I've donated to the ADL in the past..... but I'm rethinking that now.

[scheming daemons]

They're supposed to be the ones who are against bigotry.


They have no legitimate non-bigoted reason for opposing the muslim community center two blocks from ground zero. None.


I guess they only care about anti-jewish bigotry... not bigotry in general.



Very disappointed.

[babylonsister]

1. Sigh. Don't label a whole group by a whacko or two. Did

everyone sign on to this?

I'm just leery of so many whackos, so little time. And I sure wouldn't want to promote anyone's negative agenda.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. Clearly you aren't familiar with all the ADL does. Pity.

[scheming daemons]

4. I am. That's why I've donated. But they're very much in the wrong on this one.

I can't reconcile their past "message" with this current statement of theirs.


They are wrong.


I'm disappointed in their actions/words here. They are not consistent with the ADL's charter.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. throwing the baby out with the bathwater!

[scheming daemons]

8. I'm not saying to disband the ADL... I'm saying they're making me rethink my donation amount

[Behind the Aegis]

15. Fine. Why not send them an email.

http://support.adl.org/site/PageServer?pagename=contact_us

[Hissyspit]

9. If the current leadership is taking an organization away from where it should be, then

withholding contributions is a way to have a say on that leadership.

From wikipedia:

Linguist and activist Noam Chomsky has characterized ADL as having lost entirely its focus on civil rights issues to become solely an advocate for Israeli policy; he claims that ADL casts all left-wing opposition to Israeli interests as antisemitism.<69> Michael Lerner, a prominent left-wing rabbi, has criticized the ADL on similar grounds.<70> Other left-wing critics include Norman G. Finkelstein,<71> Matt Isaacs,<72> Jude Wanniski,<73> Jeffrey Blankfort, Anne Poirier and Steve Zeltzer.<74>

In 2003, journalist John Gorenfeld criticized the ADL in an article in Salon Magazine for its silence on alleged antisemitic statements by members of the Unification Church, in contrast to its outspoken criticism of the Nation of Islam and other groups.<75>

[Behind the Aegis]

14. Fuck Chomsky!

And, hey, if you want to withhold money for this statement, and because they don't address every fucking anti-Semitic statement that comes across the pike...more power to you!

[Chulanowa]

18. Fuck Foxman

That bigoted piece of shit has been driving an otherwise good organization into the ground, and needs to be tossed on his ass and replaced with someone who isn't a flaming asshole with a singular political agenda.

[Behind the Aegis]

19. Your opinion.

I happen to agree.

[Chulanowa]

20. FUCK Y- oh wait

Well, glad there's something we can share a bowl of popcorn over.

[MajorChode]

25. I'm familiar with this...

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/CvlRt_32/5820_32.htm

How can anyone possibly justify that?

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Did I say I justified it?

No. I said something completely different than your silly strawman.

[MajorChode]

28. You are right, of course

Now that I think about it, apologist seems more accurate than trying to justify anything. I was just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

What you said was, "Clearly you aren't familiar with all the ADL does."

This was in response to the OP who pointed out the ADL's bigotry, which is painfully obvious to anyone who isn't clouded by a heaping helping of bias.

So lets not pretend that context doesn't matter, OK? It insults the intelligence of those with more than 2 synapses actively firing.

Cheers!

[Behind the Aegis]

29. Stretch your logical misfire...seems to work in your mind.

""Clearly you aren't familiar with all the ADL does."" Seems to passed by your incrdiblly gifted sight, or comprehension. :shrug:

Clearly, you are so worried about the ADL's propaganda, you can't see your own bullshit prejudice propganda shining through.

Salut!

[MajorChode]

30. I can see why you like the ADL so well

Anyone who dares question their (or your) motives MUST be a bigot.

Got it.

So let me rephrase my request in a way that won't offend your delicate sensibilities.

Please enlighten us regarding "all the ADL does" that could possibly lead a reasonable person to believe they aren't a bigoted organization for posting that message on their web site.

Cheers!

[Behind the Aegis]

37. How sad. More straw and ad homs, to boot.

Quite a night for you and the use of logical fallacies.

[Chulanowa]

41. You're the one doing ad hominem here, Aegis

Ad hominem is when you try to invalidate a person's argument by making accusations against the person. It's often confused with "personal attack" (which is simply insulting your opponent for the sake of insulting) and "Poisoning hte Well" (disparaging an argument because of the source.)

You posted this; "you can't see your own bullshit prejudice propganda shining through." Rather than address his argument - that the ADL is supporting bigotry, with a link to the ADL's own website where they outright do exactly what he's saying they're doing - you call him prejudiced and dismiss his argument out of hand because of this presumed prejudice.

Now perhaps you could say he's engaging in personal attacks. But at least he's addressing your position.

[MajorChode]

44. It's called Freudian Projection, and it's a defense mechanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

[MajorChode]

43. Dishonest diversion noted

If you're not going to answer the request, simply don't reply or tell me you aren't going to answer.

Your false accusations in a lame attempt to dodge the request simply make you look ridiculous and petty.

Cheers!

