God in the Schools. Again.

The Indiana General Assembly is, yet again, debating a bill to legislate the interplay between religion and the public schools. In this case, the bill in question is House Bill 1024 (HB1024) authored by Rep. John Bartlett (D-Indianapolis). Unlike many of the bills I’ve written about in previous years (such as the bill to require public school students to recite The Lord’s Prayer), HB1024 actually seems designed to be inclusive rather than exclusive and to solve perceived problems. Moreover, the bill does not (generally) try to elevate any singular religious viewpoint over others. Nevertheless, despite seemingly good intentions, HB1024 has significant flaws, many of which exemplify the real difficulty of crafting legislation on such complicated and emotional subjects.

So let’s take a look at HB1024 and discuss some of the problems that I see. (Note that HB1024 is divided into two parts; the first adds a new Section 22 to the end of Indiana Code § 20-30-5 while the second part adds new Chapter 20-33-12 to the Indiana Code.) I’ll work through the language of each provision of HB1024 followed by my comments on each provision. Note that throughout this post, I’ve tried to use different religions and ideas as examples, often in an intentionally provocative way. It is not my intention to denigrate any religion or belief or to suggest that ideas espoused by any religion are right or wrong; rather, it is my intention to provoke thought and often being a bit over-the-top or offensive is the way to accomplish that goal.

Sec. 22.

(a) Each school corporation shall include as an elective in the school corporation’s high school curriculum a course surveying religions of the world. The course must include as part of the course’s curriculum:

   (1) the historical study of religion;

   (2) the cultural study of religion; and

   (3) a literary study of writings, documents, or records relating to various religions.

(b) The curriculum described in subsection (a) must be neutral, objective, and balanced. It may not encourage or promote acceptance of any particular religion.

Consider Section 22(a)’s requirement for a “course surveying religions of the world”. Note that what this means is largely left up to the school corporation. Yes, the course must include a historical study, cultural study, and literary study, all of which must be neutral, objective, and balanced. That is good; after all, religion is extremely important to many people and has been a driving factor in much of human history, both for good and for ill. But what is really required of a “survey” of “religions of the world”? For example, would the course meet the statutory requirements if it examined the Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, Episcopalian, Greek Orthodox, and Amish faiths but did not include Native American faiths, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, or Hinduism? Could the course include only monotheistic faiths? Only faiths with adherents at that particular school or within that particular community? Who would determine which faiths to include or exclude (i.e., do we include Baha'i, Santeria [voodoo], Scientology, Hari Krishna, Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster)? And should a course surveying religions of the world also include cultural manifestations that do not include theistic belief (I’m being careful here not to confuse atheism with a religion, but atheist “beliefs” as well as things like secular humanism and the like are, in many respects, similar to religion with regard to historical and cultural studies of the sort contemplated by HB1024).

I also wonder whether the survey course could satisfy the statutory requirements by studying Biblical passages from the Old Testament (I’m using the phrase “Old Testament” here although I don’t believe that it is an accurate or appropriate term, but it is more commonly accepted and its use means that I don’t need to spend time discussing biblical historicity or terminology) and New Testament or perhaps comparing different versions or translations of the Bible but without readings from the Koran or the foundational works of other religions? HB1024 requires that the course not “encourage or promote” any particular religion, but won’t the choice of versions of writings associated with a religion implicitly serve just such a cause?

Finally, look at that last prohibition again: The course “may not encourage or promote acceptance of any particular religion.” Notice anything missing? Two things actually jumped out at me. First, the course can’t “encourage or promote acceptance of any particular religion” but what about encouraging or promoting religion generally? Can the course teach students that some form of theistic belief is necessary to lead a good or moral life or to be a full participant in what it means to be an American? It doesn’t appear that would be prohibited by HB1024 so long as the promotion of religion was general (“You should believe in a deity”) rather than specific (“You should be Catholic”). The other concern is that HB1024 prohibits encouragement or promotion of a particular religion, but says nothing about discouragement or disapproval of religion generally or any religion in particular. Thus, while HB1024 may prohibit a teacher from saying, “You should be Lutheran” it doesn’t appear to prohibit the teacher from saying, “The Pope is the Whore of Babylon and Catholics aren’t patriotic Americans”. Query further how the right-wing meme claiming that “Islam is an ideology and not a religion” would factor into HB1024’s requirements and prohibitions.

In other words, while the idea of a survey course on religions of the world is probably a good one, I’m concerned about the possible ramifications or unintended consequences of statutory language that does not precisely delineate the boundaries, requirements, and prohibitions. Sadly, we can’t presume that all teachers in all school districts throughout the state (not to mention all school boards and school administrations) are completely neutral when it comes to discussion, promotion, or denigration of religion and religions.

Moving on to the second part of HB1024… I’ll break this up into digestible chunks for the purpose of analysis and discussion.

Chapter 12. Indiana Student Religious Civil Liberties

Sec. 1. This chapter applies to all public schools, including charter schools.

OK, I know the answer already, but think about this one for a minute. Why shouldn’t parochial schools that receive state funds also have to comply with the sort of “religious liberties” that this chapter requires? Sure, I understand that a Catholic School is going to want to instill Catholic principles and teach Catholic lessons, but if it elects to receive money from the State of Indiana, then shouldn’t it be forced to adhere to certain protections for its non-Catholic students (or even Catholic students who elect to express non-traditional views)? What about wholly secular private schools? Should they be able to engage in the sort of religious discrimination that HB1024 would otherwise prohibit in public schools? Why?

Sec. 2. A public school shall not discriminate against a student or a student’s parent on the basis of a religious viewpoint or religious expression. A public school shall treat a student’s voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint, if any, on an otherwise permissible subject in the same manner the public school treats a student’s voluntary expression of a secular or other viewpoint on an otherwise permissible subject and may not discriminate against the student based on a religious viewpoint expressed by the student on an otherwise permissible subject.

First, as I mentioned above, it is probably incorrect to classify atheism or similar non-theistic worldviews as being religions, but it nevertheless seems that students who express either an atheistic or anti-theistic viewpoint should be entitled to the same protections as a student who expresses a religious viewpoint. I’m not sure that “if any” really covers those sorts of viewpoint expressions. This concern extends to many of the provisions of HB1024 but I’ll (mostly) refrain from making this same observation over and over and over; just keep in mind as you read HB1024 and my analysis, how an atheist viewpoint would be treated by the bill’s requirements and prohibitions.

This provision also made me wonder under what circumstances a school is or should be allowed to discriminate “against a student or a student’s parents”. HB1024 would ban such discrimination on the basis of religious viewpoints or religious expression. But what about political viewpoints or political expression? Could a school discriminate against a student because his parent ran for elected office as a Democrat? What about commercial viewpoints or expressions? Could a school discriminate against a student because her parent’s business chose not to sponsor the school’s choir? Or what if a student’s parent stood up at the school board meeting to criticize a decision by a principal or teacher? I know that this is moving a bit afield from the core issues of HB1024, but it seems that the real answer is that schools shouldn’t discriminate against students or parents. Why do we need to create statutory guidelines for which specific types of discrimination are prohibited leaving some types, at least by implication or inference, as permissible?

Also, while I understand that the private schools are … well, private … I’m concerned that we would statutorily exclude those schools from prohibitions on discrimination against students or parents on the basis of religious viewpoints or expressions, especially if those private schools are receiving money from the government (or on behalf of the government).

Sec. 3. Students may express their beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions. Homework and classroom assignments must be judged by ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance and against other legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the public school. Students may not be penalized or rewarded on account of the religious content of their work. If an assignment requires a student’s viewpoint to be expressed in course work, artwork, or other written or oral assignments, a public school shall not penalize or reward a student on the basis of religious content or a religious viewpoint. In such an assignment, a student’s academic work that expresses a religious viewpoint shall be evaluated based on ordinary academic standards of substance and relevance to the course curriculum or requirements of the course work or assignment.

I think that the principal goal of this section to provide that students are permitted to talk about religion in their school work and won’t be graded on the basis of what they say or don’t say vis-à-vis religion. I think. But query whether this section protects a student who writes an essay in a science class that says that evolution is wrong and that divine creation is the correct explanation? I’m really not sure if this section says that a teacher can give the student a poor grade for not addressing science or if the student is protected from receiving a poor grade because of the religious viewpoint that was expressed. And what if the “legitimate pedagogical concerns identified by the public school” include creation science or “intelligent design” (just to pick a single example)? I guess what I’m asking, in part, is whether the requirements or prohibitions set forth in a religious foundational document can be qualified as a legitimate pedagogical concern upon which grading of religious expression can be based? And, just for yucks and giggles, query whether the work of a student who bases an argument on his or her religious belief must be analyzed for grading purposes on appropriate formulation, understanding, and citation to the religious dogma upon which the argument is based? If a student writes that abortion is wrong because Jesus was against abortion, should a teacher be able to grade that student’s work upon whether the student adequately supported the position that Jesus did, indeed, oppose abortion? Or is that student’s schoolwork essentially un-gradable because it is premised upon religious belief (even if wrong)?

Now consider that survey course of world religions described above. Can a student who writes an essay in that course that denigrates another religion point to this section to protect his/her expression of religious viewpoint? Or imagine a student who, during the portion of the history curriculum that focuses on the Holocaust, writes that Jews deserved to be exterminated because they are responsible for killing Jesus. What about a student who argues that civil rights laws are wrong because the foundational documents of her religions claim that her religion’s deity chose to separate the races (a basis for the trial court’s ruling upholding miscegenation laws in Loving v. Virginia)? It seems to me that we ought not be creating an environment in which children are emboldened to express bigoted or hateful views and cite their religion as a defense. Sadly, I fear that the language of HB1024 could do just that.

