Halachically okay to be liberal?

Home Forums Politics Halachically okay to be liberal?

Viewing 42 posts - 151 through 192 (of 192 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1700821

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “You mean you don’t think chokim (stuff like kashrus) should have any bearing on law.”

    Not quite, I mean Religion should have no bearing on law. we can quibble on your definition of “chok” kashrus is not necessarily a chok. Furthermore even things that are not a chok, I’m not sure I (and you?) would support all of it being legislating. Kibud Av (and related mitzvos) isnt a chok, would you support the death penalty for hitting a father?
    The bottom line is, if youre argument as to why something should be allowed/forbidden falls back onto “well that is what the Torah/ -levadil elef alfei hevdalim- /bible/Koran / gospel of the FSM says” then that is not a reason laws should be made

    ” Obviously you don’t really think theft and murder should be legal (even though it seems like you basically said so a couple of posts later”

    I’m not sure what post you are referring to I explicitly said so: “Those should be laws because as a society we are better off if we all don’t steal and kill. .that is why stealing should be illegal and punished not because Judaism or lehavdil any religion says so.”

    ” Almost all frum yidden do NOT consider the issur on abortion to be a chok. ”
    No its certainly not. I’m not sure what youre point is . And as as an aside, I mentioned I personally am completely opposed to abortion once the fetus is viable. I am STRICTER than halacha I know of a case where I would have forbidden an abortion that a Rav allowed , but the bottom line is if halacha allows it I think she should have access.

    “As to why you do have that perception, I reiterate what I said earlier, you’ve been adversely influenced by socially liberal friends.”

    what perception?
    while you said that earlier you are wrong then and now . My friends are all socially conservative (you may even be one of them!) Regarding this issue I am influenced by frum women whose cases I know of.
    You dont seem to realize that this cases really exist you have this mistaken notion that things fall neatly into required or forbidden. Life threatening and non-life threatening. Until I became familiar with actual cases, (and the medical field) I too thought the same.
    your opinion on this subject is strictly driven by ignorance as to both the medical and halachic realities (To give you the benefit of the doubt)

    your last paragraph was very interesting. Though not related to the issue at hand
    do you think adultery should be ilegal?

    #1700845

    Avi K
    Participant

    Ubiquitin, then what should have a bearing on law? Whatever the spirit of the time says? As we are seeing, no society can be without an ethos. If it will not be the traditional religion of the nation it has to be some other religion or quasi-religion. Secular liberalism has become this quasi-religion complete with dogma, heretics and burnings at the (so far) virtual stake. Russell Kirk wrote about this in his essay Civilization Without Religion? which you can read online.

    #1700854

    Joseph
    Participant

    Ubiq: Marriage itself is a thoroughly religious concept. It was created and exists directly due to religious law. I don’t see you advocating that the government end legal recognition of marriages.

    Adultery has been illegal in the United States for the vast majority of American history. Its legalization itself came from liberals over the strenuous objections of conservatives. It was one of the earlier parts of the slippery slope that later let you legalizing abortion and toeiva.

    #1700860

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “Ubiquitin, then what should have a bearing on law? Whatever the spirit of the time says?”

    I don’t have the full answer to that one. but definitely not religion!

    The Aztec religion called for human sacrifice, did that make it moral?

    Now I know I know that was an exception and ancient history. Surely the larger modern Religions like Christianity and Islam would never ever kill without it being morally justifiable

    #1700974

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    “Not quite, I mean Religion should have no bearing on law.”

    Yet you are declaring religion (not wanting to impinge on the supposed rabbi-patient relationship) as your reasoning for supporting unlimited abortion on demand? Seems like cognitive dissonance.

    #1700991

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    “If it was black and white ie Mothers life is at risk then halacha is Faaaaaar more “lenient” than halacha.”

    I’m assuming your second “halacha” was intended to read “medical opinion.”

    “I face this often when patients ask if they should fast yom kippur, I tell them if you want a heter you are better off talking to a Rav. Especially pregnant patients (though I’m not an OB ) for a healthy woman with a normal pregnancy there is (generally) no medical reason not to fast , worst case she goes into pre-term labor. no big deal.””

