Leptev said, 'even though some of them go to church' ... 'It's untimely,' a spokeswoman for Berl Lazar, one of two chief rabbis in Russia, told the newspaper. 'It looks fake,' said a Moscow-based Muslim official. 'Jesus was not born in Penza. You need to ask why he is on the flag.' But Mr. Leptev, the culture minister, defended the choice, saying a local legend justifies using the image of Christ on the flag. According to the story, Ivan the Terrible stopped in the city on his way through the region in the 16th century and promised to present an icon of Jesus to the citizenry upon his return."

A Christian in The Holy Land. Interview with the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem Michel Sabbah,
Newsweek, December 23, 2002
"When Pope John Paul II appointed Michel Sabbah as the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem in 1988, it was the first time the Holy Land’s indigenous Roman Catholics were led by a fellow Palestinian. Previously, Rome had always sent an Italian to fill the sensitive post. Some 20 percent of Palestinians are Christians, including Yasir Arafat’s wife, Suha, who was born into a Christian family before converting ... [Newsweek repoter] BORGHESE: Is it difficult to be a Christian in Israel, and are people heeding the Holy Father’s call for Christians not to leave the Holy Land? SABBAH: Christians live like others. They’re Palestinians, and as a result life is hard and they suffer; their liberty of movement is limited. They’re humiliated and reduced to begging for their daily bread. Some have left, especially those who are economically able to do so. Others remain by principle, and because they want to stay faithful to their homeland and to the church ... [QUESTION]: Is it difficult being a Christian Palestinian in a predominantly Muslim and Jewish land? [SABBAH]: Christians are part of Palestinian society, and the Palestinians are Christians and Muslims. No one is going to flee because of Islamic influence, but because of the lack of work, or the political tension provoked by the curfew. But there is no Muslim persecution of Christians, and in fact they share the same hope of one day having an independent state. [QUESTION]: Don’t you see a desire on the part of Muslims to dominate and convert other faiths? [SABBAH]: Just a moment. This isn’t easily understood in the West. We Palestinians know how to live together and how to understand this relationship. We are one people, even if there are some difficulties. ... [QUESTION:] The Israelis, too, are under attack. They are being overwhelmed with continuing acts of terrorism. [SABBAH]: Under attack, by whom? Israel occupies and attacks someone else’s land and finds resistance. Israel is not being attacked. When Israel ceases to attack and to occupy [the Palestinian territories], they won’t suffer any further counterattacks. If Israel wants to end violence, it only needs to end occupation. I’m 200 percent certain of this, and I’ve said it many times."

Israeli Chief Rabbi Condemns Christmas Celebrations by Jews in Israel,
tbo (Tampa Bay Online), Associated Press, December 24, 2002
"Chief Rabbi Israel Meir Lau on Tuesday urged Jews in Israel not to celebrate Christmas or New Year's Day, warning that such observances threaten the identity of the Jewish state. Lau encouraged Christian Israeli Arabs, foreign workers and immigrants to mark the holidays. But he said Jewish families should not 'be swept into keeping a way of life that is not their own, while obliterating and losing their self-respect.' In recent years, small numbers of Israeli Jews have begun celebrating Christmas, putting up lights in shops and even trees in homes. The trend began with the influx of thousands of Christians - many of them married to Jews - in the early 1990s as part of a wave of immigration from the former Soviet Union. At the same time, New Year's Eve has become a major party night at Tel Aviv hotels, despite threats by local rabbis to punish the establishments by removing their approval to serve kosher food. Interest in Christmas has grown since fighting with the Palestinians broke out two years ago and Christian foreign workers replaced their Palestinian counterparts in jobs. Israel has also undergone a type of cultural globalization - expressed in a desire among many Israelis to take part in what they view as a world holiday. Such expressions grate on the nerves of many Israeli Jews, particularly Lau. 'Why should we have anything to do with Christmas or New Year's Eve, in the shade of the Christmas tree?" Lau asked in a statement issued on Christmas Eve. "We never imagined that even in our independent country of the Jewish nation, foreign cultures would threaten our identity as a people and a nation' ... According to Israeli government statistics, 142,000 Christians live in Israel, including 115,000 Christian Arabs. The figures do not include the West Bank and Gaza Strip."

PHILOLOGOS. Putting the X Back in Xmas,
[Jewish] Forward, December 27, 2002
"Nitl was indeed a word for Christmas among German- and Yiddish-speaking Jews, the difference being that among Yiddish speakers it was the only word used, whereas German Jews quite naturally also used the German word Weihnacht ... Can it be that the explanation of the "I" in nitl is not the gradual, unconscious vowel shift of linguistic process but the sudden shift of conscious decision? Or to put it differently: Might nitl have been a deliberate Jewish pun on the natl of natalis or natale, on the one hand, and German/Yiddish nit, 'no' or 'nothing,' plus the diminutive —l, on the other hand? Given the Jewish attitude to Christianity and Christian holidays in medieval times — which, like the Christian attitude toward Judaism, was hardly positive — it is perfectly possible that Jews deliberately played on the name of the day celebrating the birth of Christ so as to make it mean 'little nothing.' Interestingly, so he informs the readers of his Web site (http://web.mit.edu/rjplaut/www/), Rabbi Plaut is currently writing a book on 'American Jews who proclaim their Jewish identity precisely during the Christmas season' by a 'wide spectrum of social activities, most often shared with fellow Jews,' such as 'going out to a Chinese restaurant or a movie, gambling in Atlantic City, or traveling to Florida and the Caribbean.' I wonder if the rabbi is aware that one of these activities — gambling in Atlantic City — may be a permutation of a traditional custom practiced by German and East-European Jews. This was the tradition of getting together to play cards on Christmas Eve, an occasion referred to as Nittelnacht (or nitlnakht), i.e., 'nitl night.' Even — or perhaps one should say especially — quite religious Jews, who frowned on card playing at other times of the year as a frivolous activity, made a point of indulging in it on Nittelnacht as a way of demonstrating how they felt about the Christian holiday."

OBERAMMERGAU IN FURTHER DECLINE,
Banner of Truth magazine,
"So pressure has been brought upon the village to tidy up its act and the Oberammergau play has been changed. Some 65 per cent of the text has been rewritten to root out what is perceived as the play's anti-Semitism. This has resulted in the play's programme notes now containing approbatory comments from members of the American Jewish Committee. What are the changes introduced? The words of the crowd recorded by Matthew, 'His blood be upon us and upon our children,' have been deleted. The play introduces protests by a minority of Jews in the trial before Pilate who ask for Christ to be saved. The old invented storyline of the intrigue of the money-changers in the Temple has been suppressed. Caiaphas is depicted as a kind of Pius XII figure - the wartime pope who collaborated with the Nazis and turned a blind eye to Jewish suffering. Pilate becomes an anti-Semitic representative of the Reich of the day. The crowds clamouring for Christ to be crucified sound like a Nuremberg rally. Their cry to free Barabbas, 'Barabbas gib frei!' sounds uncannily like 'Seig Heil!' The crowd raise their right arms as thy utter their yell. John Langland writes, 'In order to stress Jesus's Jewishness the apostles address him as 'Rabbi', and they all don prayer shawls at various key moments, including at the Last Supper. Then, indeed, Christ breaks into Hebrew as he utters the traditional Jewish blessing over the cup of wine' ('The Spectator,' 5th August 2000, "Jesus, the Germans and the Jews" pp.16 and 17). One little omission is most erroneous. When the Lord Jesus broke the bread and gave the wine to his disciples he said to them, 'This is the blood of the new covenant,' but in Oberammergau the word 'new' has been omitted, as if to suggest Christ instituted no new covenant and that the Jews were in a continuing covenant with God because of their Jewishness."

OBERAMMERGAU - Paradigm of Decay,
Christian Order, February 2001
"Passion Plays were once regularly performed in countless villages throughout Germany; many more across medieval Europe. These were the Ages of Faith. The piety of ordinary people was nourished and strengthened by such spectacles, similar to the Mystery Plays staged in medieval England and still revived, here and there, even in our own comparatively faithless age. What distinguishes the Oberammergau Play is its historical longevity and enduring appeal to both Christians and those who go just for a unique theatrical experience. Its story is well known ... The statistics are staggering. Between late May and early October 2000, in excess of a half-million visitors, at an average rate of 5,000+ daily, witnessed the famous Passion Play. All of this, of course, represents a multi-million pound 'industry'. But throughout wars, revolutions and military occupations, the villagers have stayed true to their tradition; their Play, with its eternal message of salvation, witnessing to their Faith and faithfulness. All, however, is not quite what it was. Politically Incorrect Play. This, after all, is the era of the 'modern' Catholic Church, in Oberammergau as elsewhere; with its decadent preoccupations with inclusivity, feminism, political correctness, theological ambiguity, and, not least in modern Oberammergau, with ecumenism. As James Shapiro points out in Oberammergau: The Troubling Story of the World's Most Famous Passion Play [Little, Brown & Company, 2000]: 'the past century in particular has witnessed a steady shift in control, away from the local parish priest and into the hands of the Passion Play Committee and village council.' (Sound familiar?!). This has entailed much controversy over the Play's alleged anti-Semitic text in some passages. Put simply, high Church authorities now retain final approval of the text and the manner in which major scenes are managed. This, writes Shapiro, was a controversial measure, winning the approval of the village council by only a single vote. The stage was set, as it were, for significant changes to how parts of the Gospel story had always been conveyed. The 'opening shot in the war against the play,' as James Shapiro puts it, was fired in November 1966. Phil Baum, Director of the American Jewish Congress's Commission on International Affairs, marshalled a group of American intellectuals and artists to oppose the Play's perceived anti-Semitism. High-profile names, such as Arthur Miller, Leonard Bernstein, Gunter Grass and Heinrich Boll, apparently underlay what amounted to a boycott of the Play. Shapiro recounts that during a news conference in New York City announcing the boycott, Elie Wiesel opined that 'the artist cannot be silent when the arts are used to exalt hatred.' The 1970 production subsequently saw unprecedented blocks of empty seats. But it didn't stop there. Up until 1970, the doctrine conveyed by the Oberammergau Play had received the Church's full approval. However, after Vatican II's innovative Declaration of the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, this support was withheld; the implication being that the Play, according to the Archbishop of Munich, 'contained anti-Semitic elements and needed revision.' Shapiro comments: "The play hadn't changed but the Church's message had' ... And so we see that germane to ecumenism and, specifically, this question of where the Jewish people stand in relation to the Catholic Church and their need, or not, to convert for their ultimate salvation, is the re-writing of 65% of the Passion Play's text; which, as indicated earlier, remained virtually unchanged in modern times. Examining these changes, or more precisely, their overall thrust, reveals not only the corrupting effect of new orientations within the official Church, but also, and just as disquieting, one readily apparent character-assassination ... And so Oberammergau's politically correct Passion Play now stands as a paradigm of post-conciliar decay; a dramatization of that 'new vision of church' [sic] in which the old model has been replaced by a new one but with the previous facade left more or less in place, to reassure one and all that it is still under the same management despite plentiful evidence to the contrary."

