To the Editor,
I take issue with a recent editorial in The Times. Here are some quotes from it that describe the Island: “In a community like Martha’s Vineyard, where people rally to help one another at every turn,” and “The Island is a welcoming, diverse, and tolerant place. It’s easy to get comfortable and not realize that even here there can be underlying intolerance for people.” I call poppycock. The town of West Tisbury has exclusive policies at Lambert’s Cove Beach, a town park. These policies aren’t “underlying intolerance”; they are overt. To ignore this while championing “a community like Martha’s Vineyard” is either complicit or moronic. Silence is my validation; end beach apartheid.
Erik Albert
Oak Bluffs
You have been on a years-long personal campaign, one that steals a loaded, culturally significant word like apartheid to make a trivial point. The editorial you’re referring to was written about a hate crime. Why are you talking about beach privileges when the discussion was serious discrimination? The kind that leads to violence and suicide. Taking quotes out of context and applying them to a lesser topic is not fair or helpful.
I agree that all MV beaches should be open to all MV residents. Maybe people would take you more seriously if you adopted a less offensive approach. Google has many examples of what “beach apartheid” really means, even in today’s world. It’s not entirely over. Please stop using that label.
Aquinnah please explain to me what a hate crime is. Anyone can burn an American flag with impunity but not a gay pride flag? One guy got 16 years the other day for doing just that. Calling the police ‘pigs” or singing ”F—da police” also no problem. Hilary can call many ”deplorables” and Obama calling many ”troglodytes” or Ilhan Omar saying ”its all about the Benjamins” The US doesn’t have any hate speech laws unlike Europe or Canada or American Universities. Maybe we should have hate crime laws so that from now on all crimes will be motivated by love. Free speech means free speech and while it may be cruel and boring to deny the Holocaust, it shouldn’t be a crime and it isn’t. Maybe it will be a crime to deny climate change. I think using Apartheid for the beaches is silly but the hate crime thing is dumb also. I notice you use the term ”serious discrimination” which means you are creating a new category.
Andrew,
I said “serious discrimination” because there is a difference between targeting or oppressing a select group of people for their biological differences and telling beachgoers who choose to live in Edgartown that they can’t sun themselves on up-Island sand. One has a much greater impact on everyday life, hence “serious”. Figured that was obvious. If you want to label the latter example as discrimination, too, fine. I already stated that I support equal beach access for everyone on MV, but our annoying policies are not comparable to having to worry about safety and basic rights. Not in any way, shape, or form. The author of this letter intentionally conflated two wildly different issues by taking the editor’s words out context.
You seem to nitpick words in an attempt to invalidate broader points, never speaking to the heart of an issue. It makes it hard to talk to you because I’m not discussing these topics to “win” at some abstract debate. I’m just trying to say we need positive change and support for everyone who feels ostracized. Why is that a bad stance to take? Are you really okay with knowing that some of our neighbors don’t feel welcome just because of their sexuality?
A hate crime is defined as being motivated by prejudice. It usually targets a minority group. The FBI has used this term since WWI. Plenty of info on its history is available to you. It’s a means of tracking and trying to eliminate a specific problem with a common denominator, one that most people (I hope?) find totally unacceptable and want to see eliminated. That doesn’t mean I approve of crimes that are classified under a different label or department.
Placing homophobic decals on a church is a hate crime for a few reasons. One, it’s illegal to deface property. So that speaks to the whole “crime” portion of the term. Posting those decals IS NOT covered under “free speech is free speech”. Tagging a church isn’t the same as quoting rap.
Two, it was meant, on no uncertain terms, to target and shame people based on their sexual orientation and gender identification. That’s why their flag’s image was stolen and misused. There is an intimidation factor here. There always is. Why do you think people deface Jewish temples with swastikas? Are you okay with that? If you’re not, please try to see that it’s the same exact tactic. It’s a coward’s way of declaring, “I see you and I disapprove of you. I need for you to know it and feel fear”. Wouldn’t you agree that’s a disgusting way to treat others? Are we really even having this discussion? It’s surreal to me.
Three — and I feel I misspoke about this in a previous post, for which I am sorry — the decals are also a hate crime because they targeted those churches based on their religious beliefs. I said before that there was no religious persecution involved in this incident. There was. It’s just not of the same variety that you and the pastor were trying to claim. The churches who have chosen to display pride flags or otherwise make their acceptance for LGBTQ known were victimized for their shows of support. Their choice to promote inclusivity is based on *their* interpretation of Christianity. It doesn’t matter if you or other Christians agree or disagree with that take. Their right to practice as *they* see fit without being a target for criminal activity is a cornerstone of all those rights you keep mentioning. Well, someone trampled those rights. That the people doing the defacing are probably also Christian doesn’t make it any better.