    I have witnessed different medical opinions, and have never heard any doctor say that it’s ok for a pregnant woman to go 26 hours without water. And since we’ve had this discussion before, I’ll just save time and anticipate your response: “I asked my OB friend, and she said puk chazi.” But that doesn’t work, because apparently the rabbis give plenty of heterim, so how can we really see the impacts of 26 hours sans food and water when the weaker pregnant women are fasting in measures?

    #1701287

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “and have never heard any doctor say that it’s ok for a pregnant woman to go 26 hours without water”

    Define “ok”

    ” I’ll just save time and anticipate your response: ”
    nope, not my response at all. My response is did they say there was a medical risk? Or legal?
    and if medical risk, risk of what ?

    “Yet you are declaring religion (not wanting to impinge on the supposed rabbi-patient relationship) as your reasoning for supporting unlimited abortion on demand? Seems like cognitive dissonance.”

    Hardly
    you are confusing two aspects.
    to illustrate: I would oppose The government regulating wear and when eruv can be built, which shita can be followed , should we require actual mechitzos etc etc. The Government should not be legislating religion.

    At the same time, I would oppose an ordinance banning conectign any say PVC pipe to a phone pole for any reason . Why? It would prevent many from making an eruv.

    We can come up with dozens of such examples. I would oppose the government forcing everybody to take a relgious day of rest off from work (actually on second thought…)

    At the same time I would oppose the government forcing everybody to work on Shabbos

    I have no idea why you think these are contradictary.

    The government should not enforce religion, nor should it prevent people from practicing Ayin firts amendment (to be clear I’m not sayign abortion is practicing religion per se (though it can be at rare times))

    #1701504

    divri hayamim
    Participant

    1. Those on the left are too smart to say outright they have a problem with Judaism. But they will do actions against everything Jewish. I’m not stupid enough to believe the lies of my enemies, I look at their actions.
    2. Greece also allowed infanticide (I would not make them a barometer), question do you think that homosexuality is a chok?
    3. Today’s left hates Judaism at least as much as any other enemy of klal yisroel’s history, why would I go against the torah, to help my enemies, go against me more. The biggest supporter of banning milah is the LGBT community, why should I support them in anything, even if it was neutral, kal vechoer if it is the anethma of the torah!
    4. Since Same Sex “marriage” passed there have been much more LGBT being passed per year, in all states. The more you give them the more they want. Chazal teach that someone who has one manah wants two, so two the more the lgbt get the more they demand. And each new demand is harder to fight. The only way to protect Jewish freedom of religion is to fight those fighting us not giving them what they want.

    #1701558

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “I don’t have the full answer to that one. but definitely not religion!
    The Aztec religion called for human sacrifice, did that make it moral?”

    Yikes, this just stopped being a political discussion in my eyes. I’m not really sure what to tell you, ubi, but if that’s how you view all religion, including your own, then I’m sorry if any of us helped to solicit that outlook.

    As to your question about whether I think adultery should be illegal: not everything is for the criminal courts. In the civil courts, it should obviously have bearing on divorce proceedings. I would be open to the concept of the victim being allowed to sue as well. Why not? You can sue for a lot stupider reasons in this country.

    #1701582

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    NC

    “but if that’s how you view all religion, including your own”

    Lol nice try, I’m not sure why you have resorted to putting words in my mouth in your past few posts.
    Early in this thread (and repeatedly therafter) I said in a perfect world the legal system would be (and will be) in the hands of the Rabbinate. Abortions will be allowed (though obviously rarely) Tzedaka would be enforced etc etc Do you really not remember my saying so early in this thread?
    We don’t live in a perfect world. And the legal system will not be built around “my own” religion. I was responding to a specfici comment “then what should have a bearing on law? … it has to be some other religion or quasi-religion.” This argument falls apart after a quick perusal of world religions both past and present

    “Yikes, this just stopped being a political discussion in my eyes”

    It stopped being a political discussion a while ago. I think our main point of disagreement at this time is simply one of metzius, namely if there are halachicly sanctioned abortions that are not strictly speaking life threatening from a strict medical perspective.

