Breaking News: Jews Murdering Non-Jews for Not Following Jewish Law

breaking-news1

Just this morning outside of the Clarendon Metro Station in Arlington, Virginia, a man armed with an assault rifle murdered three unarmed individuals who were selling Bibles for their church. The identities of the victims have yet to be released by the Arlington Police Department, but they have identified the gunman as Yonatan Rubin, a 31-year-old Jewish man from nearby Falls Church, Virginia.

This is just one more massacre in a string of attacks from Belgium to Cork, Ireland to the events last week in Ontario, Canada. What are the common denominators? All of the attacks have been by Jewish individuals with links to Rabbi Rabbinski who are killing to protect the name of their G-d.

A rogue network of Jews has been terrorizing the Western world. Led by their rabbinical leader, Rabbi Avi Shmuel Rabbinski, this network has infiltrated the United States, Canada, The United Kingdom, and other European nations and is systematically slaughtering innocent Christians and Muslims for writing out the name of G-d (will only use G-d to refrain from upsetting this group).

rabbi militant

Yonatan became involved with Rabbi Rabbinski through various social media platforms on which the Rabbi has been pushing his anti-Western platform. Whether or not he carried out this vicious attack for the Rabbi or whether this was a lone-wolf attack is yet to be determined.

As you may or may not know, Orthodox Jews believe that you are not supposed to write out the true name of G-d as they believe it to be disrespectful. Many Jews believe that not only should you not write the true name, but that even if a title of G-d is written (the word G-d is a title), that item becomes holy and cannot be discarded.

While Christians and Muslims do not believe such an act is disrespectful, Rabbi Rabbinski and his seemingly vast terror network believe such acts by non-Jews amount to not only disrespect, but are sacrilegious, blasphemous, and a complete desecration of G-d himself.

Policy makers on the right and the left cannot seem to agree on how to stop these attacks from continuing. Many on the right have called for an all-out war against the state of Israel. This has been accompanied by a drastic rise in anti-Semitism and violence against Jews in Europe and the Americas.

Policy makers on the left, however, have taken a more passive approach and are calling for an international conversation on multiculturalism and some have even called for a ban on writing out the name and titles of G-d as they believe it is anti-Semitic to disrespect the Jewish religion with that kind of speech.

free speech sign

A small minority in politics and the media have called for the protection of free-speech. They have been on the receiving end of the harshest attacks in the media. Many of these groups are being boycotted, called bigots, and labeled as anti-Semitic hate groups. These “free-speechers” claim that they do not support purposefully offending Orthodox Jews, but instead want this group of Jewish radicals to recognize that many do not believe their religious doctrines and they should not have to follow Jewish laws.

What can we all agree on? That the safety of Christians and Muslims around the world is being jeopardized and there does not seem to be a consensus around any solution.


This piece is not a real story, but instead a piece of satire to show how ridiculous the conversation around drawing the Islamic prophet Muhammad has become around this year’s tragic events in Paris and Texas.

je suis charlie

This past January in Paris, France, two brothers forced their way into the Charlie Hebdo office and killed eleven people while injuring another eleven. Later that day, five more were killed in the Ile-de-France region. What was the reason for these murders? The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo had drawn the Prophet Muhammad and other Islamic leaders satirically.

More recently, two gunmen opened fire at a controversial art convention called the “Draw Muhammad Event.” Both gunmen were killed and no one was injured, however their intent was the same as those who attacked Charlie Hebdo.  They wanted to kill those who drew their prophet.

Granted, this convention was made with the intent to draw the prophet Muhammad knowing that it would be insulting to the over 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. I am sure not all of them would find this insulting; however, just because something is insulting does not mean people don’t have the right to do it.

Coexist-bumpersticker

In a pluralistic society, we cannot force others to act as if they believe our own world views or religious doctrines. Just like in my piece, the Jewish terrorists are killing because they believe others should not write a word they find holy. In real life, our society is being scared by threats and murder into not drawing pictures.

They are pictures of a man some believe to be holy in some aspects. However, the rest of us do not believe this and should not be forced to act accordingly. Also, there is nothing in the Qu’ran that says you cannot draw the image of Muhammad. It is only in the Hadith that this statement is made. There is especially nothing that says that it is an act so atrocious that it would be punishable by death.

Additionally, it is not like these are actual pictures of Muhammad. They are cartoon characters that someone has labeled as the Prophet Muhammad.

