Hillary Clinton’s win in West Virginia (and New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) proves she can do something Barack Obama hasn’t so far: win-over Middle America. But Obama’s inability to do so, a must if he wants to call 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. home, has led to many interesting conspiracy theories. A possibly unfair one: Those not voting for him are racist. Highlighting this absurdity is an article in the latest issue of The New Republic, suggesting that Senator Obama is disadvantaged because he is black.

In his article, John B. Judis cites a 2001 Freudian-like study which shows that voters, especially “white working-class voters,” harbor “racial sentiments,” or subliminal racism that grows like mold in the privacy of a darkened voting booth. He believes, “racism remains deeply embedded within the psyche of the American electorate.” It has already been a factor in the primaries—in the states Obama lost— he says, and will be a greater factor in the general election.

But are some Americans, especially “white working-class” ones, not fawning over Obama because he is black, or because what he supports doesn’t reflect their values? His inability to garner the support of the middle-class is largely due to his message, not his melanin.

As Kathleen Parker points out on nationalreview.com, Middle Americans are not angry over skin color, but rather scared of what will happen to their way of life if someone who misunderstands it is elected. For example, Obama’s demeaning remarks suggesting middle-class voters “cling to guns or religion” to deal with frustration has many believing Obama is stuck in the ivory tower. “What they sense,” says Parker, “is that their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative. And they fear what else might get lost in the remodeling of America.”

So while liberals, Democrats, and authors such as Judis would have us believe that “America’s racial history continues to influence the calculations of voters,” that view cannot be the whole story. As Alisa Harris shows us, race is still an issue. But that doesn’t mean that as a whole we are not ready for a black president. Rather, many are not ready for the sacrifices implicit in electing this black man president. Because, as Parker says, “there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity.”

I hope you enjoy this brief encomium to real multiculturalism, the “multiculturalism of the missionaries” I call it, where beauty and truth and goodness exist as absolutes, but where cultures still do not look alike.  Leon Wieseltier, editor of The New Republic, writes about his being a Jew, while listening to the bells of the church.  For much of his life, he didn’t like the sound of them.  They represented his being out of the loop, so to speak.  A minority.  But the beauty of the church bells got to him, he says.

I was loitering in the magnificent little cloister at Magdalen College. It was a late afternoon in an Oxford autumn, and the yellow spears of the waning sun were landing in the severe stone geometries of the place and striking the walls like friendly lightning. Suddenly I heard the harmonies of a choir rehearsing evensong–a piece by Byrd, I later learned–in an adjoining chapel. Fixed by the lights and the sounds, I was overcome, and elated by, an unfamiliar contentment, and I thought: this is Christian beauty and I want it. I was shocked by the thought. I remember thinking also that we, I mean the Jews, have nothing like this. This was another variety of minoritarian torment. Soon the joy passed, perhaps because the singing ceased, and my confusion passed with it. As I strolled home along Addison’s Walk, I got it clear in my mind that Christianity may in some of its expressions be beautiful, but beauty is not Christian. Religious or cultural or national definitions of beauty are conceptual mistakes. So I returned, you might say, to my senses. And the next day I returned to Magdalen to consult the chapel schedule, so that I might hear the choir again.

Well-written, and refreshing to read - on the internet - something like literature.

HT: Arts & Letters Daily

Catholics in the Netherlands desperate for “relevance” have unofficially re-branded Lent the “Christian Ramadan.” By couching Lent — 40 days of fasting and prayer before Easter, representing Jesus’ time in the wilderness — as some sort of Muslim holy month spin-off, Catholics hope to appeal to youth living in one of Europe’s most secularized countries, among a growing enclave of Muslim immigrants.

“The image of the Catholic Lent must be polished,” explained Martin Van der Kuil, director of the Catholic charity Vastenaktie. “The fact that we use a Muslim term is related to the fact that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young people than Lent.”

The story, printed in The Daily Telegraph, England’s largest paper, suggests that lukewarm Lenten practitioners in Holland have a thing or two to learn from Ramadan: “Three decades ago the Catholic Church was as strict as many Muslims are about Ramadan with a total ban on meat and alcohol. . . . Most Dutch Catholics now focus on charitable work.” (This is also partly because the Second Vatican Council loosened fasting strictures.)

During their month-long observance of Ramadan — named after the ninth month of the Islamic calendar and falling in September this year — Muslims fast from dawn to sunset and increase their prayer habits to commemorate the revelation of the Koran to Mohammed.

Though admirable stories like this one as far back as 1996 in The New York Times note how Catholics and Muslims at Columbia University were discussing Lent-Ramadan parallels and cheering each other on throughout their fasts, this appears to be the first time anyone has rephrased Lent as a “Christian Ramadan.” No media have assessed the Christian response to the name change, particularly the problem it glosses over mile-wide theological differences.

This is the latest of several attempts in the past week to grapple with the complexities presented by a growing Muslim population, including comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury about implementing sharia law in England and the growing incidence of birth defects in Pakistani Muslim families that arrange first-cousin marriages.

