Letter to the Editor from the Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council on the Need for Vigilance to Guard Against Anti-Semitism and Hatred

This morning, The Indianapolis Star printed a letter to the editor written by Greg Maurer (co-chair of the Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council’s Israel Committee), Lindsey Mintz (Executive Director of the Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council), and me (in my capacity as past-president of the Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council). I’m reprinting it here (in case it should, at some point, be taken offline or wind up behind a paywall):

As Jewish families sat down to their Passover Seder this week to retell the story of the Jews’ exodus from Egypt, our hearts once again were heavy with the sadness of yet another senseless act of violence. As Jewish communities around the world celebrate our freedom from slavery, we know too well that we are still not free from the hatred and violence that require our constant vigilance.

Sunday’s shooting outside two Jewish communal institutions in Overland Park, Kan., by a white supremacist with a long history of promoting violence against Jews has demonstrated once again that anti-Semitism is not a thing of the past, and its putrid effects extend beyond the Jewish community.

Intolerance, hatred and violent acts against Jews are significant realities today. The Jewish community, like other minority communities, remains a target for the disaffected and for those to whom conspiracy theories have the ring of truth; but as we bear witness to this violence, we must recognize that it becomes incumbent upon all of us to help make sure that hatred is not allowed to take hold or force us to live in fear.

On the evening of April 27, we will mark the beginning of Yom HaShoah, or Holocaust Remembrance Day. In Indianapolis, the Jewish community organizes several ways for people to honor the memory of the 6 million Jews and many millions of non-Jews who perished through a week of remembrance programming, including the State of Indiana’s 16th Annual Observance & Names Reading Ceremony April 30 in the Statehouse Rotunda.

But simply remembering the Holocaust is not enough. Although the mandate of “never again” has proven difficult to realize, the lessons of the Holocaust are more urgent than ever. The dangers of prejudice and racism, the consequences of indifference and silence, and the need to protect the vulnerable should command us to action.

We need to work together — all of us — to be sure that the hatred that fueled the Holocaust, the hatred that fuels genocides around the world, and the hatred that fueled the murders at two Jewish facilities in Kansas has no home here or anywhere.

When our children are young, we can help prevent the development of prejudice from taking root by seeking out books, programs and teachers that promote respect for diversity, address bias and encourage social action. As our children grow up, we need to maintain open lines of communication that will help us identify if — and when — our kids are grappling with bullying or cyber-bullying in school. And every day we can model behavior worth emulating: when you see intolerance or hatred directed toward anyone, make your voice for peace and respect echo loudly over the voices of hatred and the silence of indifference.

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Man’s inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good.”

This year during Passover, the bitter memory of Egyptian slavery will mix with the bitterness of Sunday’s act of terror, hatred and anti-Semitism. As the Indianapolis Jewish community stands in solidarity with the families of the victims, and the entire Kansas City community, we will pray for the redemption of all humankind, as we do each Passover season.

One of the best parts of being involved with an organization like the Indianapolis Jewish Community Relations Council (of which I served as president from 2008-2010) is the opportunity to collaborate with other (usually) like-minded people to address important issues. This letter is a perfect example of just such a collaboration. I’m pleased that I was able to lend my voice and name to this letter and I’m thankful for the input of Greg Maurer, Lindsey Mintz, and others in the drafting process.

Goodbye to IN Touch

Beginning in late 2008, I wrote an occasional entry for The Indianapolis Star’s IN Touch blog. A number of my entries were also published in the print edition of the newspaper. While I liked writing for IN Touch, I often found it difficult to find topics for which IN Touch was an appropriate venue and on which I could articulate my thoughts in a fairly short number of words (as readers of this blog know, brevity is not exactly my strong suit). Thus, my output was never as high as I would have liked and I hadn’t written anything at all for IN Touch since last August (wow, I didn’t realize it had been that long!).

Anyway, I discovered a week or two ago, that the IN Touch blog has apparently been completely removed from The Indianapolis Star’s website. If you go to the IN Touch page, you are greeted by the message:

This user has elected to delete their account and the content is no longer available.

I emailed my contact at the paper to see why and when the IN Touch page was deleted and why the posts were not (apparently) archived. To date, I haven’t received any response. I guess that I can understand the decision to eliminate this feature (it seems that the number of posts had declined dramatically in recent months), but I don’t understand the decision not to maintain an archive of those posts, especially as many of them were included in the print edition of the paper. Oh, well.

So, I guess that my days of writing for IN Touch are now officially over. It was fun while it lasted.

IN Touch: Electorate Ignorance (Update 2: Letter to the Editor)

On August 23, I posted my sixteenth submission to The Indianapolis Star’s IN Touch blog. That post was included in the print edition of The Star on August 25. My post generated several interesting comments and a follow-up letter to the editor printed on August 31, 2010. In this second of two posts (the first post is here), I want to look at that letter to the editor. But first, go back and read my initial post so that this will make some sense.

Before reprinting the letter to the editor, let me explain why I didn’t comment directly to that letter on The Star’s website. As of the time of this writing, that letter has generated 199 comments. Many of those comments have been removed for violating the The Star’s terms of service (there was a lot of very nasty, very offensive name calling). Moreover, very few of the comments to the letter have anything at all do with the actual subject matter of my post or the letter itself. Rather, those comments are largely nothing more than rants against President Obama in particular or those on the political left in general. And the hate being spewed is simply nauseating and frightening. I’d planned to re-post some of the most offensive comments in order to give readers a sense of what people are actually saying (especially when shielded by anonymity) but most of the comments that I wanted to share have (probably wisely) been removed.

So, with the thoughts from my original post in mind, let’s look at the letter to the editor from Gerardo Larreategui:

A recent poll revealing that 20 percent of Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim elicited the usual denunciations of ignorance, fear and prejudice in the Aug. 25 Letters section. I decided to tackle the issue via the sort of "careful analysis" IN Touch blogger Michael Wallack so rightly praises, by actually reading the results of the Aug. 18 Pew Forum Poll.

Wallack and letter writer Carlie Anderson both made the erroneous assumption that anyone who subscribes to the Obama-is-a-Muslim trope must therefore hold a negative view of both Islam and the president. The poll reveals, however, that 26 percent of those who believe that Obama is a Muslim approve of his job performance. About 5 percent of Americans, then, would seem to view a Muslim president in positive terms. Perhaps the real prejudice is with those who automatically assume that the Muslim label -- even when erroneously applied -- is invariably a "bad thing."

So, did you notice anything interesting about Mr. Larreategui’s letter?

First, Mr. Larreategui suggests that I “made the erroneous assumption” that believing that President Obama is a Muslim equates to a negative view of President Obama and Islam. I went back and re-read my post and I can’t find any such assumption, at all. My analysis focused on the question of why religion mattered at all, how and why people were willing to believe proven fallacies, and what it means to our political system when disinformation rules the day. Moreover, my ultimate suggestion was simply that we demand more from our politicians and media and be more careful in our analysis of the facts upon which we rely.

Rather than focus on why people believe in the fallacy and on the real critical question of what the media, in particular that portion of the media that serves, essentially, as the communications arm of the Republican party (remember shortly after President Obama was elected when Fox News’ president identified the network as the voice of the “loyal opposition”), Mr. Larreategui attacks those who worry about people falling for misinformation. I’m not sure if that is technically an ad hominem attack, but in any event, it completely ignores the real problem. By diverting attention to the fact that some people may approve of a Muslim President or that by even raising the issue, I must be assuming that people hold negative views of Islam, Mr. Larreategui seeks to avoid discussion of why people and certain media outlets would lend credence to or actively disseminate false information and the danger that has on our political system. Oh, and with regard to any assumption about negative views of Islam, the protests against the “Ground Zero Mosque” or the arson at a mosque in Tennessee certainly don’t demonstrate any Islamophobia… Mr. Larreategui wants to divert attention and throw around claims of prejudice without examining the real issues.

For the record, here’s the letter from Carlie Anderson to which Mr. Larreategui also refers:

The Star reports that 20 percent of Americans wrongly believe that President Obama is a Muslim (Aug. 19). This is after that belief has been corrected, as it was this morning in The Star, many times. Ignorance and prejudice and fear all feed one another. Unfortunately, I think we are living in times when misconceptions and rumors such as this are rampant.

IN Touch: Electorate Ignorance (Update 1: Comments)

On August 23, I posted my sixteenth submission to The Indianapolis Star’s IN Touch blog. That post was included in the print edition of The Star on August 25. My post generated several interesting comments and a follow-up letter to the editor printed on August 31, 2010. In this first of two posts, I’ll share some of those comments. In the second post, I’ll look at the letter to the editor. But first, go back and read my initial post so that this will make some sense.

Several comments were posted in response to my IN Touch post (for some reason, IN Touch posts generate far fewer comments than other editorials and letters to the editor; that may have something to do with those IN Touch posts being a bit harder to find on The Star’s website if you don’t know quite what you’re looking for). Note that typos are from the original comments.

Bryan Hudson:

Anyone with half a brain knows that the president is a Christian, not a Muslim. So what does that say about those who say he is a Muslim. Do these folk want to be taken seriously? If they run for office, who will vote for them? Will they get votes from minorities or law-abiding Muslims?

Do they care about having their votes? Certainly not!

There's just not enough birthers, "Muslimers," and Tea Partiers to become a victorious regional or national movement.

