ADL-Approved Religious Discrimination

Absolutely outrageous. The Anti-Defamation League has released a statement approving of efforts to bar the construction of a Muslim mosque in southern Manhattan, several blocks from the WTC site. While attempting to disassociate themselves from the conceded "bigotry" which they acknowledge animates some of the mosque's opponents, the ADL claims that the site "will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right." "[U]ltimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right."

I submit that it is a question of both, and the precedent that the ADL is adhering to is one that is exceedingly detrimental to the safety and equality of religious minorities worldwide, including Jews.

The ADL's attempt to distinguish folks whose opposition to the mosque is based on "bigotry", and those for whom it isn't, is unavailing. It's all bigotry -- some of it is simply better dressed than others. Restricting the civil rights of a given population because some members of that population committed horrible acts is bigotry per se. There's no getting around it. We might sympathize with folks who -- having been brutally victimized by members of religious group -- are fearful or otherwise antagonistic towards that group as a whole. But such sentiments simply can't be given force of law. To force members of a religious group to bear additional burdens based on the actions of their brethren in faith -- actions which they themselves oppose stridently -- is bigotry in its purest form.

I am literally shaking with rage over this, because I trust the ADL to be there when the rights of religious minorities are threatened. I can no longer do that. That the ADL apparently views Egypt's treatment of its Jews as a model example of religious liberty is disqualifying for them to be taken seriously as a civil rights organization concerned with the fair and egalitarian treatment of all people. Their position on this issue is absolutely unconscionable, and is an embarassment to anyone who truly cares about the rights of religious minorities in the United States and worldwide.

Other commenters:

Greg Sargent: "On this one, you're either with the bigots or you're against them. And ADL has in effect sided with them."

Adam Serwer: "I learned a very important lesson in Hebrew School that I have retained my entire life. If they can deny freedom to a single individual because of who they are, they can do it to anyone."

Tablet Magazine: "Founded in 1913, the ADL, in its words, 'fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all.' Except when it does the precise opposite."

Conversos

I will admit that I harbor some prejudice against Jews who convert to another faith. It's not something I'm proud of, but there it is. There is a feeling of abandonment -- we're an embattled minority, and these folks are taking the easy way out. A socially sanctioned (encouraged, even) Michael Jackson pill, if you will. And sometimes, converts, in their quest to prove their loyalty to their (new) faith, are amongst the most zealous oppressors of their former brethren (this, of course, is not limited to folks converting from Judaism).

But this my problem, and my prejudices do not deserve any more protection by the law than anyone elses. So when an Israeli Oxford Professor claims she was discriminated against after converting from Judaism to Anglicanism, assuming her story is accurate, I think she has every right to legal redress.

Of course I have the right to oppose anti-Jewish behavior from any source, whether it be from Jews, Gentiles, or formerly-Jewish Gentiles. But neither I, nor anyone else, has the right to take a preemptive strike -- discriminating for fear of discrimination. My prejudices are my own problem, and I should be the one (as much as possible) to bear their burden.

Via.

Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Tea Party?

Not Democrats -- they see the far-right movement as their best hope for keeping political control in 2010, by forcing the GOP to run terrifyingly fanatical candidates like Sharron Angle. But the GOP, which denounced as "quackery" a Democratic attempt to tie the GOP to the tea partiers, might be getting a bit nervous.

They got to be careful, though. Republicans who denounce the far-right tend not to last long in Republican primaries (Bob Bennett and Bob Inglis, wave from the galleries!). I hardly think the tea party will be thrilled by public GOP efforts to disassociate themselves. But I hardly think voters will be thrilled if they don't.

Rough gig.

Take Two

I'm not convinced that someone who truly screwed up (as opposed to committing the gaffe of honestly stating his beliefs) would need to cracks at the apology apple (see also: Fatima Hajaig). But I don't speak for the ADL.

Still, as far as I'm concerned, Oliver Stone is just a sober Mel Gibson.

Like Precious Little Snowflakes

Jeffrey Lord, a writer at the American Spectator has concluded that Shirley Sherrods lied about her father being lynched. Yes, her father was brutally beaten to death by a mob on the courthouse steps. But "lynching", we're told, requires a rope -- otherwise, it's just "a brutal and fatal beating," and an outright fabrication to say otherwise.