[slampoet]

50. You're the one being rude. Everyone can see you for what you really are.

[SoCalNative]

3. Actually

ADL director Abraham Foxman explains it here:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/08/03/128955919/islamic-community-center-debate-will-leave-scars-adl-president-tells-npr

"This is about location and sensitivity, not about rights, not about the Muslim community" Foxman said. "We believe in this place of tragedy and pain and anguish" the best way to heal "is not to do it in your face."

<snip>

Foxman acknowledged that there is now no legal impediment to construction of the center. "They have a right to build there or anywhere else," he said. "We've never opposed the mosque."

But, invoking Kahn's comments to The Journal, he said that building a new relationship should "start with a sense of respect for the sensitivity" of the site, especially among people who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks.

[scheming daemons]

5. two city blocks from the site is not "the site".

[Posteritatis]

11. The complainers have taken to defining "the site" as anywhere in Manhattan lately. (nt)

[Hissyspit]

12. See Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8883104

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. Two city blocks in Manhattan, no less.

The Mezzuin could call to prayer on a loudspeaker and nobody at the WTC site would ever hear it. The Mosque might as well be in the Bronx for all the impact it will have on the site.

It's just asshats trying to create an issue to beat the administration with in an election year. I'm glad Bloomberg told them where to stick it.

[Hissyspit]

7. Yes, I heard his interview on Morning Edition this morning.

Not impressed by his arguments at all, and found them pretty indefensible.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

10. s/explains it/digs deeper/

[Vickers]

21. ""This is about location and sensitivity" So the strip clubs, para-mutuel betting

parlor and etc. etc. are cool?

Got it.

[Hannah Bell]

33. that's crazy. underlying the statement is the equation: muslim religion = terrorism

if some christian whackos had bombed the place & later a church decided to build nearby, we'd tend to think it was random, or in the interest of "healing" or some such -- unless it were the "church of radical whackos".

but in the statement above, locating *any* muslim church near the site is implied to be "insensitive".

that's crazy & yeah, bigotry.

[inna]

13. good on you. recommended.

[Jim Sagle]

16. The ADL RRRRRRAWWWWWXXXXXXX!!!!!!

[Chulanowa]

22. It does what, now?

it vomits? it has a severe phlegm congestion? Are you alright, sir?

[dionysus]

45. yes jim, because bigotry against muslims is so cool.

:eyes:

[Luminous Animal]

17. The ADL has become more and more reactionary.

It is sad really. Dennis G at Balloon Juice had a good post about this yesterday.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/08/03/when-they-came-for-ishmael-abe-grabbed-a-rope/

The NAACP was a response to the Jim Crow backlash to Reconstruction and the open terrorist campaign of neo-Confederate white extremists in America. The ACLU was founded in the wake of the Palmer Raids and a Conservative effort to piss on the Bill of Rights. The ADL was founded in response to the Confederate campaign of hate spilling past blacks and extending to immigrants—especially immigrants with weird religions like Catholicism and Judaism.

In 1913 a Jewish worker in Atlanta was accused of raping a Southern girl. He was lynched by the same kind of hate fueled mob that inspired (and still inspires) the NAACP to call out racism. Out of that lynching, the Anti-Defamation League was born.

For most of the last 100 years these three groups have been true to their core missions, but that is no longer the case. While the NAACP and the ACLU continue the fight for justice, the ADL has quit the field.

Once the ADL was an organization of heroes. No more. Now when bigots call for a lynch mob to form out of fear and religious intolerance, the ADL no longer stands in the way. Now they call on their members to grab a rope and join the rampage.
Peter Beinart has a post up that helps to explain how the ADL went down the hate spiral of Wingnutopia. He makes a good case for how an important organization destroyed its credibility in an effort to appease the powerful and the extremists in their network.

It would be funny if it wasn’t so sad, but it took less than a century for Abe Foxman’s ADL to find common cause with the spirit of bigotry that lynched Leo Frank.

[eridani]

24. IIRC, they really did used to be against all forms of bigotry

Sorry to see that has changed.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. It hasn't, but don't let that interfere with your strawman.

[MajorChode]

31. You sure do like that word

Too bad you have no idea what it means.

Cheers!

[Behind the Aegis]

35. Apparently, you aren't familiar with the meaning.

Given you other posts, it is not surprising.

[Chulanowa]

40. Well, no, actually, he's right

"Straw man" is an instrument wherein an opponent's position is changed to be more comfortable to the argument of the person making the straw man. For instance, if I were to take your standing up for the ADL, and then tried to portray it as you supporting denial of the Armenian Genocide, that would be a straw man.

Now you could try to make the argument that eridani is conducting "bullshit," the logical fallacy wherein the speaker just makes stuff up. However... he's not. The ADL is (Was, anyway) supporting bigotry when it comes to this Islamic community center. Ergo it's perfectly safe to say that the organization no longer is "against all forms of bigotry," since they have perpetuated bigotry in this case.

[MajorChode]

47. You've accused practically everyone in this thread of strawman rhetoric

None of those accusations have any foundation in the meaning of the word or even reality.

At the extreme risk of having you falsely accuse me of a number of other logical fallacies, I'm going to explain why your accusations are false and why you have misused the term.

