Forum Replies Created
December 3, 2019 3:57 pm at 3:57 pm in reply to: Any of the 2020 DNC Presidential candidates 100% against abortion (aka murder)? #1807152
a) The Healthcare bill popularly know as Obamacare was passed by a partyline vote ( in fact some Dem congressmen were against it). It was designed to remake Healthcare in the US, it did.
b) Simply stating that the vast majority of Brits are satisfied with the NHS without stating why is misrepresenting it. Yes they are contrasting Healthcare structures that lead to vast differences.
Here are some
1) According to Forbes in 2019 25% of patients in Britian were unable to begin cancer treatment in time, In the USA 97% of patients were alive after a prostate cancer diagnosis while in England it was 83%.
Cataract surgery is pretty common in the US for the elderly in England it’s rationed.
2) Doctors & Nurses have been making way less in England then the US for a while which has led to an increasing nursing and doctor shortage. Again in an article in The Week noted the British Medical Association called the NHS doctor shortage chronic. According to the guardian three quartes of the doctors it surveyed has seen medical care rationed.
d) Size makes a tremendous difference. Smaller countries with natural resources can leverage natural resources to cover a large share of what is automatically a smaller budget i.e a million dollars of revenue from and oil reserve covers 10% of a ten million budget but only 1% of a 100 million dollar budget.
Plus the demographics in a smaller country tend to be more homogeneous then in a large country with a vastly more complicated mix of cultures and traditions complicating National projects.
For example the Public School system in the Lakewood NJ may be perfect for irreligous people but is horrible for religous people the result is an economic strain on a population forced to finance an expensive school system they cannot use. This of course is a much more limited problem in say Denmark where the population is vastly more uniform.
e) You can say that it is not “vastly” more limited, however the your opinion does not change facts. And I was not proving anything from an anecdote, I was demonstrating where the hard facts ran into real life in a personal case.
f) Can you state specifically how they are not broad enough? What should be increased? By how much?
First off it generally does not bother me to ask questions.
However in this case i am not the one asking it.
It’s Dems/Libs who bring up totally irrelevant statistics who force the pint to be made that those stats tell nothing of the actual story.
As a parent I strongly wish there was something we could do about “mass shooting” events.
And I think there is.
However the solution I think begins by acknowledging that in the 60’s it was far easier to get a gun and they were openly carried by many “cowboy shoot em up” books and videos were prevalent, schools did not have metal detectors.
Yet mass shootings did not occur.
So how about we study that.
Why did that change?
Do you honestly think that no other country has this problem?
Yes it’s true in Israel they do not really have this problem you see when people are upset in Israel and the rest of the Mideast they use bombs not guns.
You think Mexico does not have this problem, how about Africa.
I found it curious how on the one hand the Dem/Libs say every illegal immigrant has to be aloud in because of the dangers in their home country.
Yet the USA is the most dangerous place in the world.
Again Reb Eliezer I think that you are ignoring the central point.
It is illegal to kill somebody.
It is really really illegal.
In some states you get the death penalty for it.
These people who are doing these mass shooting are breaking the law.
The fact they are breaking the law does not seem to phase them.
Now I am sure that you were of the opinion that making it illegal to buy a automatic weapon will make it harder for criminals to get them.
I am sure you also feel it is hard for criminals to get drugs and the epidemic of drugs in America is solely a magical occurrence by people suddenly displaying symptoms of illegal substances without having ingested them
Yup and it is a really big hardship fo r me to work 24/6 to build a successful business and then give 70% of that to the government and be told it’s stealing when i ask for busing for my children
What does income differential or as it’s commonly termed “income inequality”” have to do with anything?
As a famous conservative commentator is wont to say I may be a millionaire, however if I move onto the the same block as Bill Gates my income inequality in terms of me vs him will explode.
But I am still doing really well.
In fact as a frum jew we should recognize the term “income inequality” for what it is.
The encouragement of pure jealousy of those that have more then me.
Because in every real statistic the lives of people in all strata has improved.
Unemployment is down.
Wage growth has increased.
the growth rate is up.
In every way people are doing better under Trump.
Those are the simple facts.
Should we perhaps ban knives because they sometimes are used to kill?
How about cars?
Guns are tools just as any other tool.
They have no feelings.
They have no free will.
They are an inanimate object, the same as a knife is an inanimate object.
You cannot hold an inanimate object “responsible” for anything.
However you can hold the operator of an inanimate object responsible.
