Marrying Gays to the Zionist Cause

11:46 a.m. EDT October 29, 2014

684 37 LINKEDIN 51 COMMENTMORE

Senate candidate J.D. Ford wanted to make a simple point during a recent political forum: If a business benefits from public services, then it shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against any member of the public.

But that’s not quite what Ford said when he responded to a question about whether businesses should be allowed to refuse services to customers for religious reasons.

“I think if that’s the case, then those businesses need to hire their own private security,” Ford said. “I think those businesses need to have a pail for water to put out their own fire.”

Those comments drew sharp criticism from social conservatives, who quickly called attention to a video clip of Ford’s comments during an Oct. 21 candidates forum sponsored by the Jewish Community Relations Council.

“I ask, Mr. Ford, if a Jewish printer doesn’t want to print signs for a gay rights rally that promotes behavior contrary to the Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians call the Old Testament), his or her business should burn if it catches fire?” Curt Smith, president of the conservative Indiana Family Institute, said in a blog post.

Ford, a Democrat, dismissed the criticism, calling it a “desperate attempt” to distort the meaning of his comments.

“I don’t think businesses should discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation,” he said. “Public services do not discriminate. I was trying make that comparison there.”

Ford, who is gay, is locked in a competitive race with state Sen. Mike Delph, a Carmel Republican and one of the legislature’s most outspoken opponents of gay marriage.

“I was saddened to hear him express such intolerance for those of us that hold deep religious conviction,” Delph told The Star. “Religious liberty is a fundamental American ideal.”

Earlier this year, Delph pushed hard to get an measure on the November ballot that would have banned same-sex marriage in Indiana’s constitution. That effort failed.

The U.S. Supreme Court later rejected an appeal of a lower-court ruling that legalized gay marriage in Indiana and several other states. That decision rendered the constitutional amendment moot.

Now, some conservative advocacy groups want lawmakers to pass legislation during the upcoming session that would protect businesses that deny services to same-sex couples or others for religious reasons.

Delph said he couldn’t comment on legislation he hasn’t seen. But he said “people of faith should not have their conscience coerced by government.”

Chris Paulsen, president of Indiana Equality Action, said her group would oppose such a measure. She defended Ford’s comments.

The creation last October of the Jewish American Affairs Committee of Indiana (JAACI) flew under the media radar screen, at least outside of Indiana. But the new group may prove to be a harbinger of a growing split in the American Jewish community.

Once, Israel served to unify the bickering factions of US Jewry; today, it is more often a source of heightened tensions.

JAACI came into existence as an alternative to the local Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC), the advocacy wing of the local Jewish Federation.

The local JCRC pointedly left out of its mission statement the second goal of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the national umbrella organization of local JCRCs: “To dedicate ourselves to the safety and security of the state of Israel.” Like many other JCRCs across America, it focused its advocacy efforts primarily on “social justice issues,” such as opposing the school voucher initiative of Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels – which holds the promise of substantially boosting Jewish parochial education.

JCRC-sponsored programs devoted to Israel typically included “pro-Palestinian” voices to maintain balance.

JAACI’s first scheduled event was addressed by the current speaker of the Indiana House, Brian Bosma, who expressed appreciation for new views being heard for the first time from the organized Jewish community. JAACI, for instance, actively supported school vouchers, and it crafted a pro-Israel resolution that unanimously passed both houses of the Indiana legislature, reaffirming the right of Israel, America’s “greatest friend and ally,” to defend itself.

THE BREAKAWAY from the JCRC in Indiana will likely prove the first of many such reactions to the perceived passivity of the traditional communal organizations on Israel. Plans are well advanced to create an alternative to the local JCRC in one of America’s largest Jewish communities. An organization called JCC Watch has accused the New York Federationfunded Jewish Community Center of the Upper West Side of partnering with numerous organizations that support, directly or indirectly, organizations actively promoting the BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement against Israel.

The discontent among rank-and-file Jews has much to do with the federations’ politicization and seeming indifference to Israel’s image. The New York Federation has recently come under attack for providing over $1 million to the George Soros-funded Jewish Funds for Justice, which coordinated the January ad in The Wall Street Journal, signed by 400 heterodox rabbis calling for Fox News to sanction Glenn Beck for inappropriate Holocaust analogies. Beck, as anyone who watched his broadcasts after the recent Itamar slaughter knows, is one of Israel’s staunchest defenders in the media.

