Distinct ethics teaching the same conclusion

Social liberals have always supported beliefs that universal education, welfare (including benefits for the unemployed), housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick, all supported by progressive taxation are key components to a moral society. Progressive taxation may tax the richer of our society in support of the poor to stop the creation of a large gap between wealthy and impoverished. Why take some of the money the rich make to help the less unfortunate? That is altruism.

Altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others, although it may not benefit you. Altruism is a focal element of liberalistic societal values and religious belief. Although altruism has no beneficial quality for the rich or powerful, it is one of the most moral ways to base a society on because it means that you care for your fellow man although it is not beneficial for you to do so. The fact that religious and liberal beliefs lead to the altruistic, that sometimes your own personal benefit should not be most important factor in your philosophical outlook is a reason why both beliefs, although they seemingly oppose each other externally, can instead be in harmony with eachother.

Is Troy Anthony Davis receiving justice?

Troy Anthony Davis is currently on death row for the murder of a police officer. However, the fairness of his trial must be challenged. Here are a few facts about Davis’ case:

1. There was no physical evidence against him and the weapon used in the crime was never found.
2. All but two of the state's non-police witnesses from the trial have recanted or contradicted their testimony.
3. Many of these witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis.
4. One of the two witnesses who has not recanted his testimony is Sylvester "Red" Coles – the principle alternative suspect, according to the defense, against whom there is new evidence implicating him as the gunman. Nine individuals have signed affidavits implicating Sylvester Coles. [*]

How can our courts put this man to death when the evidence is so conflicting, and affidavits have been signed as witnesses declare that their testimony was faulty and the courts should no longer stand by it? How much longer can we let a system like the death penalty exist? It is an inherently evil system which is fallible; yet kills the killers to show that killing is wrong. Possibly the starkest display of the imperfection of the US capital justice system is the reality that ever since the US Supreme Court permitted new death penalty laws in 1976, more than 100 individuals have been released from death rows around the country on the basis of innocence. The cases of citizens akin to Anthony Porter -- who came 48 hours from capital punishment in 1998 subsequent to more than 16 years on death row in Illinois prior to being proved guiltless by a group of journalism students who happened to study his case -- stand as an indictment of a flawed structure.[~]

__________________________
[*] Source
[~] Further reading on Troy Anthony Davis

Bush picks Orthodox Jew as new US attorney general

An interesting article from the Jerusalem Post:

WASHINGTON - When Rudy Giuliani was set to become mayor of New York in 1994, he wanted former colleague and longtime friend Michael Mukasey to perform the swearing-in. But there was a hitch. The ceremony was set for a Saturday and Mukasey is an Orthodox Jew. So the swearing-in was delayed until Sunday to allow Mukasey to preside over it without breaking the Sabbath.

Mukasey might soon have to contemplate what day to hold his own swearing-in ceremony. On Monday, he was nominated by President George W. Bush to be the next attorney-general of the United States. Democratic senators, who must confirm the nomination, have so far indicated they won't oppose the appointment, though they are threatening to delay a vote until the White House complies with demands to provide documents in ongoing investigations.

Mukasey would replace Alberto Gonzales, who resigned last month under a hail of protest. White House officials have indicated that Mukasey was selected in part because they think he can avoid a bruising, partisan confirmation battle.

"The president wanted to get the person that he thought was the most qualified," said one senior administration official. "Obviously, if that same person with the same qualifications would also be easier to confirm or would have a more realistic ability to be confirmed, that would be a factor that was considered."

Mukasey has been widely praised for his integrity and intelligence, and has won kudos from prominent Democrats as well as Republicans. Appointed to the federal bench by then-US president Ronald Reagan in 1987, he's not considered to be an ideologue. Until he retired as chief judge of the Southern District in 2006, he sided with the White House in many - though not all - of the national security-related cases that passed under his gavel. His record on social issues such as abortion is less clear, and has led some conservatives to question Bush's choice.

Mukasey is most well-known for his involvement in several high-profile terrorism-related cases, including that of Jose Padilla, issuing material witness warrants post-September 11, and the trial of the "blind sheikh," Omar Abdel Rahman, for trying to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993.

In that last case, his Jewishness became a point of contention for the defense, which argued that that he should recuse himself because of his religion and support of Israel. The prosecution dismissed the request as ludicrous, as did Mukasey.

As a result of that case, which ended with Rahman sentenced to life in prison, Mukasey and his wife spent the next decade trailed by a security detail to protect them from death threats. He then retired as a judge and returned to his New York law practice.

Dov Hikind, a New York state assemblyman from Brooklyn and an Orthodox Jew, remembers that case well, as he himself had been included on the hit list of Rahman's conspiracy. He praised Mukasey for his handling of the proceedings.

"My assessment and everyone's assessment is that this is a superb individual in every way, as a jurist, as a person," Hikind said.

Indeed, Mukasey is not lacking in colleagues and friends willing to say a good word about him.

Mukasey would be only the second Jewish attorney general in US history. The late Edward Levi, who was selected by Gerald Ford in 1975, was the grandson of Rabbi Emil G. Hirsch, a leader in the Reform movement.

"This is definitely a first and something that all of us are proud of," said Hikind of Mukasey's Orthodox background. "It's great for the Jewish community. It's great for Rudy Giuliani. It's great for America."