However I do understand that those who wish to wage war on personal responsibility would want to focus on anything other then those truly responsible.
I don Not beleive that is a serious question but here are some possibilities,
a) HKBH decided they should be poor (see Chovos Halevovos Shaar Habitochon, so no matter what they do they will fail.
b) They have ability but are simply lazy and ok with being poor as long as they can make ends meet.
c) They are lazy and expect the government to help them.
d) They went to school and received an education that was more about indoctrination then preparation for the workforce.
e) They were trained in a field that changed leaving them flat-footed.
f) They were factory workers whose jobs were outsourced.
g) They worked in an industry that was targeted by “activists” until they went bankrupt causing employees to lose their jobs i.e drug companies, weapons manufacturers.
h) they lived in countries that feel for socialism promise causing work or pensions to dry up examples are Greece or Venezuela.
Of course there are many more possible answers to your query but that is a very very partial list which is the very real reason millions of people around the world are poor.
I really don’t know why you think we would be up in arms.
Nor do I know which chief of staff was a “frum jew” Rahm Emanuel was not, he did volunteer during the Gulf War but that does not make him observant.
However if you wish to make a pint of people in Trumps “orbit”
He is accused of being anti-immigrant, but his wife is an immigrant with a heavy accent.
He is accused ob being ant-semitic
However his son-in-law is a orthodox jew, his daughter is a convert and they are considered some of his closest advisers.
His grandchildren actually go to orthodox Jewish private schools.
His Ambassador of Israel is an orthodox jew.
And despite the mainstream media ignoring it any visit to Israel would inform you of the fact that he is beloved over there and regarded as a true ” Friend of Israel”.
Reb Eliezer here are certain stats
In 2016 97% of US income taxes were paid by 50% of taxpayers.
The bottom 50% percent paid just 3%
Lets dig deeper
the share paid by the op 1% was greater then the bottom 90% combined!
So yes considering the fact that the wealthy are paying virtually all the taxes if you cut them they are going to benefit.
You know who else benefits?
The tens of thousands of US workers who then got bonuses explicitly tied to the tax cut.
The out of work workers who then had job opportunities as the economy finally took off after 8 years of being promised it would be “next year”
You see it’s the wealthy who create jobs and hire people, giving them more money gives them the capitol to do more of that.
Sorry I tried to understand your post but failed.
How is the guf the gun?
I do not think that you read my post.
a) As explained a price floor on the price of bread does not lead to an increase in the price of peanut butter and jelly
b) A price floor on bread does not eliminate the opportunity of a job jobs for Peter to increase wages for Paul.
c) A price floor on bread does not eliminate bread for those who cannot afford it as there is Food Stamps etc.. While a minimum wage floors eliminate jobs for unskilled laborers.
To understand why please read my previous posts.
I would say there are several parts to that answer.
a) There really is no price floors on the vast majority of products in the USA, when there is the reason for such is to protect the profits of the maker not the buyer.
b) Price increase on bread at the consumer level do not necessarily have a cascading effect of forcing the price higher on peanut butter and jelly. Raising the minimum wage does.
Why does one persons right to a “living wage” infringe on the right of a struggling person to find affordable food.?
c) The majority of people opposed to the minimum wage do not oppose it entirely, what they do oppose is the standard of a “livable wage”. The majority of minimum wage positions are entry level, they are there for someone to supplement their family income, to gain a foothold in the job market, for extra cash, for temporary job seekers (i.e bochrim on bein hazmanim.
They are not meant as permanent jobs by virtue of which one can support a family, If the burger flipper in MacDonald must be payed a “livable wage” then the entire compensation structure changes after that the price raises on the burger so the livable wage is now unlivable because cheap food has become more expensive and we are now stuck in a viscous cycle. Which means the original wage increase has accomplished nothing.
d) Studies have shown that the minimum wage increase in Seattle did not lead to significant price increases and while it did result in led to lees low paying jobs but more high paying jobs. A fact which some left wing pundits have celebrated, however it is nothing short of disastrous for the working class.
To deal with the minimum wage increases I am purchasing robotics for tens of thousands of dollars.
This will allow me to “consolidate my work force, in other words lay people off. yet have the same production and keep my prices low.
While I am able to lay off several employees I have to higher a new more competent better trained employee to run the machine.
So the minimum wage increase will create a higher paying job by eliminating several lower paying jobs.
Exactly what the studies indicate happened in Seattle.