The Washington, DC Federation funds an anti- Israel Jewish theater troupe called Theater J. Among the recent offerings was Caryl Churchill’s Seven Jewish Children, a short play based on the metaphor of Israeli Jews as today’s Nazis. The theater company also sponsored a bus trip to a showing of the anti- Israel agitprop My Name is Rachel Corrie. The Orange County Federation and the Hillel at University of California, Irvine participate in the Olive Tree Initiative – two-week trips to Israel on which students are exposed to both Palestinian and Israeli speakers who share an animus for Israel. One of those early speakers was a prominent Hamas leader (whose participation the Federation subsequently protested).

Philadelphia’s JCRC recently sponsored a night on the theme of Jewish-Arab relations in Israel. Unnoted by any of the presenters was that Israeli Arabs enjoy political freedoms unknown to any other Arabs in the Middle East, as well as higher levels of prosperity, and are represented in Israeli universities in proportion to their percentage of the overall population.

At the recent General Assembly of Jewish Federations, $6m. was allocated to the creation of the Israel Action Network (IAN) to combat the BDS movement. Martin Raffel, vice president of the Jewish Council on Public Affairs, was chosen to head the new initiative. He argues that Jewish groups calling only for the boycott of goods produced beyond the 1949 armistice lines should not be treated as outside the communal tent. Thus the head of the mainstream community’s anti-boycott efforts legitimates this tactic.

Perhaps most ominous is the recent appointment of Richard Jacobs to head the Union of Reform Judaism, which claims to represent the largest group of synagogue-affiliated Jews in America. Jacobs sits on the boards of both J Street and the New Israel Fund. The former actively opposed sanctions against Iran, is currently working against a congressional resolution urging the administration to take a tougher stand on Palestinian incitement, enthusiastically endorsed the Goldstone Report and escorted its author around Capitol Hill, and urged the Obama administration not to veto a UN Security Council resolution condemning the illegality of the settlements.

NOWHERE HAS the failure of the mainstream organizations been more obvious than on university campuses.

They have failed to protect Jewish students or to provide them with the information and resources necessary to defend themselves against relentless anti-Israel propaganda. The Zionist Organization of America is the only long-time mainstream organization actively involved in the defense of Jewish students.

When it comes to speakers and information, the bulk of the heavy lifting is being done by smaller groups: CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting), the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Chabad, and the Aish HaTorah-affiliated Hasbara Fellowships.

Jessica Felber, a Berkeley student, sued the University of California for “ignoring mounting evidence of anti-Jewish animus” and “physical intimidation and violence by Students for Justice in Palestine,” after the leader of the latter group slammed her from behind with a loaded shopping cart as she held aloft a sign proclaiming “Israel wants peace.”

And Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, a lecturer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, finally prevailed upon the Justice Department to open an investigation of her own university under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, for permitting an environment in which “professors, academic departments, and residential colleges promote and encourage anti-Israel, anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish views and behaviors.”

Felber and Rossman-Benjamin’s efforts to fight back were supported by the ZOA and little-known groups such the Institute for Jewish Community Research and The Fellowship for Campus Safety and Integrity. Meanwhile, the American Jewish Committee’s Kenneth Stern publicly criticized the use of Title VI on behalf of Jewish students.

Even the most Jewishly identified students become apologetic, if not absolutely cowed, when the subject of Israel arises. The David Horowitz Freedom Center took out an ad in the Brown University paper entitled “The Palestinian Wall of Lies.”

A group of students affiliated with Brown’s Hillel wrote to the paper to criticize the “Islamophobic and racist” nature of the ad, and opined that such “spiteful and bigoted words” should not be permitted in the Brown community. The letter did not quote one word from the advertisement, much less refute its wholly unremarkable statements. Interestingly, none of the same students had written to protest Israel Apartheid Week or criticize the Muslim Students Association for sponsoring it. Similar responses to the Horowitz ad were sent by Jewish students at University of Pennsylvania and Yale.

IN 1990, James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, explained on Jordanian TV that a powerful Arab lobby could conquer the campuses and media. Their key allies, he said, would be Jewish progressives.

The latter have fulfilled their assigned role.

