This CNN story seems a little too perfectly-timed, like it’s part of some sort of Mormon church rebranding campaign. The church’s image is still heavily associated with the 2008 Prop. 8 campaign in California, and even though many Republicans oppose gay marriage, it’s not helpful for the Mormons to be tied to such a politically-charged issue at a time when it’s about to be under a lot of election-season media scrutiny:
Though the church’s doctrine condemning homosexuality has not changed, and the church remains opposed to same-sex marriage, many say the church is subtly but unmistakably growing friendlier toward the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, including voicing support for some gay rights.
Students at the church-owned Brigham Young University recently posted an “It Gets Better” video about the gay and lesbian community there, while a gay Mormon in San Francisco was selected last year for a church leadership position.
A new conference series on gay and lesbian Mormons…is seeing an uptick in popularity.
Church spokesman Michael Purdy would not comment on whether church members are changing their stance toward gay and lesbian issues but said in an e-mail message: “In the Church, we strive to follow Jesus Christ who showed immense love and compassion towards all of God’s children.”
CNN cites a “This Gets Better” video created by Brigham Young University students, and the selection of an openly gay Mormon for a church leadership position as indications of this new softening position on the gay community. Perhaps these are signs of change, but then again, stories like this seem to rebut the entire notion altogether. While the Mormon church may be toning down its official involvement in the gay marriage debate, its members don’t seem likely to anytime soon.
As much as the Obama campaign claims it won’t make Romney’s faith an issue, the Mormon religion will still be under a media microscope for at least the next seven months. Anything the church can do to untangle itself from hot-button cultural issues is a good thing for it and Mitt Romney.
Mormon Church Shifting on Gay Rights?
Must-Reads from Magazine
Terrorists in the wind.
While there was still blood on the streets, attackers on the loose, and victims of the terrorist event in Barcelona who had not yet succumbed to their ultimately fatal wounds, President Donald Trump went public with his half-baked thoughts on the matter. As is so often the case, those thoughts were crude and callous—implying, as he had on the campaign trail, that an apocryphal tale involving the defilement of Muslim corpses is illustrative of practices America should embrace. Political observers were fixated on those comments, not on the attack or its aftermath, as they should have been. It was, in truth, fans of the president who ignored the fact that Trump’s first impulse amid an ongoing terrorist attack was barbarous who don’t have their priorities straight.
Once the shock of the president’s comments had abated, though, it was incumbent on the country to do what the president did not: turn their attentions to Spain. 14 people are dead today. Over 80 are injured. Many nationalities are represented among the fatalities, including one American, as the terrorists targeted a popular tourist boulevard.
This was no low-tech event conducted by lone wolves. Hours after the attack in Barcelona, police in the city of Cambrils 70 miles south of Barcelona tracked down terrorists preparing to mount a companion attack. Four suspects were killed in the ensuing gunbattle with a fifth dying in hospital.
All told, 130 people were injured as a result of these attacks, 17 of whom are in critical condition.
Those would-be terrorists were wearing explosive belts that turned out to be fake, but that is only a stroke of good luck. On Wednesday night, hours before the van attack in Barcelona, a bomb went off in a house in the city’s southwest suburbs. One was killed in the process of making improvised explosives, which, had they been successful, would doubtlessly have been used in this coordinated set of attacks.
“As you look at the chronology, this was a fairly large cell, had to have been in place for a while — pretty good planning,” said George W. Bush administration homeland security advisor Fran Townsend. “If these guys had successfully executed on the explosives you can imagine instead of just – I don’t want to minimize it – using the car as the weapon, imagine if the car had exploded.”
This attack represents the first successful mass casualty terrorist event in Europe claimed by ISIS since the de-facto capital of the Islamic State, Raqqa, began to fall into the hands of liberating forces. As of last week, 50 percent of the city had been retaken by coalition forces. The beating back of ISIS from the strongholds in Iraq and Syria it once occupied has compelled the terror group to change tactics. They’ve advised would-be recruits to stop making the effort to come to the Middle East and to try instead to execute terrorist attacks in their home countries. ISIS leaders have been preparing to transition the organization into a more traditional terrorist group along the lines of al-Qaeda as the territory it controls shrinks.
