In a heart-breaking betrayal of authenticity and tradition, the Conservative movement in Judaism announced plans to begin training and ordaining openly homosexual rabbis. The Conservative denomination – supposedly occupying middle ground between the liberal, anything-goes Reform movement and the rigorously observant Orthodox—wouldn’t ordain a rabbi who proudly, publicly ate pork, but now they will honor gay males who announce their participation in sex acts unequivocally described by the Torah as “abomination.”

 

As recently as 1992, the law committee of Conservative Judaism declared emphatically that religious law “clearly prohibited” admission of openly gay people to rabbinical ceremonies or the rabbinical authorization of same sex commitment ceremonies. But Conservative scholars suddenly felt ready to reconsider that time-honored position because, according to Professor Jonathan Sarna of Brandeis University, “A movement that wants to attract a younger generation of disaffected Jews had no choice but to make this decision.”

 

 He’s exactly wrong, as it turns out: disaffected young people are never drawn to watered down versions of religious faith, that lack continuity or integrity. In every faith community, the rapidly growing denominations are those that make demands on potential adherents and advance clear standards of right and wrong. That’s why Evangelical and Pentecostal Christianity has grown while “mainline” Protestant denominations have dwindled, while traditionalist Catholicism boasts far more vitality around the world than more liberal trains of the Church. Meanwhile, the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) place multiple restrictions on their members (who learn, for instance, to live without alcohol, coffee or tobacco) and yet remains one of the most rapidly growing faith communities in world.

 

In Judaism, the same dynamic definitely applies: with tepid and uncertain versions of the faith fighting a losing battle to maintain the affiliation of their own young people, while the unaffiliated flock to enthusiastic, traditionalist sects. No movement in Judaism has experienced anything like the explosive growth of the Hassidic organization known as Chabad with its 3,300 synagogues and community centers appearing miraculously in the most unlikely locales and transforming the face of American Judaism.

 

In fact, hundreds of thousands of young people who grew up in Conservative Judaism – as I did – have now left its confusion and compromises for the commitment and clarity of Orthodoxy. Religious faith can only play a useful role in human life when we judge current trends and personal impulses according to immutable and holy teaching, not when we shape holy teaching according to our human impulses. A denomination that uses current trends and personal preferences to shape its teachings will nourish no one and see declining membership (as do Conservative Jews). But a religious community that uses timeless teaching to measure current trends and personal behavior can enrich its adherents and uplift society at large.

 

 

If you deliberately set out to undermine our troops in, you’d want to start by encouraging our enemies and discouraging our allies. The new surrender timetable approved by both houses of Congress manages to do both. These shameful votes – by razor-thin two vote margins in House and Senate- assure the terrorist insurgents that they need neither compromise nor cooperate in any way with the democratically elected Iraqi government, because within a few months that government will lose military support from the.

At the same time, this Democrats who sponsored the timetable warn our Iraqi partners that they’d better reconsider working with Americans: we’re expecting our allies to continue risking their lives alongside our troops, despite the fact that the Congress demands that our troops abandon them in a matter of weeks. Of course, President Bush will veto this despicable example of political posturing, but the Senate vote shows the stark difference between the parties. With the courageous exceptions of Independent Joe Lieberman and Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor, all Democrats – even the supposed moderates like newly elected Senator Casey of Pennsylvania —fell into line behind MoveOn.org.

Meanwhile, all Republicans except for Hagel of Nebraska and Smith of Oregon – voted against the surrender timetable. This historic watershed shows the profound difference between the two parties. Those who say they’re indistinguishable as “Republicrats” and “Demicans” should look at the 46 out of 48 Republicans who voted to trust our commanders in the field like General Petraeus, and the 48 out of 50 Democrats who placed their confidence in Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. If nothing else, this vote exposes the corrosive impact of hyper-partisanship. At a time when all objective reports suggest that the troop surge is working (as Senator Lieberman made unarguably clear in his impassioned speech on the Senate floor), and that the Iraqi government has launched dramatic new efforts to heal the Sunni-Shi rift, the Democrats showed that they feared handing a victory to President Bush more than they feared handing a victory to al Qaeda.

