#banning jews

[the-garbanzo-annex-jr]

Source

There was some controversy surrounding this display.

[thelonelyjew]

Pride banned Jews?!?

So it's that time of year again that I see people circulating stuff that is completely fabricated about what they imagine happened at Chicago Dyke March in 2017.

First, Dyke March is not Pride. It is not meant to be apolitical or single-issue. It is explicitly anti-imperialist, anticapitalist, and, yes, antizionist. It's not the big mainstream pride Parade that has corporate sponsors (and ads for gay tourism in Israel), it's a small radical grassroots demonstration.

Ok now that that's out of the way, they did not "ban Jews". I was there. They did not "ban Jewish symbols". They did not ask anyone to leave because of their Jewish pride flag.

What actually happened was three women who turned out to be employed by Israeli pinkwashing operation A Wider Bridge participated in the march with a rainbow flag that featured a blue star of david in the center. I remember seeing it and disliking it bc it gave me Zionist vibes but neither I nor anyone else bothered them about it.

After the march there was a cookout in the park. The women were asked to leave by a Jewish member of the Dyke March Collective after several hours of hanging out at the cookout because they were harassing other marchgoers.

Immediately publications like Forward, Tablet, JTA, as well as more mainstream publications started running stories making wild untrue claims which you can still read if you Google it because none of these were ever corrected or retracted. It's clear that these AWB agents had press releases pre-written and ready to fire as soon as they managed to provoke any reaction that they could spin into a controversy.

The photos that ran along with these headlines were also misleading. One of them showed a photo of a rainbow flag with a white star in the center. The star on the flag I saw was blue, and the shade of the star has specific political connotations. Showing a different flag with the politically significant color removed is extremely misleading. The one that was carried in the march (and which, again, wasn't banned!) looked like this:

Another banner image, this one in a New York Times article, showed a young woman with dark curly hair holding a sign that says "this is who we are". She was clearly chosen to feature because of her stereotypically Jewish features. The article implies that she is one of the supposedly banned Jews. This is false. You know how I know? Bc that was the friend I was there with that day! She does not identify as Jewish, she looks like that bc she is Italian, and she had no idea she was being photographed!

I had a hat decorated with red and black stars of David, and the following year a bunch of us wore Workers Circle sashes with Yiddish text (which uses the Hebrew alphabet) as well. No one who wasn't employed by a Zionist organization was asked to leave or even questioned about anything related to Zionism or Jewish identity.

I'm resigning myself to the fact that this is going to get dug up and passed around every year and people will believe what they want to believe, but if you hear claims that some queer group "banned Jews" or something similar, please look at the source for the information and if possible try to talk to actual Jewish people who participate in the community events being discussed. And if you hear this about Chicago Dyke March in specific, please correct people. I feel like I'm going insane when this many people are insisting that what I saw and experienced wasn't real and pointing to the barrage of misleading articles as what I should believe over my own experiences.

[cree-n-jewish-thoughts]

Accidentally deleted a post 🤦🏽‍♂️

The magen (or sheild) of David is a symbol of Jewish faith and banning it from being worn at pride is an act of antisemitism and hate against Jewish members of the LGBTQA+ .

Yes it is on the Israeli flag. It is on the flag because in Israel the flag was founded on the religious/ cultural aspect of Judaism. Since Israel was made to be a safe haven for Jews, especially after the second world war.

If you think the star/ Magen David is "Israeli propaganda" you are wrong. It was a symbol of the Jewish faith before the flag was designed for Israel.

The Magen David is worn for protection, it's worn to show your pride in being Jewish.

The history behind the Magen David is deep and studying the King David section of Torah is the best way to try to understand why we use the symbol to represent our faith.

Stop using any reason you think is plausible to exclude Jews from things because of your antisemitism!

Jewish Lives Matter!

❤️ ✡️ L'chaim to fellow queer Jews. ✡️❤️

[chronicandironic]

There has been a recent push to ban masks because of protesters wearing masks during the Palestine protests. Some of these bans are being pushed by Zionist groups, if you are Jewish and don’t support the ban of masks please sign this petition.