An interesting essay on Modern Orthodoxy and women's issues

I read an interesting article by Sylvia Barack Fishman. Although it is long, I would suggest anyone interested by the topic of Orthodoxy and modernity in relation to women’s issues, should definitely read it. It is from edah.org, found in the websites online library (SOURCE):

Changing perspectives on desirable roles for Jewish women provide a dramatic illustration of the social construction of reality. Norms for women differ from one community to the next—and sometimes from one generation to the next as well, with each group asserting that its expectations for women are preferable and more “natural.” For example, young Modern Orthodox women today, especially in the United States and, to a lesser extent in Israel, take it for granted that they enjoy high levels of secular and religious education, and frequently high occupational status as well. Data from the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey (NJPS) demonstrate that American Orthodox women ages 25 to 44 have educational and occupational achievements virtually identical to other American Jewish women in their age group. This finding surprised observers who recalled that for many decades levels of Orthodox women’s education and occupational status lagged behind those of non-Orthodox Jews.

Moreover, a perhaps even more surprising result of the 1990 NJPS was that Modern Orthodox couples have more spousal parity than other American Jewish couples; that is, younger Modern Orthodox husbands and wives are more likely than other groups to be a “matched set,” with both sexes having roughly the same educational and occupational status. The spousal parity of Modern Orthodox couples is a clear reflection of—and an interesting symbol of—the changed family dynamics of Modern Orthodox households, which have been transformed by economic realities, as well as by social trends including feminism.

Within Judaism as a religion as well, women’s roles have undergone profound changes. Women’s life cycle events, long unmarked by Jewish tradition, are now regularly celebrated. For example, variations on the shalom bat ceremony welcoming infant girls into the covenant and destiny of the Jewish people have become commonplace in many American Orthodox communities. Even more so, bat mitzvah celebrations marking the religious adulthood of twelve year old girls are ubiquitous, albeit diverse, in most American Orthodox circles. Even Modern Orthodox weddings are often the scene of changing mores, as some brides expand the scope of the Shabbat kallah, or invite their friends and female relatives to a kallah’s tisch, or incorporate women into the bridal service under the huppah, reading the ketubah or delivering a devar Torah.

Most sweepingly, the relationship of Modern Orthodox women to the world of Torah learning in all its forms has been transformed. Orthodox girls typically attend day schools from kindergarden through the twelfth grade, then attend a women’s yeshivah in Israel for a year before embarking on university studies. Many Modern Orthodox young women continue serious learning during and after their college years. Increasing numbers are being taught by female Torah scholars. In Israel, some of them encounter (or become) to`anot or yo`atsot halakhah, female experts in halakhic scholarship respectively credentialed to argue on behalf of women seeking an Orthodox divorce, or to counsel women observing Jewish family law.

For some Modern Orthodox women, expanded women’s roles in group worship settings is a burning issue. These women pray and read the Torah together in more than seventy women’s tefillah groups currently operating, mostly in the United States, but also in Israel, England, Australia and elsewhere. Although the “Women of the Wall” have earned more publicity and perhaps notoriety than other women’s tefillah groups, and a Queens, New York, group attracted vehement rabbinic opposition several years ago, today most such groups meet quietly and experience less publically-expressed communal disapproval. Many women interested in these issues communicate via the Women’s Tefillah Network on the Internet, and/or belong to the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance (JOFA). Over the past years, JOFA has held several international conferences, each of which has attracted thousands of enthusiastic attendees to its dozens of lectures and study sessions.

These opportunities available to today’s young Modern Orthdox women were made possible in part by the energetic and often painful struggles of women in the 1970s and 1980s. Recipients of more extensive formal Jewish education than their mothers’ generation, due to their attendance at Jewish day schools and summer camps, Modern Orthodox feminists in the 1970s and 1980s were motivated by a deep and sincere desire to become more actively involved in group prayer and intensive learning. As they fought to effect changes in the Orthodox world, they were also influenced by sociological factors, such as their own high levels of secular educational and occupational achievement, as well as society-wide transformations in American women’s roles and status.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Modern Orthodox feminists often explained that their life expectations and religious goals were different from those of their mothers and grandmothers. Some conservative traditionalists—both male and female—accused these feminists of not having sufficient respect for women who did not share these goals. In a stunning illustration of the popular aphorism, “What goes around comes around,” many younger Modern Orthodox women today use similar arguments to explain that they are not galvanized by the same religious concerns as the now middle-aged Modern Orthodox feminists who pioneered change.

Some younger Modern Orthodox women overtly state that they find Orthodox feminist behavior “unfeminine,” or that involvement in Orthodox feminist causes will cause them to be socially ostracized. Indeed, many younger women reject the use of the term “feminist” altogether, declaring themselves to possess an altogether different approach to their religious and spiritual roles than “women in their fifties.” Ironically, most of these younger women enjoy expectations completely conditioned by feminist changes in Orthodox life. For example, their ongoing study of the Talmud and other rabbinical writings in formal classroom settings represents an activity off-limits for women as a group for most of Jewish history.

