Memo to Jews: After They Come for the Catholic Church, They Will Come For Us
Today it is contraception and the morning-after pill. Tomorrow it will be kosher slaughter, or matrilineal descent, or circumcision, or other matters of existential importance to Jewish observance. If the Obama administration gets away with forcing Catholic institutions to step across lines of life and death in the name of “health,” the federal government will have a precedent to legislate Judaism out of existence — as several other countries have already tried to do.
Now the Obama administration has told Catholic institutions that they don’t have to dispense pills that kill babies. Instead, they can pay the insurance company, and the insurance company will dispense the pill for them. It is an accounting trick (as Paul Ryan called it) that the White House misrepresents as a compromise. The Catholic bishops, of course, reject it. And only one Jewish organization, the haredi organization Agudath Israel, offered a sharp response. Its Washington director Abba Cohen stated:
Whether or not the White House’s new “compromise” proposal adequately addresses the religious freedom concerns raised by the Catholic Church is for the Catholic Church to say, not us – and, frankly, not the White House, either. The important points here are that no religiously sponsored entity, and no religiously motivated individual, should be forced by government to violate its or his sincerely held religious principles; and that the determination of religious propriety must be left to the religious entity or individual, not to the government.
The Orthodox Union, according to press accounts, guardedly praised the “compromise,” saying: ”The president’s stated commitment is a positive first step forward, the details of implementation are crucial and we look forward to working with the administration to see that through.” As a late-in-life returnee to Jewish observance, I habitually defer to the Orthodox Union leadership in such matters. Having had the misfortune to have spent half my life among the atheists and religion-haters, though, I know how embittered and unrelenting are the supposed disciples of science. They are in fact religious fanatics of the worst kind. You can’t make a deal with them. After they come for the Catholics, they will come for us. They already are coming for us all over the world.
It isn’t happening in the United States — not yet, except for a laughable referendum in San Francisco last year to prohibit circumcision. But it’s happening in England, where the country’s highest court has ruled that the religious definition of Jewish identity is racist. It’s happened in several European countries as well as New Zealand, which have banned or might ban kosher slaughter.
Contraception is not the issue. The issue is whether science has the right to decide the ultimate matters of life and death, or whether this is reserved to faith. We can argue the practical consequences all day and not get anywhere. It’s not as if contraception has ushered in a glorious era of human reproduction in which every child is planned and wanted. More than half of births to American women under 30 now occur outside of marriage, the New York Times reported Feb. 18, and overwhelmingly to working-class women who are economically unprepared for single motherhood. And 71% of total African-American and 53% of Hispanic births are out of wedlock as well. The cultural shift from the nuptial mystery of religion to the blandishments of recreational sex has left us with a catastrophic rate of illegitimacy and the prospect of a self-perpetuating underclass.
But that isn’t the issue. The fact that the liberals have left us with a social dystopia instead of a golden age is beside the point. The issue is: Who has the right to draw the lines where life and death are concerned? Morning-after pills may not seem too horrible to most of us. It’s not the same as sucking out the brains of a fully-developed fetus in a so-called “partial birth abortion,” or dismembering a 3-month-old fetus that responds to stimuli and can feel pain, is it? The Australian comic Jim Jeffries has made a career out of a routine that claims heaven must be boring; if you think of eternal bliss as a simple extension of ordinary time, you’d get used to it eventually. That sort of paradox of time has been in the literature since St. Augustine. But the paradox cuts both ways. If you don’t like sucking the brains out of a fully-developed fetus at eight months, how about 7 months? Or six months? Or five months? Three months? How about three months less one minute? Or less one second? Where do you draw the line? Nothing in our science can tell us where life begins. If you can overrule the Catholic assertion that life begins at conception on putative scientific grounds and require Catholic institutions to pay for morning-after pills, you have given “science” carte blanche to determine where life begins — and ends.
Sometimes I feel that this country has become so G-dless, so degenerate, so sick…that G-d has introduced radical Islam in order to either save us or kill us. I’m not sure. It’s like a do-or-die situation. Either the radical Muslims will awaken us to who we are, what we are, what we once had, and what we’ve become — or we will disappear as a people altogether – a society, I should say…
And I believe that it may be G-ds hand behind it at this point…is the only way I can look at it, and have some sense of peace about it all…because when I can not understand something from a social point of view, I have to go to a cosmic point of view.
I believe G-ds hand is behind this invasion of the West by radical Muslims. I believe G-d wanted us to see the weakness of liberalism and secularism and multiculturalism…and I then believe G-d insists that we either change our ways, and either go back to G-ds Word, go back to the church, go back to the temple, try our best, take one step forward in a more dignified more G-dlike life… or we’re gonna lose our society completely…and that will be the end of civilization as we know it…we will descend into 1000 years of darkness… That’s my dark vision.
There was a time when people got married and had children – that time is over. Consequently, we have a Caucasian race that is dying out… owing primarily to the following factors: the sexual revolution of the 60s, the feminist movement, birth control, and of course liberalism itself – which says “if it feels good do it … why have the responsibility of a child? … why ruin your body? … if it feels good do it.”
Consequently, we have a dying population. Now you may say “This is G-d’s will.” You could look at it from a religious point of view – well, not religious – I would say from a cosmic point of view, and say “You know what, G-d likes humanity. G-d doesn’t want the human race to die out…and if the white people are committing suicide through liberalism and by not having children – G-d doesn’t care who takes over the planet, as long as the planet has people on it.” … You could look at it that way. I’m actually a spiritual person in that regard and I see things in a different eye then you might imagine.
G-d bless the Islamic nations and the Africans for having large families – that’s to their credit. If white people wanna commit suicide, then… What do you think the world is going to look like in 2050?
You might want to reconsider your statement about Muslims having large families, especially in the case of Iran.
It is an uncontrolled plunge in Iranian fertility that is causing this mess.
In case you haven’t been looking, the Obama administration came after the Jews first — as is the historic custom. See his disrespect of the Prime Minister of Israel. See his hostile suggestion that Israel return to 1967 borders. See his speech in Cairo and his entire history in Chicago. For him, Jews are nothing but (clueless) ATM machines. He has shown his anti-Semitism by sitting without a care in the world in “Reverend” Wright’s church for 20 years and “not noticing” anything anti-Semitic there. He exposed his young daughters to Wright’s raving anti-Semitism. The videotape of his partying with the anti-Semite Rashid Khalidi, kept in secret by the Los Angeles Times and still never released for public view, illsutrates another of Obama’s unsavory relationships with Israel-bashers and Jew-haters.
Wake up, Mr. Goldman. Obama came after the Jews long before he picked this idiotic fight with the Catholics. And he’ll continue his anti-Semitic ways after his mess with the Catholics has died down.
I fully agree with the memo writer. The media, including the political parties have neglected Obama’s black supremacist and implicitly antisemitic beliefs and policies ever since he ran for president. I wrote about this alarming ideology here: http://clarespark.com/2009/10/31/the-offing-of-martin-luther-king-jr-and-ralph-bunche/ and also here: http://clarespark.com/2009/09/11/oil-politics-and-obamas-view-of-israeli-history/. One should never discount the power of white liberal guilt (among many Jews as well) in electing a man whose background screamed out for closer examination.
I’m paraphrasing but in the news this morning was that the British and Obama administrations are begging Isreal to not attack Iran, probably indicating that they “have your back” right up to where they accept all Palestinian demands to Isreal territory and Obama throws Isreal under the bus.
How the US Jewish Community support this thug Obama that only wants Muslims to have religeous freedoms, that it is either the Obama faith or Sharia Law that is acceptable.
Just name one case where Obama has taken Isreal’s side.
Obama is a communist, or more descriptive, a Marxist. A communist usually has a party/international organization to belong to or to support as a comsymp, while a marxist is a more theoretical couch-communist, belonging to discussion groups, forums, etc. but usually not submitting to authoritarian discipline that a party’s membership requires (the history of the CPUSA and to some degree the Socialist Workers Party involve fractures/factions splitting off over the issue of party discipline as well as cultism and policy).
Obama’s whole life has been one immersed in marxism, from his Kenyan marxist (Soviet style/admiring) father to his friends/mentors/collaborators – Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshall Davis, Don Rose, David S. Cantor, Rabbi Arnold Wolf, Bill Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn, David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Alice Palmer, Quentin Young, Milton Cohen, etc).
On the other side are the Black extremists – reparationists, whitey-hating clergy (Rev. Jeremiah Wright – ties to Cuba and Libya, to the father of “Reparations” Rev. James Cone and Prof. Charles Ogletree; NCOBRA, etc); self-hating white clergy – Rev. Flieger; Black Muslim whitey and America-hater, Rev. Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam), and the Congressional Black Caucus, the cauldron of white-hate in Congress.
Given these associations, what else could you expect from Obama? He is a watermelon marxists, “Green on the outside, red on the inside.”
If you accept these facts, then everything else falls in place.
Question. Is “the top 1%” code word for Jew. Demonizing the “rich” was common during the early years of the Third Reich. That quickly turned into demonizing Jews, many of whom were rich. Is it irrational, to think that a President, who attended a church ,where the pastor referred to Jews as “that dirty word”, may harbor ill will towards “rich” Jews?
…..and Hip Hop music. Don’t forget to blame Hip Hop too.
Well read the latest nugget of wisdom from “Too Short” and learn why the staff of an entire magazine may be fired for being par for the depraved course.
While I believe your conclusion sound concerning Islam and the west, I don’t agree with your reasoning. It is a matter of opinion.
I like how Anne Graham Lotz answered this question , Billy Graham’s daughter and according to Billy, the best preacher in the family, after the 9/11 incident.
Jane Clayson: I’ve heard people say, those who are religious, those who are not, if God is good, how could God let this happen? To that, you say?
Anne Graham Lotz: I say God is also angry when he sees something like this. I would say also for several years now Americans have shaken their fist at God and said, God, we want you out of our schools, our government, our business, we want you out of our marketplace. And God, who is a gentleman, has just quietly backed out of our national and political life, our public life. Removing his hand of blessing and protection. We need to turn to God first of all and say, God, we’re sorry we have treated you this way and we invite you now to come into our national life. We put our trust in you.
Whether Jew or Christian, to believe in the history of the Jews from its patriarchal period, through the period of Judges, America’s has followed the same basic pattern. We place God first, we prosper and our safe. We deny His authority, guidance and wisdom, we ultimately destroy ourselves.
The infiltration of radical Islam to America is but a symptom of a much larger problem. Corruption, greed, immorality, irresponsibility and dependence, a dearth of leadership, decadence – all cast forth from the same mold.
And if things don’t change soon, America will eventually see its own Diaspora. There is nothing new under the sun.
Spot on.
I think this is true in a very literal sense. As Britain loses its faith, a relatively large number of Britons (almost all of them women!) are converting to Islam. If they want to preserve Briton as a Christian country, they’d better start practicing it.
There are a number of parts of the West that are still pretty religious. The US and Israel are, as is Eastern Europe. The US is good at assimilating minorities; it is not important what color peoples’ skins are (Hispanics and emigrants from India are Caucasian in any case); it is the culture. American Moslems do get assimilated, and Mexican lost most fo their anti-semitism (50%!) by the next generation.
As a Jew, though, I am pefectly happy to leave Europe to its fate.
I can understand that you think that Europe is filled with Anti-Semites, but more and more Europeans understand that Israel is necessary against Islam.
I agree with the list of things that are helping our civilization on its road to collapse. But I must take issue with ‘women’s liberation’… Hugh Hefner and Playboy mag PRECEDED the women’s movement by a decade. And I would argue that the woman’s movement was in large part a reaction to the thuggishness implicit in the Playboy “philosophy.”
Hefner’s Playboy, with his stereo system and hooking up life, would have, in previous generations, been seen as immature and unmanly. But Hefner made it cool and OK to remain like a boy forever. Now, of course, with poverty and university costs, our cool Hefner guy is crouched in his parents’ basement… but he can live there with his girlfriend(s), so that is OK, I guess.
Wasn’t Hefner, per se. Smut has always been around, yet somehow Hef (witht he help of a complicit media) was able to mainstream these “fallen women” and now, if you really want to “make it” in Hollywood you simply have to do a “spread” in Playboy.
It’s cultural and all women’s lib did was to make it ok to break up marriages.
Now women are wage slaves. There is no reason why households that used to survive with one spouse (the husband) working suddenly can’t make ends meet even with two spouses working. The prices of everything was artificially doubled to swallow up the extra income.
Actually, it was mostly taxes and regulatory cost. The government absorbed all those extra wages, either directly or indirectly. Part of that was the government sticking its nose in places it didn’t belong, and part of it was a genuine decrease in public morality, which imposes external costs on society.
It would seem that they actually bought in to his philosophy.
What was that Marx said about communism being brought about in the U.S. and Britain though the law? And religion being the opiate of the people? I just don’t get the fascination some Jews have with communism, it’s like suicide.
Communism especially came after the Jewish religion in the USSR, and prett darned near destroyed it.
See I thought the Jewish people would be overwhelmingly delighted with anything that hurts Catholics, just as secular Jews of the nyt variety mock the vanishing of “whites” from America – a group whose existence they deny, which is fair enough in a way since the old word for us was American. So will the powers that be aim for Jewish people next? Possibly, but only in the same way they go for Catholics, to get all religious doctrine aligned with the ruling paradigm. And if that ruling paradigm happens to follow in the wake of the Episcopalians at all times, that is totally irrelevant.
Well, while it was half a loaf, the Vatican did at least apologize for its past treatment of the Jews. Compare this to at least parts of Eastern Europe (and Islam, for that matter) who whitewash the past and then try to continue it. And the Church stopped missionizing to Jews, which for us is more important than anythign else. Besides, historically mainline Protestants were even worse.
Many secular Jewish outlets save their greatest vitriol for their religiously right-wing brethren. (Thus was it always; c.f. Channukah.) I’ve often referred to the New York Times as the US’s most prominent anti-semitic newspaper. And the Israeli press is even worse; they do things no one in the US would dare do.
Perhaps it is better to view religions as split along conservative – liberal lines (not in a political sense) rather than look at the individual ones.
Take a look at a really excellent book, “Ten Universal Principles.” It may change your thinking forever.
Bravo, Mr.Goldman. Bravo.
Dear Mr Goldman, I have been always wondering why you have such high esteem for the Catholics, given the hostilities towards the Jewish People in the past. This essay gives some insight about the reasons as both seem to be the canary in the coal mine when it comes to the Freedom of Religion.
Übrigens, was meinten Sie denn mit Er kommt ?
Here we go again. Another ignoramus.
The Myth of Hitler’s Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis (2005) Rabbi David G. Dalin
http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Hitlers-Pope-Against-Germany/dp/0895260344
I’ve argued in the past that Pius XII was a good man, not a bad man, and did a lot to help Jews. Personally, I wish he had excommunicated Hitler, but that was a tough call at the time. None of that is pertinent. The Catholic Church has done a great deal since Pius XII to extirpate Jew-hatred from Christianity, and JPII was a true friend of the Jewish people (as is his successor). We should support the RCC against Obama because it is the right thing to do, and because we will suffer — ultimately more than anyone — if the enemies of religion prevail.
WADR, David, Benedict XVI is a moral weakling when it comes to dealing with the evils of the world today. He is a mere insect compared to the giant his predecessor was in facing down Communism. The College of Cardinals made a colossal blunder in elevating Joseph Ratzinger to a high office for which he was and is totall unfit.
The Church DID excommunicate Hitler, though not specifically. Hitler was excommunicated the moment he joined the Thule Society, and there was also a general excommunication of Nazi Party members.
In light of your thoughts about Pope Pius XII, if you have read it the book, what are your opinions concerning Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s work, A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair?
As being German and Catholic at the same time in a predominantly Catholic region, the issue was discussed in sufficient length in History lessons at school, thank you. I’m fully aware of the help provided by the Holy See.
I was rather referring to the attitude during the centuries before, like during the Crusades in the Levant, the Reconquista on the Iberian Peninsula and numerous other events were the Church did not embrace the Judaism in the way it does today.
We forget none of our martyrs and the destruction of the great Jewish communities of the Rhineland during the Crusades is recalled in detail, particularly in the liturgy for the 9th of Av (the anniversary of the destruction of the Temple, our national day of mourning). But God does not punish the children for their parents’ sins; each person is punished for his or her own sins. What matters to us (or should) is how Catholics stand with respect to the Jewish people today. JPII and B16 have made clear that God’s covenant with the Jewish people is irrevocable and support our right to live in security in Eretz Yisrael. Relations with the Holy See are far from perfect but the foundation for good relations is strong. Some Jews, to be sure, are so angry about the past that they want nothing to do with Catholics. But it would be self-defeating as well as wrong if we were to fail to support the RCC on matters of principle in which we have a profound stake.
David – nice piece. On small quibble, I have a post over at PJ noting that the administration was not truthful when it said it “compromised.” In fact, the rule did not change at all. The same regulation remains in place and only a promise to reconsider something was given that would not be effective until 2013. A very important point, becuase we are sometimes too generous to them in accepting that they “compromised.”
A marvelous piece, still. I saw Pastor John Hagee speak at David Horowitz’s Restoration Weekend in 2010. 50 years ago, who would have though that Jews, evangelicals and the Catholic Church would be so tightly bound on matters of religious liberty and principle? The assumptions of the past (and some of the commenters) have come undone. How unfortunate that the Church of England couldn’t even provide you a comment.
Mr. Adams, Thanks for the encouragement. I suppose I should have written “so-called compromise.” I am a also an admirer of David Horowitz; perhaps you saw my review of one of his recent books here:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/ML22Dj01.html
Thank you. I have been arguing this for a long time. Also, Jews and Catholics in New York were together in withstanding WASP prejudice, and have other interests in common.
One should note, however, that the Vatican’s attitude towards Israel into general seems to be a European one, that is to say one that makes Obama look pro-Israel in contrast. Also, they have blackmailed Israel on occasion, as when they forced the freeing of a terrorist prelate and allowing pig-raising.
My father was poshumously declared a “Righteous among the Nation” in 2000 (he passed away in 1956). He saved Jewish employees of the large engineering work in Hungary, and their families at the time of A. Eichman’s “final solution” program. He refused to generalize and a deeply religious Catholic, he lived his religion during the Nazi times just as well the Communist times following it. I personally witnessed the Jewish refugees living in Pannonhalma hidden and supported by the Catholic Benedictine Order. The name of the Arch Abbott can also be read on one of the Walls of Honor at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. God has granted me the gift that I was able to pay my respect to my father’s memory in front of the Wall of Honor bearing his name…
As we say: “May the memory of a righteous man be a blessing.”
Speaking as a Catholic, I thank you for your gracious attitude regarding terrible things Catholics have done to Jews in the past.
The “new” (1985 or so) Catechism of the Catholic Church beautifully and clearly teaches that the Jews have a permanent, special place in God’s heart, and that Catholics are not in any way to denigrate or demean what we have called “The Old Covenant”. Today we understand “old” not to imply “expired”, but merely, “original”.
Moreover, I believe this is not a teaching that is subject to change.
Mister Lynch, I appreciate the thought, but grace is not required here, for the Torah tells us that people do not inherit the sin of their parents, but that each man is responsible for his own sins. The Catholics who did terrible things to Jews are dead, with few exceptions. And the Catholics I know, with few exceptions, are sympathetic to the Jewish people in direct proportion to their devotion to their own faith. John Paul II of blessed memory was a true friend of the Jewish people, as is his successor.
You can thank islam for that. Had they not been so intent on conquering the world (and taking huge swaths of Christendom) Christians wouldn’t have bothered Jews. As it was, after the event and 300 years of islamic kindness, Christians wanted nothing to do with any “other.” Period. They were so incensed, they took the fight to the source and determined to wipe the land clean of any unbeliever.
That all being said – if people can’t forgive grievances of the past we’ll never get anywhere.
To be clear: I don’t give a d@mn about blacks and slavery; What cowboys did to Indians; Jews and whatever pogroms of the past. None of any of those events has anything to do with me. I am responsible for nothing but my own behavior and should be judged only for same.
The reason to remember it is to recgnize the pattern and avoid it. Yes, it still happens, in Eastern Europe and even in the US, the world’s least anti-semitic country.
“Er kommt” deutete zur Ermahnung Jabotinskis zu den Juden von Polen hin. Ich dachte nach, es waere wohl etwas uebertrieben, und strach es aus.
Amen! Jabotinsky rocks.
As an Orthodox Jew, I can tell you why I, personally, hold the Catholic Church in high regard. They are one of the few institutions willing to take a strong, pricipled stand against the immorality which is destroying our civilzation.
The fact that the Church persecuted Jews in past centuries is really irrelevant today. Cultures evolve and change. There was a time when the Jews were welcomed into Moslem society and prospered there.
If Obama gets away with this “compromise”, I fear the religious community in America and Orthodox Jews in particular are in for some rough times.
There is an element of truth to all of this.
The Obama administration seems obsessed with eliminating any form of civil society that exists separate from government dictates. Allowing religious groups and institutions the freedom to decide for themselves whether abortion, contraception, etc, is acceptable conflicts with this goal. Hence it must not be allowed.
I can envision scenarios where Judaism is determined to be “racist”. Conversion is not encouraged in Judaism. This could be seen as “elitist” by the liberal-left and, thus, “racist”. After Judaism, they will go after the Mormons.
“… obsessed with eliminating any form of civil society that exists separate from government dictates.”
It certainly seems he wants to set the country off in that direction. He knows he can’t do it overnight.
“I can envision scenarios where Judaism is determined to be “racist”…”elitist.”
I think it would take a long time in this country for the “racist” label to be placed on Judaism because of matrilineal decent. Yes, the school situation — that could happen easily — but they’d avoid using the slander of “racist” in that case. They’d probably use “fairness” or some such.
The difference between the U.K. and here is …
As far as I know, it’s still not a criminal act to have bad or racist thoughts in America — or even to say racist words. It is socially unacceptable, which it should be. In England, it goes over into the criminal — almost thought crimes. We’re not talking about actual crimes that have added penalties if there’s “hate” involved — but just words or even implications of one’s thoughts — that are criminalized. (That is, unless your particular form of racism is anti-Semitism — which is perfectly acceptable in the U.K. Actually, it’s almost obligatory.)
I always thought the term hate crime was unnecessarily redundant, and more likely ‘targeted’ with a subliminal message to the politically incorrect attached….isn’t a violent crime by it’s nature instantiated hatred? So we view the sociopath/psychopath’s violent criminal behavior as less abhorrent because ‘he’ has no feelings? Just wondering.
Praise for Pope Pius XII’s Stand Against Nazism and the Holocaust
“Only the Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty. Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone has had the courage to struggle for spiritual truth and moral liberty.”
Albert Einstein in Time Magazine 1940, quoted in Three Popes and the Jews by Pinchas E. Lapide (New York: Hawthorn, 1967), p. 251.
“The repeated interventions of the Holy Father on behalf of Jewish Communities in Europe has evoked the profoundest sentiments of appreciation and gratitude from Jews throughout the world.”
Rabbi Maurice Perlzweig, Political director of the World Jewish Congress. Written February 18 1944 in a letter to Msgr. Amleto Cicognani, the apostolic delegate in Washington, D.C.
“In the most difficult hours of which we Jews of Romania have passed through, the generous assistance of the Holy See…was decisive and salutary. It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews…. The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance.”
Rabbi Alexander Safran, chief rabbi of Romania note to Monsignor Andrea Cassulo, Papal Nuncio to Romania, April 7 1944
“The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion, which form the very foundation of true civilization, are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of Divine Providence in this world.”
Rabbi Isaac Herzog, chief rabbi of the British Mandate of Palestine, March 1945.
“The Church and the papacy have saved Jews as much and in as far as they could save Christians…. Six million of my co-religionists have been murdered by the Nazis, but there could have been many more victims, had it not been for the efficacious intervention of Pius XII.”
Dr. Raphael Cantoni, director of the Italian Jewish Assistance Committee, American Jewish Yearbook 1944-1945, 233.
“What the Vatican did will be indelibly and eternally engraved in our hearts. Priests and even high prelates did things that will forever be an honor to Catholicism.”
Israel [Zolli], former Chief Rabbi of Rome, 1948.
“More than anyone else, we have had the opportunity to appreciate the great kindness, filled with compassion and magnanimity, that the Pope displayed during the terrible years of persecution and terror when it seemed that for us there was no longer an escape.”
Elio Toaff, Chief Rabbi of Rome, 1951.
