Freedom of Religion: Your Choice--All or None

Roger Williams: Listen to the Man! 

The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution opens with: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” It is far less ambiguous than the Second Amendment, which much of the American public treats as if it’s actually one of the Ten Commandments. Why, one wonders, do so many Americans support religious bodies seeking to dismantle the wall between church and state? The words of the Constitution point out danger–any group imposing its desires in the public realm would be a de facto establishment of a state religion that would jeopardize the free exercise of others’ beliefs.

Earlier in the week I spoke of my youthful interest in theology. Somewhere along the line I read about Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island colony and the spiritual father of the Northern Baptists. Williams is generally viewed as the first Colonial figure to advocate true freedom of religion, what he called “liberty of conscience.” Among the biggest myths in American history is that colonists came to the New World to practice freedom of religion. Rubbish! They came to specific places to practice their religion, but they respected no others. The Puritans–a dissenting group within the Church of England–came to Massachusetts Bay because they were persecuted in England, just as the Pilgrims­–officially known as Separatists because they had bolted the C of E–settled in Plymouth for the same reason. Once ensconced, neither tolerated those who followed another religious path. The New World was like Europe, where the established pattern was “religion follows the crown,” meaning that the only countenanced faith was that of the ruler–the very thing the First Amendment aimed to avoid.

Roger Williams (and later, William Penn) did not argue for religious tolerance because he was a wooly-headed liberal or a moral relativist. Williams was convinced that his own Anabaptist views were correct and that most of those who followed other religions were hell-bound. In truth, Williams was an astute political thinker. Williams held that all liberty, not just of conscience, was linked to tolerance and that unless broad forms of thought, doctrines, and practices were allowed, few things could be practiced without persecution, bloodshed, and chaos. In a nutshell, if any religious group whatsoever controlled public policy, repressive theocracy emerged in its wake. Few listened to Williams in the 1630s, but the Founders heeded his lesson 150 years later. These days, Roger Williams sounds like a prophet.

Think I’m an alarmist? You cannot name a religious group that has not been persecuted at some point in American history. In fact, many of today’s would-be oppressors are yesterday’s oppressed. Southern Baptists, for instance, were beaten and jailed in 17^th century Virginia, when the colony had a law requiring attendance at Anglican  (C of E) services. Maryland was originally founded as a haven for Roman Catholics, but the law was repealed in 1649, and only the C of E was legal. The colonies, with the exceptions of Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, had regional theocracies: most of New England was for Puritans and Separatists, the Chesapeake region was for Anglicans, the backcountry South was for Presbyterians (especially Ulster Scots), the Delaware Valley was for Lutheran Swedes, Quakers went to Pennsylvania, and swaths of New York and New Jersey settled by the Dutch were dominated by Dutch Reformed Calvinists who quarreled with most other Calvinists. Stray outside of your region without converting/conforming and you were in trouble, like the four Quakers hanged in Boston between 1659 and 1661. Lest we forget, Williams founded Rhode Island after having been kicked out of Massachusetts by both Puritans and Separatists. Most of New England also outlawed Methodists, Presbyterians, and Unitarians until 1760. Had any Catholic been so foolish as to tread Boston’s cobblestones, the kindest fate at the hands of good Puritans would be corrective measures such as cutting off his ears and nose. As for pagan beliefs, three words: Salem witch trials.

The American Revolution did not end religious disputes. Methodists were periodically roughed up in the Northeast, Methodist women were beaten by mobs in the South, and those welcoming slaves into their ranks or taking up the abolitionist cause were sometimes lynched. Congregationalist (former Puritans) abolitionists were fair game for racist mobs in North and South alike. When Joseph Smith founded the Mormons in the 1830, his sect was chased from New York to Missouri to Illinois to Nebraska before making its way to Utah in 1847. A trail of death was left behind. Once in Utah, Mormons fought a war against the United States in 1857-58; they also murdered westbound non-Mormon emigrants that strayed into their territory. Only Roman Catholics and Jews rivaled Mormons on the victimization scale, and they had the good sense to avoid massacres of their own or they would be annihilated. The Ku Klux Klan targeted all three groups after the Civil War and well into the 20^th century. Anti-Semitism was the official norm until after World War II and remains a cancer in American society. As late as 1960, John Kennedy had to ward off suspicions of his Catholicism and he remains the only Catholic president. Mennonites have been jailed for their pacifism. More recently, American Muslims were the targets of post-9/11 wrath, as were Hindus and Buddhists at the hands of those too stupid to know they weren’t Muslims. Mitt Romney’s Mormonism was a prejudicial factor in the 2012 election, especially from evangelical conservatives who refused to support a faith they call a “cult.” And there’s the entire “Obama is a Muslim” nonsense!

