The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : In Defense of Elie Wiesel

Text Size

Yesterday, I wrote about Elie Wiesel calling upon Mitt Romney to speak out against the Church of LDS' practice of baptizing by proxy deceased Jews, particularly those who perished in the Holocaust. Despite the Church of LDS stating it would refrain from such a practice, it was recently done to the parents of Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal and Wiesel found out there were plans to baptize him (along with his father and maternal grandfather) despite the fact he is very much alive.

Much of the commentary to this blog post was negative towards Wiesel and some of it was quite derogatory. Amongst other things, Wiesel was called "a weasel", "an obnoxious blowhard", "a shakedown artist" and was also accused of "making a living off the Holocaust." A former student of Wiesel's at Boston University felt to compelled to state that these remarks made against Wiesel was "disgustingly cruel." I couldn't agree more.

I've long been taught that we must never forget the Holocaust and it was Wiesel, perhaps more than anyone, who has driven this message home. I am sorry to hear that there are people who would rather forget about the Holocaust and prefer that Wiesel not speak out. For those who accuse Wiesel of profiterring, let me state without equivocation that Wiesel doesn't spend his life telling the world what happened to Jews in Europe for personal gain but because it is his solemn duty. At a time when Iran seeks to bring about a second Holocaust never has Elie Wiesel and his message been needed more.

Now let's get back to the question at hand. There were some commenters who wondered why Wiesel was taking Romney to task while ignoring President Obama's hostility towards Israel. Yet I would point to Wiesel's open letter to Obama in April 2010 following his row with Benjamin Netanyahu concerning housing construction in East Jerusalem. So let's be clear. Wiesel does not play favorites.

I did find one interesting comment which I would like to address:

I am confused by Elie Wiesel on this issue. I understand that Mr. Wiesel and others are true to Judaism and evidently find Mormon baptisms as an offensive conversion practice. But why be offended by another congregation of the faithful trying to demonstrate their love of their fellow man, particularly when you have personally suffered from man's inhumanity to man and at a time when there is so much hostility in the world? Baptisms are performed to be available to the spirit if the spirit desires it, but it is up to the spirit to accept it. Think of it as an opening a door; an expression of welcoming, but you need not walk through.

Directing this issue to Mitt Romney, and particularly at this time, makes it political. A sincere concern would be better addressed to the head of the Church.

I accept the proposition that most Mormons are horrified by what happened during the Holocaust and want to honor the memories of those who perished. Their intentions are good but we all know what can happen with good intentions. Anyone who has an elementary knowledge of the history of Judaism will know that Jews have repeatedly been compelled to baptism under the threat of expulsion or death. So if one wishes to honor Jews who perished in the Holocaust a baptism, even by proxy, is the worst possible way of going about it.

As for the suggestion that this issue is best taken up with the Head of the Church of Latter Day Saints, well, therein lies the problem. The Church of LDS has repeatedly promised not to permit this and yet they seem to have trouble keeping their word. As Wiesel notes Romney is "the most famous and important Mormon in the country." Wiesel further acknowledges, "I'm not saying it's his fault, but once he knows, morally he must respond...He should come out and say, 'Stop it.'"

Given that the Church of LDS has repeatedly failed to live up to its agreement concerning the proxy baptism of deceased Jews, Wiesel's query of Romney is entirely fair and reasonable. Romney would be wise to answer Wiesel on this matter.

View all comments (62) | Leave a comment

Quartermaster| 2.15.12 @ 4:50PM

To state the comments yesterday were cruel is risible. The man is a weasel. period. He's thrived financially telling lies in his novel "Night" in all three differing versions. Romney owes Wiesel nothing and he is right to ignore the man.

So sorry if you don't like this, but I have naught but contempt for Wiesel and other shakedown artists like him.

Aaron Goldstein| 2.15.12 @ 4:59PM

Evidence please.

Drek| 2.15.12 @ 5:48PM

I had forgotten about Jews having baptisms forced upon them.