Holland’s troubles are especially severe since it’s seen Muslim violence against the shrinking but still powerful number of Christians. Normalcy hasn’t returned yet after jihadist Mohammed Bouyeri publicly knifed filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 for “Submission,” and the subsequent fatwa on its writer, feminist Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who went into 24-hour police guard after van Gogh’s death. In 2005, a Roman Catholic bishop named Tiny Muskens made headlines when he told a Dutch TV show, “Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn’t we all say that from now on we will name God Allah?”

Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester for the Church of England, has brought down the judgment of the United Kingdom’s multiculturalists.

In a blunt article for The Sunday Telegraph, Nazir-Ali wrote that an influx of non-Christian immigrants, a loss of Christianity and the growth of multiculturalism has coincided with “a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism.”

This has led to the alienation of youth from their nation, along with the creation of “no-go” areas where non-Muslims aren’t welcome. Islamism is a “mark of acceptability” there, he said: “Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them and even the risk of violence.”

Nazir-Ali sounds an elegy for the state-established Church of England, wondering if the substance has disappeared though the forms remain. He also calls on Britain to “recover that vision of its destiny which made it great.”

The column aroused the ire of some of the country’s 1.6 million Muslims, the timid support of other Britons and the applause of a few. Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, called Nazir-Ali’s views “a gross caricature of reality.” Ibrahim Mogra from the Muslim Council of Britain said the remarks were “alarming” and, lacking evidence, “simple scaremongering.” Mohammed Shafiq from the Ramadhan Foundation called for Nazir-Ali’s resignation.

Others have stopped short of endorsing Nazir-Ali’s views but have praised him for raising important questions. Philip Johnston, on the other hand, applauded Nazir-Ali for finally articulating “the baleful consequences of three decades of multiculturalism.” He noted that the Commission for Racial Equality issued a report that confirms the concern that Britain is splintering.

Despite the furor, Nazir-Ali stands by his comments: “Unless we diagnose the malaise from which we all suffer we shall not be able to discover the remedy.”

Christmastimes past have reminded those of faith that the newest enduring tradition is objecting to enduring Christmas traditions. But this year’s “War on Christmas” is uniformly more muted than in years past — especially if you’re English. Americans laugh at Seinfeld’s silly “Festivus” — that holiday “for the rest of us.” By comparison, the only public celebration allowed in several English communities now is “Winterval.”

Yet on Monday, leaders from Britain’s Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities cheerfully seconded a message out of England’s Equality and Human Rights Commission telling tree censors and nativity vilifiers to leave Christmas alone. In commission chair Trevor Phillips’ words, “It’s time to stop being daft about Christmas. It’s fine to celebrate and it’s fine for Christ to be star of the show.” Britons should “stop being silly about a Christian Christmas,” he said.

He apparently believes multicultural Britain is in need of some soul-searching vis-à-vis religion and integration after the July 2005 suicide bombings by homegrown Islamists killed 52 in London. He told Reuters he suspects there’s an underlying agenda — to use “this great holiday to fuel community tension” — so he’s keeping England off “ludicrous paths . . . populated with winter festivals instead of Christmas celebrations” and “anodyne messages of ‘seasons greetings’ and pointless embarrassment over biblical nativity scenes.”

The general secretary of the Hindu Council UK, Anil Bhanot, also told Reuters that Hindus celebrate Christmas — “a great holiday for everyone living in Britain” — while Indarjit Singh, who’s Sikh, said he gets asked every year if Christmas offend him. He responds, “It’s an absurd question. As ever, my family and I will send out our Christmas cards to our Christian friends and others.” And a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain added that the idea that Christmas is a great affront to Islam is erroneous. He asked, “Why can’t we have more nativity scenes in Britain?”

As it happens, there are more nativity scenes Stateside this year. But that’s mostly because Christians are winning this season’s disputes, not because the two sides have reached any mutual understanding: On Monday, aldermen in Branson, Mo. — the “Family-Friendly Las Vegas” — approved a resolution supporting the celebration of Christmas. In Wisconsin, state lawmakers voted Tuesday to restore the name “Christmas tree” to the capitol’s Christmas tree, previously renamed “holiday tree.” Congress even got involved Wednesday when the House voted 372 to 9 to recognize the “importance of the Christmas tradition and to condemn bigotry against Christians.” Anyone left objecting gets pounced on the rest of the week by “culture warriors” like John Gibson and Bill O’Reilly.

Michael Knox Beran at National Review writes about the glut of multicultural claims on Abraham Lincoln, and we’re still more than a year away from his 200th birthday.  Beran writes about a series of various symposia scheduled for the run up to the bicentennial celebration, including “Lincoln in the Eyes of Native Hawaiians” (”Life in a tropical paradise is harder than it looks, and Lincoln would no doubt have agreed that native Hawaiians deserve preferential treatment from the federal government”), “The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Lincoln” (”The town hall meeting will consider whether Lincoln’s gay lovers should have ‘outed’ the President after Gettysburg, by which time the South was pretty much licked anyway”), “Lincoln as a Muslim” (”A panel discussion will consider the death-wish Lincoln displayed at Fort Stevens in the light of the experiences of freedom-fighters in Palestine who have opted to use suicide bombs in their struggle against the Zionist Oppressor”), and, of course, “The Multicultural Gettysburg Address” (”Numerous scholars have noted regrettable defects in the Gettysburg Address, and have expressed reservations about its use as an educational text in schools”).