president obama » ADL Blogs
Posts Tagged ‘president obama’
January 20, 2015 0

Calling Radical Islam What It Is

By Abra­ham H. Fox­man
National Direc­tor of the Anti-Defamation League

This arti­cle orig­i­nally appeared on The Huff­in­g­ton Post Blog

If we want to win the war against rad­i­cal Islam — and in my view it should be the num­ber one pri­or­ity of the West­ern and Mus­lim worlds — we need to call it what it is. Too often, out of a mis­placed sense of polit­i­cal cor­rect­ness, polit­i­cal lead­ers, includ­ing Pres­i­dent Barack Obama and French Pres­i­dent Fran­coise Hol­lande, avoid iden­ti­fy­ing the extrem­ists as pro­po­nents of a rad­i­cal Islamic ideology.

The solu­tion to the threat lies pri­mar­ily within the Mus­lim world itself. Main­stream Mus­lims must on every level, start­ing with edu­ca­tion, dis­cour­age young peo­ple from tak­ing the extrem­ist path. But if we in the West are reluc­tant to explic­itly say what it is, why should Mus­lim mod­er­ates speak and act?

I address this as some­one who rep­re­sents an orga­ni­za­tion that stands up against defam­ing of Mus­lims in gen­eral or Islam as a reli­gion. When indi­vid­u­als try to show their bona fides in sup­port of Israel by claim­ing that Islam as a reli­gion is ter­ror­ist or that most Mus­lims are, we stand up to say no.

In Europe, the hes­i­tancy to say the words “rad­i­cal Islam” may largely be the prod­uct of intim­i­da­tion or the fear of vio­lent retal­i­a­tion. That is why the com­ments by French Prime Min­is­ter Manuel Valls before the French Par­lia­ment and in an inter­view with Jef­frey Gold­berg of the Atlantic are so important.

He pulled no punches and told it like it is. The enemy is rad­i­cal Islam. French soci­ety must stand up against the out­rage com­mit­ted by jihadists against France and against the Jews of France. The jihadist ide­ol­ogy surely does not rep­re­sent most Mus­lims and it is a hijack­ing of Islam, but the incite­ment to vio­lence and the acts of ter­ror are done in the name of Islam and influ­enced by teach­ers of fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam in schools and other insti­tu­tions through­out the Mus­lim world.

As Michael Walzer has writ­ten, it is not prej­u­dice but ratio­nal to fear Islamism, as opposed to Islam. When ele­ments within a reli­gious com­mu­nity pro­mote anti-democratic atti­tudes and anti-Semitism, and turn to ter­ror, anti-democratic atti­tudes, and anti-Semitism, it is not racist to oppose it forcefully.

There is noth­ing sim­ple about try­ing to fig­ure out how to defeat the rise of this rad­i­cal­ism within the Mus­lim world.  Social, eco­nomic and polit­i­cal forces within Mus­lim coun­tries and in rela­tions between the west and the Mus­lim world all con­tribute to it.

But what we know from past strug­gles against total­i­tar­ian move­ments, whether Nazism or Com­mu­nism, is that they require clear and prin­ci­pled think­ing to directly engage the danger.

That starts with say­ing that Islam and Mus­lims are not the enemy, they are part of the solu­tion.  We need to empha­size and acknowl­edge that there is prej­u­dice against Mus­lims because of recent events and to emphat­i­cally oppose it.

But we also must not hes­i­tate to point out that those who suf­fer the most from rad­i­cal Islam are Mus­lims them­selves. Just think of the recent news in Pak­istan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Nige­ria: Mus­lims being mur­dered, mosques being attacked by extrem­ist Muslims.

The basic mes­sage from polit­i­cal, reli­gious and civic lead­ers must be that all good peo­ple are in this strug­gle together. The Islamic extrem­ists are a threat to Mus­lims, a threat to Jews, a threat to civilization.

Just like the strug­gle against Nazism and Com­mu­nism were defeated by a col­lec­tive effort and by a set of clear ideas, this 21st cen­tury strug­gle can be won as well.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

March 25, 2014 1

The Hobby Lobby Case — It’s Not Okay To Discriminate In The Name of Religion

This week, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral argu­ments in two con­sol­i­dated cases where own­ers of for-profit, sec­u­lar cor­po­ra­tions chal­lenge the fed­eral Afford­able Care Act’s (ACA) con­tra­cep­tion man­date as a vio­la­tion of their reli­gious free­dom rights.

