Falwell, Farrakhan, and the ADL's Selective Outrage

[pizza]

Falwell, Farrakhan, and the ADL's Selective Outrage
By Don Feder
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 23, 2005

The Anti-Defamation League ostensibly exists to oppose anti-Semitism. And it does – on occasion – when it isn’t too busy bashing evangelicals, fighting Christianity and creating double standards.

Despite its reputation, the ADL is not a Jewish organization. There’s nothing distinctly Jewish (i.e., grounded in Jewish law) about its operations. It’s really just another left-wing group, with a leftist agenda. Politically, it is virtually indistinguishable from the American Civil Liberties Union, People for the American Way, or Americans United for the (so-called) Separation of Church and State.

As a conservative Jewish activist told me recently of the ADL’s National Director and principal spokesman, "Abe Foxman has a problem with Christianity" – unfortunate in that he’s living in a country that’s over 80 percent Christian.

Foxman’s latest foray in political correctness was an attack on Rev. Jerry Falwell earlier this month, when the latter included an "I Vote Christian" sticker in a fundraising mailing.

Falwell’s sticker is "directly at odds with the American ideal, and should be rejected," Foxman lectured. "Understanding the danger of combining religion and politics, our founding fathers wisely created a political system based on individual merit and religious inclusiveness."

Abe has been reading Al Franken’s Introduction to U.S. History again. His is a fantasy version of the American saga soothing to the secular Left – wherein Washington, Adams, Hamilton et. al, appear as 18th century counterparts of the American Humanist Association – Howard Dean clones in powdered wigs and buckled shoes.

The Founding Fathers so wanted to establish a system based on religious inclusiveness – by which Foxman means militant secularism – that, in the Declaration of Independence, they made God the foundation of our system of government. ("That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men….")

It’s fascinating the way the Left’s distortion of the First Amendment establishment clause keeps morphing. To the Founders, it meant just what it says: No establishment of religion, no national church. If they wanted a total separation of government and religion, then why – as one of its first acts – did the first Congress to hire a chaplain, whose salary was paid out of its budget?

Of all the lies of the Left, separation of church and state (words, by the way, which appear nowhere in the Constitution) is the one it clings to most tenaciously.

Thanks to its dominance of the courts, starting in 1962, school prayer became an establishment of religion (which religion? whose religion?). Then crèches at Christmas, non-sectarian prayers at graduations, public-school postings of the Ten Commandments and Ten Commandments monuments in public settings all were deemed establishments of religion. (The 9th Circuit Appeals Court tried to do the same to "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.)

Now the ADL suggests that to base one’s vote on the Judeo-Christian principles on which the nation was founded is a betrayal of America. Did Jerry Falwell establish a national church with a bumper sticker?

The Reverend says he didn’t know he was being un-American. "What I was saying was for conservative Christians to vote their values, which are pro-life and pro-family," Falwell (who’s famous for his friendship for Israel) explained. Presumably, this could even lead Christians to vote for non-Christian candidates who share those values. After all, in the last presidential election, a majority of Catholics voted for a Protestant who was with them on the moral questions of the day, over a former altar boy who was not.

I wish Foxman would explain why it’s appropriate for socialists to base their votes on socialist principles, why isolationists can vote for isolationist principles, and why African-Americans can cast their ballots based on the perceived interests of their race, but it’s somehow wicked for Christians to vote their values.

As a Jew, if I knew no more about two candidates running for the same office then that one was a serious Christian and the other was not, I’d vote for the former. I guess this means that I too, vote Christian.

By de-legitimizing Bible-based politics, the Left hopes to win by default. Values from Sinai are the principal impediment to the advance of its worldview: situation ethics, treating human life as a disposable commodity, moral relativism and sex as a recreational drug.

Church-state separation is a convenient cover. Lacking the integrity to engage in a values debate (ours versus theirs), when the Bible’s code is posited as an alternative to their neo-pagan politics, they whimper about breaches of the sacred wall of separation, God being un-American and all that.

The ADL is one of the most persistent and energetic forums for pushing this gross distortion of our history and heritage.

* In June, Foxman wrote to the superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy, to complain about Midshipmen being subjected to "organized prayers before they may eat lunch." This, the ADL pooh-bah contended, is unconstitutional. Government agencies, like the Academy, "must respect the rights of religious minorities," as well as those who are not religious," by refraining from such "coercion…including compulsory prayer services." Imagine the anguish of the poor non-religious Midshipman who’s unbearably burdened by being exposed to a prayer before lunch! (How will he stand up under torture at the enemy’s hands, if he quails at a prayer?) The secular Left believes it has an unqualified right not to be offended by encountering religious expression in a public setting.
* In June, when the Supreme Court struck down all but the most meaningless Ten Commandments monuments, the ADL was delirious. The organization claims its position here "arises out of a profound respect for the diversity of religions in America today," rather than a profound hostility to the principles on which America was founded and with which it grew to greatness. Thus we have the surreal spectacle of a group started almost a century ago to fight anti-Semitism, devoting its time and resources to fighting public acknowledgement of the fact that this nation was established on the eternal values of the Jewish people.
* In early August, Foxman threw a fit when Dr. James Dobson compared the underlying theory behind embryonic stem-cell research to Nazi medical experiments. "There is no legitimate comparison between stem-cell research, which seeks to find a cure for disease and to counter human suffering, and the perversion of science and morality represented by the Nazis," said he. In essence, Foxman is saying that since he likes stem-cell research (which results in the destruction of human life) and does not like Nazi medical experiments (which also resulted in the destruction of human life) the comparison is fatally flawed.. Whether actions may be compared to the horror of Nazism depends on whether or not Foxman and the ADL approve of same.
* Last year, Foxman was one of the most visible and vocal critics of Mel Gibson’s The Passion of The Christ. The ADL National Director warned that the film (whose dialogue was in Latin and Aramaic) "can fuel, trigger, stimulate, rationalize (and) legitimize anti-Semitism." The movie was shown privately. The production wasn’t subsidized by the National Endowment for the Arts (which prefers to fund photos of crucifixes suspended in vats of urine). No one was compelled to watch it. But Foxman was still agitated. Surely a cinematic celebration of Christianity is "directly at odds with the American ideal." By the way, did I miss the wave of Kishinev-like pogroms that Foxman implied would follow the film’s premiere?
* When it comes to exposing anti-Semitism, the ADL is highly selective. While the right is a frequent target, the Left (including Islam) often gets a pass. Minister Louis Farrakhan, fuhrer of the Nation of Islam, is the most influential anti-Semite in America. He makes David Duke look like a member of Hadassah. In October, Farrakhan is having a reprise of his Million Moron March. In a May interview with the Amsterdam News, former President Bill Clinton endorsed the rally (describing it as a "very positive idea"). The ADL decided to simply ignore this aid and comfort to a notorious hate-monger by an ex-president. Its leadership would never countenance criticism of a man beloved of the Jewish establishment.