Thirty professors of Jewish studies recently signed a petition urging Orange County prosecutors to drop charges against Arab students who tried to prevent Ambassador Michael Oren from speaking at UC Irvine. Criminal prosecution would be antithetical to an “academic and intellectual environment,” they wrote, though presumably forcibly preventing pro- Israel speakers from being heard is not.

Many left-wing Jews no longer wish to be bothered by arguments or facts about the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Israel has made their lives uncomfortable, and as far as they are concerned, it should just give the Palestinians whatever they want already. The late Tony Judt, a kibbutz volunteer as a teenager, epitomized the trend.

In his famous New York Review of Books piece, Judt labeled Israel (but none of the 57 or so Muslim countries) an “atavism,” based on a religious-ethnic identity, that should disappear. At the end of his long diatribe, he let drop his real gripe: Israel had made faculty sherry hours unpleasant for him.

New Yorker editor David Remnick follows in Judt’s footsteps: “Even people like me, who understand that not only one side is responsible for the conflict and that the Palestinians missed a historic opportunity for peace in 2000, can’t take it any more,” he writes. “Sorry, it can’t go on this way,” he lectures us, instructing us to accept whatever President Barack Obama suggests. If that is how Jewish adults react to criticism, how can we expect college students to do any better? That American Jews can no longer rally around Israel is a tragedy. But it would be a far greater tragedy if those Jews who identify with the Jewish state and are comfortable defending it continued to let ineffectual communal organizations speak for them.

The writer is the director of Jewish Media Resources, has written a regular column in The Jerusalem Post Magazine since 1997 and is the author of eight biographies of modern Jewish leaders.

The Indianapolis JCRC’s mission statement is notable in two respects.  The first is that while it adopts nearly verbatim the first and third goals of its parent organization, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), it tellingly leaves out the JCPA’s second goal — “To dedicate ourselves to the safety and security of the state of Israel.”  Second, while the mission statement suggests the JCRC is receptive and amenable to the wide range of viewpoints that exist within the Jewish community, the reality is that the priorities and agenda at the organization were set by individuals with a very narrow and highly ideological point-of-view.  This stance tilted heavily towards a liberal political, economic and social agenda, especially when compared to the wan, meager, and often conflicted support it gave efforts to safeguard Jews, both here and abroad. 

In the last year such issues predictably included voting against school vouchers and the defunding of Planned Parenthood and for the passage of something called the Child Nutrition Act.  In the meantime it studiously avoided addressing what are objectively demonstrable threats to the future of Indianapolis Jews, such as the epidemic of intermarriage that is rapidly thinning Jewish ranks and the profound lack of a basic Jewish education that afflicts so many, leading to community apathy and assimilation. 

B’nai Torah’s last representative on the JCRC, Elliot Bartky, spoke with a broad segment of the Jewish community around the state who shared B’nai Torah’s frustration and were convinced of the need to start a new statewide Jewish organization unequivocally committed to Israel’s defense and the promotion of traditional Jewish and American values. From these discussions the Jewish American Affairs Committee of Indiana (JAACI) was born.

In contrast to the JCRC, JAACI was established to advocate primarily on issues directly related to the security and well-being of the Jewish people and Israel.  In a span of a few months, this governing philosophy has garnered the support of the majority of Jewish congregational leaders in Indianapolis, the majority of rabbis in Indiana, as well as congregants from Indianapolis’ Reconstructionist, Conservative, Sephardi, and Ashkenazi Orthodox synagogues. In addition to its unequivocal support for Israel, JAACI’s stance on political, economic and social issues is shaped by traditional Jewish values and the enduring principles of the American Republic. 

This year, however, JAACI was invited to testify before the House on this matter, during which they expressed strong support for the bill, which could strengthen formal Jewish educational opportunities in Indiana.  JAACI has also been consulted by the House and Senate leadership on other social, political, and economic issues. Although it has not testified on all the issues where its input was sought it has clearly become a voice state leaders are interested in hearing.

Mike Delph (born January 12, 1970) is a Republican member of the Indiana State Senate representing the 29th district since 2005. He is considered to be a “socially conservative Republican”,[2] who has courted support from the Tea Party movement.[3] Delph is known for his immigration legislation and his support for an Indiana Constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages and unions.[4][5] He is frequently mentioned and has shown interest in representing Indiana in state-wide office or in US Congress.

