On being "politically correct"

 

The other day I read a CNN article on a local tv station's Web site titled U.S. Rep. Apologizes For 'Tar Baby' Comment

Seems Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colorado, trying to distance himself from the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, allegedly said "...I don't want to even have to be associated with him (Obama). It's like touching a tar baby and you get, you get it, you know ... you are stuck and you are part of the problem now and you can't get away."

Now I often refer to Joel Chandler Harris' Song of the South and Uncle Remus' tar baby; my children grew up with me complaining that someone who failed to return my greeting was a "tar baby" and they knew the story.

As a young person in Indiana I saw Song of the South.

I guess I missed the racist part.

I thought Uncle Remus was a grand old man who told some tall tales. Sort of like a grandfather.

Later I learned that Uncle Remus was supposed to have been a house slave and the white children listening to his tales were kin to the slave owner.

That didn't make the tales any shorter - a tall tale is a tall tale, no matter who tells it or the color of the story teller's skin or his manner of speech.

I can understand, and appreciate, the Republican's desire to distance himself from the president du jour and I can understand how he might have done something to link him to that person; it's the old "birds of a feather" thing - or could that expression be considered anti-avian?

It's hard for me to understand how anyone could consider Lamborn's remark as racist, but I suppose some ignorant folk looking for a cause might manage to assume the worst..

Lamborn compounded the problem by apologizing to Obama for using a term some might find "insensitive."

It is true that Lamborn is, according to Wikipedia, a WASP and the president is not. Maybe to boost the latter's image - lately in dire need of boosting - someone, perhaps a CNN producer, managed to hear, or hear of, the remark and ran with it.

It's fairly obvious by the context of Lamborn's remark that the representative knows the Br'er Rabbit vs. the Tar Baby story. It's also fairly obvious that the CNN producer does not know the story and does not have time to do any research - or perhaps her prejudices just got in the way. If it was for want of research, all she had to do was visit the Internet. The battle of wits between Br'er Fox, Br'er Bear, and Br'er Rabbit can be found, among other URLs, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHNDKxySTvU&feature=related. The story is a two-parter; Part 2 is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4D470YSl2Y&feature=related.

I'm of a generation that remembers a "well rounded" Aunt Jemima (http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/public/default.asp?t=1&m=1&c=34&s=264&ai=42091&ssd=11/9/2002&arch=y). Nancy Green always will be the face I conjure up when I hear the name Aunt Jemima or even think about pancakes. Does that make me and other lovers of griddle cakes racist?

Uncle Remus. accent and all, was no Lincoln Theodore Monroe Andrew Perry, a/k/a the groveling Steppin' Fetchit. As a south Floridian, I must note that Perry was a Key West native. Uncle Remus had the respect of the "master" who put his children into Uncle's hands for an education in humanity - which is what each of the Uncle Remus stories is all about.

What if Aesop was black - would all the Aesop fables be banned? Anyone know how a Greek accent sounds?

I understand that different folks react differently to the same things.

When someone wanted to moor a replica of the La Amistad in Tampa Bay, the local black population objected. The ship "went north" where it found a home at the Mystic Seaport in Mystic CN in 2010.

Given that, it is possible to see how a person ignorant of Song of the South could associate "tar baby" - tar being black - as a reference to a black president. That was not the case, but for a person with an agenda, it's "obvious."

After thought. I wanted to include a photo of James Baskett, the actor who played Uncle Remus, but Disney apparently owns the copyright to all the pictures I found on the Web and Disney has a reputation of restricting use of its property. Still, a search for "James Baskett" will turn up several sites with photos and biographies of the actor; it's worth the effort.

How to balance a budget

 

S T O P

  *  borrowing money from other nations

  *  giving foreign aid to ungrateful nations

  *  meddling in other nation's civil wars; remember the Monroe Doctrine

  *  being the world's policeman; keep U.S. troops on U.S. soil

  *  being the first with the most with emergency assistance

  *  wasting funds - the GAO has a long list of wastes

S T A R T

  *  taking care of the people who pay the bills

  *  thinking about future generations

R E A L I Z E

  *  we can't buy friends

  *  people hate the U.S. for its freedoms

  *  the U.S. does NOT have to be all things to all people

  *  we have people in the U.S. who need assistance and that "charity" - or in this case, "their due" - begins at home (with the caveat that those that can help themselves will help themselves)

It's really very simple.

There are many - altogether too many - nations on the U.S. dole. Only a handful even attempt to replay their debt to the U.S.

Yet the U.S., trying to buy friends - that never has worked- borrows money from real and potential (political) enemies to give away to others.

Why is the U.S. involved in Libya? Certainly not to protect the dissidents else it would be in Syria and Sudan. Oil? Does anyone think that the dissidents will sell Libyan oil to the U.S. cheaply? What has Syria or Sudan got to offer? In Syria, the conflict is religious; let each sides' coreligionists settle the issue however they like, but let the U.S. stay out of it. Sudan seems to be the same thing, but while Syria is Muslim vs. Muslim, Sudan's oppression is Muslim on non-Muslim.

Why does the U.S. make noise - and only noise - about Iran and is relatively silent about North Korea? Perhaps because it worries about ally South Korea while thinking that only Israel will be attacked in the middle east? South Korea sells cars (Hyundai and Kia) in the U.S., what does the U.S. get from Israel other than technology and a loyal ally? China used to call the U.S. a "paper tiger." Now even the paper is owned by China.

The politicians, if you ask the Government Accounting Office, are spendthrifts; money is wasted left and right, and not just on pork barrel projects. Basic expenses are inflated to the point of obscenity.

The United States has resources beyond measure, but the politicians - of both parties - have pledged them to foreign governments while encouraging companies to send jobs overseas (or bring foreign workers to the U.S. to replace unemployed Americans with equal, or better, credentials).

There are ways to balance the budget or at least get the debt to a reasonable level - that is, one that can be paid "on demand." Regardless of what the talking heads say about government debt being "different" from family debt, to the people who have to PAY the debt, debt is debt is debt.

Our politicians need to work together - they used to and the schism I lay at the feet of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and a few of his political stooges. It is not because the president is a Democrat and the Republicans control the House. Some of the greatest political advances have been made when BOTH houses were one party and the president was of the other party. Currently, the U.S. is, as a former senate candidate declared in 1858, "a house divided," The candidate added that "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

I'm afraid he's right at this point in U.S. history.

Delta and the Saudis

 

The "SkyTeam Alliance" of which Delta and 13 other airlines are members (see http://www.skyteam.com/en/About-Us/Our-Members/) recently accepted Saudia Arabian Airlines as a member.

El Al, by comparison, has (or had) code share agreements with 7 other airlines, including American, although the American Airlines WWW site states, in bold letters:

Due to a regulatory change by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, American Airlines has suspended its code share on flights operated by El Al until further notice. See http://tinyurl.com/6dtb7vx for an explanation that may, or may not, satisfy.

IN ANY EVENT, Delta, which also flies to Lod (TLV) claims it has no control over who chooses to fly in its planes other than to check that the prospective passenger has a valid passport and, if necessary, a visa to the destination country.

Saudia requires a visa.

From my personal perspective, I would be hard pressed to find a reason to travel to Saudia. Jordan, OK. The "old" Egypt, maybe. Morocco, in a heartbeat. But Saudia ?

Saudia's embassy Web site provides a PDF version of its visa application.

That's innocent enough.

But, like most countries, when applying for a visa the potential traveler also must provide his or her passport.

If the passport shows a stop in Israel, the visa may be denied. (I think Israel passport control still offers the option of a paper entry/visa that leaves no marks on the passport.)

It's unfortunate that while the embassy Web site states that visitors to Saudia must abide by the kingdom's laws (standard wording for any country), it doesn't state that certain laws unknown in most free countries are applicable in Saudia, e.g., bringing in anything other than an approved Islamic religious text, nor does it state that women traveling alone must be met at the entry point by a male chaperone. (Imagine a female CEO of a major company who wants to do business in Saudia being told she can't leave the airport without a chaperone and she certainly cannot rent and drive a car in the kingdom. What would Fiona say to that?)