This dark day for Congress reminds us of the proposition I’ve explained and affirmed many times on the air: the Democrats don’t hate President Bush because they oppose the war; actually, they oppose the war because they hate President Bush. History will judge them harshly for placing partisanship above patriotism, and will be kind to the current administration and to resolute leaders like Senator McCain. He spoke today on my radio show about the personally liberating impact of doing the right thing, without worrying about political consequences. May a few Democrats discover the joys and value of similar liberation.

The New York Times, ABC News and many other mainstream media outlets have devoted a great of attention to a report from the National Association of Homebuilders revealing a new trend leading married people to sleep in separate bedrooms. According to their estimates, by 2015, 60% of all new homes will boast “his” and “her” sleeping quarters as part of the new “Owners’ Suites” that are replacing the old “Master Bedrooms.” Numerous experts and academics agree that more and more couples have decided to sleep apart even while they live together.

 

The reason, according to all the bemused stories, involves the increased stress on two career couples, who find it more and more difficult to coordinate sleeping schedules, or to fight insomnia and fatigue with a partner who snores or sweats or tosses and turns. Husband and wife may choose separate beds as a matter of convenience and comfort, without reflecting deeper tensions or problems within a marriage.

 

Oddly enough, all the discussion of more and more middle class Americans opting for separate bedrooms missed the most important basis for this story: the much grater wealth, the vastly enhanced options, even for ordinary citizens.

 

It’s nothing new for married people to prefer separate bedrooms: among Presidents of the United States, virtually all of them (with the recent exception of the two Bush couples) maintained private bedrooms with the First Lady either next door or, in most cases, down the hall. If you tour elegant homes and mansions of the nineteenth century, husband and wife often maintained their own quarters. They did so without embarrassment or any negative message about the state of the marriage because everyone has always understood that comfort can be enhanced if you sleep in a large bed by yourself. Rich people got the chance to live this way, but most Americans did not. In fact, one of the hallmarks of poverty involved cramming children (at times, even adult children) into the same bed or at least the same bedroom, simply because their wasn’t enough room in the house.

 

Today, American homes are larger than ever – on average, with more than 50% more living space than a typical house in 1970.

 

In other words, more couples sleep separately because they can afford to do so: that’s particularly true among empty nesters, obviously, who can easily adapt one of the children’s bedrooms to give husband and wife more privacy.

 

Of course, the undeniable fact that couples today enjoy  more wealth, more choices than previous generations, contradicts the stupid, malicious, groundless lie that says that standards of living have gone down in the US, that the middle class is worse off than in the past, that we’ve never had it so bad, and so forth.

 

An honest discussion of the new trend toward separate bedrooms should help people recognize the advantages and additional alternatives available today that our grandparents and even our parents could only exercise in their dreams.

The AP is reporting that former presidential candidate (and Iowa Governor) Tom Vilsack is endorsing Hillary.

Because of his network in Iowa, this is obviously a big coup.

Recent focus on the troubled marital history of Newt Gingrich highlights an enduring problem for Republicans. Among this year’s leading candidates, John McCain’s gone through one painful, embarrassing divorce, while Rudy Giuliani and Newt each have been divorced twice following public displays of extra-marital involvement. Of the top contenders, only Mitt Romney’s enjoyed the solid, traditional, life-long marriage that conservatives honor and, ironically, his ancestors were controversial Mormon polygamists! Part of the problem is that politics today makes impossible demands, with all serious candidates for high office expected to launch full-time campaigns years in advance. With limited privacy, constant fundraising obligations, ceaseless travel and abundant temptations, a normal, healthy family life becomes difficult if not impossible. Conservatives, and particularly religious conservatives, try to put family first, so many potential candidates will shun the tawdry, punishing arena of electoral politics –helping to produce precisely the shortage of inspiring, moral leadership that many people decry in today’s GOP. Among the last five Republican Presidential nominees, only the Bushes, father and son, have been untouched by divorce. The late Gerald Ford married a divorcee (Betty); President Reagan was divorced from his first wife, Jane Wyman, and Bob Dole was also divorced. We've come a long way from the 1950's where Democrat Adlai Stevenson's rare status as a divorced candidate attracted considerable attention and counted heavily against him (especially since his ex-wife was at times contemptuous of his candidacy). Today, the imperfect personal lives of leading Presidential contenders doesn't mean that these politicos are bad people but it does show that they've paid a painful price for their chosen profession. For those husbands and wives who want, above all, to avoid huge strain on marriages and children, it's probably a terrible idea to focus your life and goals on a national candidacy. 