These folks get all excited and make a lot of noise, but thinking people, including sensible conservatives don't buy it.

It's little more than self- marginalization in my view.

Mountaineer:

I really don't care what President Obama's religon is. It is a non-issue. What I do care about are his policies and where he wants to take this country. Those are the things I object.

Mick Lee:

Anyone who pays attention knows those "truthers" who believe secret American government agences flew those planes into the World Trade Center and the Petagon do a lot of damage to the body politic. Those who repeat "Bush lied, Men died" over and over would rather sing a little rhyme than read their history. And those who say the Republicans are "the party of the rich" never have compared the donor lists between the Dem's and the GOP.

Spreading poltical untruths doesn't just mean people are too foolish to inform themselves. There are also those who use untruths for malace.

Keeping up with national politics and foreign affairs requires work and more than just taking notes two weeks before election day. It certainly takes more than reading the Star, watching Jon Stewart or listening to David Letterman.

It also means that the most idiotic "birther's" vote counts just as much as your well-considered ballot. Welcome to America, me Bucko. Don't like it? Yeah things are touch all over.

Jeremy:

Mick,

You're comparing the concept that Bush & co. led us into war on less-than-truthful information to the idea that Obama is a sort of Muslim Manchurian candidate? My God! They're not even on the same crazy-scale!

Yes, it may be a bit of a stretch to say that Bush intentionally lied (about WMDs, about Iraq's connections to al-Qaeda, about Iraq's pursuit of "yellow cake," about the imminence of a mushroom cloud) but it's far from looney to say that the administration bent the truth on the threat posed by Iraq.

On the other hand, claiming that Obama was born in Kenya, that he's a practicing Muslim, that his birth certificate is a fake. That's some crazy stuff! And it's endorsed by a solid core of conservative elected officials! This isn't fringe element fanatics... these are people who actually vote on bills.

Good try on moral equivalence but the right is working on a whole other level these days.

Master of Business Administration:

Anyone with half a brain knows that the president is a Christian, not a Muslim.... Yeah, but most Americans don't have half a brain these days. Americans are grossly overeducated in worthless general knowledge terms and essentially ignorant and uneducated in the things that count in life.

Mick Lee:

Jeremy: You will note that I said nothing about the question of Obama's religion. (For the record, I say that if Obama says he is a Christian I am inclined to take him at his word.) My comment was on the body of Mr. Wallack's essay concerning an electorate which does not educate itself.

We can go back and refight the whole belated "ramp up to war" debate and how those who claim Bush knew then what we know now are full of cr*p. Let's just note that those in Congress who are the cheerleaders for the "Bush lied" team were also among those who raced to be at the front of the saber rattlers before the war. They were privy to the very same intelligence that Bush and co. were. Likewise, I know a whole bunch of former "warmongers" who now claim they knew all along that America should have never gone to war and were against doing so from the very beginning.

"...solid core of conservative elected officials"? Really? Just who are these folk? A "solid core"? Just who are these nimrods you are talking about?

Conservatives generally fall into two responses to the whole "is Barak a born American?" brawl. The first gets annoyed whenever the question gets pointed in their direction. It is an "issue" not worth the time or effort to answer--and it is certainly not an issue they need to beat asorted Democrats in the Fall. The second step back in amusement at the Obama administration's hamfisted handling of the whole matter. It's a dumb issue; but it is fun watching Obama and company trip all over it.

Only liberals think and speak in terms of "moral equivalence".

Me:

Mick Lee:

Quick question: Why are you only "inclined" to take President Obama at his word with regard to his religion?

Jeremy:

Mick,

Per the run-up to the war in Iraq, my point is not that Bush lied, or whether his administration distorted (or even manufactured) evidence against Iraq. All I'm saying is that the theory of the Bush administration making a less-than-honest case for war is far more sane than claiming Obama is a Muslim Manchurian candidate.

As for the "solid core of conservative elected officials" who espouse Obama-related conspiracy theories:

Republicans who co-sponsored H.R. 1503 "Birther Bill": Bill Posey, Marsha Blackburn, Dan Burton, John Campbell, John Carter, Michael Conaway, John Culberson, Trent Franks, Louis Gohmert, Robert Goodlatte, Kenny Marchant, Randy Neugebauer, and Ted Poe.

Senator Richard Shelby reportedly said, "Well his father was Kenyan and they said he was born in Hawaii, but I haven’t seen any birth certificate."

Not to mention the 31 Arizona State congressmen who voted in favor of the Arizona version of the "Birther Bill" and those who are advancing similar bills in Missouri, Florida and Oklahoma.

Daniel:

It matters to me Michael, what a person believes in matter of faith (or the lack thereof) for the following reason: Everyone of us has a worldview. We see the world around us through a lens that is focused by what we believe. I believe man was created by God in his image, and life is sustained by Him. In other words, the only reason I am breathing is because he allows it. It shapes my decisions on right and wrong, on truth and lies, over what to do in most any situation. It is no different for someone with no faith in God, or a faith in (insert diety here). There is no Constitutional requirement on faith, nor should there be. But it matters to me. Not because I want him to think just like me, but because what he believes will shape his thoughts and actions. If there is confusion, it isn't due to my having a half or a whole brain, it's more that Obama talks the talk, but I don't see much in him to say "there is a Christian". If he were a Muslim, he hides it pretty well. But I doubt he is. What I believe is he is not much more than a politician. A snake oil salesman who has made millions convincing people they are being held back, they'll never get a fair shot, but he can help them. He will even the playing field, just need to send a check to the campaign office. It would explain the Rev. Wright's church. A big room full of prospective clients. He's a politician. He'll be whatever the room calls for, whatever the crowd needs him to be. Hence the confusion. He's not the great hope that he was advertised to be. As people figure that out, the attacks will come. The president has to have thick skin. Ask any one of them.

The first interesting thing to note (at least to me) is how Mick Lee quickly equates people who don’t believe that President Obama is a Christian to those who believed that President Bush had foreknowledge of 9/11 (so-called “truthers”) or who accused President Bush of lying about WMDs and other issues in the run up to the war in Iraq. Though the difference may be subtle, it is important. On one hand, people are questioning whether President Obama is who he says he is, which really goes to his right to be President and his motives (communist Muslim racist who hates America). In other words, the effort is to delegitimize the man. In the case of President Bush, the criticism wasn’t directed at the man, but rather, at his policies. The better comparison, I suppose, would be to think back and ask how many soldiers refused to believe that President Bush (rather than Al Gore) was the rightful President; how many lawsuits were filed (other than Bush v. Gore) challenging President Bush’s right to be President; and how many lawsuits were filed challenging Vice President Cheney’s right to serve as Vice President given that he was, for all intents and purposes, from the same state as President Bush (in contravention of the Constitution)? There is an important difference between challenging the man as opposed to challenging the policies.

Moreover, at least with regard to the Iraq War there is evidence to support the allegation that President Bush lied. Remember Valerie Plame? Remember the link between Iraq and al-Quaeda? There is no evidence, whatsoever, that President Obama is a Muslim. And again, even if he was, so what? But is that so what the same with regard to taking the nation to war? I don’t think so.

Jeremy hit these observations on the head and was precisely right when he called out Mick Lee’s attempt at moral equivalence. The further dialogue between Mick Lee and Jeremy (with my query tossed in) is, I think, somewhat demonstrative of the issues. But note that Mick Lee never does get around to discussing the principal point to which my post was actually addressed.

Then look at this phrase from Master of Business Administration: “Americans are grossly overeducated in worthless general knowledge terms and essentially ignorant and uneducated in the things that count in life.” In other words, liberal arts knowledge is useless; instead we should all know how to hunt, fish, and farm? This is the sort of attack on the “liberal elite” that we saw during the 2008 campaign when people argued that Sarah Palin was more qualified than Barack Obama to be President. The notion that education is somehow a detriment is truly frightening.

I decided not to respond to Daniel because, frankly, it seemed pointless. But query this: How exactly is it logical to criticize President Obama for attending Rev. Wright’s church at the same time that you suggest (or are willing to even harbor a degree of suspicion) that President Obama is a Muslim? Which is it?

Anyway, in part two, I’ll look at that letter to the editor.

IN Touch: Electorate Ignorance (Not My Title!)

My sixteenth post on The Indianapolis Star's IN Touch blog is now online (I submitted it last week, but it wasn't posted until this morning). As I keep saying when I post these entries, I'm going to keep re-posting my IN Touch entries here (at least until someone from The Star asks me to stop). Go ahead and visit the post on the IN Touch page, anyway. Oh, and by the way: I had nothing to do with the awful title chosen for this post!

A story in The Indianapolis Star last week reported that a frightening number of Americans believe either that President Obama is a Muslim or are not sure of his religious affiliation. This raises two questions that we, as a society, must ask ourselves.

First, why does it matter what religion the president is? Forget that the Constitution specifically provides that we don't have religious tests for political office; don't we (or shouldn't we) elect politicians on the basis of their policy proposals rather than either the color of their skin or the place where they worship (or even whether they worship)?

Furthermore, what does it say about our electorate that so many people readily believe a fallacy? If it is so easy for our electorate to be misinformed on simple facts, then what does it suggest about our knowledge and understanding of the real issues that face our country? Issues like health care and the deficit and global warming are complicated. But if our electorate can be misled to believe that our president is not what he says he is, then how are we to tackle and understand issues that call for close attention, deep understanding, careful analysis, and, in all likelihood, compromise?

