T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
701.1 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Wed Apr 10 1996 13:42 | 1193 |
701.2 | | ALFSS2::WILBUR_D | | Wed Apr 10 1996 14:34 | 5 |
|
.1 the orginal report would have been interesting so we could judge for
ourselves.
|
701.3 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Wed Apr 10 1996 14:44 | 6 |
|
I will see if the ADL have the original report on their homepage.
jim
|
701.4 | press release by ADL | SUBPAC::SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Wed Apr 10 1996 14:44 | 99 |
|
ADL Issues Report on Investigation of German Neo-Nazis
NEW YORK, Jan. 27 -- In the face of the surge in violence and
neo-Nazi activities in Germany in 1992, the Anti-Defamation League
(ADL) conducted an on-site investigation of neo-Nazi racism on the
German scene.
Melvin Salberg, ADL national chairman, and Abraham H. Foxman,
ADL national director, said, "We considered it crucial to take a close
look of our own, by sending a fact-finding team to Germany to
determine how serious is the threat from the extreme right to Jews and
other minorities, as well as to democracy itself. Our investigation
involved direct observations of the neo-Nazi scene and consultations
with law enforcement intelligence officials." "The German Neo-Nazis:
An ADL Investigative Report," is the product of the team's research. It
states that the level of ethnic violence had risen to a post-war peak in
reunified Germany, and the combined rolls of the extreme rightist groups
which precipitated it have grown to between 40,000 and 60,000 members.
A postscript to the report says that while the Government was initially
slow to respond, it has since taken actions which have reduced the threat
from the far right.
During the upsurge, according to the report, attacks on foreign guest
workers and asylum seekers reached staggering levels, arousing alarm
throughout the world; Jewish individuals and institutions were also
targeted by far-right extremists.
"Extremist outrages in just the first two weeks of October, for example,"
Salberg and Foxman said, "included a startling list of Jewish targets,
with Holocaust memorial sites and Jewish cemeteries the most frequent
marks." Other instances cited include the chanting of anti-Semitic
slogans by parading neo-Nazis, harassment of Jewish leaders, and the
defacing of buildings with anti-Semitic stickers. The investigation by the
ADL fact-finding team reveals eastern Germany to be the power base of
the resurgent neo-Nazi movement, where a noticeable percentage of the
new adherents come from the ranks of the defunct communist apparatus
of the former East German state. Neo-Nazi groups which the
investigators observed in eastern Berlin were found to be "far better
equipped with sophisticated cellular phones and other electronic
equipment than are the police" and to possess superior weaponry,
obtained on the black market from former Soviet and East German
military forces.
"Compounding this problem," Salberg and Foxman said, "is the fact that
some police officers are apparently sympathetic to the extremists."
The report names two American neo-Nazis, Gary Lauck of Lincoln,
Neb., and George Dietz of Reedy, W.Va., as well as Ernst Zundel of
Canada, as suppliers of Nazi propaganda materials to Germany. Lauck is
identified as the most important supplier of German language Nazi
propaganda. Dietz, a German emigre who once belonged to the Hitler
Youth, is reported as maintaining an active network of contacts with
German Nazis. Zundel is named as a distributor of materials denying the
reality of the Holocaust through an "agent" in Munich.
The report also points to the fact that the ranks of German neo-Nazism
have been buttressed by thousands of so-called Skinheads,
shaved-headed youths dedicated to racism and violence. "A key element
in the Skinhead subculture," it reveals, "is music, which serves as a
recruiting tool, a propaganda weapon, a celebration of the gang ethic,
and as a clarion call to violence through the use of rousing, hate-filled
lyrics."
The report cites an open-air concert in Massen last October sponsored
by the neo-Nazi group called German Alternative, attended by 1,500
Skinheads, many armed with axes, baseball bats and the makings for
firebombs. Following the concert, Skinheads attacked a bus load of
Polish tourists, smashing windows and beating anyone in the vicinity.
The ADL leaders noted hopefully that since the completion of ADL's
investigation there have been some positive developments. The German
Government has banned three neo-Nazi groups and many extremists
have been arrested. Additional police officers have been assigned to the
units which monitor the far right, and there has been a decline in
incidents of violence.
"We are encouraged by these measures," say Salberg and Foxman, "and
urge the German Government to continue to apply all of its
constitutional powers until the neo-Nazi menace is gone from the
scene."
From Jan. 11-15, Salberg and Foxman led a group of ADL national
leaders in meetings with Chancellor Helmut Kohl and other high
officials to discuss their concerns about the recent neo-Nazi violence and
to share with them the League's experience in developing programs to
combat intolerance and bigotry. The chancellor said that anti-Semitism
is rejected by the vast majority of the German people, but added that he
recognized the need for such educational programs. The report was
prepared by the Fact Finding Department of the ADL Civil Rights
Division in cooperation with the International Affairs Division. Copies
are available from the ADL Department of Public Relations.
