Jewish American Heritage Month

Posted By admin on July 9, 2020

Friday, July 10, 2020, is super important. Not just because of what happened on this day (significant things happened on every day of the calendar), but because of what will happen.

On that day (18 Tammuz on the Hebrew calendar), around the world, hundreds of thousands will begin anew to study Maimonides Mishneh Torah a digest that encompasses all the Torahs laws and directives as part of an annual study program that begins its 40th cycle on this date.

Over the course of the next 11 months, we will continue to learn through the 14-volume compendium, absorbing a detailed and sweeping tour-de-force of the entirety of biblical and rabbinic law.

Rambam (also known as Maimonides) was a Talmudist, philosopher, doctor and rabbi born in Spain who flourished in Egypt in the 12th century.

Among his many works was the Yad Hachazakah, a 14-volume compendium of the totality of Jewish law, culled from Torah, Talmud, Midrash and the other teachings of the rabbis who preceded him.

In 1984, the RebbeRabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memoryinstituted a daily study cycle, whereby the entire work (often simply referred to as Rambam) is completed on a regular basis.

Hebrew texts, English translations, audio classes, video lectures and more are all available on the Chabad.org Daily Study page. Here is some of what you can find:

Rabbi Mendel Kaplan preparing for his class.

In the spring of 1984, the RebbeRabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of righteous memorycalled for an innovative addition to the daily study schedule of every Jewish man, woman and child. He suggested that everyone study a portion of Mishneh Torah.

While many people had been turning to the 14-volume work to supplement their study of the Talmud or Jewish law, it was not being studied as a text on its own. Maimonides work was somewhat neglected, as the chief rabbi of Israel, the late Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, wrote at the time: The Rebbe brought Rambam back from being a book for scholars to being a book for the masses to study.

The Rebbe brought Rambam back from being a book for scholars to being a book for the masses.Part of the reason for this neglect was because the Mishneh Torah includes many laws that are not relevant today for daily lifelaws that only applied during Temple times and will again be pertinent during the Messianic Era. So people turned, instead, to the works that focus on Jewish laws that are immediately applicable.

But it was for precisely this reason that the Rebbe recommended studying the Mishneh Torah: It gathers all of Jewish law in a concise and clear fashion. Every individual is commanded to study the entire Torah, a goal not within reach for most people. However, it is possible to study the whole Torah as compiled by Maimonides.

The Rebbe suggested that the Mishneh Torah should be studied straight throughfrom beginning to endand that this be done according to an organized schedule.

One of the principal elements in the study of Rambam is the unification of Jewry, the Rebbe was quoted in The New York Times as saying.

In a talk on April 28, 1984, the Rebbe explained that when everyone studies the same thing on the same day, their learning is united across continents. The Rebbe added that when different people study the same topic, they will come to discuss and debate it. This friendly and scholarly debate, the Rebbe said, will bring people closer to each other, contributing to unity among Jews.

Large numbers of Jewish people around the world immediately took it upon themselves to study the Mishneh Torah on a daily basis. Torah scholars and Chassidic masters issued their recommendation to join this new study cycle. Many Jewish dailies and weekly newspapers began printing the study schedule for the Mishneh Torah together with other existing daily study schedules.

When everyone studies the same thing on the same day, their learning is united across continents At the completion of every cycle, hundreds of celebrations take place in locations spanning the globe. Torah scholars from every segment of the Jewish community join these gatherings, delivering in-depth analyses on sections of Rambam.

The people praising [Maimonides] were centuries removed from the life of Maimonides, who was born 851 years ago in Cordoba, Spain, read The New York Times on March 6, 1986, following the celebration of the second completion of the cycle, at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in New York City. Yet, after intensely studying his work this last year and applying his teachings, they gathered yesterday to celebrate the wisdom of the sage known to them as Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, the Rambam.

The article continued that since Rabbi Schneerson instituted the program, studying Maimonides has become an integral part of many Jewish households.

Now is the perfect time to get started. Join the daily Rambam program today!

Originally posted here:

This Friday Is Special. Here's Why - Chabad.org

Category: Talmud | Comments Off on This Friday Is Special. Here’s Why – Chabad.org
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 9, 2020

The current iconoclastic moment in the U.S. has taken an odd turn here in the city of St. Louis. As protesters across the nation tear down or deface statues of Confederate generals and American founders who owned slaves (among others), the statue that has drawn the most attention in St. Louis is one depicting a medieval man who did not know that America existed.

The Apotheosis of St. Louis is a massive equestrian statue inspired by the citys namesake, King Louis IX, who ruled France from 1226 until 1270. It portrays the king seated on his horse and adorned in a Romantic imagining of a triumphant Crusaders garb. In 1764, the French founders of the city of St. Louis gave it that name to honor their king, Louis XV, and his patron saint. Like Joan of Arc, St. Louis was revered by the French of the eighteenth century as a person of heroic virtue. The modern statue was originally a plaster sculpture executed by Charles Henry Niehaus for the 1904 Worlds Fair, hosted by St. Louis. After the fair had concluded, the organizers recast the sculpture in bronze and placed it prominently on Art Hill in Forest Park, the site of the fair. It immediately became the beloved symbol of the city, only edged out slightly in the 1960s by the new St. Louis Arch.

So, what is wrong with this statue? Plenty, according to the authors of a change.org petition. Louis IX was a rabid anti-semite [sic] who spearheaded many persecutions against the Jewish people. The petitioners also blame him for giving inspiration and ideas to the Nazis seven centuries after his death. And finally, Louis was vehemently Islamophobic and led a murderous crusade against Muslims. The petition demands that the statue be removed and that the city change its name.

The petition never received much support. It struggled to garner even a thousand signatures, while counter-petitions have attracted thousands. But the demand was so audacious that local news media could not keep away. In response, a group of Catholics mobilized to protect the statue with vigils and prayers. At one such event on June 27, St. Louis police had to form a barricade between Catholics praying the rosary and protestors demanding that the statue be removed. Tempers flared and protestors punched one of the Catholics after the police left the scene. Since then, an increasingly large group of Catholics has come to the statue every evening to recite the rosary and offer prayers for peace. For the moment, those prayers seem to be working. There has been no further violence. On June 30, the Islamic Foundation of Greater St. Louis stated that the removal of the statue will not erase the history, but our present-day collaboration can help us move forward. And the mayor of St. Louis, Lyda Krewson, has made clear that she does not favor removing the statue or changing the citys name.

As a medieval historian, I always cringe when medieval people are judged by modern standards. Their world was very different from our own. Yet the virtue and piety of St. Louis IX of France have always seemed to transcend his age. The crimes leveled against him in this petition are at best misleading. Although praiseworthy today, religious toleration was regarded as dangerous in the Middle Ages. Yet Louis IX (unlike other medieval rulers) still obeyed the Catholic Churchs admonition that Jews were not to be harmed. Like St. Paul, Louis hoped for the conversion of the Jews. Indeed, more than once he served as a godfather for the baptism of a converted Jew. From a modern perspective, Louiss part in the burning of the Talmud in Paris in 1240 is indefensible and certainly constitutes persecution. The theologians at the University of Paristhe best minds of their agejudged that the Talmud contained heresy and blasphemous references to Jesus. From Louiss medieval (not modern) perspective, it was a threat to his kingdom and a hindrance to the conversion of the Jews. That does not excuse it. Louis followed the advice of churchmen, yet as St. John Paul II eloquently expressed it, those churchmen made grave errors. The pope sought pardon for the sins committed by not a few (Catholics) against the people of the Covenant. He continued, We are deeply saddened by the behavior of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood.