MORE ARTICLES ABOUT THE "POLITICALLY CORRECT" CHANGING OF CHRISTIAN BELIEFS AND TRADITION TO JEWISH SPECIFICATION IN PASSION PLAYS (TO AVOID CRITICIZING JEWS) :
PASSION PLAYS IN THE UNITED STATES MAY, (Anti Semitism in Passion Plays History and Evaluation)
by Samuel Weintraub, Passion Plays USA, 1984
The Passion of the Jew Jesus. Recommended Changes in the Oberammergau Passion PLay after 1984, by Leonard Swidler, with Gerald Sloyan.
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, posted on the web in March 1999
Is the Passion Play anti-Jewish? Significant revision corrects the perspective,
The Lutheran,
"Both Jewish representatives and Christian scholars and leaders, who have been involved in Christian-Jewish dialogues, have lodged protests. Good grounds for these charges once existed, but significant changes have been made in recent years. Some were introduced in 1990 and many more were made for 2000. All revisions had to be approved by the Oberammergau village council, for the play is essentially under civic control, although church authorities also have a say."

Presentation Before the Performance of Bach's Passion of St. John,
Handel Choir of Baltimore, April 5, 1992.
Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies
"There are those who maintain that the Saint John Passion of Bach should no longer be performed in public! Antisemitism, the argument goes, is deeply embedded in our culture, even though most of us are unaware of its enduring influence. Bach picks up and passes along the nefarious image of the Jewish people which is enshrined in the Gospel of John. Indeed the music amplifies the pathos of the passion narrative--intensifying the listener's sympathy for the plight of Jesus while at the same time heightening an antagonism for his enemies. The power and the beauty of the libretto endow a sinister stereotype of the Jew with respectability. In our time, to play a great work of art that profiles the Jewish people as evil and murderous is immoral. Perhaps our children or our children's children will tame the rhetoric of contempt. Perhaps they will eventually overcome the legacy of this hatred. But until then, we must be very cautious and do all in our power to prevent the circulation of a message which gives bigotry such lofty and sublime expression."

The Jewish Question,
by Stojgniew O'Donnell
[An article by an American professor to the Jewish Tribal Review]

Fallen Lott Urged Christians To 'Take Back' U.S.,
[Jewish] Forward, December 27, 2002
"Senator Trent Lott told reporters this week that he had fallen into the 'trap' of his political enemies who were happy to take aim at a conservative Christian from Mississippi. But, according to a 1987 report in the Washington Post, Lott eagerly compared his initial senate campaign to a religious crusade. 'Conservative, God-fearing, hard-working Christian people make a mistake by not being more aggressive,' Lott reportedly declared during a Mississippi Right to Life convention in 1987. 'This is our country and it's time we take it back.' The remark was brought to light last week by the National Jewish Democratic Council, a day before Lott's resignation as Senate Republican leader. 'Trent Lott's chronic problem of giving voice to his exclusivist worldview is not just Trent Lott's problem — it's the problem of many in the G.O.P., and especially its leadership,' said the Democratic council's executive director, Ira Forman, in a December 19 statement on Lott's 1987 remarks. Forman also criticized incoming House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, for urging a crowd of Christian Coalition activists during a pro-Israel rally in October to 'put people in office who stand unashamedly with Jesus Christ.' 'The real problem with these Republican leaders is not the occasional slip of the tongue; it's that they speak honestly about their beliefs,' Forman said. 'And until their exclusionist views change, it's going to be increasingly hard for large numbers of Americans to vote with the Republican Party.' The same day that the Jewish Democrats issued their press release, B'nai Brith International became the only major American Jewish organization to issue a statement calling on Lott to resign from his GOP leadership post."

Campaign to Abolish X-mas,
Noahide Laws [Jewish Chabad ultra-Orthodox organization]
"A flier serving as a follow-up to the previous one on the need to abolish Xmas celebration by gentiles. Campaign to abolish X-mas continues SPECIAL SALE!!! Fliers now available at reduced price: $0.15 per flier."

Crossover Compromise,
Way of Life, January 3, 2003
"The crossover phenomenon among Contemporary Christian Musicians began in the late 1980s and was led by Michael W. Smith and Amy Grant. They were able to move outside of the field of 'gospel music' to enjoy popularity in secular pop. The CCM musicians claim that they are being light in a dark world and that there is no compromise involved. The facts, though, tell a different story. Before the secular Geffen Records [David Geffen is the famous Jewish homosexual mogul, member of what's popularly known as Hollywood's "Velvet Mafia"] would sign a cross-marketing agreement with Smith's recording company, Reunion Records, it made sure that he was not too 'preachy' and overly religious. They sent representatives to his concerts in the spring of 1991 because 'they wanted to be sure he wasn't handing out Bibles' ('Rock of Ages: The Music Industry Is Getting Religion as Gospel Stars Shine,' Wall Street Journal, Sept. 11, 1991). Smith admitted to the Wall Street Journal: 'I know if I'm too blatant about my Christianity and talk about Jesus I won't succeed in the mainstream. But hey, I'm not an evangelist. I'm a singer.'"

ADL [PRESS RELEASE]: `PROFOUNDLY TROUBLING' RADISSON CHARLOTTE HOTEL PROMOTES ITSELF AS `CHRISTIAN FAMILY RESORT',
Anti-Defamation League, July 14, 1995
"The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) called it 'profoundly troubling' that Radisson Grand Resort Charlotte promotes itself as a 'Christian family resort.' In an exchange of letters with the hotel chain's Chief Executive Officer, ADL said such a message 'from a corporation which endeavors to serve the public regardless of religious affiliation is highly offensive.' The League urged Radisson to 'reconsider the appropriateness of your position.' In June, the Radisson Charlotte had sent out a promotional letter saying, 'We are a Christian family resort with activities for the entire family.' The letter closed, 'Sincerely in Christ.' Saying the promotional letter not only offends "the principles of the Radisson Hotel chain which, as a public company, endeavors to serve the public-at-large independent of religious affiliation, it is also an affront to your non-Christian patrons,' Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, wrote to the Chief Executive Officer of the Radisson Hotel Corporation, John Norlander. 'The Anti-Defamation League,' wrote Foxman, 'finds the language, content, and spirit of the letter very troubling.' Norlander responded that the Radisson Charlotte is 'owned and operated by an organization that represents the largest Christian group in Malaysia,' and their license agreement allows independent operation of their hotel 'so long as they don't violate any laws. In this case I don't see any law being violated.' Finding Norlander's response 'profoundly troubling,' Foxman wrote him again, saying, 'The signal Radisson and, in particular its Charlotte affiliate, is sending is that non-Christian business is discouraged. In addition to its offensiveness from a public policy standpoint, the message that resonates from the letter may be inconsistent with laws governing places of public accommodation.'"

First 'Jewsploitation' film to debut at Sundance festival,
Jewish Bulletin, January 17, 2003
"At one point in Jonathan Kesselman's 'Jewish exploitation' comedy, 'The Hebrew Hammer,' Mordechai Jefferson Carver strides into a seedy skinhead bar wearing a long leather coat, a black fedora, payot, a tallit and an oversized gold chai. A chalkboard advertises beer on tap, such as Old Adolf, but the titular superhero orders 'Manischewitz, straight up.' Then he crashes a bottle over the bartender's head, whips out two sawed-off shotguns and shouts, 'Shabbat Shalom, Motherf- - - - -s!' In this outrageous world of the Hammer (Adam Goldberg), the Orthodox Jewish hero must battle the evil son of Santa (Andy Dick) to save Chanukah. Call it the Jewish 'Shaft.' The farce is Kesselman's homage to 1970s 'blaxploitation' films ... 'The movie is a love letter to being Jewish,' said the writer-director ... The film -- which also features an organization called The Worldwide Jewish Media Conspiracy -- is part of a new trend of in-your-face ethnicity touted by hip Jewish artists (think Heeb magazine and New York's 'Jewsapalooza' music festival) ... I rented a whole bunch of blaxploitation films to figure out how the genre worked [said Kesselman] I learned that what I needed was some twist on the source of oppression. I asked myself, 'What as a Jew really pisses me off?' It hit me when I was walking around a mall in December: I hate Christmastime ... 'The Hammer celebrates being Jewish,' he said. 'It's a bad-ass Jew kicking ass for the tribe.'"

City council bars prayers to Jesus Suit threatened over ACLU's 'extortion' of town leaders,
World Net Daily, January 30, 2003
"Several Southern California cities are in a quandary over the invocation of God's name at city council meetings, setting up a battle over First Amendment rights. The city of Lake Elsinore, in Riverside County, faces the threat of a lawsuit over its decision to eliminate mention of 'religious figures' such as Jesus Christ from the traditional opening prayer at its council meetings. The city says the invokers can make a general reference to a supreme being, but local pastors have viewed the council's decision as censorship and consequently are unwilling to accept any invitation to give an invocation. The nonprofit United States Justice Foundation, which is threatening the suit, insists that the city has been deceived by the American Civil Liberties Union. Last fall, ACLU attorney Peter Aliasberg wrote a letter to Lake Elsinore warning that the city could face legal troubles if it did not quit using the name of Jesus Christ in its invocations. The city complied, but its decree apparently had the effect of eliminating the prayer altogether ... The ACLU's Aliasberg, however, insists that a person who prays at the invitation of a government body is representing the government. When that person names a specific deity, the government is taking sides, he contend ... The Press-Enterprise said the case was brought into focus last year by the controversial Jewish Defense League Chairman Irv Rubin, who has since died. Rubin sued the City of Burbank concerning an invocation at a city council meeting that ended with an expression of gratitude and love, 'in the name of Jesus Christ.'" The trial court favored Rubin, the Riverside paper said, by ruling that sectarian prayer that excludes other religious beliefs at a government meeting is unconstitutional. The decision was upheld in September by the state's 2nd Appellate District court, and Burbank's attorneys are seeking to have the case considered by the California Supreme Court. The Riverside County city of Temecula also is undergoing a similar battle."