Sec. 4.

(a) Public school students may pray or engage in religious activities or religious expressions before, during, and after the school day in the same manner and to the same extent that students may engage in nonreligious activities or expression. Students may organize prayer groups, religious clubs, or other religious gatherings before, during, and after school to the same extent that students are permitted to organize other noncurricular student activities and groups. A public school may indicate, in writing, orally, or both, that the religious activity does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position, or expression of the public school.

While this may come as a surprise to some, I have no real concerns about students praying in school. They do it all the time before a test or before asking a girl to prom; they do it before eating lunch and before taking the field for the big game. The issue is not whether students can pray in school but rather what sort of accommodation the school must provide for prayer and whether the students can engage in prayer activities organized by the school or faculty.

The first sentence of this provision seems innocuous enough in allowing students to pray or engage in religious activities before, during, or after the school day. But what many may not realize is that the sort of prayer or religious observance contemplated by this provision does not, in fact, apply to all religions or permit the sort of prayer or religious activity that are part of some faiths. And this provision is somewhat duplicative of the current law. Indiana law presently requires schools to give students a moment of silence to “meditate, pray, or engage in any other silent activity” provided that the students must “remain seated or standing and silent and make no distracting display”. Indiana Code S 20-30-4-4.5(b). However, while many Christian students can easily sit at their desk and offer a silent prayer, that is not how many other religions approach prayer. Some religions require prayer to be done from a kneeling posture or even prostrate; some require gestures or movement; some require prayer to be aloud, often in the form of chant or song; and some require physical actions (such as ritual sweeping for Jains, the burning of incense, or the wearing of special garb or talismans). Some religions also require that prayer be done in groups rather than individually. So now, with those sorts of religious requirements in mind, go back and read the bill’s language again and try to understand how adherents to certain minority religions will be able to engage in prayer or religious activities within the school environment.

Moreover, tying the ability to students to pray to the types of activities permitted for non-religious activities doesn’t solve the problem; rather that just creates a two-tiered system where those whose religious activities fall within a certain range of activity will be permitted but those that fall outside that arbitrary range may not be. For example, if groups are generally not allowed to have lighted fires as a part of their permitted non-religious activities, what do we tell a religious group that requires the lightning of candles or incense for their religious practices? What about groups that require animals to be a part of the religious activity?

Then note the language regarding the school’s ability to say that the religious activity is not an endorsement. But the language doesn’t seem to prohibit the school from advocating participation in a particular group or club (“This afternoon, the Lutheran Club will be meeting in Room 222; we encourage all students to attend and listen to what the Lutherans have to say…”). And query the extent to which school faculty can be involved in religious clubs or groups. If the chess club, robotics club, or Young Libertarians club have faculty advisors, can the Catholic Club or Muslim Club include school faculty? What if faculty involvement is paid or not wholly voluntary? And what if the school’s rule is that a club or group must have a faculty advisor but the Islamic club or the Pastafarians can’t find a faculty member willing to become involved? Would that simply mean that some groups would be unable to engage in religious activity the same way others might be?

(b) Religious groups must be given the same access to school facilities for assembling as is given to other noncurricular groups without discrimination based on the religious content of the students’ expression. If student groups that meet for nonreligious activities are permitted to advertise or announce meetings of the groups, the public school may not discriminate against groups that meet for prayer or other religious speech.

I know that I said I wouldn’t keep repeating the point, but again consider whether an atheist group or a group hostile to religion would (or must) be permitted access to school facilities pursuant to this provision.

Next think about the signs in school hallways that certain nonreligious clubs might use to advertise or announce meetings: “Join the cool kids in theater club” or “Help stop hunger” or “Rally for ____ [insert your favorite cause]”. How do we make sure (or do we make sure) that religious groups don’t cover the school’s halls with overtly religious messages: “Join the Christian club or go to Hell!” or “Join Islam, the world’s fastest growing religion!” or the like? Thus, I guess the question is whether schools are or should be able to require that messages not denigrate other groups or use offensive rhetoric (and whether adding those sort of content restrictions is constitutionally permissible). But I can see the outcry now if the Jewish students club put up a sign that said, “Jesus Was Jewish and You Should Be Too!” or if the Church of Cannabis put up a sign promoting marijuana usage.

One other point to question is the extent to which clubs that use school facilities must be open to all. While I doubt that the robotics club would turn away anybody, query whether it would be appropriate for the school to host and permit advertisements by any group that limited its membership to adherents of a particular faith (“Hindus only!”), prohibited membership by those who might be disfavored by the particular faith (“No gays allowed at the Evangelical Christian group!”), or had any other sort of discriminatory or exclusionary policy (recall my posts a few years ago about a school being open for use by the Boy Scouts notwithstanding the anti-homosexual policy the group then followed).

(c) A public school may disclaim school sponsorship of noncurricular groups and events in a manner that neither favors nor disfavors groups that meet to engage in prayer or religious speech.

What struck me as odd about this section was the use of the word “may” instead of “shall”. So a school may disclaim sponsorship but doesn’t have to disclaim sponsorship? Which, of course, leads to the next question: Does a school have the right to sponsor groups in a manner that favors or disfavors certain religious speech? And wouldn’t a school’s disclaimer of sponsorship of one religious group but silence about another group be perceived as an implicit sponsorship or endorsement of the group for which no disclaimer was issued?

(d) Students in public schools may wear clothing, accessories, and jewelry that display religious messages or religious symbols in the same manner and to the same extent that other types of clothing, accessories, and jewelry that display messages or symbols are permitted. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a school corporation or charter school from establishing a policy requiring students to wear a school uniform or establishing a student dress code.

This is another one of those provisions that seem innocuous at first blush, but which becomes more troubling with more detailed consideration. For example, what happens if a school has a “no hats” rule? In that case, aren’t observant Jewish men who wear kippas, observant Muslim women who wear hijabs, or observant Mennonite women who wear caps, being treated differently than other students who may also have garb required by their religion (Mormon undergarments, for example) but which is permitted? What if the rule was even more narrowly tailored to prohibit only scarves that cover all of a woman’s hair? Or consider a rule that only prohibits t-shirts with messages that advertise alcohol or illegal conduct; does that mean that a student could wear a “God Hates Fags” t-shirt or a shirt proclaiming “Jews Killed Jesus”? Is that really what the hallways of our schools should look like? Query a rule that says “no messages”. Would a cross on a chain around a student’s neck be an impermissible message? What about a WWJD bracelet? The problem with this provision of HB1024 is that it may, perhaps unintentionally, permit disparate treatment of students on the basis of the religious garb or viewpoints. It may also lead to students who want to be provocative to look for loopholes in school dress code rules in order to make religious viewpoint statements or use the idea of religious expression to be provocative from a fashion sense.

Sec. 5.

(a) To ensure that a school corporation does not discriminate against a student’s publicly stated voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint, if any, and to eliminate any actual or perceived affirmative school sponsorship or attribution to the school corporation of a student’s expression of a religious viewpoint, if any, a school corporation or charter school shall adopt a policy, which must include the establishment of a limited public forum for student speakers at all school events at which a student is to publicly speak. The policy regarding the limited public forum must also require the school corporation to:

   (1) provide the forum in a manner that does not discriminate against a student’s voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint, if any, on an otherwise permissible subject;

   (2) provide a method, based on neutral criteria, for the selection of student speakers at school events and graduation ceremonies;

   (3) ensure that a student speaker does not engage in obscene, vulgar, offensively lewd, or indecent speech; and

   (4) state, in writing, orally, or both, that the student’s speech does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position, or expression of the public school.

Presuming, for the sake of argument, that the initial provisions of HB1024 were acceptable, here is where the bill goes off the proverbial rails and into the “danger Will Robinson” realm.

In order to do any justice (pun intended) to the discussion of this issue, I need to dive into (briefly, I promise) the legal issues regarding use of public spaces. Generally, and consistent with the First Amendment, the government cannot prohibit speech in public spaces (subject to what are often referred to as “reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions”). Thus, the government can’t stop you from standing on a street corner or a public park and giving a speech about whatever issue motivates you and you can be as offensive as you want. That being said, the government could impose reasonable restrictions such as use of a loudspeaker or speeches in the middle of the night that might disturb nearby residents provided that those restrictions are content neutral. The government could close the park during the night, but the government could not close the park at night only for those who wan tto speak about a particular issue or offer a particular viewpoint. Thus, the government could not ban loudspeakers for those who want to express a religious viewpoint but permit them for political speeches and the government couldn’t allow pro-choice groups to gather in a park at night but not allow similar access to an anti-immigrant group.

But not all “public” spaces are open forums like a street corner or park. For example, there are some government owned spaces that are generally always off limits to the public. You don’t have a right to walk into the Oval Office or the BMV to give a speech; you certainly don’t have the right to walk onto a military base or into an FBI office to express your political views. Those spaces are “public” in the sense that they are owned by the government, but they are not public forums available for use by the general public.

And then there is the middle ground: Government owned property that is sometimes open or open to some. And this is where things begin to get a bit more tricky. So think of a stadium or concert hall owned by a city. Or think of the auditorium or even cafeteria in a public school. These sorts of venues are owned by the government, but aren’t generally available to the public for use. Or, for an even more simple example, think of a bulletin board in town hall on which flyers might be posted. The question becomes what sort of control can the government exert over speech in these environments.

