No one can deny the phenomenal positive strides made between Catholic and Jewish leaders in the theological realm in recent decades. Hopefully, the relationships forged will help us weather the coming storm – the one politely and conveniently pushed off for the past five or six years, but which has now returned.

Last week at an interfaith symposium in Rome, Pope Benedict XIV defended the legacy of Pope Pius XII, reports the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (http://www.jta.org). The comments are likely meant to help prepare the theological world for the bombshell of the Vatican’s pushing to declare Pius XII – whose name is cursed by many Jews of the World War II generation – a saint.

Now Pope Benedict noted that his predecessor “spared no effort” to help Jews during World War II. Pius, he said, had undertaken “many interventions, made secretly and silently, precisely because given the concrete situation of that difficult historical moment, only in this way was it possible to avoid the worst and save the greatest number of Jews.”

Wait a minute. As is documented, the Pope did indeed help shelter Jews in Rome during the Nazi push to round up the cities Jews and send them to an unquestioned death in concentration camps. He also helped individual Jews whom he knew and their families. However, the truth is that the record is mixed. One simply cannot say that Pius “spared no effort” to help Jews. That’s because he and the rest of the world failed during this era, which brings a permanent stain to the human record. But as an influential leader whose words and orders were repeated by priests all over the continent – particularly in Poland – he had a heightened responsibility as well as opportunity to help stem the slaughter.

The Pope – and President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill, and General Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the Zionist movement, and so many others – did not do enough. How can anyone say otherwise?

It’s the Catholic Church’s business as to who it wants to make a saint. It’s the obligation of the Jewish community to comment on their choices and remind our friends that in this ever-connected world, we’re going to need much more than platitudes and press releases to buy the words.

Sen. Barack Obama is an honorable man whose personal story embodies much that is great about this complex country.

Sen. John McCain has given his adult life to serving this nation with great honor and distinction; he personally understands what war means.

In short, that’s why both are excellent candidates to run for the U.S. presidency. Yes, like many I wish we could wrap them into one – McCain’s experience (because it does matter) and Obama’s intellect and charisma (because that too matters a great deal).

And no, I’m not going to tell you who’s the better choice. But I am tired of both the kooks on the left and the whackos on the right telling me who should sit in the Oval Office in an era of Iranian lust for nuclear power, increasing economic disparity at home and – God forbid – the return of “Beverly Hills 90210” to TV. (I really don’t care about that last one, but I didn’t make it up.)

Of late we’ve had Obamanik Madonna calling McCain a new Hitler and hardcore conservatives finding ways to applaud the teenage pregnancy of GOP VP pick Sarah Palin’s daughter. Yes, it shouldn’t be a campaign issue – but the Republicans are the ones who are whipping out that “family values” card all the time.

Meanwhile, the general kooks on the left – whom the Democratic party has never done a good enough job of silencing – grossly mis-characterize McCain’s support of U.S. involvement in Iraq. It’s quite bizarre to do so as the troop surge pays off, a move that McCain long-ago advocated. (As did I.)

Meanwhile, the general whackos on the far right think that Obama is a secret Muslim who will put a veil on the Statue of Liberty (and I don’t mean a figurative one). Likewise, the Republicans do far too little to silence them and their Internet innuendo campaign.

So let’s have both leaders of the political parties stand up to their radical fringes. How? Why not sign a contract for civil debate, one that includes making a donation to each other’s campaign when their surrogates go out and do the dirty work. Who would judge the violations? Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush – both of whom actually get along well – come to mind. If that doesn’t work, some pre-school teacher would do just as well because he or she is experienced in such baby behavior.

Let the games begin – again.

Now that the Summer Olympics Games are over, the November Election Games have begun. That means at the Baltimore Jewish Times we’re being courted heavily by surrogates from both parties who are out to convince us that their candidate is the best choice to lead our country these next four years.

Now the first thing they do is trot out the pro-Israel card. Frankly, I find it shallow and sad. That’s not only because the campaigns think that this is the beginning and end of what their importance to Jewish voters will be, but that many Jews agree.