Most of us don't have the time to go out and research, in depth, each and every claim made or policy suggested. We have to rely on our politicians to tell the truth and our media to report things accurately and to tell us when our politicians aren't being truthful. Yet when the media abrogates those responsibilities either by failing to fully investigate or by repeating false claims and when segments of the media intentionally further the dissemination of misinformation or even help to financially support a political party, then how can we, as an electorate, trust anything that we hear? And if we can't trust either our politicians or the media, then how can we trust our ability to make informed and educated decisions about the future of our country.

We need to demand more from both our politicians and our media. And we need to be careful ourselves in examining the information upon which rely.

IN Touch: Lack of context for anti-Israeli vitriol (update)

On June 8, I posted my most-recent addition to The Indianapolis Star’s IN Touch blog. My post was included in the June 13 print edition of The Indianapolis Star. Anyway, when I posted it here, I said, “I suspect (hope?) that there will be some interesting comments posted”. Well, sufficient time has now passed, that I thought it worth posting the comments (typos in originals) that my blog generated. I’d say that the comments below from Jim Smith help prove the point that I was making.

From jvertigo:

I too find it amazing that Israel is painted out to be the bad guy again. The Palestinians were dancing in the street over 9/11. How soon we forget. Israel had over 7,000 rocket attacks on its soil and not one little outcry from the liberals. The liberals and the Hollywood elite along with the media are the enemy of this nation. I challenge all thinking Americans to realize what the real story is here. Obama is anti Jewish like his preacher, he has sided with the muslims like his father and we are seeing the results. Wake up America!!

Me:

I agree with what you said until your third sentence. Frankly, I consider myself to be a liberal as to, I suspect, many Jews. Yes, many liberals in America and Europe have taken positions against Israel, but I certainly don't view them as the "enemy of this nation". That kind of hyperbole isn't helpful. Moreover, some may disagree with President Obama's approaches to dealing with Israel and the Middle East but to suggest that he is anti-Jewish is plain wrong.

Me again:

Sorry. I meant fourth sentence.

Jim Smith:

So Mike, I'm thinking by the tone of your article, you think its okay for the Palestinians to be put, kept and confined to the concentration camp called the Gaza Strip. You also must condone the strafing of schools and hospitals and residences by the Israeli F-16's. The bulldozing of houses....in which Rachel Corrie was killed...is okay too?

As for your one uninformed commenter....I've got news for you...the Jews RUN Hollywood. Do the names Speilberg, Katzenberg, Eisner, Weinstein, Chernin, Meyer, Moonves and Zucker mean anything?

And how Israel's right to exist has anything to do with a humanitarian flotilla of ships carrying food, medicine and supplies to the imprisoned Palestinians...I'll never know. Israel has a navy, army and air force....and nuclear weapons. The Palestinians are and have been in a prison camp for over 60 years. This is like comparing the US to Aruba. A super power vs. a third world concentration camp.

Mike, your humanitarian side is severely lacking.

You Mike, like the mainstream media which is controlled by the Zionists, talk around the subject as if anything the Israelis do is justified. And so far, no weapons, no terrorists and no bombs were found on any of the ships. Which means, they were doing exactly what they said they were doing...delivering aid to the Palestinians.

So I'm guessing you're for starving the Palestinians, keeping needed medical supplies from them and making sure their life is miserable.

And to top it all off, the Israelis release footage which show the passengers on the ships trying to defend themselves with anything they could....while the Israelis are shooting live ammo into the crowd. Of course some of the passengers took video and pictures but the Israelis confiscated all of that and none of it is being released. Perhaps it will show a different story than the propaganda presented to the public by the Zionist controlled media.

And lastly, I hate to break this news to you but the Israelis don't have exclusive rights to the word holocaust even though they've gotten tons of mileage out of it for the last 60+ years.....Hitler has nothing to do with the Palestinians so lets stay on point, shall we?

Me:

Jim:

I'm not going to take the time right now to address each point that you raise. However, I do want to note the way that you conjoin the terms Israeli and Jew. If you want to criticize Israel, that is fine; but what does criticism of Israel have to do with whether "Jews run Hollywood" or whether the mainstream media is "controlled by the Zionists"? Is your real complaint about Israeli policies or are you more focused on the perceived "power" of Jews? If you are unable to separate issues of Israel from those dealing with Jews, then whether your complaints are driven by concern for the Palestinians or animus for Jews becomes a question to be considered.

A few other quick points: Where did I say that anything that Israel did was acceptable? I don't recall writing those words for this post. In fact, I began my post with the note that people can debate the wisdom of Israel's actions and ended with a call to find a way forward to a two-state solution for peace. The thrust of my post was not one of right or wrong, but rather of the need for context.

Second, if the point of the flotilla was purely humanitarian, why did the organizers of the flotilla expressly claim that their goal was to break the blockade, why were they not satisfied to deliver the goods to Ashdod for inspection and delivery to Gaza (as the other aid ships did), why where they unwilling to deliver aid to Gilad Shalit, and why has Hamas refused to accept delivery of the aid?

Finally, with regard to your claim that "Hitler has nothing to do with the Palestinians", I'd suggest that you do a bit more historical research. You might start with Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during the British Mandate and World War II.

Seth:

Michael,

While context is needed to understand the conflict, context is also needed in the blockade. We've now found out that its, as Isreal calls it, economic warfare....collective punishment of a group of people that the government disapproves of. The flotilla organizers knew that Middle Eastern spices would be confiscated by Isreal along with bottled water and other banned economic warfare items. Since no weapons were found, that is most likely the reason for "breaking the blockade".

Me:

Some weapons (though not rockets or bombs were found; but query how bullet proof vests, night-vision gear, and millions of Euros in cash is humanitarian).

As to the issue of economic blockade or collective punishment, don't forget that Hamas is the de facto (maybe even de jure) government in Gaza and Hamas, as the government of Gaza, has called for and made war against Israel. It is worth reading the Hamas Charter to know precisely what Israel is confronted with. What sort of methods would you permit Israel to use to defend itself against that war and to defeat Hamas?

Blockades, whether ecomic or military, have a long history. Does the US engage in collective punishment of Cuba or North Korea? More on point, does virtually the entire Arabic world engage in collective punishment against Isreal for refusing to trade with Israel and refusing to do business with businesses (and some countries) that do business with Israel? Did you know that the US had to pass a statute to prevent US companies from succumbing to pressure from Arab countries to disclose whether those companies do business with Israel in order to do business with the Arab country or company?

Moreover, if the blockade is legal (and there is plenty to argue both ways on that), then the intent to break the blockade is technically an act of war. It is also worth noting that if Gaza was occupied (as many still claim, ignoring that Israel left Gaza), then no blockade would be necessary as Israel would be the de fact occupying power. But it isn't.

Finally, don't forget that Hamas still has not allowed the aid from the flotilla to be brought into Gaza (or that Israel continues to transport an enormous amount of aid into Gaza and allow a large number of Palestinians to leave Gaza for medical treatment in Israel). Can you imagine Hamas allowing Israelis to seek medical aid in Gaza or even the West Bank?

Also, don't forget that though the flotilla organizers may claim to have known what would and would not be allowed in, they also made express statements about their desire to reach Gaza or die trying and many told Al-Jazeera and other sources of their desire to become shaheeds (martyrs) in the flotilla. Before emarking, they sang songs gloryfing a Medieval Muslim massacre of Jews in the Arabian Peninsula. Not exactly humanitarian, either.

The fact that Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority are not in favor of a complete lifting of the blockade should also be telling.

But thank you for keeping your comments related to Israel and the context of the blockade, rather than veering into the type of criticism that others (like Jim, above) have gone for.

Jim Smith:

Yes, Mikey, heaven forbid ANYONE would criticize Israel. Especially while they continue to perform genocide on the Palestinians and hold the entire Middle East under nuclear blackmail.

And I understand you don't wish to address the points I raised as your only purpose here is to defend the Zionist terror machine.

Me:

You have some issues, don't you Jim?

First, I'd like you to identify, with specificity, preicsely what genocidal actions Israel has taken. How many Palestinians have been killed, not in combat, but solely because of their race, religion, or nationality? Now, compare and contrast that to other incidents of genocide (remember Bosnia, Rwanda, Darfur, for example?).

Next, I'd like you to point to a single instance of Israel threatening to use nuclear weapons against a neighbor. Compare and contrast that to the repeated calls from Iran and others for Israel to be wiped of the map or pushed into the sea.

Finally, my "only purpose here is to defend the Zionist terror machine"? Really? I guess you haven't read most of my posts which have focused on domestic issues. And I guess that you didn't actually read my post above where I talk about the need to find solutions with security and dignity for a peaceful resolution.

No, Jim, I'd say that your anti-Semitism has eaten your soul and poisoned you to reasoned discussion and debate.

Jim Smith:

*LOL*

Playing the anti-semite, holocuast denier card is all you have left isn't it? Just like the Zionist media, when you can't defend Israel's terrorist, inhumane treatment of others, you resort to name calling and hurling racial accusations.