This is all really simple. I feel you are overcomplicating it. Imagine you went to church one day and someone had put up a giant poster that showed Jesus being defiled. Next to that image, they’ve written something from a Satanic text. Would we even be arguing whether this were a crime fueled by prejudice? Whether your church had been unfairly attacked and mocked? I don’t think so. I think you’d see right away how wrong that is and why it should be illegal. And I’d back you up, because you have a right to attend church without having that filth shoved in your face. Same exact concept applies here.
The time to care about rights and basic decency isn’t when it starts to affect you and yours. You should care about others’ rights, too, at all times. It bothers me that anyone would put energy into questioning the *denouncement* of a crime rather than the crime itself.
P.S. I don’t think it should be a crime to deny climate change. I am 1000% in favor of environmental efforts, but I argued against censorship on this topic because I believe the only way to educate people is through healthy debate and further sharing of info. You could say I’m naive, and you’d probably be right.
You have to be very white and very privileged to feign ignorance of what a hate crime is. Too many privileged white men can’t imagine what it would be like to be beat up/shot/stopped by police for the crime of driving or walking while black. Or attacked in the street by thugs for walking while looking too Jewish. FYI, Andrew, too many cops do indeed deserve the moniker, “pig”, especially in certain neighborhoods. Heck, I can think of a nice neighborhood with a resigned, local police chief who did indeed behave like a pig, with no offense to real pigs. The majority of our police are heroes, but unfortunately too many are racist, bullying pigs. Further, the inability to empathize with a minority group who routinely experience harassment and violence and discrimination, simply for existing as black, Jewish, Muslim, gay, Mexican, or anyone e else the white Christian evangelicals have determined to be lesser humans, and you have Andrew demanding an explanation of what a hate crime is.
It remains a fake Christianity that does not condemn separating children from their parents, including families legally seeking asylum in this country. Privileged white evangelicals who claim to be Christian, remain mute on this sin and further sin themselves by supporting the administration that enacts this act of hate and inhumanity.
Jackie, speaking of the very privileged… I went through the archives and read the older “end beach apartheid” letters. The author makes a point of telling us that he doesn’t even want to visit Lambert’s Cove. That he is pushing this on “principle” alone. Due to “ethics” that he picked up during his skateboarding/punk youth, as if that somehow makes him more enlightened than the unwashed townsfolk. As though his experience (with… skateboards?) qualifies him to preach about segregation.
Struck me as an ironic angle to take, given how ignorant his slogan is. Again, I have no issue with the gist of the campaign, if done respectfully. (Though some commenters on previous letters did make good points that counter Albert’s demands.) But to invoke principle and ethics, of all things, while flippantly misusing a concept? One that included innumerable human rights violations, the effects of which are still felt today by some who visit beaches in South Africa?
It’s the most affluenza-y thing I’ve seen in a minute.
And yes, same goes for people who ignore or trivialize hate crimes. I have never heard of anyone who is at high risk for being a target question the validity of this category. It’s always those who can afford to look the other way. They are the same people who then bitterly argue that privilege doesn’t exist. It’s like watching a man look for his glasses while they’re atop his head. Very depressing.
Andrew– You should check out what really happened to the guy sentenced to 16 years for burning a gay pride flag.
First, under Iowa’s “habitual offender” (republican idea) laws, any sentence imposed is automatically tripled for anyone who has been convicted of 2 previous class c or D felonies. So let’s be clear, he got 10 of those years for being a “habitual offender”
He was convicted of arson, and had threatened to burn a gay bar to the ground while it was occupied.
The fact that he decided to use that particular flag had very little to do with the actual sentence.
Should we have no “hate crime” laws ?
Your comment is misleading. He would have gotten at least 13 years if he had used an American flag.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/iowa-man-16-years-lgbt-flag/
Aquinnah you are mixing various subjects. You are a very clear and gifted writer. Burning flags is not a good idea and I dont see the difference between burning a gay pride one or a simple american flag. I wouldnt load one flag over another flag with more invective. Ostracizing is not good no matter who is the target. Vandalism is not good under any circumstances. Discrimination is not good ever. I am consistent on these points. Where you and other liberals go hysterical is when you hear someone say they disagree rather than discriminate. You think its the same thing and it is not. It is not bigoted to disagree with same sex marriage. It is a terrible thing to beat some one up due to their sexual predilections. As for religious persecution i have been targeted big time by Jackie and dondondon on these pages with ”hate” speech but you wouldnt call it that. A crime is a crime and I wouldnt create another category for it to make it somehow even more heinous. I never mentioned the church flag and its vandalism. That is and was a crime and shouldnt have been done.
