akuperma

First amendment protects freedom expression, and there might be a first amendment issue raised by prohibiting display of a gun (especially if it was unloaded). It is unlikely to be litigated since the debate on guns focuses on the 2nd amendment. However if the right to gun ownership was restricted based on religion or political ideology, it would involve both amendments. (at least according to those who hold guns are for self-defense, a more traditional reading of the 2nd amendment is that its primary purpose was to allow dissidents to own guns).

1. Should women be tax-exempt?

2. Men have pretty much run the world even after women could vote, and they came pretty close to trashing
it. Just look at the leaders who inflicted World War II on us – no women there.

3. Since the primary role of Jewish men is to learn Torah, it would make sense to let women take care of other details like running the government and making money.

The classic definition was a Jew (in a rich western country) who sends a second Jew (from a poor backward country, such as Russia or the Ottoman Empire, but usually Russia) to Eretz Yisrael with a third Jew’s money.

Obama accomplished one of his primary goals: establishing an American national health insurance that is too popular to abolish. Johnson was successful in radically changing the role of government in social programs, which was what he wanted to do. Roosevelt convinced the American people to reject both Communism and Fascism, which many if not most Americans in 1932 were likely futures, and then managed to get the United States into World War II even though most Americans were isolationists (without Roosevelt, there is a good chance American would not be western style democracy, and that the thrid Reich would now be approaching its 100th anniversay). Carter and Hoover failed in all their policies, but both were seen as nice guys. Its too early to tell with Trump though he has managed to put a brake on the leftward shifing of the judiciary which was one on his major goals.

For super-losers, I would suggest Andrew Johnson and William Henry Harrison.

Chabad isn’t really “zionist”. Note that they actively work to preserve Jewish communities in golus. On matters unrelated to Torah and MItsvos, they tend to support whatever the community supports. That’s why Chabad in New York supports the Yankees and Mets, whereas Chabad in Baltimore supports the Orioles. In things that don’t really matter, such as politics and supporting the “home team”, a Chabad shliach in Tel Aviv will be acting different than one in Morocco or Russia,

“Mrs.” followed by husbands name reflected the husband higher legal status, e.g. if he was an duke, she was a duchess only by virtue of being married to him. Such titles, along with a woman adopting her husbands surname, reflect usage among the Christians in general, and the British in particular. Traditionally, Jewish women did not adopt a husband’s name but were known as “Pilonis bas Piloni” where “Piloni” was her patronymic (her father’s name). In the 19th century the governments made us adopt their form of names in order to make it easiet to tax and conscript us.

What else would you call it? Unlike Sukkos, the last days of Pesach are not a separate yuntuf with their own name?

The more we assimilate the more likely the goyim will turn to “racial” anti-semitism rather than religious anti-semitism. The underlying reason is our refusal to fully assimilate. Note that in pre-war Germany and modern America, secular persons of Jewish descent are readily identified as Jews, and are attempt to impose an alien ideology on the general society. Those who choose to truely assimilate are not identified as Jews (e.g. John Kerry, can assimlate quite well).

Not really.

First, the frum anti-vaxers are marginal to the frum community. It isn’t like they are followers of a leading rav or rebbe, since the “official” frum community is not involved with “alternative medicine”. The efforts of the frum community have always been toward “establishment” medicine (e.g. getting more people covered by CHIPS. That some Yidden follow some very dumb non-Jewish ideology and get n trouble for it is something that the frum establishment probably sees as reason to say “I told you so”.

Second, the diseases prevented by vaccines are all fairly serious. Even the mildest ones cause major expenses especiaily if both parents are working (including situations where the mother is a teacher), since the children get sick enough that a parent has to stay home with them. Some have serious complications, and even if the chance is 1/10 of a percent, that means a few dozen frum Jews will die or be permanently disabled.

Good bookcases cost hundreds of dollars, and the best ones cost over $1000) and are made of real wood (or steel, but they are less attractive).. You can not assemble them yourself. They are not made of plywood, engineered wood, or manufactured wood.

Children rarely go to college as by they time they complete the necessary courses they are already adults.
Perhaps the question is on how to advise young adults considering going a secular university?

Acting against his own personal economic interests (assuming he is as rich as he claims to be and isn’t just faking it), Trump targeted high income persons and affluent home owners in states with high state taxation, and benefits those with lower incomes who can’t afford to own a home and live in poorer states.
This is the idea of progressive taxation. Until recently, it was the Democrats who favored a “tax the rich”, but as the Democrats become the party of Limousine liberals it appears it is now the Republicans who are the party of that favors progressive tax rates.

There are two sets of hedarim, one Chabad and one started by the Chassidsh Kollel (how that will develop is unknown as it is quite new). “Totah Institute” was founded by a hasid but is now dominated by yeshivsh.

In the heart of the frum community, houses under $250K are common, and if you look hard enough you could find a semi-detached for well under $200K. More expensive options abound, but they tend to be further away from the most-frum shuls.

Note you will probably need a car in Baltimore, unlike Brooklyn.

Define “arranged”?

Does it refer to the boy meets the girl for the first time at the wedding hall?

Does it include when the shadchan “fixes” them up for a date, and perhaps relays messages, but all that is involved is a serious first date with someone who has been pre-checked as being acceptable? What if the “shadchan” is not a commercial shadchan, but a friends or relation?

If he held office in New York, his populism would seem a lot more liberal. Actually, he is fairly centered nationally, the national Democrats are ridiculously to the left, and the Republicans would be happier with small government, pro-immigration (albeit selectively), free trade and a muscular foreign policy – but are content to have a non-Democrat in the White House.