Erich Fromm, Judaism, and the Frankfurt School,
By Douglas Kellner, Illuminations
"The Frankfurt School had a highly ambivalent relation to Judaism. On one hand, they were part of that Enlightenment tradition that opposed authority, tradition, and all institutions of the past -- including religion ... In this entry, I will discuss the ways that Judaism, psychoanalysis, and Marxism intersected in the work of Erich Fromm, constituting a distinctive mode of Jewish writing that combined religion and Enlightenment conceptions. I argue that Fromm was at once traditionally Jewish and radically secular, and that his early immerse in Jewish religion and culture came to shape his distinctive views and work ... Fromm himself was born into an orthodox Jewish family and both of his parents came from families of rabbis ... Throughout his youth, Fromm was deeply involved in the study of the Talmud and with his friend Leo Lowenthal, later an important member of the Frankfurt School, he joined the circle around the eminent Rabbi Nehemiah Nobel, rabbi of the largest Frankfurt synagogue ... One of his first major essays was on 'The Dogma of Christ' (1930; reprinted 1963) in which Fromm argued against the interpretation of the origins of Christianity of another [Jewish] psychoanalyst, Theodor Reik. Where Reik saw the doctrine whereby the Son was of the same single substance as God the father as a victory for the Oedipal drive to displace the primacy of the father, which was analogous to individual compulsive neurotic symptoms, Fromm saw the concept as the result of a long social process whereby early Christian radicals matured and accepted equality with the father. Fromm thus rejected both Reik's tendency to see religious phenomena as merely neurotic symptoms and argued for the primacy of sociological developments in explaining religious and other phenomena. Fromm also presented a quasi-positive view of Protestantism, suggesting that its individualism and stress on the activity and belief of the individual indicated a modern era in which it was possible for the masses to play an active role in social life and thought, 'as opposed to the infantile-passive attitude of the Middle Ages.' In the Medieval era, by contrast, Catholicism, with its 'veiled regression to the religion of the Great Mother,' offered the infantilized masses the fantasy-gratification of being a child loved and cared for by its mother."

Crimes Against Christianity,
Jerusalemites
[Links to articles about Israeli oppression of modern Christians in the Holy Land.]

[Question: when do Catholics start demanding Jewish adjustments to their overwhelmingly negative perceptions of Christians? And when are Catholic lobbying groups going to be writing policy papers about this? When to do we get to see a major magazine article entitled: "How the Catholics Changed Jewish Thinking?" Below is an examination of Jewish lobbying and infiltration of the Catholic religous hierarchy towards the successful Jewish dictate to tell rank-and-file Catholics what they must believe about Jews, distinct from New Testament scripture. This is an excerpt from a very long article which should be read in full at its original online site to get a sense of Jewish influence in changing Catholic theology to suit them.]
How The Jews Changed Catholic Thinking, [Note: the original material at this link has been changed. Simply go to the google.com search engine and search this title for other sources for this article. Or click here.]
by Joseph Roddy, stthomaquinas.net, (originally from Look magazine, January 25, 1966, Volume 39, No. 2
"[Pope] John XXIII, standing in the doorway of the fourth-floor papal apartment, reached for Jules Isaac's hand, then sat beside him ... The non-Christian beside the Pope said the Vatican should study anti-Semitism ... By then, there was a fair amount of talk passing between the Vatican Council offices and Jewish groups, and both the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith were heard loud and clear in Rome. Rabbi Abraham J. Heschel of New York's Jewish Theological Seminary, who first knew of Bea in Berlin 30 years ago, met with the Cardinal in Rome. [Cardinal] Bea had already read the American Jewish Committee's The Image of the Jews in Catholic Teaching. It was followed by another AJC paper, the 23-page study, Anti-Jewish Elements in Catholic Liturgy. Speaking for the AJC, Heschel said he hoped the Vatican Council would purge Catholic teaching of all suggestions that the Jews were a cursed race. And in doing that, Heschel felt, the Council should in no way exhort Jews to become Christians. About the same time, Israel's Dr. Nahum Goldmann, head of the World Conference of Jewish Organizations, whose members ranged in creed from the most orthodox to liberal, pressed its aspirations on the Pope. B'nai B'rith wanted the Catholics to delete all language from the Church services that could even seem anti-Semitic. Not then, nor in any time to come, would that be a simple thing to do. The Catholic liturgy, where it was drawn from writings of the early Church Fathers, could easily be edited. But not the Gospels. Even if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were better at evangelism than history, their writings were divinely inspired, according to Catholic dogma, and about as easy to alter as the center of the sun. That difficulty put both Catholics with the very best intentions and Jews with the deepest understanding of Catholicism in a theological fix. It also brought out the conservative opposition in the Church and, to some extent, Arab anxieties in the Mideast. The conservative charge against the Jews was that they were deicides, guilty of killing God in the human-divine person of Christ. And to say now that they were not deicides was to say by indirection that Christ was not God, for the fact of the execution on Calvary stood unquestioned in Catholic theology. Yet the execution and the religion of those demanding it were the reasons Jews were 'God-killers' and 'Christ-killers' in the taunts of anti-Semites. Clearly, then, Catholic Scripture would be at issue if the council spoke about deicides and Jews. Wise and long-mitred heads around the Curia warned that the bishops in council should not touch this issue with ten-foot staffs. But still there was John XXIII, who said they must. If the inviolability of Holy Writ was most of the problem in Rome, the rest was the Arab-Israeli war. Ben-Gurion's Israel, in the Arab League's view, like Mao's China in the world out of Taiwan, really does not exist. Or, it only exists as a bone in the throat of Nasser. If the Council were to speak out for the Jews, then the spiritual order would seem political to Arab bishops ... From the West, where 225,500 more Jews live in New York than in Israel, the word was that dropping the declaration would be a calamity. And into this impasse came the ingenuous bulk of John XXIII - not to settle the dispute but to enlarge it. Quite on his own, the Pope was toying with an idea, which the Roman Curia found grotesque, that non-Catholic faiths should send observers to the Council. The prospect of being invited caused no crisis among Protestants, but it plainly nonplussed the Jews. To attend suggested to some Jews that Christian theology concerned them. But to stay away when invited might suggest that the Jews did not really care whether Catholics came to grips with anti-Semitism. When it was learned that Bea's declaration, set for voting at the first Council session, carried a clear refutation of the decide charge, the World Jewish Congress let it be known around Rome that Dr. Haim Y. Vardi, an Israeli, would be an unofficial observer at the Council. The two reports may not have been related, but still they seemed to be. Because of them, other reports-louder ones-were heard. The Arabs complained to the Holy See. The Holy See said no Israeli had been invited. The Israelis denied then that an observer had been named. ... Some agency close enough to the Vatican to have the addresses in Rome of the Council's 2,200 visiting cardinals and bishops, supplied each with a 900-page book, Il Complotto contro la Chiesa (The Plot Against the Church) In it, among reams of scurrility, was a kind of fetching shred of truth. Its claim that the Church was being infiltrated by Jews would intrigue anti-Semites. For, in fact, ordained Jews around Rome working on the Jewish declaration included Father Baum, as well as Msgr. John Oesterreicher, on Bea's staff at the Secretariat. Bea, himself, according to the Cairo daily, Al Gomhuria, was a Jew named Behar. Neither Baum nor Oesterreicher was with [Cardinal] Bea in the late afternoon on March 31, 1963, when a limousine was waiting for him outside the Hotel Plaza in New York. The ride ended about six blocks away, outside the offices of the American Jewish Committee. There, a latter-day Sanhedrin was waiting to greet the head of the Secretariat for Christian Unity. The gathering was kept secret from the press. Bea wanted neither the Holy See nor the Arab League to know he was there to take questions the Jews wanted to hear answered ... . As to the curse, it could not condemn the crucifiers anyway, the Cardinal reasoned, because Christ's dying words were a prayer for their pardon. The Rabbis in the room wanted to know then if the declaration would specify deicide, the curse and the rejection of the Jewish people by God as errors in Christian teaching ... Cardinal and rabbis joined in a toast with sherry after the talk, and one asked the prelate about Monsignor Oesterreicher, whom many Jews regard as too missionary with them. 'You know, Eminence,' a Jewish reporter once told Bea, 'Jews do not regard Jewish converts as their best friends.' Bea answered gravely, 'Not our Jews.' Not long after that, the Rolf Hochhuth play The Deputy opened, to depict Pius XII as the Vicar of Christ who fell silent while Hitler went to The Final Solution ... Two very concerned Jewish gentlemen who had to reflect hard on such mysteries were 59-year-old Joseph Lichten of B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League in New York, and Zachariah Shuster, 63, of the American Jewish Committee ... The strongest possible Jewish declaration was their common cause, but each wanted his home office to have credit for it. That is, of course, if the declaration was really strong. But until then, each would offer himself to the American hierarchs as the best barometer in Rome of Jewish sentiment back home. To find out how the Council was going, many U.S. bishops in Rome depended on what they read in the New York Times [owned by the Jewish Sulzberger family]. And so did the AJC and B'nai B'rith. That paper was the place to make points. Lichten thought Shuster was a genius at getting space in it, but less than deeply instructed in theology. Which is just about the way Shuster saw Lichten. Neither had much time for Frith Becker. Becker was in Rome for the World Jewish Congress, as its spokesman who sought no publicity and got little ... Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver had told Cardinal Francis Spellman of Israel's efforts to get a seat in the United Nations. To help, Spellman said he would call on South American governments and share with them his fond wish that Israel be admitted ... In Rome, six AJC members had an audience with the Pope, and one of them, Mrs. Leonard M. Sperry, had just endowed the Sperry Center for Intergroup Cooperation at Pro Deo University in the Holy City. The Pope told his callers he agreed with all Cardinal Spellman had said about Jewish guilt ... The Rabbi's audience with Paul in the Vatican, like Bea's meeting with the AJC in New York, was granted on the condition that it would be kept secret. It was undercover summit conferences of that sort that led conservatives to claim that American Jews were the new powers behind the Church. But on the floor of the Council, things looked even worse to the conservatives. There, it seemed to them as if Catholic bishops were working for the Jews. At issue was the weakened text. The cardinals from St. Louis and Chicago, Joseph Ritter and the late Albert Meyer, demanded a return to the strong one ... Some did not. After the vote, when Fritz Becker, the WJC's silent man, admitted he once called on Bea at home, he said the declaration was not mentioned. "We just talked, the Cardinal and I," Becker said, "about the advantages of not talking." There are Catholics close to what went on in Rome who think that Jewish energy did harm. Higgins, the social-action priest from Washington, D.C., is not one of them. If it had not been for the lobbying, he felt, the declaration would have been tabled. But in his usual gruff way, Cardinal Cushing said that the only people who could beat the Jewish declaration were the Jewish lobbyists. Father Tome Stransky, the touchy, young Paulist who rides a Lambretta to work at the Secretariat, thought that once the press got on to the Council there was no way to stop such pressure groups. If the Council could have deliberated in secret with no strainings from the outside, he thinks the declaration would have been stronger. As it stands, Stransky fears that some Catholics may gleefully pass it off as if it were written to and for Jews ... But there were many bishops at the Council who, if far less simple, were no less dogmatic. They felt Jewish pressure in Rome and resented it. They thought Bea's enemies were proved right when Council secrets turned up in American papers. "He wants to turn the Church over to the Jews," the hatemongers said of the old Cardinal, and some dogmatics in the Council thought the charge about right. "Don't say the Jews had any part in this," one priest said, "or the whole fight with the dogmatics will start over." Another, Father Felix Morlion at the Pro Deo University, who heads the study group working closely with the AJC, thought the promulgated text the best. "The one before had more regard for the sensitiveness of the Jewish people, but it did not produce the necessary clearness in the minds of Christians," he said. "In this sense, it was less effective even to the very cause of the Jewish people." Morlion knew just what the Jews did to get the declaration and why the Catholics had settled its compromise. 'We could have beaten the dogmatics,' he insisted. They could, indeed, but the cost would have been a split in the Church."