Forget about Clinton endorsing the hate-fest of a man who once called Judaism "a gutter religion." The ADL knows that "I vote Christian" stickers represent the real threat to the Jewish community in America. As my grandmother would say, they should have their heads examined.

[jbuck919]

The ADL has long been a pro-Israel propaganda tool. You, or at least the author of this, dishonors the other organizations mentioned by putting them in the same class.

I will say that People for the American Way has a problem with its name. Claiming for promotional purposes that one side of the political spectrum is "the American way" is something I would expect the right to take up, not the left.

[herman]

Selective outrage?

Wow, that's a first.

Nobody here - Mr Pizza least of all - would err in such ways.

[Ralph]

What a biased, idiotic article. The ADL, where I served for many years as an attorney on their Civil Rights Committee, is mainstream secular Jewish in the sense that they draw membership and support from (largely) the non-Orthodox Jewish population (and were broadminded enough to accept the services of an atheist like me).

From my personal involvement I saw the ADL as a civil rights organization dedicated to achieving equality for all and battling bigotry. I don't think the ADL enjoys much support from the Orthodox community because, quite simply, the ADL doesn't accept their religious values or practices - I'm talking about members' views and lifestyles, not support of rights.

It is true that ideologically there's little difference between the ADL and the ACLU and many belong to both organizations.

There are many good articles posted here reflecting conservative viewpoints. The one above is strident crap in my view.

[Ted]

The Main Banner on top of the ADL’s Website

Since 1913 To Stop the defamation of the Jewish People..to secure justice and fair treatment to all

ADL Charter
October 1913

"The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens."

OPED

Dismantle the U.N. 'Palestine Infrastructure'

http://www.adl.org/

So tell me again how the ADL is not a Jewish Organization…
… And talk aboutPropaganda:
FrontPageMagazine.com

Oy Vey

[pizza]

What a biased, idiotic article. The ADL, where I served for many years as an attorney on their Civil Rights Committee, is mainstream secular Jewish in the sense that they draw membership and support from (largely) the non-Orthodox Jewish population (and were broadminded enough to accept the services of an atheist like me).

From my personal involvement I saw the ADL as a civil rights organization dedicated to achieving equality for all and battling bigotry. I don't think the ADL enjoys much support from the Orthodox community because, quite simply, the ADL doesn't accept their religious values or practices - I'm talking about members' views and lifestyles, not support of rights.

It is true that ideologically there's little difference between the ADL and the ACLU and many belong to both organizations.

There are many good articles posted here reflecting conservative viewpoints. The one above is strident crap in my view.

Perhaps you would be good enough to go to the meat of the article instead of merely telling us about your personal support for the stated principles of the ADL, which I'm sure most of us support as well, and rebut the author's position on Foxman's statement that it is un-American to vote for Christian values.

He says: "I wish Foxman would explain why it’s appropriate for socialists to base their votes on socialist principles, why isolationists can vote for isolationist principles, and why African-Americans can cast their ballots based on the perceived interests of their race, but it’s somehow wicked for Christians to vote their values."

Is there something in the ADL's Charter that singles out support for Christian values at the ballot-box as being un-American?

And why does the ADL give Farrakhan a pass? Is his strident racism and attacks upon Jews and Judaism exempt from the ADL's radar and what should be its obvious response?

It's nice to speak in generalities -- I'm sure the ADL will give high marks to motherhood and apple pie, but the author raises specific questions which you ignore.

[Werner]

Well, Pizza, you've really scored one here. Falwell, Farrakhan, and Foxman - what an allitterative list of heroes - Foxman amd Farrakhan versus the hero Falwell.

And the condemnation of what the present ranter calls the Left including Islam, which by my way of seeing things is several degrees to he right of Nazis. Or do our current right-wing thought control jingoists consign them to the Left as well?

Freedom of speech gets a black eye with the publication of such garbage.

[pizza]

Well, Pizza, you've really scored one here. Falwell, Farrakhan, and Foxman - what an allitterative list of heroes - Foxman amd Farrakhan versus the hero Falwell.

And the condemnation of what the present ranter calls the Left including Islam, which by my way of seeing things is several degrees to he right of Nazis. Or do our current right-wing thought control jingoists consign them to the Left as well?

Freedom of speech gets a black eye with the publication of such garbage.

Werner: Where have you been lately? Are you completely unaware of the convergence of the radical left with radical Islam? I haven't the time right now to go into it, but just for your own edification, google it and see what you produce. And BTW, do we deal with specific issues, or with stereotypes? If Foxman is off base and Falwell is correct on this issue, why not acknowledge it? Will doing so compromise your liberal ideals that much?

[Werner]

A nice balanced response, Pizza, but I've not been able to see any virtue in Falwell for a long time. In Nixon's day, I thought he had a degree of integrity, seeming to live up to his "Moral Majority" slogan. IMO, he lost that years ago.

Nothing to be said for Farrakhan, to be sure.

That leaves Foxman.

And as for the supposed alliance of the Islam we encounter in this fight with the Left, only a deeply biased propaganda machuine could draw that parallel. After seeing history unwind through the majority of the twentieth century, I reject that line of thought absolutely

[jbuck919]

A nice balanced response, Pizza, but I've not been able to see any virtue in Falwell for a long time. In Nixon's day, I thought he had a degree of integrity, seeming to live up to his "Moral Majority" slogan. IMO, he lost that years ago.

