- This topic has 49 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
MONEY IS ALREADY TREIF you wonder WHY?
May we all start to remember that everything belongs to Hashem ALONE & may we turn straight to Hashem for help when we need it
The question would have arise in the past, and didn’t come up.
1. The $1 coin has had a woman on it for a while. Also many coins in the past have had a female representing “liberty” on them.
2. British money (including Canadian and Australian) money has had a woman on for over the last 60 years, and also had a woman for most of the 19th century.
But not the first time in history that a woman is on money.
If the woman is Eleanor Roosevelt you have nothing to worry about.
Whose face is on electronic money? I never use paper money so that doesn’t bother me.
To quote the Satmar Rebbe ZL. ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ??? ? ????????. That obviates the issue.
Mashiach Agent, you can send all your money to me.
This actually does bother me. I don’t think it’s right to discriminate like this, deciding to put a woman on the $10 bill and then deciding which one. I think instead they should put Harriet Tubman on the $20.
They should have gotten rid of Jackson and not Hamilton
zahavasdad is absolutely correct. Hamilton was a visionary without whom America would have likely remained a poor agricultural country. He was also one of the very first prominent Americans to call for an end to slavery.
Jackson, on the other hand, caused untold economic damage to millions through his opposition to any and all forms of a central bank, was an unapologetic slaveowner, and fomented genocide against American Indians. He is arguably the worst President ever.
1. Hamilton was also an elitest who felt that typical citizen couldn’t be trusted with full political rights, and government was best left in the hands of the educated upper class.
2. Jackson was a great advocate of allowing all men (as then defined, excluding most non-whites) to particpiate in government. The Jacksonian era was the era that led to Jews gaining full civil rights and allowing the “common man” (again, limited to whites) to have full political rights. Had the Jacksonian movement failed, its unlikely the US would have gone on to granting full civil rights to non-whites. Instead you would have ended up with an upper-class led oligarchy rather than a democracy.
3. Whether a centralized banking system controlled by a Wall Street elite is a good idea (Hamilton thought so, so does the current elite in America), or a bad idea (as Jackson believed, as do all the people who think the “Great recession” was caused by evil bankers), is still a hot topic.
4. Grant on the $50 is also debateable, as we was notoriously incompetent (if well intended).
Now if someone is collecting Tzeddakah and is offered a $5 bill or a $10 bill with a woman on it, which will he take?
Ty Barry a bit of a cheap shot but i could not resist.
Hamilton attended cheder in a Spanish and Portuguese shul in the Caribbean because the church school would not admit because of his questionable parentage.
On the other hand, discussion the virtues of Hamilton, Jackson and Grant in terms of who should be on American currency – that’s interesting (Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and Franklin seem to be less controversial)
There is a specific law that washington needs to be on the $1 bill. All the other bills could be changed
In fact Grover Cleveland used to be on the $50 before grant
In fact Grover Cleveland used to be on the $50 before grant
I do not believe that to be true.
Cleveland was on the $20 note in 1914 and the $1000 gold certificate, but he was not on the $50 bill at any time.
Prior to Grant on $50 notes/bills, there was Alexander Hamilton (1863), Henry Clay (1869), Benjamin Franklin (1874), Edward Everett (1878), Silas Wright (1882) and William Seward (1891).
The Wolf (who has never been represented on US currency).
There is a specific law that washington needs to be on the $1 bill. All the other bills could be changed
I couldn’t find such a law. Although there are quite detailed laws when it comes to coins, all I found on paper money design is the following:
akuperma: I was joking!
People who deserve to be on US Currency:
Edward Everett ($50 1878 & 1891)
Michael Hillegas ($10 1907)
James Madison ($5000 1878)
Not the tried and failed:
Susan B. Anthony ($1 coin, 1979)
If there were to be a woman on our currency, might I suggest the 1916 quarter as a template? Very appropriate for the state of American Culture. 🙁
The Wolf (who has never been represented on US currency).
Didn’t they have your picture on the Canadian 1967 half? Once you are used for one country, it would be inappropriate to use you for another.