Founded in 1913, ADL is a civil rights/human relations organization that
combats anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry and discrimination, and
which promotes harmonious relations between diverse religious and
ethnic groups. -30-
|
701.5 | still looking for that report, but ran across this | SUBPAC::SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Wed Apr 10 1996 15:04 | 41 |
|
ADL OUTRAGED BY MARLON BRANDO'S REMARKS ON
JEWS IN HOLLYWOOD CALLS ON ACTOR TO REPUDIATE
ANTI-SEMITIC CANARD AND APOLOGIZE
New York, NY, April 8...The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today
called actor Marlon Brando's remarks about Jews in Hollywood
"outrageous and offensive."
Reacting to Marlon Brando's comments on "Larry King Live," on
Friday, April 5, that Jews run Hollywood and exploit stereotypes of
minorities, but never of Jews, Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National
Director, issued the following statement:
It was shocking to hear Marlon Brando, the acclaimed actor and
champion of civil rights, invoke the anti-Semitic canard that
"Hollywood is run by Jews, it is owned by Jews..." and blame Jews for
exploiting stereotypes of minorities, "but we never saw the kike because
they know perfectly well that's where you draw the wagons around."
Mr. Brando should know that what he said is utterly false, extremely
offensive and plays into the hands of anti-Semites and bigots. His
comments raise the centuries-old canard of Jewish control and
conspiracy, and his use of an anti-Semitic epithet is hurtful to Jews
everywhere.
Hollywood studios are owned and movies are made by men and women,
some of whom are Jewish, many of whom are not. Those Jews who enter
the movie industry have done so as individuals, not as representatives of
their religious group or with an aim to act in some coordinated
conspiratorial manner.
Mr. Brando owes an apology to the Jewish men and women who work in
Hollywood for vilifying them and to all Jews for his stereotyping and use
of an anti-Semitic epithet.
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading
organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that
counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.
|
701.6 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Wed Apr 10 1996 15:17 | 106 |
|
I believe this is a summary of the report mentioned in .1. I'm still trying
to see if they have the full thing on-line.
jim
Established in 1913 to combat virulent anti-Semitism and discrimination,
the Anti-Defamation League is in the forefront of the struggle for civil rights
in America. Through its network of regional offices, ADL combats
anti-Semitism, all forms of bigotry and discrimination, and promotes
harmonious relations between diverse religious and ethnic groups.
For 15 years, a growing religious movement in this country has been
seeking to unite its version of Christianity with the authority of the state.
Ironically, "religious right" activists crusade against the separation of
church and state - the very protection that has secured the vitality of
religion throughout American history.
The "Religious Right": A Definition
Religious conservatives dislike the designation "religious right,"
preferring less sectarian tags such as the "pro-family movement" or
"people of faith." However, most Americans consider themselves
"pro-family" and claim religious faith. The phrase "religious right" in
this report refers to politically conservative religious groups and
individuals who would influence public policy based on a cultural
philosophy antagonistic to pluralism and church/state separation.
Much that the movement wants - strong families, better schools, a
government committed to religious liberty - is valued by most
Americans. ADL concerns arise not from the movement's faith but its
hostility towards the constitutional separation of church and state. Its
repeated calls for a "Christian America" assault tolerance and pluralism
and raise fears for the liberties of other religious groups.
The religious right believes that American society is in a state of moral
decay because "secular humanists" would eradicate the historic influence
of Christianity on families, schools, law, art, politics...on all private
behavior and public activity.
Many religious right activists believe that the United States was designed
as a "Christian order" whose Constitution "could not survive a people
who did not believe in God or His laws." They argue that while the
Constitution is a "marvelous document for self-government by the
Christian people," non-Christians and atheists "use it to destroy the very
foundations of our society." Conservative evangelical followers are told
by some that church-state separation is "a lie of the left," propagated to
"[keep] us in submission." Current groups view cultural upheaval as a
spiritual battle; unlike earlier fundamentalists, they are ready to fight it
out.
The Christian Coalition, the most influential religious right organization,
is one of the best-organized political groups in the country. The
Coalition claims more than 1.5 million members in 1,600 chapters in
every state; during the 1994 elections alone, the group disseminated 34
million of its voters guides. The Coalition's budget has reportedly grown
to more than $20 million.
Also influential is the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ),
founded in 1990 as a non-profit legal agency "dedicated to the promotion
of pro-liberty, pro-life and pro-family causes." ACLJ addresses what it
sees as the erosion of religious freedom in America which, in its view,
has led to widespread "anti-Christian bigotry."
Other religious right organizations include Focus on the Family, the
Family Research Council, and The American Family Association. The
Free Congress Foundation, Citizens for Excellence in Education,
Concerned Women for America, and the most extreme anti-abortion
activists also play important roles.
During the past year, ADL has met the leaders of the movement in an
effort to bring greater civility to divisive issues; some gains have been
made though broad differences remain.
Making Inroads
Major religious right groups report recent substantial growth. While
their numbers are viewed skeptically by critics, the movement's electoral,
legal and legislative efforts have been spurred by the 1994 election results
and apparently favorable national trends regarding school prayer and
other issues.