Generally speaking, when the government permits some access to these sorts of environments, it has created what is often referred to as a “limited public forum” (as opposed to the nearly unlimited public forum of the public street corner or park). The government can limit access to and use of the public space, but that use cannot be discriminatory and cannot favor or disfavor any particular viewpoint or expression. Thus, the government could restrict access to the auditorium to groups that pay for insurance, groups that are from that local community, or groups that do not discriminate in membership, but the government could not prohibit use of the auditorium by Muslims, anti-abortion activists, the Green Party, or those who want to complain about the job elected officials are doing. That sort of viewpoint or content limitation is impermissible under the First Amendment.

Got all that? Now let’s review part of the HB1024: “[A] school corporation or charter school shall adopt a policy, which must include the establishment of a limited public forum for student speakers at all school events at which a student is to publicly speak”. Whoa! The school must establish a limited public forum at all school events at which a student is to publicly speak? Thus, if the valedictorian is to give a public speech at graduation, the school must establish a limited public forum at graduation! In other words, after the valedictorian sits down, other students would have the right to stand at the microphone and offer their own views and the government would not have the right to limit the content of the views expressed in that forum. Once the government opens the door to some speech, it must, in essence, keep that door open for other speech. It will be interesting to see how parents and families will respond to speeches from the gay rights group, the men’s rights group, the marijuana legalization group, the school’s Satan worshippers, the anti-immigration group, or non-traditional or less mainstream groups or individuals. Should be fun. And this wouldn’t apply only to graduations, either. Recall that the bill’s language speaks about “all school events at which a student is to publicly speak.” I can think of a whole lot of school events at which a student speaks (query whether a choir performance or play includes “speech” by a student such that the performance would become a limited public forum; query whether a school convocation at which the student body president will give a speech would require a limited public forum). If HB1024 passes, all of those events would need to include a limited public forum.

I was also struck by one particular element of phrasing in this section: “a student’s publicly stated voluntary expression of a religious viewpoint”. Why should the non-discrimination standard focus on a “publicly stated voluntary expression”? And what does that even mean? Must students stand on the stage of the school’s auditorium and express their religious viewpoint in order to be safe from discrimination? So, if no student stands up and says “I’m a Muslim” or “I’m Skyclad Wiccan”, then those religions can be discriminated against? And I can just see someone from a particular religious persuasion (i.e., those who might argue that Islam is not a religion) making the argument that a Muslim student who does publicly state a religious viewpoint did so under duress from the student’s parents rather than voluntarily (ignoring, of course, that the same argument could be made about minors who profess any other religious viewpoint).

Last time I checked, schools didn’t ask students to make public expressions of religious affiliation. And, last time I checked, the purpose of schools was to educate all children, regardless of religious affiliation (or lack thereof) and not to denigrate any particular faith or student or to put a student on the proverbial “spot” to declare his or her religious views.

Now, to be fair, the language of the bill does include some limiting language to try to make this whole situation more … well, I suppose “fair” is the goal. But I’m not sure how workable any of those limitations really are. For example, the language speaks about not discriminating against a religious viewpoint on an “otherwise permissible subject”. And what, precisely, is an “otherwise permissible subject” especially in the context of a limited public forum in which content-based limitations are generally impermissible? I suppose that the goal here might be to prohibit a student from discussing abortion if topics like sexuality were deemed impermissible, but the problem quickly becomes an analysis of which viewpoints or subject matter are being restricted by the government in the limited public forum. Just because an issue is sensitive, controversial, or unpopular is not grounds for it to be excluded from the limited public forum.

Or consider the requirement that student speakers be selected based on “neutral criteria”. What neutral criteria will be used and how will the designation of such neutral criteria impact a diversity of views, especially religious views? For example, if “neutral criteria” means GPA or some form of school participation metric , then certain racial, religious, or cultural groups may be both over- and under-represented; furthermore, students for whom English is not their first language and certain non-traditional or non-conforming students may also be left out of due consideration. I presume that “neutral criteria” excludes a student vote. And do the “neutral criteria” need to be structured in such a way that ensures a balance or proportional cross-section of viewpoints (whether religious or otherwise) will be presented? Moreover, I’m not sure that the notion of the government establishing criteria for who can speak in a limited public forum passes Constitutional scrutiny, but I’ll leave that to someone more versed in complex First Amendment issues. In essence, though, my worry is that “neutral criteria” could be used as a means, a justification, or both, to deny minority religious views (or minority views on any of a host of other subjects) from being expressed in the limited public forum created by the school.

Next HB1024 speaks about ensuring that student speakers do not use the limited public forum for speech that is “obscene, vulgar, offensively lewd, or indecent”. Anybody care to define precisely what that means? Would a student be in violation if she took the podium to express her religious view that Jews killed Jesus and deserve eternal, collective punishment? Would a student be in violation if she took the podium to express his religious views that a woman who has an abortion has committed murder and should go to jail? Would a student be in violation if she took the podium to express her view that there are no deities and that those who believe in a deity are delusional and should seek mental health treatment? What if the student wanted to describe, in detail, how a late term abortion is performed in order to make an anti-abortion argument? What if a student wanted to describe, in detail, how female genital mutilation is performed and its effects on women? And what if a student wanted to describe, in detail, what death by crucifixion would entail and the pain that would be suffered? I could go on and on, but I suspect that you get the idea. HB1024 would tell schools to establish limited public forums to allow different religious viewpoints to be expressed but then micromanage which aspects of religious views are acceptable. Oh, and how confident are you that all religious viewpoints will be given the same degree of scrutiny and leeway when being judged for appropriateness in the setting of the limited public forum? Will a tiny, all-white, all-Christian school in rural Indiana have the same understanding of what is “obscene, vulgar, offensively lewd, or indecent” as a highly diverse school? Remember that some communities still view things like dancing, let alone, homosexuality, as indecent or lewd.

(b) The policy established under subsection (a) shall require the disclaimer described in subsection (a)(4) to be provided at all graduation ceremonies. The school corporation or charter school must also continue to provide the disclaimer at any other event in which a student speaks publicly for as long as a need exists to dispel confusion over the school corporation’s or charter school’s nonsponsorship of the student’s speech.

I can just imagine the principal standing up at graduation, just before the valedictorian speaks, to say that the speech “does not reflect the endorsement, sponsorship, position, or expression of the public school” but that the school has merely “selected the speaker on the basis of neutral criteria.” Will anyone in attendance understand that disclaimer or believe it?

(c) The policy established under subsection (a) must ensure that student expression on an otherwise permissible subject may not be excluded from the limited public forum because the subject is expressed from a religious viewpoint.

Again, the applicable question is what is an “otherwise permissible subject”? Moreover, wouldn’t this permit a student to denigrate or attack others so long as the general subject matter is permissible and the student’s expression is of a religious viewpoint? Thus, for example, wouldn’t this mean that a student could talk about a subject like immigration or the value of diversity (which, I presume, would be permissible subjects) but then use a “religious viewpoint” to express the belief that Islam is not a real religion and that Muslims should be excluded from immigration?

(d) The policy established under subsection (a) must include measures to make reasonable accommodations for individuals who wish to be excused from a student’s speech that includes religious content because of the individual’s own religious belief or lack of religious belief. Such accommodations may include requirements that students who wish to express religious content in a limited public forum speak at the beginning or end of the particular event to allow individuals who desire not to be exposed to the religious content the opportunity to be excused.

This provision could be entitled “How to Divide Your Student Body Into Discrete Faith-Based Groups” because that is essentially what it would likely entail. And I can think of few better ideas for a school environment than being forced to segregate students or forcing some students to self-identify as “different”. </sarcasm> First, think of how the school is supposed to know whether a student speaker intends to express a religious viewpoint (and what happens if a student improvises to add religious content…)? And how exactly is the school to determine if the viewpoint being expressed is religious or secular? For example, if a student wants to speak about her opposition to abortion, is that a religious expression? Is it only a religious expression if she mentions the Bible or Jesus? What if she speaks about morals rather than religious directives? What if the student is an atheist who wants to discuss the harm that religion can cause or the wars that have been started in the name of G-d?

As the law currently stands, schools cannot compel students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Moreover, schools aren’t supposed to ostracize students who elect not to participate in the Pledge. But do we honestly think that, especially in less diverse schools, that sort of ostracizing doesn’t happen? Think how much worse that might be if the topic is religion rather than patriotism (note, that I don’t really equate the Pledge of Allegiance with patriotism…). Consider further the sort of reverse stigmatism that could be put into play as well. For example, when students who express a religious viewpoint hostile to homosexuality ask to be excused from having to listen to the presentation from an openly gay student or when the only Muslim student in a particular class finds himself speaking to an empty classroom because other students exercised their right not to be exposed to the religious views or expressions of that student. Wait, I know! Maybe we should have some schools just for Christians, others just for Jews and others just for Muslims. Equal, but separate. Oh, wait. Never mind.

So let’s think about how this might work in actual application. Does this new law permit a school to give the microphone to a student (chosen on the basis of neutral criteria!) before each football game to offer some words of encouragement to the team and fans? And, if the chosen student indicates an intent to offer a prayer or other religious expression, does the school have to make some sort of announcement that “all godless heathens or who profess a faith that won’t say ‘amen’ to a prayer given in the name of Jesus Christ should leave the stadium for a few minutes”? Or maybe a somewhat more subtle announcement, like “Will all students who don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus and who don’t want to hear a prayer in his name, please leave now? Hopefully, we’ll remember to let you know when we’re ready for kickoff.” Is that what we want?