    A side argument that we haven’t gotten to, though which I thought we would , and about which reasonable people can disagree (note: not the above as mentioned earlier there is no room for disagreement on our main point of contention, as you are simply unaware of the facts) Is whether those rare cases are reason enough to allow (support?) all abortions. I think so, but as I said reasonable people can disagree in this second point .

    “I think adultery should be illegal: not everything is for the criminal courts.”
    Agreed, I assume though you will agree with me that it is immoral. My point is just because something is immoral isn’t necessarily a reason to legislate it.

    #1701593

    Neville ChaimBerlin
    Participant

    “Do you really not remember my saying so early in this thread?”
    I do not. Sorry, I guess. The recent posts seemed to condemn all forms of religious regulation. If you believe that, in an ideal world, the “Rabbinate” would decide policy, then why would you not support individual policies that are supported by the halachah?

    “My point is just because something is immoral isn’t necessarily a reason to legislate it.”
    I understand. That’s something that liberals and libertarians have in common. Given the recent republican grubbing for libertarian votes, it’s made this a more confusing discussion than it needs to be. I’m a traditional conservative; I support heavy discipline.

    As for your side argument, it seems like you had it with Avram. I’m not going to say what others have already said. As I said earlier, I don’t believe the rare cases you two were discussing actually exist. That’s a halachic question, not political.

    #1701616

    Avi K
    Participant

    Ubiquitin,
    1. Please find a proofreader.
    2. Government enforces religion with the blessing of the courts. Two examples are blue laws ( Hennington v. Georgia, 163 U.S. 299 [1896]) and Xmas being a legal holiday (Ganulin v. U.S., 71 F. Supp. 2d 824 [S.D. Ohio 1999 affirmed by the 6th Circuit]. SCOTUS itself has a Xmas party.
    3. Unless you re an anarchist you obviously agree that morality should be legislated. So whose morality? Hillary Clinton’s? Bernie Sanders’?

    #1701729

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    NC
    “If you believe that, in an ideal world, the “Rabbinate” would decide policy, then why would you not support individual policies that are supported by the halachah?”

    From one of my first posts on this topic:
    “In theory I would support making abortion purely in the hands of the rabbinate. In practice in the US (aside for that being impractical) would set a bad precedent and thus I support the next best thing
    namely allowing the woman to choose”

    “As for your side argument, it seems like you had it with Avram”

    Nope I had it with you, and it is my main argument. Remember you said ““The case of the halachah “allowing” abortion is something you’ve invented. This is pikuach nefesh, the proper lashon is “require.” ”

    To which I responded with: “So this is where you are 100% absolutely completely no room to agree to disagree wrong. Obviously this isnt publicly discussed. Ask your local ob.” Later on I provided several mareh mekomos of allowed (not required) abortions (Tzitz Eliezer, R’ Shlomo Zalman Aurbach, Mishpetei Uziel)
    (Do you really not remember our discussion?)

    THAT is our ONLY point of disagreement, as far as I can tell. Whether these cases exist both in halacha, and in reality.

    #1701731

    Avi K
    Participant

    Why shouldn’t adultery be a criminal offense? It is one of the sheva mitzvot. In fact, twenty states have criminal adultery laws although prosecutions are rare. Even a law which is only declarative has value. The Akeidat Yitzchak says that this is why Hashem blasted Sedom but not Geva.

    #1701748

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Avi
    1. Agreed its a real problem of mine, in my zeal to share my wisdom coupled by my poor typing skills many (all?) of my posts are full of awful typos. Thanks for being able to look past them and focus on substance. I will try to be more careful.
    2. a. Lol 1896?! and b. just because they do, doesn’t mean they SHOULD. and c. Ganulin proves the opposite: “the Christmas holiday has become largely secularized” In other words they argued that it was NOT religious. (Blue laws have been upheld for the same reason see eg McGowan v Maryland 1961)
    3. I’ll throw it right back at you. Whose religion should be legislated? Aztec? Fundamentalist Islam ? Lehavdil Judaism? and if Judaism which “form” Satmar’s interpretation? Avi Weiss’s? Or whatever your interpretation happens to be?
    Who should decide which religion is correct and have its tennets become law, and which of those tennets?