My take is that I have flown a lot of miles with Delta.

I've flown with El Al, KLM, Northwest/United - Air France, and once with a UK-based airline I hope never to see again; my wife frequently flies Iberia (El Al code share); my daughter and grand-daughter are coming over via Iberia, although she likes BA (despite its incompetency in dealing with threatened work (in)actions). My sister-in-law and family (6 in all) are traveling via American (an El Al code share until the US FAA cancelled that arrangement, ibid.).

If I can get a non-stop flight from Hartfield to Lod and back the same path, I'll probably book on Delta. I won't be risking a ride on a Saudi plane.

Given that some of the code shares align with other counties with "restricted" rights, e.g., China, I have no problem with Delta being a code share with Saudia Arabian Airlines; I wish it was not, but for now it's a done deal.

As long as Delta is ready when I am (and the price is right). . .

What am I missing?

 

As of 8:37 a.m. Eastern time Friday, May 20, 2011, the U.S. national debt was

$55,354,057,812,217

and each individual U.S. citizen - every man, woman, and child - owed

$177,767

By the time this is read, the debt will be substantially more.

You can watch it climb at http://www.usdebtclock.org/#.

At the same time the national debt - our indebtedness - is skyrocketing, the president (POTUS) is promising billions for potential - likely - enemies of the U.S. in hopes he can buy friends.

Mr. President: This has NEVER worked; not for Democrats and not for Republicans.

It certainly will not work dealing with Moslems who want to take over the world.

What MIGHT work is another Great White Fleet; the fleet that Teddy Roosevelt sent around the world proving his "Speak softly and carry a big stick" philosophy worked. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet.)

For all that, where is Congress going to get the money so you can keep your rash promise?

While I support limited, emergency foreign aid - e.g., helping Haiti's poor recover from that country's several disasters - I fail to see any benefit of aid to Egypt (the U.S.' partner who was overthrown) or the so called PLO (whose former leader pocketed a large percentage of the loot); even Israel, a country that probably can stand on its own if it could be weaned from the U.S.' financial teat.

The U.S. is owned by others, primarily by China.

No longer are Americans an independent people nor is our country still ours.

We have been "sold out" by Washington - by both Democrats and Republicans - and you, Mr. President, are continuing the great - and stupid - tradition of selling our children's futures for your own glory - "Look how I helped <pick a country>." Never mind it was money generations to come must earn.

It might not be so bad were the promises not coming on the heels of an invasion of a country involved in a civil war, an invasion in which we had no right to participate. (Remember the Monroe Doctrine?)

And never mind that the rulers the rioters are overthrowing managed to keep the lid on internal strife - much like the Communists in the former Soviet Union.

And never mind that, if all the revolting countries follow in the path of Egypt and Gaza they will be dominated by terrorists determined to eliminate the Great Satan - the U.S. - and then all the infidels - until they run out of infidels then they'll start on each other.

Not only do your promises sell us and our children and their children into debtor's prison - for truly, owning debt we can never repay is a prison - you are selling us to a people who hate us, who WILL "bite the hand that feeds them."

Is there anyone in Congress with the intelligence and intestinal fortitude to prevent POTUS from giving away our future?

A favorite time

 

Reference
Hebrew: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/h/h49.htm
English: http://www.shechem.org/torah/avot.html

THIS IS one of my favorite times of the year, from Pesach's end to Rosh HaShana - it is time for מסכת אבות- also known as Perki Avot (Avos) and Ethics of the Fathers.

Avot comes - like Passover hagadahs and the five megillot ( חמש מגילות) * - in many different forms; all Hebrew/Aramaic, all local language (e.g., English in the US, French in France); in simple paperback versions and in elaborate, illustrated coffee table objets d'art. Some works include commentary from both distant (immediate post-Talmudic period) and contemporary sources. Avot also is found in many, perhaps most, sidurim (prayer books). Not being a Rothschild, my copies of Avot are of the simple variety, but the wisdom is the same regardless of cost. (Don't misunderstand, I'll gladly accept an objet d' art, but I'll "make do" with the versions I have.)

The Hebrew of Avot is generally fairly simple, almost "עברית קלה".

One of my favorites, Shammai, pops up in Chapter 1 (Verse 15), with passing references elsewhere.

Avot has five chapters; most are chronological in order, from Chapter 1 Verse 1 (Moses received the Torah from Sinai) to Chapter 4 Verses 28 and 29 (Eleazar ha-Kappar used to say ) , but the fifth chapter is a "catch all."

Most "traditional" - read "orthodox" if you must - congregations read one chapter each Shabat, repeating the chapters as a set until Rosh HaShana. For all that, any time of year is suitable for Avot, and it can be taken in any quantity - a verse or several, or a chapter or several.

It is unfortunate that probably in most congregations the chapter of the week is read sans any discussion of either how the verses may apply to us today or any enlightenment about the luminaries that are credited with the wisdom.

The latter issue - gaining a little knowledge of the people cited - is easily remedied by acquiring a book titled "Masters of the Talmud " ** It may be available at your local synagogue or public library; as this is prepared, Amazon claims to have several copies available.

One of the reasons I enjoy Avot is because we get a glimpse, albeit a very abbreviated glimpse, of Shammai that gives a hint that he was far from the curmudgeon that he often is portrayed in comparison to his partner-in-learning, Hillel.

In chapter 1, Verse 15, Shammai tells us "Make your study of the Torah a fixed habit. Say little and do much, and receive all men with a cheerful face."

Any one who digs deeper into the Talmud than Avot will find that Shammai actually was a bit of a liberal on some things.

Chapter 5, Verse 20 reminds us that the debates between Bet Shammai (Shammai's school) and Bet Hillel were welcome debates; Which controversy was an example of being waged in the service of G-d? Such was the controversy of Hillel and Shammai. And which was not for G-d? Such was the controversy of Korah and all his company.

It is said - and this is only incidental to Avot - that because Hillel was "less severe" in his rulings than Shammai, we follow Hillel now, but when the mashich (messiah) comes, we will follow Shammai.

In any - and all - event(s), this is one of my favorite times of the year. Mimunah followed by Avot; it doesn't get much better than that.

 

* Esther (Purim), Ruth (Shavuot), Lamentations (9th of Av), Ecclesiastics (Sukot), Song of Songs (for Sefardim, every Friday night; for others it is associated with Pesach/Passover).

** Masters of the Talmud, Alfred J. Kolatch, Jonathan David Publishers, ISBN 0-8246-0434-2, Copyright 2003.

Middle path

 

The following is used with permission

Ice, Fire, and the Search for the Middle Path: Thoughts for Shabbat HaGadol, April 16, 2011

By Rabbi Marc D. Angel

The Jerusalem Talmud (Hagigah 2:1) teaches that the way of Torah is a narrow path. On the right is fire and on the left is icy snow. If one veers from the path, one risks being destroyed by either the fire or the ice. The Torah way of life is balanced, harmonious and sensible. It imbues life with depth, meaning and true happiness. Yet, it is not easy to stay on the path.

Veering to the left freezes the soul of Judaism. When one abandons the warmth of traditional Jewish belief and observance, one falls prey to the ice of skepticism, materialism, hedonism. One confronts what Viktor Frankl has called a “spiritual vacuum”, or what Peter Berger has termed “spiritual homelessness”.

Veering to the right causes one to become embroiled in religious fanaticism, excessive zeal. This tendency generates a spirit of isolationism, self-righteousness, xenophobia, authoritarianism. It reduces the Torah way of life to a self-imposed physical and spiritual ghetto.

