Rabbi, Man Wearing Swastika Trade Blows At Airport (Kansas City)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/4392605/detail.html

A rabbi wearing a yarmulke and a man wearing swastikas got into a fight at Kansas City International Airport Sunday evening.

An airport terminal at KCI was the scene of a fight between a rabbi and a man wearing swastikas.

According to a police report, Rabbi David Fine, 36, of Overland Park, was in the KCI terminal when he commented to Steven T. Boswell, 30, of Olathe, about a large swastika logo on his shirt and his swastika necklace.

Fine told Boswell that he should be ashamed of himself, and Boswell responded by calling the rabbi inhuman, the police report stated.

The rabbi allegedly threw a cup of coffee in Boswell's face and punched him. Boswell told police he then repeatedly punched Fine in the head.

[rpannier]

1. Nothing like handling disagreements in an adult fashion.

Boswell is an idiot for being a Nazi sympathiser...if he is. Fine's an idiot for throwing coffee in the guys face.

[whatelseisnew]

2. Boswell seems like an actual nazi to me...

yes they are still around and still regard people as sub-human and still wish to kill.

[rpannier]

3. I know they are.

They're everywhere. When I was in college my University was close to one of the biggest concentrations of neo-Nazi's in the US -- Welcome to Wash State University...close to Coeur D'Alein Idaho -- Nazi Wunderland (sic).
I don't know Boswell personally so I went with Nazi sympathiser to give him the benefit of the doubt. Either way...the incident is sort of childish on both sides.
When you dress like that you should expect people to get angry. Throwing a cup of coffee in his face, while a better response than knifing him, is still pretty childish. (Although I don't know what Boswell said to the Rabbi before he hit him with the coffee)

[LiberallyInclined]

19. it doesn't really matter what he said-

unless he made a direct threat, the rabbi was WRONG to respond by throwing coffee on him, and probably got what he deserved.

[jrthin]

58. Unfortuntely, I agree w/you. nt

[youspeakmylanguage]

99. neo-nazis are actual nazis...

Unless you only consider original nazis, actual members of the SS and the party of Hitler, to be "real" nazis.

[whatelseisnew]

112. my response was questioning whether he was more than ...

more than just a sympathiser.

I was saying he is an actual nazi and not just a sympathiser

[youspeakmylanguage]

121. I've never quite understood the distinction...

Maybe the sympathizer label has a more specific historical definition, but I would think nowadays it would describe someone as a "closet" nazi. Like if Uncle Eddie started watching too many WWII shows on the history channel and then suddenly, over Thanksgiving dinner, announced that he didn't really believe the holocaust happened and that Hitler was a pretty bad guy but, gosh darn it, he had some pretty nifty ideas. Oh, and please pass the mashed potatoes.

I haven't seen any pictures of the two men involved in this incident, but anyone sporting a swastika shirt and necklace I would assume is a real nazi.

[chopper]

4. yeah...

Fine's an idiot for throwing coffee in the guys face

exactly. i mean, coffee? weak. he shoulda gouged his eyes out.

[rpannier]

5. Lol

Much better response. I like it.

[Skeptic_All]

100. Where's a decent cup

of battery acid when you need it! Fucking NAZI prick walking through one of America's airports dressed like that.

There are laws which prohibit the wear of shirts with obscenities on them. Why not laws which prohibit the wearing of clothing which clearly is designed to elicit the visceral responses of those who object to it?

[moggie]

108. Bet he's not on the no-fly list n/t

[Writer]

6. Oh my. A rabbi and a guy with a swastika on his shirt enter a bar...

Sorry. Couldn't resist. ;)

[UpInArms]

7. Olathe

(pronounced like "oil of o-lay-tha")

is home to rabid reich-wingers - a very scary place indeed :scared:

[scarlett1]

40. Of Course it is Olathe

The home of Kansas State Senator Kay O'Connor, a woman who believes women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[AP]

8. Sounds like an '80s music video.

Sort of a "semiotics for idiots" kind of thing -- heavy on the obvious symbolism.

[foo_bar]

9. .

[wallwriter]

10. What is the appropriate response

to a statement of "Glad they killed millions of people like you, hope they kill more..."?

