Leading Gay Activists Hate Religious Children

On January 12, 2016, The New York Times ran a cover story entitled “Balancing Terror and Reality in the State of the Union Address.” The article conveyed that President Obama will address the threat of terrorism against U.S. interests, even though such threats are actuality relatively minor.  As Americans are nervous due to all of the terrorism they see in the world, Obama will discuss an issue he would rather minimize.  As such, the guests that will accompany the First Lady to the speech include several people from the military, veterans and a police officer.

The long list of defense personnel guests masks the message of compassion in a veneer of strength.  As the White House press release said,the [invited] guests personify President Obama’s time in office and most importantly, they represent who we are as Americans: inclusive and compassionate, innovative and courageous.”  Most of the military guests will be props for Obama to discuss: the fight against homelessness; women’s rights; Islam is a religion of peace; and monitoring the police force.

Obama’s message is that while there is a fight against terrorism, it is a secondary concern.  The seven years of his administration were not primarily about keeping the country safe, but moving forward on a progressive agenda.

For example, another guest at the SOTU address was the lead plaintiff for the Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage, Jim Obergefell.  He described his fight for equality as “liv[ing] up to the promises to love, honor and protect each other.”  The case was decided by the Supreme Court, not the executive branch, but it symbolized a step forward in “inclusiveness and compassion.”

The year 2015 also had lowlights on these exact points of inclusion, compassion and protection.

Protecting Children from Terrorism

On 9/11/2001, 2,753 people in New York City were murdered in acts of terrorism.  Over the next fourteen years, the city had numerous failed terrorist attempts (such as the Times Square bomber) which also included “softer” targets.  The city therefore placed more security around public schools to protect children.

The largest Jewish population in America is in New York City and the surrounding counties.  That religious community suffers from the most persecution, where 57% of all anti-religious crimes were against Jews. As Jewish schools and synagogues were also targeted by terrorists, New York City advanced a bill to provide security to religious private schools.

Leading activists and politicians in the LGBT community were appalled.

LGBT Hate for the Bible and
Children that Learn the Bible

Rosie Mendez, a Manhattan Democrat, lobbied aggressively against providing security guards for Jewish children at private schools. She said: “As a member of the LGBT community, I know that a lot of these schools discriminate against us and if the city is going to provide any kind of funding, the schools should not be discriminatory.”

New York Councilmember Daniel Dromm of Jackson Heights said together with Mendez that “often their [Jewish] leaders embrace homophobia, transphobia, and other horrific ideologies, and subject our young people to them on a daily basis in the classroom. It is our duty to protect LGBTQ students in every school. We must not bankroll hate with tax dollars.”

Press Conference held by Irish Queers re: St. Patricks Day Parade. Emmaia Gelman of Irish Queers, Council Members Danny Dromm and Rosie Mendes, Allen Roskoff of the Jim Owles Liberal Democratic Club and a representative of Manhattan Borough Pres. Gail Brewer. MATTHEW McMORROW of the Empire State Pride Agenda.

Council Members Danny Dromm and Rosie Mendez (photo: Donna Aceto)

In other words, because the Bible says that male homosexual acts are a sin, and the religious schools teach the Bible, these politicians do not want children in religious schools to be afforded the same police protection that children in public schools receive.  Whether the topic of homosexual sex ever comes up in school is irrelevant (the Bible is thousands of pages long and the prohibition against gay sex is a single sentence- do the schools really “subject our young people to [anti-gay rhetoric] on a daily basis?”).  The Bible also prohibits eating pig.  Should everyone who eats bacon argue that police should not protect any children in a school that teaches the Bible, since they are offended by the Bible’s contents?

What does protecting children from potential terrorism have to do with a school’s curriculum? Would these councilmembers be comfortable if these young children were murdered?

The statements are thinly veiled masks for anti-Semitism.

Dromm and Mendez weren’t alone in attempting to block police protection for religious schools because of their distaste for the Bible.

Allen Roskoff, president of the LGBT Jim Owles Liberal Democratic Club, was strongly opposed to funding police for religious private schools, saying “religious institutions pushing this bill have a long history and present-day reality of discriminating against the gay community. Why should they be able to discriminate on our dime?”

Gay civil libertarian Bill Dobbs said, “religious freedom does not mean socking overburdened taxpayers for special treatment worth hundreds of millions. Religious freedom means don’t disturb religion, it doesn’t mean you throw your wallet their way.”

Note that the bill was not “special treatment” for the religious schools, but one that was drafted to give private school students the same police protection that are given to public school students.

LGBT Hate of “Jewish Money”

Rosie Mendez continued to spew anti-Semitic hatred.  She accused New York City Mayor Bill Di Blasio of caving to the security request because “he’s trying to acquiesce to the lobbyists, to the religious community that has been looking for money for their private schools.”  She invoked an old anti-Semitic canard that Jews don’t even care about children’s safety- they’re only out for the money.