The Jerusalem Post reported a survey indicating that about 2/3 of Israeli Jews will participate in a Seder for Passover this year; about 80% of new olim will do likewise. This means that one-third of Israeli Jews and 20% of new olim will not be at a Seder. For this huge number of Jews, participation at a Seder means little or nothing. They do not feel a religious—or even a national or cultural—impulse to celebrate Pessah with a Seder. If this is so in Israel, it is all the more so in the diaspora. This is the way of ice, the freezing of the soul of Judaism.

On the other hand, we witness the patterns within Orthodoxy where stringencies upon stringencies are added to Passover observance. Food items need multiple hashgahot to appease various segments of the community. Religiously observant people don’t eat in the homes of other religiously observant people who do not keep up with all the latest humrot. This is the way of fire, the burning of the soul of Judaism and turning the Torah life into a cultic framework.

How do we stay on the healthy, balanced middle path of Torah? Why do the forces of ice and fire grow so strong, as the middle path seems to grow weaker and less confident?

Modern Orthodoxy stands for the middle path. It strives to maintain devotion to Torah and halakha, while avoiding the extremes of the right and left. Yet, Modern Orthodoxy finds that its children are being pulled toward both extremes. Some move to the right, thinking that this is a “more religious” approach. Some move to the left, surrendering to the prevailing secular values of society. Why does Modern Orthodoxy feel imperiled?

It is difficult, even uninspiring, to fight for moderation, balance, compassion and inclusiveness. It is so much easier to take extreme positions, where one can argue from the vantage point of ice or fire, rather than to be “lukewarm”. At a time when the vision of Modern Orthodoxy is so desperately needed, Modern Orthodoxy seems to have lost its voice, its confidence, its ability to steer intelligently between the way of ice and the way of fire.

All Jews—whether Orthodox or not—need to hear a principled and articulate expression of the middle path of Judaism, that veers neither to the right nor to the left. Happily, there are some Modern Orthodox voices that are rising to the challenge. Let us all listen carefully. The future of Judaism and the Jewish people are at stake.

The Angel for Shabbat column is presented as a service of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals. Please visit our website jewishideas.org for a wide array of articles of special interest to those who wish to foster an intellectually vibrant, compassionate and inclusive Orthodox Judaism.

The Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals
8 West 70th Street
New York, NY 10023
United States

Religion and Superstition: Thoughts for Shabbat Vayikra

 

The following used with permission

By Rabbi Marc D. Angel

During the past week, I received an email from an organization in Israel seeking donations for which donors would merit success, happy marriage and good health. The organization offered to have a Torah scholar pray at the Kotel from the Fast of Esther through the 7th day of Passover. They assured donors that this is a "very powerful time for hidden blessings to be revealed."

Not long after getting this spam, I received in the mail a glitzy brochure from another organization seeking donations so that the "gedolei hador" will pray on our behalf at the Kotel. The brochure features photos of sages with long white beards, who assure us that by supporting this charity we will gain wonderful rewards.

These are recent examples of the ongoing process of cheapening Jewish prayer, and of undermining the spiritual foundations of the Jewish people. The above charities, and many others as well, prey on the gullibility and fears of the public. They claim to have direct access to God--through their "Torah scholars" and "gedolei hador"-- that the rest of us lack. They claim that these prayers at the Kotel will be effective, whereas our own prayers anywhere else will not be as effective. Charlatans abound who promise miracles, if only we will give them ample donations. They will write us amulets, bless red strings, send us holy water or food, pray for us at the Kotel.

There is, of course, a long history of charlatanism and shamanism in religion--including Judaism. There have always been those who claimed to have the keys to God's inner chambers, and that--for a price--they would intercede on behalf of those who turned to them.

Superstitious practices and beliefs, even if dressed in holy garb, are inimical to the purity of religion. They blur the line between religion and superstition, degrading and disgracing true religion.

As we approach the Purim holiday, we recall that Esther requested that the Jews fast during their hour of distress. Rabbinic tradition has understood this as a call to prayer and repentance. Esther did not ask Jews to send donations to holy people at the Kotel; or to pay for prayers by supposed saints and scholars. No, she called on each Jew to reach out to God from the depths of his/her heart. And the Jews were redeemed.

Let us each turn to the Almighty in sincere and pure prayer. This is the special privilege and responsibility that Judaism offers us: to stand before the Master of the Universe directly. The Torah of God is pure; we must not allow it to be defiled by misguided superstitious beliefs and practices.

The Angel for Shabbat column is presented as a service of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals. Please visit our website jewishideas.org for a wide array of articles of special interest to those who wish to foster an intellectually vibrant, compassionate and inclusive Orthodox Judaism.

The Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals
8 West 70th Street
New York, NY 10023

How is it possible?

I have AvMed's Medicare Advantage plan.

It costs me a few cents less than $100-a-month (we have not had "pennies" since the Brits went home in 1776).

My Primary Care Physician (PCP) co-pay is $0 - zip, nada, effis. I pay $5 for visits to specialists. My medicines are free to me.

How is it then that if I had "original" Medicare I would have to pay more - a great deal more?

On one of my visits to a specialist in January I asked how much would I have to pay if I was using my Medicare card. The Sweet Young Thing did the math and came up with a figure close to $150. I paid $5.

Each month I get three prescriptions refilled at a nearby Target. Cost to me: $0. A one time prescription for special eye drops at CVS was, likewise, $0. My monthly bill at Target for 90-day supplies was, pre-AvMed, $30.

The question is: If AvMed and other private insurers can get me into the PCP for no dollars from my pocket, and if AvMed and other private insurers can get me my prescriptions for zero dollars, why can't Medicare do the same thing?

Medicare gets my $100-a-month and pays it out to AvMed.

Somehow AvMed managed to turn a profit. It did so well it managed (in the face of competition) to lower it's specialist co-pay from $25 to $5.

Back to the prescriptions. In order to have prescription coverage - which I found out is a requirement - there is an ADDITIONAL change by Medicare . . . and if you fail to sign up for (I think) Part D prescription coverage when first eligible, Medicare penalizes you - forever.

The current CEO of the U.S. proposes an omnibus health plan that will "control costs." If Medicare is any example of how the government will control costs, please - I can't afford it.

We DO need universal health care and we DO need to care for those who truly cannot care for themselves.

FOR THE RECORD: I have no interest in AvMed other than being an AvMed Medicare Advantage customer. I cite AvMed only because I know how it works for me.

G-d, miskan, & timing

 

The other day, between minhah and araveet the rabbi noted that G-d didn't ask that a home be prepared for Him until after we created the golden calf.

He gave a couple of reasons for the timing, but none satisfy me.

I believe that G-d told us to build the miskan (tabernacle) because He realized that we needed something physical to look at to give us a "warm, fuzzy" feeling that He was (still) with us.

He also needed to leave us something to cling to after Moses a"h was taken away.

If you can remember back to your childhood, try to recall if your mother or father gave you a trinket or other "souvenir" of their presence when they went off somewhere. Maybe it was just a photograph.

You could touch the trinket or look at the photo and "know" that mom or dad soon would return. The "warm, fuzzy" that the miskan gave us in the wilderness.

Granted, many of us were adults when gold was collected for the idol, but consider that our mentality was that of at best a pre-teen. We had been in Egypt for centuries and slaves for a good part of that time.

Slavery may be onerous, but slaves get housing, food, and clothing from their masters - remember that there were those among us who wanted to return to the "flesh pots of Egypt."

Unlike Yetro, we witnessed the wonders in Egypt and in the wilderness, and we knew Moses a"h had a unique relationship with HaShem, but despite all that we still lacked the maturity to understand that we did not need something physical to feel close to HaShem. Yetro, on the other hand, had maturity sufficient to accept an invisible god based solely on exploits Moses related to him.

When Moses failed to return at what we perceived to be the "appointed hour" we did the equivalent of curling into the fetal position and crying with anguish and fear of abandonment. We had not yet given our trust to HaShem.

HaShem must have thrown up His "hands" and thought: "They are just children; let them have their physical reminder of Me."

Torah wasn't enough. Two tablets were insufficient. As children - at least with a child's mentality - we needed something concrete. The miskan was that physical thing.