Sec. 6.

(a) The department, in collaboration with organizations with expertise in religious civil liberties, shall establish a model policy addressing the requirements established by this chapter. The model policy shall be made available for school corporations and charter schools to assist a school corporation or charter school in meeting the requirements established by this chapter.

(b) The department shall publish the model policy established under subsection (a) on the department’s Internet web site.

Anybody have an idea which organization “with expertise in religious civil liberties” will help the Indiana Department of Education establish a model policy? What if that organization has an avowed religious affiliation or viewpoint itself? Perhaps I’m wrong, but I suspect that Republican Indiana would be loathe to have organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union or Americans United for Separation of Church and State help craft the model policy. I suspect that Indiana would be more likely to turn to an organization like the American Family Association or Liberty Council to help craft the model policy, but I have little faith (pun intended; sorry, couldn’t resist) that those organizations (or others like them) would have much interest in creating policies that would really treat all religious viewpoints equally or that would have a sympathetic view of those who might want to express minority or nontraditional views.

Sec. 7. This chapter shall not be construed to authorize the state or any political subdivision to do either of the following:

   (1) Require any person to participate in prayer or in any other religious activity.

   (2) Violate the constitutional rights of any person.

It seems almost — almost, mind you — amazing that we would even need to include language in a statute that reminds us that the state can’t require people to participate in prayer or religious activity or violate constitutional rights. More importantly, a statute can’t authorize the state to violate constitutional rights (and forced religious participation would violate rights guaranteed by both the state and federal Constitutions). But that’s where we are… Of course given that Indiana legislators have, in recent years, proposed legislation requiring all student’s to engage in Christian prayer, then perhaps this language is intended more for their benefit than for the schools.

Sec. 8. The provisions of this chapter are severable as provided in IC 1-1-1-8(b).

This last little bit of legalese is actually important. In essence, what this says is that if a court were to find one part of HB1024 to be unconstitutional, only that part of the law would be unenforceable while the rest would remain in place as opposed to having the entire statute become unenforceable. Often, as in bills like this one, the statutory framework is designed to work as a whole and if pieces are found to be unenforceable, then the intent or the protections, for example, may not be reflected in the way that the law winds up being enforced when only parts are struck down by a court. Adding this severability clause means that parts of the law could be enforceable even if other parts were not.

As I mentioned at the outset, I think that HB1024 was based on good intentions and a desire to try to avoid conflicts within schools over religious expression. However, I believe HB1024 is fatally flawed. Much of the conduct that it endeavors to address is already permitted within schools or the subject of detailed (and often complex) court rulings. More importantly, because of the complexity of the issues and the raw emotions often involved with issues involving religion, HB1024 is likely, as I I’ve tried to address, to lead to even more controversy, litigation, claims of discrimination, hurt feelings, and segregation along religious lines.

Please call your Indiana legislators and ask them to vote against HB1024.

My Friend Died Yesterday; Her Name Was America

It is very difficult to describe the depth of my pain and sorrow this morning. I have long thought of America as an ideal, imperfect, but always striving to be that more perfect union. A land where the petty hatreds that have torn at the fabric of humanity for millennia could finally be laid to rest as all people would be treated equally and with dignity, a land where people could choose to live according to the dictates of their faith (or lack thereof) with the respect of their neighbors, and where people of all races could mingle knowing their differing values and views, traditions and hopes, would be welcomed to the giant melting pot. Where e pluribus unum was more than just an old motto carved into monuments.

And I know that some of those who voted for Donald Trump share that ideal.

For years, beginning when I was in junior high school and continuing through the present, in one capacity or another, I have worked to help further that vision of America and to help bring about the promise of equality and an expansion of civil rights, whether with regard to religion, race, sexual orientation, or any of a host of other categories. And, since the very beginning of 2008, I’ve written this blog. I’m pretty certain that if you go back and read about the issues on which I’ve written, you’ll discover my passion for equality, dignity, and civility has been a consistent theme. I’m sure that from time-to-time, my anger or frustration, have gotten the better of me, but I’ve strived to offer people an opportunity to engage me in civil discussion over important issues, at the core of which are the rights and dignity of all Americans.

I understand that people were angry with how the system was working (or not working). I understand some people felt dislocated by the transition in the economy from manufacturing to services and tech. I understand that some people felt left out by globalization and other rapid changes in our economy. And I certainly understand that many people feel as if their voice doesn’t matter because of the influence of money and special interests in our political system. I get that. And I get that not everyone who voted for Donald Trump did so on the basis of animus for those who don’t look or think the same way that they do.

But last night, I seemed as if nearly 60 million people told me that all of the ideals that I’ve worked for, all of those ideals that I hold at the core of what our country is supposed to represent — supposed to be — didn’t matter. They told me that they don’t care about equality for the LGBT community. They told me that they don’t care about voting rights for African-Americans. They told me that they don’t care about splitting up immigrant families or the harm to undocumented immigrants for whom America is the only home they’ve ever known. They told me that they don’t care about the plight of those fleeing civil war and horrific brutality. And they told me that they don’t care that they are aligning with those who view me as a subhuman who should be led to the gas chambers with my family because I am a Jew. Excuse me, I meant to say (((Jew))).

So when I woke up this morning and reflected on the election, I had to consider something that others have told me from time-to-time: This isn't really my country. I can only wonder if some see this as only as “their country” which they have now “taken back” from “the other” while allowing those who don’t fit into the majority cohort to stay here as something … well, something less. It is a country that belongs to its white, Christian majority that has tolerated the presence of Jews, Muslims, and others, has grudgingly granted something approaching equality to people who aren’t white, and which is reluctantly grappling with the question of what to do with the fact that there are homosexuals (and transgender people) in our midst. But I now understand, more so than I have previously, that the minority communities of America are not, at least to a large swath of the population, “real Americans”.

Please understand that I'm not suggesting and don't believe that all of the people who voted for Trump are racists, anti-Semites, xenophobes, misogynists, bigots, or the like. But I am extremely troubled that those people chose to ignore or forgive those traits when they cast their vote. A vote for Trump may not, in and of itself, represent racism and its associated bigotries, but it did validate Trump’s racist views and the views of the alt-right, KKK, and the like. Those votes told Trump that his use of racism and bigotry was a winning tactic and, as such, will likely persist and increase in the American political lexicon and playbook. And it emboldened those who viewed him as giving voice to what they perceive as an embattled white (and, in particular, white Christian) America.

So after this election, how do you look at your gay cousin who must now worry that his newfound equality (still a work in process) will be stripped away, his marriage nullified, his adoption of a baby reversed? How do you look at your Muslim colleague who wants nothing more than to live in peace with his neighbors now that he knows that a huge swath of his country and his President-elect think he is a terrorist who hates America and intends violence upon us? How do you look at your Latino co-worker who worries that her mother may be deported or that she cannot serve as a judge simply because of her heritage? How do you look at your African-American acquaintance who worries that her husband or child will be shot by police for driving without a broken brake light? How do you look at your Jewish friend who heard vicious anti-Semitism from Trump supporters, such as exhortations to put America's Jews into gas chambers?

Perhaps it's because far to many of you have no gay cousins, Muslim colleagues, Latino co-workers, black acquaintances, or Jewish friends, most likely because our society has become so bifurcated and polarized and “those people” live only in the “blue” urban areas that seem foreign and alien to you. Perhaps you don't see those people as being your friends, of being real Americans, of being human and entitled to the same dignity you expect for yourself. I don’t think Donald Trump’s presidency is going to make minorities feel more a part of our society or make you think of them as being more American.

But even if you don’t really care about the gay cousin, Muslim colleague, Latino co-worker, black acquaintance, or Jewish friend, how do you look at your daughter who now knows that you can forgive the admission of sexual assault, use of terms like "pig" and "bimbo", serial philandering, and pussy grabbing? And how do you explain to your son that the things that his President brags about are unacceptable … but that you voted for him anyway?

To me, America was both my country and an ideal; an ideal that I put years and years of effort into making more perfect so that all of us could live together in peace. Last night that ideal was ripped away.

Let me conclude with the hope that I expressed nearly a year ago, when I began to see the rise of Donald Trump as a serious candidate:

It’s time to recapture the idea of America from demagogues like Trump. It’s time to recapture the idea of an America in which competing ideas can be discussed civilly and in which the notion of a melting pot, of e pluribus unum, is celebrated. It’s time to put hate and fear aside in favor of efforts to make friends across barriers and to take the time to learn about others who may be different than we are. We can disagree on policies but recognize that we are all Americans who value the concept of America. We can disagree on those policies but learn to discuss them without hate or rancor, without viewing those with whom we disagree as the enemy or intent to destroy the idea of America.

But our democracy worked as designed. A minority of voters elected a racist, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, misogynistic, know-nothing, fascist.

I feel like a good friend died yesterday. Her name was America.

The DNC Emails … And Russian Involvement in American Politics

My personal Twitter troll has asked (demanded? challenged?) me to comment on the revelation that the staffers at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) engaged in email discussions regarding the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders that included strategizing against his campaign. While I ordinarily like to follow a “don’t feed the trolls” approach, I thought that this issue was at least worth discussing (and, hey, it’s pretty cool that I have my own Twitter troll, isn’t it?). Before diving into the issues, let me offer one major caveat: I haven’t read the emails. I’ve read a few news stories and brief excerpts, but I’m sure that I don’t know all of the facts and, as always, I’m willing to reconsider my views as additional facts are learned or as mistakes that I make (as if!) are identified.