That's a detail that throws more light upon the subject. Which means the issue has the potential to become truly incendiary.

C Bowen| 2.15.12 @ 6:19PM

Naomi Seidman does one of the more famous take downs, regarding the original Yiddish version of what would be 'Night' that discusses how, among other notes, when war was over, the now liberated gang went to rape German women.

That anecdote was reworded in later versions, as you can imagine.

Just because he wants to bomb Iran, doesn't mean Romney should pay him any attention.

Quartermaster| 2.15.12 @ 8:22PM

For what Goldstein? That's a standard knee jerk reaction when you can't do anything else. The info on "Night" has been in the public domain for more than a decade. I realize you are on the young side, but are you so callow and poorly read that you haven't come across it?

Romney owes nothing to Wiesel. Nothing. And his Nobel was as much of a political put up job as the Obummer's "Peace Prize."

Drek, this is nothing like having baptism forced on you. Mormons have a belief about baptism of the dead that they are about the only ones who believe it. It's not biblical ( although Paul mentions it in passing, but only as an example of something useless), and it affects no one, unless they are like Wiesel, looking for some reason to be offended. Wiesel is just your standard leftist who happens to be a Jew. I'm shocked Goldstein would defend the man.

Aaron Goldstein| 2.15.12 @ 10:07PM

I figured you would say something to that effect. I ask you to back up your argument and you can't do it. Quel surprise.

Ryan| 2.16.12 @ 8:10AM

Actually, it's placed upon the maker of a statement to back up a claim. Not saying that either side is right, here, but proper debate means QM needs to provide sources, not Goldstein.

2Anglico| 2.16.12 @ 11:28AM

Take note of quartermaster's words. According to quartermaster, Elie Wiesel lies and profiteers! Goebbels is alive and living in America. Quartermaster's (and Jack in WI) real beef is that Wiesel and Jews are actually allowed to live and breathe.
As for me, I am comfortable believing that God himself is taking care of Holocaust victims.

Jack in Wi.| 2.15.12 @ 10:55PM

It is against Catholic teaching to force baptism on anyone. That is why the Jews are still with us today. We could have forced Jews to convert and there would have been no problem. The oldest continuous Jewish community in the world is in Rome, over 2000 years, where the Pope was absolute ruler for about 1400 of those years. Most Jews have converted to either Christanity or Isalm over the last 2000 years. The vast majority were voluntary. In most Christian and Muslim countries the Jews were allowed to practice their faith and pass it on. That is why they are still here.

As to regards Weisal and the Holocaust. I have read dozens of books on the subject and many hundreds or even thousands of articles on the subject, most by Jewish authors. I consider Weisal like Jesse Jackson, a shakedown artist. It is long since time to put the Holocaust where it belongs. That is in a long list of murderous horrors that government have done to their own and other peoples. The Jewish Bolshivicks killed millions before Hitler ever got a vote in Germany. The Jewish historian Richard Pipes has stated that Hitler was impossible without communism in Russia. I would add that Hitler and his movement were a reaction and blowback from Communism. The Russian Revolution caused a huge increase in European and American antisemitism. Just like Israel and it's crimes are causing a huge increase in antisemitism worldwide today.

Nick| 2.16.12 @ 12:48AM

Little Jack-boot from Wi.: Grandpa, yesterday Jimmy said I was prejudiced.
Grandpa: Do you know what prejudice is?
Little Jack-boot from Wi.: No
Grandpa: Well, prejudice is when you react to someone because of their religion, or their color.
Little Jack-boot from Wi.: But I don't do that!
Grandpa: Who is Jimmy?
Little Jack-boot from Wi.: Jimmy's one of my Jewish friends.
Grandpa: Then you are prejudiced, because you think of Jimmy as your Jewish friend, and not your friend.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBJXtTIbDTo

Joel| 2.15.12 @ 5:09PM

"The Church of LDS has repeatedly promised not to permit this and yet they seem to have trouble keeping their word."