Andrew, thank you for the kind words about my writing. I am glad it came across clearly. I don’t see how I was mixing various topics. You mentioned a bunch of different incidents at once, and I was trying to comment on as many as possible. You brought up my use of “serious discrimination”, so I wanted to further explain why I made that distinction. It’s important. You asked me to define hate crimes, so I dedicated the rest of the message to attempting that. I used the local anti-LGBTQ defacement as my example because those were the “hate crimes” in question. The ones referenced in the editorial that Erik Albert wrote in about, and the ones I originally commented on under this letter.
I am not a liberal. I have never belonged to or approved of political parties. I am also not hysterical. Maybe tone is not conveyed well through typing. Most of my posts on these matters come from a calm, albeit sad, place. I do feel passionately about gay rights. The impact of violating those rights has caused immeasurable harm. But passion only becomes hysteria when we fail to temper its urgency with careful consideration. I try to think things through the best I can before hitting send. The angriest message I’ve posted here was under an article from the other day about drinking and driving. I have less than zero tolerance for it. For our pitiful “penalties”. It makes my blood boil, but that topic is another animal.
I don’t agree with burning any flag. I am not patriotic, but it’s simply something I would not do and don’t see as productive. The man who burned the pride flag in Iowa was given sixteen years because he is now a felon thrice over. Iowa has much harsher penalties for repeat offenders. He also admitted, on recording, that he did this out of antipathy towards gay people. And that he has no remorse. Given all those factors, the judge deemed him dangerous. I agree. He is, and his sights are set on one minority group that is often targeted disproportionately. That scares me. This does not mean I want to see straight people become victims of violent crime. I don’t. Ever. But if one group of people is at a higher risk for being assaulted, it seems prudent to me to make protecting them a priority. Not the sole priority. But *a* priority, absolutely. In my eyes, that protection is not limited to law enforcement. It starts with community. It starts with all of us loudly and consistently taking a stand against the thinking driving those attacks, so that people don’t feel so emboldened as to believe they can get away with it.
That said, if a felon with multiple crimes under his belt walked into a bar and lit an American flag on fire, I’d be fine with locking him or her up, too. That behavior has no regard for public safety and is not indicative of a stable person. I can still see some differences between American flags and pride flags, and there are intricacies when it comes to hate crimes, but it’s probably best for me not to draw that topic out right now. Regardless of what we call it, I’m fed up with people being targeted for their mere existence.
Yes, people can certainly be hateful towards the religious during heated discussions. And the religious can be hateful towards those outside of their group. I wish it wouldn’t come to that. Have a bunch of potentially conflicting thoughts that are too lengthy to share. In the end, I try to stick with the principle that it’s better to challenge the belief itself, as a concept from a text, than attack the believer, unless the believer is justifying doing harm to others or engaging in bad behavior. There are situations where damaging religious *messages* have to be addressed, but I am not in favor of harassing anyone solely for how they identify.
Sometimes disagreement is the same thing as discrimination, especially when one wants to use an opposing opinion to deny another’s civil rights. Disagreeing with the legalization of gay marriage is the epitome of discrimination because it seeks to deny only a fraction of the population the very same right we give everyone else. It’s also not consistent with what you stated your values to be. I remember you saying several times that you are anti-promiscuity and pro-monogamy. I think that’s fine. Gay marriage is a monogamous commitment. I feel you should support those unions if you argue monogamy has merit. I honestly don’t understand what you expect from gay people? You don’t want them to have multiple partners. You don’t want them to marry. So-called conversion therapy has been scientifically proven to create great mental distress while being ineffective. It’s abuse. What’s left? Do you feel gay people should have to live in forced solitude?
