Anti-Defamation League

Remember that day you realized that the Human Rights Council is really a gay rights organization (as opposed to, say, Amnesty International)?

I've had this realization many times before about the Anti-Defamation League really being an Anti-Jewish-Defamation League previously. Case in point:

Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right.

So, they think you shouldn't build something in a disputed area if it causes pain to some members of the community.

Except when it's settlements in Israel, such as in the case of this full-page New York Times ad that reads:

Mr. President

The problem isn't settlements,

It's Arab Rejection

The irony of the situation? The Muslim community center being planned is named after Cordoba, a tribute to the period of Muslim rule over Cordoba. That was an era of great harmony between Islam and Judaism; at the same period, the plague and the dark ages led to a lot of persecution of Jews in Europe, but in Muslim Cordoba it led to the great Jewish thinker Maimonedes.

One would have presumed that an organization whose name was Anti-Defamation League would go out of its way to categorically imply that another religion's worship sites might rub sore old wounds. What if someone said that temples remind them of the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla? Or if Britain decided that temples remind them of the King David Bombing? Or if any government in the world decided that churches remind them of child molestation? At least that last one would have some sort of organizational link.

Also, "This is not a question of rights" sounds like a pretty handy sentence for wanting to abridge someone's rights. Rand Paul could have used that when he was talking about his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, instead he went with:

"I think it's confusing in a lot of cases in what’s actually in the Civil Rights Case (sic)," Paul replied. "A lot of things that were actually in the bill I’m actually in favor of. I’m in favor of -- everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there’s a lot to be desired in the Civil Rights -- and indeed the truth is, I haven’t read all through it, because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn’t been a real pressing issue on the campaign on whether I’m going to vote for the Civil Rights Act."