In short, America can ill afford to be a religious nation! It’s one thing–and not a good one–for a homogenous land such as Saudi Arabia or Iran to be a theocracy, but such an attempt in the United States would result in a bloodbath that would make Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaiden’s Tale look like a fairy tale by comparison. Many of the Founders were non-Christian Deists, but it wasn’t theology that led them to write the First Amendment; it was the ghost of Roger Williams. He is as right today as he was in the 1630s–all of us must have freedom of conscience, or none of us do. If you are religious, you should insist that your faith stay out of political debate. If you can’t do this for the sake of liberty, do it to keep your ears and the padlock off your house of worship.

Churches Being Sued is a Good Thing

Churches evoking him in politics will need a lawyer--and Jesus probably wouldn't sympathize!

Earlier this year, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sued the Internal Revenue Service for giving churches preferential treatment in tax-exemption cases. The FFRF claims that numerous churches and synagogues, especially those aligned with the political right, engage in direct partisan political behavior expressly forbidden in the tax code. It has argued, more broadly, that no religious groups should be tax exempt, though it’s unlikely to win on those grounds given that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of those exemptions in the 1970 case of Walz v. Tax Commissioner of New York.

Religious groups have publicly downplayed the FFRF suit, charging (only partially correctly) that the FFRF is a frivolous lobby group for embittered atheists. Privately religious groups are quaking in their collective ritual raiment as the FFRF has won as many suits as it has lost. A 1972 Supreme Court ruling agreed that direct politicking could result in losing tax-exempt status. The FFRF successfully sued Jimmy Lee Swaggart in 1991, and Jerry Falwell in 1993. Both paid fines and agreed to back off; Falwell had to retroactively pay taxes for the two years (1986-87) in which he was not in compliance. In 1995, courts removed the tax exemption of a Binghamton, New York church that told members not to vote for Bill Clinton. Several Wisconsin religious groups are battling suits brought against them relating to the 2012 election, and smart money is that they will lose. Nationwide some 1500 churches face potential action for defying IRS codes and rallying against Barack Obama’s reelection effort.

Religious organizations are exempt from property taxes and other IRS levies if they qualify as 501 (c) (3) groups.  These, quoting from the IRS codes, are:

Organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international sports competition... or for the prevention of cruelty to animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in. or intervene in (including or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

It really doesn’t matter if you think this is fair, or if you fall prey to the ridiculous “war on religion” rhetoric of the red-meat right; the IRS code is pretty darn clear on the boundaries, and religious groups that violate them have little more legal standing than the nut jobs that unilaterally declare personal income taxes unconstitutional. (An absurdity given that an amendment, the 16^th, expressly makes it constitutional!)

I take the iconoclastic position that rigorous enforcement of 501 (c) (3) standards could be the best thing to happen for organized religion in decades. It might get churches out of politics and back into the personal morality business. Too many within the Judeo-Christian tradition that makes up the American religious majority have erred in seeking to advance private moral agendas within the public sphere. The Bible says surprisingly little about politics, with a passage from Romans 13 coming closest to consensus view: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” When the Pharisees sought to trick Jesus on the issue of taxes and civil authority, he famously picked up a coin and told them to “render unto Caesar all that is Caesar’s.” Neither his mission nor that of Old Testament prophets was political in our modern understanding of partisanship–a way of saying that those who think God is an alternative spelling of G.O.P. trudge the borders of blasphemy.

I am not a member of the FFRF, nor do I ascribe to the Marxist view that religion is (always) the opiate of the masses. It can, in some circumstances, be a force of good for both individuals and society. Even Benjamin Franklin, a Deist, believed that. Good generally happens when religious groups seek to convert individuals, not force-feed views upon the unwilling or the uninterested. When the latter happens we get nightmares such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, wars of religion, pogroms, and the bombing of abortion clinics. By contrast, deeply religious individuals made up both the antebellum abolitionist movement and the post-World War II civil rights movement. Although their actions ultimately resulted in political change, their method of bringing it about was moral, not electoral.