“We share in the grief of humanity at the passing away of His Holiness Pope Pius XII. In a generation affected by wars and discords, he upheld the highest ideals of peace and compassion. When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the Pope was raised for the victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict. We mourn a great servant of peace.”
Golda Meir, Israeli Prime Minister, message of condolence to the Vatican, sent 1958.
“With special gratitude we remember all he has done for the persecuted Jews during one of the darkest periods in their entire history”
Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, message of condolence to the Vatican, sent 1958.
“In relation to the insane behavior of the Nazis, from overlords to self-styled cogs like Eichmann, he [Pius XII] did everything humanly possible to save lives and alleviate suffering among the Jews; that a formal statement would have provoked the Nazis to brutal retaliation, and would substantially have thwarted further Catholic action on behalf of Jews.”
Dr. Joseph Lichten, a Polish Jew who served as a diplomat and later an official of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith in Rome. Written in his book A Question of Judgment (1963)
“The papal nuncio and the bishops intervened again and again on the instructions of the pope, and that as a result of these labors in the autumn and winter of 1944, there was practically no Catholic Church institution in Budapest where persecuted Jews did not find refuge.”
Jewish historian Jeno Levai, Hungarian Jewry and the Papacy: Pius XII Did Not Remain Silent (1965).
“Pius XI had good reason to make Pacelli (the future Pius XII) the architect of his anti-Nazi policy. Of the forty-four speeches which the Nuncio Pacelli had made on German soil between 1917 and 1929, at least forty contained attacks on Nazism or condemnations of Hitler’s doctrines. Pacelli, who never met the Führer, called it ‘neo-Paganism.’”
Pinchas E. Lapide, former Israeli diplomat and Orthodox Jewish Rabbi in Three Popes and the Jews (New York: Hawthorn, 1967) p. 118.
“The Catholic Church, under the pontificate of Pope Pius XII was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000, Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.”
Pinchas E. Lapide, Three Popes and the Jews (1967).
“No Pope in history has been thanked more heartily by Jews. Upon his death in 1958, several suggested in open letters that a Pope Pius XII forest of 860,000 trees be planted on the hills of Judea in order to fittingly honor the memory of the late Pontiff because the Catholic Church under the pontificate of Pius XII was instrumental in saving the lives of as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.”
Pinchas E. Lapide, Three Popes and the Jews (1967).
“I told [Pope Pius XII] that my first duty was to thank him, and through him the Catholic Church, on behalf of the Jewish public for all they had done in the various countries to rescue Jews…. We are deeply grateful to the Catholic Church.”
Moshe Sharett (who later became Israel’s first foreign minister and second prime minister)
“Hitler distrusted the Holy See because it hid Jews. The Germans considered the Pope as an enemy.”
Jewish historian Richard Breitman, professor at American University in Washington, D.C. Statement made in Italian newspaper “Corriere della Sera” on June 29, 2000.
“My judgment cannot but be positive. Pope Pacelli was the only one who intervened to impede the deportation of Jews on 16 October 1943, and he did very much to hide and save thousands of us. It was no small matter that he ordered the opening of cloistered convents. Without him, many of our own would not be alive.”
October 25, 2000. Michael Tagliacozzo, Jewish historian and staff member at Beth Lohame Haghettaot (Center of Studies on the Shoah and Resistance).
“The Talmud teaches that ‘whosoever preserves one life, it is accounted to him by Scripture as if he had preserved a whole world.’ More than any other twentieth-century leader, Pius XII fulfilled this Talmudic dictum, when the fate of European Jewry was at stake. No other pope had been so widely praised by Jews — and they were not mistaken. Their gratitude, as well as that of the entire generation of Holocaust survivors, testifies that Pius XII was, genuinely and profoundly, a righteous gentile.”
Rabbi David G. Dalin, Ph.D. “Pius XII and the Jews.” Weekly Standard vol. 6 no. 23 (February 26 2001).
“Never, in those tragic days, could I have foreseen, even in my wildest imaginings, that the man who, more than any other, had tried to alleviate human suffering, had spent himself day by day in his unceasing efforts for peace, would – twenty years later – be made the scapegoat for men trying to free themselves from their own responsibilities and from the collective guilt that obviously weights so heavily upon them.”
rescuer John Patrick Carroll-Abbing, in his 1965 book
“During the Nazi occupation of Rome, three thousand Jews found refuge at one time at the pope’s summer residence at Castel Gandolfo. Amazingly, Castel Gandolfo is never mentioned or discussed in the anti-papal writings of many of the pope’s critics. Yet at no other site in Nazi-occupied Europe were as many Jews saved and sheltered for as long a period as at Castel Gandolfo during the Nazi occupation of Rome.
Kosher food was provided for the Jews hidden there, where, as George Weigel has noted, Jewish children were born in the private apartments of Pius XII, which became a temporary obstetrical ward.”
Rabbi David G. Dalin, Ph.D., July 29, 2005 interview with Dr. Thomas E. Woods.
Who, besides you, is bringing up Pope Pius and the Holocaust? Do you own hay futures and seek to get a nich pop in the market by encouraging lots of strawmen?
“Who, besides you, is bringing up Pope Pius and the Holocaust?”
Windthorst, 5th comment
Thank you for sharing this. I to will stand with the Jews when the time comes.
” The concordat was also flawed in its timing and implementation. Cardinal Pacelli signed the agreement too early in the regime’s history, for this treaty gave Hitler the international respectability he craved. The signing of the concordat also demoralized German Catholics, who had stood with their bishops in opposing National Socialism from the early 1920’s until March 28, 1933. On that date the bishops, relying on Hitler’s solemn pledge to make “the two churches [Catholic and Protestant] the cornerstone of our work of national renewal,” rescinded their bans against membership in the Nazi Party. Pius XI and Pacelli may have operated in the best interests of the church as an institution, but they implicitly diminished the church as an advocate of human rights and justice. Here was one of the ill effects of the ecclesiology of perfect society. The metaphor of the church as a medieval castle or a Gothic cathedral so dominated Catholic thought that it lessened the role of the church as a proponent of universal human values as embodied in natural law.
The ecclesiology of perfect society had a negative impact also upon the implementation of the Concordat of 1933. Since this theology accentuated the church’s hierarchical character, it called for top-down decision making and secrecy. Pius XI, Pius XII and the German bishops avoided public disagreements with the Third Reich, choosing instead to voice their protests in confidential messages and behind closed doors. As a result, German Catholics were puzzled by the silence of church officials amid Nazi injustices, for example, after the national boycott of Jewish businesses on April 1, 1933, after the murder of Hitler’s political opponents on June 30, 1934, and after the destruction of synagogues and the imprisonment and murder of Jews on November 9-10, 1938. ”
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=3131
I have always been a poor Catholic (a not very good one). And yet, I have always been a Catholic. Much like a non-observant Jew, still a Jew. I don’t know why it is but I have always linked Catholicism and Judaism. Maybe because they are the oldest of the western religions and the blood of BOTH religions springs from the same fountain. This is probably farfetched in its imagery but I liken it to brothers growing up and pulling chickensh!t acts on each other. Until they grew up and each defends the other against the world.
Is it not true that the early Catholic Church sprung from Judaism? It is a relationship, never perfect, trying to find its own ground between two imperfect institutions. Perhaps it is true, we are all Catholics because we all were once Jews.
Indeed. We profess Jesus as the Messiah, who was prophesied for centuries prior throughout the Torah and the Prophets. The Rabbinic Jews reject that claim and uphold the Talmud, the teachings of their Rabbis. The schism between Christians and Pharisees began during the ministry of Jesus, resulted in persecution of the Christians by the Pharisees, and ultimately led to the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues circa 80 AD (I used the terms Christians and Pharisees because the term Catholic was coined by Ignatius of Antioch circa 100 AD, and Rabbinic Judaism was not fully formed until well after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.)
On this note: if any Rabbinic Jews wish to engage in a theological debate with me or any other Christian, please refrain from quoting the Talmud, and I will refrain from quoting the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Talmud is analogous to the Catechism, not the New Testament, for no Jew claims that the Talmud is Scripture.
What is tragically funny about the pro-choicers claiming the mantle of Science when condemning the religious’ focus on conception as mere superstition — it is *precisely* biology which tell us that fertilization, aka conception, is the moment at which every person ever born, had his/her distinct, unique human genetic identity formed.
Even people who think they have no interest whatsoever in Biology or Religion should take out [...and read...] a Public Library copy of any standard textbook on Embryology.
It is not by any means a leap to say that these posts taken together emphasize the absolute need for everyone to understand the concise Orwellian threat represented by Obama and the liberals who want to take “government” to the absolute summit of the control over humans…..even though “government” must of needs be made up of some of those very same humans.
The extension of this horror is then…..who among us humans controls the “government”? This is the circular problem which we’ve been facing for centuries…..but we thought we had solved that with the concept of “Democracy”.
Hence, I can draw a parallel between Obama – who is using our Democracy to infiltrate his aims into America in exactly the same manner that Islam is using our institutions to infiltrate their concepts inch by inch under the American tent flaps.
Obama and his automatons right along with Islam are twin evils facing our country today.
well said
ok…..one more time. read clearly. No one cares if it is a FACT that life begins at conception. It is 2012 and you will not have control over what a woman of sound mind will do to her body. Its as simple as that.
I don’t want to control what any women does with her own body, though I might have an opinion, but I don’t want to be forced to participate either.
40 Days for Life says otherwise. Returning to a Planned Parenthood near you this Wednesday.
If you agree that human life begins at conception, then willful ending of that life becomes murder. We can, and do, legislate the crime of murder.
The life and future economic livelihood of the mother is more important then the life of the as-yet unborn (un-birthed) child. Babaric? Unholy? Repugnant? Maybe. Whatever. I have an idea, the next time one of you Pro-Lifers sees a young women heading for the clinic, go to an ATM, empty out your entire account, and draw out an contract pledging your future financial support to feed, clothe and provide elite private education (public schools are crap) to that woman’s unborn child until it’s 18 years old.
So abolitionists had to be able to hire all of the slaves in order to be able to oppose slavery?
Ah, but then it ISN’T her body, it’s the baby’s.
(As if we don’t have drug laws, polygamy laws, incest laws….)
that’s correct, but if does not follow that the Catholic Church should therefore be forced by the government to redefine what “sin” is. if the Catholics don’t want to pay for birth control, which they don’t believe in, they shouldn’t be forced to.
would Obama force a Muslim school to serve pork? it’s the same thing. (I don’t ask if he’d force a Jewish school, because he dislikes Jews enough that he might find it amusing to do so!)
religious freedom is what this is about. this “women’s access to contraception is in jeopardy” spin is fake, and exists merely to upset the base and get them to vote for Obama because they’re scared of “those crazy right-wingers who want to take away my pill.”
But you have no problem with a woman controlling the body of another human being.
To you, a baby is a slave and a woman is massah and can make life and death decisions regarding her slave.
How antibellum of you.
Antibellum means “against war.” Antebellum means “before the war.”
Ah – I briefly allowed you to set the dialogue. Sooooooo,
One last time………this discussion is NOT about contraception – it is about forcing an employer – who happens to be the Catholic Church in this case (and all it’s affiliates) to provides services that are against the conscience of the employer – which is a religious organization. Only women who WORK for this organization would be affected. That does not mean, however, that they cannot go to another source to supply themselves with these products (i.e. Walmart provides BC pills for about $9 a month).
It is directly in violation of the 1st Amendment concerning the free exercise of religion.
Put it this way – it’s like forcing a mosque/synagogue to provide pork for it’s congregation even though it is against their religious law to consume this food product, the government has determined that since pork is a food product that is nutritious, then it MUST be provided to all citizens in the country regardless of their personal preference or religious doctrine forbidding it.
This is NOT about forcing an employer to do something. Federal funds (a gift) will be taken away from employers who do not comply with federal mandates. Your a Catholic Doctor and you don’t want to provide abortions? fine. No federal money for you. Your free to do what you want. Oh, but you LIKE that cash from the Fed? Ok then your going to play ball!
WRONG- the mandate has nothing to do with Federal funds. Refusing Federal funds would not change the mandate in the slightest. But supposing you were right, turnabout is fair play. Why shouldn’t we get a law passed that declares any facility that performs even one abortion anathema from Federal funding in all cases, including Medicaid and Medicare?
Nor will I have any responsibility whatsoever to feed, shelter, or entertain the results of the woman’s exercise of her right to kill or not to kill, that is the question….
Your reference to a woman’s choice of what to do with her body is ridiculous and deserves to be heaped with scorn. The woman makes her choice when she agrees to have intercourse with the male. THAT IS WHEN SHE MAKES HER CHOICE. The pregnancy, if it happens, is a consequence of her ‘choice’. Abortions of ‘convenience’ are despicable; provider and patient alike. Abortions performed to eliminate pregnancies caused by rape, incest, or severe deformities (i.e., anacephaly) are the only reasons for which a woman should be permitted to receive an abortion from a medical professional. Contraceptive failures are not a legitimate reason. The moment of ‘Choice’ should be redefined.
There has never been an investigation of The Scientists, let alone a reckoning. They have always had privilege and authority over the modern West, even for moral matters. They secured their position when they won economic dominance; students must now accept their dogma to make it through the best schools, just to get a good job and a good chance of finding a mate. That’s changing, slowly, but they’ve enough momentum to win a decisive, permanent victory for the elite. New languages aren’t appearing anywhere, and neither are new religions. Ultimate secularism and an end to history is in the realm of probability.
I always found it funny that fringe religions with ever changing and arbitrary apocalypse dates are seen as dubious cults, yet scientists can reinterpret data endlessly and without consequence. How many times have eggs been unhealthy and then healthy again? Thou shalt not defy the Ones Who Wear The Robes.
…your:
“There has never been an investigation of The Scientists, let alone a reckoning.
There has indeed, and it is a continuing process….it’s called “Peer Review”. and lest you think that is a closed, self supporting group….think again….they’re an obstreperous, jealous bunch… think “intellectual property” and patents.
Ha. If there’s one thing the ongoing collapse of the “Climate Change” fraud has taught, it’s that Peer Review is a colossal joke. Turns out that a man with a PhD. is just as corruptable, just as prone to magical thinking, just as likely to lie in his professional persona as any other man- and, when there’s acceptance by his peer group at stake, far more likely than the average man to prostitute his ethics.
Repeat after me: “Hide the Decline!”
Well stated. The last half of the last decade has seen the term “peer reviewed” used like a truncheon to accost skeptics with. They didn’t have to defend their data, they just screamed “peer review” until you stopped asking. Also, remember, any data that went against the vaunted peer-reviewed drek was bought and paid for by big oil.
….Gasp!
….skeptics abound!
“Peer Reviewed’ only works when all of the Peers aren’t in on the con job.
“Charlie Griffith ….Gasp! ….skeptics abound!”
Nay! Tis heresy! Burn the witch! Burn the witch!
Well, yes, real science is in the journals. There is a lot you can say there that does not get out to the public. It’s the science popularizers and orthodoxy enforcers, and thier lackeys who kneel before their banner while knowing little about the subject – they are the problem.
As my Dad (a physical chemist) pointed out to me, Galileo was not in trouble because the Church rejected science; he was in trouble because the Church accepted “settled science” and incorporated it into the religion; then when science changed, there was trouble. (The Biblical model is not Ptolmeic.)
BTW, I wonder how many people know that aside from medical journals, you need to buy space in scientific journals, even if your paper passes peer review?
More than a century has passed since Herzl wrote that Jews have no future in Europe. Amazing that today, some Jews apparently don’t get it.
And sad that, if Obama gets his way, the same may apply to Jews in America.
– one time asked us what we were doing here when we now have Israel.
Mr. Goldman had mentioned the silence of the Church of England on the racism case. Note here in the U.S. it’s the old mainline Protestant denominations who have been giving cover to the Obama Administration through either silence or active support on the contraception mandate.
My family is Presbyterian and my father is an elder. When I ask him what the position of the PCUSA is on this he says the issue is never raised. I knew it was the right choice to spend my Sundays elsewhere.
This is most definitely a hang together or hang separately (though not literally) situation. The Obama Administration is using the old tactics of divide and conquer by using leftist religious groups to provide cover from the charge of religious rights while promoting this as a women rights issue with the media promoting the charge that those who side against the mandate want to ban contraception altogether. What PCUSA and the other leftists don’t understand is that one day their usefulness will be over and then they will be the ones to go into the pot.
Catholics have alot problems in moving forward beyond mere expressions of outrage. Obama is seeking to divide not only Christians but also Catholics from the hierarchy. The bishops as a group have destroyed their authority with the sexual abuse scandals of the past decades. They also remain compromised through their attempts to promote “social justice” through growth of the federal state which led to the current outrage. For years now I have noticed that they don’t seem to understand that by growing the State to further nominal Catholic social goals, they are merely empowering those who bear religious people, let alone Catholics, no warm feelings. One of the many dangers of this whole affair is that the bishops will seek merely to have the Catholic organizations exempted, not understanding the dangers of the beast that they helped to be born.
If the Church and religious people are going to make it through this, we’re going to have fight like the devil, booming with skirmishers three deep. If we win or have the courts strike down this montrosity we should never forget the virus of anti-religious bigotry and hatred that lies embedded among parts of our society and while we may pray for them, that we should ensure that they are never empowered in such way again.
“booming with skirmishers three deep”
Sounds like someone who’s read his Shelby Foote.
PCUSA…isn’t that Palestinian Church USA? Right now they’re tying themselves in knots trying to decide whether to divest Caterpillar, HP and other stocks because of various Israel-related sins. Won’t have time for anything else until 2012 General Assembly. Useful idiots the lot of them.
Mike said “…Note here in the U.S. it’s the old mainline Protestant denominations who have been giving cover to the Obama Administration through either silence or active support on the contraception mandate…”
Mike, which/who are NOT giving cover? Leftism is ultimately totalitarian. Mike I wonder and wander, what are you?
Mike, very astute comments and very much to the point about the bishops having destroyed their authority with the abuse scandals and their support of so called social justice causes. I feel that the Obama administration took all this into account and decided that the divisions in the Catholic Church are politically worth exploiting. It was a calculated risk that they felt they could win and notice that the point person on all this, Kathleen Sebellius, is a professed Roman Catholic. The bishops are going to have to make a stand on this and if they are serious she and others like her must be excommunicated. If not then we will all know that the bishops are not serious.
One has only to look at the Archbishop of Canterbury- head of the Church of England, Rowan Williams, as to why there has been no reply. He is extremely liberal and in support of Sharia (or parts of it).
Anyone who supports the ordination of women has no business calling himself a bishop.
we were asked to pray for all government employees this week. not regular employees, or business owners, or unemployed. just government officials. for real.
we also have corporate prayers for social justice.
it gives one pause, shall i say…
What a wonderful comment. As a Catholic who’s been saying the same thing for years, I can assure you that the bishops, the parishoners, and notably the new crop of Catholic “lay apologists” who blog (God save us), are almost uniformly clueless on this matter. If you had tried making these very sensible points on a typical Novus Ordo website (and I have), you would be shouted out of the room for your uncharity (and I’ve been).
But there is an additional point to be made here. John Paul II and Benedict XVI may have been good friends to the Jews; the problem is that they were even bigger friends to “social justice,” and the blame for the Catholic Church’s cozy attitude toward progressive statism can be in large measure laid at their feet.
The charity crowd, who are so loving they refuse to condemn obvious sin, forget that God’s love is balanced by His justice. To refuse to correct public scandal (a public sin) is to consent to it. This consent is against God’s law just as much as the sin being consented to is against His law. The only problem with justice is that it frequently takes a long time to happen and so isn’t connected with the reason for it.
David
It appears that the evolution from “Zionism is racism” to “Judaism is racism” has already started with the left and the muslim brotherhood even looking to give themselves the right over who is a good Jew (typically the Neturei Karta and others along with the secular oikophobic allophilic self-denying Jews as well as even non-Jewish Jew-haters claiming to be Jews) and who is a evil Zionist (everyone else), to be honest I am surprised that the leap to “Judaism is racism” or “being Jewish is racist” has not happened sooner let alone been more blatant then it currently is.
It is also interesting to note that muslims will of course likely be exempted from government attempts to legislate other religions / systems out of existence, based on the extent of Islamic infiltration inside western governments.
You’ve mentioned in the past that the total population of Israel will likely hit 24 million by the end of this present century through birth-rate alone yet does that conclusion also take into account a mass Aliya of Jews to Israel based on how governments outside of Israel give themselves the right to determine the beliefs / systems / values of others while resorting to blaming the Jews for the resultant leftist social dystopia? Do you envision a future where Jewish populations will exist outside of Israel based on current trends?
Wait till an English court has to rule on a family matter where the father is a Muslim and the mother is not. In Islamic law, the Muslim identity comes from the father. Any chance there could be a case where Islam is ruled to be “racist?”
Fat chance.
True. In Europe, Muslims can get away with everything. Jews, however, are more and more singled out. A Dutch newspaper even made an openly Anti-Semitic cartoon of Wilders. However, an important source of Anti-Semitism in Europe is ironically the idea that Jews, even Zionist ones, would support Islamization.
You mention Nordic countries that are infringing on kosher slaughter; while I would LIKE to be a vegetarian {I’ve been involved in humane work for 40+ years}, that’s not going to happen {unless Michelle Antoinette has her way with all our diets}. Do you know if those countries allow “halal” slaughter? Having seen some videos of their methods regarding humans, and having found out that the animal to be slaughtered is forced to face Mecca, I don’t see where they’d have any claims to “religious freedom”, when Jews are denied same. {FWIW, in comparison, Jewish slaughter is considered much more humane than ‘halal’}.
As a {lapsed} Roman Catholic woman, I find Øbama & Co.’s behavior abhorrent; as a former Marine, I find the willful shredding of our Constitution an outrage.
Also, just a side note: the nuns taught us that the Roman Catholic church owes it’s very existence to Judaism; the celebration of the Mass is a constant remembrance of Passover. A very good {as I remember it} made-for-TV movie is The Scarlet and the Black, 1983, starring Gregory Peck as Monsignor Hugh O’Flaherty – as I understand it, O’Flaherty provided his services with the blessing of Pius XII.
Semper Fi’
DM
The true story of Monsignor O’Flaherty is even more amazing than the Gregory Peck/Christopher Plummer movie: http://www.hughoflaherty.com/index.cfm/page/home
“the celebration of the Mass is a constant remembrance of Passover.”
I think you mean the sacrifice at the Temple. Y’all borrowed some of our liturgy there. The Last Supper, however, was a Seder.
I’ll bring the wine, you folks bring the matza.
If I understand the matter correctly: From a Christian standpoint, the self-sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth as relived in Communion is an extension of the korban pesach, which was not done inside the Temple (that is why some Orthodox rabbis believe that we might be able to restore the practice of korban pesach without the restoration of the Temple). Given that so much of Jewish ritual is zecher yetziat mitzrayim, it does not surprise that the Christian transformation of this should be related to Egypt as well.
Indeed, while it is permitted (though not recommended) to reduce the number of Old Testament readings at the Vigil of the Resurrection of the Lord from seven to three, the reading of Exodus 14 and the Song of the Sea of Exodus 15 (sung as a response) must never be omitted. Furthermore, the Passover rite is read every year at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper.
No, all sacrifices are in the temple coutyard. Like many other sacrifices, it was eaten anywhere in Jerusalem. (Take a look at the morning service, end of Azehu m’koman.)
What you are thinking of is the idea we can bring sacrifices on the place of the altar on the Temple Mount, without a Temple being built. In fact, it is possible that this was done at the start of the second temple, and some think after the destruction of that temple.
Don’t bother- we’ll bring both. Then again, the unbaptized are forbidden to receive Communion anyway.
The term Passover in the Torah refers to the sacrifice, and the afternoon of the day before the holiday when it was brought. It was eaten at night, the start of the feast of Matzah, at the Seder. Thus in the Jewish prayer book the holiday is called the Feast of Matzah, as only Biblical names are used in the basic service. There are still certain restrictions that apply during this half-day pre-holiday of Passover.
Over time (possbily even in the Prophets, and certainly in the Talmud), the term Passover expanded to cover the associated holiday. The rabbis used alternate names for almost all of the holidays, with sources, of course.
What the Christian Bible has to do with any of this is beyond me.