Needless to say, this doesn't track anybody's definition of "lynching", which generally refers to an extrajudicial execution by a mob (the Israeli commandos who claimed that the crew of the Mavi Marmara was preparing to lynch them were not referring to ropes). And consequently, it seems like virtually everybody is coming down on Lord -- from Matt Yglesias and Jeff Fecke to Radley Balko and Lord's own colleagues at The American Spectator.

But Paul Campos managed to nutpick a gem from a commenter trying, desparately, to defend Lord's statement:

Regardless of the dictionary’s definition, English is considered the most nuanced of languages because each word has a specific, unique meaning giving context and emotion to any written or spoken idea or statement. I don’t need a dictionary to instruct me on the accepted meaning of the word ‘lynching.’

That is so, so far from an accurate description of English that it nearly defies belief. Words in English rarely have just one specific meaning, and the idea that the word "lynching" tends to evoke a noose doesn't mean a extrajudicial mob killing isn't a lynching, any more than the classic image of a "picnic" occurring on a grassy field would mean someone is liar if their "picnic" occurred on a craggy mountain ledge.

And Do You KNOW What Dancing Leads To?

A woman sued Girls Gone Wild for filming her without her consent at a bar. Basically, she was dancing at the bar, and somebody pulled her top down, exposing her breasts to the camera. The jury ruled against her, in what has to be some of the most stunningly offensive logic ever deployed:

After deliberating for just 90 minutes on Thursday, the St. Louis jury came back with a verdict in favor of the smut peddlers. Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman, explained later to reporters that they figured if she was willing to dance in front of the photographer, she was probably cool with having her breasts on film. They said she gave implicit consent by being at the bar, and by participating in the filming - though she never signed a consent form, and she can be heard on camera saying "no, no" when asked to show her breasts.

I have to admit, it never occurred to me that dancing at a bar equaled implied consent to be filmed having your clothes stripped off (that "no" once again meant "yes" is tragically too common to comment on). But I guess I have one of those crazy, feminist conceptions of consent that doesn't let you have any fun at all.

What Fools They Were To Trust The Website I Write For

In the wake of the Shirley Sherrod scandal, it became known that Noah Jonathan Joel (so many Pollaks!) Pollak -- the soon to be crushed election opponent of Rep. Jan Schkowsky (D-IL) -- is a contributor to Andrew Breitbart's website. Schkowsky, seeking to make some hay, asked Pollak to stop writing for Breitbart. Pollak demurred, saying he would continue his association, but released this statement:

"Andrew [Breitbart] used intemperate language in his debate with the NAACP, which was wrong," Pollak said in a statement. "It was even more wrong for the White House and the NAACP to punish a woman for alleged racism without conducting a full and fair investigation."

Beautiful. "Sure, the website I write for released a spliced-up, wildly misleading video in order to smear a woman and a prominent civil rights organization as racist racist," (I assume that's what "intemperate language" means, though Lord knows that's an A+ demonstration of weasel-wording). "But even worse was that the White House and NAACP were dumb enough to trust that something posted on it can be taken at face value. I mean, come on!"*

Honestly, I need to genuflect for a moment at this, because ... wow. It's just in a class of its own, isn't it?

* Not that I disagree entirely -- it is bad that the Department of Agriculture rushed to fire Ms. Sherrods without fully investigating the charge, particularly given that the source was, um, Andrew Breitbart. But it is a bizarre standard that the entity that initiated the lie should be judged less harshly than the entity that got taken in by it.

In any event, we've all learned a valuable lesson in trusting things posted on Andrew Breitbart's website -- including those, I imagine, posted by Noah Jonathan Joel Pollak. As Pollak has reminded us, we'd be fools to trust anything he says at this point without undertaking an independent investigation of our own.

A Model to Emulate

When Sarah Palin announced her desire that "peaceful" Muslims "refudiate" a proposed Mosque to be built a few blocks from the World Trade Center site, I was stunned at her brazen devolution into religion demogoguery. Put aside the fact that the organization building the group is the epitome of a "peaceful" Muslim group. As Adam Holland observes, there really isn't any other way to characterize the opposition of Palin and her ilk other than as naked religious bigotry.