The church is doing all it can to prevent this from happening. In that sense they are keeping their word. The submission of Wiesel's name was done by one individual who somehow managed to sneek it through the system. As a result the church has apoligized for it and that person has lost their right to access the genealogical information controled by the LDS church. The system will improve to better prevent this from happening; just be patient and give it a little time.

JeffC| 2.15.12 @ 5:09PM

so he asked Harry Reid to denounce this practice as well ? right ?

Dixon| 2.15.12 @ 5:19PM

And Glen Beck.

Tarr| 2.15.12 @ 5:10PM

By your measure pro-abortion and pro gay marriage folks should demand that Rick Santorum denounce his Church's teachings and hierarchy due to their "anti-women" "homophobe" practices. Sorry it doesn't wash.

I can't stand Romney but his explanation that he does not take part in these practices is enough of a response to Wiesel.

Drek| 2.15.12 @ 5:42PM

I studied the Holocaust in college.

I didn't however study the total opus of Elie Wiesel.

IF the Church of LDS has taken action to prevent any recurrence of these undesirable "baptisms," then I don't know exactly why Wiesel has zeroed in on former Governor Romney.

Now anybody who has read anything I've written here and over at The Other McCain has to know that I don't like Romney at all. Not at all.

But IF his Church has genuinely addressed the issue, ------- what more is he supposed to do? He can't put individual mormons who persist in this in a headlock, now can he? What's he supposed to do? Mormons who refuse to listen to the leadership of their Church are most unlikely to be persuaded to stop all because of him.

His money can buy much, but it can't purchase everything......

But then again, this is just one issue of his religion that he's going to get hit with. If we let ourselves get saddled with Romney, we all better get used to it.

WL| 2.15.12 @ 5:58PM

I tell you why he "should" answer...and why our people on the right are always SUPPOSED to ANSWER...

It's this: As soon as Romney responds...the Cannons open up and every single media outlet starts reporting the kerfuffle acting as innocent bystanders...and the story never goes away for the next 9 months....

However, all of this does mean that you are right when you say this is what we can expect if Romney is the nominee...and all of our columnists and commentators can whine and whine how it's unfair...but the left will do it without hesitation...as he keeps calling Obama "a nice guy" all of the way to his second term...

Drek| 2.15.12 @ 6:08PM

Yup.

Our guys go out of their way to praise obama, the former member of Jeremiah Wright's "church." Marco Rubio just the other day at CPAC went out of his way to praise him as a good family man.

Which of us recalls Maureen Dowd's column wherein she observed that the guy doesn't spend much time with his kids, but does spend an inordinate amount of time with his "body man," Reggie.

And you're dead right that the moment Romney responds, it will be the signal for off to the races for endless stories about mormons, baptisms and Romney.

WL| 2.15.12 @ 5:52PM

Look Mr. Goldstein,

You have some points in your defense of Mr. Wiesel, but I am not nearly convinced, and most others likely won't be either...

Citing his letter to the Bamster is commonplace on the left. That letter was sent at the same time Mr. Koch was hassling Obama too...but you can bet your bottom dollar that they will never hit a Democrat a crucial moment...Yet, they have PERFECT TIMING for maximum damage to the Republicans...It's why the MSM holds on to stories until they lose steam...It's why they ignored the tea party as long as they could...Then when they are called on it...they show some report that was broadcast Saturday at 2AM...

No sir, we have seen this way too many times, to keep believing this sort of thing is coincidence.

I can't speak for the other commenters, but I happen to like the Jewish people very much, and would never speak lightly of the barbarism committed against them...or hatefully about those who have survived it.

However, I'm sorry, this man, OR someone handling him in his old age...is engaging in Hackery 101, and should be taken to task for it just like John Lewis and Cleaver when they were LYING about being spit on and having racial slurs hurled at them...without their personal history's having any relevance.