Israel To Split Christ's Birthplace With 25' High Wall,
rense.com (from Reuters), February 18, 2003
"A senior Israeli army officer told Palestinians on Tuesday their neighborhood in the town where Christ was born would be divided by a wall to safeguard Jews coming to pray at biblical Rachel's Tomb. A 25-foot high barrier will scoop part of the West Bank town revered by Christians as Jesus's birthplace into an expanded security zone being built around nearby Jerusalem to seal it off from Palestinian suicide bombers and gunmen. Almost half of Bethlehem municipality's 140,000 people is Christian. The area around the tomb itself is mainly Christian. On Sunday, the Israeli army sent notices to Palestinians living in the vicinity of Rachel's Tomb telling them that large chunks of their property would be requisitioned for the wall. A colonel in the army's Civil Administration for Israeli-occupied areas of the West Bank arrived two days later to explain a plan which local residents said would turn their once prosperous district into a ghetto."

[The recent attempt to ban the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is of course covered with the usual Jewish fingerprints, as the next couple articles illustrate.]
Court affirms Pledge ruling. 'Under God' appeal probably heading to Supreme Court,
San Francisco Chronicle, March 1, 2003
"A divided federal appeals court let stand Friday a blockbuster ruling declaring the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, setting the stage for a showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court. Both the Bush administration and the Sacramento County school district, where the case arose, had asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to set aside the controversial 2-1 ruling by a court panel last June and refer the case to an 11-judge panel for a rehearing. But after months of wrangling, a divided appellate court denied the request. At least nine of the appellate court's 24 judges voted for a rehearing, and six signed an angry opinion, saying both Friday's decision and the original ruling 'confers a favored status on atheism in our public life.' U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a statement implying that the Bush administration would appeal to the Supreme Court ... Michael Newdow, the Sacramento physician and atheist who filed the suit, said he wasn't surprised by Friday's order. 'The court upheld the Constitution, as they're supposed to do,' Newdow said. He said he assumed that the Supreme Court would agree to review the case. He said he would probably continue to act as his own attorney. Newdow sued in 2000, objecting to recitation of the pledge in his daughter's elementary school classroom. In ruling on the case, the appellate panel declared the ritual to be an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion ... The panel majority -- [Alfred] Goodwin and Judge Stephen Reinhardt -- amended the ruling Friday to make it clear that they were not overturning the entire 1954 law but only declaring classroom recitation of the pledge unconstitutional ... Friday's order drew an impassioned dissent by Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, who said the court should have reconsidered its 'grave error.' If the Pledge of Allegiance is a religious act, so is the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents, said O'Scannlain, joined by five colleagues. He said the panel's reasoning would drive 'all references to our religious heritage out of our schools, and eventually out of our public life.' He also said the panel had fostered a 'bias against religion' and had given Newdow 'the right to impose his views on others.' O'Scannlain said the 'public and political reaction' to the ruling was further evidence that it was wrong, drawing a rebuke from Reinhardt that the court must be guided by the Constitution, not public sentiment." [Mr. Reinhardt, which is more important: your personal dictatorial translation of a piece of paper, or the democratic wishes of human beings living in the real world? If "public sentiment" counts for nothing, then you declare yourself King.]

[Note also: The judges who banned the word "God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, in a 2-1 ruling, were Max Reinhardt and Alfred Goodwin. Reindhardt is the grandson of famous Jewish cartoonist Max Reinhardt, and he is married to Ramona Ripston, who is also Jewish and head of the anti-religious -- and Jewish dominated -- America Civil Liberties Union. Goodwin may be Jewish too].

[Surprise, surprise. Michael Newdow -- the complainer in the case -- is ALSO Jewish. In this older article, his former partner, Sandy Banning, is even an active Christian, as is their daughter. She nicely notes his typical Jewish hypocrisy.]
'Pledge' Mom: My Daughter Is No Atheist,
Fox News, July 15, 2002
"Following is the transcript of a Fox News Channel exclusive interview with Sandy Banning, mother of the schoolgirl whose father brought a case to federal court resulting in a ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance in its current form is unconstitutional because it refers to the United States as a nation 'under God.' RITA COSBY, FOX NEWS : I want to clarify something because you know, the perception out there is because Michael Newdow has come out — the father of your daughter — and said basically that he's an atheist based on his views, and so now the perception is that you and your daughter are atheists. Do you both believe in God? BANNING: Oh, yes, we are practicing Christians, and that's one of the things that I wanted to clarify, based on the statements in the record, that was the whole goal here was to correct the record, to say that no, we are not atheists, we are practicing Christians, and we love the Lord. We attend church regularly and enjoy it ... COSBY: Now, did you know at the time that he had such passionate such — and some are calling it — such extremist views? BANNING: No, I didn't know — I didn't understand or have this feeling that it was really extreme; I didn't sense this passion when we were friends, and we were together. I've always known that he has a great interest in constitutional law — but not that it went this far. COSBY: Now did he check with you or your daughter before he filed this suit? Did he give you any warning or ask for your opinion? BANNING: No, uh-unh ... COSBY: What do you think motivated him to file this suit then? BANNING: I — I'm not for sure what his motivation was, I know that he's always had a strong interest in constitutional law, and um, I know that he's always had a desire to — to — he's always enjoyed controversy and so it, being involved in something like this, it really doesn't surprise me too much. COSBY: Do you think his motivation was to bring, then, the case to the Supreme Court, rather than the interest of your mutual child? BANNING: I think that it's, personally I think it's pursuing his own interest. But having a child in public school provided him an avenue to do so. COSBY: Were you offended, because obviously many people are saying this case certainly brought so much attention to your family, particularly your child, putting your child, putting her in the spotlight, somewhat making her a spectacle, some might say, does that offend you, that he's done this? BANNING: Well, a little bit. But most importantly our goal here is just to correct the record, the American people, the President needs to know this child is not an atheist, um, before this case goes down in history we need to correct the record here. And so, and make sure my daughter is represented correctly. COSBY: And just one quick question before we go to the break, Sandy — there's some interesting stuff that has never been reported before, about Michael Newdow's background, his religious background. Tell me about his family — because his family, they're not atheists, right? BANNING: It's my understanding that his parents are atheists but he — he was raised — a Jewish background, Glen [their daughter] and he celebrate Hannukah and Passover together. COSBY: So he and your daughter celebrate Passover? BANNING: Correct. COSBY: And he doesn't oppose that? BANNING: No, he doesn't. And she celebrates the traditional Jewish holidays with him. COSBY: So how can he reconcile that — if he can say it's okay to celebrate Passover, but then saying your daughter can't say 'under God?' BANNING: Well, I'm not really sure how he reconciles that."

My Dogs Watch FoxNews,
by Paul Gottfried, lewrockewell.com, March 1, 2003
"This morning, when I turned on FoxNews for our three dogs, who seem to like the staccato sounds on Rupert Murdoch Central, I caught sight of the well-publicized visage of David Frum. Apparently Frum was being asked to comment on the Christian faith of George W. Bush, a spiritual disposition that had just received high grades from an Evangelical Republican who was particularly struck by the Prez’s remarks about everyone having the potential for democracy. Frum, who was in agreement with the Evangelical, spoke about how effusively Bush’s faith had come out in his speech before the American Enterprise Institute. Supposedly, someone who is about to bring democracy to the Middle East should be a man of strong Christian faith. As a cultural historian, I find all of this indescribably interesting. Why is a Jewish agnostic authorized to speak with pontifical authority on a 'conservative' news channel about the Christian spiritual well-being of an American president? And why would anyone, particularly a 'conservative,' believe that someone is a devout Christian because he intends to impose a facsimile of the current US regime upon countries in Asia with vastly different cultural and social traditions? Most important, what does this conversionary goal have to do with Christianity or with the constitutional understanding of limited republican government provided by the American Founding Fathers? Needless to say, the answer to all these rhetorical questions is: nothing at all."