As I have continued to do research and to reflect on the impact of feminist concerns on Modern Orthodox Jewish life today,(1) I note that middle-aged Modern Orthodox feminists comprise a type of “sandwich generation.” Many Modern Orthodox feminists say that they created the advantageous conditions now enjoyed by a younger generation of Orthodox women, who seem to reject them along with their goals. While many middle-aged Modern Orthodox women saw their mothers as under-educated and passive, some younger Modern Orthodox women today see the Orthodox feminists of the 1970s as too aggressive, not sufficiently respectful toward Torah authority, and consequently obsessed with fighting misguided battles.

These intergenerational differences reflect both the general American community and the Orthodox community: younger American women often reject the feminism of their mothers as unfeminine and “man-hating,” while they enjoy the benefits of educational and occupational choices and personal options pioneered by middle-aged feminists. Insisting, “I’m not a feminist,” young women become surgeons and trial lawyers, and postpone marriage and childbearing in overwhelming numbers. At the same time, the Orthodox world has generally moved to the right, becoming more conservative in many areas, including public declarations on the status of women in religious environments. Thus, when younger Modern Orthodox women state that they reject Orthodox feminism, they are influenced both by the norms of American and those of Orthodox societies.

In particular, most younger Modern Orthodox women say they are not engaged by women’s tefillah groups, and that efforts to create such groups represent a “mistaken” emphasis on the part of Orthodox feminists. Younger Orthodox women often openly identify with the male rabbinic establishment, and accuse the older generation of Orthodox feminists of having an adversarial relationship with that establishment. Their eschewing of women’s tefillah groups—typically, attendance at such groups includes sparse numbers of younger women—is presented by some as a demonstration of their loyalty to rabbinic preferences. Instead, younger Modern Orthodox women focus on opportunities for rabbinic and biblical text study, which they believe to be rabbinically endorsed. Many young women are convinced that through learning they will attain a kind of equality with their male co-religionists.

The feelings of isolation experienced by Modern Orthodox feminist pioneers are exacerbated by the fact that the religious sophistication typical of Modern Orthodox women in the North America and Israel is not shared by their sisters in many other countries. Although a few women’s tefillah groups do exist in some European settings and in Australia, most are located in North America and Israel, and have little appeal for Orthodox women in other countries, partially because of the inferior Jewish education for women in those countries. As was typical of most Jewish women historically, in many contemporary European communities, very few women have the liturgical skills to conduct their own religious services. Just as most Jewish women in the past had minimal instruction in the protocols of formal Hebrew prayer, the fact remains that most Jewish women in the world today can only participate as observers at male public prayer.

The remaining great discrepancies in communal norms for women were brought home to me powerfully as I recently experienced the milieus of women’s galleries in major European cities. In an exquisite Parisian synagogue near the Place des Voges, women sat in groups and chatted loudly throughout the service and the Torah reading, comfortable and familiar as they would have been in their own salons. Only when the Torah was held up and carried around the men’s section below did the women’s conversations cease. High in the balcony both younger and older women rose, their faces full of awe, respect and love, and waved their arms toward the Torah, then over their eyes, finally kissing their hands that had saluted the Torah far below.

Similarly, on Shabbat in the grand, beautiful, and heavily guarded Orthodox synagogue along the shores of the Tiber in Rome, I observed bat mitsvah ceremonies. High up in a balcony, behind a gilded grating, almost alone in the women’s section except for a sprinkling of older women, I was surprised to see half a dozen exquisitely dressed young adolescent girls scattered among the men in the pews below. As the men began the Torah reading, the women’s balcony filled up with women of all ages, including a large number of fashionable matrons, notable for their gleaming black leather pocketbooks and shoes. One lone bar mitsvah boy was called to the Torah; he expertly read not only the blessings but also his Torah portion, his resonant young voice ringing out and up throughout the synagogue. Then the six young women came up to stand before the Torah lectern. One by one their fathers were called to the Torah to read sequential blessings. After they all finished, the elderly senior rabbi faced the girls, in front of the open Torah-ark, spread his hands over their heads, and blessed them.

Standing next to me, curling her fingers through the gilded grating as she peered eagerly down at the scene in front of the ark, a dark-haired young mother beamed and fought back tears. When asked, she explained that her daughter was having her bat mitsvah. In this synagogue, she said, girls are invited into the main synagogue twice in their lifetimes, when they are bat mitsvah, and the Shabbat before they are married, to receive a special blessing from the rabbi.

The expression on the Roman women’s faces spoke volumes: gratitude, hope, anxiety and joy—the passionate wishes of a mother watching her daughter launching into years of growing independence. Like the Parisian Jewish women, these young Roman Jewish matrons displayed deep and loving feelings about Judaism and the Torah. However, it was clear that most of these women in European Orthodox synagogues had minimal understanding of the prayer service itself, and did not expect to participate beyond their adoration of the Torah and their prescribed life cycle moments.

