Am I paranoid over the possibility of increasing incidents of anti-Semitic violence?
No.
Am I concerned?
Sure.
The watchword of the Holocaust is “Never again.” Look what happened in Germany: Violence against minorities. People deprived of liberty without due process. The existence of organized anti-Semitic hate groups. Citizens who had committed no crime, rounded up and stuck into relocation camps.
Except…gee…over the last sixty years, those have all happened here as well. And now our commander in chief is suggesting changing the Constitution to formalize a bigotry against gays…a people who, y’know, were just adored by Hitler (who was, by the way, a very religious individual.)
So don’t tell me I’m overreacting, and don’t tell me that such things could never happen here, because such things *have* happened here. The only question is, will they happen again and to what degree.
Now me, I don’t especially care to find out. Don’t get me wrong: It’s not like I’m lying awake at night, listening for the sounds of rocks being thrown through my front windows while people scream “Dirty Jews!” (the incident which–when it happened to him–prompted my paternal grandfather to pack up his family and move the hëll out of pre-WWII Berlin while it was still possible to get out.) But there continues to be a nagging concern in the back of my mind, and frankly, considering a grand thousands-of-years tradition of people trying to kill Jews, I don’t think the concern is exactly misplaced.
PAD
• 
“In regards to using the full faith and credit clause to say that 4 judges in Massachusetts have legalized gay marriage has failed to remember the Federal Defence of Marriage Act, which basically eliminates the full faith and credit clause from having any bearing on marriage, since states now have the right to ignore any same-sex marriage performed in another state.”
I’m sorry, but should Massachusetts, or any other state, specifically permit homosexuals to marry, the hollowness of the so-called “Defense of Marriage” act would be exposed. No act of Congress is supposed to be permitted to contradict the Constitution, and DOMA clearly violates both the spirit and the word of Article V.
Based on the ideas behind DOMA, perhaps I should petition my Congresscritter to work on passing legislation saying that creditors in one state cannot force debts to be paid by residents of another state – that’d sure clear up my credit rating! 🙂
Posted by Rich (way further up the list):
They controlled the media and censored those that did not agree with them. (Notice the sudden increase in censorship since the superbowl.)
Where? What censorship? Are you talking about the Grammys, and the Oscars tomorrow, being broadcast with a 5 second delay? That’s not censorship. The purpose is to prevent certain offensive words or actions from hitting the public airwaves. You do realize that most radio stations use a 5-7 second delay when taking any calls from the public, don’t you? And this was goin on LONG before this year’s Superbowl incident. And the delay at the Oscars is for that alone. If Tim Robbins or Sean Penn (or any other person in front of the microphones) want to go on a rant like Michael Moore did last year, there are no time constraints. The only thing that might get cut off is a word or two if they fit the FCC’s definiton of obsecnity.
I’m fairly certain that is a form of censorship, and yes I’m aware that it occurs on the radio. Which brings me to an example of what I was thinking about. Howard Stern and other radio personalities are being removed or fired from certain radio stations based on new pressure brought on by the FCC because of the Superbowl incident. Bleeping is one thing, but removing programs from the air which were acceptable the day before and for 20 years before that is too much censorship in my opinion. I advocate people’s rights to watch and listen to what they want to, and I also advocate their rights to not do so, but I do not advocate other people telling me what I can or can not watch, listen or read. I don’t even listen to Howard Stern or any radio personalities on a regular basis, but I support other people’s rights to do so.
Regarding Guantanamo: we held prisoners for years during WWII. If anything, they’re too lax. One of the released detainees went back to fighting with the Taliban. Some Russian detainees mothers don’t want them released, since it’s better than a Russian prison. One called it a resort. Meanwhile, france has been holding prisoners in a 1995 bomb plot without a trial for seven years.
Anti-semitism: French Jews are beaten on the streets of Paris — and their parents are arrested for saying it’s anti-semitism. The chief rabbi warns men not to wear yarmulkes in public. The problem is so bad the EU commisioned a study on it, which they promptly suppressed. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1070259994583
Enter jpost/jpost.