The reason I’m downplaying the Israel card is actually because of the tremendous success of American Jewry in making the pro-Israel lobby – complete with its evangelical allies (at least on this issue) – a huge success. Indeed, each year the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee is ranked right up there with the National Rifle Association as one of the two most influential lobbies in the nation’s capitol. Now many Jews might not like the comparison, but when it comes to raw power our sliver of the population – about 1.9 percent in recent years – carries a mammoth wallop in the Halls of Power. We shouldn’t be ashamed of that, but proud of it.

But what about health care, immigration, religion in the public square, vouchers for private schools, national defense policies and more? I’m not taking sides here, and know that there is far from uniformity in the Jewish community on this and nearly anything else.

What I am saying is that Jewish groups in particular should press the candidates and their surrogates to detail these views. Push them to be specific, particularly when it’s Jewish surrogates that come in front of us.

Thanks to the pro-Israel lobby, there is no way in the world that an anti-Israel candidate can rise through the ranks of either party. That’s the way it should be. But we are still allowed to argue over what being pro-Israel means. (As but one example, is it in Israel’s best interest for the U.S. to pressure it to abandon West Bank settlements more quickly, or is it best to avoid the issue and let the status quo drag on – or even just say that those communities are now a permanent feature of the landscape?)

American Jews are likely the most educated, informed and sophisticated ethnic community in this country. Now we need to act that way.

Kooky politicians never fade away … they just run for president.

That’s my response after learning that Cynthia McKinney of Georgia is the Green Party nominee for president, as announced today. For sure, unlike year 2000 party candidate Ralph Nader, Ms. McKinney will not come remotely close to influencing the election. That’s because if she ever gained traction, the vast majority of Americans would see her as an increasing number of Georgians did over the years – a divisive, angry and out-of-whack politician.

I speak from personal experience. Back in the 1990s, I was editor of the Atlanta Jewish Times when she was a congresswoman. Her district was majority black, but had a healthy chunk of the Jewish community. Jewish leaders repeatedly tried to be friendly toward her; she repeatedly said in so many words, “I don’t need you so go stick your love somewhere.”

That was even before her father, long-time state representative Billy McKinney, began claiming that his daughter’s Jewish Republican opponent was being funded by national Jewish groups.

When that happened, Ms. McKinney slowly, with great reticence, ever-so-slightly distanced herself from her father’s comments. (For the record, no one was asking her to denounce her dad, just what he said.) I went up to her at a political event a day later, identified myself and said to her, “I’m glad you said what you said and look forward to now covering the issues of the campaign.” She gave me a glare and walked away. Her Jewish advisor was mortified. I told him, “Now we’re learning a lot about what she really thinks.”

Breaking tradition for the Atlanta Jewish Times, I refused to endorse the Democratic candidate in that race. Based on the history of Atlanta’s Jewish community – remember Jimmy Carter?—I was not ready to endorse Republican challenger John Mitnick. Looking back, I was wrong.

Back then I wrote that on the one hand Ms. McKinney, a black and single mom, was the type of person who should be in the U.S. House of Representatives because she truly represented a disenfranchised portion of the electorate. On the other hand, her behavior and beliefs were so outrageous that they raised serious questions.

Since then, she went on to win and lose her seat several times, finally being knocked out for good in 2006. Now she is calling for a new investigation of the 9/11 attacks – which would undoubtedly delve into the idiotic theory that Israel and/or American Jews are responsible. She also has said that peace in the Middle East could come “based on self-determination, respect for human rights and justice.” My guess is that she does not realize that Jewish settlers and their supporters might agree: justice for them comes in the right to self-determination and human rights in their ancient homeland.

That’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Ms. McKinney is such a contrast to the great Georgian African-American political leaders of past and present, including John Lewis – one of my heroes.

Well, at least we now know what Ms. McKinney is up to – at least until early November.