My European experience added yet another nuance to my ongoing exploration of the meaning of change and lack of change in the Orthodox synagogue world, as regards the role of women. In Israel, where I have been fortunate enough to be on sabbatical for several months, I have also been surprised by a prevalent apathy toward the synagogue among many (although not all) Israeli Orthodox women. While younger and older Orthodox women are often united by an excitement about and continuing involvement with advanced Torah study, fewer are interested in worship in a group setting. Indeed, even Judaically scholarly Israeli Orthodox women sometimes declare that they would rather pray at home than in a synagogue. With the notable exception of those special environments offering unusual spiritual and/or participatory opportunities (such as Yakar, Congregation Yedidiah, the “Leider” minyan, and various Carlebach services), relatively fewer women are found in many Israeli synagogues except for major holidays, yizkor memorial services and other special occasions. Unlike Modern Orthodox women in the United States, who usually feel that their presence is important both for themselves and for the congregation as a whole, a surprising number of comparable Israeli women often feel unengaged by the synagogue milieu.
When asked why they show lukewarm interest in participating in public worship, many Modern Orthodox Israeli women say that their feelings reflect the generally less important position of the synagogue in Israeli religious life. Unlike the Diaspora, where synagogues often function as the center of social and religious life, numerous Israeli synagogues and shtiblach exist only for the business of conducting prayers, often with little or no socializing among participants. Indeed, some Israeli worshippers show little “brand loyalty,” moving easily from one synagogue to another for services during various times of the week. Since the Israeli synagogue does not provide an emotional center for most male worshippers either, and seems to exist primarily as a locale for halakhically mandated public worship, these women explain, their apathy toward synagogue attendance is a natural outcome of the fact that they, unlike their fathers, husbands, and sons, are not halakhically required to participate in group worship.

The whole issue of the place of women in the synagogue brings to the fore what is sometimes perceived as a zero sum game in the relationship between men’s and women’s roles in Jewish public life. Some observers have accused Jewish feminists of causing men to lose interest in synagogue leadership. In American non-Orthodox congregations that have given women full, egalitarian participation, the percentage of men attending services frequently plummets, leaving primarily female congregants in attendance, except for special occasions. Similarly, non-Orthodox congregations with women presidents and board members sometimes find that after several terms of female leadership it is difficult to find men willing to play leadership roles. Fears of “feminization,” with female entry and male alienation, continue to be cited in the secular Jewish organizational world, and many federations and other Jewish organizations avoid appointing female executives because they assume that men will no longer covet these roles. Defending themselves from charges that they have alienated men’s affections for synagogue and organizational life (and, by implication, from Judaism as well), Jewish feminists have pointed out that many Jewish men had already lost their appetite for prayer, ritual activities, and communal leadership long before Jewish feminists developed an interest in more intensive participation in public Judaism.

Significantly, developments in liberal Modern Orthodox congregations seem to indicate that in more halakhically observant congregations, female leadership in administrative roles may be tolerated without creating or exacerbating male alienation from these activities. Since men continue to play all lay and professional religious roles in Orthodox congregations (i.e. being eligible for a minyan, sheliah tsibbur, aliyyot la-Torah, etc.), the few administrative, speaking and teaching roles played by women do not seem to threaten male hegemony. Moreover, reports indicate that in the non-Orthodox world, women’s growing interest in Jewish text studies and high level Jewish education have actually sparked male interest in previously moribund educational programs.

Are men now and historically more attracted to religious worship and study activities only if they can enjoy gender exclusivity? The so-called “feminization” of Judaism, which some believe to be illustrated by these phenomena, is a spectre that has frightened some observers of contemporary social and religious change. Judaism is unusual among Western world religions in the extent to which it has historically managed to involve large numbers of men in regular worship, study, and religious practice. Even the most common Jewish man could enjoy the social dignity and spiritual uplift of “making” a minyan, or being called to the Torah for an important life cycle moment. Arguably, this unusual male “egalitarianism” was extremely important in the preservation of Jewish religious culture, and also had a positive transformative effect for its practitioners.

Have Modern Orthodox young women in the United States, like women in Israel and elsewhere, retreated from demands for greater participation in public worship out of some instinctive protectiveness toward traditional Jewish life and its male leaders—not so differently than young American women who call older feminists “man haters”? Are they censoring their religious aspirations out of a belief that this censorship expresses their loyalty to and respect for Jewish tradition? And, if so, will women’s current love affair with learning be followed by a similar retreat, if it becomes apparent that some groups of men seem to be losing interest in their traditional roles as the carriers of liturgical and scholarly activities?

I would like to suggest that encouraging Modern Orthodox women to scale back on their pursuit of expanded participation in Jewish intellectual and spiritual life ignores the sweeping sociological changes that have transformed Modern Orthodox Jewish life. Young Modern Orthodox women will continue to enjoy independence and equal status in the public realm, as they pursue higher education and professional vocations, and exercise personal lifestyle choices. New expectations among Modern Orthodox women and men will not disappear.They will continue to work together to coordinate the demands of family and career. The disparity between women’s secular achievements and the shrinking parameters of their participation within Orthodoxy can hardly have a wholesome effect.

Moreover, Modern Orthodox Jews are demonstrating that men and women can each maintain devotion to sacred activities without demanding gender exclusivity. At present, many Modern Orthodox couples treat their religious lives with a sense of cooperation and mutual respect that reflects their equal status in secular society. Wives and husbands share more than career concerns, laundry, shopping and child rearing. Both men and women continue learning and regular prayer after marriage. Many have regular study sessions, and some husbands and wives study with each other. Because they are attached to learning itself, genuinely li-shemah (for its intrinsic value), rather than as a demonstration of gender superiority or bonding, these Modern Orthodox men and women have shown that they can upgrade women’s participation within halakhic boundaries, without “feminizing” or alienating men from those activities.

