I hate Catch-22s. They mock me with their unsolvableness.

School and politics are conspiring to drive me up the wall. I don't like that I'm ranting so much lately when I should be enjoying my last two months here. But I have to write about it, or it'll fester in my head.

I went to one of those talks last night that I sometimes go to, not sponsored by the school but by an association that puts on activities like this for students. It was given tonight by a man whose name was either Jeffrey Rosenbloom or Jonathan Rosenbloom. One of those. I thought he was a rabbi, I was mistaken, he's a politically conservative Jewish columnist, who writes for some American papers, the Jerusalem Post and others. Although he lives in Israel his accent and focus on American politics led me to believe he probably immigrated from America, and he had plenty to say about Bush/Kerry and Israel. I hate when people have ideas that start with half-truths and a few good ideas and then link them to all sorts of ideological positions as if that's the only possible outcome of that good idea. It's so hard to argue because you have to start all the way back at the source and correct the tiny adjustments they made to reality.

I don't mind if speakers advocate for Bush. I don't care if they list the reasons one by one why Bush is awesome. God knows it doesn't matter anymore. But this went beyond advocating for Bush. It went beyond misrepresenting Kerry, either knowingly or unknowingly. This went into the realm of offensive.

I sit here and try to dissect how utterly, totally wrong this guy was, and it's so hard because he had some good policy mixed in, as far as approaching the Middle East conflict. Obviously he'd become very embittered from years of ineffectual peace processes, terrorism and some extreme dovishness in Israel, Europe and the US. But he talked as if until Bush post-9/11, nobody in power had recognized that Israeli-Palestinian peace processes were littered with broken promises, as if no one was noticing the fundamentalist Muslim cultures that were training their children to hate America and Israel and to resist all compromise. And it was clear when he spoke about people who are against Bush's idea of a war on terror that he somehow believes we still don't notice any of that. As if I don't know that the culture in countries that breed this extremism, the cultures in Saudi Arabia, in Iraq, in Iran, in Jordan, etc. must be transformed before peace is possible. As if I don't think these countries need to be democratized.

In my admittedly limited experience, the most obnoxious supporters of any political (or religious) idea are often the converts. Those who were once on the other side. "I was once one of you," they say, "I was once an intellectual (atheist) who thought I was smarter than everyone. I know how you think." No, you don't. For a man who was so indignant about the stereotypes of Bush and religious people as dumb, radical and indifferent to facts, he had absolutely no problem condemning "intellectuals" and "rationalists" as naive, pretentious bureaucrats. Nor did he have any problem pointing out over and over and over that only Muslims are blowing themselves up, and implying in a million different ways that Islam is the problem, and not the conditions in which most Muslims live, the economic and cultural stagnation they've been stuck in for centuries, and the legacy of imperialism. One girl in my Hebrew class whose ideas are often far-right said that this guy's portrayal of Islam was offensive and racist, so it's not just my imagination.

Beyond all that, the way he ignored any reason why an American who recognizes Middle East realities, and even agrees with some basic principles the conservative foreign policy is based off of, would vote for someone other than Bush. How about because while we could agree with some of Bush's basic ideas, we can still totally disagree with his implementation? How about the numerous other issues? Economy, social justice, civil liberties, women's rights, Gitmo, respect for the environment. All arenas in which Bush can be legitimately and heavily criticized. Making sure America is still worth defending and protecting is just as important as defending and protecting it. But in a hour and a half, the only impression I got from this guy was that if you didn't vote for Bush, it must be because you don't understand the nature of terrorism, because you're living in a fantasy "let's all sing Kumbaya" world.

Then there was his final issue, something he's obviously upset about. For maybe twenty minutes he spoke about how "people of faith" were mocked in this election. How they were denigrated and seen as dangerous, stupid radicals for daring to vote based on Israel. By this, he means evangelical Christians. He believes this assault is coming from a group composed of people who either don't like Israel, think people of faith don't care about facts, or want to push their "pseudo-religion" of secularism.

First off, there should not be any denigrating of the religious as stupid. It's unproductive and it's untrue, and in their disappointment, many people are unjustly insulting the intelligence of religious voters.

On the other hand, please. While it's true that religion itself is not the problem, there's a widespread mindset in the evangelical community that their religion deserves to be codified into law in a way that no other does. There's a reason why social liberals and people without faith are hitting back at evangelical Christians, and it's not Israel. At the moment, mainstream evangelical Christianity in America espouses a social agenda that many, including myself, consider oppressive and dangerous. This is NOT about Israel. This is about groups of Christians who want to make their beliefs law, and America's President numbers among them.

We are not denigrating "people of faith." The majority of social liberals are people of faith. People without faith number no more than a few percentage points in this country. It's utterly illogical to think that all groups who oppose the agenda that mainstream evangelical Christianity has set are composed entirely of atheists. There is a LARGE cross-section of America that does not like evangelical Christianity's idea of "family values," and we resent their attempts to make us live the way they think we should. More than that, I resent their insistence that I respect their values, when they feel nothing but free to denounce mine as immoral and satanic.

Drop the pretense to martyrdom. Christians are the government. Being Christian is practically a requirement for public office, and if not Christian, then you must be religious in some respect. God is referenced over and over and over and over again in numerous ways in public life, despite the whining that goes on in some circles about removed monuments to the Ten Commandments. And you know what, for the most part, I don't care. Some things are minor. But some are not, and many religious Americans display an appalling disregard for the fact that atheists are sometimes forced to pay through taxes for the promotion of a religion they don't adhere to, in direct contradiction to the Constitution. These are usually the religious Americans who would call down fire and brimstone if anyone dared set up a Muslim, Buddhist, or Wiccan religious display in a public square whose upkeep they pay for.

If Rosenbloom is that concerned with how faith is being portrayed, I suggest he take it up with those who are attempting to make their religion into law. More than anyone, those are the people who are cheapening faith.