So now it’s Israel’s fault that gas prices are rising. Reports are increasing that the summer’s soaring cost of petroleum for the inefficient U.S. auto fleet is due in large part to speculation of a rumored pending Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sights. (Sure, the price for a gallon has dropped in the past few days. But people, it’s still over $3.70 in most places, or some $1.50 more than the cost not so long ago.)

As the narrative goes, for starters a preemptive Israeli strike may not succeed. After all, it’s a near-impossible task of hitting at least 10 reinforced and underground nuclear installations over hostile territory, a mission that will take several days and at least 100 planes.

And the potential response is horrifying: Hezbollah unleashing its 15,000 plus rockets on northern Israel, weapons supplied by Iran. Hamas reignites its missile barrages against southwestern Israel. Syria gives the green light for terror attacks on Israel’s northern border – albeit from Lebanon so that Damascus can claim neutrality. Iran targets U.S., British and other oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. The regimes in Egypt and Jordan could be toppled by street demonstrations if their governments do not break peace treaties with Israel. And one can imagine what happens to world financial markets.

All in all, it’s a nightmare scenario that seems far from impossible.

But you have to wonder, why isn’t the world instead focusing on what a nuclear-armed Iran will mean? An even bolder Tehran will permanently threaten Saudi, Kuwaiti, Iraqi and other regional oil fields. It will give the ruling mullahs even more leverage and stronger ability to project bravado in exporting their militant brand of Islamic radicalism. Meanwhile, the even higher oil prices will given Iran even more money. That country already threatens the world by arming Hezbollah – which has struck in Israel, Lebanon, Argentina and elsewhere – and has ties with Hamas.

Iran claims that its drive for nuclear power is meant for peaceful purposes. If so, why does it refuse to welcome U.N. inspectors? It’s not as if the world body is in the hip pocket of the U.S. and Israel.

Oh yes, Iran and its supporters claim that Israel already has nuclear bombs so there’s a double standard at work here. Not really. Israel has never threatened Iran with nuclear weapons, despite the heinous things Tehran’s leaders continues to say about and do to the world’s only Jewish state. Meanwhile, Israel keeps negotiating to get out of the lives of the Palestinians—and we all know what Iran has been up to during that period.

State Comptroller Peter Franchot stopped by today to touch base, as he does periodically. Not surprisingly Maryland’s November slots referendum topped the agenda. If approved, it would lead to 15,000 slot machines in five sites. Mr. Franchot is leading the public charge against the initiative, pitting him against the state’s power structure in the likes of Gov. Martin O’Malley and State Senate President Mike Miller. The Comptroller believes that slots would lead to all types of ills and is a silly way to try and deal with a short-term budget issue. Besides, he said, “If it’s approved, the legislature can turn these sites from slots parlors into casinos and by then we’re half pregnant when it comes to five more sites for slots.”

Now I’m against slots on a slew of levels, particularly religious ones. I just don’t see how gambling helps people. This is nothing new. Rabbi Leon of Modena wrote about this in his memoir in the early 1600s. (I even find it offensive when synagogues hold casino nights and cannot bring myself to bet more than a few chocolates during a dreidle game). I also believe that the General Assembly and Mr. O’Malley, as I wrote during the fall emergency legislative session, punted by tossing the question of slots back to the voters. So much for legislators taking the hard vote and paying the price – or reaping the rewards – at the polls.

Instead, we’re getting a costly, politically divisive and drawn out debate. If slots are defeated, Mr. O’Malley is going to say, “Now I have to slash programs such as education, help for the poor, etc. to balance the budget.” And if they are approved, he’ll not only find that the revenue is not what’s expected, but need to start increasing funds for gamblers’ anonymous and the likes. And with a predicted $35 billion changing hands, there will be corruption.

But the issue of balancing the state’s budget is real, especially as revenue keeps dropping due to declining consumer confidence. In fact, despite gas’s rise, gas tax is down from last year at this time. People just are not going out as much. At a coffee shop I frequent , a worker just told me business was down 50 to 60 percent. A friend who owns a restaurant says it’s down 30 to 40 percent.