These Modern Orthodox practitioners provide extremely important leadership and role models for the entire Jewish community. Through their daily lives, they show that gender equality can strengthen the family, if all member of the family are committed to Jewish tradition. Through their commitment to synagogues and schools, they show that institutional activism can transcend Western consumerist attitudes. Through their principled interactions with Jews from other wings of Judaism, they show that religious passion can co-exist with tolerance and qiruv. Through their attachment to Israel and worldwide Jewry, they show that an altruistic sense of Jewish peoplehood can have a deep hold on the modern Jewish psyche. Through their continuing learning activities, and their engagement with secular culture, they show that intellectual vitality can co-exist with rigorous religious praxis.

Modern Orthodox Jews such as these demonstrate that it is possible for women and men to be modern and also to be deeply and vibrantly committed to Jewish law, culture, and life. The role models seen among Modern Orthodox Jews also demonstrate that when activities are sufficiently interesting and compelling, men will continue to be involved even when women enter the arena. Observation of Modern Orthodox communities shows that only when activities do not intrinsically engage men does "feminization" become an issue and gender exclusivity an important component of male involvement. While our social construction of normative roles for men and women in Modern Orthodox communities will continue to evolve, I believe that excluding women (or encouraging women to exclude themselves) is today a bankrupt answer to problems of declining male participation and interest.

The inhumanity of a flawed system

I have already written a about the death penalty in its relation to Judaism, but I feel the need to specifically address a certain point about the death penalty that many people use to try and justify such a brutal and inhumane system of judgment in this country. The death penalty in this country according to its supporters provides a so called “deterrent” which supposedly prevents even more people from killing others. This could not be further from the truth.

When someone is about to commit murder the punishment is in almost all cases completely outside of their minds at the time. People commit murders mainly in the heat of passion, under the sway of alcohol or drugs, or because they are mentally ill, giving little or no thought to the potential penalty of their actions. The few murderers who plan their crimes in advance for intend and expect to avoid punishment altogether by not getting caught. If they thought they would get caught then they would most likely not commit the crime in the first place. Therefore, the punishment has no bearing on people when they are committing the crime and overall probably deters very few if any murderers. The few if any murderers that may be deterred by the death penalty are not worth the innocent people that this far from flawless system kills. If a death penalty was ever to be active, it would be have to be majorly reformed to make sure that there is not even a 0.001% chance someone innocent could die. The Judaic system of capital punishment which required witnesses to actually view the crime when it occurred and warn the guilty party about the consequences is a perfect system which does not judge based on circumstantial evidence. As I wrote before:

A court which executed one man in seven years would be labeled a ‘destructive court’ (Makkot 7a), because it was understood, how serious of a task executing people was. On the rare occurrences that a Jewish court would actually administer a sentence of the death penalty, the court would even fast that day (Moed Katan 14b).

Therefore, I will agree with the great Rabbi, Maimonides, who wrote: "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death."

Oh and here is some recent news on the innocence of people trapped in this system:

Dwayne Allen Dail served 18 years in North Carolina prisons for a crime he always said he didn’t commit. On Tuesday, August 28, he was released from state custody after DNA testing proved that he was telling the truth all along. Dail’s attorneys at the North Carolina Center on Actual Innocence and county prosecutors jointly requested that a state judge dismiss the conviction and charges, and the judge pronounced Dail free in a hearing Tuesday morning. He is the 207th person nationwide exonerated through DNA testing.

"The science has proved that Mr. Dail is innocent," District Attorney Branny Vickory told reporters before Tuesday’s hearing. "He didn't do it. The evidence is so overwhelmingly strong, there's no need to wait." (SOURCE)

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef insults the names of brave men

The Jerusalem Post reports:

Officials from across the political and military spectrums slammed Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef Monday for a sermon in which Yosef said troops killed in the Second Lebanon War lost their lives because of their lack of religious observance. (Source)

I have never heard something so disgusting! I know that Rabbi Yosef tends to blame every type of occurance on lack of Torah study in accordance with his reading of the Talmud (Berachot 5a), but this is a major insult to the families and soldiers who died trying to defend helpless civilians as rockets rained down onto their homes. They deserve a bit more of respect from Rabbi Yosef.

Here are some of the faces of the people that Rabbi Yosef has attacked, yet they gave their lives to defend his right to practice religion free of religious persecution: LINK

Here are also some sources from the Talmud people should read up on:

-God consoles the bereaved; so should we. (Sotah 14a)
-An individual must act in a way which others will be glad about. (Nedarim 22b)
-One who judges others for merit, will be judged in Heaven for merit. (Shabbat 127b)

Maybe we all should not be so quick to judge others in such a harsh way after they died protecting us.

CAMERA's response to "CNN's Abomination"

The website 'camera.org' had a great response to the CNN documentary "God's Jewish warriors", a few of the points they made that I found interesting are the following:

Amanpour says: "But it is also Palestinian land. The West Bank - it's west of the Jordan River - was designated by the United Nations to be the largest part of an Arab state." This is highly deceptive. The United Nations 1947 Partition Plan proposed dividing all the land west of the Jordan into a Jewish and an Arab state; the Arabs rejected the plan, choosing instead to launch a war to eliminate Israel. The land did not become "Palestinian land" via this UN Plan. Likewise, UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War, underscored that territorial adjustments related to the West Bank were to be expected.

The following is correct, however at the same time, it may not have been "Palestinians" land, because there was no such thing as "Palestinians" at that time, however, it was given to Arabs. The question I have is, when one nation rejects a United Nation plan and attacks the other nation involved in the plan, does that nation have a right to now fall back and accept that plan after they lost?