It's revolting

 

Tunisia's dictator runs to Saudia.

Egypt is revolting,

Algeria, Morocco, and Jordan may be next.

Who will replace the "leaderships"?

In Egypt, it's almost certainly the Islamic Brotherhood, Moslem extremists that Egypt's dictator put down before.

In Algeria, again, Islamic extremists that were once thought crushed by the nation's military after winning a democratic election.

Does the U.S. know anything about the people in the streets? Who are the leaders; are there any leaders who are not extremists? In a word: No.

Someone suggested in an article that the U.S. should have been in contact with the people who want change. Offering them quiet support while urging the despots in power to be aware of their people's needs.

The U.S. did not do that.

But even if it did, could, should, the U.S. be trusted? Remember Hungary in 1956? The U.S. promised Hungary support - support that never materialized and Communist tanks quashed the people who took to the streets. A little more than a decade later, the U.S. promised support to Czechoslovakia ; support that never materialized. For the record, Republican Dwight D. "Ike" Eisenhower was president when the Hungarians revolted, Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson was president when the Russians quashed Czechoslovakia's effort at freedom.

It's reasonable that the mass of Moslems taking to the streets will gravitate to the extremists simply because the extremists - in particular Egypt's Moslem Brotherhood - have provided services to the poor that the governments failed to provide, specifically education, health care, and bread.

The U.S. foreign aid budget funnels about a billion dollars-a-year to Egypt. It also provides more than a billion-a-year in military aid. Where did it go? We know that the money designated for "Palestine" went into Arafat's pockets before being spent on his wife in France. His successors seem to have followed in his financial footsteps since most of the funds never reached the man in the street.

While the world currently focuses on the Moslem-dominated states, Moslems in Europe are preparing the same for their democratic hosts. They demand special schools and special considerations. What's the difference between Jews demanding special schools and Moslems with the same demand? The Jews pay for their own schools - and pay taxes to support public schools open to all.

I'm not sure democracy is necessarily a good thing for everyone.

The U.S. has on several occasions given Cuba "democracy" only to see it over turned and the island returned to a dictatorship. Some people simply cannot handle democracy. Strangely, Puerto Rico, populated with people one would think have the same mentality as Cubans, seems to thrive on democracy.

What will become of the Moslem states currently in turmoil is anyone's guess; I suspect things will get worse for non-Moslems in the region - an example is the Christians' plight in Gaza.

Meanwhile, Israel must remain alert and constantly aware that her friends are less than trustworthy. The Islamists can - and do - terrorize politicians into inaction or support of terrorism.

Teaching our children

 

According to the A Torah Minute (http://www.atorahminute.com/ for 19 December 2010 by Rabbi Ya'aqob Menashe of Midrash Ben Ish Hai, "It says in the Gemara of Qiddushin (29a) that one of the obligations upon a father is to teach his son Torah, as it says, "And you shall teach your sons" (Debarim 11:19)."

The rabbi states that "A father must fulfill this commandment by teaching his son himself at night. And if this is not possible, then at the very least he must do so on Shabbath and Yamim Tobim (Holy Days)."

This is not an "Ashkenazi" or "Sefardi/Mizrachi" thing, nor is it an "Orthodox," "Conservative," "Reform," or anything else thing; it is a Jewish obligation.

While I agree with the rabbi, I think he missed the proverbial boat, or perhaps he is addressing a different audience.

I can remember going to a synagogue on Sunday morning and watching as fathers dumped their children off at "Jewish school" and then went on their way to the golf course or wherever. Parking the car and "making minyan" was not on their agenda.

Likewise, I see youngsters today running around the "shul" while their fathers chat with other men and their mothers, upstairs, hold social hour with other wives, all during the time for prayer.

In both cases, we are teaching our children.

Unfortunately, we are teaching them disrespect for the religion and, by extension, everything "Jewish."

It's no wonder that so many Jews are Jews in name only; "accidents of birth" who were it not for a Jewish mother would have no connection at all to any form of Judaism.

It is not enough to send our children to an afternoon "Jewish" school or even to a Jewish day school.

It is not enough to send our children to a "professional Jew" - a hazan, rabbi, or other "paid-to-be- Jewish" person to learn a haftarah by rote. It is not enough to sit our child down in front of TropeTrainer or other software that teaches ta'amim (trope), and it is not enough to insist that our children learn Hebrew if it's never used - never read or spoken in the home.

Yes, I know not every Jewish adult can read or speak Hebrew, but every Jewish adult with a child or grandchild SHOULD try to learn with the children. Moreover we, parents and grandparents, need to inculcate into the children a love of learning and a pride in our heritage, something beyond bagel and Memunah Judaism.

OK - so you don't know Hebrew and you don't make it to synagogue on Shabat, but mothers can AT LEAST light Shabat candles and fathers can AT LEAST recite the kiddish - and maybe bless the children as well.

Can't find time to make a minyan on Shabat? Perhaps there is time to sit with the children and at least recite the Shema (and when everyone is "up to speed" on the Shema maybe add the Amedah).

We can hire all the teachers available, but until fathers and mothers become involved in Judaism - something more than social hour and Sunday bagels - we fail to teach our children Torah, for before we can teach Torah, we must learn, understand, and practice what the Torah teaches.

Two thoughts - Hallel and Atheists

 

Hallel

It's a funny thing.

During the intermediate days of Pesach and Sukkot we recite an abridged Hallel, commonly known as "hetzi Hallel."

During the 8 days of Hanukah we recite the full Hallel every day.

Pesach and Sukkot are Torah-ordained holidays.

Hanukah is strictly rabbinical.

Both Pesach and Hanukah are "freedom" holidays. Pesach recalls our freedom from Egyptian slavery and Hanukah our freedom from Syrian-Greek rule.

So why full Hallel for all eight days of Hanukah?

I'm not a rabbi and I don't play one on tv, but I would guess that we say the full Hallel on all days of Hanukah because there are no "intermediate" days.

Pesach and Sukkot have first and last days - how many "first and last days" depends upon your residence address or level of observance - Israeli's temporarily outside of Israel celebrate the holidays "as if" they were in Israel.

Hanukah runs from Day 1 to Day 8 as a single event - no intermediate days.

Since there are no "intermediate" days, we recite the full Hallel as we do on Pesach's and Sukkot's first and last days.

Atheists

I saw on the tv this morning a blurb about atheists waging a sign-board war on religion, taking some swipes at religion in general during a time when one fragmented religion is in its holiday season.

I have nothing against atheists; I think they are mistaken and I'm concerned that there are not moral guideposts for them, but then I think about all the folks with religious guideposts who burn people - usually Jews - at the stake or send them to gas chambers or otherwise maim and murder people who believe differently so who's to say a "moral guidepost" has any value anyway.

What got me thinking was the reaction of some of the folks whose religious outlook was targeted by the atheists.

Many reacted as if they were afraid that the atheists' advertising campaign would impact THEIR belief.

If the "religious" are so concerned, it suggests to me that their confidence in their brand of religion may be a little shaky; do they really have faith in their faith?

The atheists claim they just are trying to (a) make people think and (b) encourage like-minded people to "come out of the closet." There even was a hint that atheists will band together to seek anti-discrimination legislation.

An aside: This scrivener is against all special-group discrimination laws. It should be sufficient to have a law that states - and is enforced - "Discrimination is illegal." Period.

Frankly, the atheists don't bother me. Whether we have "In God We Trust" on our currency or "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance - both of relatively recent vintage - fails to concern me. Prayer in schools and other public places DOES concern me since usually the people most vocal about prayer in such places are willing only to allow prayers to their deity.

I know who I am.

I know what I believe.

I don't discuss religion or politics since such discussions often lead to irresolvable arguments.

The atheists are proclaiming that this is "the season for reason." I agree.

I don't see how any reasonable person can deny the presence of a superior/supreme being, but the absence of such a "force" is the atheists' main point.

