Ideological Bigotry Part XVI–Yom Kippur and Lesbianism
On Wednesday night, I began the celebration of the holy day of Yom Kippur. The holiday is about apologizing for our transgressions, and promising to be better people. I have my private conversations with God, and vow sincerely to try and do better.
One thing I am truly thankful for is that there are many Synagogues within walking distance of home. Like other religions, Judaism has various denominations.
I live near UCLA, which has a Hille House. “Hillel” is the center for Jewish life on college campuses. Many colleges have a Hillel. Given that Hillel is specifically a place for students to feel welcome, it is supposed to be non-partisan. If you ask Hillel directors, they will claim that Hillel actually is non-Partisan. Then again, most liberals in the media think that they are fair as well, and perhaps Hillel truly believes its own leftist spin.
My goal here is not to bash Hillel. My goal is to reform it. I deeply believe in what Hillel is intended to do. I am even more deeply troubled by what it has become on many campuses, including UCLA.
I walked into the building to see some friends, and the service was nearing the end. I had already been to services at the local Chabad House, where the closest that the Rabbi came to political speech was to condemn the leader of Iran for wanting to kill all Jews.
Yet the Hillel guest speaker spent several minutes talking about gay and lesbian issues, and how it is important that gays and lesbians be treated better in society.
I was not in the room. I stayed in the back, outside the doors. As the speaker continued talking about gays and lesbians, and the intolerance of some, I just shook my head in disbelief. The more she spoke, the more I shook my head.
I was shaking my head specifically because I do not believe that politics should be a part of a religious service. Politics should especially not be part of a Synagogue service on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. It is simply inappropriate. I would argue it is borderline illegal, and that UCLA Hillel is coming close to violating the rules for a tax exempt organization.
Liberal activists do not understand that to preach the need for tolerance while lashing out at others as intolerant is simply wrong, and hypocritical. UCLA Hillel again showed that ideological bigtory is rampant in the Jewish community, and that diversity and toleranc eonly apply to liberal ideals.
I want to make it crystal that the speaker, at least while I was there, did not bash republicans. She passionately plead for more love and acceptance of gays and lesbians, but did not lash out at conservatives. Had her speech been the only event that occurred, I would have considered the evening ideologically slanted, but not ideological bigotry.
Where the line got crossed was in my first and hopefully last meeting with an Operations Director for UCLA Hillel. I am prepared to name names, since I know I am teling the truth. His name is William Calder.
I had never met Mr. Calder before, and was shocked when he came up to me and said, “You need to leave.”
I was stunned. Several minutes earlier he asked me if I wanted to pull up a chair. I told him I preferred to stay outside the room. My rationale was that pullinjg up a chair would have made noise, and I do not like interrupting speakers.
I asked him very quietly why I had to leave. I was not bothering anybody. I did not even open my mouth. He explained that he “saw me shaking my head.” He firmly stated that “this is a liberal service.”
I told him that I was not shaking my head because of that. I was shaking my head for my own personal reasons based on my private thoughts.I then told him that I was pro-gay rights.”
He then said, “Oh, ok. Well your shaking your head could be misinterpeted.” He then walked away and left me alone.
For those who do not understand how serious this is, I was asked to leave a Synagogue. I was not asked to leave for saying anything. People who disrupt such speakers should be asked to leave. Freedom of speech does not give one the right to disrupt speeches. That is just rude.
However, I was asked to leave because Mr. Calder THOUGHT that I was THINKING something that he disagreed with.
This is liberalism at its very heart. Actions are irrelevant. Deeds do not matter. Being politically correct is all that matters. This is why we have hate crime legislation, because liberals think that certain crimes should be punished more than others. All crimes are hate crimes. Yet people should be punished for the crime itself, and the level of culpability based on intent. The gender or race or sexual orientation of the victim does not make them any more or less dead.
William Calder made it clear that people who did not support the gay and lesbian agenda were unwelcome at that Synagogue. He thought that I was shaking my head in disagreement with the speaker. Even if he was right, which as a liberal of course he was wrong, shaking my head in quiet disagreement is a patriotic form of dissent. I was not even in the room! I did not even say a word.
After the speech and the service ended, I went up to the speaker. She was a very pleasant woman. I told her that I was pro-gay rights, but that I had a concern. I did not bring up the inappropriateness of her speech. I really did not want a hostile conversation with no room for common ground.