The names of the two cases are Sebe­lius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Con­estoga Wood Spe­cial­ties Corp. v. Sebe­lius. hobby lobby

The ACA requires cov­ered employ­ers to pro­vide a full range of pre­ven­ta­tive health care and screen­ing ser­vices, includ­ing con­tra­cep­tives and birth con­trol, in their employer-sponsored health care plans. Refer­ring to the con­tra­cep­tion cov­er­age as a “man­date” is actu­ally a mis­nomer because employ­ers have the option of pay­ing a mod­est tax instead of pro­vid­ing com­pre­hen­sive health insur­ance. And that tax is often less expen­sive than pro­vi­sion of employee health insurance.

How­ever, rec­og­niz­ing reli­gious sen­si­bil­i­ties sur­round­ing con­tra­cep­tion and abor­tion, the Obama Admin­is­tra­tion worked hard to accom­mo­date dif­fer­ing reli­gious views. The so-called ACA con­tra­cep­tive man­date does not apply to non-profit reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions (like a church or syn­a­gogue) and religiously-affiliated orga­ni­za­tions (like church-affiliated schools) can eas­ily opt out of the require­ment by sign­ing and fil­ing a one-page form.

The fervently-religious own­ers of Hobby Lobby, a large chain of arts and crafts stores that employs over 13,000 peo­ple at over 500 loca­tions, brought suit against the man­date because they object to cer­tain forms of con­tra­cep­tion. The Tenth Cir­cuit Court of Appeals upheld their chal­lenge, decid­ing that the fed­eral Reli­gious Free­dom Restora­tion Act (RFRA) applies to cor­po­ra­tions and that the fed­eral gov­ern­ment ACA con­tra­cep­tive man­date sub­stan­tially bur­dens the own­ers’ reli­gious practice.

The own­ers of Con­estoga Wood, a com­pany that employs hun­dreds of peo­ple that makes cab­i­nets and other wood­work­ing prod­ucts, sim­i­larly object, on reli­gious grounds, to pro­vid­ing con­tra­cep­tives to their employ­ees. How­ever, in this case, the Third Cir­cuit Court of Appeals, in con­trast to the Tenth Cir­cuit, decided that for-profit sec­u­lar cor­po­ra­tions can­not engage in reli­gious speech and are there­fore not pro­tected under the RFRA.

RFRA requires the fed­eral gov­ern­ment to demon­strate a com­pelling inter­est where it “sub­stan­tially bur­dens” a person’s reli­gious exer­cise. ADL strongly sup­ported the enact­ment of this 1993 statute, which was intended to be a shield against reli­gious dis­crim­i­na­tion. But in this case, the own­ers of Hobby Lobby and Con­estoga are attempt­ing to use RFRA as a sword – giv­ing them license to impose their reli­gious beliefs on oth­ers. That under­mines the pur­pose of the statute, and turns reli­gious free­dom on its head. There is no doubt that RFRA could not have been enacted into law if it had been antic­i­pated that it would later be used by cor­po­rate own­ers to thwart anti-discrimination laws or the reli­gious free­dom of com­pany employees.

ADL joined a coali­tion brief with a diverse group of more than two dozen faith-based orga­ni­za­tions. The brief, pre­pared by Amer­i­cans United for Sep­a­ra­tion of Church and State, argues that apply­ing the con­cep­tion reg­u­la­tions to the cor­po­ra­tions does not sub­stan­tially bur­den reli­gion. For-profit cor­po­rate enti­ties do not prac­tice reli­gion. And because the legally dis­tinct cor­po­ra­tions would actu­ally pay for and pro­vide the com­pre­hen­sive health insur­ance, any reli­gious bur­den on their own­ers is min­i­mal. Not to men­tion that the own­ers have the option of their cor­po­ra­tions pay­ing a mod­est tax instead of pro­vid­ing com­pre­hen­sive insurance.

The brief fur­ther asserts that Amer­i­cans do not lose their reli­gious free­dom when they estab­lish for profit busi­nesses. But the reli­gious beliefs of these employ­ers should not be imposed on third par­ties – their employ­ees – and the own­ers’ rights can­not trump the reli­gious rights of their employees.

It would be hard to over­state the stakes for reli­gious lib­erty and equal­ity in these two cases. The Amer­i­can work­force is highly diverse. Allow­ing sec­u­lar cor­po­rate own­ers to restrict access to afford­able con­tra­cep­tives on the basis of reli­gion dis­crim­i­nates against women and lim­its their equal­ity and inde­pen­dence. Approval of this action by the Court would also be a grave blow to reli­gious free­dom in this coun­try – and open the door to the specter of work­place dis­crim­i­na­tion and for-profit com­pa­nies deny­ing cov­er­age for other essen­tial med­ical ser­vices that some own­ers might deem reli­giously offen­sive, such as blood trans­fu­sions, psy­chi­atric care, and vaccinations.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,