Christians regard Jesus as our Paschal Lamb, and the Crucifixion as the perfect Passover, which was prefigured in the Exodus Passover. As the blood of the paschal lamb delivered the firstborn sons of the Israelites from death, so does the Paschal Lamb of God deliver from death and hell all those whose souls’ doorposts are painted with His Blood. He is also the Bread of Life, the true bread come down from Heaven, and unlike those who ate the paschal lamb and matzoh and then the manna from Heaven, yet still died, whoever eats this Bread shall live forever.
Ummm, wasn’t Christ’s entry into Jerusalem, on the donkey, so he could celebrate Passover? Yes, you’re correct in that the Mass/Communion is a remembrance of that particular Seder
I’ve had a dickens of a time getting the phrase “I will not submit” translated into Hebrew, in the ……………….. the only word I can think of is ‘font’ that was used in the beginning of the Mysteries of the Bible TV series – a lot of folks are using the Arabic ‘lan astelem’, but I want it in Hebrew – as a Catholic, I’m not bound by the prohibitions in ………….. Leviticus{?} against tattoos, and I want ‘I will not submit’ under the symbol for Women Marines {rose with an Eagle Globe & Anchor} – I will submit to the G-d of Moses, Abraham and Jesus, but I REFUSE to submit to the hallucination of a pedophile.
Also, my apologies to any who take issue with my commenting here, AS a Catholic and not as a Jew ……………………. I still hope & pray that I will always have the fortitude and courage of my convictions to stand with Israel ………………..
BTW, I’ve been having ‘Watchtower’ folks coming around – I was informed yesterday that the Jews are no longer G-d’s Chosen – now, I’m generally polite to all these folks {Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, evangelical Christians} proselytizing, but I’m going to have to ask these particular folks to stop coming around. I took an Oath before G-d, to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, 34 years ago – it did NOT come with an expiration date – somehow, I can’t see G-d putting an expiration date on a promise He made – so, far as I’m concerned, the Jews are and always will be, G-d’s Chosen People.
Semper Fi’
DM
You mentioned Halal slaughter, so I thought you might be interested to know that the turkey you ate at Thanksgiving was probably killed in accord with Sharia law. All Butterball turkeys are Halal turkeys. While the turkey is being killed the phrase “Bismillah allahu akbar” is spoken. From what I read only 2 slaughter houses in the USA do not prepare their turkeys in accord with Shariah law.
“As an international turkey provider, we have the expertise in serving different countries and different customs, and will work with you to meet any and all product needs. We have met the requirements for the following certifications: USDA Approved, Russian Approved, Halal Certified, and employ a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HAACP) food safety system with Good Manufacturing processes. From great customer service to new product innovation to the proper certifications, Butterball has the experience you need to get our great tasting turkey in your market.” source – Butterball web site
Before eating turkey I utter a magic spell that counter-acts that.
And of course, in the US, halal meat is often prepared in a kosher slaughterhouse. Unlike Europe, Jews and Moslems in the US are able to co-operate in such matters.
Don’t get Butterball turkeys – there’s a Louisiana outfit that has a store locally {30 miles north of Houston} that offers boneless turkeys, Cajun-spiced if you like {I get ours un-spiced, as no one in the family is particularly fond of the Cajun combinations} – I WILL be asking if they utilize halal methods, and if so, will no longer be purchasing there.
It’s a matter of taking a stand – there are 4 gas stations/convenience stores within 5 miles of my house, that are Muslim-owned {there are a total of 6 in this area}; I REFUSE to trade with 2 of them, will make a purchase at one only if there’s no other choice, and one that I will go to willingly – the first 2 allow their misogyny to shine through {before I started working at one, a Muslim male asked another (American) woman who worked there if she thought I would **** him}, the third is just creepy and the fourth has always treated me with respect.
Thank you for the info on Butterball – maybe they need some mail, informing them as to WHY they will NOT be receiving my business again ……………….
Semper Fi’
DM
Thank you David for writing this. You couldn’t have said it better.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2012/02/65-orthodox-church-bishops-call-on-obama-to-%E2%80%98rescind%E2%80%99-the-%E2%80%98unjust%E2%80%99-contraception-mandate/
statement from the Orthodox Christian bishops supporting the Catholic church’s stand for religious liberty
Great article, Spengler. You never disappoint.
Egypt Expects IMF Loan Deal
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204909104577232751124487114.html?mod=WSJEUROPE_hpp_MIDDLETopNews
An excellent, correct essay. You will be the Cassandra of our time.
And yet…. It’s my understanding that Catholics and Jews voted for Obama over that other guy who represented the racist-sexist-homophobic stupid party. Don’t Catholics and Jews know their own interests? How can they possibly be surprised that Obama governs as both he and his critics said he would govern? It’s not as if they were tricked by him into voting him into office.
They wanted it; they willed it; they voted for it: let them reap what they have sown.
“Don’t Catholics and Jews know their own interests?”
Calling Thomas Frank….
They wanted it; they willed it; they voted for it: let them reap what they have sown.
Sounds like what a hater would say.
The fact of the matter is that in 2008 McCain won non-Hispanic white Catholic voters by five points: 52-47% but lost the overall Catholic vote by nine points: 54-45%. That’s because Hispanics voted as members of a minority rather than as Catholics. This time around I think there could be enough of a shift in the Hispanic vote that Obama will lose the overall Catholic vote this year. Keep in mind that in 2004 Bush won the Catholic vote by five points: 52-47% when he was running against Kerry, a Catholic.
Of course none of this is particularly relevant to the point of Spengler’s article, which is excellent and prescient.
“sounds like what a hater would say”
Ecclesiastes 3:8.
I want for them what they want for themselves. That’s respect, not hate.
Your citation of statistics on Catholic voting shows that Hispanic Catholics knew the true, righteous Catholicism towards which Obama will forcibly direct the Church, and that the White racist Catholics voted against Obama because of his skin color.
Your citation of statistics on Catholic voting shows that Hispanic Catholics knew the true, righteous Catholicism towards which Obama will forcibly direct the Church, and that the White racist Catholics voted against Obama because of his skin color.
Hopefully this is just a poor attempt at humor.
Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite was such an amateur.
If you take the view that the founding fathers separated church and state (at the federal level) as a way of rejecting the English/Anglican model of an established state church, one might wonder how much of the last 220 odd years has been a struggle by the puritanical, New England model of American culture to re-establish a national state religion through the back door.
One of the reasons it is important to develop an anthropology of the sacred, and not defer just to our normative religious accountings of the mysteries of life (I say “normative” because I double back on the paradox that religion is itself an important form of anthropology, while anthropology, properly articulated, deepens our appreciation of these same mysteries), is to make common sense of the fact that American “progressives” are fundamentally religious in nature and that their secular is just another form of the sacred. Obama is unconstitutional not just because he attacks the freedom of the RCC, but because he joins those trying to institutionalize Gnostic religiosity in Washington.
– wrestle not against flesh and blood, but powers and principalities.
David had once written that Greece had to become a horror story to illustrate the folly of socialism and euro-centrally planned enabled living beyond ones means once and for all. Well the Greeks are already there, and judging by the ongoing aggression against religious freedom, we are not very far behind. To put it in Biblical terms, Greece is in the position of Samaria the northern kingdom which was destroyed by the Assyrians only several decades before the southern kingdom of Judah was sacked and pillaged by the Babylonians. Instead of decades I fear this nation only has months or a few years to turn things around before we become Greece on a much, much bigger scale.
http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/comment/194559/
And by ‘the system’ I don’t know if Mr. Richard Fernandez here means the Left, the banksters, or even the globalist jackals ala Mr. Soros et al that dined so well on the rape of Russia in the 1990s and dream of seeing the U.S.A similarly humiliated, its people reduced to emigrating or prostitution ala millions of Russians in the Nineties, and its choicest assets on the auction block dirt cheap.
Judging by the Russian experience, there will be no crime more severe than the rise of an American leader from a military background who will kick the IMF, World Bank et al out of D.C. and drill wherever it pleases America’s producers to drill. As Glenn Reynolds has asked for some time, what American analogue to Putin slouches somewhere waiting to seize his moment?
It is history that is the most formidable enemy of the Left. Revolution inserts a marker in the historical record. What came before is truly and fully gone. Judaism is a constant reinsertion of history into the current reckoning: the seder, the sukkah, the creation story, the destruction of the Temples, the return to Zion, the practice of law based upon precedent. The Left cannot tolerate such anachronisms. Thus, it sucks meaning from life to reduce life’s complexity and texture. The dead quality of Leftist thinking is a consequence of its assumptions that the past should not affect the future. For that reason alone, Leftists will fail all tests of logic and perish in the flames of the conundrums of their own creation. In human history, holding power has always been insufficient impetus and reason for retaining power. Hold on for dear life, because the ride is going to be really bumpy.
haven’t the jews been attacked recently for circumcision? seems there was a comic book or something just about a year ago. and yes they will come for us all… it’s all about the control.. funny that.. weren’t the dems complaining just last year or so that US citizens were uncontrollable?? obama might lose a second term but be prepared for the chaos that will ensue..and it will.. he won’t be done because his address changes.. good luck to us all.. and God help us from these evil insane people..
“[T]he Catholic assertion that life begins at conception . . . .”? This is not a Roman Catholic assertion, it is a scientific fact. Once the sperm finishes fertilizing the ovum, a unique – never before seen and never to be seen again – human life has begun. So, even though science has definitively answered this question, the “pro-science” folks will not accept the answer. Accordingly, the left does not really look to science to make determinations of life and death. Their agenda drives their determinations.
The issue is more complicated than you state. We Jews do not and should not support freedom of religion in all cases. Let’s say for instance a religious edict promoted child sacrifice, we would not support it. And we would favor a US law against it. We also have no problem with laws prohibiting bigamy, although certain US sects feel it contradicts their religious freedom. Public good, sometimes, beats out religious freedom. However, as with restrictions on freedom of speech, overriding a Constitutional freedom should be difficult to achieve legally and rarely accomplished.
This type of New Age government intrusion, is just another part of a full court press to destroy culture. The out of wedlock sex, government plantation, illegal alien invasion, moon god worship, Moloch worship, Justice department gun walking, agenda 21, etc…
DaOne is a flag holder for the New Age agenda. It took a billion bucks to get him in office, and he has been doing what he is told. State, Homeland Security, and Justice are doing the same thing.
Pull up the Club of Rome, and read their agenda. It is a blueprint for the BLT Marxist.
In ultra-liberal San Francisco, they already tried to ban circumcision–with no religious exemption for Jews or Muslims. Under the proposed law, any Jewish parents that held a bris for their newborn son could be jailed.
One of the referendum’s key supporters has written a comic book, Foreskin Man, that portrays a blond, Aryan-looking superhero doing battle with “Monster Mohel.” (Mohels are people trained to perform ritual Jewish circumcisions.) The bearded, prayer-shawl-wearing mohel leers manically at defenseless infants.
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2011/06/mohel.jpg
As one rabbi blogger put it, “Hey San Francisco, 1930′s Germany Called — They Want Their Anti-Semitic Propaganda Back!”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077240,00.html#ixzz1mvLeKGHc
Mr. Goldman,
I applaud your column and your writing abilities. In one instance, you’ve made an error: “Nothing in our science can tell us where life begins”.
Life is not conferred by a fairy at some unknown span of time following conception. Having had two years of biology and four children, the truth is that life begins at conception, at the moment the egg is fertilized, whether you are dealing with panda bears or human beings. Ask any biologist. Ask a woman whose body informs her that ‘something is different’. Ask a woman who has miscarried.
I find myself, David, in an odd place in this particular debate.
It is my belief system, to embrace the greatest gift given to mankind. Free will. It is also the greatest nation’s gift to its people. The brilliance of the founders of this country seemed to understand better than any other nation in history that preceded it, that to mirror the gift of free will by God, (as best as man can attempt), is to capture a cubic yard of heaven for we mortals.
In so granting us the options of life, we may choose and be wrong. Immensely, overwhemingly, astoundingly…wrong.
However, we must not treat the wrong decisions as equal to the right decisions.
Rampant, runaway, fascistic leftism robs us both ways. It seeks to tear apart the freedom of will AND it seeks to make all options equal. It is the destruction of the spirit and the conscience.
The primary reason that I fall on the side of pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-contraception…is not that I believe in indiscriminate sex, reckless behavior or in the assault on human organism growth, but that I believe that to have true free will one must balance who is to be the judge…and man should grab that mantle sparingly.
That we should maintain a conscience that judges ourselves and our own behavior to guide our personal free will toward the correct choices is absolute. That we should maintain an iron fist over the choices of others in order to force them into choices, should be a line drawn in the utmost deference to a higher authority.
What Obama and the small c communists (and the authoritarian regimes of all stripes from Nazi to the severest sects of Sharia) steal from us, is freedom to be “wrong” in their eyes. When man’s law exceeds the limits of heaven’s free will choices, when it seeks to impose ALL the forced choices, it replaces the conscience, it does not expand it.
I believe that treating human life so cavalierly as to make a personal snuff film on fetal existence to be a slippery slope into depravity. I do not pretend to know the precise moment that one can salve the conscience in the destruction of innocent human life in formation.
Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. I do know that my conscience reacts, recoils…more vigorously as the growing human life begins to take recognizable shape and form.
Obama and the small c communists wish to erase the discomfort of conscience, making matter of fact these decisions of “science”, but science is not the point. It has never been the point. Obama and the small c communists want to replace conscience with state mandated obedience.
And, therein lies the irony. They suggest that they are “pro choice”, but they are most certainly no such thing. They are anti-choice. They are anti-free will. At the heart of the greatest religions and the greatest country to ever mirror a sliver of heaven…is greatest gift granted to mankind. The gift of the widest berth of conscience, to let God be the sole judge as often as possible. (not recklessly, not in every instance, …but not to arrogate to man a role which he has so little capacity to compete with the Almighty)
Obama and the iron-fisted authoritarian leftists, as well as the radical jihadists expose the savage wrongness of such arrogance. They not only strip mankind over which they mean to rule of free will, the expansion of conscience and the right to “choose” a pathway to grace, they impose and force a single option…which offends the conscience, righteousness and grace.
They replace “religion” or “faith” or “guided conscience”…they kill free will and destroy that cubic yard of heaven. For their own glory.
Obama and the small c communists must kill off religion and the Constitution for that very reason. It must try to find ways to get us to fight each other over which “man’s judgment” should prevail. They do this constantly. It’s their best trick. Of course, it is almost always on an issue when “man’s judgment” should take a back seat to a higher authority. We lose that in the broiling heat of the “hot button” issue. When it cools, they stoke the fire again or find a new issue to get the blood boiling.
And we fall into their trap yet again.
Free will, conscience and a higher authority be damned.
Well, there is a difference between being “pro-choice” and being… you know, pro-abortion.
If you are truly pro-choice, you would also support the entity that can make that choice in the first place: the human being, and you’d defend HIS choice even when is not exactly what you would have chosen. That is, on the basis of being pro-choice, not pro-life nor pro-death.
I think that’s why many feminists hate S.Palin, not because they are pro-choice, but because they are actually pro-death and unwilling to support a choice when is not the choice they like.
An embryo is not a human being, does not yet have the capacity for choice.
And, your argument misses the point almost entirely.
Because one has to make the choice FOR the embryo, then the fetus, then the VIABLE BUT UNBORN life form, it is all a matter of conscience.
While I believe that sound, rational, spiritual guidance in the form of “community” or “congregation” is a huge plus, it is not the state and never has been intended to be the state.
More importantly, perhaps, it is not God and has never intended to blaspheme, only to assist individuals in making good use of their conscience to choose right from wrong.
Law in man’s hands should be used sparingly. Power over conscience should be used sparingly.
I don’t advocate for snuffing out human life forms. I most certainly do not advocate snuffing out human life forms when they become recognizable. But, I absolutely do NOT put the power of the STATE as my replacement for God’s judgment.
Or any man, for that matter.
There are necessary laws that man must create. Making the state a false god by iron-fisted stripping of free will goes beyond what is necessary…and wise.
The Marxists and the jihadists have this in common. They wish to strip the conscience and beat free will into submission. Sharia and Communism are the absence of free will and the conscience stripped bare…and whipped.
If we have free will, then there MUST be the option to choose spectacularly wrong. Again, not in the case of murder, armed robbery and such. But PERSONAL free will must be given a wide berth.
Where we draw that line defines how close we come to the gates of heaven. If we CHOOSE to do good, be good, act in goodness, we have developed the conscience it takes to get in.
Marxism wishes to strip away the “communal conscience” for goodness, because it is in competition with it. It wants to iron fist away our Judeo-Christian community, because only the STATE can “guide” our behavior. (read, pummel it into submission)
Religion at its finest, teaches and leads by example. Marxism can never do this. It peer pressures and bullies into submission. Religion, faith, submission to the highest authority, allows us to try to build up a conscience to achieve grace.
The STATE authoritarian needs absolute fealty, to feed the beast all other “community conscience builders” must be torn down. There is no free will allowed, you march in lockstep or you are bullied.
Same with Sharia, which is its most defining characteristic.
American Constitutional democratic Republic and our Judeo-Christian heritage have combined to create the most perfect union. We became great because we allowed the freedom of human failure….and learned to overcome it.
We made mistakes, sometimes atrocious ones and then fought through them, making the “corrections of conscience”, often bloody, to arrive at a decision bathed in grace.
The State and false religions that force compliance through bullying, fraud, lies and distortion are sure to fail the test of heaven. It’s a novel concept to some. And, we may debate where to draw the lines. But never lose sight of the fact that man has no business pretending to be the highest authority. He is not, and he makes a miserable replacement for the real thing.
Excellent points, as usual, CFB.
Just want to add that no one has the right to infringe upon the basic inalienable rights we have all been endowed by our creator. This serves to justify why we must have a foundation of laws that all must obey in order to properly observe this important principle. Breaking these laws demands that a burden of debt to society be imposed; thus, it’s justified that it’s illegal to steal, kill another in cold blood, extort money, etc.
Incorrect. An embryo is a human being. It is a genetically unique individual of the species Home Sapiens, and an individual’s ability or inability to explicitly choose to die is irrelevant to the obligation a civilized society has to protect its life. So, all your sophistry is basically nothing more than a way to convince yourself of the lie that allowing one human being to decide to kill another innocent human being is somehow noble.
I’ll try to be patient with you, since you clearly have a reading comprehension problem.
An embryo is NOT a human being, it is a life form in process. It has no rights as a citizen since it is not yet born. Man’s law does not work well for this stage of pre-life.
The building of a conscience is the only thing that can save that life form from intentional destruction.
Sophistry, my ass. If you cannot follow the logic and don’t have the brainpower to comprehend it, I suggest that insults aren’t in your best interest. I’m not arguing for the destruction of any life form, at any time.
Try re-reading again, slowly. Let your lips move this time.
Embryos have human DNA. If you could get a sample of an embryo’s DNA without killing her, and then you tested her again twenty years later, she’d have the same DNA, and it would still be human. Citizenship is granted at birth or a specific legal process, and citizens have more rights than non-citizens, but humans have human DNA right from the get-go, no matter how quickly or slowly you speak (and btw insulting your opponent’s intelligence is a strong sign of a poor argument).
An embryo is not a human being, does not yet have the capacity for choice. — cfbleachers
Wasnt this along the same lines used to deny Blacks full human and civil rights? Many denied their humanity, or relegated them to lessor human beings. Then they got out their scientific instruments and theories to back up their positions….measuring cranial capacity, slopes of foreheads, nose widths….similar to measuring fetus and finding them lacking whatever human quality or enough of a quality compared to others.
Similar, EV.
But not the same.
Arguments were attempted that blacks were a separate species, genetically inferior to whites. An embryo is not yet born, although I do not recall any “different species” argument being made.
The moral guidance of conscience in each instance is a MUCH better arbiter than is man’s law on the subjects. If we descend into a “scientific” argument about when life begins or “citizenship rights”, and let the STATE decide, we are in trouble.
The state can only protect what the state has dominion and control over. An unborn life form embryo does not yet “belong” to any state. It can be moved and born elsewhere, making the “citizenship” a matter of question, sometimes right up until birth.
Again, the state is not moral conscience. It can’t be. It’s a lagging indicator.
That argument applies to any law, and thus is anti-law…..anarchism.
Let each individual decide.
At base it is nihilism. Each individual makes their own moral law, all moralities are equally valued and devalued. Moral relativism implies moral skepticism which points to moral nihilism.
EV
Let me go at this a bit differently.
Nobody is suggesting “no law”. That’s a straw man argument.
Nobody is suggesting “individual law”, that’s also a straw man argument.
But, to try to make the state into the “enforcer” for “conscience thuggery” is a road to perdition.
The state CANNOT treat a non-born entity as a citizen….with full rights…and presumably, responsibilities. Could it tax an embryo? Draft it into military service? It has no dominion and control over it. It makes a poor arbiter of its rights and responsibilities.
Similarly, treatment of blacks decades ago (or whites at polling booths today) are subject to the whims of man with the power of the state behind them in which to hide nefarious impulses.
Without conscience, the embryo cannot be saved, nor can any race out of power…against those who mean to destroy them.
Laws of state power, therefore, don’t move conscience. Conscience moves laws.
The conscience is free to ignore the embryo’s lack of civil rights and accord it human rights. The state is too confined to do so.
Nobody is suggesting an absence of laws (anomie), only that the state is an unwieldy vehicle to try to replace the swifter, surer, better arbiter…moral conscience.
Where the state cannot act, should not act, MUST NOT act, …the conscience is free to do so.
State thuggery via communism or jihadism is the forced choice, religion in its finest form is the emancipation from such thuggery. It allows the conscience to come to a conclusion that they state may not impose upon it. Absent that freedom…is simply the gates of hell.
@cfb. A tourist isn’t a citizen we’re still not allowed to murder them,we don’t tax infants either. Pro-aborts are the bad guys just deal, repent and move on – you don’t think you move faster than the devil do you? Comedy WWII: Are We The Bad Guys? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpZ8EkK3eWY
People that are knocked unconscious do not lose their human rights.
Sorry cfbleachers.
Where do you come up with such ridiculous options? The mother exercised her choice when she had sex. So you are arguing that the child should be forced to pay for the mother’s choice. Look I hate to break this news to you but nature intended sex for procreation. That means and methods to avoid impregnation have been devised doesn’t take away from the fact that pregnancy can happen in spite of measures taken and that if you want the right to do something then you accept the consequences of things not going as intended. Incidentally while asleep you are incapable of making choices, are you less alive while you are asleep?
CFB…… you roll, man. It’s obvious you get it……;)……..
Ok, I have re-read and agree with many things. I also recognize some of Ayn Rand’s positions (like a man having rights by being born as such).
The clue of this goes down exactly to whether a fetus has rights or not. According to Objectivism, granting rights to the fetus would be a contradiction because it takes away mother’s rights: “If a woman has no right to her own body, then by what logic does a fetus have a right to the woman’s body? ” (Glenn Woiceshyn, in AR Institute).
While I admit this is hard to accept, I still need to think about it. Because is very important the fact that Rights derive exclusively from the “free-will”, as long as a living being show volitional conscience is endowed with Rigths. And fetuses still have no choice.
Someone should start calling the “compromise” the HIT MAN SOLUTION. Because that’s exactly what it is. Try telling the judge, your Honor, I had nothing to do with murdering my wife. I paid someone else to do it. Think that would fly? As far as warning the Jews about all this, good luck. Our problem is that Obama is surrounded by left wing JINOS who couldn’t care less. In fact they would welcome the obliteration of religious Jewry in America. For many Marxist Jews, the religious are good for seducing into voting blocks (Hillary – New Square, Monsey, New York) or useful when throwing the anti-Semitic canard at conservatives. Other than that, they are an awkward embarrassment to be spoken of in tones of derision and denial. After all they attempt to live according the word of God and not Karl Marx.
Kosher meat is safe from attack by Obama as that may lead to an attack on the far more widespread problem of Halal meat which, as a muslim traveller (at the very least) he is no doubt completely in favour of.
Certainly with Halal slaughter it is the witless incantations that accompany the slaughter that I find unacceptable as well, as least in Europe, the unwillingness to display whether the slaughtered meat is Halal or not.
If the meat were clearly packaged as Halal (as Kosher food is) then very few people would buy it.
Since you brought up Halal vs. Kosher, I think it appropriate to offer the Christian perspective on the matter: A Christian may freely partake of Kosher food, because it was offered to YHWH, and the moral state of the Rabbi is irrelevant to whether or not it is licit. Halal food marked as such is forbidden, because it was offered to Allah, however, if the halal food is not marked, nor advertised as halal, a Christian may partake of it without question, and is under no obligation to find out whether or not it is halal, because “The Earth and everything in it is the Lord’s.” If, however, one fears consuming halal food, the prophet Daniel’s solution is perfectly permissible- abstain from any food that may be halal, up to and including abstaining from all meat if necessary.
