Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Liberal Jews blast Trump for ‘hate speech’
Just liberals being liberals
The Reform movement harshly criticized Donald Trump’s “hate speech,” but backed AIPAC’s invitation of the Republican frontrunner to speak at its annual conference.
Reacting to Trump’s acceptance of the invitation on Friday, the Union for Reform Judaism and the Central Conference of American Rabbis on Monday called his campaign bigoted.
“His campaign has been replete with naked appeals to bigotry, especially against Hispanics and Muslims. Previous comments he has made – and not disavowed – have been offensive to women, people of color, and other groups. In recent days, increasingly, he appears to have gone out of his way to encourage violence at his campaign events. At every turn, Mr. Trump has chosen to take the low road, sowing seeds of hatred and division in our body politic,” the movement said in a statement.
The movement went on to compare Trump’s comments about American ethnic and religious groups to past treatment of Jews.
At the same time, the Union for Reform Judaism and the Central Conference of American Rabbis expressed understanding and support for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s decision.
SOURCE
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
So let me get this straight.
An organization made up of Jews…
…condemns Donald Trump for…
…condemning Muslims who, among other things, …
…target Jews for death.
Make sense to me… NOT! If anyone would support opposition to unrestrained Muslim immigration, I would think it would be those at the very top of Islam's target list!
Whatever happened to "Never again"?!?
How long before its a crime to say negative things about Obama and his dictatorship?
The odd thing is that the statement from the Reform Movement never uses the term "hate speech."
Furthermore, this is the type of reaction from a group that we should applaud and not condemn.
The group says (correctly in my opinion) that much of the rhetoric Trump has used is against their core beliefs. Yet they are still willing to extend an invitation for Trump to speak just as they are extending an invitation for all candidates to speak.
This seems to be more of a case where this group should be applauded for their approach to speech. While they disagree with Trump on issues at this time, they are willing to be gracious hosts and let Trump speak.
Instead of shutting Trump out of the event, they want him there.
Good for them in actually being willing to listen to someone with whom they disagree with at this time.
If anyone would support opposition to unrestrained Muslim immigration, I would think it would be those at the very top of Islam's target list!
It might make sense if your look at the statement and the Bible in which you say you believe:
We cannot remain silent, for we have been commanded to "remember the heart of the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt."
[Trump's] approach to immigration, his proposal to ban Muslims from entering our country, his comments speaking favorably about the use of torture, and his general demeanor of disrespect for the office he now seeks are all anathema to our fundamental values. The values we hold most dear – justice, mercy, compassion, peace – are altogether absent from Mr. Trump's statements.
The great sage Rabbi Hillel offered us guidance centuries ago, saying, "Do not do unto others what you would not want done to you." Jewish history is replete with times when political leaders, both at home and abroad, demonized the Jewish community much as Mr. Trump now demonizes Muslims, Hispanics, and African-Americans.
9:52,
You know what else it says about the stranger?
If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it. There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”
— Exodus 12:48–49
But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you
— Leviticus 18:26
And if a stranger sojourns among you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, according to the statute of the Passover and according to its rule, so shall he do. You shall have one statute, both for the sojourner and for the native.”
— Numbers 9:14
And if a stranger is sojourning with you, or anyone is living permanently among you, and he wishes to offer a food offering, with a pleasing aroma to the LORD, he shall do as you do. For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be alike before the LORD. One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who sojourns with you.”
— Numbers 15:14–16
In other words, the person who wanted to move into Israel had to obey the SAME laws. Can you show me passages where anyone can be as lawless as they like?
I'll wait.
Use the Name, Luke:
Nice deflection, but ultimately irrelevant.
I would hope that you are aware that in this country there is a presumption of innocence not a presumption of law breaking as you are asserting. If that has changed, can you provide the documentation when that change occurred?
I'll wait.
Also, do you think that every Muslim and refugee is one who would break the law? Can you show anything where that is the case that 100% of refugees and Muslims are going to break the law?
I'll wait.
Luke's usual deflecting tactics are obfuscation with prolix quote-mining and extracts from dictionaries, as well as multiple links.
What Trump actually said is much less than his critics allege
There is a LONG history in this country of "vetting" immigrants - of checking their backgrounds and making sure they do not mean to do us harm. That is not an assumption of guilt, but a withholding of trust until it is established. You don't invite people into your home willy nilly and let them spend the night without some form of trust being established that they do not mean to murder you in your sleep and rob you blind. This is not racism, it is good judgement based on the vast swath of human history.
To claim that a suspension of immigration by certain sub groups until vetting can be improved is somehow an assumption of guilt is specious at best. The FBI, the NSA, and the DHS have all said that ISIS and other Terror Groups are actively infiltrating the refugee stream - and that we do not currently have proper controls in place to prevent their entry along with the "orphans and widows." The liberal response seems to be "Well, we can't catch them all - I guess its better that we sacrifice an unknown number of US Citizens to ISIS rather than let any non-citizens suffer a little longer before entering our country."
Use your brains liberals if you still have any you havnt wasted on your drug and booze trips
A) I never said "all," "every," or "100%". That is putting words in my mouth. It's clearly not "zero", either.
B) "Presumption of innocence" applies to court cases. Guilt must be proven, and if it is not, innocence is presumed; not the other way around. That does not apply elsewhere, such as police stops or arrests, or immigration vetting.
C) Stan B is correct. That there are some makes it necessary to vet all so that those with a history or likely intent to commit crime—especially crimes of violence—are not permitted to victimize everyone who is here legally. Note that "here legally" includes both the native born and legal immigrants and visitors.
It is that enforcement of laws to protect its citizens that is the government's legitimate purpose. As I pointed out in direct response to "quote-mining", that enforcement applies to immigrants, too.
Use the Name Luke,
When someone tries to defend stopping people from immigration in certain demographics by quoting "they must obey the laws" passage, you are saying that people are guilty of a crime by association.
That does not apply elsewhere, such as police stops or arrests, or immigration vetting.
Wow. talk about ignorance. The presumption of innocence is still in place during all police stops. If I am walking down the street and a cop stops me, he'd better darn sight have a reason for a criminal detention. That presumption also applies in immigration vetting in that the question on forms is "have you ever been convicted of a crime in your country? rather than "show us that you have not been convicted of a crime in your country."
That there are some makes it necessary to vet all so that those with a history or likely intent to commit crime—especially crimes of violence—are not permitted to victimize everyone who is here legally.
Of course, you didn't say that initially. You blamed all Muslims for wanting to kill Jews when that is not the case.
The bottom line is still that this group should be applauded for wanting to hear Trump speak even though they fundamentally disagree with him.
This is not a case of being "tongue tied," but rather displaying the discernment and tolerance we should want from everyone.
Maybe all those hooligans disrupting trumps speeches should all be rounded up and sent to a zoo where other wild critter are
Post a Comment