Still, I'm amused by the people who feel threatened by the atheists' billboards. Maybe they are not as strong in their religion as they would like their neighbors to think.

While others risk their lives

 

We have for the duration a schnorrer, a Rosh Yeshiva - head of a religious school for students studying the Talmud.

I asked the gentleman if the young men at his yeshiva did their time with the Israeli armed forces? He answered with one word: No.

With that my wallet closed tightly.

Never mind that he is, allegedly, a Sefardi dressed as an Ashkenazi, with black kapote (but sans gartel even on Shabat) and tzit-tzit hanging out. (He had no noticeable peyot - ear curls - so there's no suspicion that he's a Yemenite.)

Here is an organization supported by state money (donated in large measure by non-Israelis often to massage their own consciences), teaching students getting a stipend from the state who are encouraged to have wives who receive welfare from the state and who have children, each one of which gets a stipend from the state.

But they give nothing - shum davar, efes, nada - back to the state.

No military service.

No national service.

They're "religious" and their duty for the state is studying Talmud.

Granted they DO have large families, but their children will follow in their paths of thumbing their noses at the state that provides for their welfare.

The contention that because they are "religious" is phony.

Joshua, Moses' handpicked successor and certainly "religious" not only went to war, he led the warriors.

Pinchas, the second high priest, went to war with Joshua.

In fact, in the period just after we entered Canaan, the only people exempt from going to war were (a) those under or over age, (b) those newly betrothed or married, (c) those who had recently built a new house, and (d) cowards.

The husband of one of my sisters-in-law is religious; he went to the army. His only son, also religious, went to the army (and still is a reservist). I have a brother-in-law who is religious and he not only went to the army, but he was in battles.

My sister-in-law's husband and her son, and my brother-in-law all work but find time for Torah study. They receive nothing from the state to study. In fact, the sister-in-law's husband spent his own money to learn to be a hazan - and had is son taught as well. When my #1 son visited them, he took him along for the class, a trip from Haifa to Jerusalem and back which was made every week for several years.

Most of the people in my congregation went to the military - either Israel's or the United States'. An 80-year-old gentleman tells of his service with the US Army; I can talk of my time with the US Air Force.

I have a sister-in-law who went into the Israeli army; she could have avoided it as many young women do, by opting for national service.

The Israeli army always has had rabbis in uniform. Some became famous; Rabbi Shlomo Goren, a"h, is an excellent example. My nephew was a masgeach (food preparation supervisor) - but in the army none-the-less.

There ARE yeshivot that do send students to the army or to national service.

There ARE yeshivot that insist learning be coupled with work, a real job.

The students who do their time - either with the army or in national service - and those who work and study have my greatest respect. It they become religious leaders, not necessarily rabbis, they will understand how the "average Jew" feels; they'll know something of the life of a typical Israeli.

The ones safely ensconced within the safety of yeshiva walls, who spend their life studying Talmud and increasing the population that will follow their fathers on the dole; these people are beneath contempt.

Until they give something back, not a prutah will they get from me.

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

Conversion factor

 

Comment appended to post Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:25 PM

 

I was changing the Comments status and I happened to see one of the comments from the "early days" of this blog.

The comment was from Rabbi A.Z. Haber in response to "About those Avot" (http://yohanon.blogspot.com/2008/05/about-those-avot.html).

The discussion was about converts to Judaism who made a name for themselves, notably in one of the Talmuds.

Rabbi Haber thought the person was Yehudah ben Torsa, but it turned out his answer was "close, but no cigar." The good rabbi followed up his initial comment with a correction, and with the correction, a story - which is why this entry is about converts.

Rabbi Haber wrote, in his update comment that "Actually it was Yochanan ben Torsa from a Yerushalmi and the Midrash (Pesikta Rabbasi 14):(The rabbi was a colleague of Rabbi Akiva; thus, this story probably took place in the era right after the destruction of the Second Temple)."

Once there was a Jewish man who owned a cow with which he plowed his field. He and the cow would rest, however, on the holy Shabbos, the day which is dedicated to the Creator.

This Jewish man went through a difficult period where he was forced to sell the cow to a non-Jewish neighbor. The new owner plowed with it for six days. On Shabbos, he also took it out to plough, but it lay down beneath its yoke. He began to beat it, but the animal would not budge from its place. Seeing that his efforts were in vain, he went to his Jewish neighbor and said, "Come take your cow, for she grieves after her former master. No matter how much I beat her, she refuses to budge from her place."

The Jewish man realized that the cow refused to work because it had been taught to rest on Shabbos. He said, "I will get her to stand up." When he came, he whispered in her ear, "Heifer, heifer, you know that when you were mine, you plowed all week and rested on Shabbos. But now because of my sins, I was forced to sell you, and your new owner is not Jewish. Therefore, I beseech you, stand up and plough." She immediately arose and began to plough.

The new owner said, "I beg you, take back your cow. But before I leave, tell me what did you whisper in her ear? I wore myself out with her, and even beat her, but she did not get up."The Jewish man told him what he had whispered in her ear.

Immediately, the other man began to tremble when he realized that this cow, who did not have human intellect, recognized the Creator. He therefore proclaimed, "How can I, a human being whom my Maker formed in His own image and to whom He gave intellect, fail to recognize my Creator?"

Straightaway, he went and converted to Judaism. Eventually, he became an accomplished Torah scholar who was known as Rabbi Yochanan ben Torsa (Yochanan, son of a cow), and to this day, our rabbis cite his rulings. Why is he called the "son of a cow"? It is because the elevated behavior of this cow led to his spiritual rebirth.

You can read more from Rabbi Haber at http://www.torahlab.org/outoftheloop/

If we can assume this is not a "sepur savta" (grandmother's take), here we have a person who knew - at best - only ONE - count'em, one - mitzvah, keeping Shabat, and he was converted. I'm sure the mikveh and brit came immediately after the man's decision.

A conversion in line with Ramba"m. A conversion in line with Hillel. A conversion in line with halakah.

Did the convert-to-be study for 6 months to a year? No indication of that.

Did the convert know all the major and minor mitzvoth, both the positive and the negative commandments? Not likely.

Did the convert agree to accept all 613 mitzvoth, even though there is no way any one person can practice them all? Hardly.

The Moabite convert - did she know all the mitzvoth? Obviously not - Naomi still was teaching her when they arrived back in Israel. Still, she was good enough to be the mother of kings.

What about Tzipora, Moses' wife. The Torah tells us she knew some mitzvoth, certainly about brit melah, but what about kashrut? That came with Sinai and Sinai came after the brit (a mitzvah that dates to Abraham's time). Yethro, Tzipora's father, allegedly converted after telling his son-in-law to set up an administrative system in the wilderness. Did he spend six months to a year studying with the rabbis?

When we accepted the "yoke of the Torah" we were standing under Har Sinai. Since the rabbis of today can't hold the mountain over a prospective convert's head, perhaps that is the reason for the extended study period. Perhaps not.

I understand the reluctance of some rabbis to accept a person who wants to convert - do they want to convert to be a "bagel Jew" - one who worries only about man's relationship with man at the expense of man's relationship with G-d?

I also can understand the reluctance of some rabbis to consider a person who wants to marry a Jew a suspect candidate. 'Course that doesn't speak well for the Jew who wants to marry the non-Jew . . . will the Jewish partner abandon Judaism once the glass is crushed (or the light bulb broken)?

But I cannot comprehend why the rabbis - and here I refer to the present religious establishment in Israel - insist on making conversion so difficult . . . and beyond the requirements of the Torah and it's luminaries. Is this a money-maker for the rabbis? How much do they charge a prospective convert for lessons? Do they charge by the hour or the lesson or do they charge for the course? Is it even proper to charge? A mohel isn't allowed to charge - demand a fee - for his handiwork. He is allowed to accept a gift. Both the mohel and the rabbinical board (va'ad) welcome a person into Judaism; why should the rabbis make a profit from a mitzvah. (Maybe we should pay our kohanim to bless us every morning for doing what the Torah commands them to do.)