The new movie “300” drew an overwhelming box office response despite skeptical reviews from most critics. In part, this hostility stemmed from the movie’s portrayal of bloody combat as heroic and noble, rather than the wasteful exercise described in “Flags of Our Fathers” and so many other acclaimed anti-war epics. By contrast, “300” offers dazzling, highly stylized visions of the doomed stand by 300 Spartans against literally hundreds of thousands of Persian invaders in 480 B.C. Simultaneously brutal and beautiful, the movie also shows cowardly politicians back home in Sparta who won’t send reinforcements for the heroes defending the whole society. The R-rating recognizes extreme, graphic violence as well as a lyrical sex scene between husband and wife on the eve of battle. Enthusiastic public response to this unforgettable cinematic experience shows that despite our war-weariness, millions of Americans still admire the sacrifices of dedicated warriors determined to defend their loved ones back home against what the movie explicitly decries as "the barbarism and mysticism of the East.".

 

An outrageously ill-considered and misinformed provocation by an acclaimed New York Times columnist suggests that one topic, and one topic alone, remains taboo in the freewheeling 2008 Presidential marathon.

 

“There is no serious political debate among either Democrats or Republicans about our policy toward Israelis and Palestinians,” declares Nicholas D. Kristof.  “And that silence harms America, Middle East peace prospects and Israel itself.”

 

He suggests that courageous candidates should make the following startling declaration: “If I am elected president, I will do everything in my power to bring about negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for Israel and a secure state for the Palestinians.”

 

Is there anything at all in that “bold” statement that is controversial in any way, with anyone in the US --or in Israel? Doesn’t this declaration summarize the explicit policy of the Bush administration, which has spent more than four years urging (together with the other “Quartet” members of Russia, Europe and the UN) progress on a “road map” that endorses precisely this two state solution? Since the Oslo Accords of 1993, and throughout the term of office of  Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, Israel has repeatedly and consistently acknowledged the need to facilitate the emergence of a viable Palestinian state.

 

Who, exactly, opposes a two state solution – except the Hamas government in the Palestinian Authority that still refuses to recognize Israel in any form or to renounce terrorist violence as a “legitimate right” of the Palestinian people?

 

Kristof solemnly declares that “hard-line Israeli policies have profoundly harmed that country’s long term security….”

 

What “hard-line” policies did he have in mind—the unilateral withdrawal of all Israeli forces, and the forced removal of all Israeli settlers, from Gaza, providing more than a million Palestinians the chance to govern themselves?

 

Real hard-liners emphatically disagreed with this policy – and warned that it would only provoke more terrorist violence against Israel proper (like the almost daily Qassam rocket attacks from “liberated” Gaza against Israeli civilian targets in Ashkelon or Sderot).

 

Meanwhile, the Palestinians can’t resolve their own deadly differences and in recent months have killed far more of one another in their Hamas-Fatah grudge match than have any Israeli efforts to arrest terrorists or disarm planned attacks.

 

Kristof cites a figure from an Israeli leftist “human rights group” suggesting that in 2006, Israel killed 660 Palestinians, of which “half were not taking part in hostilities at the time they were killed.” Please note the weasel words: among the Palestinian “victims” were veteran bomb-makers and proud killers of Islamic Jihad, Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade and Hamas. Eliminating these mass murderers remains an Israeli priority – even if they’re not dispatched to Allah at the precise moment when they’re directly involved in hostilities. If we’re able to drop a missile on Osama bin Laden (God willing) while he’s eating dinner, or sitting on the toilet, would that make our strike any less justified? The amazing detail in even the dubious figure that Kristof cites is that fully half of all Palestinian deaths at Israeli hands did occurr on the battlefield –as terrorist fighters were indeed actively, immediately involved in “hostile actions” against Israeli targets.