As far as

Buckeye Conservative| 2.15.12 @ 6:17PM

The LDS Church is entitled to baptize anyone we want to, especially if they are related to us and deceased.

You can blow your bigotry out your butt, stop hiding behind anti-Semitism.

Mormons are strong supporters of religious freedom and Israel by and large.

You are twisting and distorting LDS practice, feeding on fears and information.

But you're just a bigot.

Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 6:26PM

You can't go baptizing people into your religion when they don't want to be part of your religion.

They are Jewish, you should respect their religion and not force your religion onto them.

They aren't trying to force you to become Jewish, have the same courtesy...

Gregg Weber| 2.15.12 @ 7:30PM

In this life, everyone can choose which church they want, even atheist who choose the church of no God. After death they also have that choice and just because some ordinance is done for them doesn't make them a member of that church. Let us assume that there is a church that I believe is not of God who has an ordinance whereby I become part of that false church. Does it really matter? Not to me. And certainly not to God as He knows that it is false and I had no say in the ordinance. Someone comes up to me and asks if I accept it, then I would still have the free choice to accept or reject.
I suspect there is a problem with people who "know", really "know" that their church is right and they don't want any confusion or tainting by anyone. That is their right, now, in the future after death, and when the time eventually comes to accept or reject for the last time. Not having any authority to speak I suspect that (The demanding cat just came by and messed up my chain of thought. Now where was I?) all those names are placed in a file not to do any baptisms for until and if they actually accept it at some time in the future.
How would we know that it was acceptable to the dead person? I don't know.

Occam's Tool| 2.15.12 @ 9:16PM

Folks, I have great respect for Elie Wiesel.

However, this baptism occurs AFTER THE PERSON IS DEAD. Mormons are great supporters of Jews and the State of Israel. If baptising me after I'm dead and have said my "shma" makes my Mormon pal happy, let him do it. I'll take any well wishing I can have in this world and after.

This type of action is miles away from forcing a live Jew to convert unwillingly to another faith.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 1:30AM

It probably matters to the family of the deceased individual.

It is disrespectful to the family of the person that is deceased, and to the memory of the deceased individual.

Drek| 2.15.12 @ 7:16PM

I suppose it's good to know that those in LDS claim plenary and comprehensive jurisdiction over the souls of men. The rest of us will take that under advisement........

Prescinding however from such dubious jurisdictional claims, -------- there's this OTHER issue, it's known as the election! And in that election the mormon candidate will presumably need the support of many who are not mormon, haven't any intention of becoming mormon, and haven't any such intention in this life or the one to come.

Which presents a problem for the rest of us. Because the rest of us don't want to see our campaign to overthrow obama get hijacked because of dubious theological claims. Therefore you can't just say to those who've got a prob with such rituals over the dead to "blow" it out their "butt."

If you think you're frustrated now, just wait to midsummer, when the media really gets in high gear going over all things mormon.

I strongly suspect you're not remotely ready for what's to come. And if responses like this are par for the course, ------- then we can kiss this election good by right now.

RJ| 2.15.12 @ 6:24PM

Aaron,

Thanks for the insights. I sincerely appreciate it.

Mike| 2.15.12 @ 6:37PM

Aaron,

The name calling of Wiesel here is really unfortunate. He is subject to criticism like anyone else, but I really wish there weren't as many people here who will so quickly abandon substantive arguments and go for kneejerk name calling.

The fact that LDS has claimed they will stop doing something and then continue to do it, doesn't really speak well for them.

But I do have to say: I have a hard time feeling to strongly about them "baptizing" my deceased relatives or anyone else, because I don't believe in their posthumous baptism. I don't believe baptism is even possible for the dead in any Christian Church/denomination. They are having some ceremony and saying someone's name, but I personally don't believe that anything happens because of this. Now if they were using a relative's bones for Santeria, that would be another story,

But since I don't believe there is any validity in this baptism, I don't think they are really doing anything to these people, other than repeating their name.

I was just curious about your thoughts on this.