Too often, opponents of the religious right are viewed as "the enemy"
and "Satanic." Feminists "kill their children, practice witchcraft and
become lesbians." "Abortion is the 'Final Solution'...just like Hitler, it
calls for the planned, state-sponsored EXTERMINATION of an entire
class of innocent citizens...." Public education is "a socialist, anti-God
system of education." Such language excites resentment on all sides and
discourages reasonable discourse and reflects a basic rejection of dissent
and pluralism.
Conclusion
Throughout American history, religion has been at the center of social
movements: abolition, temperance, civil rights, opposition to war,
abortion. Contemporary religious right activism has grown out of a
widely shared sense of cultural breakdown - buttressed by grievous
statistics about crime, health, families.
Religion has served democracy at such junctures precisely because it
exerts a moral authority challenging the power of the state. Religious
conservatives have every right to participate in civic debate and political
activity. They go wrong by asking the state to mandate their religious
values. Such a state would reflect neither democracy nor religious
freedom.
|
701.7 | | BOXORN::HAYS | Some things are worth dying for | Wed Apr 10 1996 15:25 | 51 |
| RE: 701.1 by SUBPAC::SADIN "Freedom isn't free."
> from The Christian Coalition
The home of Stealth Politics.
> The ADL is obsessed with the notion that Christian conservatives engage
> in so-called "stealth" activities that disguise their agenda.
...
> The Coalition neither practices nor endorses the "stealth tactics" the
> ADL claims.
If the Christian Coalition did, would they admit it? Think about it. If
they admit it, that is if they are honest, then Stealth doesn't work as
well.
> If the 1990 San Diego School Board races are a "model," as the ADL
> alleges, what were they a model for? The fact is that this strategy failed
> in San Diego - many of the candidates who used them were defeated in
> 1992 - and it never has been replicated again.
>
> The ADL report fails to mention a single other community in the nation
> where the strategy has been used.
Merrimack, New Hampshire.
This May we have a chance to get rid of the Christian Coalition control
over the local school board. Oh, and they have publicly stated that they
have nothing to do with the Christian Coalition, other than getting a all
expense paid trip to the Christian Coalition National Convention, of
course, as a speaker.
> Christian Coalition leaders have repeatedly disavowed so-called "stealth
> tactics."
In public. And Christian Coalition candidates repeatedly disavow any
connection to the Christian Coalition. Handy, isn't it?
> Ralph Reed told the Washington Times, "We don't encourage in any way
> people to run for office at any level and misrepresent their position on
> any issue.
In public. But look at their actions. If words and actions don't agree,
which do you believe?
Phil
|
701.8 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Wed Apr 10 1996 15:28 | 25 |
|
BUSH'S NRA RESIGNATION `SETS AN EXAMPLE OF
LEADERSHIP' SAYS ADL
New York, NY, May 15...The Anti-Defamation League (ADL)
commended former President George Bush for his resignation from the
National Rifle Association (NRA) because of vicious attacks on Federal
officials in an NRA mailing. The League had protested the mailing's
rhetoric more than two weeks ago, calling it "disturbing" and "beyond
the mainstream by any definition."
In a letter to President Bush, ADL National Director Abraham H.
Foxman wrote, "All of us who work for a strong, healthy and tolerant
democracy are thankful to you for setting an example of leadership
against this rhetoric that undermines a civil society."
On April 27th, the League wrote NRA Executive Vice President Wayne
LaPierre about the mailing, citing such statements as "jack-booted
government thugs" and Federal agents wearing "nazi bucket helmets and
black storm trooper uniforms." Foxman told him the rhetoric was
"uncalled for" and "dangerous."
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading
organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that
counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.
|
701.9 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Apr 10 1996 15:41 | 1 |
| What are these people, a bunch of panty waists or some such?
|
701.10 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Every knee shall bow | Wed Apr 10 1996 15:46 | 8 |
|
Brando did apologize, btw.
Jim
|
701.11 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Wed Apr 10 1996 15:48 | 220 |
| here's a bit more on that report. I seriously doubt the whole thing is
on-line anywhere since it's 193 pages long! No, I'm not going to order
it and type it all in. :*)
jim
THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT: THE ASSAULT ON TOLERANCE &
PLURALISM IN AMERICA. © 1994, Anti-Defamation
League. 193 pages.
Introduction: "It is easy to see that it is particularly important in
democratic times to make spiritual conceptions prevail, but it is far from
easy to say what those who govern democratic peoples should do to make
them prevail. ...when it comes to state religions, I have always thought
that, though they may perhaps sometimes momentarily serve the
interests of political power, they are always sooner or later fatal for the
church." Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America, 1835.