The current religious establishment in Israel - both Ashkenazi and Sephardi/Mizrahi - bring no honor to the rabbinate, to Israel, or to Judaism.

One final thought: Maybe the "establishment" could learn from colleges and universities that let students "CLEP out" of some classes by proving the students already have the knowledge they would learn in class? The colleges and universities still charge, albeit a lesser fee, for the testing; if the rabbis had something similar, rather than lose income, they probably could make a greater profit by freeing up classroom space for other candidates.

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME in English and Hebrew.

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

 

From R. Haber, Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:25 PM

I am flattered to be quoted and you make (as always) a good point. I would rush to point out that almost every field recognizes the need for protocol. One year of study seems like good protocol. The only danger is when people confuse protocol with halacha. Protocol can change on a case by case basis; halacha generally cannot.

As an aside, I would humbly suggest that very few of us would be Hillelians on this subject. The chutzpadik attitude of the fellow who demanded to learn it all on one foot or to become Cohen Gadol would have gotten him thrown out of any court of any religion or denomination. Even if the halacha is like Hillel, you can't blame the Batei Din for leaning toward Shamai here. Especially when we (presumably) lack Hillel's ability to judge the character of the man in question.

 

Washington's blinders

 

I sometimes think our elected representatives think everything can be solved with taxpayer dollars.

I sent a fairly detailed post to Florida's junior, and unelected, senator, George LeMieux regarding a way to provide at least "semi-permanent" shelter to thousands of Haitians while removing the blight of empty 20- and 40-foot long cargo containers taking up space at our ports.

Photo by Timothy Schenck

I suggested that the containers, once if not now a drag on the market - it's less expensive to stack them at ports than to return them to their point of manufacture, typically China - could be converted to serve as housing and schools and clinics and any number of other useful structures.

There are several firms in the United States whose business is converting containers to residential and office use.

I told the Charlie Crist appointee where containers were located and I provided some contact information for companies doing conversions.

I thought it was a win (clear out unwanted containers) - win (business for US companies) - win (facilities for Haitians) situation.

My message to the Republican novice senator received an answer today.

The reply talked about government assistance for the Haiti. It talked about tax breaks for people donating funds to Haiti.

It failed to mention containers or housing. Not one word.

I suppose the approach was too simple.

Maybe it didn't cost enough of our tax dollars.

To his credit, his staff DID respond to my suggestion. Other Florida politicians failed to do even that much.

Sadly, it appears that the aide who checks incoming mail saw the word "Haiti" and put it into the "Send Haiti reply" queue.

I didn't vote for Mr. LeMieux and, based on his response, I'm certain I'll vote for his opponent if he decides to take his chances with an election. (His amazing rise-to-power official biography is at http://lemieux.senate.gov/public/?p=Biography.)

The people DO have a voice.

The trouble is, no one is listening.

 

COMMENTS ARE WELCOME in English or Hebrew; all others will be deleted.

Yohanon Glenn

---

Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

 

Minor difference

 

There is a very minor difference between Israel and Iran regarding nuclear weapons.

Assuming that Israel has nuclear weapons, ask how many times has the country threatened to erase another country from the world map.

Now ask how many times have the madmen in Iran threatened to erase Israel from the world map.

While the question is being asked, how about how many times the palestinian liberation organization demigods - now primarily sponsored by Iran and its proxy Syria - sworn to turn Israel into an all-Arab state? How many non-nuclear rockets have been fired into Israel by the so-called -palestinians and their equally crazy associates in Hamas and Hezbollah v s. the number fired - in retaliation - from Israel into Aza and parts of Occupied Israel.

Anyone who can read, anyone who can count, can see the difference between Israel and Iran and the states it sponsors to spread terror.

One thing Iran and Israel DO have in common: their ability to bring together strange bed fellows.

Moslem leaders who may hate each other agree to a truce to attack Israel.

At the same time, some Moslem states - Saudia, in this case - allegedly make a pact with Israel to let Israeli war planes overfly their territory to attack Iran. Saudi knows that if the Moslems lack a common threat (Israel, the United States), the crazies in control will send their armies to kill each other.

Next time someone rants that "It's not fair to pick on Iran's nuclear program; Israel already has The Bomb," remind them The Bomb is like sex. Israel is like a mature adult and approaches sexual encounters with caution while Iran is like a teenager whose hormones are raging.

Question: Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the Mel Gibson of Iran or is Mel Gibson the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Hollywood? (We need more Mel Brooks and less Mel Gibson.)

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

Madame president

 

Most "orthodox" congregations I know about - Sefardi and Ashkenazi - have one thing in common: women are prohibited from being elected president of the congregation.

I'm "old school" and the idea of a woman as rabbi or hazan is foreign to me.

But knowing women who (very) successfully run their own - or their husband's - business makes me wonder why they are banned from running the business affairs of a synagogue.

No one is suggesting the congregation board tell the rabbi about the Law (although boards do that by retaining or releasing religious leadership); the board is to attend to the business of the congregation, and it truly IS a business. If you look at most congregations, it is the Sisterhood that not only gets things organized, but gets them done as well.

So why CAN'T women hold any and all board positions?

Are we going backwards? (And if so, maybe we should go backwards to Deborah and Beruryah.)

The following were comments on "womens' rights" by the first Hakham Bakshi of modern Israel.

First Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel Ben Zion Uziel on Women’s Rights
http://tinyurl.com/2vvpmuv

It is instructive reading this not only to take notice of the clear common sense that radiations from Rav Benzion Uziel’s words as for the grace and dignity and learning with which his ideas are expressed, a grace and dignity all too often shabbily absent in today’s tawdry proceedings where shrill voices dominate and hateful language is the order of the day from all sides. The words of Rav Ben Zion Uziel are a cool tonic in an overheated room and it is noteworthy that the ideas they express have long ago become all but barred from public discourse in the Haredi world as something foreign and alien.

Following is an except of Rabbi Ben Zion Uziel’s complete letter which can be found at http://www.edah.org/backend/coldfusion/journal_images/journal1_2.pdf.

“WOMEN’S RIGHTS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND IN INSTITUTIONS OF PUBLIC AND YISHUV LEADERSHIP”
Rabbi Ben Zion Uziel, 1920

Women’s Right to Vote

This issue became a central controversy in Eretz Yisrael, and the whole Land of Israel rocked with the debate. Posters and warnings, pamphlets and newspaper articles appeared anew every morning, absolutely prohibiting women’s participation in the elections. Some based their argument on “Torah Law,” some on the need to preserve the boundaries of modesty and morals, and others on the wish to ensure the peace of the family home. All leaned upon the saying “The new is prohibited by Torah (hadash asur min ha-torah).”

Regarding the first [heading], we find no clear ground to prohibit this, and it is inconceivable that women should be denied this personal right. For in these elections we elevate leaders upon us and empower our representatives to speak in our name, to organize the matters of our yishuv, and to levy taxes on our property. The women, whether directly or indirectly, accept the authority of these representatives and obey their public and national directives and laws. How then can one simultaneously “pull the rope from both ends”: lay upon them the duty to obey those elected by the people, yet deny them the right to vote in the elections?

If anyone should tell us that women should be excluded from the voting public because “their minds are flighty (da`atan qalot)” (Shabbat 33b and Qiddushin 80b) and they know not how to choose who is worthy of leading the people, we reply: Well, then, let us exclude from the electorate also those men who are “of flighty minds” (and such are never lacking). However, reality confronts us clearly with the fact that, both in the past and in our times, women are equal to men in knowledge and wisdom, dealing in commerce and trade and conducting all personal matters in the best possible way. Has it ever been known that a guardian is appointed to conduct the affairs of an adult woman, against her will?

The meaning of our Rabbis’ statement, “da`atan qalot,” is entirely different. Also, the statement “women have no wisdom except with regard to the spindle” (Yoma 66b), is only flowery wording intended to circumvent a question posed by a woman.