Mike

Aaron Goldstein| 2.16.12 @ 10:24AM

I appreciate your comments. As I've stated previously, given how Jews have been forced to be baptized under threat of expulsion or death, baptism is just about the worst way you can honor the memory of a Jewish person especially if the Jewish person in question found him or herself in that situation during their lifetime.

Furthermore, the Church of LDS has agreed not to engage in this practice and yet continues to do so. As you put it yourself, it does not speak well for them.

Dixie Pixie| 2.15.12 @ 6:44PM

The author may be amused to learn that yours truly is on the LDS list to be baptized as a Mormon upon Resurrection Day even though I am a Southern Baptist.
The reason I have not challenged it, is I consider the idea fundamentally silly and conceptually flawed.

The concept is when the people on the list of people baptized as Mormons are Resurrected, they will become Mormons.
Thus the Mormons will have the numbers to become a powerful political and religious force in the Post-Resurrection society.

The concept is ridiculous, in that the Mormons simply do not have “God's” agreement to the concept.
Also when the dead are resurrected, they will regain all the prerogatives of the living including the “Free Will” to pick their religious faith.

One thing is certain, come Resurrection Day, God will be enforcing the terms of Resurrection, not the Mormon Elders.
Remember the First and Second Commandments::::
“Thou shalt have no other Gods before me” and
“Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them, for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God...”

That is definitely not the type to let anyone dictate the terms of the Resurrection and certainly not the Mormons.
And who says that any current religion will be allowed to exist after the Resurrection as God will certainly have the power to sweep away all but his favored religion.

In short the concept is silly, irreverent and will never happen.

Mike| 2.15.12 @ 6:47PM

Even though I am not a Southern Baptist, I think your point is well taken.

Solomon| 2.15.12 @ 7:25PM

Why Romney? Why not Harry Reid? Reid is the highest ranking Mormon office holder in the nation.
Elie Wiesel has knowingly made this political. As a Jew I am respectful of the religious freedoms we enjoy regardless of denomination. Wiesel is trying to resurrect (pardon the pun) public suspicion of Mormonism so prevalent in the 2008 election. This is beneath him and and tarnishes his otherwise good works.

Quartermaster| 2.15.12 @ 8:26PM

Because Reid is a leftist loony like Wiesel.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 1:33AM

Give Wiesel the benefit of the doubt here. He probably didn't bother with asking Harry Reid to condemn stuff like this because nobody would cover the fact Reid then tells him to take a hike.

Fred Campbell| 2.16.12 @ 1:25PM

Solomon gets it.
This whole kerfuffle is political. The timing (and focus) is clearly an attempt to discredit Romney by proxy.
I am not a Romney supporter but I recognize that he is a victim of dirty tricks.
I am also not Mormon but they can baptize me if they want. It flatters me that they might want me in their kingdom.
My reservations in Heaven have been made for a long time (without the benefit of a Mormon baptism).

Dixie Pixie| 2.15.12 @ 8:02PM

For a another theoretical viewpoint, consider this::::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV5w262XvCU

Pete| 2.15.12 @ 8:18PM

I want Goldstein to apologize for Karl Marx.

Quartermaster| 2.15.12 @ 8:26PM

Makes as much sense as what Wiesel is looking for.

Anthony M| 2.15.12 @ 9:01PM

That sir, is a home run.

Rowdy Yates| 2.15.12 @ 8:33PM

Goldstein. Wiesel was wrong to do this and you are wrong to keep it up. Move on. No deense for this column. Stick to the issues,like Romneycare.

obadiah| 2.15.12 @ 8:58PM

If mormons baptize me after I'm dead, does that mean I get moved around in heaven to their territory?

Kingsmill| 2.15.12 @ 9:01PM

Even if I'm baptized by the Mormons I won't be voting for Willard in the afterlife.