 

Moreover, the grand total of 660 Palestinian deaths claimed by Kristof should put all the talk of a “human rights disaster” into some reasonable perspective. The columnist himself has appropriately and admirably called world attention to the ongoing genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. Every week, far more Muslim civilians die in that conflict than the combined total of Palestinian combatants and civilians in the course of a full year. By the same token, even the most conservative estimate on the number of Islamic victims slaughtered each month by their fellow Muslims in Iraq far exceeds the purported number of yearly Palestinian fatalities. Would Kristof offer some explanation, beyond the obvious factors of Jew hatred and anti-Western animus, to account for the insanely disproportionate focus on the relatively restrained casualty levels among Palestinians?

 

Finally, he places all his faith in negotiations for “peace” without the slightest hint as to Israel’s appropriate choice of a negotiating partner. Should the Israelis continue to deal with Mahmoud Abbas, despite the fact that his deadly rivals continue to dominate the Palestinian government and that his low standing among his own people gives him no power at all to enforce an agreement? Or should they, rather, try to work with Hamas, despite the fact that the US and Europe have long-identified this “Islamic Resistance Movement” as a hyper-violent terrorist organization, unworthy of recognition or support? Hamas continues to rule out even a long-term “truce” with the “Zionist entity” (they don’t recognize Israel, remember) unless the Jews of the Middle East welcome back four-and-a-half million Palestinians (the purported descendants of 700,000 refugees from 60 years ago). Revealingly, the Palestinian leadership won’t accept these people into a future state of independent Palestine (where the whole purpose of such a state would be the creation of a Palestinian national home) but insist that they must move to Israel, despite the fact that most of them have never even set foot on Israeli soil.

 

Is Kristof really surprised at the lack of support for this lunatic notion on the part of major candidates in the US Presidential race?

 

 

The real reason for the lack of Presidential debate on policy toward Israeli has nothing to do with the vaunted (and wildly exaggerated) power of the “Israel lobby” to shut down such discussion, and it has everything to do with the fact that there’s virtually nothing to debate. If Kristof and other lefties have some secret plan to impose peace on Israel’s behalf on Palestinian jihadists who refuse to recognize the Jewish state, who won’t affirm prior “peace” agreements, and who’ll never renounce the tactic of terrorist violence against civilian targets, I wish he would share this magical, mystical proposal (whatever it might be) with the floundering centrist, “peacenik” Israeli government of Ehud Olmert.

 

Kristof himself has acknowledged that there’s little basis for real debate by making himself unavailable to discuss these issues on my radio show. His assistant told us that such a conversation couldn’t work out because the conscientious columnist is traveling, and apparently can’t make time to pick up a phone.

 

Actually, the best answer to his charge of “silence” on these issues would be the sort of open discussion that would inevitably reveal Kristof’s lack of logic, information, or historical perspective. Considering the sad experience of the last twenty years, people of good will must confront the obvious, undeniable fact that it’s only a profound Palestinian change of heart, not some radical new policy initiative by Israel or the U.S., that can bring about some miraculous resurrection of a moribund peace process that shows not the slightest signs of vitality or, for that matter, utility.

 

In the last few days, demonstrators have marched across the country to mark the fourth anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War. These protests actually deserve far more serious media coverage than they’ve received not because they carry some powerful message about public opinion, but rather because they expose the true nature of America’s so-called “Peace Movement.”