I pointed out that I belonged to a minority gorup that has faced much hostility. I quietly whispered (it disgusts me that I should even have to do that, but such is the abusive nature of liberal Jews towards republcians that we have to stay in the closet out of fear.) that I was politically conservative.
She laughed, and said that her father was a republican. I let her know that one concern I had was that so many gay people were hostile towards republcians that they did not give them the benefit of the doubt. I told her that many Jeiwsh republicans are libertarian on social issues, but it is difficult to dialogue with gay gorups when they see republicans and say, “We hate you.”
This woman was very nice, and clearly understood. I just requested that in her speeches about tolerance, that she include that everybody must be given tolerance, including republicans. She agreed with me that by rejecting people out of hand, it could push them further to the right and away from supporting those issues.
The last thing I said to her was that, “You never know who may be a potential ally. I want to live ina world where all people are free to live their lives and be treated with decency and respect, including republicans.”
I will again emphasize that she was very warm and pleasant. She did not seem to contain the hypocrisy that infects so many on the left in the Jewish community.
However, she does not run the Hillel. Mr. Calder is in a position of power, and had I not immediately professed my support for gay rights, I would have been subjected to left wing bullying. Worse, it would have been for thoughts, not actions.
Mr. Calder is in a position to influence and moold students, and if his behavior towards me was reflective of his typical disposition, then he is just another example of ideological bigotry in the Jewish community.
Some people have argued to me that in many Christian churches, it is a politically conservative message.
First of all, this does not make it ok. The analogy of two wrongs and a right applies here. Also, I am not a Christian. I do not go to Church, and am totally unqualified to evaluate how Churches behave. I would say that a Catholic Church arguing against abortion is not poltiical. It is in keeping with Church doctrine. However, telling people to vote against a pro-choice candidate may cross the line.
I only know my own community. Left wing bigotry is a cancer in the Jewish community, and I am mortified that the holiest day of the year was allowed to be perverted by such speech. No, I am not calling gay people perverts. I am referring to devaluing a religious holiday with political speech of any stripe.
Some will say that it is unfair to indict liberalism based on one unpleasant person.
Yet it is not one person. This is a problem that runs so deep. Mr. Calder is the norm. Left wing bullies are what much of Judiasm has become, and it has got to stop.
Even if I did not believe in gay rights, the God I believe in is the God of all.
Mr. Calder believed I was intolerant because of my supposed thoughts. I know Mr. Calder is intolerant based on his actions.
UCLA Hillel has a long way to go before it becomes a tolerant place free of ideological bigotry. A good start would be if Synagogues around America took the Calders of the world and forced them to sit quietly, and not judge people they do not know and have never met. Ductape can be very useful in situations like that.
Hineni. Here I am. I am republican, Jewish, proud, and tolerant of others. I wish those on the left that scream and rage about tolerance could understand that republicans deserve tolerance as well.
eric
October 10th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
How is it political to for a synagogue to preach tolerance for gays and lesbians on the day of atonement? Isn’t it a part of Yom Kippur to care for the oppressed and abused among you?
What Mr. Calder did was certainly inapproriate, but to say this is a symptom of “liberalism” is both incorrect - it is antithetical to liberal ideology - and hypocritical - conservatives are people too, and intolerance is a universal human condition. And if anything, intolerance is a mainstay of conservative ideology. It is not true liberals who complain of what other people choose to do with their personal lives.
JMJ
October 10th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
To say that “Intolerance is a mainstay of conservative ideology” justifies everything I have been blogging about since day 1. It also contradicts your prior sentence about the human condition.
At this juncture, the intolerance is coming from the left, in the form of demonizing conservatives not for what they say or do, but just for existing.
eric
October 10th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Its crystal clear that we consistantly get shot down just for having an opinion.
Especially when its conservatism that donates more to the needs of the oppressed than any political leaning.
The least the speaker could of done was include all the oppressed in this world instead of a select few that are center piece of the liberalisms agenda
October 10th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
When condemnnig someone it is only appropriate if you refer to something that person did. The same should be true of groups. A vague “you always do this” isn’t appropriate and I’m guilty of having done this, too. And I’m sure I’ll do it again when I forget the lesson of this posting, but for the moment I want to remember that if you want to complain about someone then say specifically what he did. That’s why I like blog commenting where you can grab a quote and use it in your reply.