Anthony M| 2.15.12 @ 9:06PM

Let me get this straight, a politician and businessman is now responsible for every action taken by other members of his religion? Does Mr. Goldstein feel responsible for what every member of his religion, officially as part of a synogogue, does or says? Romney is running for president, not Pope.
As far as Mr. Wiesel, I'm not very familiar with him except that every time his name is mentioned it appears to be holocaust related and he appears to have done quite well for himself. Maybe he operates a business I'm unfamiliar with or perhaps he invented some product and lives off the residuals from his patent. But the only time I ever hear him is when he's doing the Jesse Jackson.

Rob| 2.15.12 @ 9:17PM

Thank you, Aaron, for your column. It's astounding how vicious people can be toward a man who has never caused any of them harm. Romney has said that he personally participated in baptisms for the dead, and so his own practice invites questions as to what that meant. Perhaps he meant little different than what others might mean by asking for heavenly mercies on the departed, but I can see how Jews would feel uncomfortable, given a history that includes forced baptisms.

Are most readers of American Spectator as nasty toward Jews as some who have commented on this theme? I hope not; the possibility suggests that this would be a topic on which its writers might want to expound further. I'm thankful for Quin Hilyer's work with Louisiana's Coalition Against Nazism and Racism from back when David Duke was running for office.

Vern Crisler| 2.15.12 @ 9:53PM

No, Rob, there's only a couple.

WL| 2.15.12 @ 11:34PM

Come on now Bob...

There are always a few who bash the Jews or anybody else, but NO that is not most readers...Just ask the Ron Paul supporters...they love to call us Isreal firsters because we really do like them and don't like how Barry has treated our valuable ally...and a wonderful people. Yes, they could do a little thinking about how they vote...but then again...even God got pretty sick of them from time to time in the Old Testament!! (that was meant as light prodding BOB)

However, I guess since Romney has participated in a post-death ritual (which you and I obviously know little about...WEY-ELL THE-EN of ROMNEY MUSS NAUGHT BE FRUM ROUN HEEYER...and better explain himself to YOU....the great BOB...

By the way...ol Hillyer...OUR FAVORITE FOIL..is just a button click away at his own post...where you can make sure and brown nose where he will see it for sure.

Congratulations BOB...you are the Holiest and most decent person on the planet.

Take care BOB.

Rowdy Yates| 2.15.12 @ 9:37PM

Anti-semitism=bad
Anti-Mormonism=good

Sean| 2.15.12 @ 9:40PM

Do people take baptizing dead people seriously? It means nothing.

not for Mitt| 2.15.12 @ 11:06PM

Why is this practice Romney's issue? Where is the evidence he has been involved in any way? Without such evidence, this is bigotry, plain and simple.

Romney is no more answerable for all things done by any Mormon than you or Wiesel are answerable for all things done by any Jew.

Garfield| 2.16.12 @ 1:35AM

Except Romney has supposedly participated in these incidents. That means Romney is involved in this whether he likes it or not.

As far as I know, Glenn Beck and Dirty Harry Reid have not been involved in practices like this.

smokedaddy| 2.16.12 @ 4:04AM

Has noone here wondered why Mormons are so compulsively obsessed with genealogy going back god knows how many generations? Well how else are they going to identify family forebears who would benefit from postmordem baptism. Of course, somehow it doesn't matter what religion they were in their actual life unless they happen to have been Jewish. As the son of a Jack Mormon who finds the whole practice to be hilariously silly, it still bugs the hell out of me that Wiesel and fellow like minded Jews like Aaron see fit to start a freakin religious war with an American home grown religion whose members are absolutely filled with Jew love. Amazing. As has has been stated THESE PEOPLE ARE DEAD. For living Jews to assert a tribal prohibition on postmordem baptism is a lunatic a practice as these baptism are themselves.