Then you would agree that the food labeling laws should require a Halal disclosure such as the indicia for irradiated food for example.
I’m sure this author is ecstatic about all the evangelicals wanting all the Jews to go back to Israel so they can commence the battle of all battles and as a byproduct all the Jews get terminated. Isn’t Armageddon a wonderful story.
Isn’t Armageddon a wonderful story.
It is when you and your ilk are in it.
Otherwise, this is one of those fairy tales leftists like to tell themselves, while they bathe in hatred of faith-based folks.
I’ve heard this nonsense before and didn’t believe that ignorant leftists spewed this as a sort of Protocols of Elders tripe for Christians. Equally dripping with liar’s venom, this particular noxious “leftist urban myth”…that all non-leftists Chrisitians ONLY support Israel in particular and Jews in general, is based upon a Biblical war spark for Armageddon.
The Protocols of Elders for Christians being what it is, it is usually low class slime that does most of this spewing. It is quite telling about the speaker/author. It helps the recruitment of the particularly low grade imbecile useful idiot….usually most willing to be a Soros troll as well. Almost like branding cattle, except the drooling leftist wannabe applies the poker to his own ass.
I’m not sure when you read more ignorant Flaming Lib – speaking of politic or religion. You are good for two things: (1) Bad example; (2) For nothing.
I can’t get the picture out of the theater of my mind of you in front of the burning altars of Obama and the Styrofoam columns at the football field, genuflecting and tearing up to the future abject failure and corruption along with 80,000 other mindless dupes. I watched with morbid curiosity, as if Caligula had returned for a short time. All that was missing was the laurel wreath.
I certainly don’t expect you to have any understanding a covenant being fulfilled through the Jews for the Jews, confirming for me there is indeed far more to our short lives than to be born and to die. This runs counter to say your idea of divinity – Obama’s unfulfilled covenant of prosperity and Yes We Can!
One thing now for sure – your misunderstanding of good public policy is only surpassed by your misunderstanding of the conclusion of Armageddon.
Of course I don’t understand Armageddon just as I don’t understand what goes on in insane people minds. Are you telling me you do?
Let me spell it out for you then: Jesus wins and annihilates those seeking the destruction of His people. The remnant of the Jews believe in Him as the Messiah and they, along with countless Gentiles enter the Kingdom of God, reunited with the saints of ages past, whom Jesus will raise from the dead. The damned, too, will be raised from the dead to be sentenced to Gehenna.
And Marx and Mohammed occupy the deepest darkest regions therein…
Oh so all the Jews now have to believe in jesus and not just their god but your god or they are condemned. I’m sure the Jews love that story.
Myth Buster,
Trying to educated a flaming reprobate like Flaming Lib
(prophetic, hey? :smile) is like trying to reason with any Obama rube – futile.
Flaming Lib
, like so many leftist idiots who enter a mocking argument with very limited capability and big mouth, are under the illusion that the concept of the Battle of Armageddon is “a Christian thing.” You know, religious fanatics and other societal oddballs.
If Flaming
had even a rudimentary understanding of Christianity (he doesn’t), he might realize Armageddon is not just a Christian thing, but a Jewish one as well.
=========
As example Flaming
, the rise of the Antichrist and the Battle of Armageddon, were recorded by the prophet Daniel in the sixth century B.C..Try reading Daniel some time, before inserting foot in mouth.
You should stick to lefty political nuance Flaming
and coordinate with your Journolist pals to construct a better argument. If you’re going to initiate with the rank propaganda and repetitious insult, you ought to at least have a rudimentary understanding of that which you mock so you don’t read completely devoid of knowledge.
Maybe I just do not understand but I fail to see this as a religious freedom issue.
What is a stake is a mandate that employment based insurance include coverage for contraception. Including the covereage does not require Catholics to use contraceptives.
My objection is to the whole idea of insurance and government mandates. The Church does not raise this objection because it is very much in the hospital and health care business. It wants some mandates, just not this one. The Catholic Church has been a driving force behind government intrusion into health care all along. Now it will use its political muscle to shape policy according to its own religious beliefs.
Problem with this is where do we end? A Jehova’s Witness should not have to pay for insurance covering blood transfusions either. Religious pacifists should not have to pay taxes for military spending. Orthodox Jews should not have to pay for non-Kosher hospital food.
Face it, this is not all all like banning kosher food or circumcision. This is about big money and politics.
I never advocated government funding for kosher food. I think Jews should pay for it themselves (and Jewish charities should cover the needs of our own poor). But several countries already have outlawed kosher slaughter, no matter who pays for it. That is quite another issue.
I was referring to Jews paying for non-Kosher food. If insurance covers non-Kosher food served in hospitals than Jews are paying for non-kosher food.
Same as insurance paid by a Jehova’s witness pays for other people to have blood transfusions.
This is all about who pays. The whole objection is to the Church paying for insurance that includes contraception. The same Church calls for government driven universal health insurance.
If insurance pays for non-Kosher food, then the Jews in question should only be required to pay the price difference between Kosher and non-Kosher. The insurance is, after all, covering hospital meals, not non-Kosher hospital meals.
There is nothing in Jewish law that says that a Gentile cannot eat non-kosher food. We only apply that to ourselves.
After the Hungarian revolution, a large number of Hungarian Jewscommunity, emigrated, many as an intact community, to the United States. To the newcomers misfortune, Liberal American Jewish lawyers, makers and shakers took it upon themselves to “assist” the newly arrived Hungarian Jews and to show them how things are done in the Golden Land of America.
Why should people of color soak up the bulk of taxpayer dollars devoted to welfare? Why not poor immigrant Jews? So the Immigrants were introduced to the American welfare system.
The results can be seen by anyone who cares to visit this community of lame and halt Jews crippled by their liberal coreligionists in places like Rockland County in New York. African Americans with beards,sidelocks and yarmulkes. Funny stuff if it weren’t so tragic.
No, mostly they tried to destroy their religion.
Maybe I just do not understand but I fail to see this as a religious freedom issue.
Perhaps your bias is clouding your understanding because clearly you don’t “get it.”
What is a stake is a mandate that employment based insurance include coverage for contraception. Including the covereage does not require Catholics to use contraceptives.
It’s not about what individual Catholics are required to do or even what they choose to do. It’s about the Church’s Constitutional right to determine its own doctrines free of government coercion.
My objection is to the whole idea of insurance and government mandates. The Church does not raise this objection because it is very much in the hospital and health care business. It wants some mandates, just not this one.
Because this particular mandate requires the Church to undermine its own doctrine by tacitly supporting contraception by offering plans that include it. Who pays is completely beside the point. If the Church is offering plans that include it how can it then oppose it on moral grounds? Individuals can make that choice for themselves but the Church itself should not be forced by the government to undermine its own beliefs.
The Catholic Church has been a driving force behind government intrusion into health care all along. Now it will use its political muscle to shape policy according to its own religious beliefs.
Sounds like an attempt to cloak basic anti-Catholic bias in the guise of concern over mandates. In reality, the Church simply wants things to remain the same. It’s Obama and his administration who are using political muscle to re-shape policy according to their agenda.
Moira as you are well aware religious groups have an exemption in regards to places of worship and schools. Hospitals and Colleges are different so maybe you should take it up with the Catholic Bishops who remained silent while all these institutions implemented these policies in the last decade even before Obama was a Senator. Or better yet take it up with Scalia who seemes to know what most conservatives like you don’t:
In an even more directly relevant 1982 decision holding that Amish employers must comply with Social Security and withholding taxes, though their faith bars participation in government support programs, Scalia wrote:
Respondents urge us to hold, quite simply, that when otherwise prohibitable conduct is accompanied by religious convictions, not only the convictions but the conduct itself must be free from governmental regulation. We have never held that, and decline to do so now.
Now here is his full decision from the Supreme Court in 1990. Read it and weep
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0494_0872_ZO.html
I think you are the one who needs to read it and weep.
Because evidently you didn’t read it closely:
“Respondents’ claim for relief rests on our decisions in Sherbert v. Verner, supra, Thomas v. Review Board, Indiana Employment Security Div., supra, and Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Florida, 480 U.S. 136 (1987), in which we held that a State could not condition the availability of unemployment insurance on an individual’s willingness to forgo conduct required by his religion. As we observed in Smith I, however, the conduct at issue in those cases was not prohibited by law. We held that distinction to be critical, for if Oregon does prohibit the religious use of peyote, and if that prohibition is consistent with the Federal Constitution, there is no federal right to engage in that conduct in Oregon.”
In that case, Scalia took a different view from previous cases, because the use of peyote had been made ILLEGAL under Oregon law with no religious exemptions. And because it was illegal under Oregon law, Scalia rejected the idea that anyone could claim a right to commit illegal acts by claiming that his religion encourages such acts.
There is no such illegality being implied to anything the Catholic bishops have been doing. Hence the ObamaCare case more resembles the Hobbie case of 1987, in which the Court ruled that
“a State could not condition the availability of unemployment insurance on an individual’s willingness to forgo conduct required by his religion.”
It’s one thing for the Government to maintain that you can’t be excused from committing criminal acts for religious reasons.
But it’s quite another to claim that refusal to pay for birth control constitutes an illegal act. There’s no precedent for that.
Well smith wasn’t the important example here now is it but it’s what Scalia said about the Amish when writing the Smith opinion: in that the Amish was not wanting to pay social security as it was against their religion. Now that is what was the important piece but seems to have conveniently escaped your notice.
But also escaping notice here is that lower courts have already decided on this at both the State and Federal level. Take when the Republican Catholic Governor of NY signed their law into effect and Cardinal Egan (you know the one who recently said he wished he never apologized for the priests pedophilia) took NY to court at the state level and lost as well as the Federal Level and lost and the Supreme Court did not want to hear the case.
The optics of this case will not go away and will be framed as it should as a bunch of sexually repressed old white virgin men still trying to dictate what women should do with their reproductive organs. Good luck winning that argument.
Contraception isn’t health care. Pregnancy isn’t a disease either. What you are advocating along with Obama is for subsidized recreational sex. I have nothing against recreational sex but like any form of recreation one ought to pay for it themselves instead of insisting others be compelled to subsidize your recreation.
If the Church wants to oppose the mandate on constitutional grounds then they should do so in court. I think it would be a hard case to make.
It is a fact that the Catholic Church has been a driving force in more government intereference in health care.
From a recent article in US Catholic: “In fact Pope Benedict joined WHO’s call for universal health coverage just before its report hit the press. He called health care a moral responsibility of government and an “inalienable right,” regardless of social and economic status or ability to pay. He cautioned that the privatization of health care should “not become a threat to the accessibility, availability, and quality of health care.”
That is as strong a statement in favor of socialized medicine as you can make. This mandate is simply blowback. When you give government control you end up with some things you did not intend.
I have no problem with whatever insurance Catholic employers want to offer. It just becomes more difficult to defend when what it becomes this selective.
Fact is that people are forced to pay for things they object to all of the time by government. I am opposed to capitol punishment and live in a state where there are a lot of executions. I still have to pay taxes and subsidize something I morally object to.
Health care should be kept as far from government as possible and this is a case in point.
No, it’s saying that charity must always win out, and a leonine contract is extortion. If $50,000 is sufficient to pay for supplies and labor needed for a lifesaving operation, it is a sin to demand a million, because the patient is given an ultimatum, “Pay this exorbitant sum or die.” Neither should hospitals demand to be paid in full up front, but rather give the patient an opportunity to pay the debt off over time, and for the truly indigent, forgive their debts.
And the poor should be required to give up cable TV, cell phones,beer and wine, drugs and cigarettes and designer apparel and other non necessities before their debt is discharged.
We all should really pray very intense for the USASC to toss this entire Obama care deal out as it should be….Totally un-const….If we win there and get a strong Conservative in the WH in 2013 we could possibly turn this Evil Juggernaunt into a more livable scheme…..Friends, unless G0d Himself intervenes on our behalf, we are lost, as a “One nation under G0d”….He has been known to intercede oftentimes in the affairs of His Chosen Ones….That also includes the true BA Christian….I promise not to Ever again proslylite, on this mainly Jewish Forum…I believe my true feelings for the Jewish will be all the Work i need to do…I thank you Mr. Goldmann, and the many great and intelligent Jewish Writers on this PJM…I also want to ask for the same intense prayer for the leaders of Israel, especially Mr. Netanhuhu, aka, Bibi….If any of you see him please tell him that this Devil,0bam0 is an enemy of Israel, and You Israeli Jews must Stop Iran, even with Nukes if necessary….Obozo will allow you all to perish….
I am a proud Catholic.
I will stand with the Jews and Israel under any circumstances.
There are many of us, our number is growing.
I ask all men of Catholic faith to make a stand.
I ask all men of Catholic faith to make public pronouncements that they/we stand with Israel forever.
I ask that you spread this simple message to your brothers.
I ask that you speak up at Mass to confirm your stance towards the Holy Church and Israel.
We must stand as one.
I’m an atheist, and I’ll stand by Israel as well. Why? Because any decent, rational, freedom-loving person should.
They’re the only modern nation in a region overrun with ridiculous superstition and ignorance.
They’re America’s best ally in a region of significant strategic importance.
Israel is a testament to what a capitalist, free-market society can do. Since 1948 Israel has made the desert bloom, while the nations surrounding them, if you were to take away oil income, would be living in the Stone Age.
There really is no decision to make here.
Which just goes to show that the real difference (once all the postures in the unnecessary debate are removed) between the believer and the atheist is vanishingly small. Israel is a prosperous modern society because it has one religious inheritance and not another. Secular or religious, human reality is defined by the transcendent domain of language and representation, the emergence of which must always remain somewhat mysterious, whether understood religiously or in some secular equivalent (atheism is and will always remain historically derivative of theism).
Nice sentiment, Jeff. I’m sure you are sincere. Forgive this Hebrew for being unmoved and ungrateful.
We Jews stood with Catholic Spain and fought side by side with the Catholic Goths against the Muslims. We paid for it with the Spanish Catholic Inquisition.
We Jews commissioned skilled Italian gunmakers to build huge cannon to bring down the walls of Muslim fortifications. Our Jewish money paid for the guns and our Jewish transport knowhow brought the guns over the mountains to the battlefield in Spain.
It was those guns that determined a Catholic victory over the Muslims. We paid for our support of the Spanish Catholic Crown and the Spanish Catholic Church with the Spanish Catholic Inquisition.
The depth of Catholic betrayal of the Jews is abysmal. We Jews were in Spain under the Romans well before the Romans planted the savage and troublesome Goths there. Jewish ministers brought about the union of the Gothic Kingdoms of Castile and Aragon to form one Spanish nation to oppose the Muslims.
Roman Catholic assurances of loyalty and support ain’t worth a bucket of spit, Jeff.
I know something about Spanish history.
See
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/music/81821/divine-justice/
“The 14th-century king Alfonso XI peopled the Spanish royal line with bastards.
It may not be a coincidence that Alfonso’s bastard son, Henry of Trastámara, incited Jew-hatred to overthrow his more tolerant half-brother, the legitimate heir Pedro I of Castile. Henry led the massacre of 12,000 Spanish Jews in Toledo on May 7, 1335. The Jews fought alongside Pedro in a prolonged civil war and suffered horribly after Henry won and beheaded his brother with the words: ‘Where is that son-of-a-whore Jew?’”
The Spanish got what was coming to them in 1936-1939, after which there really hasn’t been much left of them.
But Cardinal Dolan isn’t exactly Torquemada. This is the United States of America, a “propositional” nation in the words of Fr. John Courtney Murray, SJ. It seems to me bloody-minded in the extreme not to recognize the changes in the Church since World War II and the Second Vatican Council, or the differences between 21st-century America and 15th century Spain.
You are not addressing my main point, David. You are merely obscuring the overarching facts with detail. Centuries of Jewish “life” among the goths consisted of one Roman Catholic outrage–pogroms and forced mass conversions–after another.
Jumping to the post WWII Church is a cheap trick. Your post and many of the comments here suggest that the Church’s behavior during WWII were exemplary. George Orwell, the most determinedly honest intellectual of the Twentieth Century suggests otherwise.
After his experiences in Spain during the “revolution” there, Orwell had a thing or two to say about the Church, none of it complimentary. Among the least of his criticisms was that the Roman Catholic Church is a “parasite on the poor.”
The Church of Rome was firmly on the side of the Fascists in Spain before WWII and remained Fascist in its sympathies through ten years of Hitler’s reign in Germany. Of British ,Orwell remarked that they were the only Britons who believed the Vatican was on the side of the Allies.
Who do we Believe? David Goldman writing today or Eric Blair writing contemporaneously?
“Of British Catholics” was the intended statement at the end there.
I trashed your most recent comment because of obscene language.
The Spanish authorities under Franco saved about 60,000 Jewish lives. Franco was an anti-Semite who gave speeches denouncing the Masonic-Judeo “conspiracy,” but also believed in Christian charity towards individuals. It’s Jose Maria Aznar, the Catholic conservative ex-PM of Spain who has joined with my friend George Weigel to support Israel, and the leftist Zapatero who embraced the Palestinian cause. By no means do I forget the past: we do not forget a single martyr. Neither do we believe that God punishes the descendants for what their ancestors did in 1492! We are a tiny minority in the world. If we do not ally with prospective friends–even those who might have been enemies in the past–how can we hope to survive? And that leaves aside the deeper issue, that many Catholics (and of course other Christians) are righteous and God-fearing people and deserve our support because of who they are, not because of what they might do for us in return.
And Id like to point out that Mr Levavi’s view is to the LEFT of the Charidim! hahaha!
Mr Levavi,
All the horrors u described r 100% accurate. And only a self deluded moron would think that the anti-semetic scourge has been completely exorcized from the Catholic Church. But as ur words indicate this hatred goes both ways.
David Goldman has the right idea sort of though. Jews r a small minority and as such need to form alliances. And the fact is the Catholic Church has indeed made some strides in tacking anti-semitism. Not so sure about the Charidim tackling their anti-Christian vitriol. Both Jews and Catholics need to move on. Where Mr Goldman goes off the deep end is in his Quixotic mission to find common religious compatibility between Christianity and Judaism. Sorry but that aint happening. The notion of religious compatibility between 2 groups one of which views a person as God and another that views him as the bastard son of a whore is kinda laughable! Throw in a few thousand years of hostility and anyone trying to force this issue is looking for trouble…from BOTH sides!
Personally, I half agree w/Mr Goldman. Jews need to find common ground with Christians. But common ground on this earth. Pushing religious commonality will only exacerbate the division.
Pardon me, but it was the CHAREIDI Agudath Israel that supported the Catholics. As does this Chareidi. I wonder if you are aware who says what, and it what context. Don’t trust what you read in the press; it is anti-semitic in this context, and that goes double for the Israeli press.
May I remind you that in a religious context, most Christians attack the Pharisees. We happen to BE Pharisees, or at least their heirs. The term is still honorable among Jews.
We need to stop censoring what people say in a religious context (unless it incites violence), and be careful what we say in a general context.
And our teaching is that the attacks on the Pharisees are purely theological in nature; that is, we attack the teachings of the Pharisees, not the Jewish people as human beings. After all, all of the Apostles and most of the writers of the New Testament (that is, all except St. Luke, the Greek physician) were Jews. It would be impossible for us to forsake the teachings of our Master and His herald and His Apostles in favor of the teachings of the Pharisees they rebuked for their hypocrisy and infidelity to the Covenant.
Neither is this the first time that most of the children of Israel fell into apostasy. Out of all the adults who left Egypt, only Caleb and Joshua were found worthy to enter the Promised Land. In the age of the Judges, Israel spent more time in infidelity than fidelity. The age of the Judges gave way to the monarchy because the people refused to accept the Lord as their King. Ten of the tribes broke away from Jerusalem in the days of David’s grandson Rehoboam and fell into apostasy. Sometime later, Judah, too, fell into apostasy. The prophets tried to call Israel and Judah back to the Covenant, but few listened. Since they persisted in their hardness of heart, God fulfilled the threat He included in the Torah- first sending plagues and famine, then wars, and then finally exile, with many perishing before the exile began. In Babylon, the Lord raised up the prophet Daniel as Prime Minister, just as Joseph had been Prime Minister of Egypt in the days of the patriarchs, so that the children of Israel would not be without an advocate before the king, nor would the king of Babylon persist in blaspheming the Lord, but instead come to fear the Lord, the God of Israel, and so the glory of the Lord was proclaimed to the Babylonians. When the 70 years decreed for the exile in Babylon were complete, the Lord raised up Cyrus of Persia to conquer Babylon, in fulfillment of the prophecy spoken by Isaiah. Cyrus decreed that the children of Israel were to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple, which Nebuchadnezzer of Babylon had destroyed, but most of the children of Israel remained in Persia. Still, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Zerubabel led the remnant of Israel to a revival. In time, Persia fell to Alexander of Macedonia, and after his death his empire was divided between four generals. When Antiochus took the throne, he tried to abolish the Jewish religion, banning circumcision and desecrating the Temple, and martyring many Jews who remained faithful to the Covenant. Most of the Jews submitted to Hellenism, but a faithful remnant either chose martyrdom or joined Judah the Maccabee. After winning the Maccabean revolt, there was a revival, and the Feast of Dedication, that is, Hanukkah, was held up as a second Feast of Tabernacles, that is, Sukkot. However, their zeal for the Law soon devolved into legalism, which was contrary to both the Law and the Prophets, for “Our righteousness is as filthy rags.” At this point, the 483 years, that is, 69 weeks of years, decreed for the time from the reconstruction of the Temple to the death of the Messiah were nearly complete.
Mythbuster,
Just what “teachings” of the Pharisees did Jesus oppose? He accused some of them of hypocrisy, that is, not acting according to their teachings. And he did not defend violating the Sabbath in Matthew; he argued that his disciples had the status of priests in the Temple who “work” (perform sacrifices) on Shabbat. On that we shall have to disagree, but that is not a matter of Pharisaical teaching, but whether Jesus of Nazareth is “Lord of the Sabbath.”
Excellent article and to the point. But, I fear it will fall on deaf ears in the places it needs to be heard. Too many Reform Jews have already thrown off their true faith and replaced it with left wing group think and New Age philosophy. The Orthodox will listen but maybe their reaction will be to hunker down and hope it either blows over or that Obama will be defeated in November.
What will be interesting is when the contraception mandate runs into Muslim businesses and charities. What does anyone want to bet that either a behind the scenes accommodation has already been made for exemptions or that the administration thinks that the “insurance company will handle it” ploy will suffice in their cases.
There’s no such thing as a Muslim charity. They’re all fronts for terrorism. Go ahead-prove me wrong.
Is this some kind of bad joke? As I recall, the last group of monsters that tried to exterminate the Jews had a track record of breaking up the unions, discriminating against gays, attacking lefties, persecuting immigrants and generally trying to eradicate everything that stood in the way of their anti-intellectual militaristic white Christian utopia. Sound familiar to anyone? Isn’t it hysterically ironic that on your journey to defeat your perceived enemies you end up becoming the mirror image of what you hate?
You may recall that the Nazis set out to destroy Christianity and replace it with neo-paganism.
“You may recall”, allows for the possibility of something to recall.
Yes, apart from the racism, the Nazis were decent, ordinary people.
re: 36. Dave M,
Let’s look at your ‘points’ one by one, shall we?
“Breaking up unions”: Once Obama and the Democrats achieve their goal they will toss their union ‘allies’ aside like the two bit whores they are. Even Trumka is beginning to get that clue.
“Attacking lefties”: Obama and the Democrats are behaving alot like Stalin and Mao did towards all those who would not embrace Communism but he is using alot of Hitler’s techniques to do so. You will note that all three of those people were narcissistic demagogue dictators with delusions of godhood. Obama is cut from the same cloth.
“Persecuting Immigrants”: The only ‘immigrants’ Obama and the Democrats care about are the Mexicans because they are using them. Obama and the Democrats are using the immigrants to achieve their goals and once those are achieved they will toss them aside just like they will toss aside the unions.