If we look at some of the issues that divide Americans today–abortion, gay marriage, sex education, school prayer–one could conclude that religious politics have fared worse than moral suasion. Churches and synagogues report 40% capacity for weekly services; surveys reveal it’s half of that. Take a look at Pew and Gallup polls. In 1948, 69% of Americans said they were Protestants–the variety of Christianity favored by evangelicals; in 2013, just 48% are Protestants. Is immigration the culprit? Not entirely. In 1957, 7% of Americans said that religion was “old-fashioned” or “outmoded;” 53 years later, 29% felt this to be the case. In 1972, just 7% of those under 30 identified with no religious group. This number ought to induce worry–by 2013, one third of those under 30 expressed no affiliation with any organized religious body. This +400% drop off among the young corresponds with the period of the culture wars. It looks as if the harder religious groups wage those battles, the less people are prone to listen.

Zealots say they are the righteous vanguard, bastions of grace and sanity in a fallen world. As comforting as it may be to believe such things, declining interest in religion might have more to do with boorish behavior and empty sanctimony than decaying morals. The attempt to ramrod religious agendas down people’s throats runs counter to the ideals of American individualism. It’s time for faith-based groups to get out of politics and back into the persuasion game. Call it an “ask, but don’t tell” policy. It may be the only way to win converts and protect assets.

Why are Christians Such Pharisees?

It’s the week after Passover and Easter—that, and the political debate over gay marriage, makes it prime time to devote blog space to the sorry state of organized religion in America. Today’s topic: The kidnapping of Christianity by hypocrites, snake-oil salesmen, Pharisees, and Jihadists for Jesus. There are thousands of devout folks in the hinterlands trying hard to live their lives according to their understanding of holy writ, but the public face of Christianity is one of intolerance, bigotry, and right-wing howler monkeys. It is dominated by those quick to quote Scripture, but always selectively, out of context, and devoid of any demonstrable understanding of its deeper message.

First, a story that very few people know: I once entertained thoughts of becoming a theologian. In my feckless youth (Is there any other kind?), I was involved with a youth ministry. It was the 1970s, the tail end of the Jesus Freaks movement, and my experience was mostly a combination of hanging out with lots of semi-hip folks, and trying to help high school kids with problems ranging from loneliness to substance abuse. I became fascinated with religion and belief structures. In college I majored in medieval history, and read Augustine, Anselm, and the Scholastics (with a special affinity for Aquinas). Outside of class, I studied philosophy and theology from a very famous theologian—both at a study center near Pittsburgh, and as a correspondence student (on cassette tapes back then). When evangelicals ring my doorbell and ask if I’ve read the Bible, I can truthfully reply, “Yes—the whole way through. Several times.” But these experiences did not make me a man of the cloth; they left me deeply suspicious of all organized religion.

My first crisis of faith was that I didn’t want to be a minister. I wanted to study religion to have a deeper understanding of it, not try to convert others to things I questioned. I found out that there hadn’t been all that many jobs for a “theologian” since the 17^th century, and jobs in the field had been declining since the 14^th. Most current theologians were connected with specific churches and I couldn’t see that happening for me. Catholicism? Not if I had to swallow papal infallibility. Calvinism struck me as too austere and I couldn’t reconcile predestination with Calvary. Other forms of Protestantism were overly focused on hollow rituals, and non-aligned evangelicalism appeared, for the most part, controlled by hucksters and crazies. Plus, as I said, I wanted to grapple with ideas and doctrines to determine which ones resonated with me.

This led me to my second crisis: I learned enough to realize that those saying they know the Word of God are self-deceived. When the howlers say that their beliefs are correct, I ask, based on what? The Bible is often wielded as if it was a thorny club rather than what I see it to be: meditations on how to live a moral life. The only way one can view the Bible as an absolute guide to anything is see it as the literal Word of God. Good luck with that. It’s child’s play to dismantle such thinking without studying—as I once did—textual criticism to do so. Problems abound, beginning in Genesis, which mentions just three offspring of Adam and Eve: Abel, Cain, and Seth—all males. Patriarchal Hebrews often ignored women in succession lines, but humankind’s third generation, for literalists, can only come through incestuous relations between Eve and her sons, or those sons with unnamed sisters. Does this mean that the Bible condones incest? How does the third generation reconcile with the condemnation of that custom in Leviticus 18:6?