As for the eastern Crusades, they were wars aimed at recapturing territories in and around the Holy Land that had been conquered by Muslim armies. Louiss first Crusade (124850) was a response to the conquest of Christian-controlled Jerusalem by a Turkish and Egyptian force in 1244. After the Holy City was taken, the victors massacred the Christian inhabitants and desecrated the churches. Louiss Crusade was set to punish Egypt for that attack and ultimately restore Jerusalem to its Christian king. It failed. Louiss army was defeated, and he was thrown into prison until his wife, Queen Margaret, paid 400,000 bezantsliterally a kings ransom. After the Crusade, Louis spent the next four years in the Holy Land trying to stabilize the situation for Christians. He even struck up an alliance with his former Muslim captors in Egypt.

Left unmentioned by Louiss modern detractors is his lifelong devotion to issues of social justice in a world that cared little for such ideas. At his own expense, he continually paid to feed and clothe hundreds of Pariss poor. Every evening he shared the royal table with local homeless and usually insisted that he wash their feet before they left. He established several hospitals for the poor and homes for battered women and ex-prostitutes. He personally visited lepers and washed their sores. After his humiliation in Egypt, Louis refused to don the rich regalia of the French crown, dressing simply and living humbly for the rest of his life. He was the sort of person, like Mother Teresa or John Paul II, whose reputation for piety and virtue was so great that contemporaries had no doubt he would one day be a saint. He was canonized in a record 27 years.

What both sides have overlooked about the statue, I believe, is that this triumphal equestrian image was never meant to depict a medieval saint. Its title says it all. An apotheosis is a coming into greatness or an ascent into glory, and that is certainly what the statue evokes with its horse proudly sauntering forward and the king triumphantly holding aloft his sword. Yet the real Louis IX suffered humiliating defeats in his Crusades. In truth, this statue, which presided over an international gathering to celebrate a new century of progress, has nothing to do with the Middle Ages. It was a symbol of the city of St. Louis, which in 1904 was one of Americas most prosperous urban centers. The attendees of the Worlds Fair saw in this sculpture the promise of confident progress for St. Louis and the world. Even the sword, held with the blade down in a gesture of peace, was a sign of hope for the future. Those who commissioned the statue and those who viewed it had little interest in medieval kings; they were focused on building a bright and prosperous future.

The Apotheosis of St. Louis is not religious art nor was it meant to be. Rather, it was designed to evoke civic pride. Catholics can confidently look to the life of St. Louis IX for his example of Christian charity and seek his intercession in the struggles of our age. But we should take care not to confuse the sacred with the profane. Let the city of St. Louis have its proud, beautiful, and triumphant symbol of modern progress. Catholics will always have the humble and pious king who, although not perfect, still devoted his life to the service of Christ and his Church.

Thomas F. Madden is Professor of History and Director of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies at Saint Louis University in St Louis, Missouri.

Photo byRyan Ashelinvia Creative Commons. Image cropped.

First Thingsdepends on its subscribers and supporters. Join the conversation and make a contribution today.

Clickhereto make a donation.

Clickhereto subscribe toFirst Things.

Follow this link:

In Defense of King Louis IX | Thomas F. Madden - First Things

Category: Talmud | Comments Off on In Defense of King Louis IX | Thomas F. Madden – First Things
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 9, 2020

The huppah, the Jewish bridal canopy, is one of the most beloved objects of Jewish art. It is steeped in history, customs, symbolism and beauty. It is both the actual bridal canopy and the ceremony. Here we will focus on the huppah as an object of Jewish art. The Hebrew word huppah means covering, or that which floats above. It is based on the root word hafah, which means to cover or hide, similar to the word hafaf, meaning to protect. It intended as a roof or covering for the bride and groom at their wedding. It is open on all four sides as Abrahams tent was, to welcome strangers from all directions.Originally, the wedding ceremony was held outdoors, with the hope that the couple would be blessed with a large family, as Gods blessing to Abraham. I will greatly bless you, and I will exceedingly multiply your children as the stars in heaven. It is also reminiscent of the sukkah the temporary structure erected for Sukkot. Like the sukkah, the huppah reminds the bride and groom that they are protected by God alone and that God is their only haven and support.In the Talmudic period, the grooms fathers would set up a royal purple tent or use gold and luxurious scarlet cloth for their sons huppot. An especially moving ceremony involved planting a cedar tree on the occasion of a sons birth, and a pine tree when a daughter was born. When the child married, the branches and leaves from the tree were then used to make the huppah.The medieval community often used a parochet, the embroidered curtain covering the Torah ark. But over time, it was felt to be inappropriate to use a sacred object for the bridal chamber. It then became the custom to marry under a tallit, the prayer shawl, which was frequently a gift from the brides family to the groom.To define the space as sacred, a covering was used to avoid the appearance that the bridal couple were marrying in the marketplace, which was considered indelicate and unacceptable at that time.Prior to the 16th century, the huppah consisted of a veil worn by the bride. Later, it was a cloth spread over the shoulders of the bride and groom. An eminent Polish rabbi in the 16th century wrote the portable marriage canopy was widely adopted by Ashkenazi Jews as a symbol of the chamber where marriages originally took place.It is an ancient concept, and the Talmud considered it biblically required for marriage. THERE IS great symbolism in the huppah as attested in the Bible, Chabad, hassidim and Kabbalah.God constructed 10 huppot for Adam and Eves wedding, according to the Midrash. Ten is a mystical number in Kabbala referring to the 10 divine attributes through which God relates to the physical world. The huppah is considered a symbol of Gods love above the married couple. The traditional huppah features an open sky above acknowledging God as Creator, who infuses marriage with deep spirituality and cosmic significance.It is said that the couples ancestors are present at the huppah ceremony and that the Shechinah, the Divine Presence, graces every huppah ceremony. Unlike many other Jewish ritual objects such as the tallit or mezuzah that follow strict Biblical instructions, the only rule about the huppahs construction is that it be a temporary structure made by human hands. The cloth huppah was originally draped around the bride and groom but was later spread out over their heads. The single cloth under which the couple are joined thus symbolizes both the new household they are forming and represents the public recognition of their new status as man and wife.Huppot are diverse and reflect personal taste, budget, community influence, season and settings. Huppot vary from simple cloths to elaborate tapestries and embroideries, quilts sewn by family members, to spectacular floral creations. The materials depend on taste, budget and the ceremonys location. Over centuries, the appearance of huppot has changed dramatically. While some abroad are totally floral, normally they are fashioned from fabric: cotton, lace, organza, wool, silk, satin or velvet. White, symbolizing purity, is the most accepted color, while hassidic weddings utilize dark blue velvet. Some huppot are embellished with popular motifs in Jewish art, including Stars of David, pomegranates representing abundance, scenes of Jerusalem and texts and images from the sheva brachot (seven marriage blessings).The Great Synagogue of Rome boasts a majestic huppah in pale green floral brocade, lined in satin with a scalloped valance trimmed in gold fringe. HAND-HELD HUPPOT can be used in the processional, the poles carried by four friends or relatives represent the communitys support in years to come. Poles can be made of metal or wood and can be carved, painted or wrapped in ribbons or flowers and greenery. Wedding halls, caterers and many synagogues generally provide a large huppah, often raised on a stage. Huppot can be rented online, complete with poles and stands. It is a mitzvah to beautify all Jewish ritual objects (hiddur mitzvot), and the huppah is no exception. After the wedding, a huppah can become a wall hanging, a bed canopy or a bedspread. Some couples loan theirs for weddings of family and friends, and some have raised their huppah for a baby-naming or brit milah ceremony. Customs too have changed over time and in Jewish communities around the world. Many of the customs are still cherished and practiced today.In Yemen, the Jewish practice was not for the groom and his bride to be secluded under a canopy (huppah) hung on four poles, as is widely practiced today in Jewish weddings, but rather in a bridal chamber that was, in effect, a highly decorated room in the house of the groom. This room was traditionally decorated with large hanging sheets of colored, patterned cloth, replete with wall cushions and short-length mattresses for reclining. Their marriage is consummated when they have been left together alone in this room.In the Italian Jewish wedding it is traditional to use a crocheted tablecloth or a bed covering which, after the ceremony, will be used in the couples home. In fact, the Italian phrase, sotto la coperta, (or under the covering) signifies the bridal canopy from ancient times.Let the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride be heard.The writer is an American interior and textile designer and Judaica artist, based in Jerusalem. joetob@netvision.net.il