[LiberallyInclined]

20. ignore him.

EVERYONE has a right to their opinions.

[lateo]

48. He didn't say that...

did he?

We on the left should be careful not to take those dubious leaps in logic that the right is so good at doing.

[colonel odis]

11. interesting that a man of faith stands up and does what more people

should do.

[Rich Hunt]

12. that's right

Punching Nazis is a real smart thing to do.

[LostinVA]

14. It is an understandable thing to do, though

The odds are very, very great that the Rabbi had quite a few family members die in the Holocaust. His parents or grandparents could be survivors.

Smart? No. But a very human reaction, especially with all of the holocaust deniers trying to become legit 9and in David Irving's case, making a good show of it until very recently).

[colonel odis]

18. make sure you punch hard enough so that they don't punch back.

:-)

[LiberallyInclined]

22. WRONG.

the rabbi should have ignored him, NOT respond with a violent escalation.

[Walt Starr]

26. Yep, the Rabbi fell into the trap that was set for him

Ignoring the idiot would have provided an undesired response to the Nazi idiot and would have served to delegitimize his views. Laughing at him would have been even more powerful.

Punching him was to fall into a trap and legitimize his views.

[manly]

76. legitimize?

That's ridiculous. Nothing could legitimize his Nazi views. How stupid. The rabbi was right. Wearing swastikas in public should be offensive to everybody, Jewish or not! Have you forgotten what these people did?

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Skeptic_All]

101. So, in this same vein,

you would feel comfortable around a couple of young guys walking in front of your house with the the words "Fuck You" emblazoned on their t-shirts?

You don't see anything wrong with this?

[Maat]

114. Actually, that speech is protected.

See the Supreme Court case in which the young adult was permitted to wear a 'Fuck the Draft' jacket in high school.

Speech is protecting unless you are inciting a riot basically, and it takes more than wearing clothing.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saigon68]

109. Adios

[LostinVA]

37. I didn't say it was smart, I said it was human.

And,I'm not WRONG. We just differ on whether or not we're condemning the Rabbi's actions. I knew too many kids growing up whose grandparents went through the Holocaust. He didn't fall for a trap, he just used his emotions when he should have used his head.

[hector459]

13. Remember, the tone is set at the top.

Isn't this the behavior that Bush and Sharon would support?

[WindRavenX]

15. good for the Rabbi

He showed more restraint that I would've :grr:

[sabra]

16. I don't condone violence, but I stand behind the rabbi's actions. eom

[entanglement]

65. I agree with you, but I think you're wrong. eom

Ok, just kidding! Don't get :mad: at me. :D

[sabra]

68. You got me :-)

[Toots]

17. Republicans get their way and the Nazi would be packing heat

Getting coffee thrown in his face is surely evidence the Rabbi was going to do him bodily harm so he would be justified in blowing the Rabbi away. This is our new proud Amerika.....The new law passed in Florida would have certainly come into play. What is taking Amerika so long to wake up and go buy guns. Nazi shoots Rabbi police have less work to do so less tax payer money gets spent. The money tax payers save they can buy more guns with. Republican Utopia.

[Mary in KC]

23. Good for the Rabbi!

Someone in KC is actually showing some backbone - that's a first.

[Griffy]

77. Im sure he has guns.. it was an airport!! If we all laughed at Nazis....

in public.. it would be more effective. Notice no one else got involved!

[gratuitous]

21. Shouldn't have thrown coffee in his face

There's going to be more confrontations like this in the future, and you (my dear fellow DUers) just might be involved in one. Think now what you want to do so that you're prepared when the time comes.

What good is it to throw coffee in the man's face, regardless of the provocation? You're going to instigate a brawl, and the two of you are probably going to go to jail. The Nazi isn't going to change his mind, and indeed, will use the encounter as fodder for further recruitment.

So, what to do? Silence isn't an option.