ISIS-led operations in the West will become more urgent as ISIS’s “caliphate” dissolves, and this deadly event in Spain is likely indicative of a forthcoming trend. The Spanish weren’t ready. If Donald Trump’s bloody revenge fantasies are any indication, he is not treating this threat with the sobriety it merits either.
The tipping point.
We are deterred.
That’s the only possible way to read the confessions of Donald Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, who inexplicably vomited out a variety of compromising thoughts in an interview with an adversarial journalist at a liberal publication. The interview is packed with juicy tidbits, but the comment with the broadest policy implications is receiving the least amount of attention. In that interview, with The American Prospect’s Robert Kuttner, Bannon confessed that the administration’s rhetorical posture regarding a conflict with North Korea is utterly hollow.
“There’s no military solution,” Bannon said. “Forget it.”
“Until somebody solves the part of the equation that shows me that ten million people in Seoul don’t die in the first 30 minutes from conventional weapons, I don’t know what you’re talking about, there’s no military solution here,” he added. “[T]hey got us.”
So much for “fire” and “fury.”
Lay observers can be forgiven for thinking this concession amounts only to acknowledging reality. It’s not exactly a state secret that North Korea’s dug-in artillery positions on or near the 38th Parallel, just miles from the South Korean capital, represent a significant deterrent threat. At no point, however, did an administration official—much less one as close to the president as his chief strategist—suggest that this threat was sufficient to stay the commander-in-chief’s hand.
The president and a variety of administration officials have made a conscious effort to communicate (both to Pyongyang and to Western lawmakers) his willingness to entertain the prospect of a preventative first strike on a narrow set of North Korean targets. The risks of such strikes, ranging from provoking a limited or full-scale retaliatory response to environmental and collateral damage, are real. That might be bluster, but it serves a utilitarian purpose.
It is unclear that the United States will accept a nuclear North Korea with the reliable capacity to deliver a nuclear warhead to the continental United States. It’s not even clear that America will be able to live with a North Korea that can strike U.S. troop positions in South Korea and Japan, which could occur with almost no warning. Making Kim Jong-un’s regime understand that the U.S. will not tolerate a nuclear-capable North Korea creates an incentive to de-escalate and head back to the negotiating table—even if those are negotiations to which the U.S. and its allies are not party.
The prospect of a first strike might have been a bluff. If that was the strategy, however, it was one to which the U.S. had committed itself. It was not Steve Bannon’s role to undermine the president and force the United States to retrench from its current position.
Even though this approach is reckless, it makes sense if Bannon’s objective was to take the prospect of preventative warfare off the table. That notion falls apart when taking into account the ostensible purpose of Bannon’s call to Kuttner, who is a trade hawk and a friend to the complaints of labor union activists: to rag on China.
“We’re at economic war with China,” Bannon said. “On Korea, they’re just tapping us along. It’s just a sideshow.” He added that, on the present trajectory, there would be an “inflection point” from which America will not recover. In 25 or 30 years’ time, he said, it will be the People’s Republic and not the United States that is the world’s global hegemon. “[T]he economic war with China is everything,” Bannon averred.
This is some pretty blatant sabotage. If the United States lacks a military solution to the crisis on the Korean peninsula, it needs a diplomatic one. The only party that can execute that objective is China, and the Trump administration has been making admirable strides in convincing China to get off the sidelines. If Bannon had his way, it seems, all progress toward compelling Beijing to abandon the Kim regime would be done away with; and all because of one man’s obsession with a glorious Sino-American trade war.
This interview was grossly irresponsible. The kind of freelancing in which the president’s chief strategist engaged in has blown the treads off the administration’s existing strategy. This was not done in service to the president or the country, but to Steve Bannon and his fanatical commitment to isolationism and protectionism. He’s done his president and his country a disservice. Steve Bannon has to go.
An eternal hatred.
When Shabbat services concluded at Beth Israel in Charlottesville, VA, last Saturday, Alan Zimmerman, president of the congregation, “advised congregants that it would be safer to leave the temple through the back entrance rather than through the front, and to please go in groups.”
That kind of advice would have been depressingly banal if it were given in Europe during the 19th and 20th Centuries. In 2017 America, the image of Jews quietly sneaking out of synagogue to avoid persecution is, for the moment, appropriately shocking. Only time will tell if Zimmerman’s instructions—and the actions that precipitated them—remain an anomaly.
