Curious how both an Orthodox Jewish leader and a Jewish gay-rights activist could be just as tactless and insulting.
Toronto’s Elle Flanders joined the city’s Pride Parade as spokesperson for Queers Against Israeli Apartheid to bash Israel. Jewish organizations protested her group’s inclusion in the parade, and parade sponsor Pride Toronto initially banned its participation and then reversed itself.
Nathan Diament, who directs the Institute for Public Affairs of the Orthodox Union, railed against a call to action to fund only organizations which have non-discrimination policies - namely, those that hire Jews of gay orientation.
Flanders did not account for the possibility that her tactics might divert attention from the Pride Parade’s primary message: promoting inclusion and tolerance, as attorney and gay activist Martin Gladstone put it. “(QuAIA) has created a divisive, hateful environment,” he told The Canadian Jewish News. “(Pride turned) from a celebration to a battleground.”
“It’s about gay rights. Or it used to be,” added Paul Druzin, a gay participant who served in the Israel Defense Forces.
My on-and-off experience with activism taught me that it is not wise to combine unrelated issues at the same event. Flanders’ Israel-bashing tack could have overwhelmed the ambience of the parade, which fortunately it did not do.
Accusing Israel of “apartheid” is a broad brushed phrase sure to inflame Jews and other supporters of Israel. Flanders would have benefited everyone if she sought a more focused forum and had been more clear about her concerns.
Enough supporters of Israel marched with Kulanu Toronto, the city’s Jewish gay-rights organization as a counter-protest to Flanders’ group. Justine Apple, Kulanu’s executive director, said the number of people marching with Kulanu quadrupled from last year to 500, the Jewish News reported.
Before the event, city councilors proposed retrieving the city’s contribution of $121,000 for the parade and deny Pride Toronto funding for next year. Flanders’ organization is entitled to free speech, but the city has the freedom not to pay for it.
Flanders, who once lived in Israel, dug her hole deeper by telling the Jewish News: “Pride is what it’s always been about, which is achieving equality. Equal rights is about having a voice. I think debate is healthy…The core of American democracy is free speech. It shocks me when it’s free speech for me but not for you.”
Flanders also wants begin a dialogue in the Jewish community about Israeli policy. What dialogue? Her mind is already made up.
From Tulsa, Okla., Lynn Schusterman penned an op-ed for Jewish newspapers urging more forceful support for Jews who count themselves part of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community.
“The continued marginalization of LGBT Jews is especially disheartening for those of us who believe in the power of a fully inclusive Jewish community that embraces every Jew as ‘b’tzelem elokim,’ made in God’s image,” writes Schusterman, who chairs the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Foundation.
Then she throws down the gauntlet: “We are asking all Jewish organizations to join our foundation in adopting non-discrimination hiring policies that specifically mention sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. We are also challenging donors to join us in holding organizations accountable for doing so…we will only consider funding organizations that have non-discrimination policies covering both sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.”
In a counter op-ed, Diament writes, “She’s overlooked the fact that many synagogues and day schools run under Orthodox auspices or the auspices of other ‘traditional’ views cannot embrace homosexual activity as legitimate, a perspective based upon clear teachings of Jewish law and tradition going back to the Bible.”
Diament goes on to defend an exemption in Congress from the federal Employment Non-
Discrimination Act to ban workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. He also warns that Schusterman’s proposal, “if taken to its logical conclusion, would result in Orthodox institutions being excluded from Jewish community support by having them denied funding from Jewish foundations and, one presumes, federations.”
Diament’s main fear is likely that Orthodox organizations might lose support from some Jewish groups, but he is disingenuous to warn about the Federation system, the Jewish charity operation that allocates money for services for the Jewish community and Israel.
Federation leaders would be suicidal to deny Orthodox organizations funding with the exception of legitimate reasons unrelated to sexual orientation. The federations reach out to any Jews for contributions, and it is easier with the Orthodox because they are so close-knit.
Diament’s reference to Congress seems misplaced. He claims that Congress “realized that an exemption for religious employers is a necessary balancing of civil rights for gays and the religious liberties of sectarian institutions.”
Doubtful. Members of Congress probably feared they would lose far more votes among the ultra-religious than the gay community.
At least, Diament and Flanders can claim to have something in common. It would help us all if they looked to Schusterman’s example of goodwill.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Will the real higher authority stand up?
