‘You’ve set back the Jewish contribution’: Stephen Miller’s former rabbi issues fiery rebuke on Rosh Hashanah
The Jewish new year celebration, Rosh Hashanah, began Sunday night, and for most observant adherents it is meant to kick off a period of often personal reflection. But one religious leader took the holiday as an o
pportunity to send a message to a man who he said was a former congregant: presidential adviser Stephen Miller.
In a fiery sermon that has now been covered by news outlets around the world, Rabbi Neil Comess-Daniels of Beth Shir Shalom, a synagogue in Santa Monica, Calif., where Miller grew up, denounced Miller for his
role in the proposal that resulted in the family separation crisis at the border, questioning how his values diverged so sharply from the congregation’s.
“The actions that you now encourage President Trump to take make it obvious to me that you didn’t get my or our Jewish message,” Comess-Daniels said. “That notion is completely antithetical to everything I
know about Judaism, Jewish law and Jewish values.”
LAST BASTION OF FREE SPEECH
"That definition includes examples in which demonizing or delegitimizing Israel, or holding it to a double standard not expected of other democratic nations, are deemed anti-Semitic."
Holy shit, what the actual fuck?! How can that not violate the First Amendment?
A reminder that the US has determined that students don't have free speech in school.
“Don’t you DARE say anything about a country that regularly shoots civilians and incites violence or you’re an anti-Semitic Jew-hater!”
k
In otherwords, As long you CANT be Anti-Israeli during schooltime means you “Anti-Semite” according so-called Anti-Social Justice “free speechers”.
this is not true.
Tinker explicitly stated that students don't check their rights at the schoolhouse door. But all rights are subject to qualification. Subsequent decisions have restricted students' speech in schools, but free speech always has restrictions, no matter the context (eg, fire in a theater, incitement to violence, libel, etc.).
The primary case that people cite for this proposition is a case in which articles were removed from a student newspaper by a faculty editor. The school was not preventing students from expressing their views, it was refusing to endorse them - which it can do, because the school paid for the newspaper. Factually, there were sensitive concerns about the identities of certain students being revealed (despite student attempts to keep them anonymous). SCOTUS ruled that schools have the capacity to take action to protect other students, protect school discipline, and bar obscene or vulgar speech (which is already the case for non-students anyway). As long as the action taken by the school is reasonably related to pedagogical concerns, it passes muster. This means that the only time that courts will overturn a school administrator's decision is when it is patently unreasonable. The policy logic behind this is that administrators have a better understanding of what their respective schools need than do judges, which is 100% accurate.
Most cases like this are, when viewed objectively as a disinterested party, much more complex than they first appear. That's always how it is with the law, and that's why cases end up at the Supreme Court - because both sides have reasonable and compelling arguments. That was the case with the newspaper - there are competing interests and balancing that needs to be done to protect students' right to free speech whilst also protecting the school's capacity to run itself effectively. Totally unhindered free speech isn't good for anyone.
What's in question here is complex as well.
> "That definition includes examples in which demonizing or delegitimizing Israel, or holding it to a double standard not expected of other democratic nations, are deemed anti-Semitic."
On its face, this isn't particularly problematic. One of the ways that you actually find discrimination is by looking at what are called "comparators" - for instance, at work, the way that we can tell your boss is discriminating against you is if they only reprimand you (and people in the same protected class as you) while not reprimanding others. This logic is reflected in the above - demonizing is an excessive "reprimand" out of proportion to the conduct, delegitimizing Israel as a state (that is, saying it doesn't deserve to be one) tiptoes very close to clear antisemitism, and "double standards" are exactly what I'm talking about re: comparators. However the article does show evidence that this policy is potentially targeted at pro-palestinian groups, which is problematic as well.
The true test of this policy is going to be how it's applied. If it's applied in good faith, I don't think there should be a problem. If it's applied as a way to stifle student speech about Israel as a state only, then there will be.
Let me guess, waving tiki torches and chanting "gas the k****" is still okay as long as you wear a Trump hat though?
careful.
That definition includes examples in which demonizing or delegitimizing Israel, or holding it to a double standard not expected of other democratic nations, are deemed anti-Semitic
willfully ignoring the slow genocide of the palistinians while not doing so for other democratic countries is antisemenic now.
This is the Trump administration you’re talking about though. Of course this is going to be abused. And even if Trump wasn’t in the picture, our school administrators are horrifically out of touch and don’t know how to deal with anything in a reasonable manner.
I can tell you right now in practice, students do in fact leave their first amendment rights at the door in many schools, even when it doesn’t meet any of the conditions of the ruling you posted (protecting discipline, school rules, vulgar language, etc...) simply because some teachers and school officials are on power trips and challenging them isn’t worth the time, effort, or possibility of retaliation by said school officials.
There’s no reason to give them even more ways to abuse their authority, especially over something petty as a political stance. I don’t see at all how being critical of Israel’s continued habit of committing war crimes should disrupt or threaten the school environment, unless people in the class are deranged enough to commit violence over talking shit about the Israeli government.
That definition includes examples in which demonizing or delegitimizing
Israel, or holding it to a double standard not expected of other
democratic nations, are deemed anti-Semitic.
Fuck off, Israel's government literally holds 0 representation of your average Jewish person at all. Criticizing Israel isn't criticizing Jews, it's criticizing Israel.
yeah but, and this is critical, it's all okay because we're doing it to own the libs.
But liberals are also massive proponents of Israel. Both major parties are.
I mean, even though I think its stupid that some people still think Israel shouldn't exist at all (I mean, where the hell else are the jews going to live in the land they originated from), them saying that doesn't necessarily mean they're anti-semitic. The whole way the modern state of Israel came around was a mess, and I can totally understand why people to this day have misgivings about it - especially after everything that has followed its establishment.
Could you elaborate on the power trips? Without knowing specifics it's not really possible to respond to that. What I can say is that the list I gave isn't exhaustive. States (and thus, public schools) have the power to regulate general welfare, which is pretty broad, constitutionally speaking.
Discriminatory behavior and harassment is typically achieved through repeated actions. If a student is subjected to repeated, targeted criticism on their state of national origin, it can cause them to be severely uncomfortable and feel targeted and discriminated against by the school. Something to that effect happened during my time in high school as a result of a series of school programs. If the criticism of the state of Israel is disproportionate - and too passionate - it is not unreasonable for a Jewish or Israeli student to feel as if they are being discriminated against.
The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon acknowledged that the UN has a bias against Israel, and that the UN issued a disproportionate number of resolutions on Israel, with little attention paid to comparable conflicts in some of the same states who issued the same. The criticism is not unfounded by any means, however, a disproportionate focus is placed on Israel. This is true in the UN and in many academic contexts as well. It's pretty pervasive at universities. I know because I participated in them. I'm actually working on one right now in a graduate context. To make it clear, I recognize Israel's acts. I also recognize that part of the reason we're so focused on them is that they're a developed nation.
Kids do have free speech rights in school, which are limited (seen any Nazi groups in schools?). Just like the right to association is limited. And the right to bear arms is limited. And the right to free movement is limited.
All I'm saying is that hyperbole is the bedfellow of misinformation. Saying that kids have no free speech rights in school is hyperbole, and it's dangerous to keep saying things like that. Keep saying it and it will start becoming true.
guy's a reform jew, he genuinely doesnt know shit and what he does know he'll twist around until it fits his agenda
i see what the trump admin is trying to do, some anti israel comments do hide anti semitic intentions but this is very blunt and just doesnt really address the issue
I wonder how many Jews have now become considered anti-semites.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