See the original post here:

The huppah - a beloved object of Jewish art - The Jerusalem Post

Category: Talmud | Comments Off on The huppah – a beloved object of Jewish art – The Jerusalem Post
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 9, 2020

(PatriceO/iStock/Getty Images Plus)For the new moralists of cancel culture, there is no context.

NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLEIn his Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke took aim at Lord George Gordon, who had led the anti-Catholic riots that bore his name. By the time of the Reflections, Gordon resided in Newgate Prison, convicted of libel and unable to afford the security the judge demanded for his freedom. In the interim, Gordon had converted to Judaism. Burke took note. Gordon should stay in Newgate, Burke suggested, to meditate on his Talmud until France bought his freedom to please [the Jacobins] new Hebrew brethren. Burke continued, referring to the church lands the French revolutionaries had seized:

He may then be enabled to purchase, with the old hoards of the synagogue, and a very small poundage on the long compound interest of the thirty pieces of silver, . . . the lands which are lately discovered to have been usurped by the Gallican Church. Send us your Popish Archbishop of Paris, and we will send you our Protestant Rabbin.

Perhaps excepting Jeremy Corbyn, no British politician would speak this way in 2020. The caustic use of Gordons conversion and the characterization of Jews as heirs of Judas are unmistakably tinged with anti-Semitism.

As one of those heirs, I cringed the first time I read the passage. But it has never induced a sense of profound offense or inhibited me from calling myself a Burkean or from writing about Burke. The passage is otherwise unremarkable, though it does contain a priceless bit of Burkean wit. After referring to the Gordon rioters as a mob, he apologizes parenthetically: Excuse the term, it is still in use here.

But in a 280-character world, Burke would be reducible to one label anti-Semite and, to the extent that is an offense to the avatars of cancelation, canceled. The accusation consumes a few characters. A handful more words of quotation wrenched from context, a pile-on of denunciation, and a tweet hits its limits. There can be no overall assessment of a scholar-statesmans body of action and writings. There is no space for noting Burkes eloquent parliamentary defense of the Jews whom British troops looted on the West Indies island of St. Eustatius, or his rousing defense of the rights of India against British imperial abuses. In her history of Judaism in British thought, The People of the Book, Gertrude Himmelfarb recalls the Gordon passage as well as the St. Eustatius speech, concluding that the latter may not qualify Burke as a philososemite, but that it was also an honorable defense of the Jews when no one else offered one.

There is a Yiddish saying: When a man wears a white coat, a speck of dust makes it look dirty. That is true enough, especially if one lives in a world devoid of nuance, where heroes are spotless and sinners can never be redeemed. When Horatio told Hamlet that his father was a goodly king, the prince replied: He was a man. Take him for all in all. I shall not look upon his like again. The passage on Gordon is troubling. But taken for all in all, Burke was a great and admirable man. The cancel caucus would be unable to see it, and Burke knew why. One of his insights, also in the Reflections, was that those who are habitually employed in finding and displaying faults are unqualified for the work of reformation. ... By hating vices too much, they come to love men too little. The result is that they can destroy but not build.

Which brings us to the nearly surreal, yet pending, cancelation of Abraham Lincoln. After the toppling of General Grant in Golden Gate Park, I predicted in this space that Lincolns turn in the dock would come. That was rhetorical. But if any one trend characterizes our era, it is the convergence of satire and reality. So Lincolns time is upon us.

The Freedmens Memorial, financed by formerly enslaved people and dedicated by Frederick Douglass, shows Lincoln in too physically superior a position. Lincoln signed off on the hangings of 38 Dakota warriors convicted of atrocities, including two convicted of rape. One doubts that those warriors were tried fairly, but the cancelers are not much on due process anyway: Accusation suffices for conviction. Lincoln gave clemency to more than 250 other Dakota who had been sentenced to death, a nuance that inhibits fixation on the alleged sin.

And then there are the LincolnDouglas debates, in which Lincoln said he did not favor full social equality for African Americans. And his famous letter to Horace Greeley stating that his priority was winning the war, not freeing the slaves.

Accused, ergo convicted: Lincoln was a racist. There is no record, to my knowledge, of him ever having treated any African-American with whom he came into contact with anything less than total dignity. He first met Frederick Douglass when the former slave showed up unannounced at the White House to upbraid Lincoln for, among other things, the Unions inaction on retaliatory Confederate executions of African-American soldiers. Douglass left with some but not all of what he sought and pronounced himself not entirely satisfied with [Lincolns] views but well satisfied with the man. Receiving Douglass at the White House after his second inauguration, Lincoln told him that there is no man in the country whose opinion I value more than yours.

But for the new moralists, there is no man to be taken all in all, much less one upon whose like we shall not look again. Nor is there context: If Lincoln had not equivocated on equality, he would have had no political future. If he had not won the presidency and preserved the union, slavery would have persisted, perhaps for decades longer, in an independent Confederacy. His first meeting with Douglass took place amid a constant battle to placate border states including Missouri and Kentucky as well as northern Copperheads who would, in a moment, have cut the Confederacy loose and doomed millions to indefinite servitude.

