The Emory Wheel is the student newspaper at Emory University. It ran the above cartoon. The cartoon frightened many of the faculty members who don't want the truth being circulated that there is a strong similarity between Apartheid Israel and Apartheid South Africa and that the Jews of Israel should have learned compassion from their awful experience at the hands of the Nazis rather than just reinforcing their also awful, hard-hearted determination to steal the land of the Palestinian Arabs.

"In Response to Dylan Woodliff's Cartoon on Friday,"
by Undersigned. Emory Wheel. November 17, 2008. See also: "An Antisemitic Cartoon in Emory's Student Newspaper Generates a Torrent of Criticism from Across the Campus," by Deborah Lipstadt. Deborah Lipstadt's Blog. November 18, 2008.

Is the problem with the cartoon that it is seen as an overstatement?

It seems that the cartoon may be, and should be, taken as saying that one would think that people who were treated the way they were by the Nazis would not have violently and often by means of outright terrorism dislocated so many others to steal their land.

As for the cartoon being anti-Semitic, how can anyone take from that cartoon that the cartoonist is discriminating against all Jews? There are plenty of Jews who hate the Apartheid Israel Wall. Also, by the same token, how can anyone take the cartoon as an indication that the cartoonist doesn't believe that the Nazis executed Jews in the concentration camps, even by the millions?

Claiming that that cartoon necessarily indicates anti-Semitism and holocaust denial is totally intellectually dishonest (if the person making the claims is at all intellectual - meaning intelligent, informed, rational, etc.). It's just reading in propaganda. It may be that the cartoonist is anti-Semitic, but no one can know that just from that cartoon alone.

The loud condemnation is an attempt to change the subject and to not be caught stealing other people's lands. It's also an attempt to avoid facing the fact that that Apartheid Wall is often running on Palestinian land. It's also an attempt to avoid facing the fact that many Israelis are on Palestinian lands in clear violation of U.N. resolutions and other international law of which Israel and the U.S. both are signatories. Palestinian violence is against those who used violence to steal Palestinian land. Menachem Begin even bragged in writing (his own book) about using terrorism to takeover Palestinian land.

The caliber of statements against this cartoon shows a very low level of intelligence. The arguments aren't well constructed or thought out. They certainly don't defeat the point of the cartoon, which frankly is well-founded.

Some people though just don't know how to debate. All they know how to do is to shoot the messenger rather than face their own wrong-doing.


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.