In Nixon's day, most of us still thought Nixon had a degree of moral integrity.

[herman]

Are you completely unaware of the convergence of the radical left with radical Islam? I haven't the time right now to go into it, but just for your own edification, google it and see what you produce.

No sane person has the time to go into this kind of nonsense.

The notion that any kind of edification will ensue by just googling and looking what the machine spews out speaks volumes.

[Barry]

A close friend of mine works for and is extremely dedicated to the ADL. I've emailed him a link to this thread in the hope that he'll come and represent them in this debate.

[pizza]

A nice balanced response, Pizza, but I've not been able to see any virtue in Falwell for a long time. In Nixon's day, I thought he had a degree of integrity, seeming to live up to his "Moral Majority" slogan. IMO, he lost that years ago.

Nothing to be said for Farrakhan, to be sure.

That leaves Foxman.

And as for the supposed alliance of the Islam we encounter in this fight with the Left, only a deeply biased propaganda machuine could draw that parallel. After seeing history unwind through the majority of the twentieth century, I reject that line of thought absolutely

You missed the point, Werner. The alliance I alluded to isn't between the ADL and radical Islam; it's between radical Islam and Farrakhan, Sharpton and their ilk. It's been thoroughly documented and discussed in the Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, and other widely read publications. Just look at web sites such as MoveOnOrg. and similar radical left propaganda machines if you want to see the connection.

[pizza]

Are you completely unaware of the convergence of the radical left with radical Islam? I haven't the time right now to go into it, but just for your own edification, google it and see what you produce.

No sane person has the time to go into this kind of nonsense.

The notion that any kind of edification will ensue by just googling and looking what the machine spews out speaks volumes.

What a neat exit strategy for someone who hasn't done it.

[jbuck919]

Are you completely unaware of the convergence of the radical left with radical Islam? I haven't the time right now to go into it, but just for your own edification, google it and see what you produce.

No sane person has the time to go into this kind of nonsense.

The notion that any kind of edification will ensue by just googling and looking what the machine spews out speaks volumes.

What a neat exit strategy for someone who hasn't done it.

Not to mention someone who has.

[pizza]

Actually, I haven't. It was merely a shortcut suggested to Werner to save some time. But I'm sure there will be plenty of goodies awaiting anyone who does.

[Werner]

Islamo-Fascists - a neat term - are not of the Left but the radical Right. Alliances of convenience exist acrross the board, specially in the right wing propaganda machines - such as theWall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and other interpreters of the notion that such reasonable sources - at leat as compared to the Bush doctrinal disease - as MoveOn and the centrist Democrats - constitute the Left.

Differences of opinion are what makes an open soociety. Misrepresentation is fraud.

[jbuck919]

Actually, I haven't. It was merely a shortcut suggested to Werner to save some time. But I'm sure there will be plenty of goodies awaiting anyone who does.

Right. Your posts about the Sanhedrin, Jewish law in general, etc. are based on classic scholarship.

[Ralph]

What a biased, idiotic article. The ADL, where I served for many years as an attorney on their Civil Rights Committee, is mainstream secular Jewish in the sense that they draw membership and support from (largely) the non-Orthodox Jewish population (and were broadminded enough to accept the services of an atheist like me).

From my personal involvement I saw the ADL as a civil rights organization dedicated to achieving equality for all and battling bigotry. I don't think the ADL enjoys much support from the Orthodox community because, quite simply, the ADL doesn't accept their religious values or practices - I'm talking about members' views and lifestyles, not support of rights.

It is true that ideologically there's little difference between the ADL and the ACLU and many belong to both organizations.

There are many good articles posted here reflecting conservative viewpoints. The one above is strident crap in my view.

Perhaps you would be good enough to go to the meat of the article instead of merely telling us about your personal support for the stated principles of the ADL, which I'm sure most of us support as well, and rebut the author's position on Foxman's statement that it is un-American to vote for Christian values.

He says: "I wish Foxman would explain why it’s appropriate for socialists to base their votes on socialist principles, why isolationists can vote for isolationist principles, and why African-Americans can cast their ballots based on the perceived interests of their race, but it’s somehow wicked for Christians to vote their values."

Is there something in the ADL's Charter that singles out support for Christian values at the ballot-box as being un-American?

And why does the ADL give Farrakhan a pass? Is his strident racism and attacks upon Jews and Judaism exempt from the ADL's radar and what should be its obvious response?

It's nice to speak in generalities -- I'm sure the ADL will give high marks to motherhood and apple pie, but the author raises specific questions which you ignore.

*****

I'm not aware that the ADL, with which I am no longer affiliated, has ever given Farrakhan a "pass." I will look into this.

And I don't believe the ADL has ever maintained that it's "un-American" for anyone to base his/her vote on religious dictates. That's a boilerplate unchallengeable exercise of the First Amendment.

[pizza]

Actually, I haven't. It was merely a shortcut suggested to Werner to save some time. But I'm sure there will be plenty of goodies awaiting anyone who does.

Right. Your posts about the Sanhedrin, Jewish law in general, etc. are based on classic scholarship.

Of course they are. I've quoted well known and distinguished Jewish scholars including the late Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, many of whose books I've read with awe. Too bad your penchant for personal attack overshadows any scholarly interests you might once have had but obviously have long since abandoned.

[pizza]

Islamo-Fascists - a neat term - are not of the Left but the radical Right. Alliances of convenience exist acrross the board, specially in the right wing propaganda machines - such as theWall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and other interpreters of the notion that such reasonable sources - at leat as compared to the Bush doctrinal disease - as MoveOn and the centrist Democrats - constitute the Left.

Differences of opinion are what makes an open soociety. Misrepresentation is fraud.

Well, lookahere, Werner. From today's Spectator. They must have anticipated your post!

The Unholy Alliance Revealed
By Douglas Davis
The Spectator | August 23, 2005

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Stranger still when the odd couple are fundamentalist Islam and the secular Left. The evolving Black-Red alliance is growing in France, Germany and Belgium. But, based on the successful British model, it is now going global to declare war on the war on terror.