"Spiritual conceptions" have flourished in this country since the first
Pilgrims dropped anchor off Provincetown in 1620. Though the
theocratic plans of these New England dissidents barely survived a
generation, "the first nation to disestablish religion remains a marvel of
religiosity," as Garry Wills has written. Tocqueville knew well, like
Jefferson and Madison before and Justice Hugo Black after him, that
coerced religion corrupts the coercers and the religion. "European
Christianity," the great historian wrote, "has allowed itself to be
intimately
united with the powers of this world. Now that these powers are falling,
it is as if it were buried under their ruins."
During the past 15 years, an exclusionist religious movement in this
country has attempted to restore what it perceives as the ruins of a
Christian nation by seeking more closely to unite its version of
Christianity with state power. Ironically, the groups and activists that
have come to be known as the "religious right" crusade both rhetorically
and in their policy aims against the very protection -- the separation of
church and state -- that has secured the vitality of religion throughout
American history.
This crusade has proceeded in the 1990s through grassroots campaigns to
"return faith to our public schools," subsidize private religious education,
roll back civil rights protections, oppose all abortions, and ensure that
"pro-family Christians" gain control of the Republican Party. National
groups with many thousands of members have spurred these efforts,
inciting the movement with grim cadences of warfare. "This is really the
most significant battle of the age-old conflict between good and evil,
between the forces of God and forces against God," strategist Paul
Weyrich has maintained. Christian Coalition leader Pat Robertson
warns his followers to "expect confrontations that will be not only
unpleasant but at times physically bloody." He asserts: "Just like what
Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the
evangelical Christians. It's the same thing."
Thus embattled, groups and activists have ratcheted up their rhetoric.
Leading figures denounce church/state separation as "religious
cleansing," "a socialist myth," "a lie of the left," "not a wall but a coffin."
The day after delivering the benediction at the 1984 Republican
convention, Rev. W.A. Criswell told CBS: "There is no such thing as
separation of church and state. It is merely a figment in the imagination
of infidels."
Similarly, political targets are often dispatched with virulence and
paranoia: opponents are not merely wrong, they are "the enemy" and
"Satanic." Feminists "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy
capitalism, and become lesbians."Abortion is the " 'Final Solution' ...just
like Hitler, it calls for the planned, state-sponsored EXTERMINATION
of an entire class of innocent citizens...." Public education is "a socialist,
anti-God system of education." Gays and lesbians comprise the "most
pernicious evil today." A former Congressman speaks of "the
homosexual blitzkrieg" and maintains: "Unlike the French, who wept in
the streets of Paris as the Germans marched by, we don't even know
we've been conquered."
The hysteria of this language excites resentment on all sides and
degrades or disallows reasonable discourse. It reflects as well a basic
rejection of a society that includes dissent and pluralism -- the modern
democratic state. The political agenda of the religious right movement is,
in turn, an attempt to legislate this rejection. Flimflam histories
contending that the original "Christian" United States has been undone
by a small, powerful anti-Christian elite provide bogus intellectual
support and further poison public goodwill. As with other revisionist
efforts, this religious right assault on history is a vehicle for anger and
scapegoating: here, pluralism itself is scapegoated, and the religious
right's crowded pandemonium comprises essentially any agency or figure
associated with pluralism, including non-religious right evangelicals.
Unsurprisingly, this bitter push to replace the wall of separation with a
citadel of Christianity -- while suggesting that those who defend the
wall are "enemies of God" -- has been abetted, sometimes at the highest
levels, by figures who have expressed conspiratorial, anti-Jewish, and
extremist sentiments. On numerous other occasions, movement leaders
have demonstrated a disturbing insensitivity to Jews and Jewish
concerns. This apparent
commonplace of life in the city on a hill, which has only one
neighborhood, calls to mind Saul Bellow's warning: "Everybody knows
there is no fineness or accuracy of suppression. If you hold down one
thing, you hold down the adjoining."
Free Exercise
Yet those who object to the religious right movement too often engage
the intolerance and stereotyping they purport to decry. Anti-Christian
bigotry may be exaggerated by Pat Robertson and others, but it is not
merely a figment in the imagination of evangelicals. The disdain of H.L.
Mencken, who called fundamentalists "yokels," "half-wits," and "gaping
primates," unfortunately lingers in the popular imagination. As Yale law
professor Stephen Carter has suggested recently, critics err when they
imply that the religious right poses a concern because of its religiosity
rather than its platform. The problems raised by the movement are
secular. "We must be able," states Carter, "to distinguish a critique of the
content of a belief from a critique of its source."
The extensive political training and school curricula scrutiny encouraged
by religious right groups, for instance, is frequently viewed by critics as a
threat to, rather than an exercise of, good citizenship -- and a prod for
opponents to do likewise. Yet few such concerns regarding church-state
separation were sounded by these critics when Christians organized on
behalf of civil rights or the nuclear freeze. This is plainly inconsistent
and illiberal.