That anti-Semitism is alive and well in our flourishing democracy should surprise no one. Far more important than learning the identities of every single neo-Nazi marcher is carefully analyzing how our society reacts to such hatred. Responses have been glaringly varied:
Prior to the rally, Congregation Beth Israel hired an armed security guard because, according to Zimmerman, “the police department refused to provide us with an officer during morning services.” Hindsight is always 20/20, but it takes an intensely blurred moral vision to overlook the fact that Nazis reserve a special hatred for the Jews.
Writing in the New York Times, Nathan Englander commented on what he sees as the long-lasting impact of Saturday’s march: “The children who witness a day like that, and a president like this, will not forget the fear and disrespect tailored to the black child, the Muslim child, the Jewish child.” I hope he’s right, but I fear he’s wrong.
In this country, too many Jews are complacent when they should be vigilant; comfortable when they should be cautious. Psychologically, it makes perfect sense—we seek safety and acceptance, so we delude ourselves into believing it exists where it, in fact, does not. The best example of this mentality is evident in Jews who insist on believing that those who despise Israel and Israelis can somehow still be advocates for Jews and Judaism.
Linda Sarsour, an anti-Israel darling of the left, tweeted about the rally: “Sending love to my Jewish siblings. I know watching Charlottesville [and] the anti-Semitism on display was horrifying. We [are] in this together.” While Sarsour has never marched past a synagogue chanting “Jews will not replace us,” she is opportunistic in her condemnations of violence against the Jewish people.
A rabid anti-Zionist, Sarsour went so far in April as to say she was “honored” to share a stage with Rasmea Odeh, who was convicted in 1970 for the role she played in a 1969 terrorist attack that killed two Hebrew University students. Liberal Jews should not be lulled into believing this woman is their friend.
When it comes to seeing imaginary friends, conservative Jews, too, have been lulled into believing untruths. It seems, though, that Trump’s response to Charlottesville may have finally shattered the rose-colored glasses.
The Republican Jewish Coalition “call[ed] upon President Trump to provide greater moral clarity in rejecting racism, bigotry, and antisemitism.”
The Rabbinical Council of America, an organization of Orthodox Rabbis, released a statement in which they “condemn[ed] any suggestion of moral equivalency between the White Supremacists and neo-Nazis in Charlottesville and those who stood up to their repugnant messages and actions.”
Rabbi Elazar Muskin, RCA president said: “There is no moral comparison. Failure to unequivocally reject hatred and bias is a failing of moral leadership and fans the flames of intolerance and chauvinism.” He went on to explain that “as a rabbinic organization we prefer to address issues and not personalities,” but that “this situation rises above partisan politics and therefore we are taking the unusual approach to directly comment on the words of the President.”
Rabbi Haskel Lookstein, who prepared Ivanka for her conversion, told me on the phone: “I was very proud of my rabbinic organization [the RCA] that they spoke strongly, but respectfully, in making the points that had to be made.” Rabbi Lookstein is Rabbi emeritus of Congregation Kehiliath Jeshurun, the Modern Orthodox synagogue of which I am a member. Lookstein, along with Rabbis Chaim Steinmetz and Elie Weinstock, emailed the congregation, noting, “while we always avoid politics, we are deeply troubled by the moral equivalency and equivocation President Trump has offered in his response to this act of violence.”
Tomorrow, at sundown, Jews around the world will usher in the Sabbath. They’ll greet each other with the salutation “Shabbat Shalom”—Sabbath of peace. May it be so.
Podcast: The Trump presser and Bannon's bizarre interview.
In the second of this week’s COMMENTARY podcasts, the hosts try to wrap their heads around a series of events that defy logic. Why would Donald Trump try to rehabilitate people who align themselves with torch-lit rally-goers chanting racist slogans? Why would the left go to the mattresses to defend their own violent elements? And what the heck is Steve Bannon thinking in general? And does the country now share our crushing morosity? Give a listen and find out.
Don’t forget to subscribe to our podcast on iTunes.
The State Department on Tuesday released its annual International Religious Freedom Report, and the grim upshot was that people of faith face persecution around the globe. This year’s report, the first under President Trump, called out usual suspects such as China, Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia. It also notably used the “G” word–genocide–to describe Islamic State’s crimes against Christians, Yezidis, and other religious minorities in Syria and Iraq.