A quote that distubrs me from the documentary as well is:

Six thousand miles from Israel's settlements, in the heart of Manhattan, defiance of international law comes dressed in diamonds.

I don't know, it just seems like a very serious accusation to make, especially when she only interviewed one side of the story. She had an obvious bias in this segment.

Regarding Israel’s acquisition of territories in the 1967 war, it is written (from camera.org):

Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title. ("What Weight to Conquest," American Journal of International Law, 64 (1970))

An illogical relationship - Political opposites sustaining each other

It was an odd experience I had while looking into our current government’s relationships with Middle Eastern political parties. President Bush is trying to develop a Middle East where religious fundamentalism and narrow-mindedness are absent. This is a noble objective, but there is something irregular about his vision for these Arab states and his plan for our own country. The ambition of President Bush and his Evangelical followers is to remove the separation of church and state in this country. Between opposing same sex marriage in an effort to impose biblical ethics on the American people, to initiating a process which is trying to lead us to prayer in publicly funded schools, his vision is very clear, and in no way is it hidden. Yet, the individuals in the Arab world supported by our country today, ideologically; are diametrical opposites of what the ‘religious right-wing’ wants for our own country.

Interestingly, the moderates which President Bush and our government support and wish to be in control of the Middle East would be considered very liberal in our country. They aspire to remove religion from public life, they dream of a day when the Arab world will contribute greatly to scientific discovery and development instead of the current status quo: Quran memorization. The moderates we sustain have the goal for the Middle East that secular progressive minded liberals have for our very own country. Why does our government support the movements trying to Christianize our nation, yet support the secular groups with the intent of reversing the current religious dominance over politics in the Arab world? Islamic moral principles are not so different from Christian ethical values. After all, Muslims in the United States agree with the Christian right-wing movement on about all social issues such as abortion, gay marriage and prayer; the only difference being their view of American foreign policy relating to Muslims.

On the other hand liberals can be accused of the same thing. In general, liberal progressives in the Western world are very keen on disagreeing with United States intervention in the Arab world. There hastiness to disagree on imposing secular progressive ethics on the Arab world and interfering with their affairs is an odd difference of opinion to have since they are generally very supportive of separating religion from politics. Why if you hold such a stance would you oppose the removal of religious extremism in the Middle East and the replacement of more moderate voices in the Arab world? This is partially, because the removal of religious extremism is not the main influence on our foreign policy decisions. The factors which contribute to our assessment process, in fact, have to do with capitalism and our economic interests overseas. In reality, ‘freedom’ and the democratic process have nothing to do with religious extremism and the moderation of Islam. As seen in the Palestinian territories, religious extremists like Hamas, who are set on our destruction, can easily win fair elections through the electoral route. It is a matter of who will benefit our economy the most. It is irrelevant if he is a tyrant, a man of the people, a fanatic, or a freethinker. It is about money. The reason the United States are empowering political figures in the Middle East with the same ideas as political figures in America who they oppose is simply because one side will benefit us more. As the saying goes, “Cash is king”.

Jews and Muslims both besieged by the extreme right in Holland

Haaretz.com reported:

Extreme right-wing violence in the Netherlands soared by 75 percent last year, according the annual Anne Frank Foundation report on extremism, which was released yesterday…The report's co-author told Haaretz that anti-Semitic hate crimes -- which constituted 13 percent of all cases -- are often falsely represented as anti-Zionist. According to Willem Wagenaar, 2006 saw 35 anti-Semitic instances out of a total of 265 hate crimes. The overall number of racial offenses dropped by 10 percent from the previous year, which saw 41 anti-Semitic attacks… For example, one group of extreme-right youths, who were found guilty of torching both a synagogue and an Muslim school, claimed they had set the synagogue on fire to protest Israel's policy."… About a quarter (23 percent) of all hate crimes in 2006 were directed at Muslim immigrants.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/896587.html

It seems that extremely right wing people in all nations will target ethnic minorities, as well as religious minorities. From either blowing up an abortion clinic, to torching a synagogue the adherents of radicalized right-wing politics seem to constantly turn to violent behavior.

I would like to ask people in the comment section to tell me what they believe a major difference between the radicalized left wing and the radicalized right wing is. I’m curious to read the opinions of others, on the major underlying differences between these two forms of political extremism.

Hypocrisy at its premium

The State of Israel was born out of the ashes of the Holocaust. The phrase “never again” was born in this era, as a statement that we would never allow such genocide to occur on this earth on our watch. Nevertheless, genocide is occurring once again, and not only is the world watching silently as the minuscule details of peacekeeping forces have finally ceased being debated by the United Nations. The Israeli news agency Haaretz, reported that:

“Almost all of the asylum seekers who Israel deported on Sunday to Egypt had escaped the genocide in Darfur, according to figures given to Haaretz by Israel Defense Forces officials.”

What has Israel come to as a nation? Not only is this a gross act of international law, but Israel is in effect possibly sending these people back to imminent death in Sudan. More than 200,000 people have been killed in Darfur already, and if the genocide is not halted, many more will perish. The State of Israel has a moral obligation to give asylum to refugees seeking to escape genocide. Imagine what the Jews in the S.S. St. Louis, who were so joyful that they would have a chance to come to America, thought when their boat was not allowed into any country (including America). Feeling alone and rejected by the entire world, the passengers returned to Europe in June 1939. To send refugees back to a country in which they may be killed, is an act of not only hypocrisy, but an act of disregard towards the founding principles in which the State of Israel was created.

Keeping the peace while the sides re-arm?

The UNIFIL "fact sheet" states the following:

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, is one of the UN’s oldest peacekeeping operations. Its nearly 2,000 troops and 50 unarmed military observers are tasked with seeking to maintain a ceasefire along the 70-mile (121 km) United Nations “Blue Line” between Israel and Lebanon, by patrolling, observing, reporting violations and liaising with the parties.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unifil/factsheet.pdf

What exactly can they do then if Hezbollah fires rockets at Israeli's? Patrol? Observe? I believe that if peace really is going to be restored, then the UN should not sit idly, while Hezbollah re-arms itself for another conflict.

A philosophy of abhorrence revived

According to the Jerusalem Post, "the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which has almost five million members in the US, took a step toward a partial boycott of Israeli goods at its 2007 Churchwide Assembly in Chicago last week." This is hardly suprising, when one looks at the overall roots of Lutheranism.

In 1543, the Martin Luther, the churches overall founder wrote: “On The Jews and Their Lies”. This ludicrous work of Luther’s is a testament to his bigotry. Examples of the statements found in this work are:

A.) “What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of
Jews?”

B.) “First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians”

C.) “Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and
destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their
synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in a stable,
like gypsies.”

D.) “Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds
in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.”

E.) “Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to
teach any more...”

Translated by Martin H. Bertram, On The Jews and Their
Lies, Luther's Works, Volume 47; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971. (From HERE)

The above is just an example of the detestation filled ‘philosophy’ he brought to this earth. Can we truly anticipate much better from the followers of his message?

The regularity of devastation

In Iraq today, a truck bombing has killed "at least 500 people" according to CNN. Let's think about this for a second. At least 500 people are dead because of the continuing violence in Iraq. Nevertheless, with people I have spoken to, it seems to them so; normal. The entire nation was in tears and disbelief over the Virginia Tech massacre, yet, in Virginia that fateful morning, not even close to the amount of people died as do in Iraq almost every day. With the hope that people do not think I am attempting to desensitize what occurred at Virginia Tech, let’s look at the present circumstances rationally. We have been so desensitized by the continued death in Iraq that this has become normal! Thousands of Iraqi lives continue to be ruined based on a colossal error, and it is a fact of everyday life. I can think of few things that can be considered more demoralizing than the realization, that death on such an immense magnitude has been relegated to normality.

Giuliani's uncompromising ignorance

Rudy Giuliani has declared that he “opposes a Palestinian state” (LINK). In all probability this is an attempt by Rudy to win over Jewish voters, and many Orthodox Jewish voters will possibly support him now because of such a strong statement which is aligned with a stance of unconditional support for Israel. However, does such a ‘hawkish’ political position really equate to absolute support for the Jewish state?

How will there ever be peace in the Middle East with such an uncompromising view of a political reality? No matter what you think about the Palestinians as a collective people, a two state solution must occur if peace will ever be accomplished in the region. The reason groups like Hamas are popular in the Gaza strip and West Bank is simply because our policy. When conservatives give an uncompromising position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and then condemn and group like Hamas for keeping an uncompromising outlook, they are being nothing but hypocritical. Yes, Hamas is a terrorist group, and they will never alter their vile outlook, but if the United States government continues to act not in the name of peaceful solutions, but instead in the name of inflexibility, then the Palestinians who crave peace and harmony along with the Palestinians who were outraged by Arafat’s refusal to accept a remarkable deal offered to him, to form Palestinian statehood, will lose credibility. Think about it. Every time a United States leader or representative says something like what Rudy said, the progressives within Palestinian culture are not empowered, but instead Hamas and groups who are equally rigid and uncompromising win numerous more recruits to their cause of hate.

In other words, will Rudy Giuliani’s adamant position on Palestinian statehood benefit Israel at all? The answer is no. In the name of saving lives and creating peace in the Middle East, Jewish law is on the side of giving away land to prevent the spilling of more Jewish blood. (i.e. pikuach nefesh). Yes, a peace partner is needed to accomplish this idyllic ambition of peace, however, statements that do not recognize an important part of the peace process (two state solution) as valid, will do nothing but help Hamas find more suicide bombers.

The Vilna Goan's parallel forecast

In the website, yedidnefesh.com's, chapter 1 of the sefer Kol Hator, the following is written:

A major principle of the Gaon was that all activities regarding the beginning of the Redemption have to be similar to the activities during the time of Ezra and Nehemia and in the time of Cyrus. Source: http://www.yedidnefesh.com/kaballah/kol-hator/1.htm

The prediction is fascinating and strikingly accurate in regards to the situation the Jewish people are in today. In the time of Cyrus, the nations allowed the Jewish people to return to the land of Israel. In 1948, the State of Israel was created because the United Nations (i.e. nations of the world) allowed the Jewish people to have a homeland and return from all over the world.