Debra Liening| 2.16.12 @ 7:39AM

The church as an institution cannot control the actions of its individual members, it can only attempt to monitor them. To make this ban on Jewish ordinances work, you would have to expect that 1) Individuals submitting names for proxy ordinances are aware of the religion of the persons they are submitting, 2) Those individuals are aware of the controversy and the sensibilities involved. 3) Those individuals are aware of points 1 and 2, that they just don't care about them or the reputation of the church. 4) A comprehensive monitoring program exists that allows church HQ to discern the religious status in life of the names submitted for ordinances. As somebody who volunteers in our local LDS family history center and just tries to keep all the computers and internet access working for our genealogy patrons, that all seems like a lot to expect!

OTOH, it seems that someone with likely unauthorized access to LDS records has apparently been doing that monitoring.

The work done in LDS temples is not meant to disrespect or change _anything_ a person was in life. It is meant to be the _possibility_ of a blessing to the person in the next life. The principle of moral agency is a central doctrine in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is considered to be an eternal principle, very much operative into the next life. This proxy work is done with the full recognition that the individuals for whom it is done have the final word.

"To live with saints in heaven is bliss and glory, to live with saints on earth is another story." Brigham Young

Aaron Goldstein| 2.16.12 @ 8:28AM

I appreciate your feedback. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that the Church of LDS has pledged to refrain from engaging in this activity, not merely monitor it. Given that the Church of LDS has baptized by proxy an estimated 650,000 Jews who perished in the Holocaust I find it hard to believe those who submit their names are unaware of their religious affiliation.

But if you are telling me that most Church of LDS members are unaware of this situation then it seems to me that the Church of LDS is derelict in its duty of honoring this agreement.

Bob K.| 2.16.12 @ 10:26AM

Just as the Publisher and Editors of the American Spectator are complicit in your own encouragement of anti-mormon and anti-semitic sentiments through this blog post. Wouldn't you say so, Mr. Goldstein?

Aaron Goldstein| 2.16.12 @ 11:53AM

No, I wouldn't.

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 1:00PM

Wow, Bob. I made it through all the real anti Semitic dreck in this comment section without replying to any of it, yet I saw YOUR idiotic post & could not resist. Can you tell me WHERE IN THE HELL you gleaned anything "anti Semitic" or "anti Mormon" from Mr. Goldstein's post?

You people are a trip when you're just LOOKING for a reason to find offense with SOMETHING.

"A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool, because he must say something."...Plato

Thanks for proving this age old adage.

Robert Watkins| 2.26.12 @ 5:51PM

Goldstein: That's a valid opinion, but I think the confusion is thinking this practice is done by the leadership of the church instead of the many members (as Debra Liening points out) who are not as aware as they maybe should be about the topic.

Just a few days ago the LDS church released this to members, encouraging them to do exactly as you suggest: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/.....l-database

While we're at it, as a journalist you really should be calling the church name properly. Guidelines are easily available here: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/style-guide

And as for the claims that your writing is anti-Semitic or anti-Mormon--well those are just silly. Don't listen to it.

martin j smith| 2.16.12 @ 8:01AM

My problem is not with Wiesel asking Romney about the Mormon practice but more about his and other Jewish leaders failure to address Left Anti-Semitism and specifically Obama.s dangerous policies towards Israel.

JJ| 2.16.12 @ 11:57AM

My take is that it just shows a bizarre religious practice. Taking it baptizing dead jews seriously is no different than taking voodoo seriously. In fact it makes me wonder if they are baptizing voodoo dolls.

And to think we made fun of Christine O'Donnell of saying "I am not a witch."

Richard| 2.16.12 @ 12:50PM

I'm entering this thread late, but I feel compelled to offer some thoughts.

First, I agree with Aaron about Elie Wiesel, but I also think that the whole subject of the practice of proxy baptisms among some Mormons is one that, once introduced to the public square as Mr. Wiesel has chosen to do, is an action likely to generate more heat than light in the discussion of the matter.

Such as here.

I'm going to say this as someone of a decidely conservative heritage, with C.V. and bona fides available if a person really cares to know them, is that the sad fact is that the comment thread on American Spectator is regularly patrolled by people, including many above, whose chief M.O. seems to be one of seeking permission to hate. To hate someone: Obama; black people; Jews; Christians not of one's own particular ideological subspecies; gay people; Romney supporters; Paul supporters; and so forth. You know who you are.