Stop clapping, this is serious,
Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), March 1 2003
"The speaker is Tom Lehrer, arguably the most famous living satirical songwriter. And, in a roundabout way, the New York-born singer, composer and mathematician is explaining why he has been all but silent since 1965. It's 50 years since Lehrer's first recordings, and 38 years since his last album of new material, yet word that we've secured an interview has people around the office launching into such unlikely yet infectious ditties as The Vatican Rag, Smut and Lehrer's ode to spring pursuits, Poisoning Pigeons in the Park. It also has people asking with a surprised tone: 'Is he still alive?' Yes, Lehrer is very much with us, despite being quiet for so long (he once told The New York Times he had encouraged rumours of his demise in the hope of cutting down junk mail). And the writer of the nuclear holocaust anthem We Will All Go Together When We Go, and the prescient Pollution, is as feisty and as funny as ever ... Even after his biggest hit, the 1965 album That Was the Year that Was, he quickly returned to academic life rather than cash in with concert tours ... In 1999, Martin Gilbert [also Jewish], the biographer of Winston Churchill and famous chronicler of the 20th century, named Lehrer as one of the 10 great figures of the previous 100 years ... It wasn't until That Was the Year that Was in 1965 that Lehrer's songs became overtly political. In the scathing National Brotherhood Week, he sang: 'Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics/ And the Catholics hate the Protestants/ And the Hindus hate the Muslims/ And everybody hates the Jews.' (Lehrer has a Jewish background, but is not religious.) He caused even more outrage (and plenty of mirth) with The Vatican Rag, a swipe at the Catholic Church's attempt to modernise, which set a proposed 'hymn' to a brash show tune ('Get in line in that processional/ Step into that small confessional/ There, the guy who's got religion'll/ Tell you if your sin's original/ If it is, try playin' it safer/ Drink the wine and chew the wafer/ Two, four, six, eight/ Time to transubstantiate')."

[The following Jewish bigot against Christianity has no sense of irony. And no grasp of his own arrogance and self-aggrandizing hypocrisy. Talk about "chutzpah." The religion he hates so much is tolerant enough to employ him (how many "Jewish" colleges employ Christian teachers?) This self-proclaimed Jewish nihilist moved into a rural Indiana town as a professor at a Catholic college, and he has legally agitated to bend the community to his own world view. Beloved Mr. Berger soon embarked upon a lawsuit against the Gideon Bible people who have for half-century been visiting local Indiana schoolchildren.]
From The Motel Room To The Classroom: Nobody Escapes The Gideons,
by Prof. Allen Berger, Freedom From Religion Foundation [This is excerpted from a speech given at the 15th annual convention of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), December 5, 1992, San Antonio Texas.]
"We live in a small rural town in the bible belt of Indiana, and I'm an unbelieving Jew who teaches at a Catholic college! At that small Catholic college in Rensselaer, a colleague of mine and I have formed an organization that you ought to know about it. It's a rather small organization. In fact it only has two members ... Our organization is called 'UNGOD.' UNGOD stands for Unholy Nihilists for Godlessness Over Deism, and if you'd like to entertain a merger, we would be interested in your buying us out ... The reality is, of course, that the Gideons place bibles in public school classrooms all over America ... When someone like me complains about bible distribution, the Gideons give up the practice and move on to the next town, to come back as soon as the complainer moves away. Thus the issue is never tested in the courts. In our case the bibles never actually got to the fifth-grade classroom. We found out about bible distribution in the public schools from a friend who is a teacher in a neighboring school corporation, an ex-student of mine. She came to me one day and said: 'You know what happened to me the other day in school? The strangest thing. Two Gideon representatives came to my classroom, and I just felt funny about it. It didn't seem right. But the principal came by and said, 'It's okay. We've given them permission.' They came in, they distributed bibles to all the children, and gave a brief talk.' I was flabbergasted. I had no idea this occurred in America. At the same party that evening was the assistant superintendent from our local school corporation. My wife's a teacher in that school corporation and so he and I are friends. I walked up to him and said, 'You wouldn't believe the story I just heard! We don't do that in Rensselaer, do we?' He said, 'We've been doing that in Rensselaer for 40 or 50 years.' Turned out the Gideons were about to come into the fifth grade classrooms the very next week. My son was a fifth grader. Obviously that gave us good standing to complain, and we complained--not to the Gideons but to the school corporation. The school board did not respond to my letter of complaint. Instead they gave it to the press. Bibles in the local schools very quickly became a cause celebre and local churches began organizing to pressure the school board to continue the practice. At a meeting in December, 1989 they announced that they would in fact continue the practice. So the Gideons were never given the opportunity to withdraw from Rensselaer, Indiana as they have withdrawn in other parts of the country when complaints have been raised. Assuming we win this lawsuit, the school board in Rensselaer has not done any favor for the Gideons, International. Our lawsuit was begun in January, 1990. I contacted the Indiana Civil Liberties Union (ICLU). They have been good enough to represent us and we are quite grateful for that ... The third prong of the Lemon Test is whether Gideon distribution in the public schools fosters excessive entanglement in religion. Obviously, we believe it does. Many of you are familiar with the 'open forum' cases that have recently gotten a lot of media attention ... When I came to Rensselaer I found many people who believed that Jews had horns. And for Skolrood I still have horns. And I guess that's something of an honor." RESULT?: "The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled on January 5 in favor of Allen Berger's challenge of bible distribution in his public schools. The decision reversed a 1991 lower court ruling permitting Gideon Bibles to be distributed to fifth-grade pupils in a Rensselaer public school."

[If all these Jews are so dedicated to suing Christianity out of public venues, isn't it time lawsuits were aimed at the Great Jewish Pseudo-Religion, the Holocaust fanaticism that has taken over our schools, while ousting religious prayers? And, rest assured, not everyone appreciates this distinctly -- and obsessively -- JEWISH infringement on their own non-Jewish lives. In public spaces. ]
"If You Don't Fight Back, It's Wrong",
by Daniel Weisman (originally from Freethought Today)
"In June, 1992, the United States Supreme Court declared prayers at public high-school graduations to be unconstitutional, in the Lee v. Weisman decision. This article is excerpted from Professor Weisman's acceptance speech at the 15th annual Freedom From Religion Foundation convention in San Antonio, December 5, 1992, when he and his family were awarded the Foundation's 1992 'Freethinkers of the Year.'
We simply got very angry at what was an extremely inappropriate action by a local school board in response to a question we raised. In 1986 Merith graduated from our neighborhood public middle school. At the graduation a Baptist minister had us stand, bow our heads and pray as a group to Jesus Christ: 'We all thank Jesus Christ. He made these kids what they are today.' I had lots of reactions. Most of those have been well-reported in the media. Mostly those reactions had to do with my identity as a Jew, but also as a social worker where there is a commitment in my profession to respond to challenges of vulnerable people, who always tend to be in the minority, whether it is race or religion. I reacted on both levels, and just raised some questions with my local school district ... Eventually we were able to get a meeting with the principal, after a school teacher told us they had received our complaint and recognized how uncomfortable we were, and therefore they had arranged to get a rabbi to give the message at the graduation! (This is absolutely true!) We had a meeting with the principal and he basically said, 'So sue me.' Well, we did! [lots of clapping] The point I'm trying to make is: I appreciate being appreciated. We all do. But when you're in this position you get pushed. And you have a choice. Either take it, or if it's important enough and it's a reasonable thing to fight about, fight it. If you don't fight back, it's wrong ... It shouldn't have gone past the meeting with the principal. It did. It shouldn't have gone past district court. It did. So on and so forth. With the Supreme Court I just got the winning ticket. The Supreme Court, very surprisingly for us, ruled in our favor ... This morning both speakers in the morning session, Allen Berger [see article above] and Craig Phelon, made tremendously complimentary statements about us and I can just mirror them back on both of them, they're both courageous people. Allen describes himself as a 'nonbelieving Jew at a Catholic college.' That was kind of amusing. And I thought, Hey, I'm a nonbelieving Jew in a public college--in a Catholic state! A distinction without a difference as far as most Rhode Islanders are concerned. That's part of the problem ..."

Crossing the Line,
[Jewish] Forward, April 2003 [Editorial]
"Whatever one's views on the proper location of the line separating church and state — and there is legitimate room for debate — it's clear that the line was crossed this week by President Bush's education secretary, Rod Paige, when he called in a published interview for America's schoolchildren to learn in schools that teach 'the values of the Christian community.' Paige's comment appeared Monday in Baptist News, the news service of the Southern Baptist Convention. 'All things equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community, where a child is taught to have a strong faith,' Paige told the news service ... A Cabinet secretary is sworn to uphold the Constitution, and his views on what that document means are the proper concern of every American. If the man heading the federal Education Department believes the nation's schools should be exempt from the First Amendment, he and the president owe us an explanation as to why he's fit to serve."

Can Jews and Christians Live in Peace?,
By Richard Poe (from FrontPageMagazine.com) April 16, 2001
"I know about religious hatred. It divided my family for years. When my mother became engaged to my father, she worried that her Jewish in-laws might dislike her for being Mexican. But Mama's ethnicity did not turn out to be the problem. The problem was her religion. My Jewish grandparents opposed the marriage fiercely. They did not visit us for years. They did not know their grandchildren. But years later, when my grandmother was dying of cancer, my mother took them in. I was only 3 or 4 years old, but I remember the excitement and wonder of their arrival, the way my mother fussed over them, the strange and beautiful sound of the Russian language they spoke. My mother and grandmother became inseparable. As Grandma lay dying, she refused to allow anyone but my mother to nurse her. I remember those months as the happiest of my childhood. My grandmother's death was the first great sadness I knew. The rejection my mother experienced from her in-laws hurt her deeply and permanently, in ways more personal than anyone has been hurt by Hart's cartoon. Yet, I don't blame my grandparents for shunning my mother. It was their duty. They were being true to their faith. Religion is not about sparing people's feelings. It is about sticking to your convictions, even when it hurts. No one should understand this better than the Jewish Defense League. Condemnation of intermarriage is a cornerstone of JDL founder Meir Kahane's teaching. Some Jews refer to the rise in mixed marriages as a Second Holocaust. They say that people like my father are traitors, and that people like me should never have been born. Does that hurt my feelings? Sure it does. But Jews have a right to worship as they please, regardless of my feelings. My respect for that right is absolute. The truth is, I have a soft spot for the Jewish Defense League. I like their bluntness and rudeness. I respect their bold faith, though it holds nothing but rejection and scorn for half-Jews such as me. When my aunt Lorraine was a little girl, my grandmother told her that whenever she saw a nun, she should spit three times and grab a button, as a charm against evil. My grandparents hated Christians and feared them. Yet, in the end, they loved me. Their love is a burden that I carry to this day. My grandparents died dreaming of Jewish grandchildren who would never be."

