Red, White and Liberal

by Alan Colmes

  This kind of double talk was evident when the Bush 43 administration tried to define its position on the case regarding the University of Michigan's admission policy. The idea of using anything other than academic scores to advance a student academically seems to bother conservatives, especially if it's race that's advancing that student. But how many schools accept students for reasons other than how well they did on their SAT scores? Bush 43's admission to Yale didn't have anything to do with Bush 41, did it? Now that's "Affirmative Access."

  Bush 43 spoke to the nation on affirmative action on Wednesday, January 15, 2003, saying, "At their core, the Michigan policies amount to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students based solely on their race." But what Michigan was doing did not involve quotas at all. Prospective students were given twenty points for race, but they could also receive points for other factors like socioeconomic disadvantage, for example (and could not receive points for both race and socioeconomic disadvantage).

  Also contradictory were the comments of Condoleezza Rice, who is often held up as proof that Bush is race-friendly. On one hand, she claimed to support the Bush position on the Michigan case during her Meet the Press appearance on January 19, 2003. On the other hand, she stated, "It is important to take race into consideration if you must, if race-neutral means do not work." She went on to acknowledge that she, herself, benefited from affirmative action when she was hired to teach at Stanford. "I think they saw a person that they thought had potential, and yes, I think they were looking to diversify the faculty." She went on to use the very argument liberals have used for years in defending affirmative action: "I think there's nothing wrong with that in the United States. It does not mean that one has to go to people of lower quality. Race is a factor in our society." So, she was defending Bush's opposition to affirmative action while pointing out it was responsible for her own success, and telling us why affirmative action is such a good idea. I have to stop writing for a moment. I'm scratching my head.

  Yes, race is still a factor in our society. And it's often played, as was suggested at the OJ trial, "from the bottom of the deck." And the deck is still stacked against African Americans. There is no doubt that some Americans still have a negative perception of minorities, and that there is a special reluctance to accept relationships between black men and white women. In OJ's case, there was an immediate national conclusion of guilt. That was the assumption from the Bronco chase on, and many Americans never even considered that there could have been another explanation for the deaths of Ron Brown and Nicole Simpson.

  Simpson had an even stronger case than was presented. There was much testimony favoring the defense that the jury never got to see. Rosa Lopez, the maid who lived next door to OJ, made a videotape on which she said that OJ's Bronco was parked in the same spot before, during, and after Ron and Nicole were killed. She didn't want to testify at the trial because she wanted to leave the country. Defense attorneys were threatened with sanctions if they played her testimony because it hadn't been turned over to the prosecution as required by law. Mary Ann Gerchas, a jewelry store owner, never got to testify. She claimed to have seen four men near the crime scene at 10:45 p.m., and that two were carrying something before they all sped off in a car. But Gerchas was arrested for allegedly failing to pay thousands of dollars in hotel bills and was considered too damaged a witness. Kary Mullis was going to testify for the defense about how the police handled DNA evidence. Mullis won a Nobel Prize for developing something called polymerase chain reaction. PCR is a form of DNA testing that can get information from very small fragments. But prosecutor Rockne Harmon said he would go after Mullis for drug use if he ever took the stand. The jury did not hear many of the allegations of Mark Fuhrman's misconduct. And many Simpson friends and associates never took the stand.

  It's a shame that race had to play a role at the Simpson trial, just as it's a shame that race has been a factor in issues that, in a truly just society, would have no racial component. I look forward to the day when each political party stops using race as bait in the game of "gotcha," to when affirmative action is no longer argued because it's no longer necessary, to when we accept blacks and whites, even when they're married to each other, and to when it matters not how many blacks are on a jury.

  Some Americans think OJ was not convicted because of the racial makeup of the jury. How about the plain truth that the defense put forth a better case than the prosecution? The fact is, the verdict did come in "not guilty." In America you are innocent until proven guilty. OJ is innocent.

  EIGHT

  Jesus Was a Liberal

  Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself.

  — LEVITICUS 19:18 (New International Version)

  From: Susan L

  Sent: Friday,April I 1,2003 9:29 AM

  To: colmes

  Subject: God is right!

  When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. (Proverbs 29:2) Have you seen the poll results? Can you argue with GOD? The democrats are toast... Praise The Lord!!!!

  Susan L Lexington, KY

  Listening to today's conservatives, you would think that Jesus is a member of the Republican Party, hates Bill Clinton, and wants no Democrats in office. You might even believe that God anointed George W. Bush to rule us at this time in our history. The gospel of the right would also have you thinking that our forefathers were all good Christians who envisioned a Christian nation, not to be besmirched by religious beliefs that did not reflect their own. How Jesus became co-opted by the right, and how the left has allowed this to happen, boggles the mind. I have it on good authority (the highest) that Jesus attends both Republican and Democratic conventions, that he is in the voting booth regardless of who is voting, and that he himself doesn't pull the lever. Let's examine just what Jesus did and what he stood for, and we'll let his actions speak for themselves.