Authoritarian regimes and jihadists aren’t the only ones who mete out anti-religious repression these days. Nominally free societies, particularly in Europe, are increasingly guilty of it as well. Yet because it is less visible, carried out by governments with impeccable liberal credentials, such persecution receives far less attention, including in the State report.
Consider tiny Belgium, which has been roiling with controversy this month over whether Catholic hospitals can be required to permit euthanasia on their premises. Belgium’s pro-euthanasia lobby and its political and media allies seek to bring to heel the country’s last bastion of opposition, the Roman Church.
Belgium legalized the practice in 2002. Proponents had vowed that it would only be applied in very few terminal cases. But since then, the number of patients who have been euthanized has steadily grown (some 13,000 so far). So has the list of conditions that qualify. Now dementia, chronic depression, and various other forms of mental or behavioral anguish can get you an appointment with the country’s busy and prosperous Dr. Deaths. In the 2014-15 reporting period, 15 percent of cases were nonterminal.
Typical of today’s aggressive liberalism, it wasn’t enough to have legalized euthanasia and expanded it to once-unimaginable situations, such as a patient who was dissatisfied with the results of a sex change. No, even euthanasia’s most ardent opponents must love euthanasia.
Proponents set their sights on the Brothers of Charity. The Catholic medical order runs psychiatric hospitals worldwide, 15 of them in Belgium, where it was founded in the early 19th Century.
When euthanasia was first legalized, the Brothers assumed their consciences would be safe. As Brother René Stockman, the order’s superior-general in Rome, told me in a phone interview last week: “We had always maintained that the Brothers of Charity, as part of our charism and calling, would accompany the mentally ill and seek to heal them, but never perform euthanasia, because we also want our services to be in line with Catholic teaching. And when euthanasia got going in Belgium, there was at first no talk of euthanatizing the mentally ill.”
But pro-euthanasia pressure mounted. It began with a civil ruling last year against a Catholic nursing home that had refused to permit doctors to euthanize a 74-year-old resident. The woman’s adult children sued, and a court in Louvain ordered the home to pay €6,000 in fines and damages.
Then, early this year, the board of the Belgian Brothers issued a statement authorizing physicians to euthanize non-terminal, mentally ill patients on the order’s premises. The statement asserted that euthanasia is a routine medical procedure, and that patient autonomy and the protection of life are equally important values–in direct violation of the Catholic view, which is that the protection of life at all stages is absolute.
Shamefully, three religious on the board apparently went along with the majority-lay trustees. Br. Stockman told me he suspects the three religious “are overwhelmed by the lay members as well as the professional staff.” The Belgian Brothers declined to comment.
Br. Stockman in the spring appealed to the Belgian bishops and to some of the Church’s highest authorities in Rome. Last week, Pope Francis intervened, ordering the Belgian chapter to stop offering euthanasia. The Belgian Brothers have until the end of August to comply.
The response from the political class so far has been to blow a Belgian raspberry at the supreme pontiff. One of the lay trustees, former Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, on Monday tweeted that “the time of Roma locuta causa finita is long past.” The Latin phrase, attributed to St. Augustine, means: “Rome has spoken; the cause is finished.”
If Van Rompuy is right, it would call into question the ability of any global religious organization to set policy for its various national chapters–a grave setback for international religious freedom. It would also be a tragedy for the 5,000 mentally ill patients the Brothers serve in Belgium. As Br. Stockman told me, refusal to comply would cast doubt on the future of the Brothers’ operations in Belgium: “Do we have the capacity, in Belgium, where we can still offer our charism and our vision? Because we are facing severe secularization in Belgium.”
He added: “In 1815 we broke the chains of the mentally ill, who up to that point were literally imprisoned. We were liberators. Now we see that our child is going in a way that is not in line with the parents.”
When dealing with religious persecution in the West, it is easy to count incidents of physical violence: a Jewish cemetery desecrated here, a hijabi woman harassed there, and so on. The State Department and various NGOs do such work with admirable meticulousness. Yet it is much harder to document when, in the name of secularity, entire societies and political classes declare war on private conscience and religious liberty.