The sad part is that you don't recognize the Jews are being used by the Zionists to accomplish their reign of terror in the name of Israel. People like you play right into the propaganda and offer it up to the masses as if its fact. If you aren't aware of the nuclear blackmail by the Israelis then you watch and read too much MSM and are guided and influenced by it. Just because the Zionist controlled media doesn't report it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Matter of fact, I don't think the MSM even wants to admit...officially...that Israel has nukes. And you won't find any Zionists admitting that either.

And of course you know nothing about the demonstrations in Israel by the many people who disagree with the treatment of the Palestinians by their own government.

Me:

You have a profound ability to read into someone else's statements things that aren't there. Where did I call you a Holocaust denier?

And what have I offered up as if it was a fact? Have I said something that you can prove to be untrue?

Your constant whining about the "Zionist controlled media" is all the evidence that most people really need to see you for what you are.

As to demonstrations in Israel, that it one of the great things about a truly open democratic country. People can, and do, voice dissenting opinions. They run in open, contested elections, and get elected into a Parliament where they can give voice to all sides in political debate. Were you aware that Israeli Arabs have representation in the Israeli Knesset and on the Israeli Supreme Court?

Finally, while you want to keep harping on these alleged "Zionist" (or is that Israeli?) terror, you still have refused to answer the questions that I've put to you. I understand that you believe that the "Zionist controlled media" is keeping the truth from us, but why don't you share with us that great truth that you've learned on your own to prove your case.

Seth:

Cuba and N Korea still trade with countries other than the United States and are able to bring in supplies but yes, we are using collective punishment. And in both cases, embargoes are shown not to work. It strengthens the subjected governments. Bring prosperity to people through trade and the cries for freedom will (slowly) grow.

Not too many people are calling for a complete dismantling of the embargo...Israel has a right to defend itself. But using such repressive policies are counterproductive and are killing many innocent civilians (while creating great propaganda tools). They also just lost an important embargo ally that was able to control the southern border.

The Arab world not trading with Israel does not constitute collective punishment until they form a navy (and air force) and block all traffic and trade to Israel.

Jim - While you bring up some subjects for debate, your focus on Zionists and Jews makes one believe your argument is more about Judaism than humanitarian.

I elected not to respond further at this point; I anticipate that a “response” to some of the remaining issues will find its way to this blog or IN Touch in the near future.

Anyway, the points that I was trying to make with regard both to context and the vitriol of those opposed to Israel was certainly in full display with Jim Smith’s comments, don’t you think?

IN Touch: Lack of context for anti-Israeli vitriol (and bonus material)

My fifteenth post on The Indianapolis Star's IN Touch blog is now online (actually, it went live yesterday, but Blogger was down so I couldn’t post this entry). As I keep saying when I post these entries, I'm going to keep re-posting my IN Touch entries here (at least until someone from the Star asks me to stop). Go ahead and visit the post on the IN Touch site, anyway.

One can debate the wisdom of Israel’s actions in boarding the “Free Gaza” vessels that set out with the express intent of breaching Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza.  To be serious, however, that debate must acknowledge context, including: Israel’s right to defend itself, Hamas’ continued holding of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit without access to the Red Cross, the continued rocket fire from Gaza, the Hamas Charter that calls for the destruction of Israel, Hezbollah’s calls for the death of all Jews, not just Israelis, the theft by Hamas of aid intended for the civilian population of Gaza and refusal to take delivery of the aid unloaded and inspected by Israel, and the use of the Hamas-run television programs akin to Sesame Street designed to indoctrinate children into the belief that martyrdom and killing Jews is something to which they should aspire.

The timing and vitriol of some of the anti-Israeli responses has been nothing less than stunning and may represent something far deeper, far more pernicious, than anger at Israel over treatment of Gaza or a naval raid. Witness for example, the anger expressed by Mina Khoury in a letter to the editor published on June 4: “It is time the world opens its eyes to the Holocaust being inflicted on the Palestinians.” To compare the events in Gaza to the Holocaust is not merely wrong; it is evil. This odious comparison is invoked for only one reason: to defame, demonize, and delegitimize Israel.

Moreover, given the stunning amount of media coverage and public discussion over this issue, one would think that thousands, if not millions, of civilians had been killed. Yet barely a word is uttered as actual millions are dying in Congo.  Where is the world’s outrage in the face of North Korea’s act of aggression against South Korea that resulted in 46 deaths? Where are the aid flotillas attempting to breach the beaches in Myanmar or North Korea to deliver supplies to those impoverished and oppressed peoples?

Like America, Israel finds itself in uncharted waters, vilified by radical forces and facing murderous aggression from terrorists who proclaim a wish for “martyrdom” and a hatred for the West. The real task now concerns finding a road forward to a two-state solution which satisfies Israel’s need for security and the Palestinian need for dignity. Mr. Khoury’s diatribe provides no illumination.

I suspect (hope?) that there will be some interesting comments posted. Stop by the IN Touch site and join in the “conversation”.

In addition, to posting the foregoing, I thought that it would be worthwhile to post Mina Khoury’s letter to the editor that I referenced as well as some of the comments and follow-ups to that letter. They are both interesting and instructive.

First, Mina Khoury’s initial letter (followed by some selected comments posted in response; unfortunately [fortunately?] it appears as if some of the more inflammatory comments have been removed by the Star’s editors):

Israel's leaders have once again proved to the world their terrorist state of mind by massacring civilians and injuring dozens whose mission was peaceful and humanitarian. They yet again defied international law by committing this crime of terror in international waters.

How much longer with the world stand still watching Israel taking other countries and international entities as well as the United States for granted and continue to ignore the suffering they are causing to the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank? Americans fund these actions with $8 million a day.

It is time the world opens its eyes to the Holocaust being inflicted on the Palestinians.

Comments (typos in originals):

From Paladin007:

A well written letter with legitimate concerns and questions.

Interesting how the Zionist propaganda machine has turned this into sympathy for the biggest terrorist organization on the planet.

And not surprising that the hayseeds in Indiana buy into the propaganda and misinformation so wilingly. But then most of them sit on the sidelines and cheer the "war on terror" when the real terrorists sit in DC and Tel Aviv.

My response (both to Khoury and to Paladin007):

Query to those engaged in this discussion who do not support Israel: In his post, Khoury states: "It is time the world opens its eyes to the Holocaust being inflicted on the Palestinians". Please define "Holocaust" and then provide concrete examples to support a claim that a "Holocaust is being inflicted on the Palestinians."

Similarly, for those who claim that Israel is the "biggest terrorist organization" on the planet, please provide a definition of "terrorism" and concrete examples of acts of Israeli terrorism, including all planes hijacked by Israelis, all cruise ships hijacked by Israelis (and all disabled Americans thrown overboard on hijacked cruise ships), all Olympic games attacked by Israelis, all public buses bombed by Israelis, all roadside bombs detonated by Israelis, all pizza parlors, discos, and bus stations targeted by Israeli suicide bombers, and all government facilities or high rise office towers into which Israelis have flown hijacked airliners.

From Shamanistic:

The last American president to stand up to Israel was John F. Kennedy. Shortly after he warned Irael about building nuclear weapons he was assasinated. The next president, Johnson, allowed Israel to bomb and torpedo a U.S. Navy ship and machine-gun the survivors, and then covered the whole thing up. Since then, every other president has gotten on his knees for Israel and done everything for them, at the expense of American interests. Israel has murdered numerous American citizens and nothing has ever been done about it.

Some people were probably hopeful that Obama would finally stand up for America against this evil regime, but he too is merely a puppet controlled from Tel Aviv.

So the answer is, Israel can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, because it controls the most powerful military in the world.

And another from Shamanistic:

If anyone doubts the power of propaganda just look at the last 5 posts in this thread. The typical yahoos in America are so easily manipulated by mass media that they will trip over themselves being the first to betray their own country to support some crappy little middle eastern parasitic state. They will ignore or even deny the ruthless attack on the USS Liberty and countless other Americans and the trillions of dollars extorted in blood and treasure from the citizens of the United States, selling out their own birthright to prop up some evil little despots who do nothing but laugh at them behind their backs.

What a bunch of rubes.

The day after printing Khoury’s letter, the Star printed the following letter from James F. Siener (selected comments follow):

Mina Khoury ("When will world recognize Israel's defiance?" June 4) wrote about the terrorist acts of Israel. There was a legal blockade. There were terrorists on board the ships (but without weapons). The terroristson board started the violence. Those are the facts.

It's been said that if all the Arab countries would disarm, there would be no more wars. If Israel disarms, there would be no more Israel.

Comments:

From Paladin007:

oh yes, poor poor Israel. The Zionist propaganda machine is in full swing now.

First, it was about the weapons...but none were found. Then it was about those nasty guys, al-CIAda. Yeah, thats right, the organization started, funded and armed by our own CIA. Then sadly, the Zionist terrorists had to admit there was no al-CIAda members aboard.

So now, a ship with no weapons and no "terrorists"...full of humanitarian aid for the enslaved Palestinians....is boarded and taken over by the real terrorists and the sheep here follow the media manipulation like the brainwashed idiots they are.

You Zionist terrorist lovers should read the Protocols of Zion....perhaps then you wouldn't be considered stupid, mindless goyim.