 

I happened to witness the demonstrations in mid-town Manhattan, since I flew with my whole family to New York City to see our oldest daughter, Sarah, starring in the world premiere of a challenging and intriguing new play (more about that subject as the week unfolds). Most press coverage noted the shockingly small turnout for Sunday’s big march (USA TODAY reported just 1,000 people, led by actor Tim Robbins, on a sunny, cold day in a city of 8 million) but very few reporters made any honest attempt to portray the radicalism, the angry insanity, expressed by the demonstrators. For instance, as we approached the edge of the crowd, we took a bright red leaflet from one of the eager, bearded activists who handed them out to all the assembled multitudes. Signed by “The Progressive Labor Party,” one of the sponsoring organizations of the demonstration, this inspiring manifesto declared: “Passive disagreement is not enough. What remains is to build a mass movement with the only workable solution for a profit driven wars- revolutionary communism, Join PLP as we continue to celebrate May Day commemorating the fight for the international working class and struggle for a communist revolution.” To show their enthusiasm for that revolution, demonstrators brandished images of Che Guevarra and Hugo Chavez, red communist flags, black anarchist flags, red-black-green-and white Palestinian flags, signs proclaiming “Smash Capitalism” and “The Only Solution: Revolution!” along with the usual smattering of “Impeach Bush” and “Liberate Jerusalem!” and “Kill the Ruling Class so Mother Earth Can Live.”

   The chief sponsor for all the demonstrations across the country, the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) coalition was formally associated with the unapologetically Stalinist Workers World Party, and no identifies with a new splinter group called “The Party for Socialism and Liberation.” The group supports North Korea, Iran, Hezbollah, Cuba, Venezuela and virtually any other nation (no matter how thuggish) identified as anti-American.

   The New York Times, to its great credit, at lest featured an interview with Brian Becker, national coordinator of the ANSWER Coalition and a former guest on my radio show. He unequivocally explained that the real purpose of the demonstrations had little to do with influencing the president or Congress. “It is about radicalizing people,” he proudly declared. “You hook into a movement that exists- in this case the antiwar movement- and channel people who care about that movement and bring them into political life, the life of political activism.”

    Outrageously, the Associated Press, Newsday, and most other news outlets said nothing about the true radical agenda of the sponsoring organization and most of the marchers. For instance, USA Today described the demonstration in New York City without the slightest reference to ANSWER, the Progressive Labor Party, of the frequent and unmistakable displays of Communist iconography and revolutionary symbolism. Instead, they wrote: “In New York City, hundreds of protestors marched in Manhattan, some carrying signs that said, ‘Stop the War,’ some pleading special cases with signs such as ‘Money for Education, Not War’…. Sunday’s demonstrations came a day after thousands marched at the nation’s capital, waving banners that said ‘US Out of Iraq Now’ and ‘Impeach Bush.’ Some also carried American flags.”

   Actually, as an eye witness I can certify and almost total absence of American flags in New York—and photos of the similarly feeble march on the Pentagon hardly featured any prominent display of Old Glory.

   Sure, dissent can be patriotic, and dignified, and substantive, but these demonstrations looked and sounded pathetic and angry and fringy and, yes, anti-American. It’s the job of a responsible press to try to note the difference among protests and to note that the bearded guy whose image the activists held aloft was Che Guevarra, not Abe Lincoln.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed shocked many Americans with his boastful Guantanamo confession claiming “credit” for some 31 terrorist assaults (including 9/11) and describing foiled attempts to stage many more. The most alarming revelation about this vicious mass murderer, however, involves his background: he received his college education entirely in the United States, subsidized by the generosity of dedicated Christian donors and taxpayers in North Carolina. Born in oil-rich Kuwait to a family of Pakistani ancestry, Mohammed enrolled first at tiny Chowan College, a devout Baptist institution in rural Murfreesboro, North Carolina, and then transferred to the historically black campus of North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University in Greensboro, where he earned a degree in mechanical engineering. In other words, he based his life on murderous hatred and hostility to the United States not because our nation harmed him, but because we helped him; not because he knew nothing about the character of America, but because he, in fact, experienced it first hand. While Dinesh D’Souza argues that Muslim fanatics hate us because our elites have abandoned traditional values, in the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed he got to know some of the most wholesome, traditional corners of “red state” America. Those who suggest that we can deflect al Qaeda attempts to destroy us by showing more generosity and openness for the Islamic world ought to consider Mohammed’s sobering example, and to consider what, exactly, North Carolina taxpayers and donors to Chowan College got in return for their generosity in underwriting the education of a criminal, America-hating mastermind.