These days I ponder why Christians are so hot to condemn homosexuality. There’s the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-11 and Judges 19:16-30) and several other rather oblique passages, but just seven references in total, and just three in the New Testament—the one Christians are supposed to follow–all of which largely rehash Leviticus. The same NT passages (I Corinthians 6:9-11, Romans 1:26-27, I Timothy 1:9-11] also all have nasty things to say about fornicators, idolaters, liars, thieves, drunks, “revelers” (ahem!), and other sinful folks. The Bible isn’t comfortable with homosexuality, but the NT uses terms such as degrading, unnatural, shameful, disobedient, unholy, and sinful–not unlawful. Most of the prohibitions refer to men, so I suppose casual lesbianism is a little naughty, but okay. It’s interesting that gay sex was not forbidden by the Ten Commandments, nor was it among the Catholic Church’s seven “deadly” sins, which were drawn up by theologians of far keener minds than those of today’s evangelical moralists. Nowhere does the Bible say, “The holy shall lobby thy governments to discriminate and legislate against sodomites and shall take up the cudgel of piety to bash them physically and metaphorically.”

I wonder why Christians selectively mine OT books such as Leviticus. I don’t see them performing the rituals outlined in that book. I hear no hue and cry when Americans commit other forbidden acts. Ever do any of the following: eat rabbit, pork, or shellfish (Lev. 10]; fail to make a menstruating wife or daughter live in a separate camp for seven days (Lev. 15); or loan or borrow money with added interest rates (Lev. 25]? You too have violated a “commandment” [Lev. 27]. And I’d say, from Leviticus 25, that if you are a capitalist, God condemns your chosen lifestyle! (Or were you born that way and can’t help it?) The Bible rags on homosexuals seven times; it condemns the charging of interest sixteen times.

Don’t get me started on Christians that shout “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” which the Bible cribbed from Hammurabi’s Code, and which Jesus mentions only to say that the faithful must reject it. It’s part of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus tells followers not to resist evildoers, but to “turn the other cheek” to he who strikes you and to offer your coat to he that seeks to take your shirt! It also says that those who lust should cast out their right eye, which makes me wonder why there aren’t more one-eyed preachers given the propensity of today’s evangelicals to get caught with their pants down! Too many modern Christians are akin to the minutiae-oriented Pharisees condemned in Scripture for insisting upon the letter of the law and misunderstanding its spirit.

These are among the reasons why I call myself a (mildly) spiritual humanist, not a Christian. I want no part of smug fools who take what they want from religious texts, leave the rest, and label the culling “truth.” I don’t wish to associate with bigots quick to find fault with others while calling their own shortcomings “righteousness.” And I utterly reject the call to crusade from moralists who quote things they do not understand and implore the masses to chase perdition falsely packaged as paradise. I have too many doubts to tell others what to do. Doubt, Augustine of Hippo, reminds us is the beginning of faith. Note that he said “faith,” not certainty.

The East May Be Least

This is the year the Yankees crash and burn.

Remember when MLB’s best teams were in the East? The times they are a’ changin’. Don’t believe the hype about the Nationals and the Blue Jays; for the first time in many years, there really is no favorite in either league, and any of a number of teams could conceivably win the division. In fact, things will be so competitive that it’s possible that, as teams beat up on each other, no wild card winner will come from the East. One more thing—Yankees’ haters are going to get their wish; I think the Boys from the Bronx are going to finish dead last in the AL East in 2013.

National League East: The Nationals are the consensus pick in the NL East, and several analysts pick them to go to the Series and win the whole enchilada. The pitching is deep—any combination of Detweiler, Haren, and Duke are fighting for a place in the rotation—but there are also question marks. Is Gonzalez a steroid fraud? Can Strasburg go more than a 140 innings and stay healthy? Can Jordan Zimmerman be an ace if he has to be? Count me among the doubters of the Nat’s lineup, though I like Ryan Zimmerman and Ian Desmond a lot. Harper has to prove to me he’s the NL’s Mike Trout, Span is just an average player, Werth is maddeningly inconsistent, and I’d shocked if LaRoche comes close to duplicating his 2012 numbers. This team could win; it could tank—badly.

If they do, the Braves have hope, though its staff of Beachy, Medlin, Teheran, Maholm, and Hudson is what the term “yeoman-like” was invented to describe. The Braves can only hope that 37-year-old Hudson is ace for one more year. They are also hoping the B.J. and Justin Upton finally play up to their scouting reports—they never have!—otherwise, they join Jason Heyward in an outfield that can star in Slackers II. McCann is a gem, but there are holes at shortstop, Uggla may be out of gas, and Freeman needs to hit for a higher average. This is a team full of possibility that I think will win the division, but I’d not bet the farm on them.

