Wednesday, October 04, 2006

"Jackie Mason, a Jew for Jesus!?"

Apparently, Jews for Jesus have published a tract by this name which has attracted a $2 million lawsuit from Mr.Mason himself.

When you get past the slightly misleading title, the tract nowhere makes the claim that Jackie Mason is a follower of Jesus.

I don't know how effective it ultimately is and if God does use this method, but I confess that I am partial (and so is Jews for Jesus) to "shake'em up, in yer face" evangelism.

Yet I do wonder about the ethics of this particular project.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Jackie Mason Charges Against Jews For Jesus Denied By U.S. District Court
November 8, 2006

A decision by U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman was reached today in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York denying a preliminary injunction to Mr. Jackie Mason who sought to stop the distribution of one of the Jews for Jesus gospel pamphlets, entitled, "Jackie Mason, A Jew for Jesus?!"

In the eleven-page finding the Judge ruled that the pamphlet was protected speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Religious pamphlets with pop culture themes like the Mason one have been freely distributed by the organization for over 34 years and while this is a small win for Jews for Jesus, it is a big victory for gospel protected speech.

Judge Berman also addressed the two other contentions in the Mason injunction and could not find merit in them, ruling that a reader of the pamphlet could reasonably see that Jews for Jesus was not asserting that Jackie Mason was a Jew for Jesus and that the Jews for Jesus did not look to gain any commercial benefit from the pamphlet.

David Brickner, executive director of Jews for Jesus, said ‚"We never intended to hurt Jackie Mason's feelings. To many of us Jews for Jesus, Jackie Mason is an icon who reminds us of our Yiddish-speaking grandfathers. We appreciate his good-natured humor. We thought that he would appreciate ours and were surprised by this lawsuit. Nevertheless we felt we had to defend ourselves and are gratified by the court's decision upholding our 1st amendment rights. It is our hope that this can now be ended amicably." A further court date is scheduled for November 16th.