Also from Paladin007 (certain portions omitted for brevity and clarity):

The holocaust and all the other mainstream media talking points (distractions) which are repeated here display the depth of the manipulation of the masses. This has to do with delivering food and supplies and medicine to civilians in prison camp in Gaza. The fact that no weapons or "terrorists' were on board...which is the reason the Zionist's use to justify the killing of innocent people....isn't discussed. The crowd brings up WWII and Iran and everything else of except the incident.

And more from Paladin007:

All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions -- aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical - for so long, of course, as the constitution exists .... Like the Indian idol "Vishnu" they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required. When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those FOOLS who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them.

- From the protocols of the elders of Zion...Protocol No. 12 - Control of the press.

To oldpinky [oldpink is a commenter who has challenged Paladin007] ......see the world fools? You can stand up and be counted now....among the manipulated, brainwashed goy.

And, as if the preceding weren’t enough, Paladin007 finally went off his/her rocker:

You're another stupid goyim....or maybe not. But I know you listen to the fathead, drug abuser all the time....considered a "friend of Israel"....so I wouldn't expect you to know anything other than what big mouth spouts....another example of the Zionist media machine in action.

and

And one more thing...you support Israel and the Zionists because your drug using blowhard tells you to. But I'm wondering how you square that with your unwavering support of the Bush crime family...who are known Nazis.

I chimed in again, with a revised version of my prior query (to which I’d received no response):

I posted the following query in response to Paladin007's comments to another LttE. No response so far:

For those who claim that Israel is the "biggest terrorist organization" on the planet, please provide a definition of "terrorism" and concrete examples of acts of Israeli terrorism, including all planes hijacked by Israelis, all cruise ships hijacked by Israelis (and all disabled Americans thrown overboard on hijacked cruise ships), all Olympic games attacked by Israelis, all public buses bombed by Israelis, all roadside bombs detonated by Israelis, all pizza parlors, discos, and bus stations targeted by Israeli suicide bombers, and all government facilities or high rise office towers into which Israelis have flown hijacked airliners.

(Oh, I dare those spouting hate and calling people names to post under their real name instead of hiding behind a pseudonym.)

Paladin007 is back (this time responding to another commenter):

You should be on the evening news spouting this disinformation like all the rest of the prostitutes. First you say the Israelis were using rubber bullets...now you say the passengers on the ships attacked them. Its seems if they were dangerous terrorists they would've had guns of their own...and taken care of the pirates before they even got on board.

You still haven't addressed the nine people killed....over 50 injured...and nothing but humanitarian aid for Gaza found on the ships. No terrorists, no weapons, no bombs....just food and supplies and medicine.

Guess the protocols scared you since you haven't commented on those.

And then, Paladin007 responded to me (but didn’t answer my queries):

Your questions are cute but they've got nothing to do with the issue of the humanitarian ships being attacked by the terrorists from Israel.

None of you can address that, you just follow the talking points of the controlled media like parrots. Mindless, manipulated and brainwashed.

Posting under a real name has no relevance to anything other than your misguided attempt to be credible. I could post under any name....what difference does it make? Just because you use what appears to be a real name doesn't give your comments any more meaning or substance. Your real name could be Able Foxman for all we know. Its still irrelevant.

Finally, in response to another poster who had taken Paladin007’s challenge to read “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”, I wrote:

You do realize that "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" is a Czarist era forgery based upon even earlier works, don't you? Of course, that hasn't stopped Hamas from actually including a reference to "The Protocols" in the Hamas Charter as a basis for Jihad against Jews. Nor did that stop state-run Egyptian television from producing a 41-part miniseries based on "The Protocols" that was shown in Egypt and elsewhere throughout the Middle East during Ramadan several years ago.

For that matter, Hamas TV has aired claims of the blood libel (that Jews murder [insert chosen victim; in the Middle Ages it was Christians, now it is Muslims] and use their blood to bake Passover matzoh).

Yet in the world of people like Paladin007, it is Israel that is wrong. Of course, if he refuses to recognize that "The Protocols" is a forgery, then what should one expect of the rest of his reasoning.

Then, on Sunday, the Star printed another pro-Israel letter, this one from Dr. Allon Friedman:

What is missing from The Star's May 31-June 2 articles describing the Gaza flotilla affair is a description of the integral role that Turkey and Islamism played. The Turkish IHH, the organizer of the flotilla, has well-known links to violent jihadist movements worldwide, including Hamas. In fact, in 1999 the then-secular Turkish government actually banned the IHH from contributing to Turkish earthquake relief because of its radical ideology.

Furthermore, al-Jazeera reported flotilla members singing about the Koranic-era slaughter and expulsion of Jews. At a Turkish press conference, a number of activists wrote their own wills and, according to Turkish media, three of the four Turks killed were eager to die while participating in violent jihad.

With this in mind, the flotilla mission can only be understood as a classic jihadist martyrdom operation against the infidel Jewish state, one disguised as a humanitarian mission and actively aided, abetted and embraced by the Turkish government. Many secular Turks have for years warned that Turkey's current government is Islamist to its core and that its nod to secularism is merely a sham. The flotilla affair appears to have proven this beyond a doubt.

So far, Dr. Friedman’s post hasn’t generated any harsh response (and Paladin007 is missing in action).

I could go on and on (as the letters and comments do). If you’re interested, The Indianapolis Star designated and reliably anti-Israel columnist, Dan Carpenter, wrote a screed in which he said: “In Israel's rendition, it is a black-and-white battle against genocidal terrorism with no credence given to the humanitarian bona fides of the legions of activists, Israeli as well as foreign, lending their voices to the voiceless.” Of course this completely ignores (a) the fact that Israel has been supplying enormous amounts of aid to Gaza, none of which would be necessary if Hamas would simply agree to stop trying to kill Israelis and (b) that people like Carpenter, not to mention the UN and a billion or so Muslims around the world are already “lending” their voices to the people of Gaza. Anyway, Carpenter’s column generated quite a few comments including the following comments that I found particularly instructive with regard to the nature of the debate and the anti-Israel crowd.

From walksupright (certain portions omitted for brevity and clarity):

That's billions of OUR TAX DOLLARS annually to prop up the rogue Zionist apartheid state, Fuddsy.

That's our "blood and treasure" your pals are costing us - not just the direct costs in terms of questionless blank-check - and in fact illegal under US law, in terms of the arms shipments - but in the TRILLIONS in higher energy (oil) cost, military expenses to fight the endless "war on terror" that your pals have sucked us into, and the BLOOD OF AMERICANS. From the USS Liberty to the USS Cole to 9-11 to Afghanistan to Iraq...

Why don't YOU put YOUR money where your mouth is, Fuddsy -

EMIGRATE TO ISRAEL, ENLIST IN THEIR MILITARY, and leave America to AMERICANS.

We don't need traitorous shills like you, Elmer Stooge. Bye bye.

From Telexkrash:

Israel is occupying Palestinian land!! If someone was occupying American land we would be fighting back too. Is it really that hard to put yourself in their situation. They are fighting for their own freedom, liberties, justice and equality. Do they use terroristic tactics sometimes -- yes they do. We also used terroristic approaches when we fought for our own independence against the English. Is it because Palestinians want to eradicate Jews -- No. It's because they want sovereignty. They want their f*cking land back. They want Israel to stop making new settlements on their land.

Today, two more (pro-Israel) letters to the editor were printed (from Josh Hasten and Jeffrey Adler). And yet more interesting comments followed.

From someguy555:

Simply stated: Your military boarded a ship in international waters. Had they boarded in the territorial waters near Palestine (which you blockade and thus control) or Israel, the crew of the ship would be in the wrong. Because your military boarded them in international waters, what they really committed was an act of piracy.

It's a lie to say that a ship filled with medical supplies and building materials is an "attack on Israel." You people live in a universe of blind-paranoia--as much as I support the right of the Jewish people to a homeland, I am disgusted by what they've done with that blessing. Here's a thought: STOP PROVOKING THEM BY BUILDING NEW SETTLEMENTS.

People I've seen spouting this "Ships filled with medical supplies are a violent attack on Israel!" rhetoric also seem to spout the manifest destiny/divine right to build new settlements on Palestinian land drivel, too. Want rocket attacks to end? DISMANTLE ALL SETTLEMENTS, and don't build more.

From bobindy:

The Palestinians have just as much a right to exist on their homelands as the country that bullied them off of their territorial history in 1949. The Israelies are holding an entire culture, one as old as their own, hostage and, despite what Mike Pensive says, are, indeed, subjected to inhumane hardships. If it were you and your family and your culture and your history and your desparateness, would you not also try to fight back? Okay, maybe you wouldn't.

Whew.

While Paladin007 and Shamanistic have been the principal commentators opposed to Israel in these particular comment threads, I suspect that if one were to review the comments posted to similar articles or letters in the past or to similar articles or letters in other publications, you would find that the opinions expressed are consistent with much of anti-Israel (and anti-Semitic) rhetoric being openly expressed.

I include these comments for three purposes: To demonstrate the degree of hostility toward Israel (and Jews) currently being expressed, to demonstrate how this hostility is being mainstreamed (i.e., those who espouse these views are less likely to keep them private; witness Helen Thomas’ statements that went viral over this past weekend), and to show how readily these views confuse/conflate Jews and Zionism/Israel, thus, putting into sharp focus the reality of the “I’m not anti-Semitic, just anti-Zionist” claim.