[rebelwheelssoapbox]

They say the proposed NY mask ban is about Jewish safety. What, do they think we can't get COVID? TAKE ACTION: https://www.jewsformaskrights.com/ https://covidadvocacyny.org/ http://masktogetheramerica.org/ [IMAGE DESCRIPTION: (edited to fit on twitter: Background. floral. Orange red pink yellow green blues purples. Next layer. woman. yellow eye shadow. red top. paint splatters. floral print. Red pink yellow purple white. sunflower pin. watermelon pin. short sleeve. purple hair. Covers left side of top. short bang. black cat eye glasses. sunflowers L & R corner. Matching covid mask. Red. paint splatter. Orange green pink purple white. Matching red beret. pink white orange green blue paint splatter. Modern pride flag pin & circular black pin. white text “Jews against mask bans” border around her. Fill. diagonal stripes. yellows blues greens. white unicorn. left. main text. right “They say the masked band is about Jewish safety. What, do they think we can't get COVID?” font: modern bold white. Each word black rectangle behind. word/rectangle slightly tilted. each text line. stripe behind. Yellow & yellow green. upper left hand corner “# No NY Mask Ban” black rectangle behind white font. Lower right. faded white “@ rebel Wheels NYC"]

[rotzaprachim]

yeah I’m never going to forgive any of the protestors for not choosing this moment to march on Washington with a massive CEASEFIRE NOW movement

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Revs. Jan Barnes and Krista Taves have logged hundreds of hours standing outside abortion clinics across Missouri and Illinois, going back to the mid-1980s. But unlike other clergy members around the country, they never pleaded with patients to turn back.

The sight of the two women in clerical collars holding up messages of love and support for people terminating a pregnancy “so infuriated the anti-abortion protesters that they would heap abuse on us and it drew the abuse away from the women,” recalled Taves, a minister at Eliot Unitarian Chapel in Kirkwood, Missouri, as she sat on a couch at Barnes’ stately church in this quiet suburb of St. Louis.

“I thought: ‘Whoa, these people really are not messing around.’ But then I thought, ‘Well, I’m not messing around either.’”

So when Missouri’s abortion ban took effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, Barnes and Taves decided to fight back. Along with rabbis and ministers across several denominations, they joined a first-of-its-kind lawsuit arguing Missouri blurred the line between church and state, imposed a particular Christian idea of when life begins over the beliefs of other denominations, and threatened their ability to practice their religions.

As the nation nears the one year anniversary of the fall of Roe, the Missouri case is one of nearly a dozen challenges to abortion restrictions filed by clergy members and practitioners of everything from Judaism to Satanism that are now making their way through state and federal courts — a strategy that aims to restore access to the procedure and chip away at the assumption that all religious people oppose abortion.

In fact, many of the lawsuits are wielding religious protection laws enacted by anti-abortion state officials to target those officials’ own restrictions on the procedure.

In Indiana, a group of Jewish, Muslim and other religious plaintiffs sued over the state’s near-total abortion ban. Their argument: that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law in 2015 by then-Gov. Mike Pence. A lower court judge sided with them in December and blocked the state’s ban from taking effect — the most significant win the religious challengers have notched so far.

Then, earlier this month, the Indiana judge granted the challengers class action status, meaning a win for them could apply to anyone in the state whose religion supports abortion access in cases prohibited by state law.

“Even if the Religious Freedom law was intended by Mike Pence to discriminate against people, we thought: ‘Let’s use this for good instead,’” said Amalia Shifriss, a leader of Hoosier Jews for Choice, one of the Indiana plaintiffs. “It brings me joy to think how much this must upset him.”

A Pence spokesperson characterized the lawsuit as a “pursuit to legalize abortion up to and even after birth.” They added: “It will probably strike Americans as pretty tasteless to call the latest iteration of their abortion crusade as a cause ‘for good’ and a source of ‘joy.’”

Conservatives with a history of mounting their own religious challenges to state laws dismiss the effort as doomed to fail, arguing that even if people can prove the abortion bans violate their beliefs, it won’t be enough to halt enforcement.

“As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained in one Free Exercise case, the right to swing your arm ends just where the other man’s nose begins,” said Denise Harle, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that has filed briefs defending state abortion restrictions, including from faith-based challenges in Wyoming and Florida. “Even if you have religious freedom, there is a line at which you are doing actual deadly harm and destroying human life, so it’s appropriate to limit what can be done in the name of religion.”

But with oral arguments and rulings in several of the cases expected this summer and fall, other legal experts say there’s a solid chance the challengers can persuade courts to grant religious exemptions to abortion bans if not strike them down altogether.