No fewer than three international conferences have been convened in Cairo, presided over by the former president of Algeria, Ahmed Ben Bella, under the auspices of the International Campaign Against US and Zionist Occupations. One outcome is 'The Cairo Declaration Against US Hegemony, War on Iraq and Solidarity with Palestine.' British signatories included Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn and, of course, the indefatigable George Galloway, whose 'fiery' participation won honourable mention in Egypt's semi-official newspaper, Al-Ahram.

If Iraq was the catalyst for the Black-Red alliance, the Stop the War coalition provided the cauldron in which the union was consummated. The result is a pure gestalt: the coalition allows its constituent parts to pack a far greater collective punch than they could have dreamt of on their own. Putting a million people on to the streets of London is not, after all, small potatoes.

The steering committee of the Marxist-Islamist alliance consists of 33 members - 18 from myriad hard-Left groups, three from the radical wing of the Labour party, eight from the ranks of the radical Islamists and four leftist ecologists (also known as 'Watermelons' -green outside, red inside). The chairman is Andrew Murray, a leading light in the British Communist party; co-chair is Muhammad Aslam Ijaz, of the London Council of Mosques. Among the major players from the Left are Lindsey German, who resigned as editor of the Socialist Workers' party newspaper to become convenor of the Stop the War coalition; John Rees, also of the SWP, and, of course, George Galloway. Indeed, the first proud progeny of the alliance is Galloway's Respect party, which fought and won the London seat of Bethnal Green and Bow, with its substantial Muslim electorate.

Points of potential disagreement between the hard Left and radical Islam - democracy, human rights, xenophobia, free-expression, feminism, homosexuality, abortion, among many others - would seem to pose insuperable barriers to the union. Not so. The hurdles have been neatly vaulted in the interest of mutual hatreds: America, Israel, globalisation, capitalism and imperialism. Anti-Semitism is never far from the surface.

True, there is some squeamishness within the 'house of horrors'. Dissent is evident in the Socialist Workers' party but not in the Muslim Association of Britain, which was inspired by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood and now shelters under the umbrella of Sir Iqbal Sacranie's Muslim Council of Britain (it was, let it not be forgotten, the good Sir Iqbal who, before being scrubbed up and knighted, declared that 'death is perhaps too easy' for the allegedly blasphemous Salman Rushdie; it was Sir Iqbal, too, who refused to participate in this year's Holocaust memorial events because they did not refer to the supposed genocide of the Palestinians).

Those on the Left who support the alliance have found not only a revitalising cause but also an unexpected and deep hinterland from which to draw support. 'The practical benefits of working together are enough to compensate for the differences,' I was told. 'And success tends to win the argument.' Such opportunism exposes a strain of pernicious racism that allows the Left to indulge outrageous bigotry as long as it is espoused by brown people.

'The far Left will always support Third World peoples against what they view as an imperialist West,' notes one analyst who has closely followed the phenomenon. Another says, 'Islamists in the West have skilfully used the tools of intellectual intimidation to build an inviolate wall around Islam, giving it a sacred status that brooks no criticism.' The French Leftist leader Olivier Besançonneau added political piquancy when explaining his inclusivist approach to the Islamists: 'Are these not the new slaves? Is it not natural they should unite with the working class to destroy the capitalist system?'

But there are small voices of doubt. To some within Britain's Trotskyite Alliance for Workers' Liberty, the unholy marriage is outright heresy. One Trot describes SWP advocates of the Black-Red alliance as 'demoralised Guardian readers with headscarves', a withering allusion to the SWP organiser who ordered secular, socialist women to cover their heads while demonstrating with their Muslim sisters outside the Israeli embassy in London. And he is scathing of SWP monitors who enforced gender segregation to mollify Muslim sensibilities at a demonstration in Trafalgar Square. 'Marxists are secular or they are not Marxists,' said the Trot with principled purity.

Dogma runs deep. The Islamists accentuate the positive, noting Galloway's opposition to abortion and his professed religious faith, which, according to one, 'will surely be welcomed by British Muslims who see Respect as a real alternative'. And why complain when the Left is so obligingly on message? Take Spark, the organ of Arthur Scargill's Socialist Labour party, which hailed Asif Mohammed Hanif, the British suicide-bomber who attacked a beachfront bar in Tel Aviv, as a 'hero of the revolutionary youth'. Hanif, declared the paper, had carried out his mission 'in the spirit of internationalism'.

The fact is the coalition has been a godsend to both sides. The Left, a once-dwindling band of communists, Trotskyites, Maoists and Castroists, had been clinging to the dregs of a clapped-out cause; the Islamists could deliver numbers and passion, but they needed a vehicle to give them purchase on the political terrain. A tactical alliance became an operational imperative.

Indeed, the first to advocate the Black-Red alliance was none other than Ayman al-Zawahiri, deputy to Osama bin Laden and ideologue of al-Qa'eda. In a message delivered in August 2002, he called on sympathisers to seek allies among 'any movement that opposes America, even atheists'. This sentiment was refined in London by Abu Hamza al-Masri, the hook-handed Islamist from Central Casting who is currently fighting extradition to the United States on terrorism charges. 'We say to anyone who hates the Americans and wants to throw the Jews out of Palestine - Ahlan wa Sahlan (welcome). The Prophet teaches that we could ally ourselves even with the atheists if it helps us destroy [the] enemy.'

But the Tora Bora Award for Chutzpah goes to George Galloway, veteran champion of Arab and Islamist causes. Appearing on al-Jazeera television last month, he attacked the West while extolling Islamic virtue. 'It's not the Muslims who are the terrorists,' he declared. 'The biggest terrorists are Bush and Blair, Berlusconi and Aznar.... We believe in the Prophets, peace be upon them. [Bush] believes in the profits, and how to get a piece of them. That's his god.'

Marx meets Mohammed. High theatre meets low farce. The savvy Galloway, now more godly than gorgeous, has created a conduit through which Islamofascism pumps its poison into Britain's political bloodstream. It would be quite funny were it not so serious.

[jbuck919]

Actually, I haven't. It was merely a shortcut suggested to Werner to save some time. But I'm sure there will be plenty of goodies awaiting anyone who does.

