Elie Wiesel is an optimist, and an optimist who survived the Holocaust is someone to whom we must attend. And so it is with sensitivity and care that we must read his recent plea (his full page ad in major newspapers in April 2010) to defer discussions on the future status of Jerusalem.
The ad that appeared in the New York Times is not addressed to any particular party, though many have (correctly, I think!) inferred that it is directed against the Obama administration, and that it refers to its current diplomatic dispute with Israel.
But what if his message was addressed to Israel and its leaders?
This is what Wiesel writes:
“What is the solution? Pressure will not produce a solution. Is there a solution? There must be, there will be. Why tackle the most complex and sensitive problem prematurely? Why not first take steps that will allow the Israeli and Palestinian communities to find ways to live together in an atmosphere of security. Why not leave the most difficult, the most sensitive issue, for such a time?”
Readers should presume that Mr. Wiesel’s reference to “pressure” connects to the insistence of President Obama that Israel halt construction in disputed areas of the West Bank, including parts of east Jerusalem.
But what if Mr. Wiesel’s message was intended not for Mr. Obama but rather for Mr. Netanyahu and his government?! What if we read Mr. Wiesel’s words as a call to Israel to halt their planning, declaring, permitting and constructing, because those are actions that do not “allow the Israeli and Palestinian communities to find ways to live together in an atmosphere of security”? What if Elie Wiesel here criticizes the entirety of Israel’s settlement expansion in Jerusalem as detrimental to an “atmosphere of security?”
We do not know what Mr. Wiesel intends. We must presume, of course, that the totality of his comments were, indeed, aimed at the Obama administration, and that they assert the ancient prejudices, biases, and fears of an Israelite nation relying on the Hebrew bible for their validity and force. But I am a dreamer, and I would hope that a Nobel peace laureate would search for truly peaceful solutions even when it is most difficult. I would hope that one Nobel peace laureate would make the same assumptions about another.
Mr. Wiesel asserts earlier that “Jerusalem is above politics,” and concludes his ad with the hope that Jerusalem “remain the world’s Jewish spiritual capital.” This is certainly my hope as well. But I wonder whether we can ever learn to share this spiritual treasure with those who similarly view Jerusalem with the same love and passion as Mr. Wiesel.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
For Jerusalem's Sake We Should Not Keep Still
This post is a sermon authored by Rabbi Bonnie Margulis, delivered at Temple Beth El, San Antonio, Texas, March 19, 2010; and Rabbi Jonathan Biatch, delivered at Temple Beth El, Madison, Wisconsin, March 26, 2010.
The American Jewish community today confronts a question of true significance, and that is about the nature of the relationship between the Israeli and Diaspora Jewish communities.
This question arises perennially, and no one ever seems able to solve it. Yet today, the disagreement over the answer to this question has recently engendered vehement and violent reaction from Jews in both the US and in Israel. We disagree about whether there can or should be diverse voices presented to Washington legislators on matters concerning Israel and the Middle East. They have differing opinions about the stake that Diaspora Jews have in affairs in Israel.
But in most cases, I believe all these voices are realistically concerned for Israel as a nation and as a force for good in the world.
(True, there is the voice of the self-hating Jew or the Jew almost exclusively focused on Palestinian issues to the exclusion of Israeli security. I believe that many of these voices set themselves outside of the community, and this piece is not about them.)
The proliferation of American Jewish voices on this topic, heard through the Internet and through a vast array of membership organizations, has caused us great angst. And angst can lead to frustration, and frustration can lead to violence, either overt or, more likely, recriminations and violent invective hurled back and forth in the media.
What should be our stance with regard to speaking out about Israel if we live in the Diaspora?
Many of us are sometimes unsure even if we have a right to react at all. We seriously question whether it is our place to express our opinions to the government in Israel. And as Jews living in the United States, we also question the wisdom of speaking out publicly if we disagree with some of Israel’s actions. We don’t want to be seen airing our dirty laundry in public, nor do we want to do anything to undermine Israel’s relationship with the US or to upset the support most non-Jewish Americans feel toward Israel.
Further, within the American Jewish community, dissent is often fraught with difficulties. It can be frightening to express aloud any criticism or disagreement with anything the Israeli government does. To do so risks being labeled anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, or even a self-hating Jew. Rabbis I know have been publicly vilified or, worse, have had their jobs threatened.
Even though as Americans we understand it is both our privilege and our duty to express any disagreements we might have with our own government – and we celebrate our right as citizens to express our opinions to our elected officials – when it comes to Israel, any dissent is often portrayed as disloyalty.
