Christie Signs Law Eliminating Demeaning Terms

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie today signed legislation that removes outdated, disrespectful terminology that refers to persons with developmental disabilities from all New Jersey statutes and regulations. The bill, S-1982, eliminates references such as “mental retardation,” “mentally retarded” and “feeble-minded,” replacing the terms with “intellectual disability” or “developmental disability.”
All future legislation will encompass these changes.
“We live in the 21st Century and our laws must reflect that distinction,” said Governor Christie. “Those with intellectual disabilities are an important part of the fabric of New Jersey. Using antiquated, degrading terms to describe individuals with disabilities is an affront to the integrity of the person and their family, and below our common decency as a people. I am proud to move the language of New Jersey’s laws and regulations beyond such terminology.”
The legislation also updates and replaces references in Title 30 of the Revised Statutes to “mentally retarded” and “mental retardation” with the terms “developmentally disabled” and “developmental disability,” These changes also reflect the fact that the Division of Developmental Disabilities in the Department of Human Services serves all persons with developmental disabilities.
“When it comes to New Jerseyans living with developmental disabilities, words matter,” said Senate President Stephen M. Sweeney, sponsor of the bill. “The bill would replace demeaning, hurtful and antiquated terms for individuals with developmental disabilities to recognize that people are not defined by their disability, but by the character and strength they exhibit. Rather than marginalizing and demoralizing a segment of our population with the language used in our laws, we should strive to do better to educate the public about the accomplishments and contributions of people with developmental disabilities.”

ADL Leader Explains Position On Mosque

From Abraham H, Foxman, President of the Anti-Defamation League:
There are legitimate differences of opinion regarding the building of an Islamic cultural center at Ground Zero.
To us, after much discussion and debate it became clear that the overriding concern should be the sensitivities of the families of the victims that dictated finding another location for this massive, $100 million project.
At its essence, our position is about sensitivity. Everyone -- victims, opponents and proponents alike -- must pay attention to the sensitivities involved without giving in to appeals to, or accusations of, bigotry. Ultimately, this was 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 would unnecessarily cause some victims more pain. And that wasn't right.
Having made our decision known, we expected disagreement and criticism from some quarters. What has been so disheartening, however, has been the nature of that criticism. Two kinds of attacks have been particularly troubling: that we are violating principles of religious freedom, and that we are stereotyping Muslims.
These criticisms simply ignore ADL's record in dealing with such matters, particularly in the post-9/11 climate. . . .
All in all, we have established ourselves as leaders in promoting pluralism and fighting against bigotry, particularly against Muslims in the difficult post-9/11 period.
Critics should consider that context and credibility before reacting to ADL's position. Clearly we would not take a position to limit religious freedom. Clearly we would never take a position that would stereotype Muslims.
However, we also must take into consideration the feelings of the families who lost loved ones at Ground Zero.
The lessons of an earlier and different controversy echo in this one. In 1993, Pope John Paul II asked 14 Carmelite Nuns to move their convent from just outside the Auschwitz death camp. The establishment of the convent near Auschwitz had stirred dismay among Jewish groups and survivors who felt that the location was an affront and a terrible disservice to the memory of millions of Jews who died at the hands of the Nazis in the Holocaust.
Just as we thought then that well-meaning efforts by Carmelite nuns to build a Catholic structure were insensitive and counterproductive to reconciliation, so too we believe it will be with building a mosque so close to Ground Zero.
The better way for Muslims seeking reconciliation and moderation would have been for them to reach out to the families of the victims, who we are sure could have recommended any number of actions to achieve those goals other than the present plan.
To make this a test of whether one supports religious freedom or is stereotyping Muslims is to engage in demagoguery. Good people can differ as to what should happen, without falsely being accused of abandoning their principles.

Anti-Defamation League: No Ground Zero Mosque

The Anti-Defamation League has issued the following statement on the proposed Ground Zero mosque in lower Manhattan:

We regard freedom of religion as a cornerstone of the American democracy, and that freedom must include the right of all Americans – Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faiths – to build community centers and houses of worship.
We categorically reject appeals to bigotry on the basis of religion, and condemn those whose opposition to this proposed Islamic Center is a manifestation of such bigotry.
However, there are understandably strong passions and keen sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center site. We are ever mindful of the tragedy which befell our nation there, the pain we all still feel – and especially the anguish of the families and friends of those who were killed on September 11, 2001.
The controversy which has emerged regarding the building of an Islamic Center at this location is counterproductive to the healing process. Therefore, under these unique circumstances, we believe the City of New York would be better served if an alternative location could be found.
In recommending that a different location be found for the Islamic Center, we are mindful that some legitimate questions have been raised about who is providing the funding to build it, and what connections, if any, its leaders might have with groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values. These questions deserve a response, and we hope those backing the project will be transparent and forthcoming. But regardless of how they respond, the issue at stake is a broader one.
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.