Right. Your posts about the Sanhedrin, Jewish law in general, etc. are based on classic scholarship.

Of course they are. I've quoted well known and distinguished Jewish scholars including the late Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, many of whose books I've read with awe. Too bad your penchant for personal attack overshadows any scholarly interests you might once have had but obviously have long since abandoned.

Your semi-nonsensical analysis of Jewish legal history is based on little else than the flights of fancy of a couple of people who are marginally published, just as are the quotations from the half-assed periodicals you favor.

[Corlyss_D]

Are you completely unaware of the convergence of the radical left with radical Islam? I haven't the time right now to go into it, but just for your own edification, google it and see what you produce.

No sane person has the time to go into this kind of nonsense.

No wonder the Arabs are having such resounding success turning Europeans spokesmen for the Arab agenda.

[Werner]

"Les Extremes se touchent!"

Pizza, you're overloading my eyes - but at last there is one conclusion to be drawn from your latestt paragon piece: Tinen nto keep away from the likes of Garraway AND the Islamo extremists - whichever side you consign them to.

Too bad the authors who describe these disoriented folks carry a similar baggage, complicated by slavish adherence to a political structure whose hollowness is becoming more apparent daily.

[pizza]

Actually, I haven't. It was merely a shortcut suggested to Werner to save some time. But I'm sure there will be plenty of goodies awaiting anyone who does.

Right. Your posts about the Sanhedrin, Jewish law in general, etc. are based on classic scholarship.

Of course they are. I've quoted well known and distinguished Jewish scholars including the late Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, many of whose books I've read with awe. Too bad your penchant for personal attack overshadows any scholarly interests you might once have had but obviously have long since abandoned.

Your semi-nonsensical analysis of Jewish legal history is based on little else than the flights of fancy of a couple of people who are marginally published, just as are the quotations from the half-assed periodicals you favor.

Marginally published? How smugly ignorant you are -- not only about the subject but about the authors. Historical analysis of life in ancient Judea and Samaria has progressed beyond Josephus by light years as a result of scholarship you know nothing about but disparage nonetheless. The following URL briefly describes one distinguished author's life and work:

http://www.aryehkaplan.com/

You're stuck in a self-imposed time warp. You're the arch-conservative, not I.

[Chanan]

You're simply wrong about the ADL not condemning Farrakhan. Here's but one example. I'd be happy to provide you with many more.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4781_12.htm

[Werner]

Pizza, the above link seems to show a tendency on your part to ignore what does not fit into your pattern in order to present a picture which, to put it mildly, is not exactly objective and therefore subject to doubt.

[Ralph]

You're simply wrong about the ADL not condemning Farrakhan. Here's but one example. I'd be happy to provide you with many more.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/4781_12.htm

*****

Thanks and welcome. I haven't had time to find material refuting Pizza's extravagant denunciation of the ADL, an organization he apparently can't stand because it isn't Orthodox (as he defines it).

[pizza]

My reference to giving Farrakhan a pass was obviously in the context of Don Feder's original article, which in relevant part states:

"Minister Louis Farrakhan, fuhrer of the Nation of Islam, is the most influential anti-Semite in America. He makes David Duke look like a member of Hadassah. In October, Farrakhan is having a reprise of his Million Moron March. In a May interview with the Amsterdam News, former President Bill Clinton endorsed the rally (describing it as a "very positive idea"). The ADL decided to simply ignore this aid and comfort to a notorious hate-monger by an ex-president. Its leadership would never countenance criticism of a man beloved of the Jewish establishment.

Forget about Clinton endorsing the hate-fest of a man who once called Judaism "a gutter religion." The ADL knows that "I vote Christian" stickers represent the real threat to the Jewish community."

The principal subject of the ADL article posted by Chanan is Malik Zulu Shabazz and mentions Farrakhan peripherally. The author of the original article's position is that by not denouncing Clinton's endorsement of the march, it essentially gives Farrakhan a pass. There's nothing unreasonable about that position in my view.

My reference to Farrakhan was in the context of the following statement directed to Ralph: "Perhaps you would be good enough to go to the meat of the article......" and obviously invited his comment in that context alone. I'm not surprised that the resulting response was to take my statement out of the context of the original article which was clearly the purpose for my having made it, thereby implying a claim on my part, which I never made, that the ADL has always ignored Farrakhan -- a gross and deliberate misreading of my post -- but I haven't seen a single statement directed to the issue raised in the article itself. When sacred cows such as the ADL come under scrutiny and criticism, the rush to defend it more often than not tramples reason by ignoring the issue at hand.

[pizza]

*****

Thanks and welcome. I haven't had time to find material refuting Pizza's extravagant denunciation of the ADL, an organization he apparently can't stand because it isn't Orthodox (as he defines it).

Nonetheless you seem to have time to concoct my motive for posting an article criticising the ADL. Wrong as usual, but at least you're consistent.

There has been much criticism of both the ADL and Foxman from other sources because of their failure to condemn Clinton's endorsement of the Farrakhan farce. By averting its gaze from Clinton's endorsement, the ADL does more than give Farrakhan a pass. It tacitly implies that among Democrats and liberals there can be legitimate differences of opinion concerning the degrees to which overt anti-Semitism may be employed in advancing the causes of party-faithful bigots.

[Ralph]

I'm sure there's an article out there supporting every conceivable canard. The fact is that Pizza posted an article alleging the ADL for some reason refrains from noting Farrakhan's extreme anti-Semitism. The article's allegation is false.

[pizza]

I'm sure there's an article out there supporting every conceivable canard. The fact is that Pizza posted an article alleging the ADL for some reason refrains from noting Farrakhan's extreme anti-Semitism. The article's allegation is false.

I'm sure anyone who reads the article with understanding and within its context can see that the above allegation is inaccurate and misses the point. The author made no statement whatsoever regarding the ADL's general policy toward Farrakhan beyond the specific issue he raised, much less suggesting that "refrain[ing] from noting Farrakhan's extreme anti-Semitism" is its policy. It accurately notes Clinton's support for Farrakhan's proposed march and the ADL's silence regarding that support. That Farrakhan benefits from Clinton's support and the ADL's silence regarding his support is beyond serious debate, and is the obvious basis of the author's conclusion.