He is arguably the worst President ever.
1: James Buchanan (AKA Nero)
2: Jimmy Carter
Jackson is also the only president who ever had the USA at a surplus, not owing any money at all.
Jackson was a racsit who hated Indians and disobeyed a direct Supreme Court ruling for the Cherokee Indians and he Also hated a National Bank and paper currency so Its kind of ironic he is on the $20 bill
Maybe being on the paper currency is punishment for being such a racist.
I personally believe that if there should be a woman on American currency it should be because a particular woman deserves to be honored that way (and there are such women), not because they decided there should be a woman on the bill.
I can tell you who the woman won’t be it will not be Betsy Ross why? she is known for sowing a flag aka woman’s work no the choice must be a woman who accomplished something out of the realm of motherhood and homekeeping to satisfy the woman libbers who think stay at home moms are pathetic losers with no accomplishments of their own.
Jackson had a very good record on supporting civil rights for Jews – it was the Jacksonian era when the last legal restrictions on our civil rights were removed (e.g. the famous “Jew Bill” in Maryland giving Jews political rights). Jacksonians ended property requirements for voting and extended full rights to all whites – which was a big deal back then. He was anti-Wall Street (which should appeal to both the Tea Party and the “Occupy” crowd).
Grant is probably an even better candidate to be taken off the currency. While he was very popular at the time, history sees him as excessivly incompetent as president.
Why pick on Hamilton? That’s a good question.
There wasnt much jewish emigration to the US until the 1840’s . There was a miniscule jewish population when Jackson was president
The twenty dollar bill is more common than the ten dollar bill.
zahavasdad: There were enough Jews that whether to give Jews full rights was a hot political issue. If the Jacksonians did not prevail, meaning that franchise was restricted to Christians, and Jews continued to be banned from holding office, it is unlikely there would have been massive immigration to the United States.
Also, with the democratization (small “d’) of the Jacksonian, the extension of franchise would have not taken place. Consider that if only rich people could vote, would have extending the franchise to blacks, women, etc., have been such a priority. The movement towards universal suffrage would have stopped.
Jackson’s theft of Indian lands was disgraceful (and wildly popular with the voters). Grant was okay (the one anti-semitic incident may not have been his fault), but he tolerated amazing corruption (e.g. cornering markets), and while he tried to protect Blacks and Indians he was totally incompetent. What Jack Lew picked on Hamilton is beyond me.
Just a side note, I dont know how Orthodox Jack Lew is, but I do know he goes most shabboses to the Orthodox Synagouge in Washtington DC
Interesting how almost no one addressed the question posed.
If Clinton, Merkel, etc need to be photo-shopped out, and even ArtScroll, Yated, etc won’t print a picture of a woman, how will charedim handle money with a picture of a woman on it?
This is a valid question. What’s the answer?
What have they done in the past when money had pictures of women?
It’s a dumb question and this is a dumb thread.
And those of you making fun of people who try to maintain a certain standard of kedushah should be ashamed of yourselves.
As RebYidd23 mentioned in the past, photos in books and in news stories are meant to be looked at. With money you give a quick glance to make sure you were given the correct amount and that’s it.
DaasYochid, this is genuine curiosity. It may be rooted in ignorance, but it is not malicious.
Here’s something I’m really curious about:
What will all of the Jewish newspapers (Yated, Ami, Mishpacha, Hamodia) do if Hillary Clinton is elected president in 2016, as seems likely to occur? Will they refrain from publishing any pictures of the president for the entire 4 to 8 years of her presidency?
I am not asking this to poke fun at their policy of not publishing pictures of women; I am honestly curious.
atypical teen – What a hysterical thought! Oh gosh, I am with you in wondering how it would be handled but I almost don’t want to know.
akuperma: lew picked the 10 because that is the next bill in line for a change anyway.
“Jackson is also the only president who ever had the USA at a surplus, not owing any money at all.”