Presumably your strawman accusation is built on the premise that since the ADL did nothing that was bigoted, then any statement or argument to that effect must be "strawman", (which is not what strawman means, but that is another topic of conversation).

How does one tell if something is or isn't bigoted? Well, to answer that question, I think you have to use a reasonable person standard. Just about everyone I've seen reply regarding the ADL's statement has determined or suggested that it is bigoted, including Joe Klein writing for Time magazine. Now perhaps you can make the argument that not one of those people are reasonable. Good luck with that. On the other side we have you saying it wasn't bigoted. However, you have a long history of being a mouthpiece for the ADL (I'm not saying that's bad, just sayin'), so your objectivity on this subject is definitely suspect. Your basis for your misplaced strawman accusation is that since nobody can convince you that the ADL made a bigoted statement, they must be wrong. However, as I've pointed out, you can hardly be considered a reasonable person to make such a determination. So it would be nearly impossible for anyone to clear that hurdle.

Ultimately you make a classic mistake, which is to assume that just because you don't agree with someone, they must be wrong. That sir, is a logical fallacy.

Cheers!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Then explain their bigoted reaction to the "mosque at ground zero."

And when I say explain, I mean explain how it is not bigoted.

Not how you support it.

[MajorChode]

34. He has already been asked several times

His answer seems to be that the ADL explained quite clearly why it's not bigoted in their statement (right), then he seems to contradict himself by saying that even though they did issue an obviously bigoted statement, it's just "baby and bathwater" so we should just forgive them due to their larger body of work (which seems to consist mainly of being a mouthpiece for Israel these days). So if you dare ask that question, you must be a bigot yourself.

[Behind the Aegis]

36. Do you not know what a strawman is? I am guessing you do.

You use them often.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. Do you know what "dodging the question" means?

Cause you just did.

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. The Defamation League by Joe Klein ---

The journey of the (Anti-)Defamation League from beacon of tolerance to slightly potty geyser of toxic foolishness continues apace. Two years ago, Abe Foxman--the ADL's very much over the hill president--accused me of anti-semitism for pointing out the Israel-first tendencies of more than a few neoconservatives, especially when it came to plumping for war with Iran (if you don't believe me, read anything--anything--that the goofy harridan Jennifer Rubin writes about Israel or President Obama over at the Commentary blog). Then, earlier this year, Foxman accused David Petraeus of being anti-Israel for making the indisputable point the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict doesn't make life any easier for US troops fighting in the region. And now Foxman has hit the jackpot, joining the intolerant know-nothings who are seeking to block the establishment of a mosque--actually an Islamic center-- near Ground Zero. The tragedy here is that the Islamic Center is precisely the sort of institution that the Anti-Defamation league traditionally supported:

Oz Sultan, the programming director for the center, said the complex was based on Jewish community centers and Y.M.C.A.'s in Manhattan. It is to have a board composed of Muslim, Christian and Jewish leaders and is intended to create a national model of moderate Islam.

“We are looking to build bridges between faiths,” Mr. Sultan said in an interview.

City officials, particularly Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, have forcefully defended the project on the grounds of religious freedom, saying that government has no place dictating where a house of worship is located. The local community board has given overwhelming backing to the project, and the city's landmarks commission is expected to do the same on Tuesday.

“What is great about America, and particularly New York, is we welcome everybody, and if we are so afraid of something like this, what does that say about us?” Mr. Bloomberg asked recently.

During the high-tide of anti-semitism, and then again during the civil-rights movement, and often since, the Anti-Defamation League transcended its Jewish origins to stand as a courageous American voice against prejudice. But now, it's making a mockery of its original mission and, in the process, it has sullied American Judaism's intense tradition of tolerance and inclusion. I miss the old ADL and so does America. Foxman should be fired immediately. (Meanwhile, hooray yet again for Michael Bloomberg.)

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/07/31/the-defamation-league/?xid=rss-topstories#ixzz0vIfS1g3b

[MajorChode]

49. That's a good article

I find it rather disgusting what some people will do while carrying the banner of civil rights. At one time, anti-Semitism was effectively mainstream in America and the ADL served a very useful and noble purpose. Now it seems as if they are simply using their status as a civil rights organization to brand anyone who is critical of Israel as an anti-Semite. It's not that much different than religious leaders who will tell you that if you aren't on their side, you are defying the will of God.

[Stinky The Clown]

42. Recommended

[mmonk]

46. People or organizations disappoint every now and then.

I understand.

[joeybee12]

48. I'll rec...they're like the Daniel Craig character in "Munich"

"I only care about Jewish blood."

Donate to many other worthy Jewish causes instead.

[Poboy]

51. Mosque at Ground Zero: That's Bullshit

Mosque at Ground Zero: That's Bullshit
From: SamSeder | August 04, 2010

"That's Bullshit" with Sam Seder: Pointing out Bullshit so you don't step in it. This week, Sam calls Bullshit on the right wing anti American whines about a Muslim community center slated to be built 2 blocks from Ground Zero and especially the hypocrisy on the part of the Jewish Anti Defamation League.

http://www.youtube.com/user/SamSeder