 It’s strange to watch the rise and fall of various dates on the calendar: Washington’s birthday (February 22) and Lincoln’s birthday (February 12^th) have virtually disappeared as national celebrations, replaced by the brand new commemorations of Martin Luther King Day and the bland, inane, forgettable “Presidents Day.” Meanwhile, Memorial Day (in May) and Veteran’s Day (in November) have become less prominent (despite our appropriate reverence and gratitude for the military) because people regularly confuse the two holidays and their distinctive origins and observances. Labor Day is nothing more than an excuse for a late summer trip (and for politicians to bloviate about the importance of unions) while Valentine’s Day and Halloween are more important, more widely observed  (for better or worse) than ever before. In this context, it’s also fascinating to see the continued popularity (and even a notable rise) of St. Patrick’s Day, by far our most important ethnic holiday. The nation features more German-Americans than Irish-Americans, but the unpleasant history of two World Wars killed any chance for some special commemoration where we all drink beer (or Bier) from steins and gorge ourselves on Sauerkraut and Schnitzel. Cinco de Mayo boasts increasing relevance with the rise of the Mexican-American population but will we ever all try to wear sombreros or serapes on that day the way we all try to wear green on March 17^th? Columbus Day has dramatically declined as a festival of Italian American Identity (though count on Rudy G. to partially revive it) and Pulaski Day may be a big deal in some Polish-American neighborhoods, but there’s no ethnic festival that gets universal, nationwide recognition like St. Paddy’s Day. Yes, it’s partially a beloved occasion because it’s a great excuse to drink, but its enduring observance also reflects the special position of Irish-Americans in our history and our society. As the one of the very first US “ethnic” groups (along with the Germans), and the only one to arrive in the country (mostly) speaking English, Irish have always enjoyed unprecedented prominence and popularity. Please note that there’s no cherished college football team called “The Fighting Greeks” and the only proudly “ethnic” presidents we’ve ever elected have been Irish (Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton all celebrated their connections – in Clinton’s case very tenuous—with the Auld Sod). Unlike all other ethnic stereotypes, nearly all Irish stereotypes are positive – emphasizing likeability, charm, love of music, dance and story-telling, sentimentality, kindly Catholic spirituality, nostalgia for the Emerald Isle, and defiant nationalism against English oppression. Even the legendary taste for whiskey or Guinness becomes something of a positive – especially on March 17^th. On that day, the whole world can participate (and proudly) in the Wearing of the Green. Erin Go Bragh! Happy St. Patrick’s Day.

 

 

MOVIE RECOMMENDATION: SPECIAL FOR ST. PATRICK’S DAY

 

THE QUIET MAN (1952): A glowing, incomparably romantic love letter to his homeland from the great John Ford (real name: Sean Aloysius O’Feeny). John Wayne plays an American boxer who retires from the ring (under complicated circumstances) and returns to his ancestral home where he falls in love with the colorful villagers (Arhut Shields, Ward Bond, Jack McGowran and more) and especially with a fiery, spectacularly gorgeous colleen played by the radiant and passionate Maureen O’Hara. Unfortunately, in order to marry her he must deal with her domineering big brother, Victor McGlaglen. Duke Wayne never generated romantic sparks (full-out flames, actually) the way he does with O’Hara and the lush, folk-infused musical score by Victor Young and sumptuous Technicolor scenery make the film a heart-tugging exercise in longing and nostalgia. Yeah, it’s silly and full of “quaint” stereotypes, but the proceedings remain so loving, sentimental and sincere that the movie remains an irresistible gem (especially for March 17^th).

For outsiders, it’s difficult to understand the restrictive, inconvenient rules of Sabbath observance scrupulously honored by religious Jews. The Bible describes the Sabbath as a “Day of Rest” – though a better translation from the Hebrew would be, “Day of Comfort.” Why, then, do observant Jews insist upon walking even great distances to the synagogue rather than enjoying the effortless, and comforting, convenience of any easy drive? In part, we avoid driving cars because the internal combustion engine works by lighting fires – Biblically prohibited on the Sabbath. But there’s a deeper reward that comes from experiencing the world on foot, one day a week.  I walk more than five miles to and from services on Saturday and these strolls make me notice aspects of the neighborhood I’d otherwise never see. At the moment, for instance, the first buds of spring have begun appearing everywhere. Part of the purpose of the Sabbath is to celebrate creation, appreciating the world just as God finished it in six days and pulling back, one day a week, from our normal, human, world-changing efforts to continue the work of creation. Walking rather than driving, absorbing and appreciating rather than creating or building, provides a wonderful gift. Religious observance, in other words, can help make you… observant.

