It all makes sense now...

Seeing as how the Jblogosphere's been all about the Jewish plots lately, I thought I'd throw my streimel into the fray. First, Bill Donohue confirms he's a loon. Asked about his "secular Jews control Hollywood, like anal sex, and hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular" comment from December 2004, Bill defended his questionable thought process:

BEINART: Bill Donohue has made anti-Jewish, anti-gay comments --

DONOHUE: No, I haven't.

BEINART: -- which are as bad as what these women -- you said that the secular Jewish Jews in Hollywood hate Christianity. That's a horrible, bigoted --

DONOHUE: Wait a minute. Wait, wait.

BEINART: -- statement, so it seems to me the question becomes --

DONOHUE: Peter. Peter --

BEINART: -- what is our standard here?

DONOHUE: Peter, the Jewish Forward said in 2004 that Jews run Hollywood. Are they anti-Semitic?

BEINART: You said they hate Christianity, Mr. Donohue.

DONOHUE: Oh, we like the movies that are coming out of Hollywood. They're very nice to Catholics.

BEINART: No, no. Did you say that or not?

DONOHUE: They're very nice to Catholics.

BEINART: You said that secular Jews in Hollywood hate Christianity.

DONOHUE: What world do you live in? What world do you live in? Have you seen what they -- what movies they make about Catholics?

BEINART: Yeah. Do you defend that statement?

DONOHUE: I defend the fact -- there's two parts to the statement. One part is, right out of the Jewish Forward: Jews run Hollywood. If you think it's the Chinese, make your case. And do they make nice movies about Catholics, or do they make lousy movies?

BEINART: You said they hate Christians.

DONOHUE: What kind of a -- well, oh, I'm telling you --

BEINART: You say -- you made a blanket statement about secular Jews in Hollywood that hate Christians.

DONOHUE: No, I'm talking about -- no, I'm talking about the movies that come out of Hollywood, and the predominant ones -- you got [director Martin] Scorsese. He's not Jewish. It's the people in Hollywood. There's a mindset about this, and I think you should talk to The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, which have said that the Hollywood studios are dominated by Jews. I tried to even qualify it more than that.

The issue of Jewish control of Hollywood is a very old one. Suffice it to say that there are plenty of Jews in Hollywood and I'd be willing to bet a fair amount aren't religious. That said, Donohue has yet to demonstrate any causality between secular Jewish influence in Hollywood and any particular animus against Christians or Christianity. As I commented here, one problem is that everybody keeps moving the goalposts. Who decides what's offensive, and what motives can be attributed to these artistic decisions? Just because Donohue finds something offensive doesn't mean it's specifically designed to be so. By the same token, advocating a particular VIEW of Christianity (say, by having a liberal Christian protagonist) Similarly, having a liberal Christian as a leading protagonist (Book of Daniel, for instance) is neither the same thing as uniformly attacking the whole institution or belief system, or conservative Christianity in particular. It certainly doesn't preclude it, but a difference in perspective does not an attack make. ("Keeping the Faith", which features an interfaith couple dating, as well as a lovelorn priest, is a great example of this.)

Lastly, showing conflict in Christianity ALSO doesn't constitute an attack. Not every show has to be Seventh Heaven. Furthermore, there are some stories about Christian characters or episodes that, if they're to have any degree of intellectual and artistic honesty, would have to be somewhat critical of the Church. Galileo, Salem Witch Trials, Inquisitions, etc. You couldn't do a bio-pic on Uriel Da Costa or Spinoza without showing the Jewish opposition they encountered. Same thing. It's not necessarily an attack.

In other wacko news, a Georgia state senator has accused evolution of being a Jewish plot:

Mr. Bridges' memo claims that teaching evolution amounts to indoctrinating students in an ancient Jewish sect's beliefs.

"Indisputable evidence – long hidden but now available to everyone – demonstrates conclusively that so-called 'secular evolution science' is the Big Bang, 15-billion-year, alternate 'creation scenario' of the Pharisee Religion," writes Mr. Bridges, a Republican from Cleveland, Ga. He has argued against teaching of evolution in Georgia schools for several years.

He then refers to a Web site, www.fixedearth.com, that contains a model bill for state Legislatures to pass to attack instruction on evolution as an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Mr. Bridges also supplies a link to a document that describes scientists Carl Sagan and Albert Einstein as "Kabbalists" and laments "Hollywood's unrelenting role in flooding the movie theaters with explicit or implicit endorsement of evolutionism."

You know what? If no one else wants to take credit for evolution, I'll do it. We did it. Our idea. Read your Rashi. Incidentally, can we get royalties on this?

Also, Einstein would be very amused to hear that he was a Kabbalist.


Major hat-tip to DovBear, who lets me blog without really trying.