But perhaps this should be prohibited because of licentiousness? But what licentiousness can there be in this, that each person goes to the poll and enters his voting slip? If we start considering such activities as licentious, no creature would be able to survive! Women and men would be prohibited from walking in the street, or from entering a shop together; it would be forbidden to negotiate in commerce with a woman, lest this encourage closeness and lead to licentiousness. Such ideas have never been suggested by anyone.

(Editor’s Note: Today they are commonly suggested)

A great innovation was advanced by Rabbi Dr. Ritter, who advocates denying suffrage to women because they are not qahal or edah, and were not counted in the census of the people of Israel nor subsumed into the genealogical account of the families of Israel. (His article is not before me, and I rely on the report by Rabbi Hirschensohn.)

Well, let us assume that they are neither qahal nor edah, and were counted neither in census nor as “family” or anything. But are they not creatures, created in the Divine Image and endowed with intelligence? And do they not have concerns that the representative assembly, or the committee it will choose, will be dealing with? And will they not be called upon to obey these bodies regarding their property as well as the education of their sons and daughters?

In conclusion: having found not the slightest grounds for this prohibition, I find that no one has the slightest right to oppose or to deny the wishes of part of the public on this matter. Regarding a similar situation, it has been said: “Even if ninety-nine request imposed distribution, and only one demands outright competition, that one should be followed, for his demand is legally right”(Mishnah Pe’ah 4:1). Over and above this, it has been stated: “Women were allowed to lay hands [on their sacrifice] for the sake of giving them a feeling of gratification” (Hagigah 16b), even though such an act appeared to the public as prohibited; how much more so in our case, where there is no aspect of prohibition at all, and where preventing their participation will be for them insulting and deceitful. Most certainly, in this case we should grant them their right.

Logic dictates that in no serious assembly or worthy discus- sion is there licentiousness. Daily, men meet and negotiate with women in commercial transactions, and yet all is peace and quiet. Even those inclined to sexual licentiousness will not contemplate the forbidden while seriously transacting business. Our rabbis did not say “Do not engage in much conversation with a woman” (Avot 1:5) except as regards idle, needless chatter; for that sort of conversation leads to sin, but not so debate over important, communal issues. Meeting in the same enclosed area for the sake of public service—which is tantamount to service of the Divine—does not habituate people to sin or cause levity; for all Jews, men and women alike, are holy, and not suspected of violating conventions of modesty or morality.

(Editor’s note: such an approach would certainly stem the mad tide of paranoia when it comes to constantly suspecting women of immodesty)

Finally, I have seen a newly contrived basis for not giving women the right to participate in elections (even to vote)—namely, out of consideration for the prohibition of flattery, lest a woman insincerely cast her vote for the individual or party that her husband favors. Sefer Malki Ba-Qodesh wrote correctly that such is not flattery but the upright nurturing of love. To which I would add: Would that this would be the case, that every woman would esteem her husband to the extent of suppressing her will on account of his. One might even voice this reason in favor of giving [women] the right to vote, so that a wife might thereby show love and esteem to her husband, and peace thereby abound in the house of Israel.

Conclusions:

1) A woman has an absolute right of participation in elections so that she be bound by the collective obligation to obey the elected officials who govern the nation.

2) A woman may also be elected to public office by the consent and ordinance of the community.

September 11, 2007

"Editor's notes" were included in the original article and are not the bloggers.

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

ADL and Jewish defense

 

The Anti-Defamation League, ADL, is a great organization for talking about anti-Jewish organizations.

It talks, and writes, about groups such as the Insani Yardim Vakfi (Humanitarian Relief Fund in Turkish, or IHH), an Istanbul-based Islamic charity with links to Hamas, one of the key organizers of the "Freedom Flotilla," a convoy of ships en route to Gaza that were intercepted by the Israeli Navy on May 31, 2010.

It puts the IHH into the same category as The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), a secessionist group in Sri Lanka that seeks to create an independent Tamil state in the island’s north and east. The LTTE, which pioneered the use of suicide bombings, has conducted deadly terrorist attacks in a conflict that has taken the lives of nearly 70,000 people.

The ADL reports that American Muslim ideologues living abroad are using their online pulpits to reach and influence audiences in the U.S. with ideologies of extreme intolerance and violence. Through English-language propaganda distributed on a variety of online platforms, these ideologues have not only encouraged attacks in the U.S., but also recruited followers to join terrorist groups overseas.

All of the above is linked from http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/default.htm.

Unlike the JDL - Jewish Defense League http://www.jdl.org/ - the ADL rarely DOES anything other than talk and publish.

What's interesting is that on the ADL's International Terrorist Symbols Database page (http://www.adl.org/terrorism/symbols/default.asp) visitors find the JDL's symbol listed as a terrorist group . . . right along with Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

The JDL symbol is shown on the ADL's page as the symbol for the "Kahane Movement" named for the late American Zionist rabbi Meir Kahane who, unlike many of his peers, felt the best way to deal with terrorists was to give them measure for measure.

Rabbi Kahane understood that the only way to deal with an enemy - any enemy - is to deal with it on the enemy's terms; in ways the enemy understands.

Europeans and Euro-Americans fail to understand this.

It's not just a Moslem "thing." It is a mind set shared by others. The French should have learned the lesson when they were chased out of Vietnam; certainly the American should have learned the lesson from the French, but they, too, had to learn "the hard way."

Apparently fighting the Japanese during World War II was insufficient to teach the lesson that not everyone makes war according to European rules of "civilized" warfare.

It was a lesson Americans apparently forgot; had the revolutionaries fought the British according to the European rules, the Several States still would be a British colony.

That's not to say that all Brits are like-minded; there was a fellow named Ord Wingate. Wingate was a British officer who, unlike most Brits of his time, was pro-Israel and who, again unlike most of his fellow Brits, understood the Arab mentality. There's a little Wikipedia piece on him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orde_Wingate#Palestine_and_the_Special_Night_Squads .

My father-in-law, A"H, was Moroccan. He moved to Israel and lived in a small, albeit very historic, town - Bet Shean - and regularly dealt with the area Arab population. He understood the Arab mentality and both he and the Arabs with whom he dealt had a mutual respect.

Most of his neighbors were from North Africa and shared his mentality, and for the most part Bet Shean, although on the border with Jordan, rarely had to deal with terrorists. Tel Aviv and Haifa, on the other hand, heavily populated with Europeans, seemed often to be terrorist targets.

Years ago, here in the States, we had some "junior terrorists" - middle school boys who apparently learned anti-Jewish acts from their parents - who thought we would be easy targets for their words and deeds. They were not Arabs.

Then, as now, my initial instinct was to contact not the ADL but the JDL, especially after the local sheriff's department did nothing. To its credit, the local police department - with encouragement from my mostly-veterans-of-WW2 neighbors - DID something and the boys - and their parents - got the message to cease and desist.

The ADL has some value as an organization that publicizes anti-Jewish incidents and organizations, but to lump the Jewish Defense League into the same category as Hamas is beyond my understanding.

It's a shame we need the JDL, but we do. It's a shame the JDL has to do what it does, but it must. Turning the other cheek is not a "Jewish thing" and it's time the Europeans and Euro-Americans realized that shaking a political finger and saying "Bad Terrorist, don't do that again" only encourages more outrageous acts against not only Jews and Israel, but all people who are not "one of them."

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com

It's curious

 

I'm reading a book my #1 son gifted me for Father's Day. It's titled "Walking the Bible"; the author is Bruce Feiler, a Jewish guy who wanted to trace our history from Abraham.

It's a fascinating read.

But one thing disturbs me.

Not just in Mr. Feiler's work but in other Jewish writers' efforts as well.

He frequently makes reference to "Jesus Christ."

There is some historical evidence that a personality named the Hebrew equivalent of "Jesus" existed, but my problem is "... Christ."