Except that his policies set a trap for his successor, Martin Van Buren, as the economy collapsed almost immediately after his inauguration and didn’t recover for many years. The lack of a Central Bank made it impossible to fight the long, damaging recession.
‘Jackson had a very good record on supporting civil rights for Jews – it was the Jacksonian era when the last legal restrictions on our civil rights were removed (e.g. the famous “Jew Bill” in Maryland giving Jews political rights).’
Doesn’t make up for genocide against others. Property qualifications had been gone before Jackson became President — in Maryland it had been done in 1809. And the Maryland “Jew Bill” was also before Jackson was President — the debates in the Maryland legislature were on Federalist-Republican lines as the Jacksonian/National Republican division hadn’t really set in yet.
Grant was indeed an awful President. But he was merely incompetent. Jackson was evil and incompetent.
Jack Lew lives in my neighborhood; I see him in shul (in an Orthodox synagogue) often. I have even heard him daven Shabat Shacharit from the amud and he did a nice job.
“with the democratization (small “d’) of the Jacksonian, the extension of franchise would have not taken place”
It had happened pretty much everywhere before the Jacksonian era; Jackson’s success was a result, not a cause. One exception was Rhode Island which had a small civil war in the 1840s over the issue of the expansion of the franchise. (Type “Thomas Dorr” into a search engine and you will be horrified at what you find.)
“Hamilton was also an elitest”
It is ironic that the opposition to Hamilton, led by some of the wealthiest landowners in America, called him elitist; he came from a very poor background, arriving in American with little more than the clothes on his back. Hamilton was also one of the first prominent politicians in America to support the abolition of slavery; his wealthy landowning opponents in the South typically owned huge numbers of enslaved people. Hamilton wanted everyone in America to have the same opportunities he had. His opponents wanted to keep the current system entrenched indefinitely.
atypical: So what if they don’t print the President’s picture? The story can be reported without having her picture splattered in the newspaper.
Hopefully she’ll never enter the White House.
Then that newspaper will be in the goyish media.
I don’t know what the question is. They won’t print her picture, as they didn’t when she ran for president and when she was Secretary of State.
That has the potential to be a massive chilull Hashem. Orthodox Jewry will get an even worse reputation than they already have… That’s really unfortunate, but I suppose if that if it’s halachically prohibited to publish pictures of women, as the article on YWN states, then that’s just too bad.
No it doesn’t. A “chillul Hashem” isn’t determined by what the goyim think is foolish or unfair. It is a Kiddush Hashem since the papers are upholding their higher standards of kedusha.
In any event, the normal secular world will not even notice if a paper reports a story without a picture. (Unless there is a picture that has her photoshopped out; if there’s no picture in the first place, there is no issue.) The people who will make a stink are the typical anti-semites, usually of Jewish-origin.
Getting back to Alexander Hamilton, the founders of this country founded this great nation in order that people be free of religious discrimination. It is wrong for members of the media to poke fun of others because that is how they understand and translate their holy texts.
Also, as others pointed out (and I did a bit too cynically yesterday), in London they have been dealing with this for over 50 years. If it is not a problem for them it will not be a problem in the USA.
Dr. Hall:
The lack of a Central Bank made it impossible to fight the long, damaging recession.
Very debatable. I assume you are not an Austrian 🙂
I don’t know if a central bank would have helped, either. There seems to have been (and I am in no way an expert) bigger issues, such as rising interest rates, the Specie Circular (why would anyone be allowed to use wildcat notes in the first place in beyond me), and the unwillingness of Van Buren to lend to banks without the use of specie (which doesn’t need a National bank, just National Bank Notes and the acceptance of US bonds, similar to the National Banking Act of 1863).
I do believe that it is too much of a tangent for this thread.
No it doesn’t. A “chillul Hashem” isn’t determined by what the goyim think is foolish or unfair.
So is it a Kiddush or Chillul hashem if some “frum” jews decide according to the torah a 14 year old and 15 year should marry and there is such a mesorah for this.
And is it a “jewish Anti-Semite” who decides this is wrong and protests it.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.