No one is innocent after the experience of governing, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whom many cancelers have also targeted, remarked. But not everyone is guilty. There is a difference. A statesman must choose, and rarely among a buffet of unvarnished goods. He cannot live untainted unless he lives indecisively, which is itself a sin in fateful moments. But guilt implies malignant intent, reckless imprudence, or perhaps a career that, taken all in all, does more harm than good.

The defining feature of cancel culture is not the rush to offense. Nor is it simply measuring historical episodes by contemporary standards. It is, rather, the inability to take things all in all, and it is simply the mirror image of a jingoistic, moralized patriotism that says Americas heroes were blameless all the way down. Both of these are juvenile versions of history. They are more appropriate to Schoolhouse Rock than to adult life in which complexity ought to be more familiar.

Cancelation is not an attempt to add nuance and detail to a national memory that has, in fact, often excluded sins and suffering. It is a project to replace one Manichean story with another, to exchange heroes for victims. The ultimate victim is the fading idea that, however we arrived at this moment on the shoulders of generations who were not innocent but were not all guilty either Americans might be in this together.

Read the original here:

Edmund Burke and Abraham Lincoln, All in All - National Review

Category: Talmud | Comments Off on Edmund Burke and Abraham Lincoln, All in All – National Review
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 9, 2020

It was when Mark Zuckerberg said he would allow Holocaust denial on his platform that the Anti-Defamation League realized its partnership with Facebook wasnt working.

The social media giant and the Jewish civil rights group had been working together for years to curb hate speech online. In October 2017, Facebook headlined a new ADL initiative to start a Cyberhate Problem-Solving Lab in collaboration with Silicon Valleys biggest companies.

Then, nine months later, Zuckerberg told the tech site Recode that while he personally found Holocaust denial deeply offensive, he said, I dont believe that our platform should take that down because I think there are things that different people get wrong.

Get The Jewish Chronicle Weekly Edition by email and never miss our top storiesFree Sign Up

People who monitor anti-Semitism criticized Zuckerberg for what they saw as undeservedly giving anti-Semites the benefit of the doubt as if they were making an innocent mistake rather than propagating a deliberate lie. Thats when the ADL realized that Facebook wasnt going to change on its own and needed to be pressured.

Holocaust denial is something that weve been talking to Facebook about for I think its 11 years at this point, Daniel Kelley, associate director of the ADLs Center for Technology and Society, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Weve told them Holocaust denial is hate. It is not misinformation. And they have not only not changed, but in several instances doubled down on treating Holocaust denial as some form of misinformation.

So the ADL has changed tacks as Facebook, according to ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, has allowed some of the worst elements of society into our homes and our lives.

After years of seeing the largest social network in the world as a partner, it is now treating Facebook as an adversary. That shift has culminated in an ADL-led campaign urging companies to stop advertising on Facebook for the month of July in collaboration with the NAACP and other civil rights groups.

The campaign has attracted a growing list of leading brand names. More than 230 companies have signed onto the pledge, and last week Facebooks stock dipped more than 8%, though it has since rebounded.

Apparently shaken by the boycott, Zuckerberg has announced a series of changes to Facebooks hate speech policies, which he said come directly from feedback from the civil rights community. He also pledged to meet with the organizers of the boycott.

Facebooks changes include labeling posts regarding voting access, flagging posts that target immigrants, banning members of the far-right antigovernment Boogaloo movement and placing warnings on hateful or false posts from public figures that the network still feels are newsworthy.

Im committed to making sure Facebook remains a place where people can use their voice to discuss important issues, because I believe we can make more progress when we hear each other, Zuckerberg wrote Friday in a Facebook post. But I also stand against hate, or anything that incites violence or suppresses voting, and were committed to removing that no matter where it comes from.

Those moves have not lessened the ADLs commitment to pressuring the company, which makes nearly its entire $70 billion in annual revenue through ads.

Facebook says it will take meaningful steps to address the hate on its platform, Greenblatt tweeted after the announcement. Weve been down this road. Dont let them refuel for another hate-filled trip.

Fighting tech companies is a change for Greenblatt, who came to the ADL job in 2015 following a career as a social entrepreneur in Silicon Valley. Greenblatt founded a bottled water company that donated a portion of its proceeds to clean-water access, as well as All for Good, an open-source platform that aggregated volunteer opportunities online.

The ADL had been pushing tech companies to get more serious about combating anti-Semitism for decades. Greenblatts predecessor, Abraham Foxman, complained in a 2013 interview with JTA about the geniuses at Palo Alto and said, The providers need to take greater ownership. They dont want regulation.

Under Greenblatt, the ADL increased its focus on tech, and at first tried to curb online hate through partnership. The group expanded its presence in Silicon Valley in 2016 and founded the Center for Technology and Society in 2017 to combat cyberhate. Greenblatt said he hoped to collaborate even closer on the threat with the tech industry.

Later that year, the ADL announced its partnership with four tech giants Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter to create the Cyberhate Problem-Solving Lab. The idea was to work with the companies on technical solutions to improve detection and removal of hateful posts, with the ADL providing guidance on how to spot bigotry and address it.

But according to Kelley, the effort went nowhere. Facebook, he said, never acted on any of the advice provided by the ADL.

They were happy to sign onto a press release and to say, well, were working with ADL. We did have several meetings, Kelley said. Its the same story of us coming to the meeting with real ideas for how to approach the problems on their platform and them walking away not promising anything. We tried to work with them.

Facebook did not respond to an email request for comment. But the company has disputed that it has a poor record on addressing hateful posts. It points to a recent study from the European Union showing that Facebook is the quickest among the major social media platforms in addressing notifications of hate speech coming from European users. It found that Facebook assessed 96% of the notifications of hate speech within 24 hours, compared to 76.6% for Twitter. Facebook removed 87.6% of the flagged content, compared to 35.9% for Twitter.

But Kelley said that while Facebook does release transparency reports, it does not give outside researchers access to the data, unlike Twitter. So he said theres no real way to confirm Facebooks claims of transparency.

All these statistics are not vetted by, or verified by, any third party, he said, adding later that The ability to do real research into the nature of hate on Facebook is extremely limited.

As months and then years passed, activists in Myanmar and elsewhere were complaining that Facebook was allowing public officials to encourage human rights violations. In 2018, the shooter at the New Zealand mosques livestreamed the massacre on Facebook.

But while Facebook made some modifications to its hate speech policies, it did not appear to change course philosophically. In October, Zuckerberg said in an address at Georgetown University that he was proud that our values at Facebook are inspired by the American tradition, which is more supportive of free expression than anywhere else.

Using the speech, the Jewish comedian Sacha Baron Cohen compared Zuckerberg to a restaurateur gladly serving neo-Nazis.

If he owned a fancy restaurant and four neo-Nazis came goose-stepping into the dining room and were talking loudly about wanting to kill Jewish scum, would he serve them an elegant eight course meal? Or would tell them to get the f*** out of his restaurant? Cohen wrote. He has every legal right, indeed a moral duty, to tell them to get the f*** out of his restaurant.