I also note one further thing that gives me a great deal of concern: Most of the anti-Zionist sentiment is being expressed by the political left. I usually think of myself as being firmly on the left, maybe even a progressive. More importantly, I’d speculate that a large percentage of American Jews would place themselves on the political left, too. Yet the one issue on which the left appears to be pushing away a segment of their strongest supporters is on the issue of Israel. That worries me.

I’m in the process of writing at length on the whole Gaza flotilla incident. Hopefully, I’ll have some time to finish that in the next day or four.

IN Touch: Spotlight on Public Prayer

My fourteenth post on The Indianapolis Star's IN Touch blog is now online. As I keep saying when I post these entries, I'm going to keep re-posting my IN Touch entries here (at least until someone from the Star asks me to stop). Go ahead and visit the post on the IN Touch site, anyway.

Two recent court decisions have once again put the spotlight on government-sponsored prayer. A federal court in Indiana issued an injunction to prevent a student-led, school-sponsored prayer at Greenwood High School's graduation. And a federal court in Wisconsin held that, as enacted, the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional. Not surprisingly, those who support public prayer have voiced their opposition to these rulings.

However, it appears clear that proponents of public prayer seem to misunderstand several fundamental principles (or perhaps understand but choose to ignore them). First, it is absolutely critical to recognize that neither judge in any way prohibits prayer. Americans, including students at Greenwood, remain free to pray. They can pray in their respective houses of worship, at home, at work, on the street corner, or even in school. A student can even choose to pray during Greenwood's graduation ceremony.

All the court rulings did was to remind us that the government cannot sponsor prayer, as doing so falls within the prohibitions of the establishment clause. These rulings have no impact upon the free exercise clause, because people remain absolutely free to practice their individual religions; they simply cannot look to the government to promote or endorse their religion or prayer.

Next, proponents of public prayer often argue that the First Amendment applies only to acts of Congress. Thus, for example, they argue that Greenwood's prayer should be acceptable because it wasn't an act of Congress. This line of reasoning, however, completely fails to acknowledge that the Supreme Court has ruled that certain protections of the Bill of Rights apply to the states, too, pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Finally, proponents of public prayer argue that the objections of a minority should not be allowed to veto the will of a majority, expressed in a democratic vote (like that of Greenwood's students). However, this argument fails to recognize that a core purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect minorities from the "tyranny" of the majority. Would anyone suggest that a majority could vote to outlaw a particular religion or vote to rescind freedom of the press for a particular television news station or vote to make a certain class of people slaves? Of course not.

And finally, some questions for those who advocate for public prayer: Why does your religious observance require public prayer? Why is prayer in your home and place of worship insufficient? And why do you need the government - our government - to support your religious efforts?

IN Touch: A Threat to Our Rights (update)

Back in January, I posted my most recent entry for The Indianapolis Star's IN Touch blog. In the weeks following the publication of that post on the IN Touch blog, an interesting and heated discussion followed in the comments section of the IN Touch site. I don't know how long The Indianapolis Star keeps those comments, so I decided to copy them here for posterity (note that I deleted a mistakenly duplicated post and corrected a few odd formatting errors that made some text hard to read). Unfortunately, real life and work intervened and I wasn’t able to fully participate in the discussion as it kept going. Nevertheless, the discussion is interesting, especially the chance to see how someone vehemently opposed to gay marriage (or perhaps gay rights in general or even the very concept of “gay rights”) frames the issues and arguments.

First, go back and read my original post. Then check out these comments.

IrishKevin (January 27, 2010)

Michael, I agree wholeheartedly with your post.

No one, to my knowledge, has EVER truly explained how same-sex marriage would destroy traditional marriages, affect their own families or end civilization as we know it.

The proponents (supporters) of SJR-13, I am sure, would NOT agree to amendments such as banning divorce, requiring pre-marital counseling, or other amendments which would "protect" their traditional marriages. They jump up and down about protecting marriage and family while they themselves have been divorced and remarried. It seems to me divorce is a MUCH bigger threat to marriages and families than same-sex marriages are. And after all, these fundamentalist legislators should remember that Jesus did say what God has brought together let NO MAN put asunder. But hey, they only follow the parts of Jesus teachings that are "convenient" for them, yet they call themselves devout Christians. What a laugh.

However, I think we all know that the usually cast of characters are really out just trying to score political points with their fundamentalist base, so they can keep getting re-elected. If they spent as much effort trying to solve the REAL problems facing Indiana and stop worrying about same-sex marriages, maybe they MIGHT actually accomplish something of value, instead of wasting their time on stuff like SJR-13 while they are in session.

But hey, these "family value" legislators just want to bring up this issue every session so they can keep getting elected and keep coming to Indianapolis on the taxpayer's dime, stay in hotels, dine out and waste MORE time accomplishing NOTHING for the citizens of Indiana.

Mick Lee (February 1, 2010)

As usual, supporters gay marriage claim that "No one... has EVER truly explained how same-sex marriage would destroy traditional marriages". And, as usual, the key words are "has ever truly explained". What this means is that they get to decide what is "truly". It would doubt few that our writers don't believe such explanations could exist in the first place.

Well, the truth is such explanations are out there easy to be found. Anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest. Our writers may not like them. They may say they don't meet their approval or their logic. But they are there. Just surf the web.

IrishKevin (February 1, 2010)

So tell us Mike [ed: I believe that IrishKevin meant Mick, not Mike; see below], how does same-sex marriage affect YOUR marriage, YOUR family, YOUR well-being?

Come on Mike, tell us, and be specific. I don't want some generic answer from the groups who go down to the Satehouse but never really say anything relevant. They are the ones who NEVER explain HOW same-sex marriage will affect them, their familes or their well-being.

So, since you take issue with that, I want to know how it directly affects YOU. Come on, tell us.....(if you can).

Michael Wallack (February 1, 2010)

Mick:

Thanks for reinforcing my point. You tell me that explanations are "out there easy to be found". Yet, like the proponents of the proposed constitutional amendment who testified to the Indiana Senate Judiciary Committee, you don't tell us what those reasons are, either. A legislator being asked to amend our constitution shouldn't have to surf the web for a rationale; proponents of the amendment should put their rationale up for scrutiny and debate. In this case, that was not done.

Michael Wallack (February 1, 2010)

IrishKevin:

Are you asking me or did you mean to ask Mick? For my part, same-sex marriage will have absolutely no effect on me, my marriage, or my well-being.

Mick Lee (February 2, 2010)

What has escaped Michael and Kevin is that I had accused the other writers of dishonesty and bad faith. You never "truly" heard how same-sex marriage would destroy traditional marriages? It's because you don't want to. It is easily done with a few clicks on the web and the fact that our industrious writers have little interest in doing so demonstrates they have little curiosity into why anyone would think differently than they do. Our writers really don’t want to debate “gay marriage” at all. In other words, the subject isn't really the subject. Something else is afoot. Our writers' real goal is to leave the door open for some court to decide the whole issue for everyone else. Given the Hoosier electorate, that is the only way "gay marriage" will become legal in Indiana.

IrishKevin (February 2, 2010)

Re: Mike Lee. Mike, you wrote "You never "truly" heard how same-sex marriage would destroy traditional marriages? It's because you don't want to."

Then you say it is out on the web. I am not asking that. I am asking YOU. How does same-sex marriage affect YOU, YOUR marriage and YOUR family. You seem concerned that "some court to decide the whole issue for everyone else"...So tell us how it will affect YOU.

So I would like YOU, and the others who scream that same-sex marriage will DESTROY our state and our Nation, to tell me HOW it will destroy your marriage... How will it destroy our state, our nation, our families and civilization as we know it? Those opposed to same-sex marriage make those claims but they NEVER say how their own marriages or lives will be affected. And by the way, they DON'T say that on the WEB either.. they just make the same stupid rants that they have to protect traditional marriage and family values, yet they TRULY NEVER say how same-sex marriage will "destroy" traditional marriage... so please TELL US....

Michael Wallack (February 2, 2010)

Mick:

Actually, I think that you're missing the point. Look at the last paragraph of my original post. You will see that the issue is NOT whether Indiana should allow gay marriage; the issue is whether we should amend our Constitution. Perhaps the issue of same-sex marriage should be open to the courts (just as a lot of civil rights rulings were left to the courts) or to a future legislature. But amending the Constitution would prohibit a future legislature from dealing with same-sex marriage or civil unions.

The other point that you miss is that I said that at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, none of the proponents of SJR 13 endeavored to identify the perceived threat. I'm happy to debate the merits of those perceived threats, but it is the obligation of those proposing a constitutional amendment to come forward with the arguments; it isn't the obligation of the opponents to both "find" the arguments and then defeat them.

Jeff Lint (February 2, 2010)

Mick,

I think it is you who doesn't want to debate this issue. You say the arguments are out there defining how "same-sex marriage would destroy traditional marriages" yet you can't cite a single argument. I have heard and read a lot on this issue and like Irish Kevin I have never heard anyone explain how same-sex marriage harms much less destroys traditional marriage, "truly" or otherwise. If this issue is as clear as you seem to think it is why can't you present any evidence? If you're arguing that some of your fellow Hoosiers should be denied rights belonging to others you need a better argument than no argument at all.

IrishKevin (February 2, 2010)

Michael, I met to ask Mick, (and I inadvertently wrote Mike). In fact, I responded again to him and again wrote Mike instead of Mick.