We should not shame these artists. Instead, we should stand with them against the ridiculous belief of a small minority that a picture is worth the taking of someone’s life.

free speech march

Advertisements

RFRA: Tolerance and Discrimination Together?

There is no better topic in the current news cycle to discuss tolerance than that of Indiana’s and Arkansas’ Religious Freedom Rights Acts (RFRA). For over a month, stories have been popping up in my news feed from blogs, traditional media sites, and buzz is all over social media—which is an incredibly long time, in a national news cycle, for a state bill to get so much publicity! So, the question I want to look into is:

Does this bill promote tolerance?

Gov. Mike Pence

Federal Origin

March 2015, Indiana’s Governor, Mike Pence, and the General Assembly passed a law that mirrored the federal RFRA passed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. Soon after Indiana, and during the peak of the national backlash to their law, Arkansas passed a similar RFRA to the Indiana version. Both of which had parts that differed from the federal bill.

This federal bill, passed in 1993, was hailed by liberals as a positive step forward in protections against discrimination. It followed a Supreme Court case, Oregon v. Smith, in which two Native American men were fired and were refused federal unemployment benefits when their urine tests came back positive for Peyote. Peyote is an illegal hallucinogenic drug, but it is also used by members of the Native American Church for religious reasons.

Peyote

In the federal case, it is clear that tolerance of minority religious practices was the goal of the RFRA. In the aftermath of Oregon v. Smith, The federal RFRA was made to protect religious worship.  This kind of federal protection is definitely in line with the ideas of tolerance in a free society. But can we say the same thing about the state bill?

The State Bills

There is no question that most of the media’s buzz around these two RFRA bills are completely politicized (Indiana and Arkansas).

The left is completely disingenuous when they are claiming that this bill will lead to a Jim Crowe situation. That environment was mandated by government through segregation, ostracization, and a court and legal system that failed to act on and stop even the most egregious crimes against the black communities of the South.

The right is just as bad, though.

There is no doubt that these laws are an attempt to stop the rising tide of same-sex marriage rights and LGBTQ community rights. Indiana’s RFRA is especially politicized. In Judge Napolitano’s argument against the constitutionality of these RFRAs, he mentions that most states who adopted RFRAs also added sexual orientation to the list of traits for which discrimination is prohibited. Indiana and Arkansas did not, and at the same time they expanded the extent of protections in their RFRA further beyond all the others.

It may just be a coincidence that this is happening following a victory for the religious right in the Hobby Lobby Court Case and at the same time as the case before the Supreme Court on same-sex marriage. I think, however, that it is not and is instead an attempt to solidify in law moral beliefs based on religious doctrine disguised as religious rights over the growing movement for LGBTQ rights.

LGBTQ

This bill goes against the principles of tolerance in a free society and the politicization around this bill has lead to a lot of yelling and talking past each other while no good solutions are being discussed in the national conversation.

So what is the solution?

Freedom of Association – But That Needs to be Nuanced

Today, our society has accepted that there are certain bases on which no one should discriminate: Race, color, gender, national origin, age, pregnancy, disabilities, religion, and sexual orientation. Nobody should have the right to post signs on their restaurant saying “No *insert your desired group here* allowed.”

There is also a common-law called “Implied Contract” that implies that by advertisement of openness (with an open sign o rjust being open for business), posting prices, and/or posting services you are implying openness and equal treatment to the public – to all. You cannot have exceptions that “Jews are charged twice as much” or “Mormons are not allowed to eat here.” These types of practices were only able to exist in the Jim Crowe South due to government laws that mandated these practices.

These RFRAs do not mandate discrimination, but no one should lie and say that it does not allow discrimination. Freedom of association means that individuals can choose who they interact with. This coupled with implied contract laws prevent individuals from being ostracized and creating second-class citizens while also preventing people from participating in events or situations that they truly do not agree with—Yes, like a same-sex wedding.

While these laws would not allow a store owner to refuse the sale of a pizza to a gay couple passing through, they do allow a company to be more selective in whom they contract their service out to. Here, is where this bill allows for discrimination and that is okay!

lgbtq pizza

A Jewish person should not be forced by law to accept a contract to cater for a Neo-Nazi rally. Similarly, a gay man should not be forced by law to accept a contract to DJ or be a wedding planner for a Westboro Baptist Church wedding. In these situations, we need to be tolerant of the values held by these business owners. The government should not discriminate against people, but private action is different and needs to be treated different.