Like anyone else, evangelical Christians have the right to organize, to
run for office, to lobby, to boycott, to demonstrate, to attempt to
implement their views. More than that, a healthy democracy encourages
and depends on their doing so; it depends, that is, on a jumble of voices in
the public square. Throughout American history, religion -- largely a
vigorous, splintery Protestantism -- has been at the center of social
movements: abolition, temperance, civil rights, opposition to war,
abortion. Similarly, contemporary religious right activism has grown out
of a widely shared sense of cultural breakdown -- buttressed by reams
of grievous statistics about crime, health, families -- that seems to have
exhausted the remedial policies of secular governance.
Religion has served democracy at such junctures precisely because,
separated from the state, it exerts a moral authority that challenges the
power of the state. As Carter writes, "A religion is, at its heart, a way of
denying the authority of the rest of the world." Moreover, it keeps
secularists and pluralists honest by asking how pluralism, which entails
moral pluralism, is something other than a friendly face of nihilism.
Sociologist James Davison Hunter quotes a satirical anti-abortion
advocate in regard to this problem of ethical relativism: "Personally, I'm
opposed to the bombing of abortion clinics, but I don't want to impose
my morality on anyone else."
The religious right goes wrong, however, because it would respond to the
problem of moral authority by asking the state to mandate values -- a
state upon which it means to impose its own religious identity. Rather
than compete for the spiritual allegiance of citizens -- a competition
that has fostered both religion and liberty -- conservative evangelicals
would command it. Their public policies ultimately attack the source of
their own strength, and of the country's. The nature of that attack is the
subject of this report.
Contents: The Religious Right: Introduction, Religious Right Visions of
America: A Sampling, The "Religious Right": A Definition, Section I:
The Religious Right in the 1990s; Section II: The
Religious Right's Attack on Church/State Separation: A Closer Look;
Section III: In the Beginning: The Genesis of the Religious Right;
Section IV: Other Important Organizations and Leaders; Conclusion,
Appendix A: Evangelical, Fundamentalist, Pentecostal, Charismatic;
Appendix B: Prophecy Belief; Appendix C: Common Myths About
Separation of Church and State; Annotated Bibliography, Index.
Religion In The Public Schools: Guidelines for a Growing and
Changing Phenomenon, For K-12, Revised 1996, 34 Pages
The place of religion in the nation's public schools has been a hotly
contested issue for decades. Recently, the topic has been increasingly
debated and challenged.
This handbook features sample scenarios regarding religion and religious
activities in the nation's public schools, for kindergarten through twelfth
grade. In a question-and-answer format it provides legal and policy
guidelines for school board members, school administration, teachers,
parents and others who seek guidance regarding what religious activity is
constitutionally permissible, and what is prohibited in public schools, as
well as what is advisable. The handbook highlights the potential
problems which may arise when religion enters into public schools. It
emphasizes the need for schools not only to adopt clear and
constitutionally sound guidelines, but also constantly to monitor the
implementations of such guidelines.
ADL IN THE COURTS: LITIGATION DOCKET 1995 ©
1995, Anti-Defamation League. 33 pages.
In 1947 ADL filed its first amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief,
thereby inaugurating the use of a critical method to pursue its mandate
of combating bigotry and discrimination, and defending the rights and
liberties of all Americans. An amicus brief is filed by an individual or
group, which is not a party to the lawsuit, but generally has expertise
regarding the issue before the court, as well as an interest in the outcome
of the case. The first ADL amicus brief, submitted together with other
Jewish civil rights organizations in the landmark United States Supreme
Court case Shelley v. Kraemer, argued against restrictive real estate
covenants.
Since 1947, ADL has filed amicus briefs in numerous cases covering a
broad range of issues - from separation of church and state to racial
discrimination to abortion. The principal way in which ADL gets
involved in litigation is by filing amicus briefs, most commonly at the
appellate level. While some of the cases in which ADL has intervened
have involved Jewish litigants, or raised issues pertaining solely to the
Jewish people or Israel, most have not. But, in every amicus brief which
ADL has filed, it has sought to combat discrimination and prejudice,
based upon the conviction that the rights and liberties of Jews will only
be secure when those of all minorities, and of all Americans, are secure
as well.
In many cases, ADL has filed amicus briefs together with other Jewish,
public interest or civil rights organizations. Often amicus briefs are
written on behalf of ADL by outside experts or lay leaders in
consultation with the ADL Legal Affairs Department. On other
occasions, briefs are prepared by ADL staff attorneys.
"ADL IN THE COURTS: Litigation Docket 1995" describes the amicus
briefs which ADL has filed since the previous docket was published in
the fall of 1994, and also discusses decisions handed down in the past
year in cases in which ADL previously filed an amicus brief and updates
the status of cases in which decisions have not yet been rendered.
|
701.12 | Is this topic about ADL, or CC? | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Thu Apr 11 1996 12:49 | 26 |
| To add a bit of balance to the highly partisan document in .1, perhaps
Jim would consider posting more recent information about Ralph Reed, The
Christian Coalition, and the ADL. (In particular, I'd bring attention
to the speeches given by Ralph Reed at gatherings including the ADL or
hosted by the ADL, in particular, the Bluestein National Leadership
Conference.)
