Michael Medved seems pretty excited about the results of a Gallup poll that had Jews coming out as the religion with the most positive reaction among the general public.

It’s perhaps not surprising to see Jews rated higher than much-publicized, controversial groups like Scientologists, Atheists or Muslims, but the Gallup Poll (of 1,001 adults) also found Jews scoring higher than Catholics, Methodists, Baptists, “Evangelical Christians” or “Fundamentalist Christians.” In other words, more Americans declared favorable reaction to the tiny Jewish community (just 2% of the national population) than to vastly more substantial groups in the society, and fewer expressed negativity at any level of intensity. Only 1% of respondents expressed “very negative” views of Jews, while 11% declared a “very negative” attitude toward “Fundamentalist Christians.”

No so fast Michael.

You may want to read Dr. Stephen D. Levitt's paper, "Testing theories of discrimination: Evidence from Weakest Link", published in the Journal of Law and Economics, 2004. From the conclusion:

Using the unique institutional setup of Weakest Link, this paper tests for the presence and type of discrimination. Perhaps surprisingly, no evidence of discrimination toward blacks or women is found, whereas there are substantively large magnitudes of observed discrimination toward Hispanics and the elderly. The data are consistent with statistical discrimination toward Hispanics and taste-based discrimination toward the elderly. There is also evidence that women tend to vote more frequently for men and vice versa. It is important to emphasize, however, that strategic concerns, rather than characteristics such as race, gender, and age, appear to be the primary determinants of voting behavior.

[*451] Given the highly stylized nature of the interactions on this television show, one must use extraordinary caution in trying to draw general conclusions from these results. Indeed, one could imagine that the absence of observed discrimination toward blacks in this artificial context might arise precisely because of the presence of real-world discrimination toward blacks, which has sensitized Americans to the importance of not appearing outwardly racist, regardless of inward beliefs. At some conscious or unconscious level, contestants may shy away from targeting blacks on a nationally televised program. In contrast, players may be less concerned about appearing to target Hispanics and the elderly. Ideally, one would like to isolate real-world settings in which the strategic incentives flip as they do on Weakest Link to provide a more readily generalizable test of competing theories of discrimination.

Mel Gibson denied being anti-semitic on several occasions while promoting Passion of the Christ, and yet revealed virulent anti-semitism when his social inhibitions were lowered by a series of margueritas.

That's a whole lot of support for something we all know--people don't always say what they really think.

Considering the recent war in Lebanon and Mel Gibson's travails, the public is more sensitized to a politically-correct expression of their feelings on Jews. Conversely, the recent publicity concerned the capture of fugitive polygamist Warren Jeffs, and the confusion between the mainstream Mormon church and Jeff's polygamous sect, enhanced the negative perception of Mormons. Liberals of course have made it fashionable to express bigoted feelings about Evangelicals

Anti-semitism hasn't disappeared by any means, its just gone underground.

Its been thirty years, but I'll never forget being at my girlfriend's home and hearing her sweet mother, the wife of a retired Anglican priest, explain that she didn't shop at a certain grocery store because it was owned by Jews. I learned in that moment that bigots don't necessarily look like hillbillies.

Pope Benedict may have been impolitic to quote a 15th century text describing Islam is less than flattering terms, but the reaction would be comical if it wasn't so serious.

A notorious Muslim extremist told a demonstration in London yesterday that the Pope should face execution.

Anjem Choudary said those who insulted Islam would be "subject to capital punishment".

This guy didn't spout his fatwa from a minaret in Pakistan, he spoke it from steps of Westminister Cathedral. A nun has been shot dead in Somalia and several churches burned in the West Bank.

This isn't the first time this guy, a barrister no less, has called for someone's murder within the year. Apparently in the cradle of European democracy, you can't say nasty things about public figures, but you can call for their murder..

I understand now why Islam has to do its conversions by the sword--the Muslims don't seem to have the skills for winning friends and influencing people (on the other hand, neither does this pope...).

UPDATE: While protesting the Pope's insult of Mohammed, the Mujahedeen Shura Council of which al Qaeda is a member, issued this statement:

You and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion or the sword.

...waiting patiently for the moral equivilency.

Too bad no one believes a word they say...