While everyone has been debating the geriatric nature of the Yankees, the Phillies were the team that grew old fast. This year the outfield will be young, but is anyone impressed by Revere, Delmon Young, and perpetual prospect Domonic Brown? (What do the Phils see in Brown? It’s eluded me.) Then you have guys in their twilight years (Utley, new pickup Michael Young) and several who look older than they are: Howard (33), Rollins (34). Still, unless they break down completely, a 1-3 staff of Halladay, Lee, and Hamels is awesome, and Papelbon gets it done as closer. But the Phils are too fragile to endure the long season.

As for the Mets, New York fans need to understand it’s going to take some time to undo the team's fallout from the Madoff-induced financial meltdown. It was smart to unload 38-year-old Dickey at the top of his market value, and the Mets should probably do the same with other high-priced assets (Wright, Santana, Buck, Marcum) because none of them will be there when the rebuilding is over. The Marlins? Screw them and owner Jeff Loria. I hope the franchise fails, Loria goes bankrupt, and weeds grow from the abandoned stadium. The Fish are owned by a jerk, play in a city where no one cares, and are a collection of nobodies, guys that are too old, those that are no good, and those who won’t be there by trade deadline. (Sayonara, Giancarlo Stanton.)

American League East:  I would love to see a revival of baseball in Toronto, but I’m baffled why analysts have conceded the AL East to the Jays. The team’s big moves were to bring in guys who led the Marlins to a last-place finish–in the inferior NL East. Scouts once lusted for Josh Johnson, but he was 8-14 last year and was banished to the bullpen. Buehrle, the only player they picked up other than Melky Cabrera that has actually played in the AL, was just 13-13 last year. How will R. A. Dickey fare in the AL? For all the hype, Romero--despite his recent demotion to the minors--and Morrow might still end up as the team’s aces. The lineup can be fearsome—Batista, Rajal Davis, Rasmus, Lind, Encarnacion—but they need Lawrie to be healthy to anchor the hot corner. (You do not want Bautista there!) Jose Reyes? Okay, but let’s see how he does in the AL. Melky? Is there any reason not to think his numbers are chemically enhanced? I put him in the pee-in-the-cup three times a day category. The Jays should be better, but they can be beaten, and I don’t think they will win the AL East.

For all the Jays transactions and budget-prompted trade decisions, the Rays still have superior pitching: Price, Cobb, Hellickson, Moore, Niemann. Hate the bullpen–Farnsworth and Rodney make it more of a sty—but they probably won’t be needed all that much. I’d pick the Rays in a heartbeat if they hadn’t traded Shields. (Wil [sic] Myers had better be very good.)  The question is always whether the Rays can score; as we saw last year, when Longoria gets hurt, the Rays lose. The team finally has an MLB shortstop (Escobar) but the lineup is still guys who start that ought to be utility players. Relocation is the thing standing between the Rays and a World Series ring. (Rumor holds that Montreal may be in the offing!)

Are the Orioles back? Maybe, but gears have to click in an exact sequence for 2012 to have been more than “lucky.” The good? Potentially MLB’s best outfield: Adam Jones, McLouth, Markakis. Two emerging studs: Machado and Wieters. The question marks? Health (Roberts, Markakis). A staff—Arieta, Chen, Hammel, Matusz, Tillman—that’s pretty good, but not real good. Look for the O’s to slip back.

The Red Sox might be better, but only if Lester and Buchholz pitch their reputations, and Lackey recovers his LA groove. Color me a doubter of Dempster or Harnahan adjusting easily to the AL. Health is a big concern—Napoli, Middlebrooks, Ortiz—and the outfield is a guy who can’t wait to get out of town (Ellsbury) and those who evoke a big meh! (Gomes, Victorino, Nava). If Jupiter aligns with Mars, the Sox might surprise. That could happen, though it’s just as likely that the trade van pulls up outside Fenway at the end of July. And, of yeah, John Farrell as the managerial answer? Based on what record? 