BTW, from .1, the "straight forward quote" by Ralph Reed of "a country
once again governed by Christians" is another great example of where
verify after the fact is too late.
The ADL published and accepted as true the response from Ralph Reed
where he said he was never said that during his interview with the
editors of the Washington Post, and that he was misquoted by the
Washington Post. (The Washington Post stands by the quote.)
The ADL should be taken to task for not verifying the quote *before*
they issued the report.
It is now out there, and accepted in many circles that Ralph Reed said
it. The disputed quote is out there, and the truth that it is a
disputed quote will never completely catch up with it.
-mr. bill
|
701.13 | I don't see it in .11, did I miss it? | ALFSS2::WILBUR_D | | Fri Apr 12 1996 19:39 | 10 |
|
> The ADL should be taken to task for not verifying the quote *before*
> they issued the report.
> -mr. bill
Maybe the writers of .1 SHOULD Verify that ADL Said Reed SAID....
|
701.14 | | ALFSS2::WILBUR_D | | Fri Apr 12 1996 19:47 | 9 |
|
.12 Actually .1 says the source is .Ibid
What is that exactly?
|
701.15 | In the same place, a Limbot would say "dittoes".... | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Fri Apr 12 1996 19:53 | 4 |
|
It's Latin. Look it up in an English dictionary.
-mr. bill
|
701.16 | They verified it. | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Fri Apr 12 1996 20:06 | 10 |
| I'm sorry. I shouldn't be so snide.
| 11. ADL, "The Religious Right," p. 27.
| 12. Ibid.
Ibid. is an abbreviation for "Ibidum." It is a bibliography convention
for saying "same source as above." Why? Why "et. al. etc."?
It's got to be a conspiracy.
-mr. bill
|
701.17 | | SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI | tumble to remove burrs | Fri Apr 12 1996 20:07 | 11 |
|
>I'm sorry. I shouldn't be so snide.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!
Come and clean this ice-water off my screen!!!!!!
|
701.18 | | SMURF::BINDER | Uva uvam vivendo variat | Fri Apr 12 1996 20:17 | 3 |
| > Why "et. al. etc."?
et al. Short for et "alii," meaning "and others."
|
701.19 | | ALFSS2::WILBUR_D | | Fri Apr 12 1996 20:26 | 6 |
|
.11 do you know how to order it?
|
701.20 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Sun Apr 14 1996 15:11 | 9 |
|
I believe the address to order it from is on the web page. I'll see
if I can find it and then post the address here. Will I order the
report for myself? No. I really don't give two shakes whether the CC
bashes the ADL or vice versa. I didn't post .11 to prove anything to
anyone.
jim
|
701.21 | how to order the report | SUBPAC::SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Sun Apr 14 1996 15:21 | 20 |
|
The following are summaries of recent ADL reports. To order the
complete report, mail a check for $5.00 (U.S.) for each report to ADL,
Attn: MRC-WS, 823 U.N. Plaza, New York, NY 10017. Make check payable to
Anti-Defamation League.
Please check below for pricing
of reports marked with an asterisk (*)
Church-State/Discrimination
The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance & Pluralism in
America, 1994, 193 pages.
* Religion In The Public Schools: Guidelines for a Growing and
Changing Phenomenon, For K-12,
Revised 1996, 34 pages . $7.50
ADL In The Courts: Litigation Docket 1995, 33 pages.
|
701.22 | | ALFSS2::WILBUR_D | | Mon Apr 15 1996 15:48 | 6 |
|
.20 Why start a note if you don't care?
.21 Thank you.
|
701.23 | | SUBPAC::SADIN | Freedom isn't free. | Mon Apr 15 1996 15:59 | 11 |
| re: <<< Note 701.22 by ALFSS2::WILBUR_D >>>
> .20 Why start a note if you don't care?
I started this note because I was curious about the ADL and what
they did. I really don't care if the CC bashes the ADL or vice-versa
since I am not a member of, nor do I side with, either group.
I don't know much about the ADL and was hoping to learn more here.
jim
|
701.24 | No Need IMHO ! | SALEM::STYVES | | Tue Apr 16 1996 18:20 | 8 |
| RE: .10
> Brando did apologize,btw.
Big mistake IMHO. He had absolutely nothing to apologize
for, again IMHO !
Art
|
701.25 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Tue Apr 16 1996 18:21 | 1 |
| Actually, he backed out and didn't apologize.
|
701.26 | | CSLALL::PLEVINE | | Tue Apr 16 1996 18:36 | 6 |
| pls go on Art about why he need not apologize for saying "HOLLYWOOD IS
RUN BY JEWS,IT IS OWNED BY JEWS"!
tell us why he need not apologize for furthering hate with hate filled
speech!
Peter
|
701.27 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Tue Apr 16 1996 18:42 | 6 |
| Peter, it's as simple as this. In this country, there is a right to
free speech, the right to be a verbal bigot and the right to show your
true colors. Brando owes nobody anything. He already paid his price
simply by saying what he said.