The main difference in these two scenarios (the wedding or the open restaurant) is the contract. For weddings, these are vendors and not businesses open to the public. Therefore, they can act differently and be more selective of who they work for.

Therefore, the solution is a balance and that is what any RFRA should be. It should protect against minority groups being ostracized while also protecting the individuals right to associate or dissociate. This balance is true tolerance: diversity of values and diversity in the community. You cannot have one without the other.

Stop Being So Damn Sensitive! In Defense of Offensive Speech

Recently, the American media cycle has been filled with stories and opinions on the issue of free speech on college campuses. From racist chants, to debates over the idea of “trigger warnings”, and attempts to stop or protect people from opposing opinions with safe places, the issue of free speech and, especially, what should and should not be tolerated is a conversation that we as a country need to have.

The University of California-Irvine went so far as to attempt to ban the flying of the American flag over their student government offices to create an inclusive space. What was their reasoning? They believed the flag was a symbol of imperialism, colonialism, and could be conceived as hate speech.

Featured image

The irony about these attempts to quiet or shut-out offensive, opposing, or minority views on campus is that they are doing exactly what they are claiming to be fighting against: being intolerant.

Tolerance has a strict meaning that is often forgotten. It is the act of disagreeing with a person or group, but refusing to interfere because of a principle. You are not tolerating listening to Taylor Swift if you love her music. You are enjoying it. Likewise, you are not being tolerant watching a horrible or upsetting movie if you have no ability to shut it off or leave. You are just enduring it. For toleration you must both disagree and have a reason for not interfering.

So why should we tolerate something that we disagree with?

Because we as a nation, through the First Amendment and Supreme Court precedents, have decided that the margin of error should fall on the side of protecting people’s right to say things that may be offensive as opposed to potentially preventing political or social conversations/change through restrictive speech codes.

Toleration is not acceptance and it does not mean that you cannot speak up with your own opinion to try and sway others to think differently or change beliefs. It is, however, not preventing people from saying things or using symbols that you disagree with or outright hate.

This is really important because once you start preventing one opinion or another, everyone will come out with an opinion they want banned. Once some “triggering” image or expression is banned, everyone will have a topic they think is too horrible to talk about.

The most recent campus controversy comes from my alma mater, The University of Mary Washington, in Fredericksburg, Virginia. There, the men’s rugby team became wrapped up in a scandal when a few of their team members were at an off-campus house party, labeled by some to be a rugby party, and began singing an amalgamation of traditional rugby drinking songs. This one in particular was an atrocious song about raping a dead prostitute and catching an STD.

So why would anyone defend the singing of this song?

It is not the songs substance that a defender of free speech is speaking about. It is however, the ability to say offensive things. If I believe my government has killed innocent victims in a war, I should have the right to call the commander-in-chief a murderer. To his family members and friends, that could be offensive. To someone who was in the military and a part of that military operation, that could be emotionally harmful to hear. It is especially true that the article could be “triggering” for someone who had a family member or close friend murdered.

None of these arguments, however, are strong enough to lay claim to a worthy ban on speech. In the first, we want to be able to call out leaders for decisions. Free-speech is especially important in this case as our government acts as an extension of our will as citizens whether we like to think of it like that or not. Therefore, we have to have the right to be vocal in our opposition to those government actions. If not, Vietnam may have lasted longer, torture may still be happening in Guantanamo Bay, and high-casualty drone attacks in the Middle East or elsewhere may go unchecked under our name as American citizens.

In situations where emotional distress is used as the argument against offensive speech, it is just as important to encourage debate and respect for emotions rather than outright bans. If not, our ability to speak freely will be decided by those who have the most extreme emotional sensors.

Maybe I, as a Jewish man of German decent, don’t want to hear about the experience of Jews during World War II because it is too emotionally difficult. Should my classmates have been denied the ability to learn about a significant war because of my personal feelings? If a student in college has had a history of domestic abuse or a suicidal experience, should he or she be able to deny the rest of the class the ability to read The Great Gatsby, a literary classic, because of that one individual’s inability to deal with the content?

The answer to both of these examples should be no.

I am not saying that people should not think about their audience and respect people’s experiences when speaking. I am not saying that a university or school cannot or should not make accommodations to students with hardships. I am saying however, that we should not let the most sensitive define what the rest of us are allowed to discuss, read, or advocate.