    #1701824

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    “Define “ok””

    I’m not a doctor.

    “nope, not my response at all.”

    It certainly was here.

    “you are confusing two aspects.”

    No, I’m not confusing anything. You are creating an artificial distinction with the purpose of submitting abortion to a double standard.

    “to illustrate: I would oppose The government regulating wear and when eruv can be built, which shita can be followed , should we require actual mechitzos etc etc. The Government should not be legislating religion.”

    But I’m sure you support the government having laws forbidding assault and battery, even though it hamstrings beis din from taking halachically approved measures to enforce a recalcitrant husband to give a get. And laws certainly do regulate where and how eruvim can be built, your silly example of civil law butting into eruv shittos notwithstanding. Laws impact our religious observance all the time, and inasmuch as they foster public welfare, don’t create undue burdens, and aren’t unfairly targeting religious groups, we accept that this is the case. Yet suddenly you get all bothered by this when it comes to abortion. Why? Your protestations that you are actually more stringent on abortion than the rabbis ring hollow.

    #1701858

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    “do you think adultery should be ilegal?”

    Absolutely. If the government is going to be involved in regulating marriage, than it has a responsibility to protect the rights of the spouses. Inasmuch as marriage is a contractual agreement that includes fidelity, there should be consequences for breach of contract. But even beyond that, adultery can cause psychological and even physical damage. To do that to another person should certainly be illegal. And note that I haven’t yet appealed to religion.

    #1701867

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    avram
    “I’m not a doctor.”

    This was YOUR quote : “have never heard any doctor say that it’s ok for a pregnant woman to go 26 hours without water”

    you said that in response to my comment “for a healthy woman with a normal pregnancy there is (generally) no medical reason not to fast , worst case she goes into pre-term labor. no big deal”


    “nope, not my response at all.” It certainly was here.”

    “No, I’m not confusing anything.”
    you are. My position is quite simple. The government should not enforce religion, at the same time they should allow woman who have a heter to have an abortion.

    I really don’t get how that is an “an artificial distinction ” or a “double standard”
    I gave my response in the very next sentence. See above .

    your last paragraph is confusing. IF there was a law banning eruvim I would oppose it, I’m not sure wh yyou think otherwise.
    “Laws impact our religious observance all the time, and inasmuch as they foster public welfare, don’t create undue burdens, and aren’t unfairly targeting religious groups”
    that’s a lot of ifs.

    “Yet suddenly you get all bothered by this when it comes to abortion”

    I’m not bothered at all. I said from the get go, if a law could be passed that a woman who felt she needed an abortion had to have rabbinic approval I could get behind that. This was in my very first (or early) posts on the subject.

    your one good point was regarding recalcitrant husbands.
    That’s a good one it deserves its own response.

    #1701903

    Joseph
    Participant

    Ubiq proffered that I’d be the only one here supporting laws outlawing adultery. So far already both Avram and Avi K stated agreement that local laws should outlaw adultery. So much for that prediction of popular opinion.

    Now, of course, I’d support imprisonment (as the 21 U.S. states who currently outlaw adultery mostly prescribe in their penal codes) and capital punishment (as some states historically prescribed) as the penalty for that crime. I also think others here will agree with my position as such.

    #1701895

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    “This was YOUR quote : “have never heard any doctor say that it’s ok for a pregnant woman to go 26 hours without water”

    you said that in response to my comment “for a healthy woman with a normal pregnancy there is (generally) no medical reason not to fast , worst case she goes into pre-term labor. no big deal””

    Yes, but so what? I can give you the reasons, and you or your doctor cohorts can laugh at my doctor and assert your superior medical prowess or whatever you want to do. But I am not a medical professional. Who do I trust? The doctors we saw in exam rooms and our own rav, or the out-of-sight colleagues of a person on the Internet I’m having a conversation with? I don’t need to be an arbiter of what is medical Truth. You claimed that medical opinion is more stringent than rabbis. My own real life experience has told me otherwise. I stated thus, and I have no more to add.

    “you are. My position is quite simple. The government should not enforce religion, at the same time they should allow woman who have a heter to have an abortion.”