There were always people “off the derekh” but usually they converted to Christianity (remember the status of Jews in most countries was similar to the status of Blacks under “Jim Crow”, so if one isn’t going to bother being frum, why not convert and immediately get full civil rights). Also remember that pre-haskalah every country had “personal law” at least for domestic relations, so as long as one didn’t convert, a non-frum Jew was subject to Beis Din in all matters of family status and inheritance, and could be penalized for being off the derekh. — There was always wide diversity among frum Jews, as there is today, with arguments among kashrus just like we have today. The jokes that all Jews need at least two shuls (“one to go to, and one to refuse to go to”) are pre-haskallah. But individuals who openly rejected halacha would usually also choose to convert and would not be seen as part of the frum community.

The person writing the headlines seems to be at fault. The articles are much better thought out. For example, someone today referred to the “popular vote” in the Israeli election, unaware that in Israel there is only a “popular vote” (unlike the US which has an electoral college). The really bad articles are ones written by the AP (Associated Press, a news service aiming at the leading left-wing newspapers).

And perhaps this discussion hasn’t addressed the question, even assuming the product in question is by and for “gays”, since when does a Jew being “gay” in any way exempt them from keeping kosher (or Shabbos, or any mitsva). Are you going to argue that ding one aveirah is a heter to do more aveirahs????

While an ice cream made from “gay” people would not necessarily violate the meat-milk rule, it would definitely be non-kosher, and might also violate “ever min ha-hai” (dependeing on whether the person was schedchted before be added to the ice cream). There is also a risk of various diseases. Note that halacha prohibits canibalism in all cases. I suspect the taste would be an abominable.

Seriously, kosher food companies should avoid politics. The fact the people on the “blue side of the spectrum will pay for a hecksher is a good thing. Indeed, many of the non-Jewish firms who produce kosher foods have left-wing views. If kosher certification were limited only to companies that market exclusively to frum Jews , the choice of products would be much less, and the price much higher (as is the case with companies that in fact limit sales to the frum community).

If someone knows the ancestors back to a time when they were frum, yichus isn’t a problem. But for Jews arrived before the Civil War, meaning we are talking about 8-12 generations, it is a serious problem. Intermarriage was very high especially along the “frontier” (Chicago, Denver, Texas, etc.)

Increasingly a large percentage of non-frum people with Jewish names are goyim, and many persons with non-Jewish names are Jews. In America, most Jews have not had a frum ancestor for over a century, and unless they are “into” genealogy they have no way to determine if they are actually Jews. Intermarriage has been a major factor in western countries since the early 19th century. This means a movement doing “kiruv” has to understand that someone with a Jewish surname who claims Jewish ancestry probably is goy, and a someone with a non-Jewish name who says they have Jewish ancestors quite possibly is Jewish. The only exception are people whose families went “off the derekh” recently, meaning their halachic status is easy to determine. — This is also an interesting problem if you want to use a Shabbos Goy — On the bright side, if you hold than a non-frum marriage ceremony among Jews creates a valid marriage ( a problem since virtually no non-frum Jews bother with a “get”), meaning children born outside the initial marriage are mamzerim, the fact the non-frum Jews are increasingly goyim, means they probably should be seen as being “safek goy, safek mamzerim” (cf. Ethiopian Jews) which resolves the problem. One should also note that conversion of a person who becomes frum only to realize they aren’t Jewish is NOT a major problem (they already are Shomer Mitsvos) and avoids having to worry about the intimate behavior of long dead ancestors,.

Define “liberal”. Depending on place and time the term varies. In some countries, the “liberals” are actually the “conservatives”. Whether “liberal” or “conservative” has little to do with abortion (and related policies such as infanticide, population control, etc.).

Whether it is acceptable for a Jew to support a movement the favors abortion other than when necessary to save the mother’s life, e.g. as a means of population control, or for the convenience of the mother, or to prevent inferiors from reproducing, etc., is a different question that support of overall economic and political policies. Whether you support (or oppose) free trade, or capitalism or democracy, has limited correlation to whether you favor killing babies that someone (not necessarily the mother) doesn’t want.

Whether the Democrats in the 21st century are “liberals” is problematic. Certainly 19th century “liberals” in the Anglo-phonic world would be horrified at many of the policies embraced by today’s Democrats.

It was very clear in the 1930s that Europe (at least Eastern and Central Europe) were good places for Jews to leave, but the United States, British Empire and French Empire were largely closed to Jewish immigrants, as were most other countries. Some individuals with special connections (relatives, money, job skills) could sometimes get permission to immigrate, but for most Yidden that was not an option. No one was telling people not to flee. Many gedolim who could have fled said clearly that they wer obligated to remain with the communities they led.

Actually America sounds nothing like prewar Germany. There are no significant anti-democratic (small “d”) movements, and both political extremes are full of Jews (unlike Germany where there were multiple movements on both side of the political spectrum opposed to democracy, and Jews were clustered on the left and center). In addition America has the world’s strongest economy and this is unlikely to change. And America is the leading superpower. And while there is a (Jewish-led) movement against all forms of religion, we have many non-Jews who can be counted on to oppose them.

It might be worthwhile to consider moving to a goy-free planet, but that it isn’t likely for several centuries at the earliest.

Be happy these are boring times. Read some history books if you want to learn what it is like to live in an era that is not boring. And remember the saying that “May you live in interesting times” is a curse, not a bracha.