Such a parallel between the time of Ezra and today can be made as well. In his time Ezra condemned the rampant spread of intermarriage within the Jewish people. As is read in the book of Ezra 10:10: "And Ezra the priest arose and said to them, 'You have dealt treacherously, and you have taken in foreign wives to add to Israel's guilt'." And in verse 13, Ezra says: "But the people are many", referring to the people who took in foreign wives as “many”. Today in America the rate of intermarriage is extremely high. Since 1985, 52% of Jews who married have done so outside the faith. (Source: Council of Jewish Federations' 1990 National Jewish Population Survey) Many Jewish organizations today are trying to combat intermarriage in any way they can as Ezra did many years ago.

It seems that the circumstances during the time of Ezra and Cyrus can be considered similar to the situations we find ourselves in currently. Hopefully this is a sign that the redemption is coming soon, and with it, an eternal era of world peace.

Women studying Torah

The Rambam in Hilchot Talmud Torah (1:13) states:

A woman who studied Torah receives a [Heavenly] reward but not as much as the reward of a man [who studies], because she is not commanded [to study]. And anybody who does something which they are not commanded, their reward is not the same as the reward of the one who is commanded and fulfills [the Mitzva], rather it is less. Even though she merits reward, the Rabbis commanded that a man not teach his daughter Torah. Because most women's cognitive skills are not directed towards proper learning and they corrupt the words of Torah into nonsense, according to their weak understanding. The Rabbis said: "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah, it is as if he taught her *tiflut* (silliness, licentiousness). This only refers to *Torah sheba'al peh* (The oral tradition); but regarding *Torah shebikhtav* (Scripture), he should not teach her, but if he does, it is not considered as if he taught her *tiflut*. (From Torah.org)

Yitz Etshalom (of torah.org) notes an interesting concept drawn from this passage. The language of the [Rambam] certainly seems to be focused on the father's teaching his daughter. As a matter of fact, there is an interesting switch in his terminology: “Even though she merits reward, the Rabbis commanded that a man not teach his daughter Torah.” - moving from her (lesser) reward for study to the Rabbinic injunction aimed at the father. There doesn't seem to be any problem with a woman studying of her own volition and motivation.

Seperation of Church and State and the need to uphold this concept

Orthodox Jews must come to a realization. As Jews we have always been persecuted, and the majority of persecutions were under Christian run countries. Christian anti-semitism led to a lot of bigotry and intolerance. Now, the ‘Christian right-wing’ wishes to turn America away from its law separating church from state. Here is a reason why Orthodox Jews should oppose such a move:

The Talmud (Nedarim 28a) says “'Dina de malchuta dina”, which basically means ‘the law of the land is the law’, which should be followed as long as the law is not discriminatory towards Jews in its nature. Seeing that Orthodox Jews are required to uphold the law of the land, the law states (United States Constitution, Amendment I):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

Therefore, the law states that the government should not respect religions, nor should it discriminate our rights to practice religion freely.

In the medieval times under Christian theocracies and kings, Jews were heavily persecuted for practicing religion. The secular view of religion allows Jews to freely practice our faith and profess our beliefs openly. Why tamper with such a system, and why consider going against this basic law of the land we live in, when the Talmud says it is the law for us to uphold it? What if theoretically the entire country converted to Hinduism and the barriers between church and state were broken? Then would you be comfortable with idols and Hindu gods and goddesses everywhere, all around you? It is obvious. Orthodox Jews must defend the first amendment; the right to practice religion freely, and the need to keep it out of the government.

Capital punishment from a new perspective

Capital punishment needs to be looked at from a new perspective. If our great Sages would come back in time and see the system that is the ‘death penalty’ in this country today, what do you think they would say? In the time of the Sanhedrin, executions rarely if ever took place, because our Sages respected human life; no matter what. A court which executed one man in seven years would be labeled a ‘destructive court’ (Makkot 7a), because it was understood, how serious of a task executing people was. On the rare occurrences that a Jewish court would actually administer a sentence of the death penalty, the court would even fast that day (Moed Katan 14b). The stringency on witnesses was so high, that the death penalty under Jewish law could almost never be put into practice. Forty years prior to the destruction of the Second Beit Hamikdash in 70 C.E. the Sages refused to hear anymore capital cases! How do you think the Sages would view a capital punishment system with these statistics?

1. Innocence - For every seven executed individuals in this country, one man on death row is found innocent.

2. Economic class - The poor have less of a chance (many of our sages were poor), because many death row inmates were convicted while being protected by court-appointed lawyers who are frequently the worst-paid and most-inexperienced and least-skillful lawyers.

3. Prejudice - Serial killers such as the infamous Gary Ridgway in Seattle who admitted killing 48 prostitutes and runaways got life in prison. An "angel of death" nurse in NJ who admitted killing 17 people got life. Meanwhile, mentally ill and impoverished murderers who could not afford good lawyers and did not warrant much media attention were given the death penalty.

Lastly many people say it is a “deterrent” but we all know that is untrue. It is common sense that when someone decides they are going to take the life of another human being they are either (a) not thinking rationally, and therefore the consequences will not alter their decision to murder, or (b) do not think they will get caught, because is murdering someone worth getting the death penalty or life in prison? No one murders anyone if they believe they will be caught (maybe a very insignificant minority does), so therefore the consequences of their actions are irrelevant to them since they would not commit the crime if in a state of illogicality or under the belief they will never be caught.

Therefore, I suggest we review the death penalty and either heavily reform it, or abolish it.