Not surprisingly there has been no discussion of that point.

[Ralph]

Pizza,

Does Farrakhan enjoy any lesser degree of First Amendment protection with regard to marches than, say, the Jewish defense League?

What is meant by the comment that Clinton supported Farrakhan's right to march?

[pizza]

Pizza,

Does Farrakhan enjoy any lesser degree of First Amendment protection with regard to marches than, say, the Jewish defense League?

What is meant by the comment that Clinton supported Farrakhan's right to march?

Members of the Klan, the American Nazi Party and other hate groups also have 1st Amendment protection. Isn't there a practical difference between legally supporting the "right [of a hate group] to march" and a public figure such as Clinton actually encouraging such a march? Shades of Skokie.

According to Feder, Clinton gave an interview and was quoted by the Amsterdam News on 4 May of this year as calling the Farrakhan march "a very positive idea". He also retroactively endorsed the 1995 march. He made no reference to the 1st Amendment as justification for his endorsement.

There was not a word of criticism in his endorsement about Farrakhan's overt anti-Semitism, or his alliance in organizing the march with Malik Zulu Shabazz, whose public call for the outright murder of Jewish men, women and children makes Julius Streicher look like a yeshiva student by comparison.

Interestingly, the article began with the following statement: "Former President Bill Clinton said that he supports the efforts of African American leaders who are organizing the Million More March, a national gathering of Blacks scheduled to take place in October in Washington, D.C, a decade after the Million Man March was convened."

If Clinton was accurately paraphrased by the author of that article, he considers Farrakhan and Shabazz "African American leaders".

[Ralph]

Unfortunately I'm dealing with a fever and chills today so my response will be brief. As I've previously posted I supported then the Skokie permit applicants aka the Scumbag Nazis and I have never altered my view.

I wonder if there's any president whose comments at times weren't ill advised.

[herman]

No wonder the Arabs are having such resounding success turning Europeans spokesmen for the Arab agenda.

The "Arabs", the "Europeans", it's quite a little cartoon world you got there, and everything fits your silly blinkered preconceptions. If the WH (the "Americans"?) reaches a position it's the product of well-considered rationication; when, for instance, Chirac (that's the "Europeans" for you) takes one, he's obviously been bought or pushed.

It's a genetical matter, I suppose, and I wouldn't be suprised if you came up with long web "articles" supporting this.

Funny how I can't get that image of Bush walking hand in hand with that sheikh out of my head as I'm writing this. Funny, too, how in the US the political sky is falling as gas prices at the pump reach a level that is, oh, about a third of what they are here, where the electorate has not been pampered into believing guzzling gas is one's birthright.

[Werner]

Herman: Right on!

Ralph: feel better!

[pizza]

No wonder the Arabs are having such resounding success turning Europeans spokesmen for the Arab agenda.

The "Arabs", the "Europeans", it's quite a little cartoon world you got there, and everything fits your silly blinkered preconceptions. If the WH (the "Americans"?) reaches a position it's the product of well-considered rationication; when, for instance, Chirac (that's the "Europeans" for you) takes one, he's obviously been bought or pushed.

It's a genetical matter, I suppose, and I wouldn't be suprised if you came up with long web "articles" supporting this.

Funny how I can't get that image of Bush walking hand in hand with that sheikh out of my head as I'm writing this. Funny, too, how in the US the political sky is falling as gas prices at the pump reach a level that is, oh, about a third of what they are here, where the electorate has not been pampered into believing guzzling gas is one's birthright.

Everything is funny to Herman. When a lengthy, well-reasoned and well-documented article is posted that he doesn't agree with, the Internet becomes a useless source of information. When a one-liner is posted in response to his absurd dismissal of a serious problem, it represents a "cartoon world".

You may not know it, Hermie, but a cartoon can say in one concise picture what all your snide and cynical attacks never can nor ever will.

[Ralph]

I certainly agree with Pizza about cartoons. I have several original, framed Thomas Nast cartoons which directly led to the downfall of New York Tammany Hall's Boss Tweed.

[Barry]

It's a genetical matter, I suppose.....

Oh really. And what's Europe's excuse? If Bush pulled you out of a burning building, you'd tell him to throw you back because he couldn't possibly be doing the right thing.

And while you go on with your "we're all just one big happy human family" fantasy, we'll continue to fight the war that was declared on us and will continue to be fought against both us and your side of the Atlantic, regarless of whether you choose to acknowledge it.

There is much I admire about European culture in terms of the arts and their secularism. But you guys have such massive problems at this point in terms of both your economies and your failure to acknowledge the nature of the threat facing you (and failure to take action in that regard, although there are some signs in Britain now) that I recommend worrying about your own house instead of dwelling on America's shortcomings.

In fact, your leaders should be taking a hint from this Australian:


Radical Muslims told to leave Australia
Wed Aug 24, 2:29 AM ET

SYDNEY (AFP) - Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law have been told to get out of Australia.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown.

Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament.

"If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national television.

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that that is false.

"If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country which practises it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked move to the other country.

Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off".

"Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he said.

Muslim schools will have to denounce terrorism as part of an effort to stamp out home-grown extremism under measures announced after Howard's meeting with 14 Islamic leaders Tuesday.

The prime minister called the meeting in the wake of last month's London bombings by British-born Muslims, amid fears that Australia could be the target of a similar attack by disaffected members of its small Muslim community.

"The purpose of the meeting was to identify ways of preventing the emergence of any terrorist behaviour in this country," Howard told commercial radio Wednesday.

"You won't change the minds of people who are hardened fanatics and hardened extremists. You have to identify them and take measures to ensure that they don't become a problem."

Asked if he was prepared to "get inside" mosques and schools to ensure there was no support for terrorism, Howard said: "Yes, to the extent necessary".

Britain, shaken by the rail and bus bombings which killed 56 people, is debating new powers which could include closing mosques where clerics are suspected of supporting extremists and deporting those who glorify suicide bombers.