A law school friend of mine was defending Palin, and I told him that the argument (such as it is) against the Mosque reminded me of a decision by the Egyptian government to forbid Jews from utilizing a recently restored synagogue in retaliation for Israeli "aggressions" against Muslim holy sites. When I read that story, I saw a human rights violation. Sarah Palin, I said, saw a model to emulate.

I didn't mean it farcically, but I hardly expected Palin or one of her allies to actually consciously admit that they viewed religious discrimination the Middle East as a guide for us to follow. Yet here's Newt Gingrich, explicitly pointing to Saudi bans on synagogues and churches as a reason to bar a Mosque in New York. What I see as barbaric, Gingrich apparently sees as pathbreaking. If only we could be as humane and open-minded parochial and bigoted as the Saudis! What a great vision for America!

The similarity between Palin (and Gingrich) and the bigoted policymakers in the Egyptian and Saudi government doesn't surprise me, as Palin clearly cut from the same cloth as those who would render me a second-class citizen -- perhaps why she is one of the most singularly unpopular politicians amongst American Jews (others have alternative explanations).

The Redemption Scenario

Cross-posted to The Moderate Voice

The scandal of the day was the story of a USDA employee who appeared to indicate that she gave less than full help to a White farmer in an incident over 20 years ago, on account of his race. She told the story at an NAACP dinner, hence the contemporary hook -- conservatives (or at least segments of it) are still on their kick that the NAACP is the true racist organization in America. As it turns out, the employee was actually telling the tale as a redemption scenario -- she realized her prejudice was wrong, threw her full support to the White family, and ended up saving the farm. Hence why the family has consistently intervened to give her their full support.

When I first saw the story this afternoon, I didn't have time to blog about it, which is good, because I didn't know the full context and, like the NAACP, would have been at risk of getting "snookered". But I did know that the incident happened over 20 years ago. And that got me to thinking.

When the United States finally repudiated Jim Crow in the 1960s and 70s, it did not come with any purges. By and large, the same bureaucrats who managed our racist system in 1950 still managed the more egalitarian system that had emerged by 1970. There are lots of reasons for this, starting with the fact that firing every single person who had participated in America's brand of racial apartheid would have effectively left us without a civil service, and ending with the fact that America never really has managed to wrap its head around just how deeply the sins of racism had enmeshed itself in the system -- a full accounting of which would have extracted its pound of flesh from virtually each and every man and woman alive in this nation.

In any event, these bureaucrats took many forms. Some undoubtedly had opposed racism even at its apex, others really didn't care about it one way or the other. Some were loyal disciples of Jim Crow who later realized the error of their ways, and some had no guilt at all regarding their role as agents of apartheid, but adjusted to the new social order all the same. And some, of course, were entirely unrepentant and maintained a belief in White supremacy, but suppressed that outlook just enough to keep their job.

The point being -- this nation has a long history of employing the formerly racist. The best case scenario for such employees, usually, is that they come to see the light and dedicate the remainder of their professional lives towards remedying racial inequality and securing racial justice. And that story -- a story of redemption -- appears to be the story of Shirley Sherrod. It's not the worst tale in the world. To the extent that this country has moved forward on matters of race, it is, in fact, the quintessential American tale.

But Will It Be Enough?

Solicitor General and SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan advanced out of committee today, garnering the surprise support of South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham. Some commentators are now wondering whether Graham will face a backlash from the far-right base over the lethal apostasy of not filibustering each and every Obama-led initiative that comes down the pike (Erick Erickson -- best known for calling David Souter a "goat-fucking child molester" -- said not filibustering Kagan would constitute "a high act of confirmation treason"). In response, a Graham consultant argued that Senator Graham is "a thinking person's conservative. I expect him to do well among voters with IQ's in triple digits."

Steve Benen took note of that passage and observes that any Democrat who essentially called opposing voters idiots would be tarred and feathered as an elitist. Fortunately, since I'm not really a public figure, I'm simply free to wonder whether the class of voters with IQ's over 100 is sufficient to cobble together a winning coalition in a South Carolina GOP primary (ask Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) about that).