I have a lot of respect for Karen Armstrong, having been a fan of her books, most notably "The History of God". Her work on Islam is respectful, comprehensive (in spite of the subtitle--"a short history)and sophisticated.

Not surprisingly, Armstrong's view on Pope Benedict's comments reflect deep disappointment and worry.

But the old myth of Islam as a chronically violent faith persists, and surfaces at the most inappropriate moments. As one of the received ideas of the west, it seems well-nigh impossible to eradicate. Indeed, we may even be strengthening it by falling back into our old habits of projection. As we see the violence - in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon - for which we bear a measure of responsibility, there is a temptation, perhaps, to blame it all on "Islam". But if we are feeding our prejudice in this way, we do so at our peril.

Earlier in the article, Armstrong correctly points out that Christianity was the violent and "fascist" faith in spite of the scripture exhortations towards peace and equality. Good point, but perhaps irrelevant. Just as Christianity had been judged by its deeds over its faith-claims, why should not Islam be judged on similar terms?

That is the implied point of Mary Laney's piece in the Chicago Sun-Times.

We are at war. Our soldiers are following the rules of war -- but their opposition is not.

CIA counterterrorism officers are buying private insurance to cover legal costs in case they are charged with a crime, as is being hinted at by some members of Congress who feel their interrogation techniques might be too "tough."

In Iraq, Americans have been kidnapped, tortured, beheaded, burned, hanged from bridges, dragged through streets. But the CIA's method of questioning a terrorist in a cold room while playing loud music is too "tough"?

We're fighting a war for civilization against an enemy bent on destroying it and creating an Islamic world based on a warped view of what true Islam is -- yet where are the voices of American Muslims condemning this enemy?

Something's wrong.

I am somewhat surprised at what appears to be a streak of disingenuousness in Karen Armstrong's argument. As anyone who has studied religion in any depth knows, religions evolve and morph into new and peculiar versions. The Mormon church is less than 200 years old, but there are considerable differences between the Mormons of the 1830s and 40s, Mormons of the 1880s and 90s and modern Mormons. Pointing to the prevalent attitudes of seventh century Islam as justification for calling Islam a religion of peace in the modern age is simply ridiculous--just as ridiculous as judging the militaristic character of the modern Roman Catholic church by the Popes that called for the Crusades.

Religions are not immune from cultural and political developments and Islam is no different. It might surprise some people to learn that Mormons, who vote overwhelming Republican, used to be Democrats to a man (before suffrage obviously).

If Muslims want to have a reputation for peaceable behavior, then they have to start demonstrating that character.

Its an international news story at this point, although I am not sure why. Julianna Myers (nee Redd) was married last month to her Perry Myers, but only after a three day adventure that had Julianna's own parents kidnap her and drive to Grand Junction, CO (about a four hour drive).

No one's talking, but apparently Julianna is pressing charges so her parents "will get help."

Strenous objections by parents to a prospective, aren't uncommon, but this is a bit of an unusual step to take. The normal objections don't seem to apply--both are BYU students, which implies a couple of things--their church membership is in good standing and they have sufficient high-grades and ACT scores to be admitted to a competitive university. Judging from the picture that accompanies the linked article in the Salt Lake Tribune, the couple was married in the Salt Lake Temple, which precludes a pregnant bride, a drug-addicted boyfriend, etc... (only members of the LDS or Mormon church in compliance with church moral standards may be married in the temple).

Of course, parents aren't necessarily rational when it comes to the marriages of their precious children, yet on the other hand, they can often smell future trouble that the young lovers would be oblivious to.

Having my own 21 year old daughter, I find the story interesting. Both the lovely bunny and I tend to analyze her boyfriends as prospective suitors well before it gets to serious. We count ourselves fortunate that she seems to have a preference for solid citizens with bright futures. Nevertheless, I've had reservations about a couple of them anyways...

So obviously I'll forego the kidnapping scenario--the Redds didn't appear to have an exit strategy and now they need a lawyer. I still like the pay-off idea...

Have you been following the Douthat/Linker debate over the role of religion in the public sphere at TNR? You should be. It's a good read and a good exchange between competent thinkers.

Commentary beyond the fold.

I guess someone had too much time on their hands.