The Sox should be better than the Yankees. The year everyone has predicted for the past five has arrived: the Yankees are too old. A-Rod’s atrocious contract handcuffed New York and will continue to do so until GM Brian Cashman figures out how to unload it. You will go to see the Yankees this year to pay tribute to Mo Rivera, the greatest closer in MLB history, to see Jeter’s inside-out swing, and to witness the probable last hurrahs of Ichiro, Kuroda, and Pettitte. Granderson, Jeter, A-Rod, and Teixeira are already on the disabled list, and Sabathia just came off. Pineda has yet to throw a single inning for NY. Youkilis, Wells, and Hafner? Ho hum. Welcome to the Bronx basement. Bet Cashman wishes he had traded with the Dodgers last summer. Codicil: If Hal Steinbrenner relents on the pledge to reduce the Yankees’ budget, New York will reload at the trade deadline and the Yankees will make one last run for nostalgia's sake.

Predictions:

NL East: Braves, Nationals, Phillies, Mets, Marlins

AL East: Rays, Jays, Red Sox (hunch), Orioles, Yankees

Central Time: MLB Preview

Psst--For people on the coasts, there is MLB in the purple states as well. Also Ohio! 

On paper, both the Cincinnati Reds and Detroit Tigers are head and shoulders above their competition. But we still have to play 162 games to prove that thesis. Both leagues also have two teams that are doing what they should be doing: dumping high-priced roster holders, stockpiling young talent, and rebuilding. Neither the Chicago Cubs nor the Minnesota Twins will go to the playoffs this year, but they won’t be as bad as last year either; no one should approach them as if they were patsies.

National League Central:   Latos, Cueto, Bailey, Leake (and maybe Chapman) aren’t an overwhelming staff, but they’re better than anyone else’s in the division. The Reds should win with that staff because a lineup featuring Votto, Bruce, Ludwick, Phillips, Frazier, and Choo is going to masticate lesser staffs. The Cards might have given the Reds a ride to the roses, but then the talented Chris Carpenter went down with what is probably a career-ending injury. (The same may be true of Furcal.) Once the Cards get past Wainwright, what follows—Westbrook, Lynn--is serviceable, but not imposing. The staff is so thin that Garcia will probably start, which isn’t good. Holliday, Freeze, Craig, Beltran, and Jay anchor a lineup that’s like the staff­—a few studs and some plow horses.

The sexy pick is the Pirates¸ to which I reply: Let’s try being merely respectable before we start dreaming big. Walker and McCutchen are the real thing; Barnes and Garrett Jones are useful. Color me unimpressed by the Russ Martin pickup; he and Burnett should prove combustible. Morton, Marte, and Tabata? Put up, or ship out. The Pirates are banking a lot on cast-offs such as Liriano, Burnett, Melanchon, and Wandy Rodriguez. Such hopes seldom end well.

The Brewers can drag out guys that can hurt you: Hart, Aramis Ramirez, Weeks, Braun…. They can also go a week without making contact. And if MLB doesn’t make Ryan Braun pee in a cup twice a day, it’s simply not serious about its drug policy. Mat Gamel looks like Mr. Hype Goes on a Holiday (to AAA).  Matt Lucroy is on the cusp of being the best catcher in the NL, but when the ace of staff he will handle is Gallardo, he’s going to see a lot of base runners. The Cubs have some young players who will be fun to watch develop, especially Castro and Rizzo. Solid vets such as DeJesus and Hairston will help, and GM Theo Epstein was right to hold onto Matt Garza. (Why he overpaid Edwin Jackson is another matter….) Alfonso Soriano should get a monthly lease.

American League Central:  When you have one of the league’s best pitchers (Verlander), the MVP/Triple Crown winner (Miguel Cabrera), and went to the World Series the year before, that’s a pretty nice base. The Tigers should easily roar to the AL Central title this year. This team is deep and dangerous. What pitcher wants to face Cabrera, Fielder, Victor Martinez, Avila, Hunter, Infante, and Austin Jackson? Or hit against Verlander, Sanchez, Fister, and Scherzer? Unless this team self-destructs, only the # 2 spot is up for grabs.

The White Sox can pitch Danks, Floyd, and Sale (if healthy), but then who? Dunn, Konerko, Vicrede, and Rios can knock down fences, but often it’s from the backswing of a swish rather than contact. This looks to be a team that can compete, but not win. That’s also what I think about the Indians. It would help if Jimenez, Masterson, and McAllister induced more than comments about how great their stuff “looks.” The lineup has two fine players—Carlos Santana and Asdrubal Cabrera—playing around workman-like players: Swisher, Bourn, Brantley, Stubbs, Reynolds. The Indians look good enough to be just slightly better than mediocre.