Australia, which like Britain has troops in Iraq, is also contemplating tougher anti-terror legislation. which will be debated next month at a meeting between Howard and leaders of state governments.

Meanwhile, an Islamic youth organisation that was not invited to Howard's Tuesday meeting said it would call an alternative conference -- on September 11 -- for what it says is the 80 percent of Muslims who were not represented.

The Affinity Intercultural Foundation (AIF) told national radio it wants to try to change the date's association with Islamic violence, and to highlight how mainstream Muslims have become victims of prejudice and bias.

AIF director Mehmet Saral said Muslims were feeling more victimised than at any other time in their history of living in Australia.

Some 300,000 Muslims make up just 1.5 percent of Australia's population of 20 million.

[Donald Isler]

Anyone who says Farrakhan makes David Duke look like a "Hadassah lady" has such an ignorance of history that I wouldn't take much else he says seriously.

Does anyone remember what David Duke, whom we all agree is an anti-Semite, ALMOST accomplished? No??

In his 1990 race for the U.S. Senate from Louisiana, and in his 1991 race for the governorship of that state, he received a MAJORITY of white votes!

(He only lost because a minority of whites and all the blacks voted against him. But his having won either of those races was a distinct possibility.)

Sure, Farrakhan is trouble, but no way will he ever be a threat on that level.

[Modernistfan]

The scariest thing about that Duke/Louisiana race is that he might well have won in a state other than Louisiana. A lot of the Cajuns in south Louisiana did not like him. (At one point, Duke had written an article calling for the Cajuns to be deported to Canada.) He did far better in the mostly Protestant northern sections of Louisiana (around Shreveport) than in the south, which is heavily Catholic (the French influence). Farrakhan may be an antisemite, which I do not doubt for a minute, but he is not really a threat on that level. I can't see Farrakhan getting elected dogcatcher, even in a mostly African-American district.

[pizza]

Anyone who says Farrakhan makes David Duke look like a "Hadassah lady" has such an ignorance of history that I wouldn't take much else he says seriously.

Does anyone remember what David Duke, whom we all agree is an anti-Semite, ALMOST accomplished? No??

In his 1990 race for the U.S. Senate from Louisiana, and in his 1991 race for the governorship of that state, he received a MAJORITY of white votes!

(He only lost because a minority of whites and all the blacks voted against him. But his having won either of those races was a distinct possibility.)

Sure, Farrakhan is trouble, but no way will he ever be a threat on that level.

Ignorance of history? Here are some Farrakhan quotes from an earlier article by Feder; these from a man who aspires to the presidency and is considered by some to be a major black leader in the country:

"In a February 27, 2005 speech in Chicago, the Nation of Islam leader proclaimed: "Listen, Jewish people don’t have no hands that are free of the blood of us (blacks) (sic.). They owned slave ships. They bought and sold us. They raped and robbed us."
In 1995 and 1998, at the same venue, Farrakhan disclosed that besides running the trans-Atlantic slave trade, Jews also financed the Holocaust. ("German Jews financed Hitler right here in America.")
Though few in numbers, in the world according to Louie, Jews control American foreign policy. ("The war in Iraq is not your war; that’s Israel’s war… The rudder that is turning America is not your elected officials; it’s that small, influential group of (Jewish) neo-conservatives that are using America’s power to destroy the enemies of Israel.")
He doesn’t hate Jews, Farrakhan pleads. It’s just that Hollywood Jews continually stereotype black people. And Jewish landlords and merchants cheat black folks. And Jewish agents and employers exploit them. "I don’t like the way you (Jews) leech on us. See a leech is somebody that sucks your blood, takes from you and don’t give you a damned thing. … . You become our manager. You become our agent."
Jews are, "wicked deceivers of the American people. You have sucked their blood. You are not real Jews (who everyone knows were black) You are the synagogue of Satan, and you have wrapped your tentacles around the US government, and you are deceiving and sending this nation to hell… . But if you choose to crucify me (subtle reference to the Deicide charge), know that Allah will crucify you."
Little wonder that you’ll usually find copies of notorious anti-Semitic tracts -- like "The Jews and Their Lies," "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews" (purporting to "document" Jewish control of the slave trade) and, that favorite of Aryan Nation-types and holy warriors alike, "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion") -- on sale at Farrakhan events, as they were at the 1995 March.
That Minister Farrakhan is concerned about alleged Jewish control of America, doesn’t mean he’s enamored of the Land of the Free. In a 1997 article in The Amsterdam News, Louie disclosed, "A decree of death has been passed on America. The judgment of God has been rendered and she must be destroyed." Farrakhan and God regularly exchange e-mails.
Doubtless, one reason Louis detests America is ‘cause it’s full of – Caucasians. Farrakhan: "White people are potential humans…they haven’t evolved yet." He has also been known to refer to the white race collectively as the "anti-Christ."
Although Farrakhan rarely pulls his punches, there are things he’d rather not say directly. So, in organizing the next Million Morons March, he’s partnered with one Malik Zulu Shabazz, leader of the (anti-Semitic/racist) New Black Panther Party. At a 2002 protest in front of the B’nai B’rith building in Washington DC, Zulu Shabazz told the mob: "Kill every goddamn Zionist (Jew )in Israel. Goddamn little babies. Goddamn old ladies. Blow up Zionist super-markets!"

He'll never be a threat on Duke's level? What level of threat is acceptable? This is the scum whose upcoming march ex-President Clinton thinks is "a very good idea". That's an endorsement of his march by a former President of the US. That's something Duke couldn't buy for a ten million buck contribution to the Clinton Library.

[Donald Isler]

Paranoia, Pizza.

It's not very hard to assemble stupid statements full of garbage by good-for-nothings who don't like us.

Ain't no way he's going to be elected to any political position, let alone one of great prominence.

Duke almost was. Twice. By people who, no doubt, are right-wing Republicans, like yourself.

[pizza]

Paranoia, Pizza.

It's not very hard to assemble stupid statements full of garbage by good-for-nothings who don't like us.

Ain't no way he's going to be elected to any political position, let alone one of great prominence.

Duke almost was. Twice. By people who, no doubt, are right-wing Republicans, like yourself.