Shlomo C. Pill, a lecturer at the Emory University School of Law who specializes in religious rights, said the lawsuits have “a strong basis and should be successful,” particularly after a series of COVID-19-related cases paved the way for more religious exemptions. Pill pointed to multiple Supreme Court decisions during the pandemic that said whenever states create secular exemptions to laws — like indoor gathering restrictions or vaccine mandates — they have to justify not offering religious exemptions as well.

“So the fact that secularly-motivated exemptions to abortion bans exist — such as for rape and incest — means the legislature could also have to offer similar exemptions for people with religious objections,” he said.

‘REAL CHUTZPA’

Most of the cases, including those in Indiana, Kentucky, and Texas, are demanding exemptions from the bans for people whose religions support abortion rights. But a few, including the lawsuits in Florida, Missouri and Wyoming, are attempting to have the bans struck down entirely.

In Missouri, the plaintiffs argue that because lawmakers put religious language in the text of the abortion ban itself and made explicit religious appeals when voting on it, they violated the Establishment Clause.

“It took real chutzpah for the legislators to voice their own religious motivations, to wantonly and shamelessly purport to know what God wants or doesn’t want and to enshrine that into law,” said Rabbi James Bennett of Congregation Shaare Emeth in St. Louis, another plaintiff in the Missouri lawsuit. “They’re entitled to their interpretation of when life begins, but they’re not entitled to have the exclusive one.”

Last week, the group faced off in a St. Louis courtroom with state officials who are pushing to have the case thrown out. A ruling could come as soon as this summer.

In Florida, clergy representing Reform Judaism, Buddhism, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist Church sued in state court both to overturn the state’s 15-week abortion ban, and — if that fails — to secure religious exemptions. Their case makes free speech arguments as well — claiming that state bans on “aiding and abetting” abortions are muzzling clergy members who want to offer counseling to parishioners grappling with whether to terminate a pregnancy.

In Kentucky, three Jewish women are arguing that the state’s near-total abortion ban violates their belief that life only begins when a baby takes its first breath, saying it’s preventing them from pursuing pregnancy through in-vitro fertilization.

“To have someone else’s religious belief that an embryo is a human being imposed on me in a way that’s so personal, that prevents me from growing my family, is just rude and un-American,” Lisa Berlow, the lead plaintiff in that case, said in an interview. Berlow had one child through IVF and was planning to have another before Dobbs made her and her fellow plaintiffs fear prosecution. “Discarding non-viable embryos could now be criminalized, or I could miscarry and not know what type of medical care I would get or whether I would be investigated for causing the miscarriage,” she said.

The Satanic Temple is in federal court challenging abortion bans in Texas, Idaho and Indiana, arguing that the laws infringe upon their congregants’ belief in bodily autonomy and right to practice abortion as a religious ritual. A Texas District Court ruled against the Satanists last fall, saying they didn’t prove the need for a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of the ban against its members. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is poised to rule on the challenge in the coming weeks.

These cases are unlikely to restore abortion rights at the federal level given the weaker religious rights protections in the U.S. Constitution compared to many state constitutions as well as the federal judiciary’s rightward tilt.

Elizabeth Reiner Platt, director of the Law, Rights, and Religion Project at Columbia Law School, stressed that the Supreme Court has a record of protecting the religious rights of some groups and not others, pointing to its back-to-back decisions in 2017 upholding the right of a Christian baker to refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding and allowing the right of the Trump administration to deny entry to travelers from majority-Muslim countries.

“While I don’t like to read the tea leaves, I don’t have any hope that the current Supreme Court would, after ruling that there was no due process right or privacy right to abortion, would find a right under the Free Exercise Clause or the Establishment Clause,” Platt said.

Still, she and other legal experts see the state-level religious challenges as one of the best chances abortion-rights advocates have to chip away at bans on the procedure.

“The arguments are quite powerful for creating religious exemptions in the reproductive context under First Amendment doctrine and under state laws for Free Exercise,” said Micah Schwartzman, director of the Karsh Center for Law and Democracy at the University of Virginia Law School. “What Judges do with them is another story.”

In order to succeed, these lawsuits must prove: that the right to an abortion is central to the religious practices of the people suing; that they are sincere in their beliefs and have a track record of observing them; and that state abortion bans make it impossible for them to live according to their faith.