October 10th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
He was doing pretty good until the usual nonsense sprang forth - “intolerance is a mainstay of conservative ideology”.
October 10th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Okay, let’s take a look at the Republican platform. Let’s say, just for the sake of argument that Democrats are “liberals,” and Republicans are “conservatives,” though all these things are interchangeable.
Right in the first paragraph of the GOP platform is this:
“Distrust of government’s interference in people’s lives.”
Now, for starters, that’s a statement of contempt for our constitution and government by, for and of the people. But it’s not even true. The GOP is quite willing to use the power of the government to interfere in people’s personal lives. Sure, they may be reluctant to interfere with anything involving commerce, but aside from commerce, almost nothing is out of bounds - especially “values.” And that’s where the beast of intolerance sit’s on his low unholy throne in the GOP.
Protecting Our National Symbols
The symbol of our unity, to which we all pledge allegiance, is the flag. By whatever legislative method is most feasible, Old Glory should be given legal protection against desecration. We condemn decisions by activist judges to deny children the opportunity to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school.
Firstly, no judge I know of has ever once sought to deny the “opportunity to say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school,” this is demagogic rabble rousing of the lowest order. Some years ago the Jehovahs Witnesses brought a case to the SCOTUS. All they asked was the right to decline saying the Pledge as worldy idolatry is strictly forbidden in their faith - especially if that idolic pledge takes the Lord’s name in vain. They won and to this day children may decline to say the pledge if they so choose. Yet, when a child does decline, he or she is often ridiculed to the point of the matter becoming a public spectacle. If you google “ACLU Pledge of Allegiance,” you will find dozens of cases like this. (By the way, Sarah “The Great Historian” Palin thinks the “Founding Fathers” approved of the Pledge and it’s use of “under God.” Ya’ just can’t make this stuff up, doggonit!)
Anyways, this is intolerance in action. Creating an imaginary bogeyman to rile up the rabble against those who find the Pledge not to their liking. Intolerance 101.
Freedom of Speech and of the Press
We support freedom of speech and freedom of the press and oppose attempts to violate or weaken those rights, such as reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine.
Here’s another bogeyman rabble rouser. I know of no one and no legislation proposing the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine. But there’s more intolerance than that - intolerance of other people’s speech, rather than actions. With radio now thoroughly monopolized by a handful of corporate interests putting out what they want people to hear, and putting out hateful, nasty, intolerant speech, incessantly directed at the most insecure and miserable amongst us, today’s AM talk radio is the equivilant of the German National Socialists of the 1920’s. If those monopolies were broken, the theory that the “people are getting what they want” would be smashed to bits, and rightwing hate-talk radio would be marginalized (so would most of the “pop” radio out there too!). It’s entire business model is based on getting people’s blood up, and intolerance is a wonderful way of doing that. But again, no one is proposing changing this, one way or the other.
Maintaining The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life
Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
Intolerance of a woman’s indiviual right to her own body.
Preserving Traditional Marriage
Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements equivalent to it.
Intolerance of gay and lesbian relationships.
Safeguarding Religious Liberties
Our Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids any religious test for public office, and it likewise prohibits the establishment of a state-sponsored creed. The balance between those two ideals has been distorted by judicial rulings which attempt to drive faith out of the public arena. The public display of the Ten Commandments does not violate the U.S. Constitution and accurately reflects the Judeo-Christian heritage of our country. We support the right of students to engage in student-initiated, student-led prayer in public schools, athletic events, and graduation ceremonies, when done in conformity with constitutional standards.
Intolerance of the non-religious and the non-Christian and the right to be free of religion and religious proselyzation in the public square.
And on “National Security”?
Embracing Immigrant Communities
… We support English as the official language in our nation, while welcoming the ethnic diversity in the United States and the territories, including language. Immigrants should be encouraged to learn English. English is the accepted language of business, commerce, and legal proceedings, and it is essential as a unifying cultural force. It is also important, as part of cultural integration, that our schools provide better education in U.S. history and civics for all children, thereby fostering a commitment to our national motto, E Pluribus Unum.
