Donald Trump cannot be trusted to define antisemitism for Jews. He incites deadly white nationalist violence against our communities. He calls us disloyal. When speaking to American Jews, he refers to Israel as “your country” because he believes we do not really belong here. Conflating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism is actually antisemitic because it implies that all Jews agree with, and are responsible for, Israel’s actions.
This order will not protect our communities from Trump’s white nationalism or the violent threats we face. It will be used to target and silence human rights advocates and, in particular, Palestinian and Muslim college students.
American Jews will not allow Trump to speak for or silence us.
“Trump’s executive order is not about keeping Jews safe. After a week in which he spewed classic antisemtiic tropes about Jews and money, this is just more anti-Semitism,” wrote Emily Mayer, the political director of the Jewish advocacy group IfNotNow, in a statement. “The order’s move to define Judaism as a ‘nationality’ promotes the classically bigoted idea that American Jews are not American.”
Jared Kushner, the President’s son-in-law and a senior White House adviser, pushed for the move, according to the Times.
The definition of anti-Semitism will be adopted from the State Department, whose definition was originally formulated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the senior administration officials said.
“They have invited young men and some women in so that they can act out their greatest perversion. It’s not about an ideology. It’s not about the caliphate,” McRaven said at a national security conference in Austin, the Austin American-Statesman reported on Friday.
“I believe that they bring people in because they realize they can kill, they can rape with impunity, they can torture, they can do these barbaric things in the name of Islam.”
Kashmiris have not yet forgotten that in August – November, 1947, RSS colluded with the Hindu Maharajah of Kashmir to perpetrate the horrific genocide and exodus of Jammu, whereby hundreds of thousands of Muslims were massacred and an estimated half a million forcibly displaced. This reduced the region’s Muslim majority to a minority. This time, RSS is working through BJP, its political wing, to complete its original mission of ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Muslims. The genocide is being substituted by settler colonialism, but the objectives remain the same.
More than four million people in India, mostly Muslims, are at risk of being declared foreign migrants as the government pushes a hard-line Hindu nationalist agenda that has challenged the country’s pluralist traditions and aims to redefine what it means to be Indian.
Kashmir sits on one of India’s foundational fault lines, that of religion. With the rise and consolidation of an aggressive Hindu majoritarianism, many rightfully worry about India’s future as a multicultural democracy.
Modi and his political party pivoted away from confronting corruption, redesignating the central threat to Indian society instead as „the Muslim threat“ – India’s own Muslim community and neighboring Pakistan. Deliberately stoked religious polarization has deepened to a worrisome extent.
Modi replaced his „development man“ imperative with a new public image: that of the Hindu savior. That shift has also won significant popular support.
The State Department announced a Monday conference call with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that was restricted to “faith-based media” to discuss international religious freedom ahead of his trip this week to the Mideast.
The “faith-based” restriction was first reported on Twitter by CNN senior diplomatic correspondent Michelle Kosinski. Word got out when one unidentified member of the “regular” media was accidentally invited — then disinvited.
(Sept. 12, 1960) For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew– or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia’s harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end; where all men and all churches are treated as equal; where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice; where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind; and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
In the 19th century, anti-Catholicism became tied to anti-immigration sentiments among both the American elite and American lower classes. Catholicism became tied to European immigrants (Irish and then Italian) who competed with „native“ Americans––a term they ironically used to describe themselves––for jobs. These Catholic immigrants had different customs than their Protestant „native“ neighbors, customs that the Protestant disapproved of; among these, drinking was worst. There was also a persistent and palpable fear that Catholics couldn’t be trusted because of their allegiance to Rome. These fears carried on in America through the 1950s.
During the Cold War period, when Kennedy ran, there was still fear that, when push came to shove, Kennedy would defer to the Pope and not the Constitution or American people. He actually had to come out and say that he had his own mind, and was not at the mercy of the Pope. I couldn’t find the stand-alone video of him saying this, but it’s used in this short video:
Many reported abuses were based on discriminations against race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability and nationality.
“In the last election, PAS won by invoking the race and religious card, so they will be consistent on that narrative. Umno’s (stance), however, depends on who is going to win the party elections.
Hopefully, it will be Khairy who is more inclusive and willing to open the party to other races,” Faisal said.
“That should be the way forward, although we are heading towards Malaysia Baru and hopefully, racial- and religious-based politics will be moderated. That doesn’t mean these two types of politics will be wiped out. They will still be key features in Malaysian politics.