“Utopia”: Obama and the Democrats are trying to eradicate anyone and anything that stands in their way of creating a Totalitarian dictatorship and Totalitarian dictators tolerate no other gods before them. What passes for ‘intellecutalism’ here is really a religion in and of itself-The religion of nihilism. It has many sects.The most famous of which is the Rev. Al Gore’s Church of Gaia where ‘intellectualists’ and ‘scientists’ lie and fudge data in ‘scientific studies’ to ‘prove the existance of their ‘global warming goddess’. Even those ‘intellectual Europeans’ are getting the clue that they have been getting lied to about that as they sit freezing and dying in their homes this winter.
Some BTW’s…
1. You forgot to mention that the thing that your Obamamessiah and his historical forefathers(Stalin, Hitler, Mao) all have in common-the slaughter of millions, both born and unborn.
2.Obama and the Democrats will toss the Islamists out like the two bit whores they are, too, once their usefulness to the Leftists of both Europe and the Anglosphere is over. They have used Islam as their proxy army for the last 70 years. Unfortunately for them in Europe the Leftists will discover that, to paraphrase Churchill, they will be getting their heads chopped off last.
3. History teaches that once the dictator achieves his goals the first people he casts aside and slaughters are some of their most loyal advocates. Why? Because once the scales fall from their eyes and they realize that ‘this was not the revolution they were looking for’ they become some of the most dangerous people to the dictator.
“discriminating against gays”
Right, Ernst Roehm was gay, as were many early brownshirts.
The entire SA who put Hitler into power were all but exclusively gay. They were all but exclusively Catholic as well
Hitler imbibed Jew-hatred with his mother’s milk as do all Catholics. The galvanizing power of Jew-hatred to bind the German people together, Hitler learned at anti-Jewish mass rallies called by the Austrian Catholic League when Hitler was a down-and-outer living in men’s shelters and scuffling in the streets of Vienna between the wars. I have seen published photographs of an excited and smiling Hitler marching enthusiastically near the head of the mob at one such Austrian Catholic Jew-hate rally.
The nexus between Catholicism and homosexuality is a deeper issue than superficial examination of recent pedophile priest scandals might suggest. The “pure” and “flawless” Virgin Mother and the handsome, thirties and single, gaunt, half-naked, bloody and suffering Jew on a stylized Roman cross, are distinctly homoerotic with S&M overtones. A sexually active “celibate” priesthood and a holy harem of less-than-pretty, “celibate,” virgin vestals “married” post-mortem to a handsome, crucified and resurrected man-god leading the Roman Catholic faithful suggests that the entire Roman Catholic enterprise is inverse and perverse at its core.
Like we haven’t heard it all before. Don’t you have better things to do than repeating blood libel?
Sounds like liberal Democrats.
Sorry, they have already come for you, the iranian bomb should have been stopped six years ago.
Someone has bet on a second Holocaust.
I understand the anxiety, but the Catholics can handle this one.
Sadly, most Jews have the survival instincts of lemmings. They are jumping off a cliff of social justice, global warming, gay marriage, abortion and any number of left wing causes, following the commandment “thou shalt vote democrat.” If the first black mayor of NYC can get the majority of the Jewish vote for re-election after allowing a pogrom to take place under his watch, I hold out little hope that many Jews will abandon the first black POTUS, even if he were to declare open season on Jews and Jewish interests and allow Iran to annihilate Jews in Israel. If Hitler or Stalin returned a few shades darker with a “D” after their names, how many Jews would vote for them?
“They” (the Obama administration) have been coming for Jews for a long time, even before they came for Catholics, but Jews will not realize it until it is way too late.
Memo to Jews: After They Come for the Catholic Church, They Will Come For Us
What do you mean, “after”? Haha. I’m glad you can see the elephant in the room now, but he’s been here for a long, long, time.
Unfortunately for all of us the real issue isn’t Religious freedom. It’s human freedom. It’s about telling somebody what to do because you are bigger or have more guns or have some assumed legal authority. After the self appointed monitors have taken care of the Catholics and the Jews the rest of us will move, one group at a time, to the front of the line.
True, on the other hand ask some very surprised former commisars of the Soviet Union how many divisions the pope has. Turns out he has very few, but the ones he has eventually get the job done.
Mr. Goldman, as a fan of some years’ standing (my first visit to your Asia Times lair just blew my mind), may I be so bold as to ask: Would you share your Teshuva story with us? Whenever a beneficiary of the best that secular education can offer flees the “advanced, scientific” consensus to return to supposedly “primitive” faith, there is something to be learned. Please?
Permanent newbie,
You might have missed this:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/05/confessions-of-a-coward
Wow. Just wow. Wowowowowowowow. OMFG. I would never have guessed that you came from THERE. That’s got to be one of the coolest teshuva stories EVER.
Thank you for sharing. Very much.
Sorry to have to tell you this, David, but you are still a coward unworthy of your namesake. And a craven suckup to Jewry’s worst enemies to boot.
There is no more powerful and determined enemy of Judaism and the Jewish people than the Roman Catholic Church. Your support of the Vatican is more foolish by far than your support of the execrable Lyndon Larouche.
To stray is a sin. To lead the congregation of Israel into corruption is the act of a Jeroboam, son of Nebat, and, in ancient Jewish law no longer enforced, a capital offense.
Mr. Levavi,
Whatever you think about the Catholic Church, as a matter of pure self-interest, we should defend it against persecution by the Obama administration. Regarding Catholics in general, you should ask yourself: who is more likely to defend Israel? Rick Santorum or Barack Obama?
Rick Santorum contributed barely 2% of his income to charity in 2010. I don’t know what synagogue you attend, David, but in mine, a very comfortable tightwad who can’t cough up more than 2% in charity is beneath contempt. Unworthy and untrustworthy. [CENSORED]
[Mr. Levavi, you are formally admonished: Stop using obscene language, or I will remove your posting privileges. I do not have time to police this forum].
People of all faiths should find themselves deeply concerned about the Catholic position as victim to an over-reaching government directed at their rights as expressed in the First Amendment. Hopefully, many outside the faith will see the issue as a threat to all liberties and join the fight on that basis. But where is the outrage when Tenth Amendment is ignored? Is it “what’s that and who cares?”. Or the Second Amendment? (“Oh my god, looks like one of those gun nuts got into this discussion!”).
This whole business is just a meaningless peripheral battle if you don’t realize that our entire liberties are under assault. I am willing to bet that when the dust settles on this specific issue that many will go right back and vote for Obama because “I like him on the other issues”.
“Yooper?” Are you from Michigan? (I’m from Detroit.)
Ann Arbor here!
Shhhh. Keep it quiet, Gene. You’ll let the cat out of the bag if people find out where Yoopers live. We’re hiding up here living off smoked trout and pasties and plotting the next American revolution.
Mmmm, pasties. And a stop in Kawkawlin on the way south, at the Turkey Roost. Grandma was a Yooper, from Rockland (near Ontonagon).
The author of the article—John Adams, of the Washington Post—suggests that since we can’t empirically prove the principle of ensoulment, let’s just go ahead an err on the side that says there is a soul that is responsible for person-hood. Well, take the other track—erring on the side that says there is no thing called a ‘soul’, in anything other that figurative term. Even if there was a soul, what would happen to it when a fetus was aborted? Would it die along with the body? In Sunday School, when I was a child, we were taught that the soul is immortal, and when it passes from a life in this world, it goes on to live with it’s father is heaven. It that’s true, and it doesn’t die, where is the murder—can you murder a mass of protoplasm, when the soul, the spark of life, continues to live?
Oh, but it’s murder in God’s eye’s—breaking one of God’s laws. Well, some of us don’t believe that. Murder is a human law that was created by men so they wouldn’t go around killing their own tribesmen—which were needed when fighting members of other tribes. The wise governors of the tribes started calling it God’s law, because that gave it more authority and importance.
So what’s the importance of killing a person? It takes away ones hopes and dreams, and the memories of that person in the minds of those who knew them. In other words, the importance to the person who is kill is their self-awareness (self-consciousness). When you kill somebody, you take away everything they could have been. How can you murder something that’s not even aware of it own existence?
And the cognitive wiring for consciousness doesn’t even begin until 24 to 28 weeks—and that’s only when it begin, not when it’s completed. Do I hear echoes of Rowe vs Wade?
Listen to yourself, what kind of logic is that? By that reasoning it was no sin for any of the persecutors of the Church to murder any of the martyrs because it wasn’t actually murder since the martyrs went to Heaven. Would that defense stand in any just court? Would the martyrs themselves buy that claim? We outlaw honor killings, and we do not accept the defense that, “It’s okay to kill my daughter for converting to Christianity, because she is in Heaven now.”
“The issue is whether science has the right to decide the ultimate matters of life and death, or whether this is reserved to faith. ”
Mr. Goldman, Science does not decide anything for us. It informs us. Those social activists masquerading as Scientists are not Scientists.
I agree, and said more or less the same thing (perhaps I should have said “putative science”).
The author of the article asks where human life begins and ends, according to pro-choice advocates. Anti-abortionists often suggest that a ‘soul’ enter the fetus at conception. Even if there was a soul, what would happen to it when a fetus was aborted? Would it die along with the body? In Sunday School, when I was a child, we were taught that the soul is immortal, and when it passes from a life in this world, it goes on to live with it’s father is heaven. It that’s true, and it doesn’t die, where is the murder—can you murder a mass of protoplasm, when the soul, the spark of life, continues to live?
Oh, but it’s murder in God’s eye’s—breaking one of God’s laws. Well, some of us don’t believe that. Murder is a human law that was created by men so they wouldn’t go around killing their own tribesmen—which were needed when fighting members of other tribes. The wise governors of the tribes started calling it God’s law, because that gave it more authority and importance.
So what’s the more modern importance of killing a person? It takes away ones hopes and dreams, and the memories of that person in the minds of those who knew them. In other words, the importance to the person who is kill is their self-awareness (self-consciousness). When you kill somebody, you take away everything they could have been.
And since the cognitive wiring for consciousness doesn’t even begin until 24 to 28 weeks—and that’s only when it begin, not when it’s completed. How can you murder something that’s not even aware of it own existence?
Do I hear echoes of Rowe vs Wade?
Murder is a human law? Huh? You missed one of the commandments friend.
I’m sorry, but I had entered comment #41 without revising it. It had previously been used as a comment for another site, and I forgot to revise it as such for use here. Although it was originally intended for another site, I felt its content was generally pertinent here. That why a similar comment also appears. Thank you.
how sad that this is your only thought and you need to cut and paste it every where you go.
We all agree that any liberal over thirty is also a certified control freak. But do you really think, in all seriousness, they would go that far here? As bad as the ‘compromise’ is it at least gives the Obamanoids a chance to duck out of the way of the harshest criticisms aimed at them. So, if they went after Jews they would take away whatever remaining credibility they had left regarding their hands-off attitude towards anything Muslim. Even worse, from their point of view, it would leave the people in New York that want to build a ‘Victory’ mosque near Ground Zero high and dry.
Jews have no stronger allies in the U.S. than the Catholic Church and evangelicals. We have seen the media carpet-bombings of the two latter groups and I’m afraid that Mr. Goldman is all too precient aboout what is in store for observant Jews.
Many have already noted that the secular state is akin a religion unto itself with it’s own theology and precepts for a “moral” life. As such it cannot tolerate the “competition” it receives from other “faiths.” Faith is a shelter from the excesses of the state and, as Orwell predicted, the stae seeks to supplant them and atomize these little zones of personal privacy.
The great political scientist James Q. Wilson once remarked that “organizations in conflict come to resemble each other.” Radical secularists (now there’s a term) have developed their own church with it’s own sacraments and theology. These sacraments include:
- The right to abortion above all else
- A dogmatic enviromentalism that emphasies “the Planet” over human beings
- The unchallenged belief in “diversity” as a absolute good
- The power of the State to solve any societal or personal problem
- The denigration of personal responsbility and the embrace of “victimhood”
- A rejection of the cultural inheritance of the West
- Abolute moral relativism in all things except those on this list
In order for the modern state to accomplish its full triumph and insure “the right kind of life” for its citizens then competing conceptions must be obliterated. The best way to do this is the through the remorseless and incremental erosion of religious liberties under the guise of concepts like public health.
If I may add to your list– The radical secularist worships himself as his own god.
But it’s interesting that within each of your points is an inner conflict for the secularist. He worships himself, yet he loathes himself. He worships the natural but is met with the fact that Man is also natural. He rejects the cultural heritage of the West, but must admit that it is this very heritage which has elevated the liberal mind… etc. etc
Honestly, I don’t know how they sleep at night.
Roman Catholics and Evangelical Christians are not in the same category.
One example: British Evangelicals were instrumental in the founding of modern Zionism and have supported the Jewish State ever since. The Roman Catholic Church strongly opposed the foundation of the State of Israel in 1948 and has been hostile to the Jewish state in every world forum since.
Second example: Evangelical Christians are, per capita, among the most charitable of American citizens. Roman Catholics are among the least charitable. Newt and Calista Gingrich contributed 2.6% of there income to charity in 2010. Rick Santorum contributed barely 2%. (Mitt Romney. a follower of LDS contributed 16%.) Among practicing Jews who, like Evangelical Christians, follow Biblical commandment and tithe, this resonates.
Third example: Every Evangelical schoolchild attending Sunday school one day a week is familiar with the Ten Commandments and Christ’s teaching. A graduate of twelve or sixteen years of full time Catholic school education can’t recite five of the Ten Commandments and knows nothing of the Bible, Old Testament or New. What the Jesuits and nuns teach in Catholic school is a mystery but Biblical instruction is scant. The result is manifest in glaring differences in the moral comportment of Evangelicals and Catholics. Witness the dismal predilection to universal corruption, financial and sexual, by Roman Catholic policemen and Roman Catholic priests.
I could go on in this vein at volumes length.
Hey Dave L!
I like ur style, but please watch ur language so I can hear more of it. A slow day for me so I would like to respond to ur comments about Catholics vs Protestants. I would also like to throw in the Orthodox (Christians) as well.
Under the Franz Rosensweig model that David likes to mention so often, Europe is essentially a Pagan society and Christianity is an attempt to bring the Pagans into the kingdom of God. Needless to say its a misreable failure, Europe still has yet to break out out its pagan ethnic religion. this is particularly true for the Catholics and Orthodox. U notice how the Catholics and Orthodox r so hung up on the pagan aspects of christianity, the icons, the cross, the bloody crucifixion and resurrection which sounds a lot like human sacrifices to me. Whatever, to each his own!
American evangelicals, who r kind of outside the pagan environment seem to focus more on the WORDS of Jesus and stress the PERSONAL RELATINSHIP w/Jesus Christ. Less hung up on the bloody magical stuff.
I had to laugh about what u said about the religious education in Catholic schools also. Coming from Yeshiva and attending Columbia University and being the curious guy I am, I was looking forward to talking with Catholic School graduates about religion etc. Kinda subversive concept in Yeshiva…u know talking to the ‘idol worshipers’. But they were totally clueless. They knew nothing. On the other hand my Charedi cousin (who I loved dearly) was telling me how he went to Amish country and was engaged in these conversations w/Amish people and he was completely blown away by their extensive knowledge of scripture!
Catholics and Evangelicals r not the same!
This is the Gospel: That God took on human flesh and was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, gave his life freely as a ransom for sinners and rose from the dead in triumph over death. The doctrine of the atoning death and resurrection of the Messiah is not pagan, it comes straight from the Tanach! Isaiah and Daniel proclaimed centuries in advance the time, place and manner of the Messiah’s death, along with the fact that it was for the redemption of sinners and that He would rise from the dead.
Mythbuster, there is no concept in Tanach of atoning for sin thru the slaughter of a human. Sin is atoned by penance! Dont be insulted, Judaism has lots of Pagan hangovers also. Praying to the new moon, praying for rain, dew etc.
It is a defamation of Judaism to consider the New Moon prayers to be a “pagan hangover.” Rav Joseph Soloveitchik has an extended discussion of this; the explicitly penitential character of the New Moon variant of the Eighteen Benedictions links our sinfulness to the imperfection of the universe (in the Messianic Age the moon will be larger and give more light at night). This is the precisely opposite of paganism, namely, a belief that the created world as such is imperfect and yet-to-be-perfected, such that man is God’s partner in creation. And there are sacrifices that atone for sin in the Tanach. Without the Temple, we can’t perform them anymore which is why David’s formulation in Psalm 51:16-17 applies. Orthodox Jews pray for the restoration of the sacrifices.
DEFAMATION? Nonsense! The “extended discussion” is no doubt a function of the discomfort with this blatantly pagan ritual! Its more like…we know u r tempted to worship the moon by ur pagan proclivities. So we will allow it in a way that STILL defers to God. U can use the dialectic precess and all sorts of Talmudic reasoning and references to explain this away for sure. Actually u have to! Doesnt mean people have to buy into it. The truth is that it doesnt matter.
Care to comment on whether u think the notion of slaughtering a man to atone for our sins is a pagan hangover? On second thought…probably not a good idea! Beleive me, we dont wanna try to find theological connections!
Jews never suggested that slaughtering a man was atonement for sins. Bulls and goats, for sure. Judaism has a view of nature that is antithetical to paganism, best expressed at the conclusion of Psalm 102. The pagan deifies nature; from the beginning of Genesis, nature is contingent.
“Jews never suggested that slaughtering a man was atonement for sins.”
But I wasnt referring to Jews. So let me re-phrase:
Well thanks for telling me that! I would have never known!
Do u consider the notion of slaughtering a man to atone for others sins to be a throwback to Paganism?
By ur evasiveness it would seem u dont want to answer. More reason why theological common ground aint happening!
“Judaism has a view of nature that is antithetical to paganism”
By and large YES. It certainly tries! But plenty pagan hangovers too! And its nothing to be ashamed of or deny
The problem, David, is that the Scriptures don’t agree with you. Scripture plainly states of the Messiah, “He was pierced for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities, and by His stripes we are healed,” and “The Lord laid upon Him the guilt of all.”
Unfortunately, Catholic catechism has been pathetic since Vatican II; it’s no coincidence (from my pov of course) that the only approved Marian apparition in the US was when Mary asked Adele Brise to “catechize”. I’m sorry that the Catholics of your acquaintance are as familiar with the Bible as Thenaclash is with proper grammar. Many of us are familiar with the whole Bible.
That’s how the statists, the socialists, and the far left operate. First they teach kids that believing in anything religious is stupid, silly, outdated, old-fashioned, and finally anti-science. The far left would maintain, “Who needs to believe in God when we know what really happened, that we just know that Darwin was right all along.” So once you isolate religion, once you ridicule religion, and once you say that only medieval men believe in religion, and once you de-value religion by saying that anything that people do sexually is acceptable (such as gay marriage), then you’ve set the stage for the state to destroy what is left of religion. The state then steps in and tells people what to do, how to do it, how often they can do it, and what to believe in. In short, the state BECOMES the new religion of the people, where people depend on it for everything. And that’s when you are lost, as an individual and as a citizen.
Don’t let this happen. We need a new birth of freedom, a new 1776, only it will have to begin in 2012. I hope we make it.
Or in other words, ‘an individual who believes in nothing will believe in anything’.
There are two most frightening conditions brought to light by this newly minted Obamacare rule. One is the lack of outrage at the obvious direct affront to religious freedom. The other is somewhat related to the first. It’s the ease with which many Americans are thrown off the essential points of the clash.
It has been so easy for the proponents of Obamacare to make the argument about birth control for women. It appears the American people are very poor listeners or debaters or maybe they’re simply lousy thinkers/logicians. How any thinking person could believe that a sophomoric equivocation using the words “free” and “provide” could a compromise make is ridiculous (never mind the economic violence perpetrated on those words).
Reading the posts on newspaper comment sections leads me to think it might be people’s anger at the Catholic Church that is fogging their hopefully better reason. It’s very disappointing how many times “pedophile priests” and the Catholic Church’s “anti-gay agenda” comes into people’s arguments.
The problem with the so-called standing with the Church is that we are putting hope for a solution back with the people who created this mess in the first place. A diocese is a very different animal than the Jewish or Protestant community and certainly Universal Health Care can give it some real money. If corrupt the Church would become an enormous economic power through Obamacare alone. I am not sure that they would renounce the true problem that is Obamacare and government expansion instead of trying to fine-tune it as a one-off freedom of religion issue.
That still leaves Jews and whomever the Left despises at the time to bear the brunt. I would rather Jews stand with the Tea Party and know that freedom is found by killing the police state and not sidling up to it as a liberal.
As for the loss of freedoms in other countries, the first question to ask is how did the Jews vote and did that get what they deserve by so doing. You can’t save schmucks from themselves.
The sad (or funny) thing is that even the position of the relatively insignificant Agudah Israel and the milquetoast position of the OU were enough to unleash hysteria from the “respectable” Jewish community. This AM the Jewish Forward’s e-newspaper featured the headline, “Orthodoxy’s Hatred of Obama” for an opinion piece (http://blogs.forward.com/sisterhood-blog/151390/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=The%2520Forward%2520Today%2520%2528Monday-Friday%2529&utm_campaign=Daily_Newsletter_Mon_Thurs%25202012-02-21#ixzz1mwJ71mML) by a woman claiming to be a Jewish Republican.
This lady wrote that the Agudah/OU positions on the mandate were linked to “Obama-hatred so visceral that anything the man supports must be bad, wrong, and shot down … (s)ince he took office, he has had to contend with this blind hatred that is so all-encompassing it has shut out any chance for reasoned debate …”.
The “best” part of her piece was that it closed with a lecture to the Agudah and OU on Jewish law: ” … you have our two flagship organizations jumping on “don’t-force-us-to-pay-for-birth-control” bandwagon, even though this doesn’t make sense to anyone with a cursory knowledge of Jewish law. The knee-jerk Obama-hatred just runs so deep that all logic flies out the window”.
They came after the marijuana user,but no one cared.Potheads are today’s Jews. Shamed, they are barred from jobs,sports,and schools.Jailed and their property forfeited, their very odor is probable cause for search and seizure.
“Potheads are today’s Jews” …isn’t that a Grateful Dead lyric?
Apparently pot-smoking causes paranoia.
…and it makes you stupid.
If the gutless mainstream American Jewish institutions had anything approaching a survival instinct this column (Spenger’s, not the Forward’s) would be re-printed in the many Jewish local papers published each Friday by Jewish Federations throughout the country.
But it will NOT be widely circulated. Secularism triumphs and secular Judaism triumphs absolutely; and secular Judaism spells the end of Judaism. Tragic.
“Secularism triumphs and secular Judaism triumphs absolutely” … True, for now, but per Maimonides, I try to ” believe with a full heart in the coming of the Messiah, and even though he may tarry, I will wait for him on any day that he may come”.
This reminds me of the story about the poor Jew in the shtetl who was paid a pittance a day to post at the outskirts of the town to greet the Messiah upon his arrival and then wake p the town. His friend asked him why he would take a job which paid so little. he replied that while the pay was low, the position was very secure.
The title of this essay speaks much truth.
Foe instance, I always wondered why Catholic Poland during WWII seemed to callously watch its fellow Jewish citizens being rounded up for slaughter. (This was the same country that invited the Jews to settle there after being expelled by Spain a few hundred yrs before.) There were not many documented accounts showing Catholic Poles hiding Jews. Recent evidence is coming to light showing that 2/3 of the Catholic clergy were decimated before they went after the Jewish population in Poland. The Catholic clergy was the moral backbone of the citizens & Hitler knew that.
Looks to me that Obama is taking notes from the master!
Dear Jeannine,
I heard Dennis Prager, the Jewish author and talk show host, say that a study had been done of Gentile rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust to try to identify the single trait which was the most useful predictor of whether a person would help to rescue a Jew. The most common trait was vocation as a member of the Catholic clergy. This means that Catholic clergy were more likely than academics, lawyers, businessmen or workers to risk their lives to rescue a Jew.
Regarding the response of Poles to the Holocaust, one can certainly find examples of persecution and indifference both during and after the war. Nevertheless, I believe the most remarkable response was that of the Polish Resistance group, Zegota (http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/revolt/zegota.html).
I once read that, even later in his life, Menachem Begin was proud to identify, in particular, as a Polish Jew and Polish gentleman (I thought I read this in an article about Camp David by Avner years ago but did not see it in his recent memoir (http://www.amazon.com/Prime-Ministers-Intimate-Narrative-Leadership/dp/1592642780/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top)).
Jeannie, ‘Foe’ instance? Doctor, heal thyself!
Dude – She’s got a mote in her eye vs. a beam in yours.
That’s easy- circumcision first. Although, I’d bet kosher would be getting to the people who could afford Whole Foods, and want to have everyone eat arugula.