Christ is Greek for messiah, and as every Jew - and Moslem - knows, Jesus hardly proved to be the messiah. The whole idea of a messiah who would save us from punishment in the hereafter is foreign to the earliest Jewish messianic concept.

Why isn't Jesus called "Jesus THE Christ" - it would seem that his family name (a novelty introduced by Napoleon Bonaparte) is "Christ."

I'm no authority on the addenda to the Bible added by Jesus' followers, so I won't offer with any certainty that Jesus ever claimed to be more than just another Jew.

I DO know that another Jew, Paul - nee' Saul - promoted Jesus into a deity; Saul became the world's greatest PR person.

Quick, totally unrelated and irrelevant question: If Saul/Paul can create a worldwide religion around a man, why can't modern Israel create some decent PR in the face of Islamic attacks? We're consistently too little, too late.

Mr. Feiler of course is hardly the only Jew to fall into the trap of laziness or herd mentality that automatically appends "christ" to Jesus. Far too many Jewish scriveners do it without thinking - both about what it means religiously and what it means in so far as Paul's followers have done to Jews over the centuries.

I suppose I could say I'm on a "crusade" to make Jewish authors aware of this literary faux pas, but "crusade" is another word that needs to be banished from a Jewish writer's vocabulary except as reference to one more historical event that cost Jewish lives.

I might find "Jesus the Christian's Christ" less offensive coming from a Jewish writer. (I don't object to one of Jesus' followers writing "Jesus Christ" albeit even for them grammatically it should be "Jesus THE christ.")

Yohanon Glenn
Yohanon.Glenn at gmail dot com
COMMENTS ARE WELCOME but MUST be in Hebrew or English

News Alert: Background On Flotilla Incident

 

Two sides to every coin
(Or "What you won't hear on the tv news)

 

QUICK QUESTION: Why would Israel want to blockade Aza's ports? Why would it try to force Aza-bound ships to dock in Ashdod to unload cargo to be forwarded to Aza via truck?

QUICK ANSWER: To make certain the "innocent" cargo is indeed humanitarian and not missles and guns and bullets and other material that can be used to kill Israelis - Jews, Moslems, and others.

How dare those Israelis refuse to allow weapons into the hands of people who would murder them !

 

(Added 2 June 2010) While the flotilla's side is on every tv, Fox News managed to show the Israeli point of view at http://tinyurl.com/33entqm.

 

From Jewish Federations of North America

 

As many of you may be aware, a major confrontation took place off Israel's coast earlier today (Monday, May 31, 2010). We wanted to bring you the most up-to-date information from JFNA's Israel office, for your background. We have summarized the major points below. This is followed by additional facts and links to other important materials on this incident.

• Early this morning (May 31), Israel Defense Forces naval forces intercepted six ships attempting to break the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.

• The intercept took place after numerous warnings from Israel and the Israel Navy that were issued prior to the action. The Israel Navy requested the ships to redirect toward Ashdod , where they would be able to unload their cargo which would then be transferred to Gaza over land after undergoing security inspections. The IDF stressed that the passengers could then return to their point of departure on the same vessels.

• During the interception of the ships, the demonstrators onboard attacked the IDF naval personnel with live gunfire as well as light weaponry including knives, crowbars and clubs. The demonstrators had clearly prepared weapons in advance for this specific purpose.

• According to reports from sea, on board the flotilla that was seeking to break the maritime closure on the Gaza Strip, IDF forces apprehended two violent activists holding pistols. These militants apparently grabbed the pistols from IDF forces and opened fire on the soldiers.

• The activists were carrying 10,000 tons of reported aid to Gaza. Israel provides 15,000 tons of aid weekly to Gaza.

• As a result of this life-threatening activity, naval forces employed riot dispersal means, including, when they determined that their lives were in immediate danger, live fire. According to initial reports, these events resulted in a reported nine deaths among the demonstrators and numerous injured.

• A number of Israeli naval personnel were injured, some from gunfire and others from knives and crowbars. Two of the soldiers are seriously wounded and the remainder sustained light injuries.

• All of the injured, Israelis and foreigners, are currently being evacuated by a fleet of IDF helicopters to hospitals in Israel.

• Reports from IDF forces on the scene are that some of the participants onboard the ships had planned a lynch-mob attack, using lethal force on the boarding forces.

• The events are still unfolding. Israeli Naval commander, Vice Admiral Eliezer Marom is overseeing the activities.

• In the coming hours, the ships will be directed to the Ashdod port, while IDF naval forces will perform security checks in order to identify the people on board the ships and their equipment.

• The IDF naval operation was carried out under orders from the political leadership to halt the flotilla from reaching the Gaza Strip and breaching the naval blockade.

Other important facts:

• The provocateurs were organized by an Islamist organization that has links to fundamentalist jihadi groups.

• The extremists brought small children on board knowing that they intended to violate international maritime law.

• The activists were carrying 10,000 tons of what they said was aid. Israel transfers about 15,000 tons of supplies and humanitarian aid every week to the people of Gaza.

• "We fully intend to go to Gaza regardless of any intimidation or threats of violence against us, they are going to have to forcefully stop us," said one of the flotilla’s organizers.

• Using the Arabic term ‘intifada,’ Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said "We call on all Arabs and Muslims to rise up in front of Zionist embassies across the whole world.

• Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said this week: "If the ships reach Gaza it is a victory; if they are intercepted, it will be a victory too.

• Israel left Gaza in hopes of peace in 2005 and in return received more than 10,000 rockets and terrorist attacks.

• Israel has said that it will deliver any humanitarian aid to Gaza, as it does daily.

• No country would allow illegal entry of any vessel into their waters without a security check.

• Earlier this week, Noam Shalit, father of Hamas-held Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, approached the flotilla's organizers asking them to take supplies to Gilad. He was refused .

Here are additional resources for further background on this issue:

Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Danny Ayalon's press conference on the flotilla incident:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/137785

Israel Goes on High Alert in the Wake of Flotilla Incident:
http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=28979

IDF Met with Pre-Planned Violence When Boarding Ship:
http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/today/10/05/3101.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE&playnext_from=TL&videos=KoyKrtEKHmY&feature=sub
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon’s Statement: Activists Had Weapons:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896588,00.html

Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement about the humanitarian situation in Gaza:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wlWcNXzstI

MFA legal expert Sarah Weiss Maudi explains why the flotilla was not allowed to dock at Gaza:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2W457Ot6qw&feature=channel

Legal Backgrounder on maritime law and other related issues, from MFA:
http://www.jewishfederations.org/page.aspx?id=221580

A fascinating Al-Jazeera report on the flotilla before they left that offers insight into who was on board. One says: "We are now waiting for one of two good things -- either to achieve martyrdom or to reach Gaza:"
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2489.htm

Video of a "peace activist" stabbing an Israeli soldier as he boards the boat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buzOWKxN2co

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Expresses Full Backing for the IDF:

Prime Minister Netanyahu today spoke by telephone with the relevant security ministers and officials, and was updated on the action and subsequent developments. In his discussions with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, Minister Moshe Yaalon, Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch, IDF Chief-of-Staff Lt.-Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi and ISA Director Yuval Diskin, the Prime Minister issued security, diplomatic and information directives, reiterated his full backing for the IDF and inquired about the well-being of the wounded.

The National Security Council Counter-Terrorism Bureau (NSCCTB) has released the following statement:

"In response to the events surrounding the protest flotilla, there are growing protests by the government and public in Turkey. At this stage, relatively quiet demonstrations are taking place around the Israeli Consulate General in Istanbul and the Israeli Embassy in Ankara. This delicate state of affairs is liable to deteriorate into violent outbreaks against Israelis in Turkey.

The NSCCTB's recommendations are as follows:

• Israelis due to leave for Turkey should – at this stage – refrain from travelling until the situation becomes clear.

• Israelis currently in Turkey should remain in their places of residence, avoid city centers and sites in which demonstrations are being held, and monitor developments out of concern that the situation could worsen.