The cases challenging abortion restrictions in their entirety face an additional hurdle: proving that state officials stepped over the line separating church and state in crafting the bans.

“We have a really strong Establishment Clause argument because it’s clear that these bills were passed for religious reasons,” said Marci Hamilton, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania who is part of the legal team representing clergy in Florida. “The 15-week bill was signed in a church and members of the state legislature repeatedly referred to God when arguing why this had to be done.”

Other experts are skeptical, however, of the strength of these arguments.

“There are a million-and-one other explanations a state could give for their abortion restrictions,” Pill said. “They could argue it’s a matter of secular conscience, for example. And once you have any kind of secular justification, an Establishment Clause argument becomes more difficult.”

For their part, the states defending their abortion laws and the conservative legal groups supporting them have to prove that they have a compelling interest — unrelated to religion — in protecting fetal life, that they’re using the least restrictive means to protect that interest, and that the challengers’ claims are speculative and premature because none of them have actually sought an abortion or been blocked from obtaining one since the laws took effect.

“I think these are much more like political stunts than they are viable court cases,” said Lori Windham, a vice president and senior counsel at the Becket Fund, the legal firm behind the Hobby Lobby case that secured a Supreme Court ruling allowing many employers to opt out of covering certain forms of birth control for their workers due to a religious objection. “You can have a sincere political belief or policy preference, and it can be passionate and deeply held, but that doesn’t make it a religious practice.”

CITING SCRIPTURE

Judges have historically avoided questioning the sincerity of someone’s religious beliefs, but Becket and other groups have filed amicus briefs that do so.

To combat these accusations, the challengers point to scripture that lays out a case for abortion rights as well as support from religious leaders for their claims.

The Jewish challengers in Kentucky cite religious texts including the Mishnah that say life begins when a baby takes its first breath, not when it is conceived, and if medical issues arise during pregnancy, the pregnant person’s life “comes before the life of [the child].” They also submitted to the court letters from rabbis arguing that current state exemptions for life-threatening medical emergencies aren’t enough, saying Jewish law permits, and in some cases requires, an abortion when there is “a risk of poverty, abuse, addiction, or mental illness.”

The case challenging Missouri’s ban cites the United Church of Christ’s vote in 1971 to acknowledge the right to abortion and members’ “autonomy to determine what happens to their own bodies,” as well as the Episcopal Church’s “long-standing opposition” to any government attempt to infringe on reproductive choices.

“There’s a tendency to see these cases as kind of a clever, legal switcheroo. Like, here’s a way to take these laws that are often thought of as very conservative and use them to protect abortion rights,” Platt said. “But the idea of reproductive rights as a religious liberty issue is absolutely not something that came from lawyers. It’s how faith communities themselves have been talking about their approach to reproductive rights for literally decades.”

[hindahoney]

Is that "I want to make a new Judaism without Israel" person even Jewish at all? I looked through their blog; it's been around for over a year but if you search any Jewish-related tag they use there's not a single post before 7/10. I don't want to accuse, Jews come in all varieties (even shanden), but come on... better to be a goysiche antisemite than such an embarrassment, right? Anyway this is just to say thanks for always dealing with these people so the rest of us don't have to, it's a huge service to the community.

I don't think it's appropriate to speculate about people's Jewish identity when we don't have anything concrete saying if they are or aren't. I don't know anything about them and I'm not really interested in spending time to look, but their views are not unique. I'm aware of only one real-life Jewish community that has tried to completely remove Israel from all of their services and holidays but it's extremely small, like ten people. So I mean there are Jews out there who have made it their mission to do that, it's just small and most Jews are very against them.

[lets-make-light-now]

Israel is trying to ban social media, starting with tik Tok.

Keep posting about Palestine

[liminalweirdo]

you can watch more of the proceedings here, if you can stomach it

[ink-the-artist]

That rabbit comic is brilliant because it can apply to more than just to terfs and misogyny:

During WW2 there were Jewish people of privileged status who sided with the Nazis, hoping to be spared only to be turned on. Same with homosexuals, communists and any who thought surely they would be spared if they cooperated. They met the same fate as all the others if not worse.

There have been many times in which PoC became class traitors who helped pass legislation hoping it wouldn't affect them only to be hurt by the changes as well.