Now the person I am highering to run the machine is not a new hiree rather it will be an internal promotion of an employee that started out as a minimum wage worker, however that employee has begun to work herself up the ladder.
However that original position that gave her a toehold in the company is being eliminated so in present circumstances she may not have gotten the starter job that gave her the ability to realize a real career because as a young single mom she was never able to really go to school or get trained for a more advanced position.
So the minimum wage increase is in fact making it more difficult for people like her to find a job and start a career because those jobs will slowly cease to exist.
This is fact is one of the reasons hiring the minimum wage is so deadly for unskilled laborers.
The more basic and repetitive a task the easier and cheaper it is to automate it. While the more complex a task the harder and more expensive it is to automate it.
Now the more basic tasks are the ones usually done by minimum wage employees.
My company is located in a state that is gradually raising the minimum wage to 15$ an hour.
While I actually was paying more then minimum wage I was not paying 15$ an hour nor can I afford to pay people 15$ an hour to do the most basic work that I have because it will throw my entire compensation structure off.
As such I am now looking into purchasing the robotics needed to automate much of the basic repetitive tasks and will lay off employees on the lower end when it is finalized.
In my personal case raising the minimum wage in the long term will actually cost jobs.
It will however only play out on the margins for me since financing the equipment will cost more or less the same in the short term but it will provide me with a degree of security and insulation from future wage hikes and hopefully in the long term will save me money, even if in the shorter it would not have been the best investment had the minimum wage stayed the same
Now a real life example,
I own a small business with several employees,
I regularly hire people.
I will not pay a unskilled employee who does not understand my unique business a salary that makes it worth it for them long term.
However I do provide avenues for growth, once an employee has proven themselves valuable to the company i will provide regular raises and even pay to further their training.
This is something that is no means unique to my company. The actual rule among employers is that if you find a good worker then you keep them. We have a tight job market and good workers are valuable.
The argument against minimum wage is on the one hand is complex, yet on the other it’s pretty easy to understand.
The positions on the low end of the scale are generally the ones that do not require much education nor much skills. If any training is required it is usually basic and can be provided by the employer on the job.
As such they are considered “entry level jobs”.
They are available for teens looking for summer work, college kids who want to work their way through college, or people without training who wish to jump right into the workforce.
For those that have not had the ability to get training be it in school or expensive courses they are practically the only way to get a foot into the company.
More so no employer in good conscience will pay these workers more then a minimal salary since they have no skills to speak of.
Now for those who only wish a summer job it’s fine.
But what about those that need to support themselves or a family?
Well the thinking goes that once they have gained entry to a company and have a job then by dint of hard work and conscientiousness they will work themselves up, so while they may start at an entry level position they will wind up at one far better.
However if the entry level position is unavailable they have no way of getting hired in the first place.
I do not think I have said I was against a progressive tax code in totality.
It depends what it is used ofr
a) The country’s saftey and fufullment og governmental roles as described by ie. military, roads & bridges etc..
b) Government charity i.e the Welfare state and government sponsored cultural programs i.e the Arts.
If all taxes were restricted to option a I would be pro a progressive tax code becuase I need the country to function and that means all must contribute.
However the overwhelming majority of taxes since FDR’s failed attempt at halting the Great Depression go towards government sponsored charity which I am against because the Federal government has no right to take my money because they feel they others have more of a need for it.
I do not think that you get a very fundemental point.
Someone else’s money does not belong to you no matter how much they have of it.
No matter if they earned it or they inherited it.
It’s pretty simple.
“I don’t support school vouchers, I do support increased funding for libraries and schools, if this requires increased taxes, the increase is not the reason for my vote”
This requires increased taxation.
There is no way for the government to get money other then by forcibly taking from others.
So if you want them “increase funding” for schools then you want them to collect more taxes i.e raise taxes.
To say otherwise is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
Unless you are simply stating your willingness to pay for it all yourself, in that case. I don’t really care where or on what you wish to spend your money.
BTW I am also for increased funding for schools.
I think the Rabbaim & Morah’s who teach my children and my siblings and communities children should be paid more so they have an easier life and can teach with a clear head.
Since the government will not contribute money towards religious teachers salaries the only way that can happen is if I pay money in tuition.
However when the government increases taxes in order to have increased funding for public schools, that my children cannot attend, they are in a sense confiscating my money to pay for the education of other peoples children while by default decreasing funding for my childrens schools because I cannot afford to pay more tuition (unless i want to risk Jail time for tax fraud).