So, on to the emails…

It is my understanding that, at the heart of the matter, were discussions or even actions by some DNC staffers to either help Hillary Clinton’s campaign and/or hinder Bernie Sanders’ campaign together with some … er … less than generous descriptions of Sanders. Now, there is a part of me that says, “Gee, that’s not fair” and I certainly would like to think that the DNC would always play fair. But then there is the part of me that remembers that this is the Democratic National Committee and that, until he needed the ballot access that the Democratic Party had, Sen. Sanders was not a Democrat. Or, to phrase it differently, why shouldn’t the DNC work to help its own members to the detriment of an outsider? That point is even more compelling given the work that Hillary Clinton has done over the years both for the Democratic Party and for other Democrats. (And let’s not forget that Sanders endorsed the primary challenger for the House seat held by DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, so I think she can be forgiven at least a bit of pique directed toward Sanders.)

As to the notion that the primary system was rigged, the only answer is “bullshit”. The primary system was in place long before Sanders announced his candidacy. He knew what the system was; he didn’t have to run and he didn’t have to run as a Democrat. But he did. He could have sought the nomination of the Green Party or run as an independent, but that wouldn’t have given him the ballot access he needed or the ability to get the sort of news coverage that helped propel his campaign. And let’s not forget the allegations from several months ago that the Sanders campaign was, itself, hacking into the DNC database to obtain information improperly. I guess that was OK, right? Look, I’m not saying that the democratic primary system is a good system or that it shouldn’t be modified. But the system was the same for Martin O’Malley, Lawrence Lessig, Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb, and others, and I don’t recall hearing their supporters whining about the system or booing the party’s leaders at its convention.

I also find it interesting that so many of the people who are almost giddy about the disclosure of these emails from the DNC seem to so quickly gloss over the apparent source. The emails were released by WikiLeaks. Now, first, we should think back to what people had to say about WikiLeaks when it was responsible for other document dumps; I recall hearing plenty of people call for criminal prosecution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (and accusations that he was a “traitor” even though he isn’t American). I wrote about the massive WikiLeaks disclosure of US diplomatic cables in December 2010 (Wikileaks? I’m Not Sure). Yet apparently, if the information WikiLeaks discloses harms those who you oppose on political grounds then that disclosure is peachy keen. if would be interesting to see how people would react if WikiLeaks were able to obtain and disclose Donald Trump’s tax returns (especially if they included something damaging). But I digress.

More important is the source from which WikiLeaks itself apparently received the emails in the first place. WikiLeaks doesn’t do the hacking; rather WikiLeaks discloses documents obtained by hackers. And in this case, there is apparently ample evidence that the hackers who took the emails from the DNC are part of the Russian intelligence services, in particular the FSB (the successor to the KGB) and the GRU (military intelligence), both under the control of Vladimir Putin … you know, the same man to whom Donald Trump, just a few days ago, gave a green light to invade our NATO allies (Did Trump Just Give Putin Carte Blanche to Invade Eastern Europe?). As Arsenio Hall once said, “Things that make you go ‘Hmm.’” Don’t forget the extent to which Trump has praised Putin, so much so that the phrase “bromance” has been used to describe Trump’s relationship with Putin (or maybe it’s just a mancrush). So was the release of the emails to WikiLeaks the quo for Trump’s quid suggestion that he might abandon NATO and the Baltic states?

Think back to when Edward Snowden stole data from the NSA before fleeing, eventually to Russia. How many of you called him a traitor? How many of you worried about Russia having access to the information he obtained? Yet now, some people (mostly those opposed to Democrats in general or Hillary Clinton in particular) are practically cheering over Russia hacking into data belonging to a political party (including, donor data, opposition research, and the personal email accounts of Democratic staffers)? Really? I seem to recall that the last time criminal activity was aimed at obtaining private information from one of the political parties, things didn’t end so well. For those of you who aren’t sure what I’m talking about, here is a hint: The data one party tried to steal was located in an office located at the Watergate hotel. Ring any bells?

One thing, however, that really troubles me about the information in the emails is the apparent discussion about using Sanders’ religion (or atheism, perhaps) as a weapon against him. That sort of conduct is reprehensible. Period. The saving grace, I suppose, is that it doesn’t appear that this discussion evolved into actual action; rather, from what I’ve read, it appears to have been a suggestion made as part of a strategy discussion that was not followed up. But to even discuss using a person’s religion against them (or their lack of faith, as the case may be), is simply un-American and wrong.

A critical thing that must be recognized about this entire mess is that the chairwoman of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned. And then the interim chairwoman of the DNC, Donna Brazile apologized. Publicly and sincerely. While people cannot go back and change what happened, they can take responsibility, apologize, and learn from mistakes. So far, that appears to be what the DNC is doing in the wake of these disclosures.

Of course, noting that the chair of the DNC resigned and that the DNC’s new chair apologized does make me wonder when we’ll see similar actions from Republicans in regard to the xenophobia, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, and so forth being spewed by the Republican Party’s candidate and his supporters. I’m not holding my breath.

I do hope that over the next days and weeks we will learn more detail about possible Russian involvement in the hack of the DNC servers. Perhaps more importantly, I hope that we’ll learn more about whether the Trump campaign had any knowledge about that hacking or any involvement in the decision to disclose the emails (I certainly hope that not even Trump would stoop that low…). But even if the Republicans and the Trump campaign were completely in the dark and innocent, we should have a serious national discussion about why Russia might want to harm Democrats or Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. What did Russia hope to gain by hacking the DNC servers and what did Russia hope to gain by releasing the stolen emails to WikiLeaks for public dissemination. And ask yourself if you’re comfortable knowing that another country, and especially Russia, is inserting itself, via its intelligence agencies, into the American political system and presidential election. Does that scare you as much as it scares me?

Trump Implicitly Condones Anti-Semitism (redux): The Use of Stereotypes

I want to share a comment that I received on Facebook from a friend in response to my post Trump Implicitly Condones Anti-Semitism:

I guess he might not think of himself as an anti-Semite, but statements about Jews and money (“I only let short guys wearing yarmulkes handle my money” and “I know you folks won't listen to me because I don't need your money” and “you folks understand deal-making, am I right”) suggests at least a tendency to generalize and stereotype.

I think that the point the commenter makes is precisely right and is one of the things that I planned to write more about as the election draws closer. But it is worth contemplating the extent to which Trump’s statements that tend to pigeonhole people into discrete groups that are often defined by stereotypes (whether Mexicans, Muslims, Jews, or others) give his supporters a sort of framework or justification for their own prejudiced worldview.

Think of it this way: When Trump stereotypes Jews as being good with money, being rich and caring only about money, using their money to influence politics, and being good at “deal-making”, he is, in essence, playing into the ages-old stereotype of the rich, controlling, all-powerful Jew that is secretly pulling the strings of power and preventing others from succeeding in our society. Look at any anti-Semitic hate site and you will see Jews commonly described with these sorts of “attributes” (and those descriptions are neither generous nor favorable).

The odd thing, in Trump’s case, is that these stereotyped views aimed at Jews actually do seem to have been intended as compliments, but I’m not sure that all who hear these statements understand that intent or have the capacity to separate “good” stereotyped traits from the sort of stereotypes that lead to anti-Semitism. And no matter the intent of the use of the stereotyped, those within the group being stereotyped (in this case, Jews), almost universally take umbrage.

I believe that Trump’s use of stereotypes in his rhetoric emboldens his supporters to use similar rhetoric in expressing their own views; after all, if a billionaire, TV star, candidate for President can get away with saying certain things about certain people, then why can’t everyone else? Furthermore, Trump’s insistence that using harsh and divisive rhetoric is merely avoiding political correctness (a false charge I’ll address one of these days) gives cover to those who want to express their own racist or bigoted thoughts but who previously felt societal constraint from doing so.

Trafficking in stereotypes from a bully pulpit or soap box serves to perpetuate those stereotypes. When those stereotypes are negative or play upon people’s bigotry or fears, then the speaker, intentionally or otherwise, is stoking the flames of intolerance and hate. And the use of inherent characteristics as the basis upon which groups of people are identified and separated from the general core of the population, is a primary means by which demagogues acquire power as they give their supporters an external threat to fear and loathe in lieu of focusing on the real issues to which attention and discussion should be directed.

Trump may not be an anti-Semite but his use of traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes likely reassures those who are anti-Semites that their views are neither out of the mainstream nor wrong. Combine that with Trump’s refusal to repudiate those spewing anti-Semitic hate on his behalf and you have a situation from which it is hard to see any good result occurring. Those who oppose racism and bigotry and who support civil civic discourse, must work to call out the sort of stereotyping and worse that we’re hearing from Trump and his supporters. Before it’s too late.

Trump Implicitly Condones Anti-Semitism

I have a lot of things that I would like to say about Donald Trump, but I’ve decided to hold much of that until closer to the election. Nevertheless, there is one matter so egregious that I decided that I couldn’t hold my tongue and needed to address now: Donald Trump is implicitly condoning virulent anti-Semitism.

Yes, seriously.

Let me start near the end of the story (so far…) with a quotation from The Daily Stormer (to which I refuse to link for soon to be obvious reasons), which self-describes as “The World’s Most Visited Alt-Right Website” (internal links removed; emphasis added):

Asked by the disgusting and evil Jewish parasite Wolf Blitzer to denounce the Stormer Troll Army, The Glorious Leader [Trump] declined.