Another outlandish legal opinion should prod us to wonder how four U.S. Supreme Court justices got accepted to law school.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. writes in a dissenting opinion: “I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today’s decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country. There are religious groups that cannot in good conscience agree in their bylaws that they will admit persons who do not share their faith. For these groups, the consequence of an accept-all-comers policy is marginalization.”
Translated, adherents of a given religion must always be permitted to practice their beliefs…even if they stomp on the rights of others in the process and violate our laws.
Three situations in which religious beliefs clashed with the law or basic values of civilization reached a boiling point. A Christian student group was denied its mission of homophobia;
Orthodox Jews howled when one of their own was sentenced to an excessive prison term; and a group of Islamist extremists trashed a United Nations summer camp in Gaza because it shuns training its children in hate and militancy.
In the middle of America’s gay capital, the Christian Legal Society at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco limits membership privileges to anyone who will not disavow “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle,” The New York Times reports. That covers “sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman.” They cannot be voting members or assume leadership positions.
Hastings denied CLS recognition as a student organization because its policies amount to discrimination. The college affords recognized student groups modest financial assistance, use of the school’s communications channels and meeting space and use of the school’s name and logo - so long as they permit all students to participate in their activities, according to the Times.
Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated, “CLS…seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy.” Alito wrote the aforementioned dissent on behalf of himself, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
This quartet misses the point that our system of laws supersedes our personal attitudes. CLS discriminates against homosexuals and most universities - especially those funded by tax revenues - cannot allow that. Some religious groups will severely harass people to convert them and defend their action by claiming it is their religious belief to do so. Harassment itself is a criminal offense, albeit a minor one.
It is scary that these four justices do not understand the difference.
In Gaza, two dozen masked men broke into a United Nations summer camp before dawn on recently when they tied up four guards and proceeded to slash and burn tents, toys and a plastic swimming pool, according to the Associated Press.
Islamic extremists are naturally suspected. Hamas operates camps that bash Israel and teach military-style marching along with horseback riding, swimming and Islam. As the AP story puts it, “U.N. camps try to instill hope in a better future, a message wrapped in fun and games.”
Allegiance to religious beliefs there is often the rule, and the law is the exception. For some their religion is the law. We are not indicting all Muslims here, but many do not care what they do in the name of religion. Their attitude mandates that all territory in their part of the world must be Muslim-dominated, and so they oppose Israel’s very existence.
The U.N. camp’s presence threatens this idea because the camp’s mission is to foster hope in these children. They may grow up to accept people of other religions.
There are higher stakes: The Palestinians want to be recognized as a nation in the world of nations, yet many refuse to play by the rules of civilization.
From Iowa to Brooklyn’s Boro Park, the issue is more subtle for ultra-Orthodox Jews upset with the 27-year federal sentence of Sholom Rubashkin, who was found guilty eight months ago of 86 counts of financial fraud, the weekly Forward reported. The 51-year-old Agriprocessors executive managed the now-defunct slaughterhouse and meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa, owned by his family’s large kosher meat enterprise, according to the newspaper.
Besides Rubashkin’s fraud charges, other concerns about the plant involved the hiring of undocumented workers and abuse of child labor.
The obvious question on the minds of some Jews, though not openly expressed by many, was whether the sentencing judge was motivated by Rubashkin’s religion. “This is just like Dreyfus!” Mordy Getz told The Forward. “They won’t kill him, but they’ll just lock him up for decades and destroy a whole family.”
Alfred Dreyfus, the French Jewish army captain framed for selling military secrets to Germany in 1894, survived his imprisonment at Devil’s Island where the guards were not allowed to talk to him. He committed no crime, the trial was held in secret and the evidence, if one can call it that, was weak. Even if the judge is a rabid anti-Semite, Rubashkin still has the right to appeal.
In The New York Jewish Week, Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, executive vice president of the Agudath Israel of America, called the sentence “a dark day for American justice…It is a dark day as well for American Jewry…the extraordinary severity of the sentence imposed upon one of our Jewish brothers sends chills of shock and apprehension down our collective spine.”
My usual attitude toward “Jewish brothers” who commit crimes or otherwise act outrageously is to toss out the prison keys, but Zwiebel’s words beg these questions: Did Rubashkin think while committing his crimes that he might face strong punishment? Did it occur to him that his deeds might reflect on other Jews?
Most intriguing is the level of passion that his sentence aroused in the Orthodox Jewish community. Were they so passionate when abuses at Rubashkin’s plant were first exposed?