A month later, the ADL gave Cohen its International Leadership Award. The comic actor used the opportunity to give a keynote address to excoriate social media companies.

I say, lets also hold these companies responsible for those who use their sites to advocate for the mass murder of children because of their race or religion, he said. Maybe its time to tell Mark Zuckerberg and the CEOs of these companies: You already allowed one foreign power to interfere in our elections, you already facilitated one genocide in Myanmar, do it again and you go to jail.

A wrinkle in this story came a few weeks before Cohens speech. Following the October attack on a synagogue in Halle, Germany, the ADL accepted a $2.5 million donation from Facebooks COO, Sheryl Sandberg. Greenblatt said, upon accepting the donation, that he was grateful for her commitment to fighting hate in all of its forms.

Sandberg posted on Facebook that It means so much to me to be able to support this vital work at this critical moment.

Facebooks mostly hands-off approach to posts does have notable defenders.

David Hudson, an advocate of expansive First Amendment rights, said that free speech protections should be extended to Facebook because its size and breadth gives Facebook the power of a government.

Certain powerful private entities particularly social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and others can limit, control, and censor speech as much or more than governmental entities, he wrote for the American Bar Associations Human Rights magazine. A society that cares for the protection of free expression needs to recognize that the time has come to extend the reach of the First Amendment to cover these powerful, private entities that have ushered in a revolution in terms of communication capabilities.

But Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt, who spoke out against Zuckerbergs remarks on Holocaust denial, said a boycott was the right way to go.

Facebook is a private entity and no private entity is obligated to post hate speech, she said. Generally I dont like boycotts, but if this is the only thing to which Facebook is going to respond, then you have no other choice. You can choose where you put your money.

This year, in testimony to Congress, Greenblatt cited his work in Silicon Valley in calling on tech companies to work harder. He called tech an amplifier, an organizer, and a catalyst for some of the worst types of hate in our society, and said Facebook and Twitter need to apply the same energy to protecting vulnerable users that they apply to protect their profits.

Despite the measures Facebook has taken, the ADL says that hasnt happened. And thats why, after years of trying to collaborate with Facebook, the ADL is now trying to disrupt its revenue stream in the hopes of forcing change.

Theres a common understanding that Facebook is a company that puts revenue above all else, but I think this is a very clear-cut example, the ADLs Kelley said. All of these changes, the minor tweaks that Mark Zuckerberg announced on Friday, were things that the civil rights community have been asking for for years, in addition to larger structural changes to the platform.

It took a massive pause on advertisement by major companies to get them to move an inch.pjc

More:

How the ADL went from working with Facebook to leading a boycott against it - thejewishchronicle.net

Category: Holocaust Denial | Comments Off on How the ADL went from working with Facebook to leading a boycott against it – thejewishchronicle.net
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 9, 2020

"I met antisemitism from an early age and saw the face of being a Jew in the Diaspora. I felt at home only between the four walls of my home. I understood that as a Jew, I am different.At 18, Sacha Roytman Dratwa moved to Israel from his native Belgium, served in the IDF for eight years, and then worked as director of digital advocacy for the World Jewish Congress. It was in that position, says Dratwa, that he realized that antisemitism was not limited to Belgium, but was a global phenomenon.In 2019, determined to stem the growing tide of antisemitism, Dratwa joined as the director of the Combat Anti-Semitism Movement, a US-based global grassroots movement of individuals and organizations that spans religions and faiths, in a mission to combat antisemitism. Dratwa says the battle against antisemitism cannot be won by the Jews alone. We see from history that antisemitism always begins with Jews and ends with others. This is why we want this movement to be an interfaith movement of Jews, Muslims, Christians and many others those that understand that hatred is there. We need to come together.To date, Combat Anti-Semitisms broad-based coalition includes more than 250 Jewish, Christian, and Muslim organizations dedicated to the struggle against antisemitism. The organization has also obtained the support of more than 260,000 individuals around the world who have signed a pledge to help combat antisemitism. Antisemitism, says Dratwa, is growing quickly, and he intends for Combat Anti-Semitism to be a global movement, comprised of individuals from all levels of society. If you look historically, the big changes in history were made by movements that decided to come together, not by one person or one organization.Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Sima Vaknin Gill, senior adviser at Combat Anti-Semitism Movement, who was an intelligence officer in the Israel Air Force, Israels chief censor and director-general of the Strategic Affairs Ministry, explains that the rise in antisemitism is coming from three different sources the far Left, the far Right, and radical Islam. On the one hand, you have global trends that enable antisemitism to grow, and then you have another thing closing the horseshoe the far Right and far Left, which are supposed to be on a different angle, are cooperating. Their themes and discourses are the same. Two angles of Jew-haters combine, one the far Right, which hates Jews and Judaism, and the other on the far Left, which hates Zionism and Israel. Sima Vaknin Gill (Credit: Arik Sultan/Makor Rishon)Vaknin Gill explains that classic antisemitism, which historically blamed the Jews for whatever ills have befallen the world, and modern antisemitism, which manifests itself in a form of anti-Zionism that does not accept the fact that Jews can have their own state, have merged. She cites the online attack against the former French health minister Agns Buzyn, who was accused in the language of the medieval blood libel of poisoning water wells and misleading the French public regarding the coronavirus pandemic.Vaknin Gill adds that Combat Anti-Semitism is a type of early warning system for the world on antisemitism, saying we are the canary in the coal mine...We have reached a tipping point in antisemitism in history, and when you reach this point you need to come up with something a little bit different. Combat Anti-Semitism, with its loose coalition of more than 250 partner organizations from many faiths, each with different capabilities, is an unusual type of organization. Each organizations different capabilities, says Dratwa, is one of Combats unique strengths. By utilizing and facilitating the different abilities of member organizations, Dratwa says they can counter antisemitism. Each member organization has different tools, he says. Some are strong in media others are strong in the community. We match them on any case to bring them together to utilize the uniqueness of each one to work together.Vaknin Gill adds that Combat Anti-Semitism is a type of platform that enables different organizations to join forces, and to create a synergy between different groups. The organizations list of members includes large organizations, such as the Jewish National Fund, American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Agency, as well as small and medium-sized organizations. Combat Anti-Semitism is active in engaging students as well as adults in the struggle against antisemitism. One example is a joint initiative, sponsored by Bnai Brith International and Combat Anti-Semitism, titled Students Speak Out Against Anti-Semitism a creative video production competition that awards prizes to high school and post-secondary students for the creation of videos that educate about antisemitism and the prejudice, bigotry, hatred, and violence it engenders.Dratwa says they are making progress in the Muslim world, and the organization recently honored Sheikh Dr. Mohammed al-Issa, secretary-general of the Muslim World League in Saudi Arabia, who has spoken out against Holocaust denial and acts of antisemitism, and who led the Muslim World League on a historic visit of senior Muslim leaders to Auschwitz-Birkenau in January. Combat Anti-Semitism is also working with Evangelical, Catholic and Protestant groups. The relationship between Jews and Christians is so deep and so important historically, he notes. Dratwa and Vaknin Gill point out that Combat Anti-Semitism is an apolitical movement that does not deal with defending Israel from criticism of its policies. We are talking about the fact, says Vaknin Gill, that there are a bunch of groups in the world who dont accept the fact that the Jewish state has a right to exist as other nations around the world.Dratwas vision is to see a reduction in antisemitism, which will enable Jewish communities to live in safety and to be proud of their Jewishness. To that end, he says better legislation is needed to protect Jews and Jewish identity around the world. If we can work as a movement in the Jewish world, and outside the Jewish world, we will have the first big win, he says. Like Dratwa, Vaknin Gill acknowledges that antisemitism will never completely go away, but hopes for more accountability on the part of governments as well as academic leaders, which she says, are the hubs of hate, as well as tech companies. She is confident young leaders such as Dratwa are the type of leaders needed, who understand reality, who arent afraid of what is happening online and are ready to do battle with the threat of worldwide antisemitism. These are the type of people that we need to lead the Jewish people.