-Jack
|
701.28 | | ACISS2::LEECH | extremist | Tue Apr 16 1996 19:38 | 5 |
| When I came across this topic via next unseen, I briefly thought the
topic said "Anti-Defacation League"... I was thinking to myself, these
folks must be full of it. 8^)
What can I say, it's been a long week already. 8^)
|
701.29 | | CSLALL::PLEVINE | | Wed Apr 17 1996 10:55 | 8 |
| but he DID apologise -jack...he DID feel as tho his hate filled
diatribe was just that, HATE FILLED DIATRIBE.....so Art here saying
that he had NOTHING to apologise for doesnt make sense because even
Brando himself felt there was need to apologise. he mispoke and
insulted millions of Jews (& non Jews) worldwide which created a
backlash he (apparently) did not anticipate.
Peter
|
701.30 | | CSLALL::PLEVINE | | Wed Apr 17 1996 10:58 | 3 |
| "he already paid his price simply by by saying what he said".
thats an excellent sentiment btw.
Peter
|
701.31 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Apr 17 1996 14:29 | 10 |
| Z Brando himself felt there was need to apologise. he mispoke and
Z insulted millions of Jews (& non Jews) worldwide which created a
Z backlash he (apparently) did not anticipate.
Peter, it is quite conceivable that Brando's apology was about as
meaningful as saying "I Love You" to a prostitute. In my book, an
apology is not an apology if it has to be coerced through Public
Relations pressure. Brando's true colors came out.
-Jack
|
701.32 | | SX4GTO::OLSON | DBTC Palo Alto | Wed Apr 17 1996 18:11 | 9 |
| > Peter, it is quite conceivable that Brando's apology was
> about as meaningful as saying "I Love You" to a prostitute.
One doesn't often hear of a 4-hour private meeting with a
rabbi during which the apologizer spoke tearfully and at times
in yiddish characterized quite so, so...idiotically. Jack, you
surpass yourself every day, I swear.
DougO
|
701.33 | | LANDO::OLIVER_B | april is the coolest month | Wed Apr 17 1996 18:18 | 1 |
| jack doesn't like brando cuz he's a liberal.
|
701.34 | | CSLALL::PLEVINE | | Wed Apr 17 1996 18:22 | 3 |
| i'd still like to hear Art's reasoning behind his statement. i posed my
question to Art initially.
Peter
|
701.35 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Apr 17 1996 18:23 | 16 |
| DougO:
Think about this for a minute. If it took Brando 4 hours to make an
apology...even if it had taken two hours, it is reasonable to suspect
Brando didn't necessarily go in there with a contrite heart.
Consider this as well. I defy you to tell me that if Brando had gone
in the meeting with Larry King (Jewish), or Ted Koppel (Jewish) that
the same result would not have occurred. Brando may very well have
been sorry, but meeting with a man of the cloth so to speak carries
alot more conviction.
Brando may have felt uplifted and forgiven but it isn't inconceivable
that the next day he went back to business as usual.
-Jack
|
701.36 | | NOTIME::SACKS | Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085 | Wed Apr 17 1996 18:24 | 4 |
| To repeat Di's question in TTWA, what's the story here? I saw a bit in the
Boston Globe the other day about how Brando had changed his mind and decided
not to apologize. Was this before or after the meeting with the rabbi?
And who was the rabbi?
|
701.37 | | PENUTS::DDESMAISONS | person B | Wed Apr 17 1996 18:25 | 7 |
| > <<< Note 701.34 by CSLALL::PLEVINE >>>
> i'd still like to hear Art's reasoning behind his statement.
me too, petie. although at the same time, i have this feeling
that i don't GARA what he thinks.
|
701.38 | | MKOTS3::JMARTIN | Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs. | Wed Apr 17 1996 18:25 | 7 |
| DougO:
Your use of the adverb, "idiotically", is misdirected. I believe my
point is quite valid considering Brando had changed his mind about
apologizing.
-Jack
|
701.39 | :) | CSLALL::PLEVINE | | Wed Apr 17 1996 18:30 | 3 |
| agreed, Di.
Peter
|
701.40 | Yes, he apologized.... | PERFOM::LICEA_KANE | when it's comin' from the left | Wed Apr 17 1996 18:47 | 28 |
|
|To repeat Di's question in TTWA, what's the story here? I saw a bit in the
|Boston Globe the other day about how Brando had changed his mind and decided
|not to apologize. Was this before or after the meeting with the rabbi?
|And who was the rabbi?
He made the remarks on April 5.(1)
The ADL stated that Brando owes an apology to the Jewish men and women
who work in Hollywoodon April 8.(2)
He canceled a public appearance at the Simon Wiesenthal Center.(3)
He apologized in private. Rabbi Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal
Center spent three hours with Brando. Hier is quoted in the Boston
Globe:
"I am satisfied, after spending three hours with the man,
that Marlon Brando is not an anti-Semite."(4)
-mr. bill
(1) ADL Press Release, "ADL outraged by Marlon Brando's Remarks...", 4/8/96
(2) ibid.