Actually 10% at it’s face is a flat tax.
If you delve deeper into it then yes it becomes progressive as Chazal strongly recommend the wealthier give more.
However there are two really crucial differences between “masser” & other comunnal tzedakah obligations & taxes.
a) Masser & Tzedakah are based upon our belief in that our money comes from HKBH and he who gave it to us demands we help his other children.As the one who creates us and gives us any money we have we certainly have the obligation to follow his wishes.
However the secularists are actually militantly against this basic principle and extremely vocal about separation of church & state. So if so what gives them the right to appropriate my money to fund their priorities?
b) Virtually all tzedakah obligation are obligations on how much one has to give but it does not create a middle man to do the giving it says “Shimon must give 10%, and he should decide who to give it to”.
In fact since charitable giving is a fundamental part of Judaism there is a section of Shulchan Aruch in Yoreh Deah called “Hilchos Tzedakah”, where halacha quite clearly states it is preferable to give tzedakah personally and one should only give to a “communal fund” if they are certain those who run are trustworthy, reliable, and will not waist that money you give them.
Sounds like the Federal Government does it not?
You stated that the difference between “tax cuts” and “bailout” are simply semantics.
The only way you can make such an extraordinary statement is if you believe in the premise that money I earn is not mine.
If you would actually believe that the money I earn is mine then there is no room for such a statement.
Conservatives were actually extremely upset over the Wall Street bailouts.
They were excoriated for putting the economy at risk by vetoing it at first.
That is simply a historical fact.
Secondly a “progressive” tax rate is not wealth “redistribution if it used for the “collective” good.
In other words if a progressive tax rate is used to build roads that benefit the wealthy the same as the poor then you are not taking money from the wealthy to give to the poor.
You are simply taking from each what they can to create the infrastructure needed for a functioning society.
But simply saying.
“Well Mr So and So has enough money to live on so I think I can better use his money by giving it to someone else” may be something that is arguably true but it is at it’s very core wealth redistribution.
You are taking from the rich and giving to the poor.
In Judaism it’s called stealing.
At least credit Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez for being honest about what they would like to do.
Again CT Lawyer.
Regardless of how you can live and how much money you need
When you vote to raise taxes on other people you are being generous with their money.
So once second?
CT Lawyer the well known Democrat is stating that
a) Raising taxes hurts Middle class people (the Republican tax law did not raise taxes they simply said that tax above state taxes above 10,000$ could not be deducted, thus it’s a problem in states with high state taxes.
b) People who would have to pay high taxes move out of the state instead of paying the high tax rate.
Sounds pretty much like Republican arguments.
It’s cute how dems accusse the Republicans of coddiling anti semitism.
Yet the Dem’s leading canidadate to lead their party is a man who is documented as being friendly and sympathetic with anti semtes at the very least.
While the Republican President elect who they absurdly accussed of being slow to condemn the KKK worked to prevent a resolution being passed at the behest of the Democratic President that decalres the Kosel to be “Occupied”.
And yet it’s the Republicans that Jews should be afraid of?
If Romney had won would this have passed?
1) THe Medrash about “Lovdah Uleshmroah is actually brought in the beginning of Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer, and Chazal go on to state that “Is it possible that any actual work was need? Before the Cheit the Malachim brought Adam HaRishon his food fully prepared etc..As such when it say “Lovdah U’Leshomroh it means to keep the torah and mitzvos”.
2) The “Dangerous Gasses” that some scientists claim are causing “Climate Change” are emitted when human beings breath, according to these scientists it is an increasing human population that puts the earth at risk.
In other words one of the foundational principles of the Torah is that the world was created for the use of man, and yet man’s very means of existence is destroying it!October 21, 2016 4:57 pm at 4:57 pm in reply to: Now that Trump has been revealed…hope your NOT voting for him #1187309
True many of our brothers and sisters are take part in the “social saftey net”.
However there are two serious questions that need to be addressed in how that should affect our vote.
1) Trump is personally a man of questionable morals, however he is making a point during his campaign of stating again and again that he will implement policies and make judicial selections that are more in line with our communities moral outlook then Hillary Clinton who is openly stating the opposite.
In that case from Torah perspective our we allowed to vote for a canidate that is openly trying to create a moral enivoronment that is the antithesis to Torah values for personal financial gain or are we required to stand up for the moral code of the Torah and be willing to pay more then lip service to the concept of Bitochon?