    Ergo enforcing or allowing for religion, as you perceive it.

    “your last paragraph is confusing. IF there was a law banning eruvim I would oppose it, I’m not sure wh yyou think otherwise.”

    Now you’re putting words into my mouth. A law banning eruvim would be unconstitutional due to the First Amendment and anti-discrimination laws. But neighborhoods and towns can set zoning laws intended to preserve a certain look and feel that happen to infringe on where and how an eruv can be constructed. Or they can build a superhighway right in the middle of an existing eruv, rendering it invalid. Would you support Jews being allowed to construct lechis and fences wherever they want, and having veto ability on any construction projects?

    “that’s a lot of ifs.”

    That’s why lawyers make big bucks and work long hours.

    “I’m not bothered at all. I said from the get go, if a law could be passed that a woman who felt she needed an abortion had to have rabbinic approval I could get behind that.”

    It’s easy to get behind a theoretical ideal that you know has no chance of passing in our current legal system.

    “your one good point was regarding recalcitrant husbands.
    That’s a good one it deserves its own response.”

    Well, I consider it an example of my primary point, so by all means let’s pursue that. It might be more fruitful than a talking-past-each-other fest. I don’t want to challenge the legendary ubiquitin/Health debates.

    #1701887

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Avram

    “nope, not my response at all.” It certainly was here.”

    ah but in “anticipating” my response you ignored my actual response:

    My response is did they say there was a medical risk? Or legal?
    and if medical risk, risk of what ?

    BTW to answer your question
    “so how can we really see the impacts of 26 hours sans food and water when the weaker pregnant women are fasting in measures?”

    The answer is in Israel.
    Other than an uptick in births on and after Y”K there is no uptick in bad outcomes.
    although many would get a heter if asked a Rav, many don’t ask and fast

    #1701881

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Avram

    I love your point regarding recalcitrant husbands.
    I’m not sure my response is as good as your question.

    Though before we get to it. I’d like to be clear on your position since our discussion has shifted a lot.

    In a nutshell my position is thus:

    There are instances where halacha would allow an abortion that is not strictly speaking, medically necessary (in the sense that not having it would result in the mother’s death). These woman should be allowed to have an abortion. Since there is no way to legislate that a Rabbi would approve every abortion, in order to accommodate those cases we should allow (almost?) all abortions. (I say almost because I have never encountered any such case late in pregnancy)

    Is your argument that:
    a. No such cases exist
    b. That is not enough to allow all abortions. So we should ban abortions (except where life threatening) and even those women who get a heter should be forced to carry to term
    c. something else

    As for recalcitrant husbands.
    first of all, it isn’t clear that hitting is allowed. Even if it is, we need to weigh the benefits vs risks.
    what is the benefit to allowing hitting ? – it probably works faster than other forms of pressure that are still available
    What is the risk of not “having laws forbidding assault and battery” – complete chaos

    what is the benefit to allowing abortions? Not forcing woman in terrible situations undue psychological (and physical) burden – though not death since on that we agree and are NOT discussing here. (also It will keep them safe (illegal abortions don’t usually lead to less abortions but to unsafe abortions), the cases I’m referring to would probably have had abortions even if illegal) )
    what is the risk of allowing abortions? geheniom for people who practice without Rabbinic approval.

    so in weighing the risks and benefits of both: on abortion the Government should stay out, and on battery make it illegal

    Again obviously if there was an option for the Government to outlaw battery unless received Rabbinic approval I’d be for that.

    I grant this isn’t the best distinction, and If you choose option B above I think reasonable people can disagree on that, as I told NC.

    #1701940

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Avram

    “I can give you the reasons,”

    Yes so can I. Its because the doctor gains nothing by saying its ok to fast. and opens himself to theoretical liability by saying fast and then 5 years later the kid is slower than his friends and they sue him because he said fasting is ok.
    More to the point though. sure some doctors will say it is dangerous to fast (or not to have an abortion) how would we make sure Frum women only see those doctors and not the “the out-of-sight colleagues of a person on the Internet” ?