Cheap shot, Donald. I'm neither a right-wing Republican nor one who would vote for Duke, any more than as a left-wing Democrat you are likely to vote for Farrakhan, or Sharpton, or Jackson. Did I miss anyone?

If you think election to office is the only way a demagogue with a large following can hurt us, you don't know squat about politics.

[Donald Isler]

Obviously you wouldn't vote for Duke. And I wouldn't vote for the other bums. Also, by the way, I don't consider myself a particularly left-wing Democrat.

But I don't think we Jews face a greater danger here than that someone as rotten as any of them gets elected Senator or Governor. Duke came mighty close. And who do you think almost elected him? Left-wingers? CLINTON SUPPORTERS???

For that matter, it wasn't because of LEFT-WING anti-Semitism in Europe that my parents and their families came here as refugees.

My real point is that both extremes are bad for the country, and for us.

[pizza]

Obviously you wouldn't vote for Duke. And I wouldn't vote for the other bums. Also, by the way, I don't consider myself a particularly left-wing Democrat.

But I don't think we Jews face a greater danger here than that someone as rotten as any of them gets elected Senator or Governor. Duke came mighty close. And who do you think almost elected him? Left-wingers? CLINTON SUPPORTERS???

For that matter, it wasn't because of LEFT-WING anti-Semitism in Europe that my parents and their families came here as refugees.

My real point is that both extremes are bad for the country, and for us.

The history of our country is replete with instances where demagogues who knew they stood little if any chance of being elected to office influenced large segments of the population and were responsible for electing many politicians who believed and thought as they did.

Examples?

During the early 1920s, the KKK was responsible for electing 16 U.S. Senators and many Representatives and local officials. By about 1924, when the Klan had reached its peak in numbers and influence, it claimed to control 24 of the nation's 48 state legislatures. It even succeeded that year in blocking the nomination of Al Smith for president at the Democratic National Convention.

The approximately three million members of the Klan after WW1 were quite open and proud of their activities. Many of them were small-business owners, independent professionals, clerical workers, and farmers. They marched in parades, patronized Klan merchants, and voted for Klan-endorsed political candidates. The Klan was extremely successful in most of the South and especially in Oklahoma and Indiana. Historians once considered the Klan as a bunch of misfits and rural red necks. More recent scholarship shows that members were a cross-section of native Protestants and that many were women and quite a few lived in urban areas.

They practically ran the State of Indiana during the early '20s. The leader of Indiana's Klan was a demagogue named D. C. Stephenson who took control of the Klan in Indiana and for all practical purposes was more influential than any elected official. A crowd of about 200,000 attended one Klan gathering in Kokomo in 1923. It took the kidnapping and sexual assault of a woman for which he was convicted to bring him down.

There were other demagogues who never ran for office. I personally remember the radio broadcasts of Father Charles E. Coughlin who had a huge nationwide following in the '30s. His influence was enormous. Millions of people listened to his weekly radio broadcast. According to some network figures, at the height of his popularity one-third of the nation was tuned into his weekly broadcasts. In the early '30s he was one of the most influential men in America. His sermons included attacks on prominent Jewish figures and Judaism. The damage he caused to the country's social structure was tremendous.

David Duke is small change by comparison. Farrakhan, on the other hand, seems to have taken his cue from the Klan and the way it operated.

[Ralph]

While there' s much in Pizza's comments that I agree with, I also think there is oversimplification of history, both factual and conceptual.

Demagogues have played often blazingly public roles in attracting attention to causes most of which were and are vile. But rarely has such a person been even remotely successful unless two factors obtained. The first is that the actor stokes fires already smoldering if not incandescently bright. The second is that no demagogue has ever been widely followed if he (and rarely she) was a "one trick pony," a person whose sole issue was an aspect of bigotry be it racism or anti-Semitism.

The Ku Klux Klan was an organization originally created to repress blacks. But in the 1920s it also pursued a broad agenda not only of white supremacy but of class-based economics. As Frederick Allen White, the famous journalist, noted one could identify the class of Klan members when they appeared in their robes by the quality of their footwear. And, of course, the Klan never created racism or anti-Catholicism. It fed the appetite of millions of ignorant or bigoted persons who could without participation endorse publicly or privately Klan values.

Pizza refers to Father Couglin whose scripts I've read and broadcasts I've listened to but not, like him, at first hearing. Coughlin was an anti-Semite but he was also a person who with sermon and cash backed many progressive issues and was taken as a leader for reasons unconnected to his hatred-mongering. Take, for example, the Bonus Army of 1932, the World War I veterans who descended on Washington demanding payment of a due-in-1945 bonus. Coughlin supported them eloquently and with material support earning him widespread respect and, of course, an audience to hear his other viewpoints.

Huey Long? He is still adored by many very elderly Louisianans not all of whom are rabid racists. In one of his least known movie roles Paul Newman played the governor, emphasizing the human qualities that lower class folks could identify with. Long was a very serious challenger to many political positions including that of F.D.R. and in most instances race had nothing to do with his popularity.

A society that vigorously protects Free Speech will always have demagogues whether they are anti-Semites or animal rights extremists.
A David Duke is a natural emergence of individual forensic and rhetorical talent married to latent and still powerful bigotry. But these people generally fall far short of their goals because it's society that has significantly changed and a Father Coughlin today, or Farrakhan if one wishes, can garner publicity, raise money but in the end have very little impact on elections, politics or much else that's central.

That doesn't mean that people like Farrakhan should be ignored. Quite the opposite. But the past instructs-it doesn't predict or control.

[Chanan]

Here's another example of the ADL strongly condemning Farrakhan.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/NatIsl_81/4707_12.htm

[pizza]

Here's another example of the ADL strongly condemning Farrakhan.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/NatIsl_81/4707_12.htm

It wasn't alleged in the lead article that the ADL never condemned Farrakhan. The author didn't say that the ADL had a general policy of ignoring Farrakhan. The issue he raised was the ADL's failure to condemn Clinton's endorsement of Farrakhan's march, thereby ignoring the benefit Farrakhan derives from the endorsement of a former president.

Can you post a link where the ADL condemns Clinton's endorsement of Farrakhan's march?