The Royals are the AL equivalent of the Pirates, and I’m taking the same “prove it” stance. Give GM Dayton Moore credit for fleecing the Rays. He got two topnotch starters (Shields and Wade Davis) for a “can’t miss” outfield prospect. (One wonders how so many of them manage to do so!) Add Chen, Hochevar, and Guthrie and that’s not bad. There’s also Ervin Santana, but he’s such a head case that I’d not count on him. The lineup also has potential: Gordon, Butler, Hosmer, Moustakas, Francoeur….  But until I see ERAs decline and on-base-percentages rise dramatically, I remain a Royals skeptic.  As for the Twins, any team with Mauer and Morneau is worth watching. But a staff on which the only guys of whom you've ever heard are named Correia, Pelfry, and Duensing, not much can be expected.

NL Central Predictions: Reds, Cards, Pirates, Brewers, Cubs

AL Central Predictions: Tigers, White Sox, Royals, Indians, Twins. (You can probably flip flop anyone you wish for 2, 3, 4.)  

How the West Will Be Won: MLB Preview

When it's all said and done, I still think the Giants' chemistry will trump the Dodgers' money. The same phenomenon could happen in the AL West. 

The Western divisions of both the National League and American League and where one finds some very good teams and some grotesquely awful ones. Both divisions are also  up for grabs than most pundits would have you believe.

National League West:  The Dodgers have become the new Yankees, apparently without noting that for all the dough they've spent in New York, championships have been elusive. On paper the Dodgers are formidable. There’s Matt Kemp, plus so much pitching that Capuano and/or Lilly are likely to be dealt. But let me point out that the team also includes fragile personalities such as Ethier, Greinke, Harang, Beckett, Crawford, and Adrian Gonzalez, the latter the only infielder who will impress with his defense. Manager Don Mattingly has the kind of team that will either go to the World Series or get him fired by All-Star break. I’m betting the latter. The Giants are reigning champs and have something the boys from LA lack: chemistry. They also have a pitching staff that’s as good as any, and stand-up players such as Posey, Scutaro, Pagan, and Sandoval. Until someone beats them, the Giants remain the best of the West.

The Diamondbacks have the arms to compete, if everyone steps up (especially Kennedy, Cahill, and mystery man Brandon McCarthy). The everyday lineup won’t stun anyone, but it contains grinders who can be troublesome. If a few teams underachieve, the D-Backs could grab a Wild Card. The Rockies, on the other hand, seem to be very short on pitching behind De La Rosa and Francis. It has some good lumber—Carlos Gonzalez, Cudyer, and the wonderful Troy Tulowitzki—but unless young arms come on faster than projected, their hopes are as thin as the Denver air. As for the Padres, there is Quentin, the enigmatic Volquez, Headley, and prayers. Not enough, which is why Headley is on everyone’s most-likely-to-be-traded list.

American League West: The Angels are the other West Coast free-spending bully; they also have the same set of question marks as the Dodgers. On paper, Pujols, Hamilton, Trout, Trumbo, and Kendrick are frightening. The staff is more solid than formidable, but it’s deep. The big fear—and a legitimate one—is that the Angels could be this year’s version of the 2010 Red Sox—big names and small deliveries. If Hamilton yields to his demons, Pujols doesn’t figure out AL pitching better, and Trout hits more like he did last September than last June, the Angels could swoon. I remain a Jared Weaver skeptic, by the way, but the Angels will benefit from diminished competition.

The Angels should win, simply because they've raided so much of the Rangers’ roster that Texas will find itself short of both big arms and big bats. Who’s the ace of the staff? Holland? Hanson? Feliz? Can Oganda start? And Lance Berkman will not replace Hamilton’s production. Who knows what to make of the Athletics? Once again Oakland will field mostly no-names with good sabermetrics numbers. If history is any guide, the A’s won’t be good this year—those surges such as the one in 2012 are generally followed by sinks. On the other hand, given the Astros' entry into the division, the A's might have a legitimate shot. Every year I say the Mariners will surprise, and every year they impress only with their constant mediocrity. I wonder why General Manager Jack Zduriencik still has a job.  His latest bonehead move is trading a decent pitcher (Vargas) to the rival Angels for a player who wasn't going to make their lineup (Morales). This team is Felix Hernandez, the over-the-hill gang (Ibanez, Bay) and the never-will-be boys (Montero, Morse, Saunders). But they won’t finish last. If the Astros don’t lose at least 100 games this year—their first in the AL--Bo Porter should be manager of the year, no questions asked!   