Churches Challenged As Polling Places. Man Says He'll Sue Town In Federal Court, Boston Channel, March 31, 2003
"A Jewish lawyer and newspaper columnist who voted in a Methodist church that serves as his precinct's polling place, has sparked a heated debate over holding elections in religious buildings, which he says violates the separation of church and state. Robert Meltzer, 37, of Framingham, said he will sue the town this week in federal court. He said he has tried to persuade local officials to move polling stations from the church and a Catholic school to secular sites. But Selectmen have refused, arguing that the practice is widely accepted and that the church is the most convenient site for the polls. Meltzer said he voted in the Wesley United Methodist Church last year, standing in a voting booth directly below a large cross. Afterward, he vowed never to return, and has since voted by absentee ballot. 'In order to vote, you basically had to bow before the cross,' Meltzer said. 'I was sick for a week.' Voting in churches has long been a common practice throughout New England, and is permissible under state law. Some 60 communities -- including Boston, Cambridge, Lowell, Somerville and Worcester, Mass., -- hold elections in houses of worship, according to the secretary of state's office. "The law is silent on the subject," said Brian McNiff, a spokesman for the office. But Meltzer, who writes a regular op-ed column in the MetroWest Daily News of Framingham, said the practice, though widely accepted, violates voters' constitutional rights ... Meltzer said Hebrew scripture prohibits Jews from entering churches for fear of 'idolatry,' and 'worshipping false divinities.' Rabbi Tsvi Blanchard of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, acknowledged that scripture forbids Jews from entering churches, but added that few Jews adhere to it. The Rev. Carol Ann Parsons, pastor of the church, declined to comment on Meltzer's complaint. She said the cross has since been removed from the church hall where voting is held. 'I don't think his claim has any merit,' said Mathew Staver, president of Liberty Counsel, a civil liberties organization affiliated with the Rev. Jerry Falwell. 'It's an extreme example of trying to eradicate anything religious from the public square.'"

ACLU urges recall of religious AIDS pamphlet,
International Herald Tribune (April 3, 2003
"The American Civil Liberties Union asked the Department of Health Thursday to remove some AIDS education brochures from circulation because they are full of Biblical messages. The pamphlets, with 'Florida Department of Health' printed on the cover along with the agency's logo, are titled 'A Christian Response to AIDS' and use Biblical passages to urge compassion toward people with AIDS and the HIV virus. The brochure asks: 'How would Jesus respond to a person with HIV or AIDS?' and promises that 'Jesus is our Hope.' It quotes several Bible passages throughout. Health Department officials said the pamphlet, which has been around more than a decade, is on a list of AIDS education materials approved by the state for community organizations to use. In some cases the brochures may be bought by the state and directly distributed to the groups. In other cases, the groups may buy them on their own, but can use state grant money to do so. The pamphlet, used in several states and published by one of the largest health educational printers in the country, has been criticized elsewhere. Last month, Pennsylvania officials took it off their state's Health Department Web site after the ACLU complained. In a letter to the Florida Department of Health asking that it stop buying and associating itself with the pamphlet, ACLU of Florida Director Howard Simon said the brochure may have a worthwhile goal, but contains a message that shouldn't be delivered by state government. 'While the state must respond to this public health crisis and find ways to stop the spread of the AIDS virus, the state must base its message on ... medical and scientific information, rather than advocate a particular Christian set of beliefs,' Simon wrote to Health Secretary John Agwunobi. 'Sectarian messages are inappropriate for agencies of the state' ... Sen. Ron Klein of Delray Beach said he'd never seen the brochure but when showed it he said: 'We should look into this, and get them to pull it.' 'State funds are not supposed to be used for religious teachings,' said Klein, who is Jewish."

[Since the word "Israel" is rooted in a blatantly religious origin, and is fundamental to Judaism, it may be time to ban any reference to it in government meetings, no?]
FAITH UNDER FIRE. State Senate bars Christian prayer Jewish lawmakers threaten walk-out over reference to Jesus,
World Net Daily, April 3, 2003
"A Maryland minister was barred from giving the opening prayer in the state Senate after he refused to drop a reference to Jesus. The Rev. David N. Hughes of the Trinity and Evangelical Church of Adamstown, Md., intended to round out his invocation yesterday with the line, 'In Jesus' name, Amen.' But the sergeant at arms – on the orders of Senate President Thomas Mike Miller Jr. – shut the reverend out of the body's chambers. Miller issued the orders after two Jewish lawmakers threatened to stage a boycott of the legislative session if the phrase was not removed. 'I'm shocked by the response. I've never had this happen in 26 years,' Hughes told the Frederick News-Post. 'It just makes me feel that they've taken away my right as an American to pray, and this is the seat of government, and that's scary'" The pastor – a Vietnam veteran – was invited to give the prayer by Republican Sen. Alex Mooney. Hughes was Mooney's fourth guest. The other three were Jewish rabbis. Opening up legislative sessions with prayer is a longstanding tradition in Maryland, as it is in states across the country. Mooney told WorldNetDaily no one had been barred from giving an invocation before. He sees irony in yesterday's 'censorship.' Maryland state Republican Rep. Alex Mooney 'We were the first state to address religious tolerance in our state charter,' he told WorldNetDaily. 'This just shows a lack of tolerance for peoples' religious views' ... Miller appealed to lawmakers for tolerance and urged they stick to guidelines that call for invocations to be of an ecumenical nature and respectful of all faiths. Webster's New World Dictionary defines ecumenical as 'promoting cooperation or better understanding among differing religious faiths.' Since the debate, the Senate clerk screens prayers ahead of time and flagged the written text submitted by Hughes. When Sens. Ida Ruben and Paula Colodny Hollinger – both of whom are Jewish – heard of the reference, they asked Mooney to strike it. 'I said, 'Hey, I'll let him pray however he wants to pray. I'm not going to censor him and tell him how he needs to pray,' Mooney told WND. Ruben told the Frederick News-Post she then urged Hughes to substitute 'messiah' for Jesus, telling him the reference could offend non-Christians and goes against the guidelines. Neither Ruben nor Miller returned calls seeking comment. 'This is part of my faith,' Hughes responded, according to Mooney. 'The Gospel says when you pray, pray in Jesus' name' ... As WorldNetDaily reported, several Southern California cities are grappling with threats from both sides of the issue. Under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union to quit using the name Jesus Christ in invocations, the city of Lake Elsinore, in Riverside County, decided to eliminate mention of "religious figures." The decree subsequently had the apparent effect of eliminating the prayer altogether, as no local pastors would accept invitations to deliver the prayer, and city councilors adopted moments of silence instead. The ACLU contends that praying at the request of a government entity is a violation of the First Amendment's prohibition against the establishment of religion. But the nonprofit United States Justice Foundation, which threatened to sue the city if it failed to reverse its decision, maintains telling a pastor what to pray is a violation of his First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion."

[The Boston Globe is part of the New York Times chain, which is owned by the Jewish Sulzberger family. The editor of the Boston Globe, Martin Baron, is Jewish. Joseph Pulitzer was also Jewish. The Boston Globe won its Pulitizer prize for muckraking Catholic Church sex scandals. No such attention is provided (nor prizes awarded) to parallel sex scandals endemic to the Jewish community.]
Boston Globe Wins Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for Church Abuse Stories; LA Times, Washington Post Each Win Three,
tbo.com (from Associated Press), April 7, 2003
"The Boston Globe won the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for public service Monday for 'courageous, comprehensive coverage' in its disclosures of sexual abuse by priests in the Roman Catholic church ... The Globe's public service award was its 16th Pulitzer overall and third for that category. In awarding the prize, the Pulitzer board cited the paper's 'courageous, comprehensive coverage of sexual abuse by priests, an effort that pierced secrecy, stirred local national and international reaction and produced changes in the Roman Catholic Church.' 'You made history this past year. And you made the world a better and safer, and more humane place,' Globe Editor Martin Baron told a packed newsroom."

[Jews are always in the foreground hollering about "separation of church and state." What if Lieberman became president? Deference to his chauvinistic religious belief would be omnipresent. "Separation of synagogue and state" wouldn't count for much.]
South Carolina moves debate time for Lieberman,
WIS - News 10, April 7, 2003
"South Carolina Democrats have moved a presidential candidates' debate to the evening of May 3rd in deference to Senator Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew who would be unable to take part in a Saturday morning event. The debate for the Democratic hopefuls had been scheduled for 8:30am. Now, it will occur after sundown, allowing Lieberman to observe the Jewish Sabbath. Lieberman did not request the change, but party officials offered to move the event to ensure his participation ... During the 2000 campaign, Lieberman, then the vice presidential nominee, refused to campaign on Saturdays, the Sabbath."

DEMOCRATS TOLERATE ANTI-CHRISTIAN CONGRESSMAN,
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, April 11, 2003
"Democratic Congressman Gary Ackerman of New York has called for U.S. Secretary Rod Paige to resign for expressing his belief that the values taught in Christian schools are superior to those learned in public schools. Failing his resignation, Ackerman has called on President Bush to demand Paige’s resignation. Ackerman has been joined by other Democrats in calling for Paige’s ouster. Catholic League president William Donohue explains today why he is labeling Ackerman an anti-Christian bigot who should be driven out of office: 'U.S. Secretary Rod Paige states what millions of Americans believe, namely that Christian values are superior to the hollow values that mark public education, and for this Rep. Gary Ackerman accuses him of ‘the Taliban approach to education.’ In short, Paige’s sympathies for Christian values make him a terrorist. This is not the voice of a rational man—it is the voice of a mudslinger. Democratic Congressman James Moran recently blamed Jews for pressuring the U.S. to go to war with Iraq. And what was the reaction of his Jewish colleague, Gary Ackerman? Ackerman did not ask for his resignation—he merely advised Moran not to seek reelection! On March 27, Gary Ackerman was asked to vote on a non-binding resolution urging President George W. Bush, in recognition of the U.S. war in Iraq, to declare a day of prayer and fasting. Ackerman voted no. Any one of these three instances proves nothing. But combined they do: they tell us that Gary Ackerman is an anti-Christian bigot who should be driven from office.'”

