Zionism is or is not racism? First, define your terms. Define your connotations. Put everything into the range of contexts.
People on the various sides of the issues surrounding the statement "Zionism is racism" have different agenda. Each person has a unique set of motives. Motives overlap. There are subsets that are shared to varying degrees.
This approach of defining terms, making plain the various contexts, and understanding unique and shared motives and views is required concerning all terms/concepts and constructs.
John Farnham (user name: "opit"), this site's most frequent commentator to the date of this post, recently mentioned framing and constructs. Disingenuous people with an agenda to advance their cause will deliberately frame an issue putting forth only the positives about their side and the negatives about their opposition or enemies. This happens a great deal around the term Zionism. There are Muslims who do it from their side, and there are Jews who do it from theirs.
What is the right approach? That's easy. The right approach puts the positives and negatives on all sides and calls for all sides to drop the negatives and unify on the positives.
Now, real Zionism, the Zionism of spirit, the truly consistent city of peace and love and truth that is bright and shining on the hill, is the perfectly harmless and always beneficial city. It's Heaven. It's always in our minds when we make it our emotional root and our only root. This is why I am a radical and Jesus is too.
It is a radical concept, because it calls us to make a radical shift (a root change). The root of the term radical is root.
Jesus discussed this via his sayings and parables. He used many analogies to allow the people to make the connections and to grasp (comprehend) the concepts involved. He used the seed, root, tree, and fruit as devices for this overarching theme. Read his words in this light, and his words (scripture) will open up to you.
So, concerning which connotation, in which context, is Zionism racism?
The answer is obvious.
Wherever you find results that place a person or people over another based on race (which is beyond a person's or peoples' ability voluntarily to change) rather than on individual merit, you find racism or ethnic bigotry.
From further above in this post, you should be reminded that subsets of motives may and often do overlap one person to the next. Therefore, those who refer to themselves as Zionists may find themselves lording it over others on account of ethnicity while not themselves having been motivated out of the spirit of racism but rather by virtue of that spirit in others also calling themselves Zionists who have taken control via coercive means.
So, not all forms of Zionism are racism, but one form of what purports to be Zionism is racism and ethnic bigotry.
That later form is not real Zionism. Real Zionists, of which I am one, reject racism. Racism has no place in the bright city on the hill spoken of above. It is unenlightened. It is backwards. Racists are backwards and in the dark whether or not they call themselves Zionists.
Now, keeping all of this absolute truth in mind, read,NAACP hosts hate. By Henry Payne. National Review Online. April 25, 2008.
You will see a one-sided agenda at work.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)