    “Ergo enforcing or allowing for religion, as you perceive it.”

    nope as explained many times the government should not regulate abortions. period. (in our non-ideal society)
    Frum woman will ask their rav, those deemed permissible will get it
    non-frum women, not my (primary) concern

    “But neighborhoods and towns can set zoning laws intended to preserve a certain look and feel that happen to infringe on where and how an eruv can be constructed.”

    Yes and I oppose that 100% if it would prevent an eruv. (don’t you?) I’m not sure why on earth you’d think I felt otherwise.

    “It’s easy to get behind a theoretical ideal that you know has no chance of passing in our current legal system”
    Exactly! and that’s even with the lawyer’s “big bucks and long hours”

    #1701956

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    “Is your argument that:
    a. No such cases exist
    b. That is not enough to allow all abortions. So we should ban abortions (except where life threatening) and even those women who get a heter should be forced to carry to term
    c. something else”

    The closest to my position (other than me trying to write out a C) is B. I think there’s a big difference between “risk to mother’s health and safety” and “life threatening”, so there can be way more nuance than the allow everything or allow nothing but death prevention dilemma that you’re presenting. As far as A, I don’t know that I’ve said no such cases exist, only that I think they are quite rare.

    “As for recalcitrant husbands.
    first of all, it isn’t clear that hitting is allowed. “

    And, per Rav Moshe ZT”L, it isn’t clear that the abortions we are discussing are allowed. So for consistency’s sake, if that’s a “first of all” on the recalcitrant husbands, it should also be a “first of all” on the abortions.

    “what is the risk of allowing abortions? geheniom for people who practice without Rabbinic approval.”

    No, it’s the loss of potential life. And the potential for outright murder in cases where the abortion fails and life is taken outside of the womb.

    #1701974

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Avram

    “so there can be way more nuance than the allow everything or allow nothing but death ”
    Ok so that’s where we disagree, that and .

    “And the potential for outright murder in cases where the abortion fails and life is taken outside of the womb.”

    On that we agree completely. but I’m not a big slippery slope person.

    “And, per Rav Moshe ZT”L, it isn’t clear that the abortions we are discussing are allowed.”
    According to R’ Moshe its clear these would not be allowed , as IV’e said. the first of all was just to get it out of the way, pretend its last or even in parenthesis)

    #1701979

    Moral system Builds steadily National Character

    One Example
    A century previous when America was a relatively morally rigid country
    Height For Men with 3rd highest and women fourth-highest in the world
    A century later No longer even the upper 40 for males and barely hit forty For females

    ‘There was a time when most American children were expected to outgrow their parents.
    Since data on Americans’ average height was first collected in the early 20th century, children and adolescents grew about an inch and a half taller every 20 years. But recent measurements suggest Americans’ average height has more or less hit the ceiling.
    Data collected from the federal Centers for Disease Control show that average height for Americans has stabilized in the past 50 years to about 5 feet 9 inches for men and 5 feet 4 inches for women.
    “We’ve pretty well maxed out in terms of stature. There’s been little change in adult height over last generation,” says William Leonard, an anthropologist at Northwestern’

    “A 2016 study showed that Iranian men have seen the biggest change in height over the last century, gaining about 6.7 inches (17 centimeters)”.

    Further example
    Once Upon..

    on the battlefield
    the German was convinced that their moral probity make them perform better than the relatively looser French . and they were proven absolutely accurate

    Being overly Jewish Centric we have our own compass therefore were not as affected
    & usually miss these
    It is the height of crude ruthless ungraciousness To the host country to uncaringly ignore these

    To Paraphrase the famous quote:
    Men build laws and institutions Then Institution and laws build men

    #1702033

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Joseph,

    “Now, of course, I’d support imprisonment (as the 21 U.S. states who currently outlaw adultery mostly prescribe in their penal codes) and capital punishment (as some states historically prescribed) as the penalty for that crime. I also think others here will agree with my position as such.”

    Agree with prison, but I’m opposed to the death penalty as done in the U.S.

    #1702068

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    ubiquitin,

    “so in weighing the risks and benefits of both: on abortion the Government should stay out, and on battery make it illegal”

    I’m not sure that we agree on what the risks and benefits are, nor what weights to apply to them.