Aquinnah, you continue to say ”seeks to deny” gay rights when I have unequivocally said I dont deny rights. Gays can live together but dont call it marriage. Otherwise polygamy can be called marriage and the whole meaning of it will evolve and take on new substance. 16 years for flag burning is excessive and you know it and we dont lock people up because of what we think they might do in the future. It is not a felony to burn a flag. Jackie can learn from you to write clearly and without malice. She spews invective and untruth and cannot hold two sentences together with any cohesion. She simply attacks with hyperbole and illogical juxtapositions. Chilmark Seven has created a new definition that would make him or her ”bigoted” towards Trump. The ”cult” I ostensibly belong to has several billion members including many in the Democratic Party like Pelosi. The Catholic Church is the most consistent against abortion and homosexuality of all denominations and yet she belongs to that ”cult”. I have never attacked Jackie as being Jewish but simply reminded her that Jews are the seeds of Abraham and the Torah is the antecedent of my Christian faith. She ought to read it and the prophecy of Isaiah. I have told her that there anre many Jews who view Jesus as the Messiah and she says they cant be Jews anymore. Is that intolerant and bigoted. To deny ones Jewishness? If a Jew is a buddhist, they arent Jews anymore? Give me a break.
Andrew, You say ” Gays can live together but don’t call it marriage. Otherwise polygamy can be called marriage” . May I remind you that same sex marriage is a “right” in this country, polygamy is illegal.
Referring to a “cult” as a “cult” or the beliefs of said cult members as “fairy tales” is not hate speech or discriminatory. If I were say that people can be christian, but could not receive communion in the church of their choice, then I would be getting a little closer to your attitudes about the rights of the LGBTQ community.
Andrew– to say Adolfo Martinez got 16 years for burning a gay pride flag is a lie, and you know it.
Shame on you
Andrew, I’ll play along, but I should tell you that directing a whining comment about me to someone other than me doesn’t make much sense.
“Gays can live together but don’t call it marriage”. We wouldn’t want to sully the meaning of marriage, especially when the Chosen One makes such a mockery of it.
I’m sorry my sentences are so unclearly written. Amazingly, though, you’ve gleaned something quite strong about what I have to say.
You are being untruthful when you align a cult religion with mainstream Christian faiths. Also, you are nothing like Nancy Pelosi.
Jews do not believe Jesus is the messiah. Those jews who do have converted and are Christian. That’s what Christianity is– a belief in Jesus as the messiah. Why would you be ashamed or discrediting of welcoming new Christians as Christian? Isn’t that what born agains want? and I have absolutely no objection to real Christianity– But I am repeating myself in correcting your false statements, as you well know, Andrew.
Buddhism is not a religion, it is a practice. You can still be a good Catholic and practice Buddhism, for example. Educate yourself.
Yes, Andrew, please do take a break. I would give you that break if I could.
Andrew, again, the man from Iowa was given sixteen years because he had two prior felonies before the flag-burning meltdown. Iowa hands out harsher sentences to people who commit multiple felonies. I do not find that to be an unreasonable practice at all. Yes, I strongly believe in patterns, but he was not punished for what he may do. He was punished for what he has done. I am deeming him dangerous based on his own words and actions, not conjecture, and am relieved he won’t be able to take his rage (which he is still very, very proud of, by his own admission) out on gay/trans people or anyone else.
To wit on “anyone else”, I forgot to mention that prior to burning the flag, he actually threatened to burn down a strip club/bar and had to be tossed out. (Why someone who has appointed himself a moral authority where matters of sex are concerned was in an establishment that sells, at the least, the illusion of cheap sex, I don’t know. Granted, it’s not a crime and therefore not my main concern, but it is likely hypocritical and certainly toxic thinking.) I am sure that serious threat figured into his sentencing, as it should. I feel there’s a vital difference between speculating whether someone will commit a crime based on our subjective impressions of that person and taking someone’s word for it that he or she will make good on explicit threats. The only kind of person who threatens arson is the kind who believes arson is acceptable and is already ruminating on it. That he immediately proceeded to light a stolen object on fire while in a fit of rage does nothing to dissuade me of this notion. Know what I mean?
He is a dangerous man and, from what I gleaned, a mentally unwell one, too. Perhaps those things are one and the same in this case. Perhaps I’m wrong and he knows exactly what he is doing, sound mind and body. Either way, if I have to choose between his freedom and the public being safe, I choose the public. He stood outside the bar with lighter fluid (as an aside, who just randomly has lighter fluid on hand?) and “burned their pride”. His words. I don’t want to live among anyone who is lighting things on fire with fluid in a public space. While in a blind fury. That’s… not safe. Not mentally healthy. Not normal. What if the building “accidentally” caught fire? What if the brave firemen and women who service his town had been injured putting out a blaze he had no right to start? What if someone had died? This is important stuff, and none of it is a stretch. Fire is fast. We must always consider potential consequences of our actions. That none of these things happened comes down to luck or God, depending on your outlook. No credit goes to this criminal. He rolled the dice and was reckless. Hopefully I’ve illustrated why it serves everyone, not just the gay/trans community, to see that this lovely person doesn’t get to play with matches for a long while. I would also hope that we’d all be alarmed by the venom he directed at LGBTQ, but that is not the case. I read comments on this story elsewhere. It became clear to me that some people found his display of rage satisfying because it mirrors their own inner demons. ? Thus, they are not willing to think about what I just said because they agree with his motives. They don’t want to be told he should be held accountable. I do not support putting schadenfreude over public safety, hate crime or not.