2) In regards to a pure economic outlook.
Many of our brothers and sisters are part of the social saftey net due to a lack of choice.
The cost of the basics for a frum family is astounding and is only going up.
In New Jersey, where many of us live, the cost of property taxes is enourmous, and much of it is driven by liberal court rulings that can be negated by a federal decision to allow some form of school vouchers.
The cost of private health insurance especially for families if prohibitve and it is going up, many families have no choice but to take government health insurance and rely on chesed orginaiztios when one really needs quality health care.
If Republican policies would be implemented just in those two areas, the
saving to individual families would reach the tens of thousands of dollars.
As such one could find jobs that could actually allow self-sufficiencey, we could support ourselves without needing to be millionaires.
However the Democrat policies in place in the Northeast have led to this situation where it is simply unfeasible for many people to try and work.
THe Democrats have made work unaffordable.
Has anyone seen the devastation that the current riots leave in their wake? Literally hundreds of stores have been looted, burned, and destroyed throughout the USa Ferguson, pwerhaps the place that started it off still hasn’t recovered!
And people have the nerve to compare this to chareidi protestors who burn garbage cans and get themselves thrown in jail?October 2, 2016 2:58 am at 2:58 am in reply to: Is Hillary too weak and fragile to survive the rigors of the presidency? #1190296
According to Bob Woodward who is most famous for being the man who brought down a Republican President, John Boehner was ready to deliver on a compromise that would have significantly reduced the deficit, even though he would have faced serious flack from the roght of his party.
The deal was agreed to by Boehner and Obama.
Yet afterwards Obama walked back and reneged on his side of the deal.
So how exactly did the Republicans refuse to deal with Obama?
Most of the posters here seem to be a tad ignorant of basic history.
When the Medinah was founded the Chilonim acknowledged the need for the majority of Chereidim to at least refrain from publicly protesting them. THe Charadim were extremly apprehensive of the proposed government for fear they would seek to impose their ideology on the Chareidim. So in a series of meetings they hashed out a compromise based on four core areas.
One of them was that the Chareidi chinuch insitutions would be completley free of government inteference.
This was a bedrock principle that the State of Isreal was founded upon.
Now of course the elementry schools in Isreal are more or less “public schools” that is becuase the State of Isreal is more or less socialist in nature.
When you go to the store you pay about 17% Vat everyone must pay it, including chareidim.
As such while yes they are more or less free because of the socialist nature of the economy, any attempt to intefere in the chinuch of the chareidim is a violation of the principles upon which the Chareidim agreed to the founding of the State of Isreal.
Just stumbled on a recent report in the New Atlantis which basically states that a non-biased view of the science debunks the claim that people are “born” LGBTQ and cannot change.
The rport is authored by,
Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer M.D, M.S., Ph.D.(scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State Universityi
Dr. Paul R. McHugh M.D (Professor of Phsychiatry at Johns Hopkins)
I would like to clarify my position on certain things.
Some poster’s here seem to feel that disallowing school prayer, the mention of G-d, or certain morals in the public sphere is a “Jewish” position.
It isn’t and it never has been.
It’s an atheistic/liberal position that has led to the degradation of the public school system and the society that lives off of that on many levels.
Sadly many Athiestic/liberal organizations call themselves “Jewish” organizations and still others substitute the current values of the NYT and Washington Post editorial boards for the Torahs values and call them Jewish Values.
They are Jewish values only in so much as they are held by (probably intermarried) Jews who may attend services led by a female rabbi who cannot read Hebrew once a year.
There is a well know story with the Chofetz Chaim.
The Chofetz Chaim used to travel from town to town selling his seforim he once passed a church and the non-Jewish wagon driver failed to cross himself.
The Chofetz Chaim then got off saying that he could not travel with someone who does not believe in anything.
THe public school system of old was not perfect in any way and Boruch Hashem we now have a cheder system. But as severl “old timers” have told me.
It used to be Jews attended public schools and they may not have learnt how to be Jews but at the very least they learnt how to be people, the basic morals of right and wrong.
Now-a-days they do not learn even that. Instead they are taught dasic morals of liberal society in the guise of “freedom of religion”.
It is illegal to pray in Public School but it is legal to teach Heather had two mommies.
It is illegal to display the Ten Commandments but it is legal to teach young girls how to properly do “acts” that define married life.