Yikes. What will we do without gambling’s alleged financial windfall? Mr. Franchot’s idea: get the state’s leading business men and women together and some others to give hard advice. “They can do it in a non-ideological way,” he said. Well, they really cannot totally do that, but at least it will be in a fashion less invested in keeping certain jobs and certain department budgets in tact.

So I do like the general idea. Mind you, everyone knows that Mr. Franchot might be vying for Mr. O’Malley’s job, and the latter may be recruiting someone such as Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith to run against Mr. Franchot. So there’s a lot of political infighting going on here, too. Nothing new. Nor is the reality that if Marylanders rush into gambling parlors, more than a few will join a crowd in walking out a bit dazed and wondering what they just did.

Saudi Arabian King Abdullah just threw an interfaith party and was kind enough to invite a few Jews, including representatives from the World Jewish Congress, the Latin American Jewish Congress, the Jewish-started Foundation for Ethnic Understanding and a handful of others.

The bash was the Madrid-hosted July 16-18 Inter-Faith Conference, which was hosted by the Muslim World League.

According to the invitation letter sent by Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the United States, Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir, the objective was “to bring together representatives from the three monotheistic faiths, as well as other major religions, such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism, and to focus on the universal values handed down to mankind by our Creator, that all faiths share.”

It’s both fascinating and sad to me that Spain hosted this event. The Iberian Peninsula is the site of both tragedy and triumph for interfaith relations, and Jews in particular. Some 10 centuries ago, great Jewish philosophers such as Maimonides and Yehuda HaLevi were shaped by Spain’s truly multi-cultural society. Meanwhile, great Kaballists (Jewish mystics) made a name for themselves in Gerona in the 13th century.

Yet, a little earlier the Almohades, fanatic Muslims, drove out Jews and Christians from much of Spain in the mid-12th century. Then, of course, the Catholic-led Spanish Inquisition led to the great expulsion from Spain in 1492, creating great upheaval throughout Europe. Thus, there are many positive and negative episodes to reflect upon in the land of this gathering.

However, if King Abdullah really wanted to make a statement of interfaith understanding, he would have held the meeting in Saudi Arabia itself. After all, that country still officially discriminates against non-Muslims and is the scene of some vicious anti-Semitic writings in newspapers and broadcasts.

Still, it’s a start and while we should keep perspective, we should welcome it.

There might be another first coming in a 2008 presidential campaign that has already given us the first presumptive African-American nominee, nearly brought a female one, briefly put a Mormon in the frontrunner’s spot and has a long-term Vietnam War prisoner going for the big spot. This time Jews – an integral base to the Democratic Party’s coalition since the FDR campaigns of the 1930s – are reconsidering.

In fact, a new poll out says that Jewish support for Democratic presumptive nominee Sen. Barack Obama is the lowest for any of the party’s recent picks. That’s despite an overwhelmingly negative view of the George Bush-led GOP. The survey, according to the JTA Wire Service and commissioned by the Washington-based advocacy Jewish group J Street, found that only 58 percent of American Jews said they would definitely vote for Obama. Another 4 percent said they were leaning toward him.

Now that still sounds like a lot, but consider that Al Gore and Bill Clinton both drew around 80 percent of the Jewish vote in their presidential bids. In 2004 candidate Sen. John Kerry picked up 76 percent.

Most interesting is that unlike in other years when Jewish numbers for Democrats dropped, there’s no strong independent siphoning off some of them– a John Anderson or a Ross Perot.

That doesn’t mean that Jews are rushing to be elephants. Only 29 percent said they would vote for Republican Sen. John McCain – only five percent more than Bush’s 2004 mark. (Another three percent are leaning toward McCain.)

What this really means is that some Jews simply are not enthusiastic about Obama, which could hurt his fundraising among them (which, truth be told, is doing fine any way). That means that if Obama wins, the Jewish community will not play such a large role as in past years, which could have long-term implications. However, I think that if the number of Jewish support can get above 65 percent – and I see that as likely – Obama will continue to see American Jewry as an important to his coalition.