    #1702074

    Joseph
    Participant

    Avram: Do you oppose the death penalty for murder in the US? If so, could the law regarding capital punishment be enacted in any way that you’d support it (for murder or other crimes)?

    #1702949

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Joseph,

    “Do you oppose the death penalty for murder in the US?”

    Yes.

    “If so, could the law regarding capital punishment be enacted in any way that you’d support it (for murder or other crimes)?”

    Not with jury trials, nor with the government serving simultaneously as witness (e.g., police), prosecutor, and judge.

    #1703105

    Avi K
    Participant

    Avram, then for what? BTW, Rav Moshe disagrees with you (IM CM 2:68).

    #1703168

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Avi K,

    “then for what?”

    I’m not opposed to the death penalty per se; my concern is that the U.S. system is too flawed.

    #1703276

    ClearKop
    Participant

    dunno about voting liberal lehalacha but nebach some people have the state of mind that ben shapiro accurately describes as a mental disease of being liberal. No its not shayich for a healthy person to believe the stuff they say and do. but as i said nebach……………

    #1703308

    Avi K
    Participant

    Avram, so what is your method? Any human system is flawed by definition. the Maharal says that that is the difference between אמת and אמת לאמיתותה. Being that the court (and in criminal law that includes secular courts a.k.a. משפט המלך) has permission to rule its decisions are אמת. The latter is what Hashem sees. However, it is necessary to have some system (see Ran, Derash 11). It should, of course, be tweaked as much as possible but there must be a system. Would you also oppose the death penalty for obviously guilty criminals like the Pittsburgh shooter, Son of Sam, Mob hitmen, etc.?

    #1703678

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Avi K,

    “Avram, so what is your method? Any human system is flawed by definition.”

    Here I’m going to sound a lot like ubiquitin: ideally capital punishment should be enforced with a Sanhedrin and righteous Jewish king in place. I do not know at what point between the current American criminal justice system and that ideal I would flip my view on the death penalty. Honestly I’m uncomfortable with it while Jews are in golus. Now why do I allow myself that “out” while disagreeing with ubiquitin’s application? Because to me, the risk of executing someone not guilty outweighs the benefits of the death penalty as it is applied in the U.S. By abortion, the risk of an optional but halachically allowed abortion being stayed (which I think would be quite rare, but ubiquitin disagrees) does not outweigh the benefit of protecting the unborn babies.

    “However, it is necessary to have some system (see Ran, Derash 11). It should, of course, be tweaked as much as possible but there must be a system.”

    There is a system. The question is, what part does the death penalty play in the U.S. system? To underscore the severity of sinning? Nope. To act as a deterrent? It’s quite bad at that too.

    “Would you also oppose the death penalty for obviously guilty criminals like the Pittsburgh shooter”

    Of course I think he’s deserving of death. You’re confusing the nature of my position. I’ll ask you: what about Leo Frank and Ethel Rosenberg?

    #1703705

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “Here I’m going to sound a lot like ubiquitin: ”

    thats a good thing!

    And I’m glad we got to the crux of our disagreement

    “By abortion, the risk of an optional but halachically allowed abortion being stayed (which I think would be quite rare, but ubiquitin disagrees) does not outweigh the benefit of protecting the unborn babies.”

    Well said, though
    I think there is room for disagreement in that sentence as far as which way to err (though not regarding the metzius) .

    Thanks for sticking around this far into the discussion I found it enlightening

    #1704635

    Avi K
    Participant

    Avram,
    1. See Rabbi J. David Bleich’s article <Capital Punishment in Noahide Law in volume 2 of Contemporary Halachic Problems. it is available online on sefaria.org. You can read Rav Moshe’s teshuva (written afterwards) here.
    2. Leo Frank was lynched not executed. In fact, GA Gov. John M. Slaton commuted his sentence.
    3. the extent of Ethel Rosenberg’s guilt is still a matter of dispute. However, she could have saved herself by naming names. She chose to be moser nefesh for her false god. Moreover, as she turned her brother David Greenglass into a communist she might have had the din of a mesicha umedicha.
    4. Under what, if any, circumstances would you support capital punishment?
    5. I find it interesting that liberals are so concerned about people who have rap sheets longer than height but care nothing for unborn babies (and in “enlightened” Belgium and Holland there is already child “euthanasia” but no death penalty for murderers).