(3) 4/12/96 Boston Globe
(4) 4/13/96 Boston Globe
|
701.41 | | WECARE::GRIFFIN | John Griffin ZKO1-3/B31 381-1159 | Wed Apr 17 1996 18:54 | 7 |
| As I understand it, Brando's remarks came down to two assertions:
(1) that Hollywood is run by Jews (his words, more or less) and (2)
that said same executives have failed to portray their own people
(paraphrasing) in the same kinds of occasionally derogatory light that
other ethnic groups have been portrayed.
What happened next in the way of apologies, etc., I didn't follow.
|
701.42 | | HIGHD::FLATMAN | flatman@highd.enet.dec.com | Fri Apr 19 1996 00:35 | 21 |
| One of the local stations had a "debate" after the late news between a
representative of the ADL and an editor of Reason magazine discussing
the Freeman (sic).
I must admit that I do not understand the ADL rationale and would
appreciate it if someone would explain it to me. The subject of the
police beating the illegals didn't come up (and neither did Rodney
King), but I'm fairly confident that the ADL rep would oppose both of
these incidences -- which I completely understand.
The puzzle was that the ADL rep. said that he wanted the FBI and the
federal government to bring "full force against" the Freeman. When the
guy from Reason brought up Waco and/or Ruby Ridge, the ADL guy
completely supported the government's actions. What is the rationale
behind opposing excessive force in a beating, but supporting it in
killing a 16 year-old kid and a woman holding a baby?
Yes, I've heard the name calling stating that only "nutters bring up
Ruby Ridge and Waco", but I would like to understand the rationale.
-- Dave
|
701.43 | My Response ! | SALEM::STYVES | | Tue May 07 1996 00:43 | 42 |
| Sorry to take so long to respond to my comments but this "rightsizing"
has somewhat forced me into the roll of being a RON lately.
What did Marlon say? He said that Hollywood was run by Jews. Is that
a reason to apologize? I think not. It is a statement. If I should
tell you that the Knights of Columbus was run by Catholics should I
apologize? If I should say that the majority of the members of the
NRA own firearms should I apologize? Running Hollywood is not exactly
something to be ashamed of. If someone should make the statement that
Art St.Yves ran Digital Equipment Corp should I demand an apology. Of
course not. The statement may or may not be true but he never accused
them of some monsterous crime.
Let's debate the issue on the facts not on some knee jerk reaction. If
I, or anyone else will be accused of racism or sexism or or any other
"ism" that some PHD from MIT can think up, then we have reached the end
of the line. If I disagree with someone it is because I disagree with
the philosophy that you are advocating. Your nationality, race, color
or sexual orientation has nothing to do the fact that I disagee with
you.
Returning to the original comments, Marlon made a statement. If he was
right no apology is needed. If he was incorrect then if he must
apologize each of us would spend a great deal of our waking moments
apologizing for all of the incorrect statement we make on a daily
basis.
I stand by my original statement. IMHO (In my honest opinion) he had
absolutely no reason to apologize.
Hope I didn't offend you Peter, or anyone else for that matter that
wasn't my intent. Geez there I go apologizing again.
It's now 8:40pm and I'm doing this from home so I guess I had better
get those two reports out for Raytheon and go back to being a ROM !
PEACE !
Art
|
701.44 | | CSLALL::PLEVINE | | Wed May 08 1996 16:57 | 12 |
| once again Art, Hollywood is NOT run by jews. that is a myth. all your
silly analogies about running DIGITAL or running your local VFW or such
is nonsense.
running Hollywood in itself is not such a bad thing Art, but Marlon
accuses Jews RUNNING Hollywood of grievous harm against EVERY minority
in movies except JEWS!
do you see what is so bad about stereotyping Jews, Art. can you see how
horrible it is Art, that saying Jews run Hollywood and accusing them of
ridiculing people of color over the years is bad?
and BTW Art, i was more disappointed by your remarks than offended.
Peter
|
701.45 | Brando is a hypocrite!! | DECLNE::REESE | My REALITY check bounced | Fri May 31 1996 20:15 | 16 |
| Peter, I'm in agreement with you.
I've lagged behind in here; I'm your basic WASP, but I WAS offended
and disappointed that Brando made such a comment about Jews running
Hollywood. I didn't see the original interview, but I saw a re-play
on CNN (after the you-know-what) started hitting the fan. Brando
may feel he was stating a fact, but in my humble opinion Brando was
doing the same thing, i.e. stating his opinion. I don't feel Brando
was trying to express a positive opinion either; if he had a point,
I missed it.
There may be a lot of folks of the Jewish persuasion involved in the
entertainment business, but that is a far cry from Jews running
Hollywood (or any other aspect of the entertainment business).
|
701.46 | | CSLALL::PLEVINE | | Tue Jun 04 1996 12:20 | 3 |
| it's so sad that in 1996, views such as MB's AND Arts are STILL being
promulgated.
Peter
|