Here in the US, it’s mostly at universities: http://www.instapundit.com/archives/014360.php
Adbusters is naming Jews in the vast neocon conspiracy: http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/002366.html
As George Will said, anti-catholism used to be the anti-semitism of the left. Now anti-semitism is the anti-semitism of the left. PAD seems to be in denial of this.
Opposing gay marriage: if this makes one a bigot, then so are a lot of Jews. One prominent Orthodox rabbiwas recently criticized for forming a group of religious leaders opposed to gay marriage that included a Muslim cleric with terrorist ties.
Full Faith and Credit Clause: “Historically, marriage has never been one of the “public acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings” that the Full Faith and Credit clause mandates are transportable from state to state. If that had been the case, we would never have had a struggle over inter-racial marriage. As soon as one northern state legalized it, it would have been legal in every Southern state. (Civil divorce, ironically, is such an institution. It is the result of a judicial proceeding. Civil marriage, in contrast, is a license.) It has long been established law that the states have a public policy exception to recognizing marriages from other states; and Massachusetts’ marriage licenses, to cite the current controversy, are even issued on the condition that they are void elsewhere if unapproved in other states. So the notion that four judges in Massachusetts can impose civil marriage for gays on an entire country is simply mistaken. Some argue that activist courts these days will over-rule these precedents. But with 38 states explicitly saying they won’t recognize such marriages; with the Defense of Marriage Act backing that up; the likelihood is minimal.” From Andrew Sullivan.
I don’t understand the arguement that somehow expanding marriage to include gays somehow reduces the sanctity of marriage somehow. Heterosexuals have already done that since the beginning of the institution. I do not believe that the majority of heterosexuals marry because of love or because they want to preserve the ideology of the family unit either. I believe that the cause of all the divorces is because people get married for the wrong reasons. I’ve met so many people who have married because of greed or loneliness or simply because it was expected of them and if they didn’t they would be looked down on by their peers. Those reasons are all bull! I also believe that marrying simply to maintain the family unit and no other reason is morally wrong. People need to be in love to create a positive and happy environment for themselves and any children they may have. I have seen so many people live miserable lives and raise children with psychological wounds simply because they stay in a marriage that exists without love its mind-numbing. People who marry without love in their hearts are usually the ones who abuse their spouses and children, who cheat on their husbands and wives, or people who just flat out argue on a daily basis with each other. I really don’t see how gays can screw marriage up any worse then the heterosexual community can and I’ve seen just as many long-term gay couples in happy relationships as I have straight ones. Lets give the gays a chance, maybe we’ll learn something.
On a different note, I just rewatched V and V: The Final Battle miniseries and boy was I surprised at the similarities to the current political climate and the way the Visitors take over the Earth. It is scary close to reality right now. (Minus the aliens of course.)
Rich posted: I just rewatched V and V: The Final Battle miniseries and boy was I surprised at the similarities to the current political climate and the way the Visitors take over the Earth. It is scary close to reality right now. (Minus the aliens of course.)
Not sure about the “minus the aliens” part. Perhaps that’s just what they WANT us to think… 😉
I’m fairly certain that is a form of censorship, and yes I’m aware that it occurs on the radio. Which brings me to an example of what I was thinking about. Howard Stern and other radio personalities are being removed or fired from certain radio stations based on new pressure brought on by the FCC because of the Superbowl incident. Bleeping is one thing, but removing programs from the air which were acceptable the day before and for 20 years before that is too much censorship in my opinion. I advocate people’s rights to watch and listen to what they want to, and I also advocate their rights to not do so, but I do not advocate other people telling me what I can or can not watch, listen or read. I don’t even listen to Howard Stern or any radio personalities on a regular basis, but I support other people’s rights to do so.
Except that it was clear channel that pulled him, not the government, and all that will happen is another station in the market will pick him up.
I semi-agree with their actions as well. They came out a couple of days earlier and said look: “Here are our standards, and here is was we can and cannot do on our radio stations. You want to be on OUR stations, you follow these rules”. Two days later, Stern broke those rules (and yes, I know it was a caller, but radio has run on a delay for years to solve that issue. It’s called a “cough” button). It was obvious that Stern wasn’t interested in following those rules, so his show will be switching stations in a whole SIX markets. Whoop De Do!