What do fascists like our Nazi neighbors hate more than anything? They love and crave attention . . . up to a point. Draw attention to the thug, and draw it in a way that is embarrassing to him and is far more than he wants. You might ask the Nazi loudly if he's going to gas you, like his hero Hitler did. Does he really think a large segment of society is unfit to live? Invite him to put his theories into practice, if he's really a devotee of the "master" race. Draw the attention, scorn and ridicule of others around. Humiliate him. Don't get involved physically, but move him out of his comfort zone. Don't shout or get red-faced, but speak clearly and distinctly so that anyone within 10 feet knows what's going on. And if he responds physically, don't defend yourself, don't fight back. It requires discipline, patience, and faith that you're in the right. That's why you should practice before any confrontation happens.

These pissants are emboldened by the fascist behavior of our corrupt government. Rally the popular support of the good people around you to let these fascisti know that not only are they not welcome, but that their views are in the distinct minority.

[LiberallyInclined]

24. why isn't silence an option?

people who wear swastikas are more than likely looking for a confrontation- why satisfy him?

[gratuitous]

27. I decline to ignore the fascists

Something Pastor Niemoller said once. Stayed with me. But you should remain silent if you think that will protect you.

[LiberallyInclined]

28. EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion- even nazis and fascists.

wearing a t-shirt is nothing more than an expression of opinion.
maybe someday you won't be so closed-minded.

[plasticsundance]

32. No. NAZIS don't have a right to their opinions.

We went to war with NAZI Germany to get rid of such horrendous opinions.

Unless you think the genocide of a race is an American principle.

NAZIS feed off intimidation, and the Rabbi is making it clear that this intimidation will not be tolerated. Hats off to the Rabbi.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

47. This is out of line to Plasticsundance

You can disagree with him, but you have no RIGHT to call him "unamerican" and tell him he's so disgusting he shouldn't have children. How dare you call him unamerican! That's something I don't expect to hear on DU... ever!

[LiberallyInclined]

54. i didn't call him" "unamerican""...

i said that he has un-american attitudes. and if he endorses stifling opinion(as he does), then he DOES have un-american attitudes.

try a little comprehension next time.

[LostinVA]

56. I did comprehend, that's what you said

So, quit insulting my intelligence and side stepping the issue by making believe it's not what you said, but how I read it. I read it just fine. The message has been deleted now, but what you told him not to have children and pass on his unamerican values.

[LiberallyInclined]

61. Wrong again...

i never used the word "values", i said "attitudes"

not much of a stickler for details, are you?

[plasticsundance]

102. Oh ... I'm so disgusting I shouldn't have children?

And your pontificating on values and American principles? Unreal. So let me get this straight, a NAZI is entitled to his hate-speech, but I should be denied children because I think advocating such principles do not fall under free speech?

The Rabbi has no right to confront this man, but I should be denied children?

Plu-eeze!

No ... hate groups do not have blanket protection under free speech. Know the law.

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that states can punish Ku Klux Klansmen and others who set crosses afire, finding that a burning cross is an instrument of racial terror so threatening that it overshadows free speech concerns.

The court voted 6-3 to uphold a 50-year-old Virginia law making it a crime to burn a cross as an act of intimidation. A lower court had ruled the law muzzled free speech.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majority, said the protections afforded by the First Amendment “are not absolute” and do not necessarily shield cross burners.

Justice Clarence Thomas, the court’s only black member and a law-and-order conservative who frequently departs from civil rights orthodoxy, wrote separately that “those who hate cannot terrorize and intimidate to make their point.”

Now read emphasis and tell me what do you think that Swastika meant to the Rabbi?

[Hobarticus]

35. Strange, sounds like what the Nazis said...

The Nazis persecuted free speech. Repugnant as it sometimes is, free speech is an American principle.

Making the connection between free speech and condoning genocide is irresponsible.

BTW, hats off to the rabbi, too. Only way to deal with a bully is to bully him, yourself.

[youspeakmylanguage]

57. We fought in WWII to protect America, by extension protecting...

...the Constitution, by extension protecting the First Amendment.

Germany has outlawed Nazism, thereby forcing it completely underground. The movement there is more violent, more secretive, and more mysterious - making it more attractive to disenfranchised youth.

In America, we allow those that choose to embrace that movement the right to do so, within the law, just as we allow sane Americans to speak out against it. Judging by the fact that Americans claiming to be Nazis make up a sad, withered sub-class of losers, I would say that the way of freedom has worked.