The ama pediatricians guild now says that circumcision is optional. One is considered quite malicious to insist that one’s sons be circumsized. It changed in the year after my first son was born. we aren’t jewsish, so no bris. We had him circumsized while in the hospital. I don’t recall even being asked- I was informed he was being cut- would I like to be there? The second son, a year later, there was a conference, I had to insist I wanted it, I had to explain to the cringing nurses that son #1 had done quite well– same hospital, same doctor, one year later. You have no idea how fast things can change.
So if I work for a Christian Scientist maybe I should be forbidden to go to ANY doctor before using the “spiritual healing”? Or maybe when if I work for PETA they should not cover any medication made from animals? Muslim women working for some backward Mosque should only have their medical payments covered when they go to a gynecologist who uses a mirror to look at her vagina!
I am COMPLETELY against this whole notion of employer based health care. But if that is the stupid model that we are stuck with, then there has to be standards. And u cant have legislative standards for individuals based on the religious affiliation of the employer.
And when does life start? Its nobody’s damn business. THAT is one of the MAJOR problems in this country right now. We r becoming a nation of busy bodies sticking out nose in other peoples business, or in the case of abortions… women’s vaginas. We have WAY more important issues as a society and this is nothing but a big BS distraction. How about that moron Santorum who is against birth control? Fine if u dont wanna use it urself, thats ur business. But why is this a public issue. Thats all we need now, more laws to empower the government to get into our private lives! Just another excuse for them to accomplish nothing other than spin their wheels and shout about “morality”.
Sorry David, as u know Im ur biggest fan on matters of economics and politics. But when u (or anyone else for that matter) gets involved matters of religion, I cant disagree with u more. Btw, maybe u know…according to the Talmud murdering a child in the first month of life is NOT a capital offense as the child is not considered viable anyways. So a morning after pill shouldnt be a problem.
“And when does life start? Its nobody’s damn business.”
Well, when did YOUR life start then?
I’m willing to give YOU the benifit of the doubt, and say it WASNT the instant your head popped out of that Vag you mentioned…I think it was logically sometime BEFORE that instant, as the “meat curtain” merely concealed your presence, it did not change the fact that you existed.
So when did your life begin? The day before? The week before? Two months? Where is the threshhold? It is completely intellectually dishonest to try and chose such a moment.
Since we are talking about the most fundimental issue of our existance, of our value, of our sanctity as human beings, I default must to conception, without apologies.
YOU my friend, are sacred and inviolable. YOUR life, and YOUR body, were YOURS from day one. You had an absolute complete right to be born, without the mechanical/chemical intervention of others to thwart that right, for the simple convenience of these others, who’s lives are NOT yours.
THEY had no right to stop your life from emirging, even IF you grow up to be a schmuck. To be a schmuck is your freedom of choice, and I’ll support that to my dying day
As I’ll support even a schmucks right, to be born
Root83,
Thanks for ur support of my existence! Dont know how I would have made it without u. U know, actually I DID make it without u so I guess that make u redundant. And may i ask who u r to unilaterally subvert the constitution AND Jewish law? If u dont want an abortion…dont get one. R u the authority on when life begins and also when we have the right to end it? What are ur qualifications may I ask? But if u have no more important concerns and nothing better to do than start some kind of morality police and investigate womens vagina’s I suggest u find another hobby and stop being a busy body. If u cant control urself go preach it to family and friends!
If u want Obama to be re-elected, keep up all this abortion talk. Obama’s campaign must be laughing their heads off at the Republican suicide mission!
Its really a very simple concept….
For every person who proclaims to have full and complete soverity over every single cell of their body, and to be free of any intrusion and threat to that autonomy under every and all circumstances, I fully agree.
Your life was yours, from the moment your life was conceived. No one BUT you has a “right” to terminate it, without your consent.
That it will take several YEARS past birth to articulate that consent, I do not argue either. It is as criminal to kill a 1 year old child, as it is to kill a 1 day old day old child….backtracking day by day, hour by hour, right into the womb, changes nothing….
Its really that simple, just because, well, it IS.
“That it will take several YEARS past birth to articulate that consent, I do not argue either. It is as criminal to kill a 1 year old child, as it is to kill a 1 day old day old child….backtracking day by day, hour by hour, right into the womb, changes nothing….”
The custom and the law opens or closes the gate at an event called BIRTH. It is definitive and uncontroversial to all as a marker for establishing the advent of legal person-hood. People can agree on this and it works, that’s why it has been in place for millennia. Before legal personhood; the status, interests and well-being of that person will always be in the hands of others. That’s the way it works, no other way will work. We people with wombs will see to that……
Again I ask…what are your qualifications to subvert the US Constitution and the 3500 year old Jewish Law?
My life started with my first breath.
Before there was life, but it was not mine.
The beginning of this body was there, but I was not. What was, was one with the mother, not separate, no individuality.
Unfortunately this is too hard for most people to grasp, because it is not intellectual. Only if we have a certain memory of birth, or even womb existence will we understand this. It is at the birth that the individual is born. Divided from mother, no longer divisible, individual.
If you remember the womb existence, it is entirely different. All religious imaginations are inspired by that memory.
Birth in the death of the womb existence. Most births are more frightening and most painful than most deaths.
God breathed a breath of life into Adam and he became alive.
First breath is beginning, inspiration, is to expire, last expiration.
So if you find yourself in a critical care ICU hooked up to a ventilator and an external pacemaker and an IV drip while comatose you aren’t fully alive either so it’s OK to terminate you without your consent.
On the money, Thenachash. The ugly Jews who trash individual rights of women to ingratiate themselves with the Roman Catholic Church are obscene. My father never lifted a hand to my mother. Every last Catholic friend I have questioned about this subject over the years tells me his father at least occasionally got physical with his mother. Comes of the moral teaching of a woman-hating religious founder named Saul of Tarsus, perish his name and memory, and a “celibate” priesthood of indeterminate sexual orientation and deliberately undetermined sexual activity.
Roman Catholic seminarians attest in published reports that their superiors recommend masturbation as a device to preserve their celibacy. Is Onanism less egregious than contraception?
Is celibacy pro life? What manner of woman-hating doctrine condemns less than attractive young women to a life of celibacy or lesbianism in a convent? Can you imagine a Jewish father doing this to his daughter?
If lay Catholics choose to take advice on marriage and procreation from gay priests and bishops, that is their own affair. Catholic Sharia should not be imposed on the rest of us.
Anyone who recommends masturbation is guilty of scandal, and the Lord will requite. “If anyone harm one of these little ones who believes in Me, it would be better for him if he were to have a millstone tied around his neck and be cast into the sea.”
Concerning celibacy, there will be no marriage in the world to come. Marriage only exists in this fleeting age, and those who forsake marriage for the sake of the Kingdom and remain faithful to their vows will be greatly blessed both in this life and in the world to come. The Lord will grant righteous eunuchs a name more precious than children, whether they be eunuchs naturally, or by another’s malice, or by vow.
The Left only likes the 1st Amen.when it protects rioters as the OWS, or SDS or Berkeley nut jobs or Van Jones. They do not believe in the Biblical God so….dissing religious conscience doesn’t faze these secular humanists. Time for Prots, Catholics and Jews to vote against all these socialist Dems who love only choice and freedom when it pertains to their destructive speech and actions.
Most of us agree that Obama and the liberals are taking us in the wrong direction as a nation and as a culture.
The REAL question is what do we do about it?
It is appearing to me that Western religions will be a major player in a coalition of actors resisting the collapse of American civilization, both moral, economic, and political.
I’m not a religous person, belonging to no organization, but I’ve long recognized the wisdom that a society without religions is a society not long before collapse. The Founders knew and recognized this.
The Obama Administration is doing us all a favor by making the threats real and concrete. We now need courage to organize and fight back against this blatant usurption of our freedoms – Catholic, Jew, Protestant, and atheist all.
While I sympathize with the authors concerns, we must be careful what we wish for:
“that no religiously sponsored entity, and no religiously motivated individual, should be forced by government to violate its or his sincerely held religious principles”
Not so bad when talking about generic Judeo-Christiian principals…but do we REALLY expect (desire?) no governmental influence when “sincerly held principals” mean advocating sharia for us all? Under threats of violence and death?
Muslims “sincerly” believe in some pretty awful things…like humiliating all other religions and killing their adherents…not to mention complete brutal thought-police-mind-control over any logical discussion concerning the value of such a belief system…their “sincerly held” beliefs do not allow for anyone else to hold THEIRS.
And thats doctinal, scriptural, carved-in-stone ‘religious beliefs” documented as “who they are” for 15 centuries.
No avoiding it, folks. The government will have to “play favorites” and declare which religions are “good” and which are “bad”. Make official “judgements” and enforce policies against what practices are crazy, evil and diabolocal, verses what is simply benign.
We used to be a Judeo-Christian nation, but Islam changes the mix.
And thats a paradox I think no one will be able to resolve.
Constitutionally or otherwise
Muslims can’t claim that honor killing is religiously sanctioned. Wife-beating is religiously sanctioned, but as it is a privilege rather than a requirement, they cannot claim that a ban on wife-beating violates their religious duties. I’m not too worried.
Mohammad proscribes death for a multitude of minor things. Like the slightest of insults to “him” or any of his followers.
HE proclaims the world is mere Booty, and Muslims have the devine right to capture and steal whatever they wish from “non believers” as their Gods plan.
All others must submit, be killed, or pay a special tax and “feel subdued”
These are “sincere” beliefs, clearly documented in their scriptures.
You cannot BE a Muslim without them.
They are completely odds with the basic precepts all other religions, and they they are completely at odds with the basis of our Republic.
It is impossible to have “the government” respect “sincerely held” beliefs of Some Religions (the “good” ones) while simultaneously condemning the barbaric principals of another, without playing favorites. Not without making “judgements”….. about whos God is OK, and who’s god is sick, twisted and wrong.
It is a delema that requires JUDGEMENT of a subject our Republic has historically avoided making judgements about in then past.
The introduction of Islam to the mix is a game changer, a paradox, a Gordian Knot with no pleasant, easy Constitutional solutions.
“The introduction of Islam to the mix is a game changer, a paradox, a Gordian Knot with no pleasant, easy Constitutional solutions.”
This shouldn’t be true. It isn’t, actually. But we have to live it out as if it were.
That’s because Islam is not a religion. It is an all-encompassing political system of social organization, masquerading as a religion. It is inconceivable in Islam to “separate mosque from state.”
Islam shouldn’t have any 1st Amendment protection, any more than Nazism or communism would. All-encompassing political systems of social organization, if treated as religions, here in America, become essentially a concession that the Constitution is a suicide pact.
It’s too bad, but that “camel” has long since invited “the tent,” and the Gordian Knot that isn’t, virtually is. As they say in the movie The Matrix,
Neo: I thought it wasn’t real
Morpheus: Your mind makes it real
Neo: If you’re killed in the matrix, you die here?
Well, unfortunately, yes.
Morpheus: The body cannot live without the mind
I meant “the camel has INVADED the tent”.
Beware the long game. If the government can’t interfere with the elements of “existential importance” to the Catholic or Jewish religions, then neither can they interfere with Sharia Law and this administration is far to accomodating to Islamic preferences for my taste. That Islam, unlike the other religions, is about government and economic change sets it apart, and while I agree with Mr. Goldman’s thesis I would advise thinking through what could be the ultimate result.
The Lord works in mysterious ways. Maybe he wanted the contraception mandate to awaken not just Catholics, but all people of faith, and inspire us to get out there and vote in November. I am confident that the Supreme Court will strike down the mandate and in the unlikely event that it does not, the GOP House, GOP Senate and whoever replaces Obama in 2013 will repeal it.
Yes, it will mean enduring the mandate for a little while, but think of us Jews, who had to wait 2,000 years to reestablish Eretz Yisrael and be of good cheer.
Mr. Goldman wrote:
“Contraception is not the issue. The issue is whether science has the right to decide the ultimate matters of life and death, or whether this is reserved to faith. ”
Mr. Goldman is wrong, here. “Science,” as you put it, has no right to decide and did not make any decision. Politicians, judges and activists have decided those matters for the Catholic church, and will decide other matters of your faith (and my Christian faith) if religious leaders of all faiths do not oppose the overstepping of the limits put in place by the First Amendment.
I urge you, Mr. Goldman, to try to convince the leadership of the Orthodox Union to view this as just the first step in suppressing all religions and faiths and compelling conforming behavior. Even if the current administration has no coherent plan to bring any other religious nonconforming activity into line with its values and policies, it will continue to grind away religious rights and liberties bit by bit whenever they differ from how godless liberals believe the rest of us should behave and believe.
A.C.,
I want to persuade all Jews, not just the OU, and by extension all people, that this is a gross violation of religious freedom. Of course human beings have no right to arrogate unto “science” matters of life and death (the logical consequence is euthanasia of so-called Minderwertigen. “Rights” are assigned by politicians–we are arguing about semantics.
David, I seriously doubt u get past the security desk at OU! They are not interested in ur brand of Orthodoxy. Amongst the ‘liberal/educated’ Orthodox in the Upper East Side, ur brand of Orthodoxy may fly just fine. But MOST orthodox outside the ivory tower of the island of Manhattan would consider u a threat. U SERIOUSLY need to spend a shabbat in Williamsberg or Borough Park!
What are you talking about? I was saying good things about Agudath Israel.
Have u ever been to an Agudas Yisrael event? Thats a rhetorical question, from ur writings (and I have read almost EVERYTHING u have ever writen)its clear that u have VERY little experience with them. Try pitching ur brand of Judaism to them…and run before u get stoned (as in rocks not smoking)! Ur views of the orthodox and Israelis is viewed thru the prism of the Upper East Side and the Israeli Intelligentsia! If u wanna see real haridim, go to Mea Shearim or Williamsburg. If u wanna see REAL Israelis try backpacking thru Southeast Asia or South America. Actually for Israelis, u can ask ur nihilist/anti-semitic friend Escobar.
Im telling u David. All this religion talk is gonna get Obama re-elected!
This American-Israeli Haredi (so-called ultra-orthodox) is quite happy with your article. I’ve been saying this for a while.
BTW, Williamsburg is to the right of Agudah, as is the more extreme half of Meah Shearim. But Mr. Goldman knows this.
Yes, what IS she talking about? Ur? A region of Iraq? Or is she illiterate? Dear, your writing style and grammatical errors make you look like a twelve-year-old. If you want to be taken seriously, learn to write. I recommend Strunk and White (an older version).
Does this guy’s willful refusal to employ basic English rules of spelling and punctuation give anyone else a headache?
R u all so intellectually desperate that u must resort to personal ad-hominid attacks on MY SPELLING!!! hahaha! I MUST be hitting a nerve with u all! THAT is what is giving u a headache! hahaha
Ok so my spelling sucks. Sue me!!! Doesnt change the fact that MOST Charidim would stone David for his ideas on Christianity. Any Charidim in the crowd here care to comment on the fact that they equate worshiping Jesus to idol worship? Were u not told as children to spit every time u walk by a church?
Keep the ad-hominid attacks coming. Shows how weak u r!
I answered you above.
You made two blunders.
1. You are assuming certain views about Chareidim, and certain ones about Modern Orthodox. If you had the wider experience I have with both groups, you would understand that the reality is much more complex. Both groups are quite varied.
2. Theology is irrelevant. The rabbis were never sure what to make of Christianity, and the main practical difference has to do, for example, if you can sell bread for communion. (It is prohibited to cause anyone to sin.) Similarly, it’s fine with me if someone thinks Jews go to Hell, as long as you don’t try to stop us or help us get there. It’s the Left that has a common theology and tries to force it on the rest of us.
“1. You are assuming certain views about Chareidim, and certain ones about Modern Orthodox. If you had the wider experience I have with both groups, you would understand that the reality is much more complex. Both groups are quite varied.”
I can assure u that my background is just as varied as urs. I have an intimate familiarity with MANY of the different branches of the Orthodox, including modern, chasidim, Agudah as well as the Conservative and Reformed. And u r ABOLUTELY correct there is MUCH diversity and complexity. These is particularly much diversity in the level of hatred of non-jews and the church. And I can say with 100% certainty that the OVERWHELMING majority of Charidim are anti-Church. Anti-gentile not as bad. The idea of spitting on a church was espoused by my Chasidic and Agudah relatives. In my modern orthodox yeshiva there was more of a notion of understanding as a practical matter between individual gentiles. And they certainly wouldnt advocate spitting on a church, but not because it was wrong but rather because it would create hostility so they urged restraint. In Israel, where the Jews r in charge, it would appear this restraining force is absent and as such u see the disgraceful behavior of the Charidim to the Christians.
2. Theology is irrelevant. The rabbis were never sure what to make of Christianity, and the main practical difference has to do, for example, if you can sell bread for communion. (It is prohibited to cause anyone to sin.) Similarly, it’s fine with me if someone thinks Jews go to Hell, as long as you don’t try to stop us or help us get there. It’s the Left that has a common theology and tries to force it on the rest of us.
While I personally agree with most of what u say above it is NOT the norm among Charidim. There is a level of complexity among Arabs and Muslims too,even in their level of hatred of Jews! The big problem is the divinity of Jesus.
Please answer 2 question:
1) R u Charidi from birth?
2) Were u or ur friends told by the rabbis or parents to spit when u walk by a church?
All Americans should be concerned with this action by Obama, even if they do not care about religious freedom. Freedom of religion is a constitutional right as is freedom of speech, press and assembly. What if they become an impediment to Obama’s relection? Will he find a way to squash dissent? Will everyone stand by quietly as more and more of our freedoms are lost? This has so many more implications than are being talked about.
Why does the right to free birth control trump the right to freedom of religion? Will catholic hospitals next be required to perform abortions? Why not? Is that not the next step.
Will the right of a free press only be held by the left? Will they use Murdock’s troubles in England to silence Fox? Will talk radio be next? Will the rest of the press stand quietly by when that happen?
Will Tea Party assemblies be shut down because_______, you fill in the blanks.
History has examples of people loosing their freedoma gradually, just like what is happening today. Will we let Obama decide what parts of our Constitution we can have? Will we do nothing about it?
All questions.No clear answers.
I would highly recommend that all the Jews in America get out now and move to Israel while they still can. Things could very well get ugly in the coming years, and you don’t want to still be here when that happens.
I’ve been thinking the ame thing.
But where can WE go? Philippines? Argentina? Europe is a mess, and I don’t think we can wait until Japan finishes itself off.
“… the federal government will have a precedent to legislate Judaism out of existence”
Help me understand why I should care.
Jews have been at the forefront of every movement to destroy the United States both from within and without for the last 100 years. They’re consistently allied with an ideology that first defines individuals by group, then pits groups against each other to gain power, and that finally destroys the groups once it achieves power. And now I’m supposed to save them from the very predictable end game?
Why should I intervene to save you from yourself? Religious freedom you say? It was those secular Jews who pushed the destroy America agenda? Uh huh, except the religious Jews overwhelming supported the efforts by secular Jews both financially and at the ballot box. The religious Jews then ran around screaming “We’re Exempt! We’re Exempt!! We’re Exempt!!! So they force an agenda on the rest of us that violates their religious tenets and then claim an exemption on religious grounds. It’s no different than the ObamaCare waivers, the law exists for all or it exists for none.
The same logic holds for the Catholic Church. They’ve pushed an odious leftist freedom-destroying, liberty-stealing, soul-crushing agenda for the past 75 years (at least) all the while claiming “we’re exempt from the rules we’re forcing on the rest of you”. And, as with the secular Jews, it was the secular Catholics who pushed an agenda that was antithetical to their religion, yet that agenda was overwhelming supported by the religious Catholics.
I’m sorry to inform you but if you push an agenda that violates your faith then you’re not eligible to claim a religious exemption because you’re not a religion, you’re simply an unregistered super-PAC. The sad reality is that Catholics, Jews and many other religious orders are more of a political party than a religion except, of course, when it’s convenient to be a religion. You’ve done it to yourself so, again, why should I care?
{pssst… david, you’da man!}
Predictably, the “OMG, teh Church iz Nazis” crowd comes out of the woodwork. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that in 1434, a Cardinal juggled puppies. That doesn’t have anything to do with the point of this piece. In 2012, Jews and Catholics in the United States of America hang together, or they hang separately. That’s the point. That’s the only point.
Not just the Catholics and the Jews. That monster is after most of us. We need to get him OUT of our White House.
Which frankly is my beef with the Church. As long as it was about our civil liberties (the individual mandate), they were happy to shut up. Then when it became about theirs, suddenly we had a problem. They may or may not morally deserve our support, but if we don’t give it to them, as you say, the monster is after all of us in one way or another.
First, the government should have zero to do with any religion.
Second, it would be very beneficial to the world at large if Catholicism (especially the pedofiles inside) and Judaism (radical Zionism) would magically (like the magic-man-in-the-sky) would just poof…disappear from this planet. Well, I can always ‘imagine’!!!!
Interesting rtaylortitle: As you imagine this planet, What would it look like?,
What would these benefits be?
Them’s fighting words when spoken to groups that have endured persecution for the past 2000 years.
And what is wrong with Zionism?
WTF is “radical Zionism”?
Infant mutilation is no more important to Jews than Slave ownership of Multiple wives or Stoning. All these things are ended by civilization as they should be. Stop feeling sorry for yourself for not being able to run the world just because you say God told you so. We in America will make no laws governing your religion no matter how repugnant of vile your beliefs about women, children or human rights.
You will obey our laws concerning all people. Get used to it or get going.
What do you think our laws are based on? You are completely ignorant of Western tradition in jurisprudence. Rather than comment you need to crack the books and learn.
Excuse me, but you atheists are the religious minority in the US. If you keep on trying to force your beliefs down the throats of the rest of us, it will be your irrational religion that will be ended, not our beliefs.
By the way, a man does not own his wife is Judaism, and never did. Otherwise he could sell her. And what is the rational issue with polygamy? It’s a Christian issue. So you are a Christian atheist? (Apologies to Christians and tolerant atheists.)
As a relgious Jew, I know how to be a minority; you don’t stick your finger in the majority’s eye. Would that other religious minorities (including my more Liberal co-religionists) learned this.
Exactly where is it you would like us to get going to? A gulag? Do you have a special camp ready for us? Words like yours only strengthen my belief that the Catholic teachings are for my protection. My loving husband will protect me from the world, so man beasts like you can’t beat me over the head and drag me back to the cave. Come out of your cave man beast, show the world who you really are.
Sorry Ozzy you arent dictator yet. So you don’t yet get to tell people what ‘we’ are gong to make them do. Ain’t it a bitch?
Your laws? Mighty self important you are.
I get it…… Getting tossed from Sabbath still has the smarts, m8…………
For crying out loud. SCIENCE DECIDES NOTHING!
The decisions you blame on science (simply “the search for knowledge) are actually politicians using science as an excuse. The issue is that government has no place telling religions what to do, other than things like “no, you cannot sacrifice living beings, either animals or humans”.
I don’t even see a reason to forbid sacrificing animals as long as they aren’t stolen or used in a way that creates a public health hazard.
Phillep Harding
First off, with respect to health care the govt is NOT telling religions what to do. They are telling EMPLOYERS what to do. Religious institutions need to comply with a whole laundry list of formailities. Hey Judaism and Islam permit slavery so why should a mosque or temple need to comply with minimum wage laws? Who is the government to tell religions what to do.
Whether the govt should be mandating a public health care system thru employers is a whole different story altogether. And even if the law passed in a shaddy manner, its still the law. And the more Republicans talk about abortion the more likely Obamacare become a reality!
And who says I cant sacrifice animals if I want?
In addition to the “Judaism is racism”, “circumcision is child abuse” and “kosher is cruel to animals” tropes that are becoming conventional wisdom among progressives, I think that we can probably look forward to manditory organ donation from corpses and tattoos for retirement home residents as part of our ever more all encompasing health care system.
While I agree that it would be a good idea for all people of faith to stand against any government attempt to usurp the right to define people’s theology for them, the comments on view in this, a pretty sympathetic forum suggest that such a unified front is unlikely.
Not necessarily after death either. “Brain death” is still very controversial among Orthodox Jews.
Do you know Agudath Israel in New York has a emergency legal service, to try to stop people being murdered by the “plug” being pulled?
This is an extremely difficult and heart-rending problem about which respected Orthodox Jewish authorities differ. I can sympathize with people who take positions on both sides and I thank God that I’m not responsible to rule on the issue. It seems well to me, though, that a problem of such great importance should be debated passionately and at length, and it is a strength of our community that we do not find it easy to address.