DJs have been fired from the beginning of radio by the stations for saying things on the air they shouldn’t. From playing records out of rations, to cussing, or just because the station owners thought they were ugly. Not censorship, but business.
Now if the government came in the said they had to fire Stern, then it might be. (Even then, the use of public airwaves changes everything).
Jason
I personally don’t listen to Howard Stern either, but he didn’t do anything he hasn’t done many times before WITHOUT being fired. And part of the problem is that so few people own the airwaves today, that it is not so easy to find another market. We are slowly, but surely being forced to listen to fewer and fewer points of view. This is the trouble in all media today. How many of you live in a city with more than one major newspaper?
Look, if it’s “all for sanctity of marriage”, as most people against gay marriage say, could we make an amendment banning divorce?
Do THAT first, then talk to me about the sanctity of marriage.
Peace,
Larry
Except that it was clear channel that pulled him, not the government, and all that will happen is another station in the market will pick him up.
I semi-agree with their actions as well. They came out a couple of days earlier and said look: “Here are our standards, and here is was we can and cannot do on our radio stations. You want to be on OUR stations, you follow these rules”. Two days later, Stern broke those rules (and yes, I know it was a caller, but radio has run on a delay for years to solve that issue. It’s called a “cough” button). It was obvious that Stern wasn’t interested in following those rules, so his show will be switching stations in a whole SIX markets. Whoop De Do!
DJs have been fired from the beginning of radio by the stations for saying things on the air they shouldn’t. From playing records out of rations, to cussing, or just because the station owners thought they were ugly. Not censorship, but business.
Now if the government came in the said they had to fire Stern, then it might be. (Even then, the use of public airwaves changes everything).
Jason
Except as I said, the FCC is pressuring companies like Clearwater to remove these people from the airwaves. Granted, it was their decision and they folded like cardboard. Its not like Stern was suddenly picked up by them and they didn’t realize who they had. Their feelings on his program clearly changed even though Stern’s program had not. Just because it hasn’t been signed into law yet, doesn’t make it any less a form of censorship.
This thread, and some of the previous ones, is a great example of the internal conflict going on in our culture. On one side we have a morality coming from God as an extension of His character, and the on other side we have a combination of pragmatism, relativism, and universalism. The Old morality vs the New morality. Objective Truth vs subjective experience. If history shows us anything it is that human nature prefers to be in the dark, and will go through every means necessary to remain so. Society prefers that the wise man be on a mountain top somewhere far away, and the last place they want him is in the middle of everyday life. Just look at where it got Socrates and Jesus.
It boggles my mind how mankind can be so confused about things that should be pretty simple, such as morality.
Personally, I have a simple moral code that has always served me extraordinarily well. If I go through the day without causing harm to my fellow human beings, I’ve earned the right to look at myself in the mirror at night and say: “You did okay, pal”.
That is it.
If someone wants to have sex with 1, 5, or 10 partners of the same or different sex, what is the gøddámņ problem? If you want to worship God, Allah, Gaea or none of the above, be my guest. If you want to use drugs that will damage only yourself, go ahead.
The line is crossed when you hurt other people.
If a man (gay, straight or bissexual), forces someone, anyone, to have sex with him, then there is a problem. If a guy knows he has AIDS but fails to inform his partners of it, then there is a problem. If a guy snorts coke and then goes on to beat his Mom, then there is a problem. If a religious person wants to force someone else to abide by his own codes of behaviour, then there is a problem.
Simple.
And before someone accuses me of being a bleeding heart liberal, I also think it’s not moral to forbid people from owning guns (using those guns in others is a different matter, of course) or forcing people to pay taxes to grant reparations to african-americans who happen to be descended from slaves.
Jim Burdo wrote:
Full Faith and Credit Clause: “Historically, marriage has never been one of the “public acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings” that the Full Faith and Credit clause mandates are transportable from state to state. . . . So the notion that four judges in Massachusetts can impose civil marriage for gays on an entire country is simply mistaken.