“…you continue to say ”seeks to deny” gay rights when I have unequivocally said I dont deny rights. Gays can live together but dont call it marriage.”
I’m glad you don’t object to gay people living together or having partners. I got the impression that you did based on other posts. I apologize if I got that part wrong. However, legally recognized marriage between just two people IS a right in this country. If you do not support gay marriage but want straight marriage to remain legal, you ARE seeking to take something — a right — away from only one segment of society, while allowing the majority to keep it. That provides the majority with greater privilege and *that* promotes the idea that they are superior. You are denying gay people something –marriage — that I’m sure you cherish for yourself, based on nothing more than their orientation differing from yours. Gay marriage has been legal for a while now in our state. To my knowledge, it hasn’t led to legal polygamy. If gay marriage — a one-on-one commitment — opens the door for polygamy, then so does straight marriage, also a one-on-one commitment, as the two things are now on par. It’s very simple. Gay people asked for no more than what straight people already had. They also asked for no less. Equal. I will never understand the objection to calling it marriage.
I don’t think it’s too relevant to what we’re discussing, but I agree that Nancy Pelosi does not practice certain Catholic values that are fundamental to the faith.
There is obviously a long history here between commenters, and I have not read all of it. I am out of my depth to chime in on certain contexts. Was going to say more about cults and Christianity and Judaism, based on the comments I have read, but this is already long enough, as usual. I will just add that we should all consider the things we say within historical context, to make sure we are not promoting intolerance towards vulnerable people, intentionally or accidentally. No Jewish person should ever feel pressured to convert to Christianity or told they’re going to Hell. Christians also have a legal right to practice their faith.
I wish our world weren’t so divided and angry over our differences, big and small, but it is. I don’t see it looking up. ? This year is going to be absolutely brutal, which is why I hate politics.
I’m sorry everyone is feeling attacked and frustrated.
Andrew, I meant to add this to my earlier reply. As far as the Iowa case goes, this is the most important thing to focus on:
“Story County Attorney Jessica Reynolds told KCCI that Martinez ‘stated that there was nothing the judge could do to stop him from continuing this behavior, and that he would continue to do this, no matter what.’ “
Andrew says… “It is not bigoted to disagree with same sex marriage.”
According to the Oxford English dictionary, the definition of bigoted is “having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.”
To “disagree with same sex marriage,” one necessarily has to have a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of LBGTQ individuals – specifically that they are in love and wish to marry. It therefore meets the defined criteria for bigotry.
If you don’t like that term, I would not blame you. However, facts do not change to fit our whims.
The immoral liar you support, pardoned war crimes. You good with that, Andrew, because these pardoned hate crimes weren’t against white Americans?
“As for religious persecution i have been targeted big time by Jackie and dondondon on these pages with ”hate” speech but you wouldnt call it that.”~Andrew
And yet Andrew, among all the times he has used anti-Semitic tropes against me, like telling me I should be ashamed because I am disloyal to Israel by not supporting Trump, has called me a “non completed Jew” on these pages, a very anti-Semitic and hateful thing to say to a Jewish person, negating my Judaism because it isn’t “christian” enough according to someone like him. Andrew’s ignorance of Judaism is mindboggling, and yet he goes on and on about it. The point of my “non completeness”, according to Andrew, is that I have not converted to his religion and will therefore be damned go to hell in his sorry religion. Nothing offensive about that, lol.
Poor Andrew likes to dish it out when it comes to attacking others’ beliefs, never noticing that the religious cult he belongs to deserves being called out. Andrew whines like a baby when others notice the hypocrisy, racism, homophobia, anti-semitism and immoral immigrant intolerance of the evangelical right. Andrew likes to tell people that his god, who does whatever he wants, (according to Andrew) somehow has told Andrew who is going to hell, and so Andrew merely helps spread the word. Poor Andrew really should stop whining about being “persecuted”.