See the rest here:

Combat Anti-Semitism: Trying to combat the haters - The Jerusalem Post

Category: Holocaust Denial | Comments Off on Combat Anti-Semitism: Trying to combat the haters – The Jerusalem Post
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 9, 2020

On Friday, President Trump rang in Fourth of July weekend with a speech and fireworks display at Mount Rushmore in South Dakota, a stark contrast with the large number of fireworks displays that were canceled across the rest of the country due to the coronavirus pandemic. Though the Rushmore celebration attracted much attention for the lack of social distancing and masking required of attendees, commentators also noted the striking content of the presidents speech.

Joel Swanson | Artist: Noah Lubin

While most other presidents have used the occasion of the nations Independence Day to urge public unity and goodwill, Trump instead delivered a dark and divisive speech in which he warned about a new far-left fascism seeking to destroy the history and values of the United States, a left-wing cultural revolution designed to overthrow the American Revolution. A far cry from Yankee Doodle Dandy indeed.

The presidents Rushmore address was not good news for the Jews. While Trump did not, of course, mention Jews explicitly during his speech, I could not help but hear in his warnings against years of extreme indoctrination and bias in education, journalism, and other cultural institutions, echoes of the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory that has taken hold on the American far-right in recent years.

The presidents defenders at Fox News certainly heard it that way, praising Trumps attacks on cancel culture and the rise of the Marxist ideology. And this language of cultural Marxism can all too easily slide into anti-Semitism.

To understand why, we need to review a bit of history about this term, and the way it functions in American far-right mythologies. The right-wing Christian journalist William S. Lind, a key proponent of this particular conspiracy theory, defines cultural Marxism as political correctness or Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. According to classical Marxist theory, when the Russian Revolution broke out in 1917, workers all across Europe should have joined together to overthrow capitalism and create a new socialist society. But when the more heavily industrialized nations of Western Europe failed to join in the revolution, Marxist theorists needed an explanation for this failure. And so, they turned to popular culture.

As Lind would have it, whereas classical Marxist theory was wholly focused on economic relations between classes, seeing culture as no more than an outgrowth of economics, this new brand of cultural Marxism taught that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true (Marxist) class interests that Communism was impossible in the West until traditional culture and Christianity were destroyed. Thus, Marxist theory after the Russian Revolution would have to seek cultural as well as economic transformation.

To a limited degree, Lind was correct: An array of diverse thinkers from different backgrounds were involved in this rethinking of Marxism after the Russian Revolution. And the most famous circle crystalized in Germany in the early 1920s around the newly-formed Institute for Social Research, more commonly known as the Frankfurt School. The Frankfurt School was instrumental in the development of critical theory, a school of thought that critiqued both cultural and economic structures in society with the explicitly political goal to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them.

In practice, this often meant analyses of culture that integrated Marx with insights from that other great European Jewish intellectual, Freud. And significantly, nearly all of the thinkers associated with the Frankfurt School, including such famous luminaries as Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm, and Walter Benjamin, were Jewish.

Will Israel really annex the West Bank (and what happens next)? Watch the video of our June 17 Zoomversation with David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Khalil Shikaki of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research.

You can see where this is going. In 1933, the rise of Nazism forced the Jewish anti-fascist intellectuals of the Frankfurt School to flee Germany for New York, where they set up shop at Columbia University. And from there, as the Southern Poverty Law Center explains, the conspiracy theory took hold of a hidden group of foreign migr Jewish intellectuals who devised an unorthodox form of Marxism that took aim at American societys culture, rather than its economic system to try to convince mainstream Americans that white ethnic pride is bad, that sexual liberation is good, and that supposedly traditional American values Christianity, family values, and so on are reactionary and bigoted.

The theory was so successful because it was so adaptable. Any rapid change in American cultural norms could be blamed on these Marxist Jews seeking to undermine white Christian culture from within. The theory became especially popular in the 1960s, when students associated with left-wing movements like the anti-Vietnam War movement and the movement for sexual liberation cited the Frankfurt School thinkers as an influence. David Neiwert, who has researched cultural Marxism, writes that for those who believe in this theory, nearly all of the modern expressions of democratic culture feminism, the civil rights movement, the 60s counterculture movement, the antiwar movement, rock and roll, and the gay rights movement are eventually all products of the scheming of this cabal of Jewish elites.

Its a perfect conspiracy, really. According to Alana Lentin, cultural Marxism relies on long-time anti-Semitic tropes about a cabal of foreign Jews pulling strings behind the scenes, to advance the idea that the West is subject to manipulation from foreign forces within. And that, in turn, lets the far-right avoid confronting the real grievances driving movements for cultural change. Easier to blame the Jews for new standards of sexual morality that emerged in the 1960s, as many right-wing voices did.

Easier for President Trump to blame schools that supposedly teach our children to hate their own country as the real motivation for the movement to tear down Confederate statues across the United States. That way, he doesnt have to acknowledge the fact that most Americans in fact support removing these statues.

Thats the conspiratorial history that President Trump invokes when he blames schools and educational institutions for preaching a left-wing cultural revolution to destroy the nations history just as those who spread the cultural Marxism conspiracy theory claim that this ideology dominates both public and higher education.

Of course, its entirely possible that Trump used these words without knowing their anti-Semitic history, and most Americans will no doubt hear this rhetoric without thinking about Jews at all. But for white supremacists, these words are a clear dog whistle. It isnt coincidental that when William Lind first coined the term cultural Marxism, he did it in a speech to a Holocaust denial conference, in which he helpfully clarified that these guys were all Jewish.

And the rhetoric of cultural Marxism already has a body count. The far-right gunman who attacked a Chabad in Poway, California in April 2019 wrote before the shooting that he hated Jews for their role in cultural Marxism.

So when I hear the president of the United States go to Mount Rushmore, one of the great symbols of American culture, and warn in dark tones about a left-wing cultural revolution, I cant help but worry that such words are bad for the Jews. Trump may not have explicitly mentioned Jews at Mount Rushmore. But for a certain segment of the far-right, he may as well have.