Ford, a Democrat, dismissed the criticism, calling it a “desperate attempt” to distort the meaning of his comments.

“I don’t think businesses should discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation,” he said. “Public services do not discriminate. I was trying make that comparison there.”

Ford, who is gay, is locked in a competitive race with state Sen. Mike Delph, a Carmel Republican and one of the legislature’s most outspoken opponents of gay marriage.

“I was saddened to hear him express such intolerance for those of us that hold deep religious conviction,” Delph told The Star. “Religious liberty is a fundamental American ideal.”

Earlier this year, Delph pushed hard to get an measure on the November ballot that would have banned same-sex marriage in Indiana’s constitution. That effort failed.

The U.S. Supreme Court later rejected an appeal of a lower-court ruling that legalized gay marriage in Indiana and several other states. That decision rendered the constitutional amendment moot.

Now, some conservative advocacy groups want lawmakers to pass legislation during the upcoming session that would protect businesses that deny services to same-sex couples or others for religious reasons.

Delph said he couldn’t comment on legislation he hasn’t seen. But he said “people of faith should not have their conscience coerced by government.”

Chris Paulsen, president of Indiana Equality Action, said her group would oppose such a measure. She defended Ford’s comments.

But certainly JAACI’s crowning achievement was crafting and helping organize support for a bipartisan, concurrent pro-Israel resolution that unanimously passed both chambers of the Indiana Legislature.  Co-authored in the House by Speaker Bosma (R) and Rep. Ed DeLaney (D) and in the Senate by Senator Mike Delph (R), the resolution expresses “steadfast commitment” and support by the State of Indiana for Israel, its “greatest friend and ally” in the Middle East.  It also supports Israel’s right to act in self-defense and strongly criticizes attempts by the UN, various nations, and other actors to harm or delegitimize Israel.  To our knowledge, this is the first resolution to be passed by any state that expresses full support for Israel without directly addressing the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcktnzRP-1Y

Based on the responses of 1,000 likely 2016 voters, the poll found that more than half (55 per cent) of people supported gay marriage.

18-29 year-olds were most likely to vote in favour of equal marriage, with 75 per cent signalling their support. Backing decreased directly with age, with 40 per cent of people aged 65 plus saying they felt favourably towards gay marriage.

And around a third (33 per cent) of Republicans said they supported same-sex marriage.

The study also found that people’s overall attitudes towards homosexual people has changed in recent years.

In 2011, 40 per cent of people said they felt favourably towards gays and lesbians, compared to 55 per cent in 2014.

33 per cent of respondents who said they had become more accepting in recent years said that knowing someone who was gay had impacted upon their attitudes.

Gay marriage is currently legalised in 17 US states, as well as the District of Colombia.

Nearly 8 in 10 people said they believed that if gay marriage was made legal nationwide, there would be less discrimination, it would be easier to grow up gay, and same-sex families would have more protection.

The first same-sex marriages took place in the UK on Saturday.

Prime Minister David Cameron hailed the change in the law.

“For the first time, the couples getting married won’t just include men and women – but men and men, and women and women,” he said.

“When people’s love is divided by law, it is the law that needs to change.”

Gay people are viewed more favourably than evangelicals, according to a poll commissioned by an American LGBT rights group.

In the survey by Human Rights Campaign and Americans for Marriage Equality fifty three per cent of people said they felt favourably towards gays and lesbians, compared to 42 per cent towards evangelicals.

18 per cent of people said they viewed gays ad lesbians unfavourably, compared to 28 per cent for evangelicals.

Entitled “Victory in Sight”, the study was conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and TargetPoint Consulting and aimed to investigate people’s changing attitudes towards same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general.


Read more:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/04/challenging_the_leftist_domina.html#ixzz3WTXDuTzw

About Royal Rosamond Press

I am an artist, a writer, and a theologian.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Marrying Gays to the Zionist Cause

  1. Reblogged this on Rosamond Press and commented:

    How long did Jewish Rabbis know the Tribe of Dan were not Jews? The Conservative Supreme Court that might be member of the Rapture Cult, have made it harder for black people to vote – while at the same time wanting the Jews to rebuild the temple so Jesus will come back for them – just them? Trumpism is now a cult. When will his stature be made?

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.