The survey conducted by Harris Poll found that 42 percent of US adults are not "absolutely certain" there is a God compared to 34 percent who felt that way when asked the same question three years ago.

Only 42%?

Poor me--I have to get by on faith.

Ted Haggard confessed his sins before his congregation--sort of.

I am a deceiver and a liar," Haggard told 9,000 of his followers in a letter read from the pulpit of New Life Church by one of his spiritual mentors. "There's a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I have been warring against it for all of my adult life."

Men wiped at their eyes. Women clung to one another. A grandfather hugged his baby grandson close, rubbing the boy's small back. Haggard had founded this church in his basement. He had grown it to a congregation of 14,000. He had guided them to God and helped them triumph over sin, and he had done it always with a smile, ever exuberant, ever strong.

They wept to hear what he'd been hiding.

"For extended periods of time, I would enjoy victory and rejoice in freedom," Haggard wrote. "Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was gone would resurface, and I would find myself thinking thoughts and experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach."

A male prostitute in Denver came forward last week claiming that Haggard had visited his apartment almost monthly over the last three years for sex and drugs. Haggard at first denied it. Then he said he bought meth from the man, but threw it away. On Sunday, he said this: "The accusations that have been leveled against me are not all true, but enough of them are true that I have been appropriately and lovingly removed from ministry."

Haggard is clearly being judged by a very high standard as compared to say--any Democrat politician. While basically absolved of having a homosexual affair, his behavior was nevertheless incompatible with the ideals he professed. I am frankly impressed at how well the Evangelicals have dealt with this--no cover up and no excuses. Its not just "right" its smart, because any compromise would have been the real hypocrisy in this whole affair.

The timely resolution of the matter also means its a dead issue at this point and the effect on the prospects of amendment 43 and Referendum I, is probably neutral.

Referendum I may well be headed for defeat according the most recent polls last week. What once looked like shoe-in, is now within the statistical margin of error. Evangelicals, Mormons and other conservative voters in Colorado are probably more motivated to defeat the gay-marriage-in-all-but-name measure, that those who favor it.

The other aspect of this that fascinates me is how many people in high-profile positions seem to think they can get away with risky behavior. Just remarkable.

...do not reflect the policy of this network.

Newsbusters noted this odd editorial decision for a quotation that expressed a belief in the afterlife.

"All my love and prayers go to your family, and I see you again." (sic)

The use of 'sic' is a latin phrase meaning "as is". It is used when quoting something verbatim and acknowledging errors so they aren't confused with transcription errors.

Needless to say, its a weird use of the term in this case and seems likely to be an editorial comment by the staff.

Now its perfectly reasonable to disagree with other people's views and opinions, but mocking those opinions seems to be a liberal-left pathology.

Danny Leydorf's world was about to be turned upside down, and he couldn't wait.

The extroverted teenager had shined at the mostly evangelical Annapolis Area Christian School since kindergarten, but now he wanted to test his faith in a more diverse world. With hopes of becoming a lawyer or politician, he badly wanted to understand people who didn't think like him.

"I feel like I exist to be interacting," the lanky, towheaded 19-year-old said eagerly one day last summer, shortly after his graduation, "and part of that is just getting out there."

So he'd deliberately picked a large, secular college: the University of Maryland. But the week before he was to leave, the wider world dealt him a blow.

"I hate evangelical Christians," read the Facebook.com profile of his roommate-to-be, who had seemed so perfect on the phone. He loved politics and "The Simpsons," like Leydorf, and they even had the same views about how to set up the room. Could it still work?

While reading Jane Galt's musings on Amanda Marcotte's travails, an excerpt from a post from the Alas! blog caught my eye.

What the right is doing here is attempting to shift the Overton Window of Political Possibilities. The “window”1 is the space of acceptable ideas for political discourse. So, for instance, right now being either pro-choice or pro-life falls inside the window; it is mainstream and acceptable to hold either view. But being (say) pro-Nazi falls outside that window; being pro-Nazi means that you’ll get fired from political campaigns, because your views are that far outside of the window of accepted political views.

Should criticizing (and even making fun of) the political positions of the Catholic church, the Pope, and the conservative Christian movement be “within the window” of acceptable views? Or should criticizing the Pope — even on perfectly true grounds, such as pointing out that he supports pro-life and anti-gay policies — be outside the window of what it’s politically acceptable to say and to criticize?