What you have described is true of individual marriagaes. The Mass. case, however, is just that — a civil court case like any other, a separate judicial proceeding involving mulitple couples rather than an individual marriage, with the state an actual party to the litigation. So the Full Faith and Credit clause most certainly does apply.
Add in the Massachusetts constitutional issue, and the fact that the 10th amendment reserves this right to individual states, and the Mass. law does start to encroach on other states.
Of course, sometimes bigotry can be wacky. Just take this excerpt from Dictionary.com’s entry for the word “bigot”.
Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant “an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.” Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.”
And then there are these three definitions for the word “troll”, bringing the word count for that word’s entry up to an inexplicable 1,228 words. The amusing thing about the following is Dictionary.com’s academic rigor in exhausting all possible Internet uses of the word “troll”. (I, for one, can hardly wait to read their dissertation on the Internet acronym “LOL”.)
v.,n. 1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To
utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable
responses or flames; or, the post itself. Derives from the phrase
“trolling for newbies” which in turn comes from mainstream
“trolling”, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a
likely spot hoping for a bite. The well-constructed troll is a post
that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look
even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate
troll. If you don’t fall for the joke, you get to be in on it. See
also YHBT.
2. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by
the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand – they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly
creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming
characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of
life on the net, as in, “Oh, ignore him, he’s just a troll.”
3. [Berkeley] Computer lab monitor. A popular campus job for CS students. Duties include helping newbies and ensuring that lab policies are followed. Probably so-called because it involves lurking in dark cavelike corners.
Some people claim that the troll (sense 1) is properly a narrower
category than flame bait, that a troll is categorized by containing
some assertion that is wrong but not overtly controversial. See
also Troll-O-Meter.
Two other thoughts come to mind:
1) If frequency of use is the sole criterion for numerically ordering definitions, then numbers 1 and 2 ought to be switched around, since number 2 seems to be the one people have in mind when using the word “troll”.
2) I’ve literally never heard of definition 3 before. Is troll used in this context in computer labs outside of Berkeley?
-Dave O’Connell
That is mostly due to a very overworked and very, very slow justice system. For now, we don’t have anything like plea bargaining in France (although our Ministre de l’Int
Discord:
Can you provide references to back up your statements? Checking out the case law can be enlightening…
Probably too far down on the thread to be read by PAD (and if it is, ain’t procrastination a great thing?) but I have a question. It’s personal, none of my business, and so if you refuse to answer, no problemo:
(I’m not sure how to phrase this question, so please discern with a forgiving eye) What kind of Jewish person are you? Do you celebrate Jewish ceremonies? Believe Jewish theology? Or is it a racial/cultural thing?
No offense meant, I’m just curious. In the other thread I was going to make a naive statement about not being aware that anti-semitism actually exists in anyone under 50 (outside radical Muslims), but I checked myself. I really don’t understand it, at all, don’t know who exactly it’s directed at. Find it very sad.
And if you can find a single post in which you believe I’ve indicated I feel any other way about it, please point it out to me so I can clarify it. PAD
Just to clarify, I do not believe that you feel that way nor have I written anything to indicate that you did. The facts that a.) there quite a few large groups of people who do not wish for this movie to be seen and are pushing anyone they can to have it removed from theaters and b.)Mel Gibson has been threatened with blacklisting sets up a lot of red flags for someone who is used to seeing this site serve as a beachhead for free speech. I thought the point of view had been given short shrift here of all places and thought I would throw it into the mix.
I apologize if you inferred anything other than that from my comments. Perhaps I should have been clearer.
I’m going to go with the argument that Mel Gibson used in his interview on 20/20, when asked if he believed that the Jews killed Jesus, he replied No, they didn’t, I did, we did. Jesus didn’t let the Jews kill him so that we could say hate all the Jews, He let them kill Him because He wanted to forgive us all of our sins. If they hadn’t killed him, we would all be doomed to suffer eternally, or, someone else would have killed him.