The rabbi was wrong to assault the Nazi. Laughing or ignoring him would have been a much more effective response, thereby belittling the him and the movement he stands for.

[ianrs]

120. oklahoma

you say that:
Germany has outlawed Nazism, thereby forcing it completely underground. The movement there is more violent, more secretive, and more mysterious - making it more attractive to disenfranchised youth


nothing like the Oklahoma bombing has occured in Germany, East, West or re-unified.
Your premise is misconceived, anyway. One can't outlaw an ism. The National Socialist Party is outlawed, which is hardly surprising, since it took Germany to the brink of destruction, and murdered millions as it did so. There are anti-hate speech laws, and the like, but outfits like the NPD (the National Democratic Party, if you please) still exist, and march. They are restricted, and recently the laws were tightened up as per this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4339983.stm

The way of freedom you refer to seems to be the way of letting bullies and sociopaths do what they want to do.This is not liberty, but negligent refusal to protect those at risk from violence,intimidation or other attacks on their human rights. Lines have to be drawn, basically.

Shocking rabbinical behaviour perhaps; but hey, more power to his elbow!!!

[youspeakmylanguage]

123. Lines have to be drawn where?

...and who gets to draw the lines? I read the Free Republic forums and see many "bullies and sociopaths". Many of them see "bullies and sociopaths" in the DU forums. If given the authority, do you think Tom Delay and the other thugs in Congress would hesitate outlawing DU in order to restrict our "bullying and sociopathic" behavior?

What does the Oklahoma bombing have to do with this discussion? Perhaps neo-nazis in Germany haven't committed large bombings, but they have assaulted and killed immigrants and have damaged up to the point of destroying their homes and businesses. Are we somehow supposed to commend them for being selective in their terrorism?

Per capita, the neo-nazi movement is much larger in Germany, where it is mostly outlawed, than here in the United States, where they are free to express their hatred and we are free to laugh and ridicule them.

I support hate crime legislation that harshly punishes crimes motivated by racial, religious, or homophobic hatred. I also support the Southern Poverty Law Centers efforts in bankrupting racist groups that organize and commission hate crimes through civil action. I haven't seen a single poster, certainly including myself, who has advocated letting neo-nazis run wild and break laws. But many posters such as myself do think it is important to protect the rights of ALL American citizens, including those with viewpoints that we find repugnant. And that includes wearing an offensive t-shirt and jewelry in an airport terminal.

The bottom line is that the constitution guarantees that we, as American citizens, can "do what we want to do" in expressing our opinions as long as we do not directly threaten or defame other individuals.

[LostinVA]

41. "Close minded"??? Are you serious?

Damn right I'm "close minded" where Nazi opinions are concerned. I can agree they have a legal right to express them, but not that I need to embrace them and make them legitimate. Close minded???

Also, by your standards, it was okay for the Rabbi to express his opinions to the Nazi.

[LiberallyInclined]

55. it WAS okay for the rabbi to express his opinions-

right up until the point at which he started throwing coffee and punches.

violence is not the answer.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LiberallyInclined]

62. who asked you to accept nazi's?

you seem to be doing a nice version of "the twist" yourself...

what I'm pointing out is that in THIS country, YES, even Nazi's have a right to their opinion. you have a right to ignore them, but NOBODY has a right to physically attack ANYBODY merely for expressing their opinion.

:eyes:

[gratuitous]

45. I never said they weren't entitled to their opinion

Why would you read that into what I'd written, then adjudge me to be closed-minded? Are there any other offenses you have decided to make up for me and convict me on?

[Bridget Burke]

29. Personally, I'd use sarcasm.

However, the rabbi might have had a more personal reason for his action. Like grandparents he never met....

[LostinVA]

39. I have people like this in my extended family -- this won't work

They absolutely believe they are right, and will spout off "facts" they've learned. This approach would also lead to a confrontation.

[maxsolomon]

25. if everyone punched nazis everytime they showed up

they wouldn't stay nazis long.

its how american corporations stopped the IWW & the scourge of (gasp) SOCIALISM, so its obviously patriotic.

49% sarcasm.

[Hardrada]

80. Great point

I was an SDS member and used to get nasty responses from people. A bit of roughing up but mostly angry threats. Where are we now?(sniff).

[youspeakmylanguage]

124. Are you kidding me?

You really believe that the SDS has grown dormant because people said nasty things and assualted SDS members? The SDS grew dormant because other groups have since formed and are actively involved in the anti-war movement. Poor management killed the SDS, not the radical right.

Where would this country be if those that fought for equal rights were all scared away by insults and threats?

[daleo]

30. Punching Nazis may be therapeutic

But legitimizing the notion that violence is a way to win political disputes isn't a good idea. For one thing, the ruling classes can generally harness political violence more effectively than anyone else (at least up to a point), so it plays to their strength.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geebensis]

36. Who?

Please tell me who finds wearing a yarmulke "just as offensive" as wearing a swastika?

[LiberallyInclined]

42. the guy wearing the swastika?

just a guess...

[geebensis]

46. I asked "who", not "what"

[Behind the Aegis]

66. Absurd!

It is outlandish to equate a yarmulke with a t-shirt emblazoned with a Swastika! One is an expression of faith/religion, the other is an expression of genocide/racial superiority! They are not even close to being comparable!

[LiberallyInclined]

72. i DIDN'T equate them.

i answered a question from the previous post.

:eyes:....sheesh.

[Behind the Aegis]

75. Read my post again!

I didn't say you equated them. I said it was absurd to think that they could be equated to one another. The implication from your post is that someone could equate them, to which I responded the notion of that comparison was absurd.

[catnhatnh]

44. I would guess at very least many Arabs and nazis...

...who also have the right of expression...again the violation here was never the display but rather the initial assault...I only commented because so many saw the one symbol as a provocation and never even noted the other...

[geebensis]

52. So a muslim woman wearing a veil...

So a muslim woman wearing a veil could be considered "provocative" to some?

How about a crucifix?

Religious symbols are not the same as political symbols.

[Hobarticus]

53. Wayyyyy off...

Reasonable people know that religious attire is just that...religious attire. I doubt the rabbi had intentions of provoking or offending. He's just going about his business.

Reasonable people also know that provocative attire, like swazis, may indeed be covered by free speech but they are provocative, worn with the purpose of offending. If you've come across people like this, you know EXACTLY their intent. They stare right back at you, hoping for a response.

I can see how the groups you mentioned may have problems with that, but still...the day I see a yarmulke compared with a swazi on DU is a sad day, indeed.

[youspeakmylanguage]

63. Many neocon blogs now advertise "liberal baiting" shirts...

...including these for "baiting" members of the ACLU:



Here are a few more examples...






And my favorite - let's just hunt liberals:


http://www.cafepress.com/rightwingstuff

Would I have the right to throw coffee in the face of someone wearing these shirts? If so, where do we draw the line?

Hey, Freeper lurkers:
Fair Use Notice: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy and social justice issues, etc.. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this post for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the the original copyright holder.

[Hobarticus]

71. I never defended the right of the rabbi to attack him

if that's what you're getting at.

I'm not sure what your point is, I'm not making the connection between my post about religious attire vs. attire such as this.

[youspeakmylanguage]

78. That isn't what I'm getting at...

...sorry if that wasn't clear. I was reinforcing your point that certain groups wear provocative shirts for the expressed purpose of "baiting" someone. This company that operates through CafePress states that openly. This is completely different from wearing an article of clothing as part of your religious faith and having a 2nd party, who is predisposed to feel and act negatively towards people of your religion, attacking you for doing so.

My point is that it would not be ok for me, as a "liberal", to throw coffee in someone's face for wearing one of these shirts, even if they are "baiting" me to take some sort of retaliatory action.

[Hobarticus]

84. Gotcha. Well said.

Still, if liberals had been persecuted since the dawn of time as Jews have been, and someone came up to me wearing one of those shirts you posted here, I'd probably get a little heated, too. But that doesn't justify assault.

[LostinVA]

49. WTF? Since when is a yarmulke a provocation?

It's normal, accepted religious attire. Geez... what is up with DU today?

[youspeakmylanguage]

64. His point is that it is provocative to certain groups of people...

I don't agree with his position, but I understand what he is saying.

By extension, if the nazi wanted to continue the final solution, then the rabbi's very existence would be "provocative" to the Nazi.

Sorry, I think the standard is offensive to community norms. As a community, we do not find yarmulkes offensive, just we do find swastikas offensive.

[UncleSepp]

70. Religious dress is neither symbolic nor provocative

Parent post deleted before the response was done. I wish it had stayed up with that person's name as an example. If you haven't read that post, the poster basically said "Why did no one note that the rabbi was wearing a yarmulke, which some people also find offensive." This post is in response to that one, and is also a response to the concept that wearing a mandated article of religious dress is akin to wearing a symbol of one's religion or ideology.

The wearing of a religious headcovering is not symbolic of one's religion. A yarmulke for a Jewish man, hijab for a Muslim woman, or dastaar for a Sikh man are required. No, not every Jewish man will wear a yarmulke or kippah or even a hat. Not every Muslim woman will cover her hair. Each person decides how to implement the requirements of his or her religion, whatever religion that may be, in his or her daily life. Nevertheless, a requirement is a requirement.

Understand, then, that these are not like the crosses Christians may choose to wear, which are nowhere required for Christians. For that matter, a yarmulke or hijab is not like a necklace with a chai on it or a tee shirt that says "Real men pray five times a day". Neither deity nor priest nor prophet told anyone "you must wear this WWJD bracelet" or "you must hang this Khanda flag from your rear view mirror". Such things are symbols and symbols only. However, the scriptures of many faiths do state that one must dress modestly or even identifiably. The observance of commandments relating to dress is as much religious practice as observing dietary laws or even saying prayers.

To say that a Jewish man's yarmulke is a provocation, then, is to say that a Jewish man being Jewish is a provocation. Do you expect for anyone here to have noted in passing that this man, this rabbi, was being provocative by being Jewish? Do you expect that anyone on this board ought to in all fairmindedness recognize that the sight of a Jew is offensive to some people? Do you expect to find others here who would equate someone being offended by the visible existence of a living, breathing, identifiable Jew with someone being offended by the public display of both symbol and sentiment of the ideology which led to the murder of millions of Jews? Do you seriously think that's reasonable?

[Hobarticus]

73. Very well said, AuntJen

Said it before and I'll say it again...the day a yarmulke and a swazi are considered equally provacative symbols, it's a very sad day indeed.

[Colorado Blue]

88. Thank you. nt

[AlienGirl]

111. Great post, AuntJen!

Thank you for pointing out the distinction. :thumbsup:

Tucker

[wildmanj]

34. fighting

there are no winners when two act like idiots---and yet we wonder why people still fight the civil war :bounce:

[LiberallyInclined]

43. civil war?

isn't that a contradiction in terms?
kinda like military intelligence, or business ethics.

[bpilgrim]

38. sign of the times n/t

peace

[ContraBass Black]

50. That must have been a sight.

[Book Lover]

51. Go Rebbe!

I know, I know, it's wrong to feel this way, but good on yer, rabbi!

[Fleshdancer]

60. so, a Rabbi and a neonazi walk into an airport......

:silly:

[entanglement]

67. All in all, not too bad an ending to the story

considering it was Nazis vs Rabbis (can you imagine two more diametrically opposed groups?)

[Behind the Aegis]

69. Defense

The rabbi shouldn't have thrown coffee. That is assault. However, sometimes a breaking point is reached. One cannot scream "Fire!" in a theater, is that restriction abridging our Freedom of Speech? No! Wearing a shirt that has the symbol under which 6 million Jews and 7 million others were slaughtered is, in my opinion, provocative. Had this been a t-shirt with the picture of the Klan and the title "The ORIGINAL Boyz in da Hood" you can bet this person wouldn't have made it out of the airport without police protection!

Violence begets violence, but as the old AIDS slogan goes...SILENCE = DEATH!

[LiberallyInclined]

74. wearing a swastika is not akin to yelling FIRE in a theatre...

the reason that you cannot yell FIRE in a crowded theatre(unless it's actually on fire), is that it can cause a panic, and a rush to the exit resulting in death and injury- just last year, here in chicago, 20-some people were killed when people tried to rush out of a crowded nightclub- someone used pepper spray, and people thought it was a terrorist attack- there were even reports of people yeling "osama"...
wearing a t-shirt with a foul slogan is not an immediate threat to anyone's life and limb- there is no defense for using the message on someone's t-shirt as an excuse to commit an assault.

it's amazing how many americans have so little regard for our freedoms, when they disagree with the message and/or messenger.

[Behind the Aegis]

81. Details! Details! Details!

I didn't say that wearing a swastika was akin to yelling "Fire!" in a theater. What I did say was that yelling "Fire!" without there being a fire is illegal and not a violation of Freedom of Speech. I then said that wearing something like that t-shirt was provocative. I didn't say they were "akin," but perhaps they should be. It is not always illegal to be provocative, but when you do get a response, there really shouldn't be any surprise. I also said that what the rabbi did was wrong; it was assault.

[youspeakmylanguage]

83. Perhaps they should be? It is not *always" illegal?

These are slippery slopes indeed.

Suppose you are an artist and you create a piece of art that a Christian/Muslim/Jew finds offensive. Do they have the right to assault you, for being "provocative"?

Anytime anyone is assaulted for simply expressing an opinion, no matter how controversial the opinion, is a sad day for freedom everywhere.

[Behind the Aegis]

91. No assault

I never said anyone should assault anyone. The rabbi's response was illegal and should be. However, seeing a shirt like that is no different than someone saying "Kike!" Controversial is one thing, blatant discrimination is quite another.

[youspeakmylanguage]

94. Discrimination is illegal...

When someone is discriminating against you in the workplace, in a restaurant, when purchasing a home, etc it is illegal. Making a statement of support for discrimination (or anything illegal, for that matter) isn't illegal and it shouldn't be if you aren't acting on that statement. The neo-nazi wasn't defacing the rabbi's property with a swatstika. He was wearing a shirt.

Wearing a t-shirt with a symbol or statement, no matter how repugnant that symbol or statement may be, should not be illegal. Nor should it justify assault. The "inhuman" statement may constitute an instigation of assault, but the symbol itself does not.

You keep claiming "no assault", but you also keep hinting that the rabbi's actions were somehow justifiable. They aren't in a civilized society.

[Behind the Aegis]

97. No assault (part 2)

I am not hinting that the rabbi's actions are justifiable, but they are understandable. The rabbi shouldn't have thrown his coffee. I don't know how else to state this. Seeing that symbol strikes at the very heart of Jews and if you can't understand that, then nothing I say will help you understand. I look at it as...you reap, what you sow.

[youspeakmylanguage]

98. So you're saying you're sympathetic to his anger....

...that is perfectly understandable.

The swastika is a symbol of absolute evil. It symbolizes an effort to commit absolute genocide. I understand fully how horrible it is and how angry it could have made the rabbi. But as a rabbi, he should have taken the high road of moral superiority and civility.

What is disturbing me is the willingness of others on this thread to sink to the neo-nazi's level of hatred and invectiveness.

I don't hate neo-nazis. I hate what they believe. I pity them as people because they are usually insecure, hateful cowards who posture as thugs. Attacking them, as the rabbi did, only fuels that insecurity and hatefulness. Now this sad sack has been attacked by a jew - a rabbi, no less. Is that supposed to lead to any meaningful interaction that might cause him to reconsider his prejudice? Or is that going to reinforce the prejudice already entrenched in his muddled head?

[Behind the Aegis]

103. BINGO!!

Perhaps I had not been clear, but it seems now we are on the same page! :) As much as I love the internet, it really is hard sometimes to convey how one feels in a clear way. Especially when you are verbose like me! :)

As for the rabbi's behavior, it was unbecoming, but he is human and has the same short-comings as the rest of us. He must have been feeling intense rage at seeing that symbol and the fact that someone was proudly displaying it.

I am with you in that I don't hate neo-nazi's as people, I hate their ideology. To hate any group of people is counter-productive, in my opinion. I also don't like that some people have suggested more violence, but again, it is understandable, in some respects.

Thanks for sticking around to "clear the air." :)

[youspeakmylanguage]

104. No problem...

:-)

[bpilgrim]

117. depends how old you are

what faith you have or where your from i suppose.

if that man of faith was punch'n a real live nazi or 'neo-nazi' in the nose he should get a MEDAL, imo.

peace

[petronius]

79. We really need a bit more information...

It appears that the rabbi started the conversation by saying that the nazi should be "ashamed". This sounds like a reasonable and legal response to the t-shirt. The nazi responded by calling the rabbi "unhuman" - a word with a pretty specific nazi connotation. The rabbi responded with coffee and violence. My questions would be: does "unhuman" addressed to a Jew constitute 'fighting words', and can the rabbi use a 'fighting words' defense in a conversation that he started? Also, what exactly did the rabbi say to start the conversation - was it a 'polite' statement of "you should be ashamed" or something more belligerent? We can't really say who was legally or morally wrong here without more details. (Although I would consider the t-shirt morally wrong.)

On a more pragmatic level, I think the rabbi erred by starting a fight he couldn't finish...

[Bridget Burke]

85. Pragmatically, I agree the rabbi should have shown more forbearance....

But if I'd been there, I fear I would have uttered that old Irish cliche: "Is this a private fight, or can anybody join?"

[petronius]

90. Why stop to talk?

I agree - on a discussion board like this it's appropriate to consider all the abstract questions, but if I'd been there in person I'd have been jumping in right behind you (or ahead of you, if you were really going to waste time uttering cliches. :))

[Bridget Burke]

93. Perhaps I would not have uttered the cliche....

But I might have added my cliched drink to the coffee being tossed....

[youspeakmylanguage]

96. I would have jumped in to protect the rabbi...

...but I'm a bar bouncer, so I jump in to break up fights all the time.

I would NOT have thrown a drink. That was assault.

For gods sake, people, we're supposed to be the civilized ones.

[Hardrada]

82. Whatever happened to good old American

Obscene gestures?? And a bit of profanity? Naive? No, this has been a CUE for people to move in and separate disputants before they go further. At least in my experience.

[yorgatron]

87. i hope the rabbi kicked his ass

nazis should be shot on sight :mad::grr:

[youspeakmylanguage]

95. Neo-nazis would say they'd like to shoot you on sight...

Aren't we supposed to be better than them? More civilized? More humane?

Making a statement like that is simply sinking to their level of hateful rhetoric.

[yorgatron]

116. it falls under Darwinism

you have to be prettty fucking stupid to adorn yourself with swastikas.
they look like the bullseye on a target to me.

[Hardrada]

110. I don't like seeing them myself

but I have noticed they tend to self-destruct.

[NNN0LHI]

89. This rabbi is going to just love the new pope n/t

[dhinojosa]

119. LOL! Wham! nt

[New Dealer]

92. Although the Nazi guy didn't do anything wrong...

He's asking for it. It's no different than a klansman walking through Harlem in white sheets.

[BlueIris]

105. Rock on, Rabbi Fine!

Sometimes people so ignorant they are subscribing to neo-Nazi attitudes won't get inspired to think about how disgusting they are unless they literally get hit over the head. Or in the face.

[Gyre]

107. As a prosecutor

I'd really hate having a victim who was wearing a swastika which provoked a battery. That would really suck!

Gyre

[d_b]

113. Idiots

[deacon2]

115. I believe an "insta-bris"

would have been more satisfying. Coffee in the face is fun, but firing up the "mohel-a-matic" would have made a more lasting impression, if you know what I mean. I trend toward pacifism in theory, but lately I've been in a really vile mood when it comes to the obvious upswing in Fascism, Nazism, and all the other "isms" and "hate-based" initiatives springing up in our nation. While I would like to believe these could be countered with reason, what on earth even approaches reason in the people who espouse this garbage? As for ignoring them until the go away, you've got to be kidding. They won't be ignoring us on "The Great Day of the Rope." I guarantee it.

[Colorado Blue]

118. Oy, that is the best post I have read all day! Rock on.

[sabra]

122. wow, how did you come up that one :-)