What’s up with the religious right carrying on about being “persecuted”? In this country? In this day and age? What have born again evangeilcals got to gripe about here in America other than the terrible war on xmas when dreadful people, who clearly are going to hell, say, “happy holidays” instead of “merry xmas”? How is it being “persecuted” when others dare to notice that these evangelical fake-christians accept and condone the immoral separation of babies from their (brown) parents, the pardonning of war criminals, not to mention the irrational, demented, and criminal, lying behavior of the guy they believe is “chosen” by their god? Andrew, you don’t have a clue what being persecuted means.
Jackie, calling you a non-completed Jew is horrific. I’m honestly shocked the paper allowed that comment to be published. That is pure anti-Semitism. I’m sorry you had to read that. This speaks to my biggest problem with Christian beliefs. It is, by virtue of its most basic tenet, an intolerant religion, for the obvious reason that it requires the entire world to believe in the same thing in order to be seen as equal. I am not trying to say that all Christians enforce this in an offensive way. I think there are some who find comfort in the more gentle aspects of their faith, and as long as they are not harming anyone else, I respect that. But unfortunately, I more often seeing a push for everyone to believe in Christ, otherwise judgement follows.
It’s not Christian beliefs, Aquinnah. I have corrected Andrew on these pages many time about my views on fake-christian evangelical beliefs. Andrew continues to attempt to paint himself with a mainstream Christian brush, trying but failing to make it seem I “attack” Christianity. I do not. No actual Christian has ever called me a non-completed Jew! Andrew tells the same false story again, above, in his haranguing whine about me directed to you. He seems to think he’s like Nancy Pelosi. Here’s a good PBS article outlining how different cultish, born-again evangelical beliefs are from mainstream (real) Christianity.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/evangelicals/evmain.html
Evangelicals are one branch of Christianity (albeit a cultish, fake christian branch) that bases its future on the obliteration of everyone who isn’t one of them– The cult fantasizes specifically that all Jews in Israel either convert or get obliterated in the 2nd coming rapture and go directly to hell. Who else fantasizes specifically that Jews who are, you know, Jews, get obliterated, particularly involving Israel? Forget about Muslims. And Pastafarians. They don’t stand a chance. Born-agains think that the 1948 formation of Israel was about them as evangelicals– and their fantasies. This is why it is so utterly ludicrous that any evangelical would object to Ram Dass because he “made no sense”.
The reason why so many people (not just me) call out the hypocrisy of evangelicals is because of their racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, and anti-immigrant views– all very, very un-Christian.
Here’s another good article on why evangelicals support Israel. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/half-of-evangelicals-support-israel-because-they-believe-it-is-important-for-fulfilling-end-times-prophecy/
Jackie, thank you for the links. I will read them now. I only have a vague knowledge of evangelical views on Israel.
So much ignorance from Jackie. God made a promise to Abraham that he would protect the Jews forever and the entire Old Testament is Him protecting them and giving them victory over enemies. Ben Gurion the first prime minister in 1948 when Israel became a sovereign nation told the parliament that the Book of Joshua determined his relentless pursuit of independence as a nation. Evangelicals are the greatest supporter of Israel as I am and I give money to do so. Jews who worship Jesus as Messiah do not become Christians they remain Jews because Jews are the seeds of Abraham and can not lose their Jewishness. It is laughable what Jackie suggests. Sammy Davis Jr who converts to Judaism does not become a Jew. You either are one or you are not and you dont lose it. Jackie is annoyed when a Jew worships Yeshua but it doesnt change anything. Evangelical Christians are Protestants. Catholics are Christians who believe that Faith plus works provides salvation. Martin Luther a Catholic protested against the Catholic church selling indulgences to gain salvation and insisted on faith alone for salvation and then caused the Protestant Reformation break from the catholic church. At least inform yourselves before spewing nonsense on these pages. Evangelical Christians and Catholics are brothers and sisters in Christ. They believe in Jesus for salvation, the resurrection and His coming again. They believe in the Trinity. They differ on hermeneutics and the sacrament of communion. Jackie never gives you the context of her outlandish accusations of me. My comment to her was within the context of what a Jew is and is not. She believes that Jews who adopt Jesus are not jews and that is anti semitic but mostly willful ignorance. You cannot erase ones Jewishness. If Jackie adopts the Catholic tradition she is still a Jew. If she becomes a Unitarian she remains a Jews. Ask any Jew if they can lose their Jewishness. Foolishness from ignorance.
Comments are closed.