The Jew Wolf was attempting to Stump the Trump, bringing up stormer attacks on Jew terrorist Julia Ioffe. Trump responded to the request with “I have no message to the fans” which might as well have been “Hail Victory, Comrades!”

I declared a troll operation against the Russian kike Ioffe after she wrote a vile hit-piece against Empress Melania for GQ. Ioffe went full LOLCOW*, demanding the goyim give her six million pities because people called her mean names on the internet.

Several times she repeated that Nazi trolls were planning to turn her into a lampshade.

In the tradition of all other prominent LOLCOWs throughout history, she claimed these mocking messages she was sent contained “death threats,” without ever producing the death threats or getting anyone arrested for sending them.

Appearing on CNN, the sick-faced kike admitted the cops told her nothing the trolls did was against the law, and called for laws to be altered to protect her poo widdle feewlings.

Of course, Donald Trump has no need to deny us. They’ve tried this whole “all your fans are racists” thing over and over again, to zero effect.

And we are his most ardent supports. We will be on the ground, getting him elected.

By the way: You all need to get ready to volunteer. We’re going to need a lot of boots on the ground to ensure the evil bitch Hillary is vanquished from the realm.

Have Your Say!

Tell the dirty Jew Wolf Blitzer (זאב ברק)** what you think of his diabolical agenda against us and Our Leader[.]

Go ahead, and read that again. For some context before I move on to substance, here is a bit of the Wikipedia entry on The Daily Stormer and its founder/editor (most internal citations and footnotes omitted; emphasis added):

The Daily Stormer is an American Neo-Nazi and white supremacist news and commentary website. Its editor is Andrew Anglin, who founded it on July 4, 2013 … deciding to write a faster-paced website than his previous one, Total Fascism, which had launched in the previous year.

It has been noted for its use of humor and Internet memes, which have been … cited as attractions for a younger and more ideologically diverse audience. …The site’s rapid growth has been documented by the Southern Poverty Law Center, who affirm that it has overtaken Stormfront as the web’s leading hate site. While some white nationalist authors have praised its reach, others have taken issue with its content and tone, as well as with Anglin himself. The website has also received attention for its endorsement of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election….

The Daily Stormer orchestrates what it calls the “Troll Army”, involved in Internet trolling of figures whom Anglin claims are attempting to curtail freedom of speech and the values of Western civilization, receiving attention for its campaigns against British MP Luciana Berger, who is Jewish….

So now let’s back up a bit so that these pieces can be put into a substantive context with Donald Trump. How far back? Just two weeks: April 27, 2016. GQ magazine published the article “Melania Trump on Her Rise, Her Family Secrets, and Her True Political Views: ‘Nobody Will Ever Know’” by Julia Ioffe. Is it a good article? Is it fair? In all honesty, I don’t know because I haven’t read the article and, even if I had, I don’t know the “truth”. But that doesn’t really matter (at least not for the issue being discussed here). Rather, what matters is that Melania Trump thinks the article is unfair*** and, thus, apparently so too does Donald Trump (even though he hasn’t read it either); he just knows what he’s been told about the article. Anyway, Trump’s supporters apparently agree with his view of the article.

So, the starting point is an article written about a Presidential candidate’s wife that the candidate believes is unfair. But that’s politics, isn’t it? For that matter, that’s also the life of a billionaire’s family in the age of gossip columns and so forth, right? And before I go on, ask yourself just how many “unfair” or negative articles have been written about Hillary Clinton over the years.

Obviously, it would have been perfectly fine for Trump supporters to criticize the article, to call out Ioffe for perceived bias, to question GQ’s decision to publish the article, or to write responses to the article focusing on facts or endeavoring to correct alleged falsehoods. That’s a part of the core of how our democratic system works and a primary reason for the freedom of speech and of the press found in the First Amendment. But how did some of Trump’s supporters respond to Ioffe’s article?

Here is where things get … um … messy.

The Daily Stormer responded to Ioffe’s article with this post (again, I refuse to link to the site; internal links omitted):

Empress Melania Attacked by Filthy Russian Kike Julia Ioffe in GQ!

A dirty Russian kike has attacked the wife of Our Glorious Leader in an article in GQ.

The tricky Jewess Julia Ioffe tricked Melania Trump into doing a profile, then attacked her family, accused her of getting plastic surgery, and claimed she committed fraud with a beauty product she sold.

If you look up “ratfaced kike” in the dictionary, you’ll find a picture of Julia Ioffe. [The article on The Daily Stormer includes a photo of Ioffe with a yellow Star of David badge photoshopped onto her to resemble the badges that Jews were required to wear in Nazi Germany.]

…

Unsurprisingly, the Russian kike Ioffe has made a career out of attacking Glorious Leader (EAST) [Vladimir Putin]. ….

She has a Twitter.

Here she is retweeting an article by her ratfaced racial kin Eli Lake claiming that Donald Trump got the idea of putting one’s own country first from Adolf Hitler (we’ll get to this kike later).

Please go ahead and send her a tweet and let her know what you think of her dirty kike trickery.

Make sure to identify her as a Jew working against White interests, or send her the picture with the Jude star from the top of this article.

It’s important because:

The Jew is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

Gogoogogogoogogogo

Because I’d bet dollars to hot dogs she’s a LOLCOW.

Obviously, the first question to ask is what Ioffe’s religion has to do with her article on Melania Trump (and I wonder whether The Daily Stormer is aware that Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka is a Shabbat observant Jew…). One might also ask where that degree of seething anger and hate originates. But still, at this point, the post from The Daily Stormer could be put off to the crazed views of a single racist.

Until the so-called “Stormer Troll Army” took up the call to arms and leapt into action.

As described in The Guardian (most internal links omitted):

In the 24 hours since her profile of Donald Trump’s wife, Melania, appeared in GQ magazine, the Russian-American journalist has received a torrent of antisemitic, vitriolic and threatening messages from supporters of the Republican frontrunner.

…

On Thursday, Ioffe answered a phone call from an anonymous caller who played a Hitler speech. She received another call from “Overnight Caskets”. On Twitter, users posted photos of her face superimposed on a mug shot from Auschwitz. …

“It’s unsettling,” she said on Thursday night. “I started the day off having a sense of humor about it but by the end of the day, after a few phone calls like this, with people playing Hitler speeches, and the imagery, and people telling me my face would look good on a lampshade, it’s hard to laugh.”

Ioffe is one of America’s top feature writers. A former staff member at the liberal New Republic magazine, she freelances for publications such as the New Yorker and New York Times.

…

“This is not a heavily critical article. There is nothing in it that is untrue,” Ioffe said. “If this is how Trump supporters swing into action what happens when the press looks into corrupt dealings, for example, or is critical of his policies?”

Ioffe worked as a reporter in Moscow for three years. During this period, she experienced antisemitism and witnessed colleagues receive bouquets of funeral flowers at work. But never as a journalist working in the US.

“The irony of this is that today, when I was getting all of this horrible antisemitic shit that I’ve only ever seen in Russia, I was reminded that 26 years ago today my family came to the US from Russia. We left Russia because we were fleeing antisemitism,” Ioffe said. “It’s been a rude shock for everyone.”

To give a taste of the sort of anti-Semitic vitriol directed at Ioffe, here are just two of the images sent to Ioffe (both from the article in The Guardian):

(Note in the picture on the right, Ioffe is shown as a prisoner of “Camp Trump” and “KLAuschwitz”.)

I recognize that politicians are not responsible for all of the crazy or hateful things that their supporters may say or do. But that sort of inoculation only goes so far. When the supporter in question is not just an individual but an online newspaper and, perhaps, the most popular hate site on the internet, then the views being expressed are more than those of a single individual. And when an an “army” of supporters engages in inappropriate behavior (and that’s a pretty charitable phrase given the context) on a candidate’s behalf, then that candidate has a duty to at least comment upon if not repudiate the conduct and the rhetoric associated with it.

Recall that in 2008, Pastor John Hagee endorsed John McCain but when information regarding Hagee’s claim that Hitler was fulfilling G-d’s will came to light (not to mention Hagee’s anti-Catholic rhetoric), McCain did the right thing: He repudiated Hagee’s comments and then he rejected Hagee’s endorsement:

Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Rev. Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well.

Shortly thereafter, McCain also repudiated the endorsement of Ron Parsley, a pastor who claimed that Islam is an inherently violent religion. That is how a man with integrity and a sense of morality handles these sorts of situations. I disagreed with McCain on many policy ideas, but he was absolutely able to recognize when he, as someone who wanted to be the leader of our democratic society had to take a stand against certain voices and views, even if those voices and views were his supporters. And for that I commended him at the time and do again now.

So did Donald Trump repudiate The Daily Stormer, the Troll Army, or the anti-Semitic comments directed at Ioffe? What do you think?

(the video should start at 7:08; if not forward to that point or click this link)

A few things to note: First, Trump doesn’t initially even answer Blitzer’s question or respond to the notion of anti-Semitic attacks; rather he talks about the article (which he hasn’t read) and praises his wife. And he goes on and on. He does not address the query regarding anti-Semitism directed at Ioffe. Rather, if you really listen to Trump, it sounds to me like he is justifying virtually any sort of attack on Ioffe because he doesn’t like the article and because Melania is a good person. Or something. (And don’t forget Trump’s previous pledge to find ways to loosen libel laws so that he can sue media that is “unfair”.) Then, when Blitzer presses him, Trump retreats into the “I don’t know anything” response that he previously used to defend his refusal to repudiate support from white supremacist David Duke (see video below). When asked again, Trump says that he doesn’t have a message “for his fans” essentially because the media is dishonest. In other words, in Donald Trump’s America, anti-Semitism is just fine and need not be repudiated if is used because of a message that Trump doesn’t like or directed toward a person that Trump doesn’t like (or because of dishonest media which, I’m sure, supporters of The Daily Stormer … and Trump? … will tell you is controlled by Jews … like Wolf Blitzer).

