Jewry
The reality of anti-Semitism
Anti-Semitism is an ugly reality. In Canada it has expressed itself during the last year in synagogue vandalism and the desecration of graveyards in several cities – Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver and Hamilton.
Most, perhaps all of this activity is carried out by members of tiny, but active white supremacist and other racist groups or by skinheads. These, in turn, appear to receive their “inspiration” from writers who saddle Jewish Canadians with various “conspiracy” theories, or accuse them as falsifiers of truth. They deny the reality of the immense suffering during World War II when Nazism almost brought about Jewry’s total destruction. Among such agitators are Toronto’s Ernst Zundel, Alberta’s Jim Keegstra and New Brunswick’s Malcolm Ross, all well-known today for their spurious writings.
The reality of Canadian anti-Semitism calls for vigorous efforts to stamp it out. However, such support should not lead people to close their eyes to certain dangerous attitudes adopted by some Jewish agencies and individuals.
A previous comment (The Interim, June 1990), drew attention to one such view, namely the suggestion that Jews should consider opposition to abortion a form of anti-Semitism. Another comment (The Interim, July/August 1990), concerned history professor Stephen Scheinberg’s unwarranted attempt to stick the anti-Semitic label on Montreal Pro-Life. Both incidents are examples of broadening the term “anti-Semitism” to include matters which have nothing to do with it.
False anti-Semitism
The trend to broaden the charge of anti-Semitism is quite evident in the Canadian Jewish News (CJN), a weekly published in Toronto, and also in the monthly organ of the Jewish anti-defamation league, B’nai B’rith Covenant. One recent example is the attack on the Vancouver paper The North Shore News, a paper we like because it carries a pro-life columnist, Paul Nielsen.
Apparently some of its other columnists are critical of Israel policies vis-à-vis Arabs. This led one subscriber, an Anglican minister by the name of Ed Hird, to write a lengthy letter to the editor in which he explained that while he was not certain, he thought he perceived a certain drift towards regular criticism of Israel, especially by columnist Doug Collins. Being fair minded, The North Shore News printed the letter.
Thereupon CJN made the letter the subject of an article of its own, quoting widely from it, including its premise that to be anti-Israel is to be anti-Semitic. CJN further noted that the News is also critical of the RCMP permitting Sikhs to wear turbans. It then packaged the two arguments under the title “Anti-Semitism, racism denounced in various forums.” (May 24, 1990)
This is not only massive overkill, it is downright wrong. Canadians, including Jewish Canadians, should not confuse (rational) criticism of Israel or things Jewish with anti-Semitism. Moreover, to call opposition to turbans as part of RCMP uniforms “racism” is another radical inflation of terminology. Nothing but harm can come from this trend.
A second example of this inflation of the term anti-Semitism came in a full-page CJN advertisement (June 28, 1990), on behalf of financial support for “Operation Exodus.” Operation Exodus is an effort to raise funds for Jews leaving the Soviet Union for Israel. The ad carried a 1939 black and white photo of a Nazi motorcycle policeman in front of a Berlin (?) department store, the latter marked with the words “Jude” and the Star of David. The ad’s heading above it read in large type, “In 1939 we did not know what to do,” and underneath it, “In 1990, we do!”
So now Gorbachev becomes another Hitler, the people of the Soviet Union are Nazis, and all this on the basis of haphazard reports and rumors, as often contradicted as not, of local hostile feelings as not, of local hostile feelings against Jews. In other words, this sort of advertisement to raise money for Israel becomes itself a source for spawning hatred.
Use sparingly
Anti-Semitism and racism are terms which should be used sparingly and accurately, and only to describe irrational hatred directed against people for no other reason than their racial characteristics. Any other use of these terms will achieve the exact opposite of their intended purpose; that is, inflame rather than diminish such sentiments.
Already, such a process has destroyed the meaning of homophobia. Readers will note in an article in the November issue, that the concept of censorship is falling victim to the same abuse.
United Church
The final nail
The final nail was hammered into the coffin of the United Church of Canada on August 21, 1990. How long it will take the coffin to get to the cemetery remains to be seen.
Delegates to the church’s 33rd General Council (GC) voted 302 to 74 to reaffirm the 1988 decision to accept sodomy as a lifestyle acceptable and proper to its licensed ministers.
Following the vote, executive members of Community of Concern each wore a black sash as a symbol of mourning. In early September, Rev. Gordon Ross, executive director of the group which claims 50,000 members, announced his departure form the church.
Others of the group, however, are staying in the hop – once again – that the course of direction can still be changed. Common sense tells one that they are working under an illusion.
Ecumenism
Is ecumenical dialogue on an official level – as distinct from personal encounters – still possible between, let us say, the Catholic Church in Canada and the United Church?
It is true that inter-faith dialogue should not be reduced to one issue such as sodomy. Important as it may be. Communities of faith speak to a host of issues important to mankind. But there are two factors one has to keep in mind.
Traditionally, the theology of the United Church has been far apart from Catholic theology. While historical doctrine and correct teaching is of the highest importance to Catholics, the United Church dismisses these almost out of hand, it sees itself as a constantly evolving community, speaking chiefly to the social issues of the day.
In addition, the UC approval of the sodomite lifestyle is only the last of a series of decisions on sexual and family morality. Approval of abortion in 1959 was the first of many which today places this community in direct and outspoken opposition to the Catholic Church on a wide spectrum of moral issues.
The decision’s meaning
One should be very clear about the meaning of the decision. This is not only the end of a chapter – it is the beginning of a new one.
As the report by Gordon Ross in the July 1990 issue of Community Concerns shows, approval is not a question only of passive toleration; it passes at once over to active promotion.
Immorality and secularism, as The Interim has pointed out over the years, is never neutral.
As the Report notes the British Columbia Conference approved a petition to the GC that the UC adopt an employment policy prohibiting discrimination, on the grounds of sexual orientation at all levels of the church’s life.
In November 1989, the GC executive requested the Division of Ministry Personnel and Education “to make specific provision for the pastoral and financial support and advocacy for persons in the order of ministry who are experiencing difficulty in obtaining employment because of sexual orientation.”
Finally the Report observes that at several conference meetings the standard of “fidelity in marriage and chastity in singleness” was rejected.
Other Churches
On January 20, in defense of church law, a disciplinary committee of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America suspended two small San Francisco congregations for “ordaining” a lesbian couple and a homosexual man.
The General Synod of the Reformed Church in America (RCA), meeting in Iowa, issued a firm statement condemning homosexual practice.
In July of this year, at the World Mennonite Conference in Winnipeg (attended by 12,000 members) James Lapp, executive-secretary of the Mennonite Church in North America, said “as a church we do not approve of homosexual relationships.” However, he said, that he hopes the Mennonites will become more “tolerant” in the future.