Its a very interesting question for a couple of reasons.

Galt makes an astute observation:

In practice, of course, almost everyone only actually objects to religiously motivated beliefs they disagree with; the civil rights movement, and the abolitionists, are well regarded by everyone even though they were sustained by religious beliefs that most modern liberals and libertarians would find frankly nuts (and no, my little chickadees, I do not buy the argument that they were involved with churches simply as a matter of convenience. Listen to Martin Luther King's speeches and then come back and tell me he was not a religious nut on a crusade. Or just savour the Battle Hymn of the Republic, showcasing the abolitionist revenge fantasies of radical reformer Julia Ward Howe.)

Galt is right on the money. But the hypocrisy isn't harmless. The evolution of the debate over issues like abortion and gay marriage to one of condemnation of an entire subculture has chilling historical analogs. The radical, or perhaps more accurately, the hater left have moved down the path to dehumanization. Christians are no longer real people, but two dimensional caricatures imbued with every vice that in the final analysis means simply, "not us."

Many of the left, like Amanda Marcotte apparently, are just crazy bigots--they, like the poor, will always be with us; but the real worry is precisely that mainstream politicians like John Edwards, will accede to moving the window of political possibility to encompass sanctioned hatred of a group.

Its happened before in many places and in many times. Hatred can justify any crime, and ambitious and cynical politicians like Edwards don't mind throwing a few Christians to the lions if it gets them what they want.

Growing up and learning about the holocaust, I was taught, and actually believed well into my adulthood, that humanity had learned its lesson, that pogrom was merely an aberrant historical artifact, but fairly recent history simply emphasizes how close to the surface it lurks as each new generation has to repeat the mistakes of its forebearers.

In this country, a philosophical argument over the morality of slavery escalated into a civil war with 600-700 thousand deaths.

There is good reason for making sure the window of political possibility doesn't frame radical left bigotry--its easy to incite the mob, but no one controls it.

While reading Jane Galt's musings on Amanda Marcotte's travails, an excerpt from a post from the Alas! blog caught my eye.

What the right is doing here is attempting to shift the Overton Window of Political Possibilities. The “window”1 is the space of acceptable ideas for political discourse. So, for instance, right now being either pro-choice or pro-life falls inside the window; it is mainstream and acceptable to hold either view. But being (say) pro-Nazi falls outside that window; being pro-Nazi means that you’ll get fired from political campaigns, because your views are that far outside of the window of accepted political views.

Should criticizing (and even making fun of) the political positions of the Catholic church, the Pope, and the conservative Christian movement be “within the window” of acceptable views? Or should criticizing the Pope — even on perfectly true grounds, such as pointing out that he supports pro-life and anti-gay policies — be outside the window of what it’s politically acceptable to say and to criticize?

Its a very interesting question for a couple of reasons.

Galt makes an astute observation:

In practice, of course, almost everyone only actually objects to religiously motivated beliefs they disagree with; the civil rights movement, and the abolitionists, are well regarded by everyone even though they were sustained by religious beliefs that most modern liberals and libertarians would find frankly nuts (and no, my little chickadees, I do not buy the argument that they were involved with churches simply as a matter of convenience. Listen to Martin Luther King's speeches and then come back and tell me he was not a religious nut on a crusade. Or just savour the Battle Hymn of the Republic, showcasing the abolitionist revenge fantasies of radical reformer Julia Ward Howe.)

Galt is right on the money. But the hypocrisy isn't harmless. The evolution of the debate over issues like abortion and gay marriage to one of condemnation of an entire subculture has chilling historical analogs. The radical, or perhaps more accurately, the hater left have moved down the path to dehumanization. Christians are no longer real people, but two dimensional caricatures imbued with every vice that in the final analysis means simply, "not us."

Many of the left, like Amanda Marcotte apparently, are just crazy bigots--they, like the poor, will always be with us; but the real worry is precisely that mainstream politicians like John Edwards, will accede to moving the window of political possibility to encompass sanctioned hatred of a group.

Its happened before in many places and in many times. Hatred can justify any crime, and ambitious and cynical politicians like Edwards don't mind throwing a few Christians to the lions if it gets them what they want.

Growing up and learning about the holocaust, I was taught, and actually believed well into my adulthood, that humanity had learned its lesson, that pogrom was merely an aberrant historical artifact, but fairly recent history simply emphasizes how close to the surface it lurks as each new generation has to repeat the mistakes of its forebearers.

In this country, a philosophical argument over the morality of slavery escalated into a civil war with 600-700 thousand deaths.

There is good reason for making sure the window of political possibility doesn't frame radical left bigotry--its easy to incite the mob, but no one controls it.

Howard Kurtz notes wryly:

The press seems downright excited at the prospect of the first female president.

The idea of the first black president has journalists all but giddy.

But the first Mormon president? Whoa! That's a different matter.

Then there was this:

" 'Look, let's be honest, Mormons are weird,' says a former Democratic gubernatorial candidate from Massachusetts, voicing a view widely shared by secularists and Evangelicals alike."

As an outside living in Utah for going on nine years now, I was somewhat amused by the comment because I think I finally understand it.

"Weird" is code for they won't drink with you and they won't have sex with you.

Every time I have out-of-state business visitors, there is always a discussion about the oppressive drinking environment here, but the fact is that Dallas has more restrictive regulations that Salt Lake does. The real issue is that nobody else is drinking, which is disconcerting for visitors that come from a culture were every social interaction occurs over an alcoholic beverage.

It just seems so damn unfriendly.

Mormons just don't get this. They are very social people in general and when they want to socialize, they do it without crutches. I make a point of telling visitors that Mormon abstinence isn't because they believe alcohol is evil (breweries, distilleries and taverns were common features in pioneer Mormon Utah...), but because its a sign of their faith. During the pioneer period, Mormons eschewed products like alcohol, tobacco, eastern fashions for women and leather goods because you needed cash to buy them. Cash being rare on the frontier, faithful Mormons sacrificed these luxuries to pay ship fare for convert immigrants from Europe (Utah's ancestry is most British and Scandinavian which might seem obvious from all the blondes...). What was initially informal became a symbol of Mormon faith and was institutionalized in the early 20th century.

The dearth of promiscuity has proven a problem in attracting single professionals. Young Mormon women can feel like old maids at twenty-two. Should you come on to a comely lass in Ogden, its likely she's married and quite possibly a mother. Mormon men are also likely to be married what seems to be impossibly young. In spite of the conventional wisdom in the larger society about young marriages, the divorce rate isn't. According to a Los Angeles Times article in 2000, Mormons who are married in temples have only a 6% divorce rate. Overall, Mormons have about the same rate of divorce as Jews. The media comments that Romney's family is an impressive political prop, but might be shocked to learn that its as common as field mice among Mormons.

Weird isn't it? But a good kind of weird. Mormons appear to understand commitment in an instinctive way, which may account for the fact that they are overwhelmingly politically conservative. That isn't to say they aren't Democrats, just not very liberal Democrats.

Its such a robust culture that non-Mormons, or gentiles, as they are sometimes called, can find themselves overwhelmed by the shear pervasiveness of it. Even Mormons who have cut ties to the institutional church, still find themselves incontrovertibly Mormon in their cultural outlook. D. Michael Quinn, a professional historian and divorced, gay, excommunicated Mormon coined the term DNA Mormon to account for his essential Mormonness? Mormonanity? in spite of the abrogation of his religious association.

There are a lot of subcultures in the U.S., many of them assuredly weirder than the Mormons. Of course those subcultures tend to be obscure and marginalized. Mormons have been around for nearly one hundred and eighty years. They settled much of the western U.S. and have woven themselves very tightly into the political and economic life of the nation. The comparison to American Jews gets made all the time and for legitimate reasons--both groups are about the same size, inordinately influential, close-knit and mainstream in a non-mainstream kind of way.

Do they have a secret, conspiratorial agenda? Not at all. What they do have are interests. Mormons got involved in politics as a matter of self-preservation, but fundamentally its a culture and institution focused on improving the family and the individual. A lot of their interests coincide with Evangelicals, but many don't and the entire approach is different. Evangelicals have figures like Pat Robertson or groups like "Focus on the Family"; lobbies to concentrate political power. The concentration of Mormons as a population means that Mormon political power comes from high representation in state legislatures, governorships and Congressional delegations. Mormons aren't on the outside looking in, they are part and parcel of the power structure. Surely you've heard of Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch?

The integration of Mormons into the national life precludes strange little agendas that favor them specifically--hence you get Harry Reid defending gambling in Nevada and Mitt Romney engineering universal health care in Massachusetts. Mormons are nothing if not pragmatic. The existence of a hierarchal leadership in the Mormon church gives some people pause, but from all I can observe, they appear to be almost exclusively concerned with the care, maintenance and growth of the church itself. They aren't in the business of endorsing candidates at any level of government (although many candidates make it a point to highlight their Mormon bona fides...).

Weird is as weird does. If this is weirdness, I'm happy to be acquainted with it.

The Boston Globe has never been much of a fan of Mitt Romney, and Alex Beam fervently hopes that everyone is as bigoted as he is.

Can a Mormon be elected president in 2008? No.

His reason? Mormons believe "weird things". He figures Frontline's upcoming piece on the Mormons is going to be a problem as Americans discover the Mormons.

What does it all mean? PBS claims it has 75 million viewers a week. Let's say one-tenth -- no, one-twentieth -- of that audience watches "The Mormons." That's almost 4 million men and women who will know more about the Mormon faith than Romney might wish them to know. It's bad math for the Mittster.

Beam seems unaware that extensive coverage of the Mormons is rather routine. In 1997, Time magazine did a cover and an extensive piece on the Mormons. Newsweek did the same in 2004, and in both cases there was the inevitable discussion of distinctive Mormon faith-claims.

Let's be clear about this--Mormonism is a religion, not the Optimist club. You join the Mormon church for transcendental reasons; reasons godless liberals make fun of--like belief in God, absolute truth, etc...

Contrary to the implication, the LDS (Latter-day Saints) church doesn't shy away from such coverage, they welcome it. They have a very experienced and professional public relations department. The send tens of thousands of young men, young woman and retired couples all over the world to talk about the religion, support local congregations and engage in charitable works. You've seen their advertisements on television, you probably have a Mormon neighbor--its not like their hiding in caves or anything.

What is really happening at the moment is that the liberal-left is belatedly expressing an interest into something they've long ignored. They figure because they don't know what a Mormon is, neither do you--rather silly considering that the Mormons have been working the room for 180 years.

The fact is that the "weirdness" has great shock value, generating interest in the church that would be very hard to get any other way. When I travel and people hear I'm from Utah, I inevitably get all sorts of questions about "my wives". When was the last time somebody asked about your Methodist beliefs? Yeah, I though so.

What Beam doesn't realize is that unless he and his anti-Mitt crew can define him by the weirdness, all they are doing is generating a lot of interest in his campaign.

There is really only one constituency at this point that Romney has to worry about when it comes to his Mormonism, and that's the Evangelicals. Not surprisingly, they know quite a lot about alleged Mormon weirdness (which is weird only that its dissimilar from your particular religious weirdness...). Yet even though the theological differences are severe, almost every Evangelical apologetic starts with an acknowledgment that Mormons are good people, that they share an identical value system.

Bill Clinton is a Southern Baptist, and one assumes that he accepts their confession of faith--nevertheless, in 1999, the Southern Baptist Convention condemned him for establish gay and lesbian pride month and nominating a gay man as ambassador to Luxembourg. Does Clinton's orthodoxy trump his contrary values?

I seriously doubt it.

Lower your shields and surrender your ships.

We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us.

Resistance is futile.

I prize this poster and propose this profound film for Easter. It is a life of Christ shot in 1964 by an atheist communist homosexual using amateur actors. Roger Ebert writes that the film

..tells the life of Christ as if a documentarian on a low budget had been following him from birth. The movie was made in the spirit of Italian neo-realism, which believed that ordinary people, not actors, could best embody characters -- not every character, but the one they were born to play.

I guess the fact that PBS showed the “Mormons” but spiked the documentary on Islamists is an indication that Mormons won’t cut your head off:

Martyn Burke’s documentary “Islam vs. Islamists” (produced with Frank Gaffney and Alex Alexiev) was commissioned by PBS for its “American Crossroads” series, but never shown by the network. Quality control or censorship? Pajamas Media CEO and Motion Picture Academy member Roger L. Simon has seen the film and has an answer.

More here

The Reverend Jerry Falwell died today, aged 73. It is not known at this point what the cause of death was, but Falwell suffered from heart problems in recent years.

Falwell will probably he best known for creating a political force out of Evangelical congregations. The knock by his critics is that he was trying to mix church and state, which is just nonsense. What the moral majority sought to do was inculcate public life with the values of religious believers. The left hated the competition, preferring an unobstructed field to promulgate their values: terminating pregnancies for any damn reason, indulging every sexual whim, wiping out accountability, responsibility and other obstacles to self-indulgence.

Acknowledging that fact is Larry Flynt, who wins my vote for the classiest eulogy:

"My mother always told me that no matter how much you dislike a person, when you meet them face to face you will find characteristics about them that you like. Jerry Falwell was a perfect example of that. I hated everything he stood for, but after meeting him in person, years after the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends. ... I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling."

Younger people may think Lucca Brazzi is a rapper. Those of us slightly older who have seen the Godfather umpteen times will know that he was Don Corelone's enforcer--a man who did the Don's dirty work and allowed him to maintain the fiction that he was no involved with any nefarious activities.

It seems that every candidate has a squadron of Lucca Brazzis do engage in the knife work of the political campaign.

A case in point--Mitt Romney's religion. Romney is of course good-looking, well-spoken, unbelievably smart, well-funded and on message. So about all a rival can do is stir up the worst kinds of prejudices assumed to exist within the Republican bosom.

Psst. Romney's a Mormon.

The Globe recounts a series of incidents by campaign Lucca Brazzis hoping to incite and inflame hatred against Mormons.

County chairman for Senator John McCain's presidential campaign, Chad Workman:

One participant summed up Workman's argument this way: "The fundamental flaw of Mitt Romney . . . was that he was Mormon, not because he thinks this way or that way on one issue."

Chuck Larson, a former Iowa GOP chairman and now one of McCain's top Iowa advisers

One Republican Larson approached, who would talk only on condition of anonymity, said that Larson told him, "He's a Mormon for crying out loud -- that's essentially a cult."

Hey, when you are down in the polls the way McCain is, you do what you have to. Unfortunately, McCain's powerbase is in Arizona, where Mormons are numerous, organized and politicially influential. Mormons are actually pretty sensitive to these kinds of bigoted remarks and it will almost certainly come back to haunt McCain should he wish to retain his Senate seat a little longer.

Emma Nemecek, an Iowa field operative for Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas:

...recently forwarded an e-mail to Iowa Republicans containing a number of criticisms of Mormonism, including a charge that it is not a Christian faith. The e-mail closed with a quote from a Founding Father, John Jay: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

I always find that particular knock on the Mormons fairly strange since the official name of the church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". Sounds Christian to me. Of course what Ms. Nemecek is really saying is that Mormons don't accept her particular confession of faith.

Brownback, like McCain, quickly disavowed the actions of Lucca Brazzi

Katie Harbath, Giuliani's deputy e-campaign director

...forwarded to a blogger a story in The Salt Lake Tribune linking Romney to an unofficial Mormon prophecy that a leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would one day save the Constitution. "Thought you'd find this interesting," Harbath wrote to the blogger

Harbath is referring to the "White Horse" prophecy. Ironically, the so-called prophecy has no standing among Mormons and has been officially condemned on at least a couple of occasions by general authorities of the church. Its provenance is highly dubious--unauthenticated transcriptions of accounts by two men who were recalling ten year old, uncorroborated events. Nevertheless, it gets trotted out every time a Mormon runs for president (which has happened four times since the prophecy was allegedly uttered in 1843). For the record, the prophecy makes no reference to a man on a white horse saving the constitution. Rather the white horse is a metaphor for the Mormon people. More than you want to know about the prophecy here.

Plenty of anonymous sh_tdisturbers have been working hard as well.

There have been numerous anonymous attacks, too, such as an unsigned, eight-page screed that arrived last month in the mailboxes of influential South Carolina Republicans charging that Mormonism was a "politically dangerous" religion founded on a hoax. Sent from Providence, the mailing alleged that church members believe in multiple gods, likened its founder, Joseph Smith, to the Islamic prophet Mohammed, and raised alarm about future directives Mormons may be required to follow.