Here is the video of Trump responding to and failing to repudiate comments by David Duke and the KKK. See if you spot a pattern.

 

And, if all of that wasn’t enough, just a few days after the incident with Ioffe, David Duke once again spouted off on his radio program:

“I think these Jewish extremists have made a terribly crazy miscalculation, because all they’re going to be doing by doing a Never Trump movement is exposing their alien, their anti-American, anti-American majority position,” he said.

“They’re going to push people more into an awareness that that the neo-cons are the problem, that these Jewish supremacists who control our country are the real problem, and the reason why America is not great.”

So far, Trump has also failed to repudiate these virulently anti-Semitic comments.

I can’t finish without linking to this video from a Trump rally in March. The video went viral on Twitter and Trump, who we know is very active on Twitter … was silent.

 

Is Trump an anti-Semite? I don’t know. I sort of doubt it (and if he is, I suspect family gatherings with his daughter, son-in-law, and grandkids may be a bit awkward). But to quote Ted Cruz (really? Am I really quoting Ted Cruz? Sigh), I do think that Trump may be “utterly amoral”. He doesn’t seem to have any shred of decency or ability to take a moral stand that might be even the least bit inconvenient. Rather, he seems to condone (or at the very least remain silent) about conduct that is utterly repugnant and offensive to our society and democratic principles so long as it benefits his egotistic ideals.

Trump may not be an anti-Semite and obviously not every Trump supporter is an anti-Semite. But it appears that something in Trump’s message or persona is appealing to the anti-Semites in our midst. I think it tells us a lot about Trump that he won’t unconditionally condemn and repudiate anti-Semitism (or racism, but I’ll leave that discussion for another day) and make clear that he doesn’t want or need the support of anti-Semites. And I think it should scare us when we combine his refusal to condemn and repudiate with the appeal of his message to the anti-Semites who seem emboldened to publicly espouse their hate. His refusal to condemn hateful rhetoric is to implicitly condone that rhetoric. That is the message his anti-Semitic supporters are taking from his silence (“Hail Victory, Comrades!” said The Daily Stormer).

Trump’s refusal to condemn and repudiate rank anti-Semitism is reason enough to disqualify Trump from being seriously considered an acceptable candidate for President.

Moreover, Trump’s refusal to condemn and repudiate anti-Semitism should be a warning to everyone, but to Jews in particular, I hope that this will serve as a warning for just how important it is to Jews and our community that Trump be kept as far away from the White House. We Jews are fond of saying “Never Again” but now we need to add to that the new refrain “Never Trump”.

-----

*The repeated phrase LOLCOW means “a person you get extensive laughs from, who doesn't know they are being made fun of. They can often think they are admired for what they are doing, but secretly are being laughed at constantly.”

**According to Google Translate, the Hebrew actually translates to “Wolf Lightning”.

***Melania’s Trump’s statement on Ioffe’s article, posted on Trump’s Facebook page on April 27, 2016:

The article published in GQ today is yet another example of the dishonest media and their disingenuous reporting. Julia Ioffe, a journalist who is looking to make a name for herself, clearly had an agenda when going after my family. There are numerous inaccuracies in this article including certain statements about my family and claims on personal matters. My parents are private citizens and should not be subject to Ms. Ioffe’s unfair scrutiny.

Furthermore, the statement surrounding the performance of my skincare collection is completely false. The company in which I was involved with did not honor the contract and did not meet their obligations and as such the courts ruled in my favor.

I am hopeful that the media will begin to cover me fairly and be respectful of my family's privacy.”

Melania Trump

Note that if the article is inaccurate, Trump could sue Ioffe and GQ for defamation. And if there is one thing that Donald Trump is not shy about it’s threatening to sue people.

My Remarks at the City of Carmel’s 2016 Holocaust Remembrance Ceremony

On Friday, May 6, 2016, I was honored, once again, to be one of the speakers at the annual Holocaust Remembrance Ceremony conducted by the City of Carmel, Indiana. I was asked to speak in my capacity as a member of the Mayor’s Advisory Commission on Human Relations (I was incorrectly identified during the program as the chair of that Commission; I am simply the member who has been asked by the Commission to speak on its behalf at this ceremony). I believe that the program will be shown on the Carmel public access TV station (Channel 16 on Brighthouse in Carmel, but I’m not sure of the schedule for showings; I’ll post a link or the video when it’s available). My remarks followed a moving presentation from Tibor Klopfer, the son of Holocaust survivors, who spoke about his family’s experiences during the Holocaust.

As you will see in my remarks, I decided to start with a bit of a punch to the gut. Not surprisingly, a few people in the audience didn’t quite understand what I was doing or the point that I was planning to make, thus there were a few chuckles. Thankfully, the realization quickly set in for these people that what I was discussing was not a laughing matter.

I will tell you that the response that I received after giving my remarks and during the lunch that followed were all very positive mixed in with an overwhelming sense of shock and disbelief.

---

What is the best way to pick up Jewish girls? With a dust pan.

Sorry, we can’t heat up your sandwich. There isn’t any room in the oven. It’s full of Jews.

You’re going to a Jewish summer camp? Cool. Is it Auschwitz?

On Valentine’s Day, I’m like Hitler and I want you to be mein.

Really funny jokes, right? Well, we can all be proud because those are jokes heard this year at Carmel High School. Here, in the heart of America, in a place that prides itself on being welcoming, this sort of anti-Semitic drivel, couched as coarse humor, has achieved a level of acceptability.

And it isn’t just jokes. No. Jewish kids have been told that they are pretty … except for their big Jewish noses. Others have witnessed classmates giving a straight-armed “Heil Hitler” salute that morphs into an innocuous “high five” when the Jewish student looks.

What in the world is going on?

This sort of rank bigotry may not be intended as a sign of hate; perhaps it is simply a sign of disrespect or perhaps it is a sign of a complete lack of understanding or empathy. But some things, to put it bluntly, simply are not funny. And at the top of the list of the things to which it is very, very difficult to attach humor is the Holocaust.

Know too that Carmel isn’t unique in the rise of the frequency and seeming acceptability of these sorts of jokes. Apparently, Jewish organizations have been witnessing this phenomenon across the country.

I’m sure — no, maybe I’m not sure — rather I hope that those sitting here today would object if they heard racially insensitive jokes aimed at African Americans, Asians, Latinos, or any others. I hope that you would object to offensive jokes aimed at Muslims, Catholics, or atheists. I hope that you would object to offensive jokes aimed at members of the LGBT community or toward any other minority. And of course I hope that you would speak out if you heard an offensive joke directed toward Jews.

As we gather today to remember the millions upon millions of victims of the Holocaust, first subject to ridicule, then discrimination, and eventually death merely because of who they were, I hope — no — I demand that you take a stand when you hear people in our community making offensive jokes about others within our community.

If you are a student, think about the hurt that those sorts of jokes cause to your classmates. Ask if you would tell a similar joke if it was based on race or disability or any other attribute of your classmates. Think about how you feel when someone ridicules you and then try to understand the pain that offensive religious or racial “humor” causes to others. And think of how that pain might be magnified knowing that what you may find humorous involved the death of members of your classmate’s family.

If you are a parent, take the time to talk to your child. Ask if your child has heard those sorts of jokes and how they responded. Ask your child if they’ve told those kind of jokes and why they think they are funny. And, perhaps, most importantly, ask your child where he or she got the idea that demeaning and ridiculing others was ever acceptable. But before doing so, be sure to look in the mirror to be sure that your child isn’t simply emulating your example. And be sure that you are not rewarding demagogues among us who use demeaning, divisive, and even hateful rhetoric to gain power.

The Mayor’s Advisory Commission on Human Relations is working hard to be sure that Carmel is a community that welcomes and values diversity. We are working to broaden exposure of our community to the breadth of diversity that can be found in our neighborhoods. And we want all people to know that Carmel is a welcoming, friendly community.

But so long as children in our schools are subject to these sorts of “jokes” we are all falling short of those goals.

---

Updated May 9, 2016: Corrected typo.

Gov. Pence and Christian Legislators Have Enacted a New Law That Has a Dangerous, Discriminatory Impact on Jewish Hoosiers

Have you ever heard of Tay-Sachs disease? If not, I’m not surprised. It’s a very rare illness with which few people much familiarity. But that isn’t true for Jews of European ancestry (Ashkenazi Jews) who are intimately familiar with the illness. Approximately 1 in 27 Ashkenazi Jews is a Tay-Sachs carrier which is why many Jewish couples, before marrying, are tested to see if they are carriers.

As described at Tay-Sachs.org:

A baby with Tay-Sachs disease appears healthy at birth, and seems to be developing normally for a few months. Symptoms generally appear by six months of age. While symptoms vary from one child to the next, there is always a slowing down of development. Gradually, Tay-Sachs children lose motor skills and mental functions. Over time, the child becomes blind, deaf, mentally retarded, paralyzed and non responsive to the environment. Tay-Sachs children usually die by age five.

Another description:

The First Signs – A baby with classic Infantile Tay-Sachs appears normal at birth and typically continues to develop normally for the first six months of age. Around 6 months of age, development slows. Parents may notice a reduction in vision and tracking and the baby does not outgrow normal startle response.

