Windows & Doors

Newly released tapes from the Nixon Library certainly make these fair questions, and not for the first time. Particularly disturbing, especially for those who have limited familiarity with the New Testament, was their conversation about those who are part of the "synagogue of Satan". But perhaps even more importantly, since Graham is an old man and Nixon is dead, it invites us to ask what it means to call anybody an anti-Semite, and who is best suited to answer that question.

Without asking those questions, this story is nothing more than an excuse for a little Jewish rage-mongering, a little Nixon-bashing, and an excuse to stir up anti-Christian sentiment. While those are all popular pursuits, they are really no healthier than the ugly conversations which Reverend Graham had with President Nixon.

Certainly, Jewish leaders should not be telling Christians what the New Testament "really means", and using their interpretation to prove that Graham was a Jew-hater. It's just more complicated than that.

Politicians invoke God and the Bible both because it works, and in cases like that of Governor Sanford who compared himself to King David, because it nourishes their outsized egos -- situating their personal dramas within a cosmically significant narrative. It works, because whether the politicians themselves are truly religious or not, we Americans are true believers.

We may like church and synagogue less and less, as recent polling suggests, but our faith in God and love of both biblical language and stories endures. And why not? They really are some of the greatest stories ever told, regardless of what we may think about their status as divinely revealed literature.

Ultimately, the use of such language tells us more about ourselves than it does about the misbehaving politicos. The passage of time is the only way to tell if they are sincere or simply pandering because we never fully know what's going on inside of another person. In fact, how often do we really know what's going on inside ourselves?

Having spent my teens committed to a way of life that celebrated faith and force, this story about a church event celebrating weapons and the right to keep them is more than a little disturbing. The track record of Guns and God is simply too toxic for anyone to easily tolerate.

I appreciate that there is room for real debate about gun laws in this country, but a pastor calling together his flock to extol the sacredness of guns is pretty disturbing - though clearly not to those who attended what Pastor Ken Pagano refused to call a service despite having stood in the pulpit and blessing the assembles congregation.

Whatever one thinks about guns, gun ownership, or gun laws, do we really need any more religious leaders officiating over a marriage between faith and firearms?

After three years in captivity, Israeli hostage Gilad Shalit, may soon be transferred to Egypt as part of a prisoner swap, according to European sources. I pray that it's true and I pray that the swap is a one for one deal. it's not that I object to offering the hundreds of Hamas fighters that I am sure will be required to gain this one young man's release. It's that lasting peace will a lot closer when both sides of the conflict agree about the supreme value of even one of their own. But either way, it's time for this to happen.

Meanwhile, the Consulate General of Israel in New York released a YouTube video to draw attention to Shalit's plight. The project features Shalit's own story, "When the Shark and the Fish First Met," about two sea animals that were raised to hate and fear one another but then realized that everyone would be happier by making peace.

The video shows people from around the world reading Shalit's story in their native languages, including Italian, German, French and Spanish, with English subtitles. It's pretty beautiful, and well worth checking out.

French President Sarkozy is throwing his weigh behind a law which would make burqa-wearing a crime in France. He could not be more wrong. Burqas are certainly a public matter which merit Sarkozy's attention. But the public, be it in France, the United States or anywhere else in the world is best served when its members are allowed the greatest degree of religious freedom - including the freedom to wear burqas should they choose to do so. The same can be said for skullcaps, turbans, wigs, long black coats, etc. Nicholas Sarkozy, like many leaders in France over the last two-plus centuries, confuses liberty for all with his own understanding of what it means to live free.

Who is Mr. Sarkozy to determine what is and is not a "religious sign", especially for those who practice a religion different from his own? The height of his arrogance is matched only by the height of his ignorance.

He might be surprised to learn that many women are quite comfortable wearing a garment which he describes as a "sign of subservience and a sign of debasement". That would be the case because for many religious people, including myself, subservience (at least a measure of it) is not always synonymous with debasement. In fact, many people find precisely those practices which declare their submission to God, highly liberating.