Joel Swanson is a contributing columnist for the Forward and a Ph.D. student at the University of Chicago, studying modern Jewish intellectual history and the philosophy of religions. He identifies as culturally Marxist, but not actively practicing. Find him on Twitter @jh_swanson.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the authors own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Forward.

Trumps attacks on left-wing cultural revolution are an anti-Semitic dogwhistle

Originally posted here:

Trumps attacks on left-wing cultural revolution are an anti-Semitic dogwhistle - Forward

Category: Holocaust Denial | Comments Off on Trumps attacks on left-wing cultural revolution are an anti-Semitic dogwhistle – Forward
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 9, 2020

On July 1, Germany took on the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union.Of course, policy disagreements exist between Germany and Israel, not least over possible annexation. However, none of this can overshadow the deep and warm relations between the two countries, carefully nurtured over many decades. Undoubtedly, Berlin remains steadfastly committed to Israels security.Furthermore, Germany continues to work tirelessly for the continued prosperity of its Jewish community and the well-being of Jewish communities worldwide. As such, Germany is at the forefront of the global fight against antisemitism, which is worryingly rearing its ugly head with renewed vigor.As the coronavirus crisis continues to grip the world, the age-old disease of antisemitism is also rapidly infecting societies. Like COVID-19, antisemitism too easily spreads undetected. Like coronavirus, it has no respect for borders, nor does it discriminate between communities, between young and old, religious and secular, rich and poor.Shiite Iran and Sunni Pakistan have a history of disagreement and animosity toward each other. Nonetheless, they are united in Jew-hatred. Religious leaders, bloggers and ordinary individuals in both countries point the finger at Jews and the State of Israel, alleging that they are to blame for the coronavirus pandemic. The same ancient conspiracy theories have been propagated recently by the far Right in the United States and also in parts of Europe.Of course, antisemitism was already on the rise before the onset of the corona age. Figures from the Anti-Defamation League showed that antisemitic incidents in the US in 2019 reached an all-time high since tracking began in 1979. The statistics included a worrying 56% spike in antisemitic assaults. In January, the New York Police Department decided to install 100 security cameras in heavily Jewish-populated areas of Brooklyn, in an effort to deter rising antisemitic crime.Furthermore, the scapegoating of Jews for the spread of disease is nothing new. When the Black Death overran Europe in the mid-14th century, killing millions, Jews were quickly blamed for the outbreak. The allegations against Jews poisoning wells and water sources persisted from the Middle Ages onward. Of course, the idea that Jews spread disease found a welcome home in Nazi Germany. Der Sturmer populated this antisemitic trope in print, while Joseph Goebbelss infamous film The Eternal Jew depicted Jews as rats.Given this context, the increase in antisemitism since the corona outbreak is perhaps no surprise. Nonetheless, a report published last week by the Kantor Center at Tel Aviv University was stark in its assessment. It concluded that the pandemic has unleashed a unique worldwide wave of antisemitism, with social media quickly popularizing a discourse that blames Jews and the State of Israel, alleging that they created COVID-19 and are profiting from it. While coronavirus continues to cripple the world, antisemitism is clearly very much alive and well.ALL OF which gives Germany an exceptional opportunity to lead the response to this new wave of antisemitism, as it spearheads the EU agenda during the coming six months. In fact, it is a double opportunity. Germany also chairs the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an umbrella organization of 34 countries, whose governments promote Holocaust memory and help identify contemporary antisemitism.Having met Germanys Foreign Minister Heiko Maas several times, I know that, like Chancellor Angela Merkel, he is a true friend of Israel and the Jewish people. Thanks to my familiarity with Maas in his previous role as justice minister, I have deep appreciation and admiration for his work to combat antisemitism, to fight Holocaust denial, to help Holocaust survivors and to ensure the welfare of the local Jewish community. I have no doubt that in his role as both foreign minister and a senior European leader, he will continue this critical work with determination.Germany sets a wonderful example to other European countries of how to deploy education, international cooperation and political will in the fight against antisemitism.Minister Maas, I take this opportunity to appeal to you. As you and the government you serve take the wheel of the European Union, redouble your efforts to tackle antisemitism and replicate them across the continent.The most potent weapon you have in this struggle is education. Change can come about only through knowledge. With healthy budgets for supporting Jewish schools in Europe, Holocaust studies curriculum in non-Jewish schools, serious planning and dedication, tolerance and respect can replace hatred and bigotry. Not only can the new wave of antisemitism be repelled, but perhaps the oldest hatred itself can be consigned to history.This is a historic mission. It is staring us squarely in the face today. If we work together, it can be achieved. The writer is a senior adviser to the Combat Antisemitism Movement and chairman of the board of trustees of World ORT.

Read the original:

Germanys moment has arrived to tackle European antisemitism - The Jerusalem Post

Category: Holocaust Denial | Comments Off on Germanys moment has arrived to tackle European antisemitism – The Jerusalem Post
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 9, 2020

Mark ZuckerbergPhotographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

Advertisers are taking a stand against Facebooks stance on hate speech, and it's causing the social media giant some bruises. On 26 June, the share price nosedived 8%, costing Mark Zuckerberg $7 billion (R119 billion).

Zuckerberg has since given asomewhat flip response that the advertisers will be back "soon enough", adding that:

"We're not going to change our policies or approach on anything because of a threat to a small percent of our revenue."

But since the killing of George Floyd at the hands of the Minnesota police in May 2020, the world has been taking a very deep, introspective look at itself. Many companies are owning up to systemic racism and consumers are starting to hold companies, celebrities, and individuals to account for the things that they do and say.

Free speech or hate speech?

In the wake of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, one of the things that has really come to the fore is the argument about free speech vs. hate speech. Our view is that hate speech of any kind can simply not be tolerated. To make anybody feel less than they should be is simply abhorrent. To belittle people, or discriminate against them is not acceptable. It is globally felt that social media platforms have been complicit in giving airtime to hate speech, veiled behind the curtain of freedom of speech and a stance against the censorship of content. Whilst there is some merit in this, freedom of speech cannot ever be used to cover hate speech. But the world is now taking a stand.

Some social media platforms are listening. Twitter has taken on Donald Trump, labelling some of his tweets as a violation of their rules about abusive behaviour, or putting fact checking labels on some of his more outrageous statements. Snapchat has stopped promoting Donald Trumps account meaning it will no longer be discoverable. Snapchat said that it would not "amplify voices who incite racial violence and injustice".

Facebook, on the other hand, has been very reticent to follow suit. This has led to an internal staff revoltagainst Mark Zuckerberg, and more recently an initiative led by civil rights activists in the US to encourage advertisers to boycott the platform until reforms to Facebooks policies are made. They say Facebook has failed in a number of ways: by allowing posts that incite violence against #BLM protestors, for not removing holocaust denial content, by making right-wing website Breitbart a trusted news source, and for allowing the platform to be used to suppress voting because of fake news.

The initiative is gaining traction with some notably big global brands backing the boycott. So far, we have seen Coca-Cola, Diageo, Honda America, Levi Strauss, The North Face, Patagonia, Starbucks, Unilever, and Verizon all lending their support to this growing boycott. All in all, over 100 advertisers have joined the campaign.