Is it possible, therefore, to disagree with the policies and actions of the Israeli government, while still loving and supporting the State of Israel?
I believe the answer to all of these questions is “Yes!” There is a saying in Hebrew – kol yisrael mitarev zeh b’zeh – “all of Israel is intertwined, one with the other”. What this means is that each Jew is connected to every other Jew in the world; our destinies are tied to one another. We American Jews may not live in Israel, but we are affected by what happens there, and while we cannot dictate to our Israeli brothers and sisters what they should do, we are and should feel entirely within our rights to express our opinions and offer our advice.
One may ask then, “Is it wise for there to be a multiplicity of voices of American Jews addressing our legislators on these questions?”
Let’s look at one particular new voice in the mix.
The arrival of J Street has been particularly difficult for some AIPAC members to accept. J Street’s founders believed that the previous structure of Jewish organizations that lobbied Congress and the Administration on Israel-related matters did not adequately represent the majority of American Jews. They felt that they were being either disregarded or, worse, misrepresented in the discussions regarding peace in the Middle East.
And since many of them believed that, because of their love for the state of Israel that their voices needed to be heard, they felt it was appropriate to find the funding – and the backing of American Jewish leaders – who would spearhead their efforts.
What about the fear some of us feel about expressing any disagreement with Israel? Is it disloyal, anti-Israel, or self-hating, if there are times when we disagree with some action or policy of the Israeli government?
Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, had this to say on the subject:
“Israel needs our help … and this means hearing our criticisms. Unconditional support is not the same as uncritical support. We love the Jewish state, but we must hold firm to our vision of a Jewish, democratic, and pluralistic Israel. We cannot accept settlement in the heart of the West Bank, where a Palestinian state must one day arise … We will always reach for the highest ideals of the Zionist dream, seeking justice for all of Israel’s citizens and for her neighbors as well.”
And it is important to express these viewpoints, simultaneously, if necessary: support for Israel’s very real need for security and the right to defend herself when she is attacked; and disagreement when her actions seem to threaten that security or when she fails to live up to the ideals we all hold dear.
So, to a specific issue:
“Hasn’t the current diplomatic flap about the construction of 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem been exacerbated by the support of progressive Jewish organizations for the position and actions of the Obama administration?”
Each one of us may speculate as to the answer to this question, and we may never have an answer that is completely free from ambiguity.
According to Tom Friedman of the New York Times, the announcement to build those units came from the Israeli Interior Minister who, disregarding the international consequences of his actions, fulfilled – if you will forgive me – a ‘pork barrel’ promise made to ultra-Orthodox Jews in that neighborhood. And instead of clamping down on an uncooperative cabinet minister, the Prime Minister used the occasion to assert the sovereignty of Israel over Jerusalem.
Was Prime Minister Netanyahu legally justified in his pronouncement? Yes. There is no requirement in international law that any nation that has won territory in combat be required to return that territory to a previous owner.
But I think a more subtle question needs to be addressed: Was it wise, given the then-current state of negotiations between Israel, the United States, and the Palestinian Authority on their proximity talks, was it wise for Prime Minister Netanyahu to react in the way he did?
That is a question that we can debate – and we should.
And finally a question particularly germane to those who love Israel and yet have differing views as to the way in which Diaspora Jews should be engaged in these matters: “Is a multiplicity of Jewish voices in Washington, especially when they differ so widely regarding the Middle East peace process, good or bad for the Jews?”
An article I read recently asserts that the activities of J Street have not only confused lawmakers and administration officials. The author, a rabbinic colleague who works in Iowa, asserts that “The J Street perspective on Israel is now driving the Obama Administration's policy toward Israel.”
I believe that this overstates J Street’s, or any organization’s, real influence on these matters. J Street is simply too young and inexperienced to have that kind of power. If J Street’s perspective is the same as the current administration, this is simply because that organization and the administration just happen to understand those issues in similar ways.
In Internet appearances and in written columns, Alan Dershowitz makes impassioned pleas for our American Jewish community to speak with one voice when it comes to lobbying Congress or when speaking to the media. He believes it’s confusing if law- and policy-makers hear diverse views from their Jewish constituents.
But every congressperson knows, if they take the time to read polling data, that the American Jewish community holds varying opinions on these issues. This is a secret to no one. It was not a secret to previous administrations that staunch supporters of Israel supported with dollars and votes; it is not a secret to President Obama and his advisors; it is not a secret to the majority of American Jews. There is no reason to pretend that the American Jewish community is less diverse than it is.
There is a way to bring our opinions about Israel and the situation in the Middle East into the public arena, even when we hear diversity in those views: Our language of criticism needs to be accompanied by unqualified support for the Jewish state even though her actions at any given time may upset us. We need to be unequivocal about our support even when voicing concern.
Also remember this: American support for Israel runs very deep, and is based on many geo-political and religious realities. I believe that stories of the influence of the Jewish lobby are exaggerated and mythic, and any expression of disagreement with Israel’s policies would in no way threaten America’s alliance with Israel.
I believe that discussion is good; transparent debate is healthy; and resolving disagreements help us to struggle with the issues and diverse ideas, and then to hone in on what we ourselves truly believe.
The more we accept and welcome a variety of views, and permit different voices to enter the discussion, the stronger and healthier our community becomes. From the synthesis of ideas there may even come a clearer – and practical – solution.
We have just concluded our observance of Passover, a time when we ended our Seders with the words, “Next year in Jerusalem, next year may all be free!” For next year, let us add, “May all be at peace, in Israel and in all the world."
The American Jewish community today confronts a question of true significance, and that is about the nature of the relationship between the Israeli and Diaspora Jewish communities.
This question arises perennially, and no one ever seems able to solve it. Yet today, the disagreement over the answer to this question has recently engendered vehement and violent reaction from Jews in both the US and in Israel. We disagree about whether there can or should be diverse voices presented to Washington legislators on matters concerning Israel and the Middle East. They have differing opinions about the stake that Diaspora Jews have in affairs in Israel.
But in most cases, I believe all these voices are realistically concerned for Israel as a nation and as a force for good in the world.
(True, there is the voice of the self-hating Jew or the Jew almost exclusively focused on Palestinian issues to the exclusion of Israeli security. I believe that many of these voices set themselves outside of the community, and this piece is not about them.)
The proliferation of American Jewish voices on this topic, heard through the Internet and through a vast array of membership organizations, has caused us great angst. And angst can lead to frustration, and frustration can lead to violence, either overt or, more likely, recriminations and violent invective hurled back and forth in the media.
What should be our stance with regard to speaking out about Israel if we live in the Diaspora?
Many of us are sometimes unsure even if we have a right to react at all. We seriously question whether it is our place to express our opinions to the government in Israel. And as Jews living in the United States, we also question the wisdom of speaking out publicly if we disagree with some of Israel’s actions. We don’t want to be seen airing our dirty laundry in public, nor do we want to do anything to undermine Israel’s relationship with the US or to upset the support most non-Jewish Americans feel toward Israel.
Further, within the American Jewish community, dissent is often fraught with difficulties. It can be frightening to express aloud any criticism or disagreement with anything the Israeli government does. To do so risks being labeled anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, or even a self-hating Jew. Rabbis I know have been publicly vilified or, worse, have had their jobs threatened.
Even though as Americans we understand it is both our privilege and our duty to express any disagreements we might have with our own government – and we celebrate our right as citizens to express our opinions to our elected officials – when it comes to Israel, any dissent is often portrayed as disloyalty.
Is it possible, therefore, to disagree with the policies and actions of the Israeli government, while still loving and supporting the State of Israel?
I believe the answer to all of these questions is “Yes!” There is a saying in Hebrew – kol yisrael mitarev zeh b’zeh – “all of Israel is intertwined, one with the other”. What this means is that each Jew is connected to every other Jew in the world; our destinies are tied to one another. We American Jews may not live in Israel, but we are affected by what happens there, and while we cannot dictate to our Israeli brothers and sisters what they should do, we are and should feel entirely within our rights to express our opinions and offer our advice.
One may ask then, “Is it wise for there to be a multiplicity of voices of American Jews addressing our legislators on these questions?”
Let’s look at one particular new voice in the mix.
The arrival of J Street has been particularly difficult for some AIPAC members to accept. J Street’s founders believed that the previous structure of Jewish organizations that lobbied Congress and the Administration on Israel-related matters did not adequately represent the majority of American Jews. They felt that they were being either disregarded or, worse, misrepresented in the discussions regarding peace in the Middle East.
And since many of them believed that, because of their love for the state of Israel that their voices needed to be heard, they felt it was appropriate to find the funding – and the backing of American Jewish leaders – who would spearhead their efforts.
What about the fear some of us feel about expressing any disagreement with Israel? Is it disloyal, anti-Israel, or self-hating, if there are times when we disagree with some action or policy of the Israeli government?
Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, had this to say on the subject:
“Israel needs our help … and this means hearing our criticisms. Unconditional support is not the same as uncritical support. We love the Jewish state, but we must hold firm to our vision of a Jewish, democratic, and pluralistic Israel. We cannot accept settlement in the heart of the West Bank, where a Palestinian state must one day arise … We will always reach for the highest ideals of the Zionist dream, seeking justice for all of Israel’s citizens and for her neighbors as well.”
And it is important to express these viewpoints, simultaneously, if necessary: support for Israel’s very real need for security and the right to defend herself when she is attacked; and disagreement when her actions seem to threaten that security or when she fails to live up to the ideals we all hold dear.
So, to a specific issue:
“Hasn’t the current diplomatic flap about the construction of 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem been exacerbated by the support of progressive Jewish organizations for the position and actions of the Obama administration?”
Each one of us may speculate as to the answer to this question, and we may never have an answer that is completely free from ambiguity.
According to Tom Friedman of the New York Times, the announcement to build those units came from the Israeli Interior Minister who, disregarding the international consequences of his actions, fulfilled – if you will forgive me – a ‘pork barrel’ promise made to ultra-Orthodox Jews in that neighborhood. And instead of clamping down on an uncooperative cabinet minister, the Prime Minister used the occasion to assert the sovereignty of Israel over Jerusalem.
Was Prime Minister Netanyahu legally justified in his pronouncement? Yes. There is no requirement in international law that any nation that has won territory in combat be required to return that territory to a previous owner.
But I think a more subtle question needs to be addressed: Was it wise, given the then-current state of negotiations between Israel, the United States, and the Palestinian Authority on their proximity talks, was it wise for Prime Minister Netanyahu to react in the way he did?
That is a question that we can debate – and we should.
And finally a question particularly germane to those who love Israel and yet have differing views as to the way in which Diaspora Jews should be engaged in these matters: “Is a multiplicity of Jewish voices in Washington, especially when they differ so widely regarding the Middle East peace process, good or bad for the Jews?”
An article I read recently asserts that the activities of J Street have not only confused lawmakers and administration officials. The author, a rabbinic colleague who works in Iowa, asserts that “The J Street perspective on Israel is now driving the Obama Administration's policy toward Israel.”
I believe that this overstates J Street’s, or any organization’s, real influence on these matters. J Street is simply too young and inexperienced to have that kind of power. If J Street’s perspective is the same as the current administration, this is simply because that organization and the administration just happen to understand those issues in similar ways.
In Internet appearances and in written columns, Alan Dershowitz makes impassioned pleas for our American Jewish community to speak with one voice when it comes to lobbying Congress or when speaking to the media. He believes it’s confusing if law- and policy-makers hear diverse views from their Jewish constituents.
But every congressperson knows, if they take the time to read polling data, that the American Jewish community holds varying opinions on these issues. This is a secret to no one. It was not a secret to previous administrations that staunch supporters of Israel supported with dollars and votes; it is not a secret to President Obama and his advisors; it is not a secret to the majority of American Jews. There is no reason to pretend that the American Jewish community is less diverse than it is.
There is a way to bring our opinions about Israel and the situation in the Middle East into the public arena, even when we hear diversity in those views: Our language of criticism needs to be accompanied by unqualified support for the Jewish state even though her actions at any given time may upset us. We need to be unequivocal about our support even when voicing concern.
Also remember this: American support for Israel runs very deep, and is based on many geo-political and religious realities. I believe that stories of the influence of the Jewish lobby are exaggerated and mythic, and any expression of disagreement with Israel’s policies would in no way threaten America’s alliance with Israel.
I believe that discussion is good; transparent debate is healthy; and resolving disagreements help us to struggle with the issues and diverse ideas, and then to hone in on what we ourselves truly believe.
The more we accept and welcome a variety of views, and permit different voices to enter the discussion, the stronger and healthier our community becomes. From the synthesis of ideas there may even come a clearer – and practical – solution.
We have just concluded our observance of Passover, a time when we ended our Seders with the words, “Next year in Jerusalem, next year may all be free!” For next year, let us add, “May all be at peace, in Israel and in all the world."
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Passover in Our Times: Jews and Christians Must Be Jews and Christians Even When It's Tough!
I used to think that Glenn Beck was simply one of those right wing fanatics with whom I simply disagree.