There’s a pre-figuring dimension to this. And it occurred to me after an experience just weeks after 9/11. This time the campaign was to first neutralized Americans, Brits, and others with, at least, Christian histories, then go after the Jews. I can tell you from first-hand experience here in Southeast Michigan that the enlightened left was quick to side with terrorists against the West. I’ll spare you the details. This is going to be one of the ugliest campaign years in American history. But we finally have an opportunity to expose the bigotry beneath the tolerance. Those of us who have experienced this time after time in the workplace and the classroom and city hall know that the President and the West Wing have done nothing to surprise anyone since November 2008. As a Catholic I will be doubly-shamed if Catholics re-elect this administration and its agenda.
Let’s not forget that the Mormons had to give up polygamy in order for Utah to become a state.
Also, I recall that about 20 years ago, some animal-rights activists in Sweden tried to shut down that country’s only kosher slaughterhoouse for not killing chickens in a “humane” manner.
Ironically, I think the recent focus on kosher slaughter has come about as a by-product of anti-muslim sentiment. The press whips up a bit of aggro about halal meat, people start to think about it a bit … and next thing, kosher slaughterhouses are under the microscope.
I think it’s misguided, though. Yes, being slaughtered by kosher or halal methods is probably painful … but in practice I expect it’s no more painful than the way most animals are actually slaughtered en masse every day. If we’re going to subject jewish and muslim butchers to close scrutiny and debate, I think it’s only fair that we subject all abbatoirs to the same standard. Put that way … I reckon most politicians would realise what they’ve got themselves into and back away very quickly.
There was a recent fuss here in australia after a video came to light of a slaughterhouse worker in NSW bashing pigs and just generally mistreating animals (I actually haven’t watched it – I’ve seen enough of them). The slaughterhouse was closed (it just happened to be the only kosher slaughterer in NSW – but only part-time, and it’s unrelated). Live exports of cattle to indonesia were suspended last year after video came to light of animals being badly mistreated (and it’s hardly the first time). They’ve spent months sorting that one out. A halal butcher was shut down in a suburb north of adelaide last year after some unfortunate things were discovered. People are actually (briefly) outraged by these things when their attention is drawn to them. But I also think they like to just not think about it most of the time.
This has everything to do with the Atheist-Darwinist idea that humans are animals. I, as a speciesist, do not understand why people get worked up about ritual slaughter. Yes, I do not like Islam, and that is a good reason to ban Halal slaughter, but I am not going to be hypocritical about it and whine about animal rights. In fact, I think animal rights advocates are even sicker than Muslims. Pim Fortuyn was killed by an animal rights activist, not a Muslim.
Richard;
Mormons (Fundamentalist) are still doing polygamy in Utah, and Utah is still a state.
Once gay marriage is fully legalized and normalized polygamy will soon follow.
– who follow Obama and believe all is already well and will be well under his continued rule have the compulsive and obsessive need to defend him here. What reasons have they to fear PJM and its Comments.
Having had the misfortune to have spent half my life among the atheists and religion-haters, though, I know how embittered and unrelenting are the supposed disciples of science. They are in fact religious fanatics of the worst kind.
Ironic, isn’t it ? Rabid anti-religionists are, in fact, religious fanatics.
The issue is: Who has the right to draw the lines where life and death are concerned?
Barack Hussein Obama, mmmmm, mmmmm, mmmm…
As Illinois state Senator, Obama voted against the survivability of babies in late term abortion as said babies would then have personhood rights under section 1 of the 14th amendment, the so called “equal protection” clause.
Arcane and convoluted stuff twixt the ears of this putative Constitutional scholar. The founding persons would be astonished.
(Does self-proclaimed “women’s health” advocate Barack know that long term use of “the pill” is detrimental to health ?)
Whether it’s Jews or Catholics or Christians or any other segment of society, these moves by this administration are all about wresting away individual control and standards.
If we can kill pre-born children because they are ‘disabled’ or ‘not wanted’, well it becomes very easy to kill the living disabled
My sister, a nurse, told me that in Holland (a post religion, secularist country) there has been little training in ‘palliative’ care, ie, letting a person die in his/her own time, while keeping him comfortable.
Also, there are already rumblings about the ‘right to die’, in the hospital of course, with plenty of morphine administrated by the Medical types. I never could understand why, if a person is so sick they want to die, that they cannot just do it to themselves, without involving the government, politicians and the medical profession. In England, there are bleatings that the sick have to travel (on their own dime) to Switzerland, where they can be killed ‘with dignity.’
Ever see a person die of cancer? It isnt pretty, planned, or easy. Also, it is quite painful so morphine is quite necessary.
See the problem? The government simply cannot in every instance know what is best nor proscribe the best decision morally, ethically, etc. The founder knew well to keep the free exercise thereof with the people….
I know that cocktails of drugs have been developed to ease palliative care. Holland, however, is way behind this work.
And, have you noticed that the really important milestones in our lives are definitely NOT dignified? Ie, birth, sex, and death. Messy.
“I never could understand why, if a person is so sick they want to die, that they cannot just do it to themselves”
Most people aren’t actually all that sure of how to go about doing it competently. Not everybody knows where to get the stuff to do it painlessly, or even how to dispense it. I’ve never injected anything myself – I wouldn’t have a clue how to do it. Other popular methods of suicide are also notoriously painful and risky – in the sense that they don’t always actually kill you, but might leave you worse off than when you started. The irony is that the people who are most desperate to die are sometimes the ones least able to achieve it without help.
or circumcision
Check, already attempted in the people’s republic of San Francisco. The only reason it did not pass is that the state in Sacramento said that controlling this part of the human anatomy is the province of the state, not a city.
The problem is that the government is sidling in to these situations, because they are so difficult for people to handle and people who are not religious do not handle difficulty well. Government always promises to make things easy for ‘the people’, that it can ‘solve the problem’, ie, of poverty, of pain, of death. And now, in a secular society, the government has plenty of justification to do so, ie, the money which has to be spent to keep a person alive, when ‘quality of life’ seems to be awful. Also, let it be noted: very sick people are kind of a drag to have around, aren’t they? (sarc/) I believe that it is only religious belief and ideas which make one strong enough to handle all this with some dignity, over the long haul.
Anyway, another observation from my sister, the nurse: in the hospital, on one floor, there are abortions quickly and smoothly done, even up to the 5th month; and on another floor, there are teams of medical personnel, fighting to keep a premature child (earlier than 5 months now) alive…
No one has answered the point about Mormon polygamy. The true Mormons still practice it in distant places and are persecuted for it. Why is their belief not defended against equality-mongering with the same vigor as Roman Catholic views on contraception?
The Roman Catholic view that the soul and thus human identity arrives at conception only dates from the late nineteenth century when some meshugenneh decreed the immaculate conception and this is a by-product of that. At an earlier time life began at quickening. Ask a Roman Catholic why they changed and they will say it was due to improved scientific knowledge. But – hey- science tells us nothing.
Funny to see Jews defending Catholicism after Franciscan ustashi cavalrymen hunted them down in Croatia. And wasn’t there a Monseigneur Tiso and a Father Coughlin and an Abbe Groulx?
“Why is their belief not defended against equality-mongering with the same vigor as Roman Catholic views on contraception?”
A comparison with polygamy always comes up whenever anyone proposes recognising gay marriage. I personally don’t see a problem with polygamy, as long as the obvious historical abuses can be prevented – i.e. all partners in the deal retain their rights and nobody is exploited. When somebody can propose a model which preserves equity between the partners and preserves everybody’s rights, and if some nominal percentage of the population acutally WANTS to pursue it, then I figure polygamy should get a shot.
What about the “Lost Boys” problem? If you move this far away from a 1:1 ratio in marriages you’re going to end up with a surplus of young men who can’t find a wife, unless you abort/kill/expose the excess baby boys.
Several countries are doing something like this to themselves due to a traditional preference for sons; China’s the sharpest example due to the pressures of its insane one child per family policy.
You’re assuming that polygamy must involve one man and several woman. It can also involve one woman and several men. In a society where both are practiced, there would be no excess of anyone.
If freely entered into why the insist on maters of equity? Freedom of choice baby……
The government gets it, but Mr. Goldman doesn’t: the government “compromise” (which Mr. Goldman sees through, but doesn’t seem to realize why) is not to force the Catholic Church to do something it doesn’t want to do, but to force the Church to contract with someone else to do it. “No, no, no: YOU don’t have to pay for abortions, you just have to contract with someone else to pay for them.”
Kind of like “No, no, no your money isn’t taken from you to be given to other individuals, it is taken from you to pay for the government; it is the government, not you, that gives money to other individuals.”
It is your insurance company, not you, Bishop, and not the Church, who pays for contraceptives.
Obama wants to force the Church into a contract the Church finds offensive, but the Church seems OK with being forced into contracts it does not find offensive. The Church doesn’t seem concerned about being forced into contracts to pay for dental checkups, or contracts with low or no deductibles. Nor does the Church care if others are forced into contracts; indeed, it applauds when others of us lose our liberties to decline to do things the Church thinks we ought to do.
Freedom of religion is lost when the Church accepts being forced to do things it would do anyway.
When the State, and the Church, think it is a good idea to force us to do something, or to prevent us from doing something – like paying someone to give a speech in favor of a political candidate we like – the Church thinks it’s OK. “Except when Congress thinks it’s a good idea, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” “Except when Congress thinks it’s a good idea, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” OK with the Church.
Well, guess what: The President thinks it’s a good idea to prohibit, just a little bit, the free exercise of religion.
Sorry, Bishops and Rabbis, that horse left the stable long ago; you held the door open.
So if the government forces us to do anything at all, it’s the same as forcing us to pay for abortions? That sort of maximalist position will get you nowhere. The Jewish position always has been that the law of the land is the law, as long as it does not infringe mitzvot. A law that compelled stores to open on Saturday, or to sell pork, or prohibited kosher slaughter, etc. is different than a law that requires us to register firearms. I happen to be a Second Amendment kind of guy, and I believe that an armed people is a free people, although I support some regulation of firearms. But a law that makes it damned near impossible for me to own a revolver in my home town of New York, annoying as it is, is not the same as a ban on circumcision, or a requirement that I pay for abortions.
David, I’m buying surplus Russian Mosin Nagant’s, Tokarev’s, and Polish PSL’s as well as commie ammo by the case. It’s much better to die fighting the tyranny of the state than to submit.
Do u really wanna go down the road of “not wanting to pay for it”? Guess what… u are going to pay a lot more for a birth! And if u wanna get into some cost benefit analysis, I will just defer to the first chapter in Freakenomics. If that whole nonsense about having the INSURANCE company pay sounds like a lame excuse..ur right! But u know what? Its GOOD ENOUGH! Ever sell ur chometz on Passover? Hows about an eruv? Sell ur pet so u can sterilize it? Religions should seek to limit their interference in peoples bodies and personal health..NOT increase it! Take the shambolic compromise and move on. Religion is ALL ABOUT going thru motions. Its what separates man from the beast!
And no, this should not be discussed publicly. Its a private personal decision and its should be on a need to know basis. Woman should not have to face some kind of public authority to explain themselves. We have to stop being a nation of busy bodies. And religious institutions should not be allowed to use their status as an employer to inflict their religious beliefs on their employees most personal behavior. I dont like this whole Obamacare concept. But if its a work based system and the law of the land then thats the deal. And the best way to ensure that this happens, is to keep talking about banning abortions and get Obama re-elected. Think of it this way…if u keep sticking ur nose up womens vaginas ur gonna end up sucking a lot of ass!
David, I was speaking figuratively about u and the OU of course. But I wasnt refering to THIS article but rather to ur…. how shall I say? “Christianity Problem”
That is u hold the heretical and blasphemous notion that Christians can achive eternal salvation through Christianity. 
Imagine if the word gets out to the kids that u can watch tv on shabbat and STILL go to heaven! hahah Selling that notion to the Charidim wont happen til ur grandchildren times…or NEVER…whichever comes last!
David, U didnt grow up with religious people. Particularly the religious bureaucracy. Ur spider senses arent refined. MY Spider senses are tingling! “Warning, DAnger Will Robinson”! And ur view is further skewed by living in Manhattan! Their r Jewish communities in places like Manhattan, New Jersey that are truly spectaculat examples of the very best Orthodox Judaism has to offer. But the rest of the religious cant resist a chance to stick their noses into peoples private lifes. They should be doing the opposite but instead they are looking for every opportunity to push their agenda. Priest and rabbis and Mullahs whatever need to dust off their books and find more excuses (Or heterim in hebrew) when it involved personal matters.
You really don’t have a clue about these issues. I have no “Christian problem.” Salvation is a Christian concern, not a Jewish one. All Jewish authorities agree that righteous Gentiles who follow the Noahide laws have a share in the World to Come. Jews have never asked other people to observe the special commandments that we are required to observe. And I am on good terms with many people in the Haredi community.
Thru Noahide laws YES. But NOT thru Christianity! BIG DIFFERENCE!
What’s your problem? Christians get their ethics from the Hebrew bible. We judge people (including ourselves) by actions. If Christians act according to their own doctrine, they will act in a righteous way.
And of course u r on good terms with SOME people in the Charedi Community. There is MUCH more to ur writing than ur Christian Problem! And some Charedim like most Jews represent various levels of fanaticism and tolerance. They r not ALL crazy! Especially when u meet them as an established professional adult returning to the faith, its a lot different. And again, u probably know a few professional Charidim from the fancy neighborhoods. Im telling u ur understanding of rank and file Charidim (and Israelis) is non-existent!
Ask ur Charidi friends if they believe gentiles can achieve a share in the world to come THRU CHRISTIANITY. Ask them how that kinda talk would play in Williamsberg or Bnaei Brok! U complained about the racism in UK that defines Judaism as racism. Agreed. So how is that any different than Charidim who believe Christianity is idol worship?
Please dont take anything I say personal btw. Not a day goes by when I dont recommend ur column to someone. I still read the ‘Obamas Women’ ‘what They Didnt Say At Kenibunkport’ column for fun sometimes!
Can you learn to spell or use a spell checker at least some of tour rants might be slightly intelligible.
“If Christians act according to their own doctrine, they will act in a righteous way.”
That is YOUR opinion! Mine too, but that is irrelevant according to the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Charidim! Plain and simple. Charidim equate worshiping Jesus as idol worship. Thats a fact. Those Charidim who disagree with the notion that jesus=idol worship r in the minority and say so QUIETLY!
I dont have a problem at all. But u know as well as me that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Charidim consider belief in Jesus Christ as man’s Lord and Savior to be idol worship and as such in contravention of the Noahide Laws. Ergo no world to come! I dont belive in this nonsense personally. But I am talking about Charidim and MOST OU people. Sorry if this is shameful and uncomfortable reality to face. Until the Charidim r vindicated by the arrival of the Messiah, they need to learn to get a long and respect Christians. The get along part is difficult enough for them. The respect is IMPOSSIBLE at this point due to hundreds of years of Charidi rhetoric!
@cubanbob
“Can you learn to spell or use a spell checker at least some of tour rants might be slightly intelligible.”
I assume u mean “YOUR rants”
R u sooo intellectually weak that u need to resort to personal insults. Read ur comment up above and get ur own spell checker! Such typical behavior of mindless religious idiots who arent even embarrassed to insult people for nonsense that they themselves do! Get a life…at the life store!
Why shouldn’t we prefer to pay tenfold or even a hundredfold more for a birth than for contraceptives?
Thenachash: I’m afraid you are missing the point. It is irrelevant if someone considers Christianity to be idolotry or believes all Jews are going to hell. Or what a Protestant believes of the Pope. The point is that none of us will win out before the messiah – Chareidim especially understand that – and in the meantime, we can be nice to each other (Judaism requires charity and kindness to all; this was stated when the Gentiles were outright pagan) and co-operate on common interests. This is one of the main sources of Amrican religious freedom, and what the religious Left cannot understand.
Have you spoken to “modern” Jews in Israel? I think you will find their beliefs little different. I attended Yeshivot both left and right, and I find few if any differences.
Thank you for putting the matter so clearly.
mzk,
“The point is that none of us will win out before the messiah”
Absolutely true! BUT the next line “Chareidim especially understand that” is just not true. Just wondering, were u BORN Charidi or later in life? The Charidi ethos is anti-Christian…period! Anti-Christianity is a BIG part of the ethos too! While out of a practical matter in exile they have had to deal w/Gentiles thru this on an individual level it is very possible to maintain relations. But were u not told to spit when u walk by a church? Btw, this deplorable spitting behavior is apparantly a daily occurance for Christian seminary students in Irsael at the hands of Charidim. The only phrases that come to mind r “chillel hashem” and shanda! And as recently as yesterday, I saw that the charidi “price tag” attacks in Israel have been expanded to include churches too!
The notion of a religious dialogue between Charidim and the Church is not happening. Hopefully there can be a thaw and they can focus on common issues. But the Charidim by and large r very disinclined to get involved w/the church for ANY reason. A big part of it I suppose (aside from the historical baggage)is that they dont need their help on social matters and the risk of ‘contamination’ is not worth it.
“Have you spoken to “modern” Jews in Israel? I think you will find their beliefs little different. I attended Yeshivot both left and right, and I find few if any differences.”
Modern Jews, and even some ‘liberal’ Charidim in places like the Upper East Side or Five Towns dont have this anti-Christian ethos. Well at least not as bad as Charidim! Or shall I say, living in the modern world they have been able to overcome it. NOT Charidim!
Dont get me wrong either. I have used ur EXACT same words when talking to various Charidim. Until the Messiah comes, NO ONE will be the winner. Til then they need to get along. I just dont see a religious dialogue. Its an anathema to the Charidim. That was the source of my joke about Spengler not getting past security at OU.
BRAVO, COMRADE OBAMA! Full speed ahead! Please, please, please destroy the church so mankind can FINALLY be free:
“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” – D. Diderot
But with 98% of Catholic women having sex already using contraception, comrade Obama’s actions don’t hide the fact that the hypocrisy of religious people is AGAIN in full view!!!
The 98% “talking point” has pretty much been proven false. Imagine an invented “fact” from team Obama– oh my!
Hypocrisy is a sin in judeo- christiandom, not so much in post modern liberalism. Do bray on in your ignorance….
You are free. Nobody is forcing you to join the Church.
The freedom you seek doesn’t exist. It is a lie. You may indeed be free from coercion, but you will be a slave to sin. Furthermore, the Church cannot be destroyed; even if you kill us, more will convert to take our place. The Church is advancing, and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against Her.
the progressive left atheist attack wing is now suing to have crosses, stars, etc. banned from VA cemeteries. this is justified by using the unsupportable separation of church and state quote.
harv
lancaster, taxifornia
push 1 for English ONLY in the USA
That’s a hoax, and it’s an OLD hoax. It’s just plain not true.
” Who is a Jew? The answer under Jewish law is: the child of a Jewish mother. ”
The above answer leaves out an essential and critical fact. Anyone who sincerely wishes to become a Jew, no matter color of skin, family background, country of origin,etc., is free to convert to Judaism under Halacha ( Jewish Law ).
That individual is as completely and authentically a Jew as any other. In point of fact their Hebrew names designate their father as Avraham Aveinu ( Abraham our Father ). Their is no greater honor.
The Jews don’t have to worry, at least until, they go after the Baptists and other Evangelicals. They will have to go after the Baptists and other Evangelicals before they go after the Jews, because the Baptists and other Evangelicals will stand up for the Jews more firmly than they will the Catholics.
However, the Jews shouldn’t feel too secure of the Baptists and other Evangelicals do not effectively stand up for Catholics!
I wonder who’ll stand up for Mormons?
He’s a Muslim, possibly a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, this is why he’s coming after Christians and Jews. We aren’t to believe our eyes or ears, we’re to believe what they call him, a Christian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28
AUTHOR: AMERICA DUPED BY HITLER-STYLE PROPAGANDA Ray Comfort’s new book presents striking evidence of WWII parallels Published: 2 days ago
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/author-america-duped-by-hitler-style-propaganda/
They get all bent out of shape when he’s compared to Hitler. Hitler started the same way.
You REALLY need to read some proper history books. Just comparing the US today with pre-war germany is absurd. The way hitler came to power bears no resemblance to any US presidential election. Please … get real.
You think it’s upsurd to compare America to Nazi Germany? Let’s see, since coming into office, the Obama administration has: closed down two car companies (including thousands of dealerships that were outright handed as gifts to their competitors who were Obama supporters); forced a company to stay in a state it didn’t want to (Boeing); raided a company because it didn’t like the CEO (Gibson); completely shut down an the oil industry in the Gulf so a Brazilian company (owned by crony Soros) can drill in those same waters; killed a pipeline that would create thousands of jobs and make America energy independant; launched lawsuits against refineries and coal companies to shut them down……..
You were saying? I haven’t even scratched the surface of this lawless administration. I’d like to remind you that Nazi Germany wasn’t Nazi Germany overnight either.
“The issue is whether science has the right to decide the ultimate matters of life and death, or whether this is reserved to faith”
How about leaving it (in reasonable cases) up to individual conscience?
Leave out the late-term abortion diversion. That’s not what this bill was about. The attempt to equate “morning after” drugs with abortion is also extreme, and the cynic suspects that the opposition would have still occured even if that one method was excluded from the bill.
Like it or not, the overwhelming majority of american catholic women see no problem with contraception. For the most part, they’re already USING contraception. It appears to be catholic men who’re opposing this bill, and they seem to be the voice of The Church. Nothing new there, then. So even catholic women who USE contraception and work for the church are supposed to be excluded from the same cover other women have because their employers don’t like what they do.
As for the philosophical hypothetical, I personally think the point where abortion becomes seriously problematic is consciousness. That’s earlier than some would like, and later than others would like. Obviously abortion is not a nice thing, and no normal person wouldn’t like to see the number of abortions decrease, but I think a sensible approach would be to make it easy for women to have abortions earlier, in order to reduce the number of abortions that occur later.
Google the stats and you’ll discover that an astonishing number of pregnancies are aborted naturally. Most of those occur before a woman even knows she’s pregnant. If it occurs late enough to notice, it’s called a miscarriage – and even THOSE occur more frequently that most people realise. Taken together, it’s entirely possible that more pregnancies are aborted naturally than artificially. Life might begin at conception, but it’s far from a guarantee of birth.
Nature’s a harsh place, and I’d rather see children being born into families who want them, and who can support them.
Once again the catholic church stakes out a position at odds with modernity. Good for them.
That’s not the point. The point is government forcing its views on a private party, whether it’s a church or a business.
Yes, but there’s a huge difference between forcing businesses to install wheelchair ramps and forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense morning-after pills. Society should insist on some things, for example: restaurants should not refuse service to blacks (or anyone else who wants to eat peaceably and pay for a meal). That’s forcing views on a private party who’s providing a public service.
And the church wants to force its views on its employees. The difference is that the government is elected.
All this whining and moaning about what? Not being required to subsidize someone else’s love life?
You could equally argue that the fuss is over the church wanting to interfere in somebody’s love-life.
I sort of agree, actually. But it’s a result of the wacky settlement that the US came to in order to widen health-care. In some places, it’d just be taken care of by a public body (with a co-payment) and nobody would even be arguing about this. As churchill once pointed out – the US can be relied on to do the right thing, but only after it’s tried everything else first. Maybe in 50 years or so you’ll get the efficient universal health system that australia had in the 90′s. Look forward to it – it’ll be great.
I am Jewish, and patriotic. And I would be delighted if circumcision of underage boys was made illegal. I don’t see anything great about mutilating little boys. Pure stupidity, sanctified by tradition. Just because some desert savages did that 4000 years ago, does not mean that 21st Century people should do that.
I would be delighted if kosher and halal slaughter was outlawed. Then my people would stop eating meat, and they would be much healthier and live longer. More Jews die from meat and dairy, than from Arabs.
So you would prefer driving it underground? And maybe some bar mitzvah boy, after will in desperation try it on himself?
Are you aware how many Jews were murdered by anti-semites such as yourself because they outlawed circumcision? The Hellenists, the Romans, the Communists. And you.
Really Goldman – you show more concern with defining who is a Jew according to your “historical” standards, as opposed to biblical standards, something Yeshua railed about, me thinks.
Your concern for liberal/communist Jews is misplaced. They have made there own misery and are bringing us down with them. They will not awaken from their suicidal ideation. Having grown up amongst these morons, I know how despicable they are – Schumer, Wiener, et al, think they are good Jews by the way.