Predictions:

NL: San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Colorado, San Diego

AL:  Los Angeles (with little confidence), Oakland (a hunch), Texas, Seattle, Houston

The Art Forger a Good Mystery, but No Masterpiece

THE ART FORGER

By B.A. Shapiro

Algonquin Books ISBN: 978-1616201326

·      * * ½

Barbara Shapiro certainly knows a juicy topic when she sees it and, in New England, they don’t get much juicier than the 1990 heist at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. Thieves, disguised as Boston policemen, talked their way into the Stewart after hours, subdued two night watchmen, and made off with 13 masterpieces valued at over $500 million, including works from Manet, Rembrandt, Vermeer, and Degas. Twenty-three years later, the Gardner robbery is one of the greatest unsolved mysteries of our time. In March of 2013, the Boston Globe revealed that investigators have turned attention again to one of the guards on duty (though he’s passed two lie detector tests). Thus far, every trail has gone cold or led to a dead end.

Shapiro’s delicious hook is to assume that one of the paintings has surfaced, one by Degas titled After the Bath. (No such work exists; this is Shapiro’s invention based on a famed series of bathers that Degas did paint.) Collector Aiden Markel secretly has the work, which he has secured through some very shady contacts and double-dealing, and wants to enlist artist Claire Roth in a dangerous scheme that she’s told will restore the painting to the Gardner, put much-needed money into her starving artist’s pocket, and lead to a one-woman gallery show of her own. The question is, who can be trusted?

Claire certainly needs a break. She was once the paramour of art world sensation Isaac Cullion, a former whiz kid who hasn’t had an idea in years. Out of love, Roth paints a work upon which Cullion signed his own name. It took the art world by storm and resurrected Cullion’s reputation. Alas, Cullion left Claire for another woman before committing suicide, and her insistence that she actually painted Cullion’s masterpiece is rejected by “experts” and viewed as a contributing factor in Cullion’s death. So say that Claire’s reputation is mud is an understatement. Years later she pays the rent by teaching classes at a local juvenile lockup, and by copying masterpieces for one of those companies will sell you a reproduction of a Degas for a few hundred bucks. Claire is more than good at this task—she’s convincing.

The real action starts when Markel asks Claire to copy After the Bath—from the original. Her task is nothing less than forgery; she needs to convince world art experts that her work is that of Degas, so everything must check out—the age of the canvas, the chemistry of the pigments she uses, and every single brush stroke. There is no margin for error. The canvas?  A Jean-Louis Ernest Meissonier that happens to be exactly the right size and is such a minor work that no one will ever miss it, so Claire’s first job is to strip it. It’s also the first of a whole lot of improbable “coincidences” in the novel. Meissonier was once considered an important classicist, hence obliterating one of his works isn’t likely. Another convenient invention is Amelia, Isabella Stewart Gardner’s niece and secret confidant. No such person ever existed, but never mind….

Claire begins to have serious misgivings about the brushwork of the alleged Degas and begins to wonder if she’s copying a copy of a copy. (How meta!) I will not spoil the mystery with any more detail. It’s a pretty good yarn, actually, even when aspects of it spill into Dan Brown territory. It’s probably best if you consume this book the way you might a beach novel, though I recommend you keep an iPad handy to find images of real art works mentioned, as these will supplement your enjoyment.

Shapiro isn’t a great stylist and she’s definitely guilty of contrivances that make sense only within the questionable logic systems she has constructed. If you think too much, you’ll wonder why an artist no one ever heard of knows more about one of the world’s most famous painters than art experts. You may also find Claire Roth too immature, too insecure, and too inexperienced to be part of such an elaborate ruse. And you’ll certainly wonder why all of her friends act as if they are college sophomores rather than adults in their 30s and 40s. But, as I said, try not to ask these questions. If you’re one of those readers that can simply immerse yourself in a thorny who-dunnit, Shapiro’s novel is a cut above those knock-‘em-out potboilers you find in the ten for a buck remainder bins.

You may also acquire a bit of art history knowledge along the way, be overcome by a sudden desire to visit the Gardner, and gain respect for the pure painters who crank out copies of masterpieces to go above living-room sofas across the land. It also reminds us that the wildly eccentric Gardner needs a fictional treatment of her own. All of these are good things, “good” being an adjective I’d also apply to Shapiro’s novel. It’s no Degas, but it’s not a bad Meissonier.—Rob Weir