Sounds like a North American version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion...

Normally I would just chalk this up to kooks, and undoubtedly some of it can be attributed to them, but the reality that so many campaign officials in all parties have made inflammatory comments about Mormons seems to be more than a coincidence, especially as it concerns the McCain campaign which seems to have more than its fair share.

Ubiquity to the point of absurdity...-->

This surprised me:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says it now has had a million missionaries serve for the church.

A million missionaries? The numbers fluctate a bit, but at any one time, the LDS church has 55,000 church members serving 1-3 year proselyting missions. About 20% of the total are so-called senior missionaries--couples who volunteer or are "called" (asked to volunteer?) to serve in a variety of capacities usually not directly related to proselyting work and encompassing everything from humanitarian work to employing professional skills on the church's behalf.

What impresses me is that the not only volunteer, but they pay their own way--typically about $400.00 a month, which is pretty cheap living I guess, but still a considerable chunk of change for the average family to take out of a budget.

I've seen Mormon missionaries in Germany, Canada, various U.S. cities and Mexico, but I was genuinely flabbergasted to see them here in Utah. Utah is variously described as between 60-70% Mormon and for the non-adherents, finding someone to talk to you about Mormonism is not exactly difficult. They come around about twice a year or so and in a bit of twist, they are frequently non-Americans. Apparently they do very well here--one person told me that they baptize more people in one year in a single Utah mission than they do in all of Europe.

Overall, I think its a very good thing--young men and women come back from their service notably more mature, sophisticated and often speaking a new language. I've yet to meet someone who described their service in negative terms.

…you say Yes!

- Winston Zeddemore

From the DesNews:

A 10-year-old Nepalese girl was stripped of her title as a living goddess because she traveled overseas to promote a documentary about the centuries-old tradition, an official said Tuesday. Sajani Shakya had her status revoked because she broke with tradition by leaving the country, said Jaiprasad Regmi, chief of the government trust that manages the affairs of the living goddesses.

A Goddess is only as powerful as the bureaucracy that empowers her.

Recently the Wall Street Journal noted the rise in books attacking religion. Christopher Hitchens has written a fast-selling book called “God is not Great”. I haven’t read it and probably won’t, but judging the book from its title I wonder if Hitchens’ complaint isn’t really with God but with those mortals who manage the affairs of the Gods. For instance, his book’s title seems a response to the Arabic phrase “Allahu Akbar” or “God is Great” - the last words of Islamic suicide bombers, who manage God’s affairs by murdering people - usually other Muslims. But neither God nor the devil make people kill; a point Hitchens, an atheist, and I, a believer, agree on for different reasons.

Atheists will always have weak foes when attacking man-made Gods; but when they do, perhaps they are doing God a favor.

Update: Looks like Hitchen should be plural - Hitchens

photo from weirdbiz.com

I must admit I have a fetish for these Evangelical criers and I get my fix at least a couple of times a year in Salt Lake City where they are frequently seen around Temple Square in the hopeless cause of "saving Mormons" through confrontation and insults. A few years ago, the authorities had to step in when they started disrupting the many wedding photo shoots taking place on the grounds (Mormon temples do an assembly line business in weddings throughout the spring and summer...)

This guy looks pretty mild--the Fred Phelps crew is especially nauseating. Our friend here is merely warning of God's judgment, but apparently there has been some heavy-duty biblical interpretation over what offends God.

Sports Nuts?

I imagine that God probably likes sports in principle. Its non-violent (in principle), it involves fair-play (in principle), discipline, commitment, focus, and a host of other ostensible virtues. He probably doesn't like juiced up baseball players, dog-fighting and crooked NBA refs. Like almost everything in life, its a mixed bag. I'm not much of a sports watcher myself, but I've been known to watch a football or basketball game on occasion. Does my casual disinterest mean I am approved?

Baby killers and child-abusing homosexuals seem to be a no-brainer, but why the qualification? Are child-abusing heterosexuals somehow OK?

The thing that drives me crazy about this kind of very unattractive religious faith, is that it characterizes peopl