We who have intermarried and have raised Jewish children face the same racism, antisemitism and death threats, as the “proper” Jews you are so fond of defending as the only true Jews, and then we get rejected by our religious brethren, as well. I refuse to go the route of the Reform, which is as far from Judaism as you can get, and most are so liberal as to be sickening.
I, for one, did not leave Judaism, it left me. Thankfully, God, not the Rabbis, will sort this out.
Let me get this straight .. you boast of intermarrying yet claim that you raised your children as Jews … you reject rabbinic traditions (and presumably the Oral Torah) but despise Reform Judaism … and yet you feel that Judaism left you? You positions seem schizoid to me.
I’d be curious to see your definition of raising your children as Jews. A lot of us make tremendous sacrifices to send our children to Jewish parochial schools … did you do that or were you qualified to teach your kids all aspects of Torah?
thanks for proving my point. name calling is typical.
Hitler did not care about the definition and murdered anyone who was religiously, ethnically, secularly, etc, etc Jewish.
In Brooklyn, I was stopped many times asking if I was Jewish, growing up. They did not care about religious affiliation. Thank God for Kahane, who taught us kids to fight back.
I and my family are in just as much danger as any other definition of Jewish you can come up with. We are a race as well as a religion, genius.
Good luck with your definitions though.
still shrugging wrote: “thanks for proving my point. name calling is typical”. Wrong. I wrote that your “positions seem schizoid to me”. If you can’t respond to my challenge to explain the logic of the positions which you profess, I’m really not too interested in your traumas as a boy in Brooklyn.
still shrugging wrote: “We are a race as well as a religion, genius” – I’ll remember that next time I’m at a bus station in Israel seated next to an Ethiopian Jew.
Who is a Jew? The answer under Jewish law is: the child of a Jewish mother. Parts of the Jewish community that reject Jewish law don’t like this, to be sure. Almost half of American Jews intermarry and the Reform movement conveniently discovered patrilineal descent. But Jewish law remains clear on this subject as it has for thousands of years.
A very stupid article from a website which I generally find has articles I concur with and find intelligent and well written. I had been looking forward to purchasing “Why civilizations die” but will reconsider that now. Where to even begin? I don’t have the time or inclination right now to give this pustulent screed the thorough fisking it deserves. So I’ll restrict myself to one cause close to my heart.
This claim about the “centrality” of “matrilineal descent” is nonsense. You are clearly a late returner to Judaism, otherwise you would have an inkling of the fact that “Jewish law” (more correctly rabbinical Jewish law, but anyway) as it is practiced today by the orthodox was in fact only codified in the 12th Century (mishneh torah) and 16th Century (shulkhan arukh). There existed (and continue to exist) communities such as the Karaites (who are not the same as the Samaritans! The Zionist martyr Dr Moshe Marzouk was one), the Tat (mountain Jews) as well as some of the further dispersed tribes of Israel. These populations held true to patrilineal descent, which is what was practiced throughout the region and the world, and is plainly apparent from the text of the Tanakh (Torah, Prophets and “Writings”). Matrilineal descent is a ruse slipped in by the Rabbis, related to their intrigues against the Sadduccees and collaboration with the Romans…
So perhaps its fitting that you should be so eager to “make nice” with the Catholic Church, the greatest persecutor of the people of Israel from its inception through the Crusades, Inquisition and Holocaust (Hitler was a Catholic, as were many European genocidaires. Never excommunicated.)
Another point that I should be stated is that Jewish law, being more humane and rational than Catholicism could ever hope to be places the life of the mother over that of the fetus (extremely disingenuous of you to imply that these pills kill “babies”! They are only effective at the earliest stage of pregnancy, pre-9th week, a stage at which a large proportion will miscarry naturally.). As for the “humanity” of kosher slaughter as practiced by the haredi establishment I refer you to the case of Agriprocessors in Iowa in which the “holy” Rubashkin family treated workers to conditions unfit for human beings, and cattle to conditions unfit for animals. Agudath Israel has a lot in common with the Catholic Church in its eagerness to cover for child-abusing clergy – if only your precious GodSquad had the level of concern they do for embryos and fetuses at questionable stages of viability for the toddlers, children, adolescents and adults who have suffered abuse at the hands of predatory clergy… and then suffered the added indignity of the perpetrators being shielded by these foul institutions.
I am the product of a mixed marriage, and got a better genome for it! I also disagree with the insane leftist demand to ban circumcision. People in America are leaving Judaism because like the other religions it doesn’t offer any wisdom of substance relevant to modern life. My own identification with it goes far deeper – I learned Hebrew by myself, chose to date Jewish girls, made aliyah to Israel and served in the IDF. Who the hell is the rabbinate, or the government to tell me who and what I am or am not and how to live my life?
Jewish law was in fact codified in late antiquity in the Mishnah (200 CE) and Gemarra (500 CE), which put in writing an oral tradition prevailing no later than the 2nd Temple period. Rabbis Maimonides and Caro produced systematic summaries of Jewish law much later, but the law in the form we have it was written down in late antiquity. Yes, there were deviant tendencies, such as the Sadducees (who denied resurrection, a fundamental tenet of Jewish thought) and the Karaites (biblical literalists). Where are they now? The normative Judaism that has held the Jewish people together for two millennia of exile, that allowed a rabbinical court in 11th century Worms to issue a judgment binding on merchants in Cairo, and that allows me to enter a synagogue anywhere in the world and daven more or less the identical service is quite clear. None of us get to reinvent things according to our own taste. If you learned Hebrew and served in IDF, why not undertake a formal conversion?
When you write places the life of the mother over that of the fetus (extremely disingenuous of you to imply that these pills kill “babies”!
please consider the other side of the coin where the possible mother murders the possible fetus to carry on what Arnold Ahlert describes in
The ‘New Normal’ of Rampant Illegitimacy
While the tenets of the Catholic Church and Orthodox Judaism keep the foundational basis for society from crumbling the superficial judgments of society made by today’s elites are corroding the bonds keeping an individual free and independent in a functional one.
The Torah itself establishes matrilineal descent for Jews in Leviticus 24:10 and Ezra 10:2-3.
Your comment that, ” doesn’t offer any wisdom of substance relevant to modern life “, is so absurd it deserves response but I will offer one to readers. Judaism not only offers relevance it offers enlightenment on a multitude of levels. Not only does it explain the current condition of the world on a macro level it leads the individual to enhance his or her own life and add value to it. And value to the lives of those around you.
The sadness and bitterness of your views speaks volumes. That sadness has blinded you.
A Catholic is excommunicated automatically the moment he joins a secret society. Hitler joined the Thule Society, and was therefore excommunicated automatically.
Actually, the only charge that made any sense was employment to illegal aliens (this from someone at the OU), and he was cleared of that too. Rubashkin did a big public service making kosher food available nationwide at low proces; unfortunately PETA has it in for him.
But if it makes you feel better to believe otherwise…..
You are mixing up two things. Descent in Judaism is patrilineal (this is yichus in its most basic form; civilization starts when you know whom your father is) – EXCEPT for whether or not one is Jewish, which is matrilineal. Tribal affiliation, the priesthood, and the kingship, are all patrilineal.
There was in fact a disagreement in the Talmud (I believe) as to whether Judaism went by the mother or by either parent. According to Tosafot, according the the former opinion the child is legitimate, but according to the second, the child is a “mamzer” and limited in whom he could marry. Thus we would avoid the second opinion at all costs; a Gentile can always convert, but a Mamzer is pretty well stuck.
The first opinion has been “stare decisis” for a very long time.
Amen
When you write about the British courts declaring Jewish religious practice to be racist do you think they will have the courage, or political maliciousness, to come up with the same judgment of Halal, Muslim dietary tenets?
By the way the Church of England, Desmond Tutu’s church, and its replacement theology would never support anything Jewish.
Who introduced the bill that funds family planning for the poor? George H. W. Bush. Who signed the bill into law? Richard Nixon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/birth-control-as-election-issue-why/2012/02/17/gIQASW6kPR_story.html?hpid=z3
Here is the bottom line:
“Contraception is not the issue. The issue is whether science has the right to decide the ultimate matters of life and death, or whether this is reserved to faith. ”
FAITH, by definition is a PERSONAL matter. PERIOD! There r way more important issues facing this country. We need to stop being busy bodies and lets start minding our own business. Instilling uniform religious standards in a diverse society like the US is as stupid as the notion of nation building in the middle east. Its a HUGE waste of time and resources for nothing! The fact is the overwhelming majority of Americans favor legalization of SOME form of abortion. Get over it and move on.
All this stupid clamoring about what people do in private with their bodies plays into the hands of the left. This move by Obama was brilliant. As it stands now my money is on Obama! And if Romney doesnt get the nomination, I will vote for him.
BTW, what is the Republican problem w/Romney. There is a true capitalist! A guy who made his money by risking his own money on failed businesses and making them profitable again. He is a PROFESSIONAL compared to the other amateurs like Obama. A smart educated guy and descent family man, who would never have an abortion himself but because he is soooo “moderate” as to not stick his nose in other peoples personal business, he has less appeal than Newt Gingrich, an adulterer who as a career politician never made an honest dollar in his life! AMAZING!
And btw, The Gipper was also against abortion. But he didnt put at the front and center of his campaign. And he was a GREAT president!
My family founded the Agudath Israel. Nationwide kosher certification was begun by the founding Rabbi of the Synagogue I long attended before dropping out and becoming a recluse. It was his signature that was replaced by the now ubiquitous OU symbol. He was also the founder of the first truly “Modern Orthodox” synagogue–rabbi with an Ivy League Phd, English only spoken from the pulpit, swimming pool, basketball courts, ballroom, synagogue baseball team, etc.
Thenachash is generally right about both Agudah and the OU. Likewise Charedi Jews. (The Hebrew word “Charedim” roughly translates, amusingly, to “Shakers.”)
I attended the Agudah congregation in Boro Park as a boy when I was late for services at my father’s Shtiebel. Played nutty games in the Agudah yard with filberts and walnuts on Passover, sharpening my aim and my commercial skills with hundreds of other “Orthodox” kids. It was at the back of the deserted Agudah yard one evening that I ran into my best friend in early adolescence getting a blow job from an Italian boy who used to hang around the fringe of our teenage Jewish crowd.
Such, such were the joys.
Sex, power and money all bring about anomalous behavior in people.
One of the nicest things about Judaism is that people who are too old to care greatly about any of these things wind up being the decisors of the law. They have seen it all and have the wisdom of the ages not to glorify that which is fun, but destructive to others.
It is the Left that aggrandizes vices. It suits their purposes to keep the masses pacified and so, reduces guilt in sexual matters, empowers the underclasses with false delusions, and moves other people’s money about at will – mostly from others to themselves.
Vices are vices not based upon whim, but upon the shredding of human dignity when we let go completely. Perfection is unattainable among humans, but impulsive behavior is what fills morgues on Saturday night, leaves children bereft of parents’ affections, impoverishes the unlucky, and makes ordinary people into characters in lifelong Ingmar Bergman films.
It has never been different since man has appeared on this planet. Let us each take hold of ourselves and in that way we will be able to take hold of each other.
And that’s why you hate Catholics? Get a life.
“And that’s why you hate Catholics? Get a life.”
No David (Goldman)! Mr Levavi made abundantly clear why he hates Catholics. Namely the thousands of years of atrocities. And he also has the “Street Cred” to speak up about what goes on in Charedi land, which is something u dont have David. And its obvious. U came to the faith in a different path and u have NO IDEA what is going on in that world. Its not pretty sir. Its UGLY! And those of us who r all too familiar with treachery of the religious (of all sorts)r VERY sensitive to this. L’havdil, like a battered child. We know their tricks! Actually I harbored much of the hostility that Mr Levavi has toward the church. Ironically years of reading ur column has softened and changed my opinion.
Some members of (ALL) the clergy r genuinely interested in the spiritual growth of the flock. MAYBE 20%. For the rest its about power, control and money. Those of us who grew under this nonsense have much more refined instincts to see this. Living in ur ivory tower u will never have this.
And do YOU really have to resort to ad-hominid attacks? I argue with u in the Talmudic Spirit where fathers and sons are permitted to scream and yell at each other in pursuit of truth! This should NOT be taken personal.
And really David, this theological common ground u r seeking is absurd. Its just NOT gonna happen.
You have no sense of humor.
There never really is theological common ground, but there is common ground in Chochma, which is the common inheritance of all of humankind. For example: should Jews be forbidden to listen to Mozart’s Requiem (or should Catholics be forbidden to listen to his Don Giovanni, which I claim is “Jewish”)? What should we understand about Christians, and what of their work should we learn? Rav Joseph Soloveitchik quoted Kierkegaard and Barth (and did a PhD dissertation on secular German philosophy. Michael Wyschogrod insists that he understands better the concept of physical holiness in Judaism by studying the Incarnation in Christianity,and Rabbi Meir Soloveichik–whose Orthodox credentials no-one doubts–did his own dissertation on the theology of Wyschogrod. So what are you complaining about? Have you even read any of these writers?
As for the Church: There are things to like and things not to like (e.g., the Middle East bishops, about whom I’ve had plenty to say,e.g. here:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KH11Ak03.html)
We always fight the White Paper as if there were no war, and the war as if there were no White Paper.
Dump on Catholics all you want, if it makes you feel better: Rick Santorum is a real friend of ours, better on Israel’s security than the majority of Jewish leaders in the US. Same goes for George Weigel, or Joseph Bottum, or lots of other Catholic friends, with whom I get along better than Reform Jews.
Hahah! Disgruntled Yeshiva graduates and Charidim r to religious authority as ex-smokers r to cigarettes! Absolute revulsion! David, just like u know what the nihilist left wing is like. We know a thing or too as well about the ultra Orthodox. Trust me…they r almost equally as ugly! U just dont see it on the Upper East Side!
Nonsense! I have a GREAT! sense of humor! And I love ur sense of humor as well! Ur ‘Chinese Pigs’ cracks me and my friend up all the time. But get a life wasnt a funny response to his comments.
The rabbis u mentioned certainly have the street cred! But u conveniently fail to mention that they r the EXCEPTION not the rule and that their views r considered EXTREMELY controversial. Their brand of Judaism plays well on the Upper East Side!
Ask Mr. Levavi about the stuff he was taught in Cheder about the “goyim”. Even hatred of America was the norm among Charidim til recently. I think they just got sick and tired of being poor!
And btw, complements of u, I dont dump on Catholics anymore. And actually I have come to have more respect for the Orthodox as well. Just not the Charidim.
Keep in mind David, that by all accounts, the Charidim r gonna be all that is left of Judaism in 100 years outside of Israel. Yikes!
Funny u mentioned Rick Santorum. My sister, a modern Orthodox, professional mother of 7, was incredulous when she heard his views on birth control. She was beyond shocked! Her comment “In THIS day and age?” Well she lives in Lower Merion, so he is her Senator!
I am not a Hasid. Chasid shoite (fool) was a phrase commonly heard in my home growing up. My rabbis were contemptuous of Gentiles but they did not viscerally hate Goyim.
My great uncle had to be restrained from excommunicating (placing in cherem) the Ba’al Ha’Tanyah. Happily so, because he had the clout to make it stick and a schism among Jews, a scant few years before the rise of Hitler, is too horrible to contemplate.
“The Torah itself establishes matrilineal descent for Jews in Leviticus 24:10 and Ezra 10:2-3″
Only it doesn’t. And Ezra is in Ktuvim, not Torah, but of course by the doctrines of rabbinic “da’as toyreh” rabbis can make “Torah” as they go along.
Please, matrilineal descent become the common form membership among the Jews because we always knew who the mother was. When Jewish women were taken (raped) by the Gentile rulers on the first night of their weddings, who was going to say that a child born to such women was not Jewish. No one! Jewish men accepted all offspring born to their wives as their children, though that was not the case. It is a wondrously great deed on their part. That deed was formalized in the Law of the Jews over time. Today DNA testing allows men NOT to support the issue of their wives. What a change!
I don”t hate Catholics, David. Some of my best friends in life–truly close–were Roman Catholics. I lived with a fine German Catholic woman for five years. She was a pianist and joined the choir for Christmas Mass every year at a pretty little Catholic Church on the Lower East Side. I sat upstairs with the choir for Mass, evening and morning, for five years. Joined the gay Jesuit choir master and his family and friends for a blowout Italian lunch on Christmas Day every year.
My best friend at sixteen and seventeen was a wildly handsome Irish Catholic; twenty-two, gay (though he never admitted it), six months out of the brig in Norfolk for striking an officer, and every bit as unmoored and wild as I was. I had formally left home after living mostly in the streets for two years and my Irish Catholic buddy was my next door neighbor. I took my first cross country road trip with him in his smokey Buick, sleeping in the car and in YMCAs and selling our blood for sandwich bread and cold cuts.
“Love the sinner but hate the sin” is a fine Christian sentiment that this Hebrew follows religiously. Catholics and homosexuals are sinners like you and me and everyone else, David. The rapine, homosexual and homicidal Priesthood of Rome, like Ernst Rohm’s homosexual and homicidal SA are grotesque sins.
I am accused of gay bashing at least as often as I am accused of Catholic bashing. But my children’s gay “Orthodox” friends from Yeshiva University and other schools regularly join my wife and I for Sabbath meals. My gay and religious Roman Catholic neighbor across the hall drops in occasionally during the day for for coffee and chat. At my first grandson’s Circumcision at Harvard Hillel two weeks ago, I spent most of the ceremony listening to a very bright and very funny lesbian Christian Bible scholar explain to me why she gave up on the idea of converting to Judaism. She is a Southern girl, she explained, and she just can’t give up that hog. Ribs, pork chops, ham, bacon, chitlins–she just can’t live without her pig.
My paternal grandparents and some thirty-five to forty of my uncles, aunts and near cousins were humiliated, robbed, tortured and murdered under Hitler, reliably by Roman Catholics. But my maternal grandmother lectured in German literature and is remembered for her expertise in Schiller and Goethe. Two of my children speak German and the third will have to learn German before she earns her doctorate. My middle daughter spent a year between college and graduate school at the Max Planck institute in Germany. She continues to earn pin money translating German papers in mathematics into English. German graduate students overstaying conferences in New York and unable to afford New York hotel rates sleep and eat in my home. I don’t ask them whether they are Catholic or Lutheran and when they remark on the old photographs in the foyer, I don’t mention that most of the people they are looking at were murdered by Germans.
As for my getting a life, David, you know not whereof you speak. I’m woefully untraveled but I would wager I have lived a more interesting and exciting and free life than you have. I’ve owned several businesses and dealt with some very rough people and I’ve been around the block many times. I was asked not to return for high school by my yeshivah after eighth grade for bloodying a classmate who ratted me out for cutting in front of shocked rabbis, teachers and parents and knocking out one of his front teeth. I was kicked out of boarding school a year later for nearly knocking an Irish kid’s eye out. I scrapped in the streets continually from the time I was six years old until after high school. If the world I grew up in during the Fifties was like the world is today, some evil shrink would have lobotomized me with psychotropics.
The difference between me and folks like you and Roger Simon is that I’m less educated, less afraid and more honest than you are. When I turned sixty-five, I made a vow to, at long last, be unwaveringly and unabashedly sincere in all that I say and do. It doesn’t make me a better human being than you or Simon but it accounts in part for why I am a better writer.
You are younger than I am and newly stumbled upon your faith. My rabbinical ancestors on both sides are household names in the “Orthodox” community to conjure with. What I have forgotten about matters Jewish and Roman Catholic you would need another lifetime to learn.
I sincerely wish that when you are sixty-five, you and your wife are as passionate about each other as me and my wife are about one other. I sincerely wish your children and their partners bring you and your wife as much joy as my girls and their partners bring us.
Stop playing ecumenicist and diplomat with determined and eternal enemies of the Jewish people, David.
Regarding the Catholic Church, no-one would call me a diplomat. Read my exchange with Fr. Prof. James Schall:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NA18Dj05.html
May I observe, though, that when the British courts persecuted us in 2009 (“Judaism equals racism”), the only major British institution to support us was the Catholic Church? And when the Dutch parliament tried to ban shechita, the only major Dutch institution to support us was the Catholic Church? One could argue that they are doing this out of self-interest, to promote freedom of religion. Well, we should support the Catholics now (as does Agudath Israel) AT LEAST out of self-interest, which was the thrust of my argument. And for this, you call me a “coward”? That is lashon harah. Just what is your problem?
David:
Sorry for tardy response. Other things happening in my life than PJ Media. I wasted nearly half a day scatter shooting comments at your post yesterday.
In any event, I read your piece. Surprised me. On matters of Jewish-Catholic relations, I thought your were an airhead way out of your depth. I was wrong. Your out of your depth but you’re no airhead. Regarding cowardice, you will have to forgive me. Only a jerk goes around accusing people he does not know of cowardice. I humbly apologize.
As to lack of depth, you fail for several incorrect facts and assumptions that, once ammended, will lead you willy nilly to see the Roman Catholic Church and the question of whether to support the Roman Church’s freedom to pursue its religious doctrine in the United States if not precisely as I do, certainly not as generously and ecumenically as you do now. Being a civil, educated fellow, I’m sure you won’t go bashing Roman Priests and Bishops with anything like the bombast and insult I like to sling. I’m just naturally pugnacious. It’s a awful character failing, I know, and deeply annoying to others. But it is something I have difficulty controlling. On the bright side, it keeps me pumped up, and, at sixty-five, staying pumped up is healthy. People ask me why my hair so thick and rich and dark at Sixty-five. I tell them it’s a combination of being spoiled rotten by four terrific women and the fact that I never temper my rage.
In Jewish tradition, a man is known by his glass by his temper and by his pocketbook (b’koso, b’kaaso, b’kiso.. I drink copiously, I rage continually, and I’ve been leaving my fingerprints on every nickel lately just like everyone else in Obama’s America. Characterwise, I guess that makes me a three time loser.
Regarding details in critique of your piece, I’ll fill you in later. Many of the assumption expressed in the piece, yours and others, are based on demonstrably false assumptions and facts. But we’re visiting my daughter in Boston this weekend and she has asked us to bring up prepared food. Her husband is away at a conference and between feeding and diapering and otherwise caring for my ravenous and continuously feeding grandson and preparing lectures in Comparative Semitic Languages, she has no time to cook for Sabbath. Gotta go into Brooklyn for for non-Manhattan priced kosher meat in quantity so the the wife can cook up a storm.
I’ll educate you when I get back, David. You’re a smart guy but you’re all wet.
Apology accepted. The fact that I started life out as a lefty atheist proves I can be wrong and am willing to change my mind.
In light of this reply to David Levavi, and your thoughts about Pope Pius XII, what are your opinions, if any, concerning Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s book, A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Catholic Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair?
I find Goldhagen tendentious. The position of the Church is that Nazism is neo-pagan, and has nothing to do with Christianity. That is correct, strictly speaking, but the Church over the centuries accommodated pagan elements and in doing so allowed neo-paganism to lay a cuckoo’s egg in the nest of European Christianity. When the Holocaust came, the Church had already been beaten politically, and lacked the power to alter the course of events. Its leadership did not understand how evil Hitler was (but neither did most people; when Jabotinsky toured Poland in the late 1930s, warning, “Yiddim! Verlaesst ihre Schtetl! Er kommt!,” the Orthodox rabbinate told their followers to stay put). Some Catholics were overtly pro-Nazi, some anti-Nazi; Pius XII helped many Jews but (in my view) could have helped more by instructing priests to refuse Communion to Nazis. That would have meant martyrdom, and it is easy, after the fact, to recommend that the other fellow should have become a martyr. I have a couple of chapters of this in my own book, “How Civilizations Die.” If you want to know what I think, read my book.
Great article and I will be forwarding it to others.
It should be noted based on your comment above that virtually everyone within Germany underestimated the danger Hitler posed including most of the Jews. It was a black eye (if I might use so light a term)on all religions though there were some exceptions among both Christians and even Muslims who risked and/or sacrificed standing against the rise of evil in their day in the name of populism.
The question is are we facing a similar populist rise by a new would be tyrant? Time will tell, and this article may be proven by history to be similar to the early warnings of the Munich Post regarding Hitler.
Question. Is “the top 1%” code word for Jew. Demonizing the “rich” was common during the early years of the Third Reich. That quickly turned into demonizing Jews, many of whom were rich. Is it irrational, to think that a President, who attended a church ,where the pastor referred to Jews as “that dirty word”, may harbor ill will towards “rich” Jews?