The reason for this skittishness, of course, is the last sting of distrust that Obama engendered by not immediately rejecting the racist and anti-American comments of his former spiritual leader, the flamboyant Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I personally think Jews – at least ones with active brains – laugh at reports that Obama is a secret Muslim who will poison our kids with jihad juice.

Obama might be a lot of things, but he is no terrorist. He is, however, a politician and as the Rev. Jesse Jackson just learned, for better or worse he will act like one first, second and third.

This comes from the “now I’ve seen it all” file. The JTA Wire Service just ran a brief entitled “Kabbalah seen as cause for A-Rod split.” Thus, Kaballah – the historically and currently maligned study of Jewish mysticism – is now at the root of America’s latest mega-celebrity divorce. What’s next: Gefilte fish causing the obesity of all Appalachin Americans? Matzah ball soup increasing high blood pressure on Native American reservations? Is this all the new way of saying, “The Jews did it?”

Jokes aside, for those not in the know, A-Rod is New York Yankee Alex Rodriguez, perhaps the greatest baseball player of modern times. The superstar is reportedly divorcing wife Cynthia because he is allegedly having an affair with popstar Madonna, whose marriage to film director Guy Ritchie is on the rocks. The reason: Madonna, according to trainer Dodd Romero on ABC’s “Good Morning America” has “brainwashed” Rodriguez by interesting him in Kaballah. To make it even crazier, Cynthia’s attorney, Raoul Felder, reportedly will challenge her husband’s credibility by bringing up his interest in Kaballah and claiming it is a cult.

(Didn’t the Colts leave Baltimore years ago?)

Oy. Now this all says a lot both about the place of Jews and Judaism in America, as well as the inability of Jews and others to understand that serious study of kaballah is both time-honored and vastly deeper than the surface brush strokes of those driven by the headline loving L.A.-based Kaballah Center, the venue where Madonna and a host of others enjoy their fad of the day.

In short, America – outside of Israel—simply put is the safest place in history for the Jewish people. Study of Kaballah, which still isn’t accepted by many mainstream rabbis, is embraced by some of the nation’s leading celebrities. Meanwhile, Jon Stewart on “The Tonight Show” is busy making jokes about hamentaschen. He wouldn’t do it if his audience wouldn’t get it. And most Americans no longer even know that words such as “chutzpah” and “glitch” are Yiddish.

Jews have it made in America. The only problem now is getting more of them to seriously engage Jewish living instead of the kitsch that goes over so well in our media-driven, celebrity-obsessed culture.

Agriprocessors, the embattled kosher food giant, is in part fighting allegations of employing illegal immigrants in poor conditions and cruelty to animals by hiring the public relations firm 5WPR, a growing power house in the field, according to the JTA Wire Service. This is done in the face of calls by some modern Orthodox groups, Jewish vegetarians, Conservative Judaism’s rabbinical arm and others to either boycott or carefully consider purchasing foods by Agriprocessors – which represents 60 percent of the kosher beef and 40 percent of the kosher chicken sold in the country. Their products are sold under major labels such as Rabushkin’s and Aaron’s Best.

If Agriprocessors does some good community work and is a great place to be employed, then I say more power to publicizing all of that. But they have some serious questions to answer before getting to the usual corporate bragging.

Not only that, but one poor argument in defense of Agriprocessors is that critics should back off because pursuing the allegations against it could create a spike in kosher meat prices. As one who only buys and eats kosher meat, I say Jewish morality should not have a price. If people cannot eat meat or must eat less of it for a short period, so be it. If there is a market for such products, there is no doubt that other companies would step up their production to fill the void.

Reasons for keeping kosher are both varied and complicated. For certain people it is done out of a sense of obligation for following halachah. Equally important, many believe that kosher food is prepared humanely and, due to kashrut regulations, is generally healthier than many other products. The Agriprocessors scandal undermines that second belief and could damage the ability to persuade more people to consider keeping kosher. This also points to an inability of many organizations to explain to Jews why keeping kosher is important in the first place. None of these elements can be ignored as this story moves forward.