I don't fathom proxy baptism at all, but I've worked with Mormons, and have lived among them, and they can be some of the best neighbors you can have. I don't fully understand transubstantiation or Purgatory either, or the idea of dispensationalism, but I've tried to avoid starting each and every argument by throwing plates against the wall, which seems to be the standard practice on this website. I'm not carrying a brief for everything Elie Wiesel writes and says. But I did spend a warm Saturday afternoon in September in the Anne Frank Huis on Prinzengracht in Amsterdam. And I learned from that visit that prolonged indulgence in hate has consequences.

Listen to yourselves, for heaven's sake. Seriously, if you represent what is supposed to be the contemporary Right, then go ahead and feel free to hate the outcome of the November election if your voices either dominate or are used to characterize conservative conservative opinion. Go ahead and hate. Just don't be surprised.

And to the editorial team at American Spectator - the home of challenging and stimulating conservative thinkers like Jim Antle, Quin Hillyer, Robert Stacy McCain, Ross Kaminsky and others, if what passes so frequently on these pages is 'thoughtful and relevant comment' that is not 'profane, bigoted or grossly impolite', then I'll defer to your judgment. It's your site.

Richard

Con Chef (NB)| 2.16.12 @ 1:05PM

You can always count on the mouth breathing Paulistinian Jew haters to spew their tripe whenever there's a thread that's even remotely related to Jews, the Holocaust, Israel, knishes, whatever...

Don't you people have copies of "The Turner Diaries" to go pleasure yourselves with? Or maybe the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"?

"Never underestimate the predictibility of stupidity."...Bullet Tooth Tony, "Snatch"

As in the predictibility of Jew haters showing up on posts like this one.

Jules Levin| 2.16.12 @ 9:19PM

I have always been puzzled by the reactions of my fellow Jews to this Mormon quirk. I ask them: Do you believe that Mormonism is true? "Of course not." So why do you take it seriously? Why not just laugh at the silly Gentiles. But I agree that including a living person in their weird ritual is personally offensive. If I were Wiesel I would address a sarcastic letter to the church, asking them to at least have the decency to wait until I was dead. And again, really, mocking laughter is called for, not whining protests.

ben traina| 2.16.12 @ 11:03PM

Yo Jules...... this ex-Catholic, Sidgee-American, agrees 110% with your take on "baptizing" dead people! Forced conversion Of The Living would be a serious matter but the Mormon (LDS) practice of baptizing dead people.....? If it makes them feel better they can add me and all my ancestors and descendants and LIVING RELATIVES to their list. This issue is a joke. Lets get serious. This is a political attack on Romney and I, DEFINITELY, am not a supporter of his.

David Calvani| 2.20.12 @ 1:09PM

Aaron,

I must disagree with your take on this matter. Entirely. Weisel's query of Romney isn't "fair and reasonable." Not at all.

The comment you quoted demonstrates that the post-mortem baptisms are a matter of Mormon theology. Your objection to them is rooted in history: "Jews have repeatedly been compelled to baptism under the threat of expulsion or death." You and Weisel can bring up such objections to Mormon theology and practice all you want. However, as a political candidate, it isn't Romney's job to referee Weisel's objections to Mormon theology. And the only reason Weisel is calling Romney "the most famous and important Mormon in the country" is because the man is running for president. Weisel has no business demanding that a politician intrude himself into the theology of any church, including his own.

You also state that "given that the Church of LDS has repeatedly failed to live up to its agreement concerning the proxy baptism of deceased Jews, Wiesel's query of Romney is entirely fair and reasonable." This is also false.

Romney isn't responsible for the official actions of the Mormon Church, nor of any of his fellow individual Mormons. That's like making Catholic candidates responsible for the actions of the Holy See.