  Jesus ate with prostitutes, threw out the money changers (capitalists), believed the rich should give to the poor, and preached the golden rule. He had a problem with the conservatives of the day, the Pharisees, and opposed their stoning sinners and quoting from Scripture. The tendency conservatives have to see the world in black and white is very palatable to those who have no need for critical thinking. Hence the gay issue, for example, is handled by phrases like, "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." This is very bad news to every conservative named Steve. God didn't make you. Sorry! Better luck next time.

  The love Jesus offered during his short life was not dictated by economic status, religious belief, racial background, or sexual identity. Jesus was a champion to all. He spoke truth to power, even as he respected history and tradition, much as today's patriotic liberals do. Jesus preached love, compassion, justice, and peace. Let's take one of Jesus' basic tenets: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." So why do some conservatives insist on being less than loving toward neighbors not like themselves?

  From: MindTravlr

  Sent: Tuesday, September I 1,2001 4:44 PM

  To: colmes

  Subject: (no subject)

  I pray that Jesus Christ will soften your cold and sick mind before He comes back to get all of the Republicans.

  Yes, I realize it will take Democrats longer to get there, but that's because they'll be using public transportation and hydrogen-powered vehicles.

  White Like Me

  Conservatives would also have you believe that Jesus was the world's first advocate for the white man and that he looked like David Duke. In fact, he was of Mediterranean complexion and looked more like Ricardo Montalban. In April 2001, the Discovery Channel created a digitized version of what Jesus probably looked like. The look can be described in one word: Jewfro.

  Reverend Paul Scott of the "New Righteous Movement" came on Hannity & Colmes on December 4, 2002, to rail against the misuse of Jesus as a paragon of whiteness.

  COLMES: He was most likel
y dark-skinned, correct?

  SCOTT; Of course. The image of the blue-eyed, blond-haired Jesus that is on many walls and even in many black churches is not even historically correct... we believe he was a black man.

  Scott posed an interesting question during his appearance on our show:

  SCOTT: Let me ask this, if the person you call Jesus was around during the Jim Crow days in Alabama, at a restaurant that segregated against black people . . . would he have been served ... or would he have been asked to leave the restaurant? He would have been kicked out of the restaurant because of his color.

  That show prompted this e-mail exchange:

  From: Margaret

  Sent: Wednesday, December 04,2002 9:43 PM

  To: colmes

  Subject: (no subject)

  This a comment for your guest Reverend Paul Scott. Jesus was Jewish and white. Facts are facts, and it has nothing to do with race. I would tell Mr. Scott to study his History because if he would have done his homework, then there would be no speculation about who and what Jesus was.

  From: Colmes

  Sent: Wednesday, December 04,2002 10:28 PM

  To: Margaret

  Subject: RE: (no subject)

  Jesus was from the Mediterranean and was olive skinned, more like an off-white, maybe a mocha or latte.

  Jesus on the Issues

  Jesus said, "Love thy neighbor as thyself." He didn't say, "Love only thy conservative neighbor as thyself." "Thy neighbor" includes the poor, the sick, the emotionally disadvantaged, the illegal immigrant who just snuck across the border and, yes, even liberals. At the Sermon on the Mount, speaking to the largest gathering of his ministry, Jesus spoke words that are considered central to Judeo-Christian tradition. The Beatitudes bless those who mourn, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, those who are merciful, and those who are pure of heart. "Blessed are the peacemakers," says Jesus, "for they shall be called Sons of God." Evil dictators like Saddam Hussein aren't getting blessings here, but neither are those who would initiate war against them. And I'm guessing Jesus is endorsing the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth," it says in Matthew 5:5. Sorry, all you loud, right-wing talk-show hosts, but we nice, easygoing liberals are inheriting beachfront property.

  If you help the poor, the needy, and the infirm, you are doing it for Jesus. Matthew 25, says:

  Then I, the King, shall say to those at my right, "Come, blessed of my Father, into the Kingdom prepared for you from the founding of the world. For I was hungry and you fed me; I was thirsty and you gave me water; I was a stranger and you invited me into your homes; naked and you clothed me; sick and in prison, and you visited me." Then these righteous ones will reply, "Sir, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you? Or thirsty and give you anything to drink? Or a stranger, and help you? Or naked, and clothe you? When did we ever see you sick or in prison, and visit you?" And I, the King, will tell them, "When you did it to these my brothers you were doing it to me!"