ISRAEL MUSEUM HOSTS ANTI-CATHOLIC ART,
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, May 7, 2003
"On May 26, the Israel Museum will host an exhibition, Revelation: Representations of Christ in Photography, that is based on a newly released book by that name; it will run through September 6. Nissan N. Perez is curator of photography at the museum and the author of the book’s introduction. Catholic League president William Donohue explained why he was addressing this subject today: “Merrell, the publisher of Revelation, sent me a complimentary copy of the book in April. The letter said it was published ‘in time for Easter-related columns.’ I take it this was my Easter gift. “As Nissan Perez says, the 195 illustrations range from the ‘sacred’ to the ‘profane.’ His decision to include the profane may explain his defensiveness: he writes that ‘no disrespect or offence [is] intended.’ How considerate. I wonder, is this what he tells his Jewish friends when they are offended by anti-Semitic art—to consider that no disrespect was intended? Does he likewise seduce himself? “Nissan claims that unlike secular art, the prime function of artistic expression in the Catholic Church has been to stifle independent thought. He cites, for example, that the Dada and Surrealist movements (from roughly World War I through the 1930s) were united in their ‘call for the eradication of all organized religion.’ Midway through the 1920s, the principal organ of the Surrealists featured on its cover a photograph bearing the same title as the main article: ‘1925: End of the Christian Era.’ In 1934, Georges Hugnet offered us ‘The Last Supper,’ which featured a woman performing fellatio on a man standing in front of Jesus and his disciples at the Last Supper. “But it is obvious that Nissan fails to appreciate how nihilistic art dehumanizes the culture and abets a collective sense of insouciance in the face of suffering. In the same year that ‘Christianity Ended’ (1925), Mein Kampf was published. The moral relativism that marked Weimar Germany—the work of ‘creative’ artists—made possible Hitler’s triumph. For the Israel Museum not to get this is quite sad.”

BILL MAHER’S ANTI-CATHOLIC JOKES SCORE BIG WITH LIBERALS,
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, May 8, 2003
"Catholic League president William Donohue commented today on the one-man show, 'Bill Maher: Victory Begins at Home,' now playing on Broadway. Louis Giovino, the league’s director of communications, saw the show last night and provided Donohue with an account of the show and the audience reaction to it. Here are Donohue’s remarks: 'According to an AP story, Bill Maher ‘is an equal opportunity satirist,’ but this a stretch at best and a lie at worst. Theater critic Clive Barnes correctly identifies Maher not only as a liberal, but as one who is ‘unashamedly’ so. Yes, Maher does manage to offend some feminists (the New York Times noted that his anti-feminist jokes were the only time the audience hissed), but by and large his targets were politically correct. Which means it was safe to bash the pope, priests and the sacraments. The audience, according to Howard Kissel of the New York Daily News, ‘seemed to consist of my fellow upper West Siders,’ which is code for well-educated liberal Jews. 'There were no anti-Semitic jokes and the digs at Muslims were aimed at Islamic fundamentalists. To maintain his liberal credentials, Maher went out of his way to say ‘99 percent of the people who live in the Middle East are not terrorists.’ But Catholic priests were given no such assurances. Indeed, he spoke in the most obscene and sweeping terms about priests, and at one point even took umbrage at the shocked laughter that greeted his filthy Catholic-bashing jokes. To wit: Maher said to his fans, ‘Come on people! It’s not a few bad apples here, it’s systemic.’ “Maher, whose mother is Jewish and whose father is Catholic, is as phony as he is coarse. Quite unlike Mel Brooks, who pokes gentle fun at virtually every segment of the population, Maher gives some groups a pass, takes swipes at others and unleashes his anger at a select few. And no group does he reserve his venom for more than Catholic priests. “Maher has been publicly venting his anti-Catholic bigotry for years. That liberals love him says more about them than about Maher himself.”

[More and more, people are openly discussing the Jewish-enforced dual standards that exists througout popular culture:]
HITLER MINISERIES EXPOSES DOUBLE STANDARD,
Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights, May 14, 2003
"On May 18 and 20, CBS will air “Hitler: The Rise of Evil.” Catholic League president William Donohue issued the following statement today on the miniseries: 'From the first announcement of this made-for-TV movie, Jewish groups have been up in arms. Some questioned why it was necessary to do a TV portrait of Hitler while others wanted it squashed. Given what Jews endured in Nazi Germany, their response makes sense. But what galls the Catholic League is the double standard that is at work. For example, when the Catholic League objected to the ABC show ‘Nothing Sacred,’ we were blasted by Marvin Kitman of Newsday for doing so. Yet when he first learned of the miniseries, Kitman declared—sight unseen—‘I am so against this Hitler movie in advance.’ Why doesn’t he take his own advice and lighten up—it’s just a flick! Just turn the channel! “What Jewish groups feared most was the possibility that the movie might ‘humanize’ Hitler. That is why they pressured CBS from the get-go: not until they were satisfied with the film would they back off. And they got what they wanted. The original script, met with disapproval, was scrapped altogether. A new screenwriter was hired and reliance on the Ian Kershaw biography of Hitler was scaled back. But this wasn’t all. CBS will even go so far as to issue public service announcements during the telecast to promote tolerance. The network will also make a generous donation to a Holocaust-related charity. These are the kinds of somersaults the networks are capable of doing. For some. “CBS is owned by Viacom, the same company that owns Showtime. Two years ago, we protested the incredibly anti-Catholic Showtime film ‘Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All.’ Not only did Viacom chief Sumner Redstone not respond to our concerns, the movie’s director, Marshall Brickman, justified the attack on Catholicism by saying the Church ‘deserves to be the butt of a couple of jokes.’ That’s quite an understatement, given the maliciousness of the film. “The bottom line from Hollywood is: Catholics deserve to be bashed and Jews deserve special treatment. All this from the dons of inclusiveness.”

JEWISH GAY AGNOSTIC HERO MADE A SAINT,
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, May 29, 2003
"Beginning June 6, San Francisco’s Museum of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender History will feature an exhibit on Harvey Milk, the deceased gay San Francisco supervisor. Milk was killed 25 years ago and was the first openly gay elected official in a major American city. This is the inaugural exhibit of the Museum of GLBT History. Included in the exhibit is a portrait of Milk by Robert Lentz called 'Saint Harvey.' It pictures Milk with a halo behind his head holding a lit candle. Catholic League president William Donohue commented today on the portrait: 'It is a tribute, however backhanded, to Roman Catholicism that gay activists in San Francisco would choose to honor their slain Jewish, homosexual, agnostic martyr by cribbing from Catholic iconography. Bereft of sacred imagery in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender communities, it was only logical to turn to Catholicism for help. Hopefully, those involved in this tribute will now look more closely at what Catholicism has to offer in other areas as well.'”

[All bracketed material in the following article is in the original:]
Nathan Sharansky's View of Jesus "Crucifixion is a Privilege",
By ANTHONY GANCARSKI, CounterPunch, June 6, 2003
"Never let it be said that Israeli Cabinet Minister Natan Sharansky doesn't know how to cut a promo. On the June 2 edition of C-SPAN's Washington Journal Sharansky, who the National Christian Leadership Conference for Israel dubbed 'the long-imprisoned symbol of the Jewish struggle for freedom and human rights', was asked by a caller to reconcile Jewish support for the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth [apparently, said caller had access to the Zogby of the day] with the idea that 'Jews... are the Chosen People.' To me, the caller sounded like a garden-variety heckler, the kind a slick operator like Sharansky, recently lauded by the Jerusalem Post for having 'opened his traditionally Russian-based party to the Anglo community', should've been able to squash with just a smile and a reminder to C-Span viewers to support their local AIPAC representative. After all, the former Soviet Refusenik wasn't in Washington to enjoy the June balm; a cynic might suggest that it was Natan's 'turn' to bid for Congressional contributions. But I digress. How did Sharansky respond to this heckler? In a long-winded fashion, he explained that Israel [and by extension, all of those who keep the Jewish Sabbath] have special prerogatives, responsibilities to God and his creation due to their unique positioning in Yahweh's eyes. So long-winded was Sharansky's response, in fact, that one could've missed him saying that 'the crucifixion of Christ' was a 'privilege.' Mistakes happen, apparently, and Messiahs get offed. Sharansky, who thought Jonathan Pollard deserved to be freed, since he committed espionage not for an enemy but for one of America's many friends in the world, is entirely willing -- on a fund-raising trip to the US, no less! -- to write off the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth as a clerical error. Sharansky, who in 1997 denied that such an entity as the 'Russian mafia' existed, right around the time he threatened to bolt from the Israeli guvmint because his party didn't have final say on who the Israeli Ambassador to Moscow would be, cuts quite the figure. In a country where politicians have built careers around piddly crap like cutting funding to the NEA, leading the charge against flag-burning, and protecting our nation's youth from the menace of reefers, or blunts, or whatever the rappers call them on ClearChannel radio these days, Sharansky makes light of the crucifixion of Christ in the United States. May I remind Sharansky why that's a problem? The United States, nominally a Judeo-Christian nation, fortifies Israel in no small part because of the Christian Zionist assumption that such profligate aid buys certain Christians the best possible seats for the impending end times. A lucrative cottage industry, the US-Israel alliance, as everyone from Pat Robertson to Bill Kristol can attest. But loose talk like Sharansky's will undermine the foundation of that cottage, built on the illusory foundation that there is such a thing as a shared 'Judeo-Christian' interest to use Israel as a pivot point for US domination of what is called the Middle East. No skin off my nose, though. I know why Sharansky, an advocate of massive Russian immigration into the war-torn state of Israel, has come to America. To secure another billion, or two. To remind Congress that the last few dozen stragglers who refuse Israel unconditional support need to be purged. To observe the American scene. And it's just as well that his trip stateside coincided with the President's absence. If Bush had heard Sharansky, who accepted $85,000 in 'charities' from Israeli convict Grigory Lerner [international embezzler, with ties to the apparently mythical Russian Mafia], downplay the significance of Christ's crucifixion by claiming that it's just another 'privilege' due 'the Chosen People', he may have choked on a pretzel."

[Note: Marvel Comics has been a Jewish-owned and directed business since its inception]
HOW ABOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR CATHOLICS IN MARVEL COMIC BOOKS?, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Liberties, June 27, 2003
The July edition of the Marvel Comic series, “The X-Men,” tells the tale of good and evil by using Catholicism as a backdrop to the story. Along the way, many teachings of the Catholic Church are ridiculed. Among them are the Church’s pro-life position and its belief in the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Christ. At one point, the pope is revealed as the Antichrist; at another, a former Catholic nun who was raped by a priest is cast as the pope. Catholic League president William Donohue commented on this today: “Catholics are liked so much these days that our friends can’t resist addressing us in comic books. Even more fascinating is this: ‘Bigotry,’ said a 2000 article in the Los Angeles Times, ‘was a theme of the ‘The X-Men’ from the first issue in 1963.’ Here we are 40 years later and the prohibition has been lifted. Just for Catholics. “The Nation magazine offers even greater insight into the mindset of Marvel’s writers. In its May 12 edition, there is a review of three books on Marvel Comics. So sensitive is the company to bigotry that it has reworked Captain America as black. That’s right, this red-blooded American killer of the Nazis is now an African American. Another hero, known as ‘The Thing,’ resurfaces as a Jew. Gays are nicely represented as well—they can now claim the Rawhide Kid, a good-ole American cowboy. “Blacks, Jews and gays. Aren’t these the very groups the Catholic League always says get special treatment? Maybe it’s time we had an affirmative action system for Catholics so we can catch up with everyone else. Just don’t award us 20 points—the Supreme Court likes its preferences veiled.”