    #1704699

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Avi

    you are doing the same strange thing you do when confronted with the uncomfortable fact that the Torah abhors pure free market capitalism,. you come up with all sorts of strange pretzels of “logic” to fit hings.

    why can’y upu just say you support capital punishemtn, although unfortunatly sometimes (rarely?) it leads to a miscarriage of justice.

    Leo Frank was found guilty his sentence was capital punishment. true the sentence was commuted, but practically speaking it was carried out. Those responsible for the lynching were not prosecuted although there are pictures of them
    In other words, they had tacit government approval .
    Regarding Ethel Rosenberg is more astounding. does not “naming names” warrant the death penalty? does turning her brother into a communist? What on earth are you talking about

    #1704752

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    (Sorry about the typos)

    You are doing the same strange thing you do when confronted with the uncomfortable fact that the Torah abhors pure free market capitalism,. you come up with all sorts of strange pretzels of “logic” to fit things.
    why can’t you just say you support capital punishment, although unfortunately sometimes (rarely?) it leads to a miscarriage of justice, and that those example are long ago and there have been improvements etc
    Leo Frank was found guilty his sentence was capital punishment. True the sentence was commuted, but practically speaking it was carried out. Those responsible for the lynching were not prosecuted although there are pictures of them witnesses etc
    In other words, they had tacit government approval.
    Regarding Ethel Rosenberg, your comment is even is more astounding. does not “naming names” warrant the death penalty? does turning her brother into a communist? What on earth are you talking about
    Leo Frank was found guilty his sentence was capital punishment. true the sentence was commuted, but practically speaking it was carried out. Those responsible for the lynching were not prosecuted although there are pictures of them
    In other words, they had tacit government approval .
    Regarding Ethel Rosenberg is more astounding. does not “naming names” warrant the death penalty? does turning her brother into a communist? What on earth are you talking about

    #1704761

    Avram in MD
    Participant

    Avi K,

    Can you do me a favor and actually respond to what I’m writing, rather than constructing a liberal strawman? I’m not philosophically opposed to capital punishment. I’m not denying that a non-Jewish government has the authority to do it. But given the fact that we as U.S. citizens are allowed a voice in government policy through voting or lobbying, my position is that the death penalty shouldn’t be used in the U.S.

    “Leo Frank was lynched not executed. In fact, GA Gov. John M. Slaton commuted his sentence”

    He was originally sentenced to death. He was lynched because of that commutation. And his killers were not prosecuted.

    “the extent of Ethel Rosenberg’s guilt is still a matter of dispute”

    Thanks for proving my point.

    “I find it interesting that liberals are so concerned about people who have rap sheets longer than height but care nothing for unborn babies”

    Are you directing this comment to me? Because if so, you obviously have either not read or not understood this thread.

    #1705659

    dbrim
    Participant

    All strawman (strawmen, strawperson) arguments aside, why the premise that making abortion illegal is government overreach? Legalizing the murder of unborn babies, allowing the government to legislate life or death, is the ultimate in government interventionism. Sure, a women’s body is her body. She can choose whether or not to get pregnant. But once she has created a baby even if it was unintentional, murdering that baby is, well, murder. In the rare case where the baby is a rodef, ectopic pregnancies, etc. the mother’s life must be saved. But these medical rarities are not what roe v wade was addressing, nor what democrats are concerned with when they celebrate abortion.

    #1705698

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “But once she has created a baby ”

    The discussion partly, hinges on Who decides at what point it becomes a “baby.” and perhaps more importnantly who gets to decide that. (note this isn’t a medical question)

    Even you, clearly don’t fully define a fetus as a baby since you allow for its “murder” if ” the mother’s life must be saved.” something you wouldn’t (I assume) allow with born babies.

    So clearly you too make some distinction between a born baby and an “unborn baby’

Viewing 42 posts - 151 through 192 (of 192 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.