Intolerance of mulltiligualism. (And you just HAVE to laugh at the LATIN at the end of that paragraph!)
Welcoming Refugees
Our country continues to accept refugees from troubled lands all over the world. In some cases, these are people who stood with America in dangerous times, and they have first call on our hospitality. We oppose, however, the granting of refugee status on the basis of lifestyle or other non-political factors.
Intolerance of lifestyle and other non-political dispositions.
Personnel policies
The all-volunteer force has been a success. We oppose reinstituting the draft, whether directly or through compulsory national service. We support the advancement of women in the military and their exemption from ground combat units. Military priorities and mission must determine personnel policies. Esprit and cohesion are necessary for military effectiveness and success on the battlefield. To protect our servicemen and women and ensure that America’s Armed Forces remain the best in the world, we affirm the timelessness of those values, the benefits of traditional military culture, and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service.
Intolerance of homosexuals.
Promoting Human Rights and American Values
The international promotion of human rights reflects our heritage, our values, and our national interest. Societies that enjoy political and economic freedom and the rule of law are not given to aggression or fanaticism. They become our natural allies.
Republican leadership has made religious liberty a central element of U.S. foreign policy. Asserting religious freedom should be a priority in all America’s international dealings. We salute the work of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and urge special training in religious liberty issues for all U.S. diplomatic personnel.
To be successful international leaders, we must uphold international law, including the laws of war, and update them when necessary. Our moral standing requires that we respect what are essentially American principles of justice. In any war of ideas, our values will triumph.
Militant intolerance of the values of other peoples.
Sovereign American Leadership in International Organizations
… Because the UN has no mandate to promote radical social engineering, any effort to address global social problems must respect the fundamental institutions of marriage and family. We assert the rights of families in all international programs and will not fund organizations involved in abortion. We strongly support the long-held policy of the Republican Party known as the “Mexico City policy,” which prohibits federal monies from being given to non-governmental organizations that provide abortions or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other countries. We reject any treaty or agreement that would violate those values. That includes the UN convention on women’s rights, signed in the last months of the Carter Administration, and the UN convention on the rights of the child. For several reasons, particularly our concern for US sovereignty and America’s long-term energy needs, we have deep reservations about the regulatory, legal, and tax regimes inherent in the Law of the Sea Treaty.
To shield the members of our Armed Forces and others in service to America from ideological prosecutions, the Republican Party does not accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over Americans. We support the American Servicemembers Protection Act, to shield U.S. personnel and officials as they act abroad to meet global security requirements.
Intolerance of other people’s values with a blatant hypocritical disregard for international law even if only regarding international matters.
It goes on and on and on. I could site plenty more examples just within the GOP 2008 Party Platform.
GOP = Intolerance. Period.
JMJ
October 10th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Yea, I could go on and on also and make a hell of a lot better point just by using the free speech example.
We are nt the onces shouting those down who disagree with us.
We do not disrupt public forums on a level anywhere near that of the liberal.
We do not subscribe to your PC bullsh*t nonsense.
We do not get all upset with religious display.
We are not the ones who support music that glorifies rape and murder in front of our children yet get all upset when we call a man black instead of african american.
We are not the ones trying to shut down conservative radio when you operate 75 % of the rest of ther media.
Liberals have a consistent history of being “do as I say” and not “do as I do” kind of people. As always with liberals what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander. You guys are the pot calling the kettle black without admitting to calling the kettle black. You live in glass houses and love throwing rocks.
Only it’s not fair when the stones are thrown back.
Liberal hypocrisy and tolerance only to their own at its finest.
Bill Cliton and John Edwards cheated on their wives and its
forgivable.
John McCain cheats on his wife, marries the woman, he cheated with and he’s tarred and feathered.
Obama used coke in his youth…it was a youthful mistake. George Bush uses coke in his younger days and impeachment was sought.
Feminists want women to be independant and strong, Sarah Palin is flogged in public for even thinking of pursuing her career.
All you really did was give a few very weak examples of intolerance which will always exist in any ideoligy.
Without a doubt it is the liberals who consistantly trying to cram their set of beliefs down everyones throat.
It doesnt matter if its global warming or rampant violent public protests, smoking bans, environmentalism or your wish to cast religion out of this world on its ass.
You need to learn the difference between intolerance and hypersensativity.