Just as freshly sprouted daffodils indicate the imminent arrival of spring, so the pop culture's yearly discovery (and exploitation) of Jesus Christ heralds the upcoming celebration of the Easter holiday. The entertainment industry in particular has developed a curious strategy of attempting to connect with America's massive, ardent Christian audience with pulpy projects that openly undercut key tenets of Christianity. These efforts range from blockbuster hits such as last year's The Da Vinci Code to scandalous and largely forgotten feature films such as The Passover Plot (1976) — which showed Jesus planning to fake his own death on the cross. The most recent effort at simultaneously insulting and intriguing the faith-based audience involved the shamelessly oversold documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus, which received its world premiere on the Discovery Channel last week.

One of the movies I reviewed earlier today is a stupid new release called “Gray Matters.” The title is a pun based on the name of the main character, a glamorous ad exec played by Heather Graham who suddenly discovers that Gray’s gay when she develops a passionate crush on her brother’s wife, Bridget Moynahan.

 

Oddly enough, this is the second movie in a month in which the beautiful main character bears the odd name Gray. In the execrable “Catch and Release,” Jennifer Garner gets an embarrassing role as “Gray Wheeler,” who finds out that her tragically deceased fiancé wasn’t the paragon she thought he was.

 

In any event, both these movies are lame, lousy chick flicks, directed by little-known female directors, appealing to no one in particular, and choosing to name their heroines Gray.

 

Why, I’d like to know.

 

Has “Gray” become a suddenly stylish name? The only previous Gray (or Grey) I can remember is the pathetic ex-governor of California, Gray Davis, who got booted out of office on the same recall election that installed the current Governator.

 

Will this hazy moniker now become more common, because people see these two charmless films and feel inspired by the main character? Stranger things have happened: remember the well-documented craze for the name “Nevaeh” (“Heaven” spelled backwards) after one Christian music star anointed his baby?

 

Popular culture is full of mysteries. One of them involves two different femme directors (a rare enough breed in Hollyweird) and two different lam-o romantic comedies, both of which decide for some incomprehensible reason to go “Gray.”

 

If someone has an answer to this perplexing situation, I’d love to hear about it.

I’ve been working on a major column for USA TODAY (it’s slated to run in the newspaper on Monday) about the Discovery Channel documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.” In the course of my research I learned that Newsweek is planning a big feature story in its March 28^th issue under the headline FROM JESUS TO THE CHRIST.

 

Isn’t it amazing how our popular coverage discovers Jesus once a year, every year, at just about this time? Do you think it’s a coincidence that we get a major TV documentary (and a new book associated with it) as well as a big Newsweek article at just about the same time? Could this sudden flurry of interest possibly relate to the upcoming Easter holiday?

 

The strategy behind this timing is slightly patronizing, even insulting. Once a year, just before observances commemorating the crucifixion and resurrection, the media suddenly (and briefly) recall that hundreds of millions of Americans take Christ and Christianity very seriously indeed. They therefore strain to hype some “sensational new discovery” (“The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” “The Gospel of Judas,” etc.) in an effort to make their transparent exploitation of religious enthusiasm seem newsy and relevant.

 

I’ve begun speculating on what breathless, heavily-hyped “scientific breakthroughs” they may generate next (“DNA Identifies Skeleton as Pet Dog of Jesus!”) but it’s hard to take this too far without tilting over toward sacrilege.

 

It might be refreshing if our media gate keepers remembered that many Americans remain passionately interested in Jesus every month, every day, nurturing a fascination that isn’t limited to the few weeks leading up to a big religious holiday.