Then he offered crocodile tears on his television and radio programs regarding what he viewed as the 'downfall' of America due to the progressive agenda of our president and his administration. I became very, very skeptical.
But now that he has attacked the whole panoply of Judeo-Christian teachings regarding helping the poor, the sick, the widow, the orphan, and the stranger, I agree with Reverend Jim Wallis that people of religion should simply leave him.
The New York Times Blog site contains this article that reviews the brouhaha that erupted last week, so I don't have to go into that. However, as we approach the holiday of Passover, it is good to remind ourselves of our purpose in celebrating this holiday in the way we do.
Our Seder teaches us through sound, sight, taste, and experience that we must empathize with the plight of the stranger. But that is not its end. The purpose is to motivate us to act, to alleviate suffering, and to look toward the day when there will be no poverty and no injustice.
Judaism sometimes seems somewhat schizophrenic on this and many topics. In the Torah we read about the rewards for caring for the poor and, in almost the same breath, we note that there will never cease to be needy in our land (Deuteronomy 15:11). Perhaps this is not so much schizophrenic as it is reality. There are so many poor and persecuted people among us that we can't help but realize that we have a life-long task ahead of us. We have to strive relentlessly for finding justice and ending oppression and feeding people, even though we know we'll never cease having the need.
The Torah states one sacred obligation, perhaps two, about belief in God. (They are the Sh'ma, and the Fist Commandment that Moses received on Mt. Sinai.) However, the Torah states at least 37 times the sacred obligation to help the poor, the orphan, the widow, and the stranger. And why? Because we know the heart of the strangers, having been strangers ourselves in the land of Egypt. The priority of the Torah is very plain. What better lesson could we possibly derive from our Passover celebration?!
It seems a difficult row to hoe, but my father always said that it was hard to be a Jew. In many ways that is right. But it is also a privilege that we should never give up and never defer.
I hope you have a wonderful Passover.
Then he offered crocodile tears on his television and radio programs regarding what he viewed as the 'downfall' of America due to the progressive agenda of our president and his administration. I became very, very skeptical.
But now that he has attacked the whole panoply of Judeo-Christian teachings regarding helping the poor, the sick, the widow, the orphan, and the stranger, I agree with Reverend Jim Wallis that people of religion should simply leave him.
The New York Times Blog site contains this article that reviews the brouhaha that erupted last week, so I don't have to go into that. However, as we approach the holiday of Passover, it is good to remind ourselves of our purpose in celebrating this holiday in the way we do.
Our Seder teaches us through sound, sight, taste, and experience that we must empathize with the plight of the stranger. But that is not its end. The purpose is to motivate us to act, to alleviate suffering, and to look toward the day when there will be no poverty and no injustice.
Judaism sometimes seems somewhat schizophrenic on this and many topics. In the Torah we read about the rewards for caring for the poor and, in almost the same breath, we note that there will never cease to be needy in our land (Deuteronomy 15:11). Perhaps this is not so much schizophrenic as it is reality. There are so many poor and persecuted people among us that we can't help but realize that we have a life-long task ahead of us. We have to strive relentlessly for finding justice and ending oppression and feeding people, even though we know we'll never cease having the need.
The Torah states one sacred obligation, perhaps two, about belief in God. (They are the Sh'ma, and the Fist Commandment that Moses received on Mt. Sinai.) However, the Torah states at least 37 times the sacred obligation to help the poor, the orphan, the widow, and the stranger. And why? Because we know the heart of the strangers, having been strangers ourselves in the land of Egypt. The priority of the Torah is very plain. What better lesson could we possibly derive from our Passover celebration?!
It seems a difficult row to hoe, but my father always said that it was hard to be a Jew. In many ways that is right. But it is also a privilege that we should never give up and never defer.
I hope you have a wonderful Passover.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
God Sends Us
In a recent edition of Forward, Rabbi Ilana Grinblat wrote this about whether and how God intervenes in the life of earth’s creatures: “Does Judaism believe that God sends natural disasters in punishment for sin?
"This question was examined by the rabbis. The Talmud posits, “If a man stole a bag of seeds and planted them in his garden, it would be right if the seeds didn’t grow. However the rabbis concluded that nature follows its own rules and the seeds grow.
“The text likewise explains that if a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, it would be right if she did not get pregnant. But nature follows its own rules and she conceives. Through these and other scenarios, the rabbis articulated that God does not intervene in nature based on moral calculus.