Based on what you wrote in your original posting, I assumed that you were not affected in any way by same-sex marriage, just like NO ONE ELSE'S marriage, family or well-being would be affected by same-sex marriage, despite what Advance America and the other organizations claim.

Mick Lee (February 2, 2010)

Our writer is certainly right to say that same-sex marriage is already prohibited by state law. The citizens of Indiana have already spoken. So why fool around with the state constitution? Precisely because some court will all by itself constitutionalize the issue and place it beyond public discourse in rendering its own decision. That is, with the right case before it, the judicial branch of government can and will amend the Indiana constitution all by itself.

Many if not most within gay activist community are putting their hopes for these circumstances to transpire. The apprehension of their opponents is that gay activists will attempt an “end run” around the Indiana voters and legislature by appealing to a receptive court.

Michael makes a curious statement when he writes: “do we really want to start amending our bill of rights with provisions that serve to restrict, rather than enhance, those rights?” It the first place, Michael serves up a planted axiom that what is referred as “gay rights” actually exist. This is in the very least debatable and far from a settled consensus. In the second place, Michael misses an important function of the bill of rights.

Rights, as we possess them, protect us from the naked strength government. They serve to protect the Hoosier populace from the coercive power of those who think society should be remade according to their lights. Such “reforms” are always presented as benevolent changes. But the means is tyrannical.

Contrary to assertion of some, marriage is not a vehicle to collect benefits. The sentiment of Hoosiers along with millions over the globe is that marriage is one man and one woman for the nourishment and protection of children. Yes, there are different other kinds of families. But all these possible “family” constellations are not the same nor do they possess the same strengths and weaknesses. Quite frankly, most are maladapted to the needs and demands placed on them--especially in the modern age. It is the accumulated experience and wisdom over the centuries that has shown us what works and what doesn’t. We do not wish to subject ourselves to court imposed social experimentation just to resort to reinventing the wheel. This could only be done by state imposed coercion against the liberty of Hoosiers. The marriage amendment is an assertion of the populace that they are a free and self-governing people rather than witless subjects of a handful of men in black robes.

Yes, social dyads called gay marriages will always exist among us. But the question before the larger society is which family constellation will we recognize and to which will we extend our assistance. Gay pairings will always exist; but the larger society has decided that it is not its job nor is it in their interest to aid in preserving them.

Jeff Lint (February 3, 2010)

Mick,

Please explain how "same-sex marriage would destroy traditional marriages". If you can't explain how this happens I don't see how you can justify denying the same civil rights to your fellow citizens that you enjoy.

Mick Lee (February 3, 2010)

A few years ago, before his "sudden" parting of ways with the Star, RiShawn Biddle and I had a lengthy exchange over several letters on just the subject of how gay marriage would damage (note, I did not say destroy) traditional marriage. I introduced the concept of "social ecology" and Mr. Biddle kept true to his libertarian views and refused to believe that what was going on around him could crack into his life. I view human being very much social beings for whom their culture is very much the air they breathe. Mr. Biddle believes in a radical individualism by which the person is critically separate from society.

On these grounds, Mr. Biddle and I kept going around in circles. I ended my side of the exchange citing empirical evidence from Holland and the Scandinavian countries where gay marriage was established in law.

The evidence revealed that fewer marriages were formed over time and fewer with each passing year. Cohabitation became the norm. Such arrangements are inherently unstable in that they were less likely to culminate in marriage and were prone to dissolve in a matter of a few months to a few years.

For the children, the failure of families to form or to be laid waste often leads to a number of crippling pathologies-often throughout their lives. In theory, these alleged "self contained individuals" should have remained detached from the trash around them. As life is really lived, this just isn't so.

Mr. Biddle granted there may be certain "pychic effects" (a term I rejected) in broadening what is considered as marriage but these were irrelevant to the principle of personal liberty.

My counter is that the Lord gave us our liberties so that we may carry out our duties. Liberty must be "for" something. Liberty doesn't live for itself nor is it an unqualified license to harm others while enjoying one's liberty. It was Abraham Lincoln who championed this concept of liberty and it was for these same reasons he objected to the institution of slavery. Lincoln reasoned that a man who is a slave is a man who is unable to honor is mother and father and thus unable to keep the Commandments.

A sin is often times not a malicous act of evil. Instead, it is often the illicit use of something intended for good. Gay activists often point to all the good things that come out of gay marriages. I this I have no doubt. It of no surprise that good things come out of the wrongful application of marriage — an institution meant for good. What would truly be surprising would be if nothing good came out of it. Yes, marriage is meant of the mutual love and companionship of two individuals. But marriage is also for the issue, nourishment and protection of children. Yes, many gay partners are raising children and do so well. Yes, some heterosexual couples never have children and have no intention of doing so; but they enjoy an intense passion with each other. But these are distinct minorities within the norm. The childless couples are in a marriage because each has bound their generative sexuality to their partner so that it will not be shared with another. Parents for a child are necessary but are not sufficient. Parents are not gender interchangeable. A child needs both and male father and female mother. That family constellation provides the optimum condition for children to grow — especially if both the mother and father are the biological parents. That so many heterosexual marriages are bad does not lend legitimacy to gay couples claiming marriagehood. Most homosexual couples do not have children in the first place. Those gay couples that do raise children lack the complimentary aspects of male and female caregivers.

I well understand the agony and isolation homosexuals continue to suffer in our society. The pain many heterosexuals inflict on gays for the sake of fun and enjoyment of hurting them is a sin against God. But conforming marriage to one's circumstances is not necessary to be a member and conversationalist of the moral community.

I say all these things with my beloved gay son in my heart. I will never reject him and only wish him well. He and his lover will always have a welcome place at our table. Nevertheless, things are as they are.

IrishKevin (February 3, 2010)

Mick, I see you have responded to Michael, but not to me, which is okay, as I really did not think you would answer my question as to how same-sex marriage directly affects YOU, YOUR marriage and/or YOUR family. I still stand behind my original assertion the no one who opposes same-sex marriage TRULY indicates HOW same-sex marriage will "destroy" their OWN marriage, the institution of marriage, or how it affect their families or bring an end to civilization and the human race.

So I guess you will continue to pontificate and avoid direct answers. That is fine, I am done as well as you clearly don't have an answer.

I also could pontificate as to WHY this country is a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC, as opposed to a TRUE Democracy, and WHY Jefferson, Madison and the rest of the Founding Fathers did that to protect the minority from the TYRANNY of the majority. But I guess you don't know or understand any of that. Maybe you and the rest of the supports of SJR 13 should go read Madison's writing on why he feared the tyranny of the majority, and why we ELECT representatives, and have courts to PROTECT minorities from the majority voting away their rights. Maybe you need to go study a little more U.S. History, Civics and Political Science.

I would bet it would have taken a LOT longer for southern states to get rid of the "Jim Crow" laws if the citizens of those states were allowed to vote on them. The State legislatures and courts took the actions necessary to protect the minorities because the "majority" would have voted to maintain the status quo.

Allowing fellow citizens to VOTE on taking away OTHER citizens rights is VERY DANGEROUS and the VERY REASON we have elected officials and courts. This is NOT a true democracy. And as much as YOU and others would like to vote away rights of fellow Hoosiers, I am glad that there are SOME legislators in Indiana who understand the implications of that.

Mick Lee (February 4, 2010)

How shall “gay marriage” impact my marriage? Well, Kevin, I am an old man — married for over fifty years. And I am probably not long for this world. At least in my case, the question is misapplied. I assure you that a certain hardening of the “concrete” that forms the bonds between my wife and myself took place some time ago — long before the notion of “gay marriage” made its first appearance. (Yes, there was a time when even gay activists thought “gay marriage” was an outrageous idea — nothing more than a “red herring” and a fantasy floated by their opponents to divert attention from the real issues of discrimination in housing, employment and peaceable public protection.) . However, I have more than a casual interest in the kind of world I will leave behind and in what happens to my children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and all who come after me.

I am sure you are quite proud of your civics lesson; but, given the maturity of your writing flair, it is my guess that I had written much more multi-layered manuscripts on the Federalist Papers and the Constitution before your father dripped from your grandfather’s seed. But we need not go down those roads. The fact is your discourse begs the question.

You and your compatriots insist on the protection of your right to marriage. You also insist that no majority has the authority to take away your right. The problem, however, does such a right even exist? When the Federalist Papers were written and the Constitution ratified, the rights of Afro-Americans and the franchise for the Jews were subject to active debate — however imperfectly. In other words these questions have a long pedigree going back to the Founding. But at no time until these recent days has the “right” of homosexuals to marriage ever been advanced or argued in any forum. As I alluded to before, for most of the history of gay activism, leaders within the movement regarded the subject of “gay marriage” a phony issue invented by religious zealots to scare off the public. Even they thought the notion of “gay marriage” a contradiction in terms and hardly enviable in pursuit of their rights as homosexuals. It has been only recently that a “right to marry” has been put forward. In addition, many within the homosexual media insist that such a marriage should not be expected to conform to “heterosexist” norms.