The list goes on and on, in which instead of standing in solidarity, some would try to selfishly try to save themselves by throwing their brethren to the wolves only to perish along with the rest.

Sadly the cycle continues because by the time the wolves are done eating, there are few if any that survive to pass on the story.

Oh for sure, I’ve heard of the gay Nazis before they are probably one of the most extreme examples of this I can think of. I believe they justified themselves by referencing how the Greeks, who were their ideal aryan civilization or whatever, were famously gay. Didn’t work for too long they were eventually killed by the other Nazis

[ignisgalaxia]

I genuinely do not understand how everyone can unanimously dogpile on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine, but soooooooo many people are totally okay with supporting Israel’s crimes against Palestine.

Like, do y’all see the sheer hypocrisy you’re displaying???

The only reason I can think of is because the west created Israel and therefore feels responsible for it. Is that it? Is it racism? Is it religious discrimination? WHAT IS THE REASON????

[cree-n-jewish-thoughts]

I've written to two parties in Ontario about antisemitism and antisemitic comments and garments.

I am told to be safe, to disregard my culture, my religion, my identity, so people who are prohamas don't kill me.

I spend my days in fear, in "one of most culturally diverse countries".

I wrote two parties (NDP and Conservatives) about their stance on letting a poltical statement be worn in a government hall. This garment I have never seen anyone wear before the terrorists attacked Israel so brutally.

The government doesn't understand that they can not do this, they can not let keffiyeh be worn in government institutions, like I can't wear anything that says "bring them home." That's so fucked up. It is a garment worn to incite fears into Jews and to cover your face. You're stand so proudly, yet cover your face. Cowards.

So if they allow this, I will be asking to speak in the House of Commons, wearing a shirt that says "let my people go!"

If this was really about palestine, the hostages would be back, war would be over.

You dont care about life, you just care about having an excuse to kill, assault, harass,bully, and worse to Jews.

Apparently we don't matter.

I sent video and picture evidence to support my case.

[shalom-iamcominghome]

hello! i think you've answered a question like this before so hopefully this is okay to ask. when you reached out to synagogues for the first time, did you tell them you were interested in conversion from the start, or just that you were interested in the congregation and attending services? if the latter, how long did you attend before talking to a rabbi about conversion? i'm interested in attending a synagogue, but i've never been to one before and kind of want to ease into it, and maybe go to a few services/events just to see what the community is like, before discussing conversion. is this normal, or should i tell them i'm interested in conversion/that i'm not jewish right from the start?

So, I personally didn't disclose that information, and in general, I feel it's a conversation best had face-to-face. I felt like it would have put too much pressure on the shul to ask about conversion out the gate, especially if they are unable to help. In my case, my shul was unable to convert me but they provided me with so many resources that it was frankly no disappointment. For that reason, I think it's generally a good idea to tell them that you're interested in services and follow their procedures for welcoming a newcomer. I have, however, always been open about the fact that I am currently converting and serious about this decision, and I believe that's given a good impression that people are willing to work with me (even though I still don't know if I deserve all the help, but that's not the topic!).

It's completely fair to say you've never been to a shul before, and that's also what I said before I came to shul for the first time! It can give people a good idea of what to expect, and how much help you may or may not need. I've personally found that people are incredibly willing to help, especially when they see that you're serious about it.

All of this is to say that you can absolutely mention conversion and your interest in it - I personally have found success in showing up as-is and putting no expectations on myself or my shul friends. I wish you the best of luck🩵🙏🫂

[thelonelyjew]

How do I get on Canary Mission? I was banned from JDate.

[telluricdog]

the Bible itself in no uncertain terms says the Jews killed Jesus and yet people will still shit their pants about it if you bring it up

yeah duh ultimately it was a good thing for Him to die because He was sent to earth for that very purpose but the discourse surrounding the semantics is insane. can y'all just not reread John where Pilate specifically does everything in his powers to have this whole thing go back to Jewish leadership because he doesn't wanna deal with it but they brute force their way into making it his? Not to mention the rest of the New Testament. Y'know. Saying outright that the Jews killed Jesus. Y'all can cry about it being antisemitism in current year to say that(and the fact they're trying to make it ILLEGAL to say so is Insane considering, again, Scripture outright says it) but these ain't even the same Jews that were in Israel at the time. damn.