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. writes in a dissenting opinion: “I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today’s decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country. There are religious groups that cannot in good conscience agree in their bylaws that they will admit persons who do not share their faith. For these groups, the consequence of an accept-all-comers policy is marginalization.”
Translated, adherents of a given religion must always be permitted to practice their beliefs…even if they stomp on the rights of others in the process and violate our laws.
Three situations in which religious beliefs clashed with the law or basic values of civilization reached a boiling point. A Christian student group was denied its mission of homophobia;
Orthodox Jews howled when one of their own was sentenced to an excessive prison term; and a group of Islamist extremists trashed a United Nations summer camp in Gaza because it shuns training its children in hate and militancy.
In the middle of America’s gay capital, the Christian Legal Society at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco limits membership privileges to anyone who will not disavow “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle,” The New York Times reports. That covers “sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman.” They cannot be voting members or assume leadership positions.
Hastings denied CLS recognition as a student organization because its policies amount to discrimination. The college affords recognized student groups modest financial assistance, use of the school’s communications channels and meeting space and use of the school’s name and logo - so long as they permit all students to participate in their activities, according to the Times.
Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated, “CLS…seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy.” Alito wrote the aforementioned dissent on behalf of himself, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
This quartet misses the point that our system of laws supersedes our personal attitudes. CLS discriminates against homosexuals and most universities - especially those funded by tax revenues - cannot allow that. Some religious groups will severely harass people to convert them and defend their action by claiming it is their religious belief to do so. Harassment itself is a criminal offense, albeit a minor one.
It is scary that these four justices do not understand the difference.
In Gaza, two dozen masked men broke into a United Nations summer camp before dawn on recently when they tied up four guards and proceeded to slash and burn tents, toys and a plastic swimming pool, according to the Associated Press.
Islamic extremists are naturally suspected. Hamas operates camps that bash Israel and teach military-style marching along with horseback riding, swimming and Islam. As the AP story puts it, “U.N. camps try to instill hope in a better future, a message wrapped in fun and games.”
Allegiance to religious beliefs there is often the rule, and the law is the exception. For some their religion is the law. We are not indicting all Muslims here, but many do not care what they do in the name of religion. Their attitude mandates that all territory in their part of the world must be Muslim-dominated, and so they oppose Israel’s very existence.
The U.N. camp’s presence threatens this idea because the camp’s mission is to foster hope in these children. They may grow up to accept people of other religions.
There are higher stakes: The Palestinians want to be recognized as a nation in the world of nations, yet many refuse to play by the rules of civilization.
From Iowa to Brooklyn’s Boro Park, the issue is more subtle for ultra-Orthodox Jews upset with the 27-year federal sentence of Sholom Rubashkin, who was found guilty eight months ago of 86 counts of financial fraud, the weekly Forward reported. The 51-year-old Agriprocessors executive managed the now-defunct slaughterhouse and meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa, owned by his family’s large kosher meat enterprise, according to the newspaper.
Besides Rubashkin’s fraud charges, other concerns about the plant involved the hiring of undocumented workers and abuse of child labor.
The obvious question on the minds of some Jews, though not openly expressed by many, was whether the sentencing judge was motivated by Rubashkin’s religion. “This is just like Dreyfus!” Mordy Getz told The Forward. “They won’t kill him, but they’ll just lock him up for decades and destroy a whole family.”
Alfred Dreyfus, the French Jewish army captain framed for selling military secrets to Germany in 1894, survived his imprisonment at Devil’s Island where the guards were not allowed to talk to him. He committed no crime, the trial was held in secret and the evidence, if one can call it that, was weak. Even if the judge is a rabid anti-Semite, Rubashkin still has the right to appeal.
In The New York Jewish Week, Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, executive vice president of the Agudath Israel of America, called the sentence “a dark day for American justice…It is a dark day as well for American Jewry…the extraordinary severity of the sentence imposed upon one of our Jewish brothers sends chills of shock and apprehension down our collective spine.”
My usual attitude toward “Jewish brothers” who commit crimes or otherwise act outrageously is to toss out the prison keys, but Zwiebel’s words beg these questions: Did Rubashkin think while committing his crimes that he might face strong punishment? Did it occur to him that his deeds might reflect on other Jews?
Most intriguing is the level of passion that his sentence aroused in the Orthodox Jewish community. Were they so passionate when abuses at Rubashkin’s plant were first exposed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)