You cannot manufacture a “right” nor is it safe to make the attempt. Neither can a majority take away what you never had to begin with. You certainly are right that we heterosexuals have allowed ourselves a lot of crap in our sexual adventures and marriages since the Second World War. But is precisely the point. When the radical liberalization of divorce, it was also argued that why should it make any difference to you and your marriage if the Smith’s down the street separate and divorce? The answer is that divorce was not kept at a small 10-15% as predicted — instead it reached slightly over 50%. This is a matter of indifference to many but it was a crippling disaster for a least one third of the children (many put the figure higher) resulting in a number of pathologies our society has yet to grapple with.

I have made my case plainly. The empirical evidence points out that broadening the legal definition to include gay marriage spikes in fewer marriages taking place and the increases failure of the formation stable families. Many will reply that that is their problem — not mine. I suggest that attitude is short sighted. One way or another it will become your problem.

You may well have gay marriage established in law sooner or later. I would bet on sooner. But we will not be the better for it.

IrishKevin (February 5, 2010)

Mick, it is not MY right to marry that I am concerned about, as I happened to have been married for over 30 years to my wonderful wife, but it the RIGHT of my gay son I am fighting for. He is entitled to the same "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" as I and my wife have had.

The problem with SJR-13 is not that it is trying to "protect" marriage, as its supporters claim, but the wording, if you read it, is also intended to PREVENT civil unions as well. So those who say they are supporting SJR-13 to "Protect" the "sacred" institution of marriage are disingenuous, (as in hypocrites and bigots) since they are also against CIVIL UNIONS, and allowing gay couples who want to commit their lives to each, from enjoying the same CIVIL benefits, such as tax breaks, the right of Social Security benefits, and the over 1500 other state and federal benefits that married couples have that gay couples can NOT have. And please don't use that tired argument that those benefits can be achieved by creating contacts, because most of them cannot.

My gay son did NOT CHOOSE to be gay, he was born that way. So why should he not have the same chance at love, commitment and family as my straight sons and daughter have? Because some people think it is okay for the majority to VOTE away his right to have the committed relationship my straight kids can have? Well I don't happen to think so, even though you don't seem to like my "writing flair". (THAT'S TOUGH, by the way, I don't care.)

The majority CANNOT be allowed to vote on the rights and privileges of the minority. And they SHOULD NOT be allowed to vote DISCRIMINATION INTO the Indiana Constitution.

The Indiana constitution says "The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens."

So you can pontificate all you want. You can criticize my writing style or "writing flair", all you want, but allowing citizens to vote rights AWAY from a group and puting into the constitution WRONG and DANGEROUS. Maybe we should allow the citizens to vote away the rights of those who belong to the Muslim religion as well, since the majority seem to think they are all terrorists anyway.

So I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree, because I don't care if you agree or not, Gays are entitled to have the same long-term commitments, the same loving relationships and receive the SAME benefits from entering into a commitment MARRIED relationship as straight couples do, and NO ONE has the right to simply VOTE that away.

Gay married will NOT destroy traditional marriage, will NOT destroy traditional families will NOT destroy society, not matter what you and others opposed to it claim. And I happen to think this is EXACTLY the kind of tyranny of the majority that Madison warned about, whether you think so not.

SO I will continue to speak out against the phony Christians, who hide behind Bible verses to support their position, and the bigots who simply don't like gays, and the mass of uninformed citizens who won't take the time to educate themselves, but who rely on the bigots, hypocrites and phony Christians to form their opinions on the topic. Your time has passed, as the MAJORITY of those UNDER 30 support the right of a gay couple to get married. So it may not happen tomorrow, but it will happen, and those opposed will see they are on the WRONG side of this issue.

Mick Lee (February 19, 2010)

Mr. IrishKevin

1.) I have pointed to empirical evidence that those nations which have recognized "gay marriage" suffered a numerical decline in the formation of marriages and increases in failure in the formation stable families. This seems to be a matter of indifference to you. One can only assume that the original guest ion of "how would gay marriage effect your own marriage?" is really a matter of indifference to you. Come hell or high water, you are for gay marriage. Period. This qualifies as being a hypocrite.

2.) Marriage is what is known as a "pre-existing" institution. It existed long before any state and will exist long after the disappearance of any nation. No government has the authority to "redefine" marriage and it is an attack on liberty to do so.

3.) You totally fail to account how a "right" that no one--including gays--advocated anytime and anywhere before just recently, suddenly becomes something you merely assert exists as if it were self-evident.

4.) It is well documented that as individuals age they become more conservative. The first such phase occurs upon marriage. It is further compounded with the arrival of children. It is an inescapable phenomenon that people do change their political and social views as they pass through the milestones of life. Don't assume those under 30 will not change their minds on this issue.

4.) You assume the worst about your opponents. You more than clearly indicate that you believe who hold different views on this issue than you do are evil. This is not a mark of the pluralistic society we are supposed to cherish.

5.) Your writings display a serious seething of hatred and bile. You are dangerous. On this basis alone, most people will not listen to you. You should reflect on this. It is only hurting you.

IrishKevin (February 21, 2010)

I have to laugh at your "emperical evidence". You claim that marriages in Holland and the Scandanavian countries are down and that more couples are co-habitating ONLY because of gay marriage. So heterosexual couples are co-habitating because of gay marriage. WHAT A LAUGH! Your "evidence" falls apart Mr. Lee. Divorce is UP and couples are co-habitating here in the U.S. as well, and we don't have gay marriage as law. So the "emperical study doesn't hold water, as they say. The researchers would have had to eliminate EVERY OTHER reason for co-habitation to blame it only on gay marriage.

SO sorry, that research is, as they say, B.S.

While YOU have failed STILL failed to show how gay marriage affects YOU, your family OR society. (As I said, your study is bogus). The fact that more couples are co-habitating in Holland and that Holland allows gay marriage do NOT relate.

So yes I AM angry, when my son gets treated as a second class citizen by people like YOU, Mr. Lee. I have to come to the conclusion that maybe taxes in this country are "unfair", as all those Tea Party loonies keep shouting. So I will join their shouts... No equality, NO TAXES. Maybe the gay community should stop paying taxes until they receive same equal treatment, rights and privledges of ALL citizens. You don't want gay marriage? Then maybe you should pay the taxes of those whose RIGHTS you are denying.

Mick Lee (February 23, 2010)

Mr. IrishKevin

It is typical for pro-gay marriage folk to disparage the Holland studies. What is interesting is in their own way they admit the findings of the study. The error they make is that they assert marriage and co-habitation as equivalent associations. They are not. Cohabitation is inherently instable. Couples who cohabitate are two to three times more likely to break apart. The built in component in cohabitation is the avoidance of commitment. Marriage, in contrast, is a pledge of commit to one another and to provide nourishment and protection to the children they will have.

The pro-gay marriage folk have long worked to decouple child raising from marriage in the public mind. To a large degree, they have succeeded. This denaturing of marriage of one of its central purposes has made marriage simply one of several arrangements two people can make use. An option if you will. Those areas in Holland and Scandinavia which are the most receptive to same-sex marriage also have astonishing rates of out of wedlock births: 60to 80 percent. The simple fact is sociologists in both Europe and North America recognize being born out of wedlock carries a number of social pathologies which we have yet to begin to deal with.

Many such you snort in contempt at such studies. It is simply axiomatic to you that it just can�t be that gay marriage is responsible for any effects on heterosexual marriages. You point to all the other forces in our social sphere the just must be the cause of the destruction of marriage. Yet you produce no studies which refute the Dutch findings. The correlation is there that points to the increased acceptance of gay marriage and the decline in the formation of heterosexual marriages. You casually assert that the correlation is meaningless.

You fail to account just where this so called right to same-sex came from. Gay activists during the 1960’s through the 1980’s ridiculed the whole idea of gay marriage. They said that gay marriage was a scare tactic invented by religious zealots to drive people away from the real issues. Gay activists told us they were interested in nothing of the sort. Were the religious zealots right all along?

You are unhappy that I have not stated how the adoption of gay marriage would effect me. The flaw in your challenge is that you want a “micro” answer to a “macro” question. Dramatic social changes effect masses of people and it is only in observing large numbers of people one can assess how changes have impacted the population. Some families will be the epitome of the “new world”. For other families, change will bypass them for one reason or another. What we do know is the liberalization of the divorce laws and the introduction of effective contraceptives were supposed to be business of individuals. Yet in a very short time, these two things became everyone’s business. Marriage became less binding. Contraception made recreational sex outside marriage possible —  making sex and marriage less exclusive to each other. You may regard these as good changes; but you cannot deny what was once individual became everyone’s task to deal with.

As I wrote before, your hatred is palpable. I distrust you and can only be suspicious of what more you will want if you get what you want this time. What exactly would you do to us if you could?

As far as withholding taxes, I say go knock yourself out. You will have some interesting conversations with the I.R.S.

IrishKevin (February 24, 2010)

Mick Lee wrote: "As I wrote before, your hatred is palpable. I distrust you and can only be suspicious of what more you will want if you get what you want this time. What exactly would you do to us if you could?"

Do to US? So it is YOU against the world? I think your paranoia is showing.

Actually, the only people I "hate" are hypocrites, bigots and racists. I don't hate those who are "mentally challenged" (i.e. stupid), since they cannot help the fact that they can't grasp reality and basic truths or that they can be influenced so easily by those who have agendas.

However, I am not to fond of liars either actually.

So if you think I hate you, then you can decide which category you fall into. Based on your rants, you should be able to figure it out.

Interesting stuff, no? So what do you think?