While Obama reluctantly addresses terrorism during his State of the Union address, he must remember that protecting the people of the United States is the primary responsibility of the government.  Not only is freedom of speech and religion protected in the First Amendment, but the physical protection of every individual underscores the entire reason for having governmental institutions.

When Obama joins the LGBT community to celebrate achieving equal rights, they must all remember that inclusion, compassion and protection extends to every single citizen – even Jewish children that learn the Bible.


Related First.One.Through articles:

Ramifications of Ignoring American Antisemitism

Absolute and Relative Ideological Terrorism in the United States

Jews in the Midst

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: FirstOne Through  Israel Analysis

 

Advertisements

Ramifications of Ignoring American Antisemitism

Summary: Despite furious discussions of attacks on blacks in America and of growing anti-Semitism in Europe, an American Jew is over two times more likely to experience a hate crime than an African American or an American Muslim.

 brooklyn attack
Torching of Jewish-owned cars in Brooklyn, NY

The last eighteen months witnessed a terrible spike in hate. In Europe, anti-Semitism filled the streets with riots and shootings in the heart of European capitals. In America, several blacks were killed by police officers which prompted protests and federal investigations into possible police bias. American Muslims protested a growing trend of “Islamophobia” as they feared being targeted due to jihadist terrorism around the world.

Yet the situation for American Jews is rarely discussed, and when it is, it is viewed as generally satisfactory, especially when compared to the rest of the world.

The statistics may surprise you.

Hate Crimes in America

The FBI compiles a list of hate crimes every year. It tracks the nature of the crime, and breaks the attacks into categories by race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, disability and gender identity. The data is compiled from information gathered from over 15,000 law enforcement agencies around the country.

In 2013, 49.3% of hate crimes were racially motivated, while 20.2% and 16.9% were based on sexual-orientation and religion, respectively. Within the racially motivated crimes, 66.5% were targeted against blacks. For sexual orientation hate crimes, 60.9% were against gays, and for religion-based hate crimes, 60.3% were against Jews.

In total, hate crimes seemed to heavily weigh against blacks, and indeed, crimes against blacks made up one-third of all hate crimes in 2013. However, the black population is significantly larger than other minority groups.

When taking into account that Jews make up only 1.8% of the population of the United States, while gays are roughly 3% and blacks are 13.2% of the population, respectively, the relative frequency of attacks against Jews is much more significant.

There was roughly one anti-Semitic hate crime in the US each year for every 7700 Jews. That compared to an attack against gays for every 10,700 gays and an attack against blacks for every 17,600 African Americans. For Muslims, the rate was one attack per 17,000 Muslims. That means that an average Jew can expect to experience a hate crime at over twice the rate of blacks or Muslims. Jews are the most disproportionately attacked minority in the United States by a significant margin.

Fortunately, hate crimes do not often involve murder.  In 2013, 0.1% of the crimes involved murder and 0.3% were for reported rapes.  Assault (aggravated and simple), intimidation and attacks on property were the typical forms of hate crimes.

Impact on Obama’s World View

Is it possible that the relatively small number of murders that occur in US hate crimes impacts President Obama’s world view?  As Brett Stephens of the Wall Street Journal wrote, “Can there be a rational, negotiable, relatively reasonable bigot? Barack Obama thinks so.

In May 2015, President Obama had an interview with the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg where they discussed ISIS, Iran and Israel.  Obama clearly stated “that the supreme leader [of Iran] is anti-Semitic ” but he also stated firmly that the Iranian leader would not risk his country’s security in pursuit of such hatred. “At the margins, where the costs are low, they [Iran] may pursue policies based on hatred as opposed to self-interest.  But the costs here are not low, and what we’ve been very clear [about] to the Iranian regime over the past six years is that we will continue to ratchet up the costs, not simply for their anti-Semitism, but also for whatever expansionist ambitions they may have. That’s what the sanctions represent. That’s what the military option I’ve made clear I preserve represents.

Has Obama’s view of anti-Semitism been colored by the experience in the United States? Does he simply acknowledge that anti-Semitism exists, but that the “costs are low” to both the victim and the abuser?  Brett Stephens wrote convincingly that the Iranian leader’s actions are driven by a fanatical zeal which has shown it does not mind incurring very high costs.  Stephens concluded: “Maybe Mr. Obama doesn’t understand the compelling power of ideology.

I would add to that sentiment, that Obama has shown by his (in)actions in the Ukraine that the United States will not stand by obligations to support an ally, and therefore the costs to Iran will be very low. Despite commitments and treaties as outlined in the Budapest Memorandums, the US, United Kingdom and others let Russia invade and annex sections of the Ukraine without any intervention. Does Obama think that the Iranian leader doesn’t read the news?

 

In the United States, anti-Semitism remains in full force. It has remained largely “low cost” (to paraphrase Obama) to both victims and perpetrators thus far.  Under President Obama’s foreign policy, it would appear that Iranian anti-Semitism will only become a “high cost” for Israel.


Related First One Through article:

Netanyahu’s View of Obama: Trust and Consequences

The “Unclean” Jew in the Crosshairs