We get upset and become intolerant when you try to take our guns, bibles, and religion, individualism, commerce and basic rights from us.
You guys get upset and call it “intolerance” when we dont call illegal aliens “undocumented americans”.
————————————————————————————-
JMJ;
“intolerance is a mainstay of conservative ideology”.
There are many aspects and variations of conservatism and that is about the most off the wall one I’ve heard yet.
If that were true, I find hard to understand why you’re allowed to speak in this forum.
You have to realize that this is the first time I think I’ve ever seen Eric respond to you on a thread.
In all this time for man as conservative as he is, he has been very tolerant of some pretty ugly things that came outta yer yap (mine too)
Tell me this.
Why is it that I get shut down and moderated to non existance on most lib blogs yet the conservative ones I go to I see libs getting to say whatever they want unless its gross or off topic ?
You need to take serious look at what your supporting and saying.
To agree with your own philosophy is one thing.
But YOU are the intolerant one as you are consatantly accusing people of all kinds of things from lunacy to idiocy when they dont agree with you.
You my friend (as McCain would say) are the prime perfect epitome of liberal intolerance to a tee.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
A perfect example would be me being called a racist because I said I saw racial preferance going on whithin Fannie Mae and Freddy Macs backing of loans to low income minorities
October 11th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Micky, I know you have a hard time understanding me sometimes, but allow me to repeat - I never said you were a racist. I said that the rumor going around that the mortgage meltdown was caused by government mandated bad loans to minorities is a RACIST LIE (yet another example of rightwing intolerance). You’re just willing and naive enough to believe it because it fits neatly with your preconceptions of Democrats, minorities, the social state, and the free market fundamentalism.
And yes Micky, rightwingers shout down those who disagree with them just as much or more than anybody else (just watch a Fox “News” talk show, or a GOP rally when a protester shows up). The left is sometimes guilty of this too. So’s everyone else who happens to shout a lot. And the Right DOES get upset about religious displays, and also take it upon themselves to force those displays down our collective throat. In fact, everything your said in your former post is untrue! And that’s another thing the Right does incessantly.
JMJ
October 11th, 2008 at 11:32 am
“I said that the rumor going around that the mortgage meltdown was caused by government mandated bad loans to minorities is a RACIST LIE ”
Yes, and I know that you have a hard time understanding that I’m not an idiot and can read between the lines.
I do not believe its a rumor, I made that clear, so I guess that makes me a racist.
Your best example is FOX ?
One lonely station in a sea of liberal media ?
Everything in my former post is untrue ?
At least I have the decency to admit that intolerance is present on both sides.
But the left without a doubt takes the cake, as I pointed out with verifiable points in my “former post”
Your party is the one that is consistanly showing intolerance by means of disruptive selfish childish protest that claims the rights of others less than yours.
You’re just a bunch angry little children in a store who kick and scream when you dont get your way. You’re all famous for that behavior, its a fact.
You run around and break things and blow things up and get in peoples face, make a scene clogging up traffic, dressing up like clowns in congress and screaming like lunatics.
We had this debate once before and you lost because you could not show me half the examples of intolerance on the right that I showed you on the left
Once again you’ve been reduced to nothing but a man with an overblown statement that actually contains very little example besides your opinion.
“Because you say so”.
And if you’re going to tell me that everything in my post is untrue I will stand here and accuse you of being a flat out liar. PERIOD
Because you have most definitly on countless occassions called those you disagree with idiots/crazy/stupid/lunatics etc…
You see, I’ve been on both sides of the aisle, I used to be like you.
Which means that in some point I showed some objectivity in my life and was accepting, open minded and tolerant enough to realize right from wrong.
It was all about growing up.
Who knows, you might get there one day.
October 11th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
This is interesting to Genealogist and Family Historians and unlike what people get on “The View” how Brad Pitt and Barack Obama are 9th cousins I forget how many times removed, somewhere back in the hazy annals of time.
This spells out Sarah Palin’s jewish ancestry
http://sarah-palin-2008.blogspot.com/2008/10/sarah-palin-has-jewish-ancestry.html
Shalom
October 13th, 2008 at 11:41 am
So, does that mean JEws hould vote for Sarah Palin? Any other superficial reasons you can think of?
JMJ