[Those dirty "Jews for Jesus" antisemites!]
Jews for Jesus´ sign is controversial and British Jews want it taken down,
By Richard Allen Greene, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, July 31, 2003
"British Jews are furious about a new Jews for Jesus advertising campaign. The advertisements, which hit Britain in July, show a group of fervently Orthodox Jews at the Western Wall in Jerusalem. One of them is wearing a bright red Jews for Jesus T-shirt. The ad´s slogan urges, "Think for Yourself." The ads have appeared in two national newspapers and on four billboards in Jewish areas of London. The Board of Deputies, the umbrella organization that represents most British Jews, has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the campaign. "This advertisement is clearly based upon the principle that the majority of Jews are unable to ‘think for themselves´ — i.e., believe in Jesus," the board´s director general, Neville Nagler, wrote in the complaint. "This is a highly objectionable notion, and one that gives great offense to the vast majority of Jewish people in this country. We call for the immediate withdrawal of the advertisement," he wrote. The Advertising Standards Authority has opened an investigation into the campaign after receiving nearly 20 complaints, a spokeswoman told JTA. The authority has compiled a report summarizing the complaints and requested a response from Jews for Jesus. The regulators expect to rule on the case by the end of August and could order the missionary organization to take the billboards down."

[Notes: Senator Kerry's newfound Jewish heritage is here. (Kerry's Jewish grandfather changed his surname from Kohn to Kerry). Also, when Judeocentric lobbying groups and racist Israel DEFINE American politics, how come it's a crime for the "church" to become activist too?]
Kerry raps Pope: Senator fuming over gay marriage order,
By David R. Guarino, Boston Herald, August 2, 2003
"Bluntly telling the Vatican to stay out of American politics, U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday said Pope John Paul II ``crossed the line'' by instructing pols to block legalization of gay marriage. A fuming Kerry, taking on his own Catholic Church in the midst of a campaign for president, said Rome should have more respect for America's long-held separation of church and state. ``It is important not to have the church instructing politicians. That is an inappropriate crossing of the line in this country,'' Kerry said. ``President Kennedy drew that line very clearly in 1960 and I believe we need to stand up for that line today.'' The Democrat said political concerns are secondary to his moral outrage over Thursday's Vatican statement on gay marriage. ``Our founding fathers separated church and state in America. It is an important separation,'' he said. ``It is part of what makes America different and special, and we need to honor that as we go forward and I'm going to fight to do that.'' Catholics were stunned at the broadside from Kerry, saying he's sure to draw the ire of some 65 million voting Catholics. ``What one often calls separation of church and state guarantees the religion the right to express its convictions,'' said Monsignor Francis Maniscalco of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. ``To object to religious people's deep moral convictions . . . would also create a problem because it would also (fail to) recognize something the First Amendment guarantees.'' Former Vatican Ambassador Raymond Flynn said Kerry was just wrong. ``I don't see it as crossing any line at all,'' Flynn said. ``Too many Catholic politicians want to have it both ways, they want the Catholic vote but then they go ahead and ignore Catholic teaching.'' The Vatican injected itself into the simmering gay marriage debate Thursday, firing off a letter issuing instructions to Catholic politicians to oppose any legalization efforts. ``The Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition (to gay marriage laws) clearly and publicly and to vote against it,'' the directive read. ``To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.'' The statement followed by a day strong comments from President Bush denouncing gay marriage proposals. Kerry, who supports civil unions but opposes the legalization of same-sex marriage, took pains to say, ``I believe in the church'' and ``care about it enormously'' but said church leaders went too far. Alone among Democrats in criticizing the church, Kerry said he didn't weigh the political impact of his statement. ``This isn't a matter of political calculation, it's simply a matter of strong personal beliefs,'' Kerry said. The Democratic senator also railed against Republicans who this week said Democratic efforts to block the judicial nomination of Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor were anti-Catholic. One group, the Ave Maria List, ran print ads equating Democrats' opposition to Pryor as saying ``Catholics need not apply'' to the federal judiciary. ``That couldn't be further from the truth. This judge is not a good judge,'' Kerry said. ``He should not be appointed to the court, and many of us who are Catholic voted against him without regard to Catholicism.'' Kerry also continued his criticism of Bush's ``faith-based'' programs, saying he would end government funding to any religious group. The White House and Kerry's opponents declined comment. But the Republican National Committee blamed the sudden attack on the growing popularity of Kerry opponent, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. ``It seems like a very odd political strategy to attack the Catholic Church but Howard Dean is forcing Sen. Kerry to take a number of odd positions on a number of odd issues,'' said RNC spokeswoman Christine Iverson.

[Compare this story to the way Mel Gibson's alleged "antisemitic" "The Passion" is being pre-emptively crucified by the Jewish-dominated media, including the New York Times. Miramax is a company owned by the Jewish Weinstein brothers.]
New film resurrects charges of anti-Catholic bias in Hollywood,
By Angela Aleiss, Salt Lake City Tribune (from Religion News Service), August 2, 2003
"The Magdalene Sisters," the story of several "fallen women" who were incarcerated at church-run Magdalene laundries in 1960s Ireland, has resurrected charges of anti-Catholic bias in Hollywood and incurred the wrath of conservative church leaders. The film, which took home the top prize at the Venice and Toronto film festivals last year, is being released in select cities this month by Miramax Films, which earlier angered Catholic leaders with films such as "Priest" in 1994 and "40 Days and 40 Nights" last year. Controversial religious themes in movies are nothing new. Since the relaxed censorship rules of the late 1960s, Hollywood has been freely carping at religion, especially the Catholic Church and its institutional dogma. At other times, today's movies seem to play religion for all its mystery and thrills, like "Stigmata." But now the Catholic Church has received a whacking in a few recent movies ... Here in the United States, the outspoken Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights criticized Miramax's long-standing record for distributing what it believes are anti-Catholic films. Louis Giovino, director of communication for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, believes a general animus exists in Hollywood against the Catholic Church, or against any orthodox religion for that matter."

PRESS RELEASE: A PICKET OF REVEREND JERRY FALWELL'S CHURCH ON AUG.17
http://www.whtt.org/whtt.shtml?articles/Fallwellrelease.htm
July 10, 2003, Contact: Charles E. Carlson Project Strait Gate
We Hold These Truths (www.whtt.org/straitgate) P O Box 14491 Scottsdale, AZ 85267 (cecarl@whtt.org) Weekdays, 480 947 3329, After hours and at the site, 602 741 4650
A PICKET WILL BE HELD at THOMAS ROAD BAPTIST CHURCH, Perrymont Avenue and Thomas Road, Lynchburg, Virginia, on Sunday morning, August 17, 2003, 7:55 AM to 11:30 AM August 17, 2003.
Strait Gate Director, Charles E. Carlson states: CHRISTIAN APOSTASY ENABLES WAR: Jerry Falwell is one of the most prominent self- proclaimed “Christian-Zionist” leaders . He has openly blessed both Bush Iraq wars, and he blesses every act of Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine. He may do that in his own name if he wished, but Falwell is blessing war and racism in Jesus Christ’s name. This we must not accept. Project Strait Gate is visiting Jerry Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church, because he sells radical Christian Racism, which kills Palistinians and Iraqis. But there is a higher reason for us to be there. FALWELL IS A BLIGHT ON THE WORDS AND TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST. Pastor Fallwell and those like him make the LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST look LIKE Christmas caroling in the park. Falwell is high (and wide) profile, therefore he is a major insult to Christ Followers. CBS introduced Jerry Fallwell as "one of the leaders of the Christian Right" on ZIONS CHIRSTIAN SOLDERS, a 60- Minute special on June 8, 2003,watched by 10s of millions. CBS noted that Falwell claims he speaks for 70 million "Christians." Falwell also denigrated and endangers Muslims by stating: "I think Mohammed was a terrorist..." Falwell pronounced: "It is my belief that the Bible Belt in America is Israel's only safety belt right now...There are 70 million of us,"..."And if there's one thing that brings us together quickly it's whenever we begin to detect our government becoming a little anti- Israel."

Christians Under Attack,
By Michael Collins Piper, We Hold These Truths
"So-called "leaders" of the Christian evangelical movement have agreed to give up spreading the Gospel of Christ in the Holy Land in order to avoid being jailed under a proposed Israeli law aimed at stamping out Christian missionary work in Israel. Anti-Christian forces led by a wide-ranging group of high-ranking Israeli officials won a major victory on March 30. Representatives of 50 different international Christian evangelical groups entered into what was described as an "unprecedented" joint statement promising not to carry out Christian missionary work in Israel. In return, Israeli lawmaker Nissim Zvili said that he would drop his sponsorship of a proposed measure before the Israeli parliament (widely supported among various political factions in Israel) that would outlaw any effort to teach or propagate Christian doctrine in Israel. Under Zvili's highly popular proposal, any Christian missionary found guilty of violating the law would be sent to prison for one year. Zvili hailed the Christian surrender, saying: "This is better than a law. This is a very big accomplishment." The Christian groups that surrendered to Israeli pressure, and thereby abandoned their long-standing practice of proselytizing the Christian faith, issued a statement saying that they rejoice in the presence of the Jewish people in this country of their ancestors and agreed to avoid activities which alienate Jews in Israel from their tradition and community. In response to the surrender by the Christian groups in the face of the anti-Christian legislation, one American Christian evangelist, Rev. Dale Crowley Jr., expressed great shock and dismay. Crowley said that those groups that endorsed the agreement have, in Crowley's direct terms, "Betrayed our Lord." Crowley says that purveying the Gospel of Christ to nonbelievers is integral to the Christian faith and stems from the biblical great commission directing Christians to share their faith. Crowley notes that two newspapers with prominent circulation in the pro-Israel community, Washington Jewish Week and the New York City-based Forward, have "quite notably", in his words, not reported on this Israeli victory over Christian evangelism. Crowley said that he has been prodding Washington Jewish Week to publish the story but that, thus far, the influential publication has not done so. "The Israelis want to keep this information under wraps," Crowley said, "and the Christian groups that entered into this outrageous betrayal of their faith are ashamed of themselves, as they certainly should be."