  So when the government clothes and feeds the needy; when the government gives Medicare and Medicaid; when Head Start can help otherwise-neglected children, and when housing is made available to those who would otherwise have no shelter, the government is doing it for Jesus. This does not comport with the policies of conservatives who continue to demonize those who need a helping hand. Even though welfare takes up just 2 percent of the federal budget (compared with 16 percent for defense, for example), many taxpayers resent that their dollars go to help the less fortunate among us. But given how so much of social policy is in keeping with Jesus' teachings, you'd think conservatives would applaud these government programs because they make more porous the impenetrable wall between church and state.

  Jesus encouraged us to sell everything we have and give the money to the poor. Tell that to conservatives fighting to erase the estate taxes, which affect only the wealthiest Americans in the first place. Only the richest families are taxed on what is actually a gift, and many of them resent that these tax dollars go to help those who need it most. When you support a tax plan that favors the investor class, remember Matthew 19:23-24, where Jesus says, "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

  On the issue of equal opportunity, Luke 11:9-10 says "For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to he who knocks, the door will be open." Affirmative action, anyone?

  Jesus was antigun. You'd think, listening to the National Rifle Association, that Jesus' actual words were "from my cold, dead hands," but no. Here's what Jesus actually said in Matthew 26:52: "Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword." Jesus would be very upset with current gun show loopholes. He would be disturbed by all of the lobbying against the use of safety locks to protect our children. But when liberals talk about the modern-day equivalent of turning swords into plowshares, they're committing NRA blasphemy.

  Why is it that conservatives think that liberals have never met Jesus Christ?

  From: Unclejoe

  Sent: Saturday, February 15,2003 3:39 PM

  To: colmes

  Subject: Accept Christ

  Mr. Colmes, John 3:16—I pray, that you will accept Christ as your personal savior, Mr. Colmes, he is the only answer... Once you give your heart to Jesus, Mr. Colmes, you'll understand Mr. Hannity, and all the others like me, too. Hope to see you in Heaven, and eat at the table of Christ. Sincerely; Unclejoe

  That's Me in the Spotlight, Losing My Religion

  REM's song "Losing My Religion" wasn't about losing his religion. It's an old southern phrase about being at the end of one's rope, which is where I am in trying to defend what our founding fathers really had in mind when they called for separation of church and state. It was an effort to protect the church from state interference, not the other way around. It is true that at the time of our founding most Americans considered themselves Christians. But our founding fathers realized that religious differences, which might become more pronounced down the road, could lead to division, as they did when the Puritans left England to form the Massachusetts Bay Colony, or even violence, as they did during the English civil war in the seventeenth century.

  James Madison eloquently expressed the theory of separation of church and state in his undated essay, "Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments." He warned not to deviate from "the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God," and to "make the example of your country as pure and compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political and civil institutions." Advocating passage of the Virginia Bill for Religions Liberty, Madison fought against those who wanted to insert the name of the savior and stated that the best proof of reverence for the holy name "would be not to profane it by making it a topic of legislative discussion."

  The Treaty of Tripoli, which affirmed our friendship with the Barbary Coast nation, was negotiated during the administration of our nation's founder, George Washington, and signed on June 10, 1797, by our second president John Adams. Article XI of the treaty states, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion ... no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.. . . The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."

  Our third president was also known to believe in the value of church and state separation. The Danville, Connecticut, Baptist Association wrote to Thomas Jefferson on October 7, 1801, to express its concern about religious liberty in our new nation. In his reply of January 1, 1802 (snail mail), Jefferson explained the basic tenets of the relationship between church and state:

  Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other
for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

  Jefferson devoted years to writing what became known as The Jefferson Bible. Formally known as The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, Jefferson's goal was to get at the heart of Jesus' message, free from political spin and agenda-driven interpretations. In 1800, Jefferson wrote a letter to his friend Dr. Benjamin Rush, in which he described his disdain for clergy, forswearing "eternal hostility against any form of tyranny over the mind of man." On organized religion, Jefferson wrote to Mrs. Samuel H. Smith on August 6, 1816, "The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral system, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves."

  The writer Michael Novak tries to make the case for the Christian basis of our nation in On Two Wings: An Alternative to the Secular Myth of Americas Creation. But the historian Zachary Karabell, reviewing Novak's book in the Los Angeles Times, makes the point that there was a different concept of religion in eighteenth-century America than there is today. "The problem," Karabell explains, "is that no one in 18th century America or Europe understood 'religion' quite like it was thought of in the late 20th century. To claim, as Novak does, that the religious dimension of the founding has been given short shrift is both defensible and valuable, but to imply, as he seems to, that the founders were men of religion as we understand religion today risks replacing one myth with another."