A Gradual Loss of Skills - Infantile Tay-Sachs children gradually regress, losing skills one by one. Over time they are unable to crawl, turn over, sit or reach out. Other symptoms include loss of coordination, progressive inability to swallow and difficulty breathing.

By Age 2 and beyond - Most children experience recurrent seizures by age 2 and eventually lose muscle function, mental function and sight, becoming mostly non-responsive to their environment.

The prognosis for a child born with Tay-Sachs is, to say the least, bleak:

There is currently no cure or treatment for Tay–Sachs disease. Even with the best care, children with infantile Tay–Sachs disease die, usually by the age of 4. Although experimental work is underway, no current medical treatment of the root cause yet exists. Patients receive supportive care to ease the symptoms and extend life by reducing the chance of contracting infections. Infants are given feeding tubes when they can no longer swallow. Improvements in life-extending care have somewhat lengthened the survival of children with Tay–Sachs disease, but no current therapy is able to reverse or delay the disease's progress.

Thus, it should come as no great surprise that Jewish couples* who learn that a fetus has the genetic mutation that causes Tay-Sachs may choose to abort the pregnancy. And, it is worth noting that many Jewish authorities accept the idea of abortion in the case of a fetus with this sort of genetic mutation. Allow me to quote from one of the first posts I wrote for this blog (“Keep Your Religious Doctrine Out of My State's Laws”, January 25, 2008, on the subject of a bill that would have defined the beginning of “human physical life”):

According to Jewish law and tradition, a fetus is not a person. According to the Talmud, the fetus is deemed to be a component of the pregnant woman's body, no different from her thigh. Moreover, Jewish rabbis and scholars have been debating, literally for millennia, when “ensoulment” occurs. Even after this millennia of debate, no firm answer or opinion has emerged; thus, this is one of those issues of faith that is viewed as one of the “secrets of G-d”. …

It is also absolutely critical to understand that according to Jewish law, the life of the mother takes precedence over the life of the fetus until birth. Allow me to quote, in part, some of the testimony offered in the Indiana House of Representatives in 2006 by Rabbi Dennis C. Sasso (with regard to another abortion-related bill):

Writing into state law what is essentially the doctrinal view of a particular segment of the faith community would impair the freedom of religion of Hoosier citizens whose religious traditions and ethical stances call them to a different understanding of when does human personhood begin. It is regrettable use of political and religious ideology to trump science, threaten pluralism, assault tolerance and encroach on the privacy of citizens.

The issue is not “When does life begin?” Life exists even before conception. The sperm is life. The ovum is life. Every cell and organism is a living entity. Adherents of the Eastern faith, Jainism, gently sweep the path in front of them as they walk in order to avoid stepping on living creatures.

The issue is not “when does life begin”, but when is human personhood, that intangible moral and legal category upon which hinge so many privileges and responsibilities of identity and citizenship, established. And on this issue, science offers no answers and theologians and ethicists have and will continue to differ.

While some people of faith may choose to affirm that human personhood begins at conception, at the moment when the ovum and sperm meet, Judaism affirms that personhood begins at birth. In a contest between the fetus and the mother, the Jewish moral tradition will not only permit, but require, that preference be given to the mother.

Until birth, while the fetus is certainly to be cherished and protected, it is not considered an independent legal entity. Judaism honors and protects the fetus. Ours is a tradition that celebrates parenthood and family, but in a contest between the embryo or the fetus and the mother, Judaism preeminently protects the rights of the mother as a viable human person. Both her physiological and psychological needs are to be given preferential status over the rights of the developing fetus.

I want to be clear that on this matter there is universal consensus among all Jewish denominations, from the most liberal Reform to the Conservative, Reconstructionist and most traditional Orthodox.

The Rabbinate of the Orthodox Movement, has spoken as follows:

Judaism … rejects the Catholic or fundamentalist view of abortion, particularly in those cases in which the life, physical or even mental well being of the mother is threatened…. When the life of the mother is threatened, Jewish law unambiguously prefers the life of the mother. Even when the health of the mother is threatened most authorities would permit an abortion before the onset of labor because the fetus has not yet reached an independent status.

We are fearful, therefore, of government interference with the freedom of the Jewish community to apply its time venerated Torah standards to the question of abortion. The intrusion of government into an issue which so often can be determined only by religious consciousness would involve a grave violation of the first amendment.

Why do I mention all of this? Because Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and a group of almost exclusively Republican, Christian, male legislators have have written, passed, and signed a new law (House Enrolled Act 1337) that would prohibit a Jewish couple who learns that their fetus has the genetic mutation that will cause Tay-Sachs from seeking an abortion. Gov. Pence and Indiana legislators have allowed their religious views and understanding of core questions concerning the beginning of life to be enacted into law in a way that will have concrete and severe impact upon one particular minority community that both suffers from a propensity to a disease and who has a different religious understanding of when and under what circumstances abortion is permitted.

Indiana law already erects numerous barriers that make it very difficult for a woman to get an abortion. But House Enrolled Act 1337 goes even further:

(a) A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion before the earlier of viability of the fetus or twenty (20) weeks of postfertilization age if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or has been diagnosed with any other disability or has a potential diagnosis of any other disability.

(b) A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion after viability of the fetus or twenty (20) weeks of postfertilization age if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with any other disability or has a potential diagnosis of any other disability.

Indiana Code § 16-34-4-7.

For the purpose of this new law, “any other disability” is defined as “any disease, defect, or disorder that is genetically inherited” and specifically includes (among other things) physical disabilities, mental or intellectual disabilities, physical disfigurement, and physical or mental disease. Moreover, the term “potential diagnosis” means the “presence of some risk factors that indicate that a health problem may occur”. You know, risk factors like being an Ashkenazi Jew who has a 1 in 27 chance of being a Tay-Sachs carrier. Thus, one could argue that a doctor could never perform an abortion for an Ashkenazi Jewish woman because of the presence of risk factors that indicate a problem “may occur”. For that matter, how many women don’t have “some risk factors”? Can a doctor perform an abortion on a woman that he knows smokes or has HIV/AIDS?

House Enrolled Act 1337 does allow abortions for disabilities if the disability is a “lethal fetal anomaly” which is defined as a “fetal condition diagnosed before birth that, if the pregnancy results in a live birth, will with reasonable certainty result in the death of the child not more than three (3) months after the child’s birth.” Obviously, Tay-Sachs, though always fatal, does not fit within the definition of “lethal fetal anomaly” because a child with Tay-Sachs will usually live for 4 or even 5 excruciating years. It is also worth noting that House Enrolled Act 1337 provides for “perinatal hospice” that includes “counseling and medical care provided by maternal-fetal medical specialists, obstetricians, neonatologists, anesthesia specialists, specialty nurses, clergy, social workers, and others that are focused on alleviating fear and ensuring that the woman and her family experience the life and death of the child in a comfortable and supportive environment.” However, that perinatal hospice is only available in the case of a lethal fetal anomaly, not for a fatal disease like Tay-Sachs. I guess that parents of a child with Tay-Sachs don’t need a supportive environment or counseling as they watch the child that the state mandated they give birth to wither through a painful existence to its eventual death.

Not every family can afford to care for and raise a child with a disease like Tay-Sachs. Not every family can put aside everything, including the well-being of the rest of the family, for the intense efforts necessary to care for a child with Tay-Sachs. Not every family has the mental fortitude to work through life with a Tay-Sachs child. And what about the child: “Blind, deaf, mentally retarded, paralyzed and non responsive to the environment.” We couldn’t condemn anyone to that sort of “life”. But the State of Indiana has decided to mandate that Jewish families who learn that a fetus has the genetic defect that will cause Tay-Sachs are … stuck. The State of Indiana has even given doctors a reason to fear performing any abortions if there are “risk factors” for a health problem. So, even if a family’s religious views would permit an abortion, the State of Indiana has decided that the religious interpretation of one group of one religious tradition takes precedence.**

Perhaps our Governor and legislators didn’t understand the impact House Enrolled Act 1337 would have on Jewish families. Of course, had they not rushed the bill through, without hearing testimony in committee, then perhaps these concerns could have been discussed. Or, perhaps, in their anti-abortion (or, as some have started to refer to it, their “pro-birth”) zeal, they simply don’t care. They know what they believe and they have the power of the majority to impose those beliefs upon the rest of us.

In any event, it is time for Hoosiers to stand up to those who seek to enforce their religious views by force of law. It is time to reclaim Indiana as a welcoming pluralistic society and not some kind of 16th Century theocracy. And it is time for Jewish Hoosiers to make their voices heard — loudly — to let our Governor and legislator know that we will no longer stand for their efforts to make us second class citizens in our own state.

-----

*To be clear, Ashkenazi Jews are not the only people who carry the mutation that leads to Tay-Sachs, though it is most common in Ashkenazi Jews. The genetic mutation is also found at rates higher than the general population in Cajuns from Louisiana, French Canadians from eastern Quebec, and Acadians from New Brunswick, Canada.

**I want to relate an interesting thought experiment I encountered on Twitter recently (though, sadly, I failed to save the link so I can’t give proper attribution): Imagine that you are standing in front of a cliff. On the edge of the cliff are an infant and a petri dish with a fertilized human egg. Now imagine that the edge of the cliff begins to give way and both the infant and petri dish will fall over the cliff. You can save the infant or the petri dish, but not both. Which will you save? The answer is obvious, isn’t it? So why do people like Indiana’s Republican legislators want to continue to treat the fertilized egg and the infant as being the same when, quite clearly, they are not?