“The devastation of the earthquake is horrible enough without giving the victims the added burden of feeling guilt that somehow they are responsible. This atrocious discourse only adds insult to injury.
"If God doesn’t intervene in nature, then where is God in disaster? A story is told of a man who goes up to heaven at the end of his life and stands before God, his heart breaking from the pain and injustice of the world. He cries out, “God, look at all the suffering in your world. Why don’t you do something to fix it?” God replies gently, “I did do something. I sent you.
"In the aftermath of disaster, God is with the injured and the bereaved, giving them strength to endure and heal. God is with the rescuers, giving them courage and perseverance. God is with all of us, encouraging us to give generously to the victims. God surely did not send the earthquake in Haiti last week. But God has sent each one of us to help."
The question for me, this Rabbi in Madison, Wisconsin, is whether we can see ourselves sent by God. For many of us, our eyes are blinded to this possibility because we are 'rationalists' who cannot fathom a God who intervenes in the world. I do not suggest that God does this, of course, but rather that this is the mission and goal of every individual on the planet. In other words, God set this up from the start, that the job of being human is precisely that, to intervene and help in the life of our world, and especially when our fellow humans need help.
"This question was examined by the rabbis. The Talmud posits, “If a man stole a bag of seeds and planted them in his garden, it would be right if the seeds didn’t grow. However the rabbis concluded that nature follows its own rules and the seeds grow.
“The text likewise explains that if a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, it would be right if she did not get pregnant. But nature follows its own rules and she conceives. Through these and other scenarios, the rabbis articulated that God does not intervene in nature based on moral calculus.
“The devastation of the earthquake is horrible enough without giving the victims the added burden of feeling guilt that somehow they are responsible. This atrocious discourse only adds insult to injury.
"If God doesn’t intervene in nature, then where is God in disaster? A story is told of a man who goes up to heaven at the end of his life and stands before God, his heart breaking from the pain and injustice of the world. He cries out, “God, look at all the suffering in your world. Why don’t you do something to fix it?” God replies gently, “I did do something. I sent you.
"In the aftermath of disaster, God is with the injured and the bereaved, giving them strength to endure and heal. God is with the rescuers, giving them courage and perseverance. God is with all of us, encouraging us to give generously to the victims. God surely did not send the earthquake in Haiti last week. But God has sent each one of us to help."
The question for me, this Rabbi in Madison, Wisconsin, is whether we can see ourselves sent by God. For many of us, our eyes are blinded to this possibility because we are 'rationalists' who cannot fathom a God who intervenes in the world. I do not suggest that God does this, of course, but rather that this is the mission and goal of every individual on the planet. In other words, God set this up from the start, that the job of being human is precisely that, to intervene and help in the life of our world, and especially when our fellow humans need help.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Haiti: Why Politicize Tragedy?
At a time when our nation should be rallying together to help Haiti's citizens at this critical time, conservative broadcast pundits and preachers have found it imperative to both politicize the tragedy of Haiti and offer nonsensical theological blather about the cause of the catastrophe.
Syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh politicized the calamity by saying that President Obama would use the Haitian tragedy to boost his standing with the "light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country." Limbaugh also seemed to want to scuttle the fundraising for relief efforts when he protested, "We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the U.S. income tax."
On Glenn Beck's January 14, 2010 radio show, he implied that he has a problem with the Obama Administration's pledge of $100 million to Haitian aid. Beck believes that the military should be providing security only and allow private charitable organizations and NGOs to do the rest. IN short, he wanted to create Katrina 2.0.
At least one-third of that island nation has been brought to its knees by tragedy, and the best the Beck can offer is criticism of the Obama Administration's desire to spend $100 million there. This amount in comparison to our total government outlay is a drop in the proverbial bucket.
And television evangelist Pat Robertson was apparently criticizing the indigenous citizens' adherence to various forms of Haitian voodoo religion as a cause of the earthquake, though he did not do so directly. On the January 13, 2010 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, Pat Robertson bizarrely claimed that Haiti was hit by the crushing earthquake because it "swore a pact to the devil" to get "free from the French" hundreds of years ago.
This insensitive comment was only the latest in a long line of remarks made by Robertson regarding other disasters. For example, in 2005 he linked the tragic aftereffects of Hurricane Katrina to the legality of abortion and the presence of homosexuals in New Orleans. And he earlier agreed with the late Jerry Falwell about the cause of the September 11 terrorist attacks. Falwell commented on the September 13, 2010 edition of The 700 Club Falwell said then that the attacks could be attributed in part to "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)