By Jay D. Homnick on 10.15.07 @ 12:07AM
Donnie Deutsch makes one long for the classiness and depth of Geraldo Rivera.
A couple of years ago, the girls' volleyball team of Seattle
Hebrew Academy's junior high (where Michael Medved's children
attend) went undefeated, dominating the parochial school league in
that area. One team from a Catholic school came to play them for
the first time and Principal Rivy Poupko Klitenik greeted their bus
on arrival. "And what is the team name?" she asked.
"We are the Crusaders."
She gulped. "Well, I hope this time turns out better than the
last."
Which brings us to the curious case of Donnie Deutsch, his nasty
ambush of Ann Coulter, his real or pretended thick-headedness about
the relationship between Jews and Christians, and the subsequent
piling-on of Ann for utterly inoffensive remarks. I watched the
video clip of the entire exchange carefully and those
are my considered conclusions.
Here is what happened. Ann is promoting a book and in those
circumstances she accepts all invitations, even into hostile
territory. She came on Deutsch's CNBC show,The Big Idea,
the interview appearing over a chiron reading: "Being Extreme Makes
Millions." The host is a blow-dried pretty boy who wears
half-glasses down on his nose to create a kind of
Michael-Landon-meets-Erkel effect. He asked Ann what her ideal
America would look like and she answered: "All the Democrats would
be like Joe Lieberman and all the Republicans like Duncan
Hunter."
He countered that he meant what kind of place America would be
generally, not politically. A joyful place, she responds, safe and
prosperous. More tolerant? Yes, definitely, like the mega-churches
she lectures in where they are thoroughly diverse and integrated in
an unself-conscious way. "What, a Christian America? No Jews, no
Buddhists?"
In the course of the next few sentences of repartee, Ann makes a
number of points. 1) That a Christian views himself as a perfected
Jew. 2) That a Jew has to obey the Law to be in Heaven, but
Christians believe they have a "fast track." 3) That this is basic
to anyone familiar with the New Testament. 4) That there is nothing
offensive in this to Jews. Deutsch, for his part, claims to be a
practicing Jew, but says he finds this personally offensive, more
appropriate for a Prime Minister of Iran than for an educated woman
like Ann.
In fact, the only one exposing blind spots in his education was
the host. If he does not know that Christians believe Jews are
lacking something by not accepting Jesus as a savior, if he does
not know that Jews believe Christians are to one degree or another
in error by believing Jesus can save them, he is ignorant of the
most basic facts of religious life. By the same token, at this
stage in history both sides have concluded that they will not
settle the theological differences short of a prophetic or
Messianic intervention.
The serious people on both sides also know that they share a
broad set of overlapping moral values along with an interest in a
wholesome, family-oriented society and culture. If they stand on
ceremony and refuse to work together because the other is not
catechumenically correct, the result will be that the forces of
depravity will divide them and conquer the street. In the meantime,
each side chuckles to themselves that they have the spiritual edge.
(Ann's view is more amicable than most; many Christians believe the
Jews lost their Covenant entirely.)
I once saw a transcript of one of the forced debates that were
common in the 13th century, where the king would compel a Jewish
scholar to debate a Christian scholar. This particular manuscript
did not identify the rabbi involved, but he was pretty fearless,
pointing out the excesses of the Crusaders. At one point the priest
says to him: "What if you are wrong and on Judgment Day God is
angry at you for not accepting Jesus?" He answers: "What if you are
wrong and on Judgment Day God is angry at you for accepting Jesus?
The answer is that as long as you make your best judgment in a
sincere way, it is unlikely that a perfectly intelligent and just
God will be angry."
To imply that Ann Coulter violated an intellectual norm, a
religious norm, a social norm, by explaining the things she did in
the manner she did, is simply misinformed -- if not crude religion
baiting. It just ain't so. Indeed the contrast between Ann's
Christianity and Ahmadinejad's Islam is particularly "striking," to
use her adjective of preference. Remember who she used as an
example in the sentence before to describe the ideal Democrat? None
other than Joseph Lieberman, the most traditionally practicing Jew
in the history of the United States government.
topics:
Education, Religion, Islam, Law, Iran