But will it make a difference?

Facebook has over 8 million advertisers. The vast majority of them are small, local businesses. Big advertisers only make up a small percentage of Facebooks total ad revenue, and whilst it is admirable that these 100 advertisers are taking a stand for what is right, their spend, however, is just a drop in the big blue Facebook ocean. Also, the majority of these brands are only "pausing" their advertising in the US.

In my humble opinion, if they really wanted to make a statement, they should support the boycott on a global level that might make more of an impact. Additionally, the boycott, in most instances is only slated for the month of July. But what about after July? Are black lives only important for a month? Is there a shelf-life on hate speech, fake news, and disinformation?

The bigger question is will this actually force Facebook to make changes to their policies on hate speech and racism?

Boycotts of Facebook have come and gone remember Cambridge Analytica? Advertisers boycotted Facebook then too. Consumers threatened to delete their Facebook accounts in protest. But nobody actually did. Facebook still grew by 2% in the quarter after the scandal broke. The advertisers all came back.

Why? Because Facebook is too valuable a platform to ignore. They are big. They have millions of consumers who spend an inordinate amount of time on the platform. Advertising works. Whilst it is certainly admirable that big business is taking a stand like this, how long will it last? How long before profit trumps (not Donald) principle?

Will Facebook make the changes that everyone is campaigning for? Maybe. But if advertisers only boycott for a month, this will be a small blip on Facebooks financial statement. The share price will recover. The revenues will return. For what it is worth, Facebook have made some platitudes to advertisers about closing the "trust deficit"and Mark Zuckerberg has in recent days made promisesto do more.

Time will tell if this will an historic moment for change, or simply a small profit warning for shareholders in Q3 of 2020.

Richard Lord is Media & Operations Director at Meta Media. Views expressed are his own.

Follow this link:

OPINION | Zuckerberg says advertisers will be back 'soon enough'. Sadly, he might be right - News24

Category: Holocaust Denial | Comments Off on OPINION | Zuckerberg says advertisers will be back ‘soon enough’. Sadly, he might be right – News24
Tags:

Posted By admin on July 7, 2020

Luke 2:39-52

As we read scripture, it is often difficult for mere mortals to wrap our minds around the fact of eternity. We, as humans, are locked into the system known as time interval between two events. For the Son of God to leave the splendors of heaven, and dwell among fallen mankind, can boggle our sinful minds.

Most people in our society are familiar with the Christmas Story. Luke 2:1-7. The unfolding of this beautiful event is celebrated each year. The divine record tells of the puppet king attempting to destroy the Son of God. Matthew 2:13, 14. After the return of this family from Egypt, the Record is silent regarding events of the next few years of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

Jewish history and tradition give us some hints regarding the early years of the life of the Son of God. The usual expectation was for the male children to attend school in the local synagogue. The major content of this education was focused on the Law of Moses.

The Gospel of Luke written to the Greeks summarized these first years. And the child grew, and waxed strong (i.e., increased in vigor) in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. Luke 2:40.

During these silent years, the family did not slack in the religious education of the household. This account is quite clear Now his [Jesus] parents went to Jerusalem [from Nazareth] every year at the feast of the passover. Luke 2:41.

To the casual observer, this particular journey would have held no great significance. However, this specific year was important for the Son and the family. The tradition at that time and it continues to this day is the celebration of bar mitzvah for the son reaching the age of twelve or thirteen. (Webster). This celebration indicates this young one to be a son of the Law. However, the is no indication in scripture that this ceremony was part of this event in the life of Jesus.

The celebration of the Passover was important to the family and the nation. This feast included the great Day of Atonement. At this time a lamb would be offered for the sins of the whole nation, and national sins were confessed by the high priest. Later, John the Baptist would introduce Jesus of Nazareth as the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. John 1:29.

When the group of pilgrims left Jerusalem following the feast, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem: and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. Luke 2:43b. This fact was not an example of parental neglect. At the age of 12, Jesus was considered old enough for personal responsibilities. Luke points out this fact in his record But they supposing him have been in the company, went a days journey. Luke 2:44a. When the caravan stopped for the night, they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. Luke 2:44b.

One can only imagine the distress that Joseph and Mary experienced as they made their frantic search. From the context, it seems that they did not delay in their return trip And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. Luke 2:45.

There must have been a frantic search in the city. We are told, And it came to pass, that after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors (teachers), both hearing them, and asking them questions. Luke 2:46. One can only imagine how this session began. We can speculate that this Young One must have begun to ask questions regarding the matters of the Law. These wise ones might have been required to re-think some of the lessons that had been taught. The applications that had, once, glibly tripped from their lips might not have seemed so simple in the light of the questions that they met at this time.

The sessions that unfolded in the temple at that time included both hearing and asking questions. As we consider teaching sessions in our day, what is the common format? Are we willing to accept questions regarding the doctrines and principles that we teach? The Apostle Peter instructed believers that we should be ready always to give an answer to every man (one) that asketh you a reason (as one with authority) of (concerning) the hope that is in you with meekness (controlled strength) and fear (reverence). 1 Peter 3:15. This admonition leaves no room for one to show any kind of great spiritual superiority. We must all learn from the same Source. See Matthew 11:29.

Those who heard the discussions in the temple that day were astonished (amazed; astounded) at his [Jesus] understanding and answers. Luke 2:46. The observers knew the age of this One who was holding these hearers spellbound.

The parents did not expect to witness the scene, as it unfolded And when they saw him, they were amazed. Luke 2:48a. Finally, his mother said unto him, Son why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father [in the foster sense] and I have sought thee sorrowing (grieving). Luke 2:48b, c.

The answer given did not come from arrogance nor rebellion. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? Wist (know) ye not that I must be about my Fathers business [implied affairs]? Luke 2:49. These are the first recorded words of Jesus. His last words on the cross were It is finished. John 19:30.

The importance of these words of the 12-year-old did not register with His earthly parents. Luke recorded that they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. Luke 2:50.

As Luke continued his record, he wrote, And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject (Note: a military term, to rank under) unto them: but his mother kept all these saying in her heart. Luke 2:51. The next eighteen years are summarized, And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man. Luke 2:52. During this time, Jesus learned the trade of a carpenter. Later, this fact astonished His critics, but did not change His divine mission.

Are we faithful the mission that is our assignment? Whatever our position in life, we are all called to be witnesses for our Lord. Acts 1:8.

Rev. James C. Temples Sunday School Lesson has appeared in the Early County News each week since 1967. A native of Early County, Rev. Temples taught in public schools 32 years and 10 years at Southeastern College of Assemblies of God, in Lakeland, Fla. He also served as pastor and evangelist during those years. He can be contacted at P. O. Box 1484, Swainsboro, GA 30401; 478-299-2068. Email: temples_james@yahoo.com

Continued here:

The boy Jesus in the synagogue - Early County News

Category: Synagogue | Comments Off on The boy Jesus in the synagogue – Early County News
Tags: