Harvard Also Has Christian Antisemitism
'As queer and trans people, political radicals, abolitionists and anti-Zionists, imagination is our calling,' a Harvard Divinity School student pronounced on campus. She denounced Israel's 'state violence, settler colonialism, fermented trauma and religious nationalism.'
The setting wasn't an encampment, an unauthorized graduation speech, or a foreign-funded Middle East studies seminar. It was a sermon at morning prayers inside Harvard's Memorial Church.
The university owns and operates the church, which occupies a prominent position in the physical center of campus. The Harvard Corp. selects and employs its minister. The church website, with audio and transcripts of sermons, has a Harvard.edu address. Contributors to the church get a tax receipt that says 'thank you for donating to Harvard University.'
Memorial Church calls itself 'an interdenominational Protestant church' and 'a community of social critique and human compassion.' When it comes to Israel and the Jews, as the Divinity School student's speech indicates, Harvard's main campus church has been heavy on critique and light on compassion. Hostility has come from professors and professional clergy, too.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
35 minutes ago
- CBS News
Suisun City votes to move forward with California Forever annexation project research
SUISUN CITY -- The Suisun City city council voted 3-1 on Tuesday night to enter into a reimbursement agreement with California Forever, which means the city's plan to consider annexing up to 22,000 acres of land owned by the development group now takes a big step forward in what is projected to be a years-long process. California Forever, a billionaire-backed initiative that drew national attention for its plans to build a new city in Solano County, withdrew its "East Solano Plan" from the November ballot in July 2024. The group was asking Solano County voters to support their proposed city adjacent to Travis Air Force Base of around 400,000 people. Instead, the group went back to the drawing board amid public pushback to put together a full environmental impact report on the proposed city's impact, planning to put a measure back before voters in 2026. Suisun City, as has the city of Rio Vista, engaged in talks with California Forever beginning in early 2025 to consider annexing some of the group's land into each city. Tuesday's vote by the Suisun City city council now means California Forever will front the cost of all of research needed for the annexation proposal, including environmental impact reports and paying consultants chosen by the city. California Forever will pay the city an initial $400,000. If the proposed annexation is eventually adopted by the city council and then approved by the county's LAFCO authority, California Forever will pay Suisun City $10 million. Currently, the city is facing a projected more than $1 million budget deficit for the 2025-2026 fiscal year. City manager Bret Prebula spoke in support of the annexation project vote, calling it the city's path forward that now allows them to engage in talks with California Forever that could secure a 'prosperous' future for the city. "What it does is open the door for Suisun City to shape the conversation and ensure we are not left behind," said Prebula at Tuesday's meeting. More than one hundred community members signed up to give public comment Tuesday night, which meant conversation on this topic went on for more than four hours. There was standing room only as Solano County residents both for and against the vote packed the chambers. Several people in support of the annexation project said it stands to provide decades of work for skilled laborers in the county. "What's the problem? I don't get it. It should be an easy 'yes' vote to take the time and do the research. As far as I'm concerned, the project should go forward as well," said Alicia Mijares, representing local sheet metal workers and their union. Those in opposition made it clear they do not trust California Forever and they do not want the city's future tied to their initiative. "When it was happening last summer to go on the ballot, nobody wanted it. They took it off the ballot. Now with this, we don't even have that right anymore. For it to have our vote, our count. It's disgraceful," resident Jan Bartz told CBS News Sacramento before the meeting. Several called what they heard in Tuesday night's public hearing and presentation 'empty promises.' "You may think you are being transparent, but many people I speak to in Suisun City do not agree. Brief public comments are no substitute for genuinely transparent and publicly participatory processes," said one community member from the podium in public comment opposing the vote. Councilmember Princess Washington was the sole "no" vote on the reimbursement agreement with California Forever. Washington expressed hesitancy in her comments by saying that she doesn't feel five people, the council, should 'dictate the fate of the entire county.' She added that proposals of this nature should be up to voters. Mayor Alma Hernandez and the other members of the council commented that this is step one in a long process that will provide the city answers, not result in an outright decision, on annexation. CBS13 asked California Forever for a response to Tuesday night's meeting. "We look forward to working with Suisun City and Rio Vista to bring new industries, amazing neighborhoods, and new sources of tax revenue to the region," a spokesperson responded in a statement. Suisun City is also considering a recent offer by California Forever's CEO Jan Sramek to purchase $1.5 million in downtown city property to help the city offset its budget shortfall. The item is expected to return to the council for a vote in late fall 2025.
Fox News
39 minutes ago
- Fox News
Federal judge orders Trump to return control of California National Guard to Newsom
A federal judge has ruled that President Donald Trump acted illegally when he seized control of California's National Guard during ICE-related riots in Los Angeles. U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer issued the decision Thursday, siding with Governor Gavin Newsom and ordering Trump to return control of the Guard to the state "forthwith.""His actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution," Breyer wrote. "He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.""Federalism is not optional," the ruling states. "Even the president cannot legislate by fiat."JUDGE MULLS TRUMP'S AUTHORITY OVER NATIONAL GUARD, WARNS US IS NOT 'KING GEORGE' MONARCHY Recent anti-ICE protests have led to riots, looting, and clashes with federal agents in Los Angeles. Trump issued a proclamation invoking federal authority, but Breyer rejected the justification, calling it constitutionally hollow. In his order, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer granted the plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order and took immediate action to halt federal control of the California National Guard."Defendants are temporarily ENJOINED from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles," the ruling states. "Defendants are DIRECTED to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom."TRUMP TELLS JUDGE HE DOES NOT NEED NEWSOM'S PERMISSION TO CRACK DOWN ON RIOTERS, DEPLOY NATIONAL GUARD The court stayed the order until noon on June 13, 2025, giving the defendants a narrow window to comply. Plaintiffs were also ordered to post a nominal bond of $100 within 24 hours. Looking ahead, Judge Breyer scheduled a hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order should become a preliminary injunction."Defendants are further ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why a preliminary injunction should not issue," Breyer wrote. The hearing is set for June 20, 2025, at 10 a.m."CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPThe White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment.
Travel Weekly
44 minutes ago
- Travel Weekly
Travel groups respond to Trump's travel ban on 12 countries
ASTA on June 5 warned that travel bans like the one President Trump will enact next week send a "ripple effect" through the economy and negatively impact travel. Citing concerns about national security, President Trump on June 4 issued an order banning citizens from 12 countries from entering the U.S. and restricting visitors from seven more. The ban takes effect June 9 at 12:01 a.m. The executive order, which primarily targets nations in Africa and the Middle East, reprises the travel ban concept from Trump's first term. And it makes good on an order signed by Trump in January at the start of his second term that directed federal agencies to look for countries that might present a security threat to the U.S. The ban applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, although there are a handful of carveouts for citizens with dual citizenship or legal residency in the U.S., some athletes, some refugees and some people who have worked for the U.S. government. It also restricts entry for travelers from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela who do not hold a valid visa. In this most recent order, Trump said its purpose was to protect U.S. citizens "from aliens who intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten our national security, espouse hateful ideology or otherwise exploit the immigration laws for malevolent purposes." ASTA's response to the travel ban In response to the ban, ASTA CEO Zane Kerby said while it understands the administration's concerns, such travel bans to tend adversely impact travel. "Safe, secure and open travel are foundational to our world," Kerby said. "When governments impose restrictions that limit access and movement, it doesn't simply affect individual travelers -- it sends a ripple effect through global commerce, frays diplomatic relations and, most importantly, opposes the very spirit of what travel represents. "We encourage policymakers to seek solutions that balance security with the fundamental rewards of travel: understanding, exchange and economic growth." Kerby also said that ASTA recognized that overstaying visas and vetting citizens was a problem and hoped the countries involved in the travel ban work with the U.S. to address those concerns so that travel can resume. The executive order specifies that factors considered in applying the ban include visa-overstay rates; those countries' terrorist presence within its territory; screening and vetting capabilities; information sharing policies; and cooperation accepting back its removable nationals. U.S. Travel chimes in On Friday, the U.S. Travel Association said that the travel industry "supports policies that make the United States both secure and welcoming." "In some instances, this is a challenging balance to achieve, and we respect the administration's efforts," it added. "While the countries currently affected by the recent policy announcement represent 0.5% of annual visitors, we are focused on driving millions of new visitors and strengthening our economy by solving longtime shortcomings with visas, customs, and an outdated air traffic control system. U.S. Travel has previously said that any restrictions on travel should come with a message of welcome. "It is vital to balance any discussions on potential travel restrictions through the lens of both national security and preserving America's reputation as a welcoming destination," a U.S. Travel spokesperson said in January. "Policies that potentially restrain visitation should be temporary and focused solely on ensuring security while minimizing disruption to lawful travel." This report, with updated information, replaces a previous report by the Associated Press, which can be found here. It was updated June 6 with a statement from the U.S. Travel Association.