It is “controversial” for girls and boys to be required to study separately and it is equally controversial to demand that female teachers and students dress in way that their body is not on display for all to see and focus on.
So I wonder what exactly was more “damaging” to the USA as a whole and the Jewish people in particular.
School prayer and separate classrooms or the current state of the Public School system?
Gavra at Work,
Of course not, again such a law means that the government is mandating an official school policy, it is requiring the school to implement a religious action.
That’s something that clearly violates the principle of freedom of religion.
However if the parent body of an individual school decided upon their own to act in accordance with the majority of the particular school’s population in prayer policy, with the caveat that the minority population within that school is not required to attend or take part in any way.
Then on a theoretical basis why not?
(On a practical basis I believe that the Courts would not allow because of the way separation of Church and State is currently defined)
Again I am fervently against any government interference in religion what-so-ever. Whether pro or anti.
I believe that is was the US policy until recently when it seemed to change in favor of mandating the Liberal Democrat religion and outlawing any other.
I think that we disagree on numerous points.
1) Allowing prayer in public schools is not “infringingg” on my rights unless I am obligated to join in. What does infringe is not allowing others to pray that is disallowing them to pray as they wish when they wish.
2) I am unaware of where exactly they wish to limit Muslims ability to practice their religion, unless you are referring to the Ground Zero Mosque? If you are I am wondering what you would feel about Muslims opening a Mosque on the same site as the Number 2 bus bombing in Israel?
3) Displaying Ten Commandments statues on public property in no way “infringes” on my beliefs, it does not force me to acknowledge it, to believe in it or any such thing.
All of those things simply require the minority to allow the majority in this country to practice and acknowledge their religion.
However what does “infringe” in a real way on my ability to practice my religion is forcing me to provide a pill that my religion says is wrong.
What does infringe is forcing me to provide services to ceremonies that my religion prohibits me from taking part in in any way.
You see tolerance is when I am asked to simply respect others without being forced to partake.
Intolerance is when I am forced to partake in what I wish to refrain.
I am unaware of any conservative position that states that “any” two bit excuse a company should be sufficient not to hire non-Shabbos workers.
And I would not describe my philosophy as straight conservative or straight liberal.
It so happens that in the current environment it appears that the conservative are the ones that are more respectful of religious rights.
In fact I do not think that Liberals would even argue the point.
Ye, you are right that the courts ruled against the Liberal’s on this issue.
However the Liberal Democrats currently running are very clear on the fact that they would appoint Justices who would overturn the rulings that essentially ensure our rights to practice our religion as the Torah mandates it.
I do not believe that the problem is belief in the specific age of the Universe.
To be perfectly honest. I don’t care what it is. The age of the world is completely irrelevant to me.
I do believe the Torah was given at Har Sinai.
I do believe that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is contained in the Torah.
I do know there are certain “secrets” of Torah that can be fully grasped and understood by only a select few in each generation.
Rav Elyashiv’s grandfather the Leshem was one such person and he wrote about the age of the world.
I am not on the level to fully comprehend what he wrote.
However I believe fully that any theory or thought regarding the age of the universe must fully comply with the Torah and if it is conflict it must disregarded as false.
Science must whole up to the test of Torah.
The Torah must not whole up to the test of science chalilah.
However I do think that the crux of the issue is where we get our information and what we base it on.
A careful reading of the second of the famous Ninteen Letters shows one thing RSRH made clear that to understand the Torah we must study the Torah from within the Torah not from with out.
Evolutionists point to the similarity between various skeletal structures as “proof” towards the need to identify one single common ancestor. if not there is no good explanation.
However if we look within the Torah we understand that man is a composite of a guf and a neshomah and what distinguishes us is not our bodies but our neshomah.
So if HKBH saw fit why could he not have acted as any architect and use one basic “sketch” for all his living creations with slight deviations based upon each ones respective purpose in this world with man being distinguished not by a completely different skeletal structure but a completely different soul?
It’s a simple solution to one of the primary riddles that evolutionary scientists claim as a “proof” to their theories.
In fact it’s not a solution or a form of “apologetics” it’s a logical conclusion that one would make by and basic study of machshovah.
But it’s one that “they” will not entertain at any cost.
Because the core. root, and the driving force between all their theories is to prove that at the very essence man and animal are the same with only “evolutionary genetics to thank and as such man and animal’s are equal’s in theory.
I will also add that whether or not either of these things are against Halacha is a matter that has no place in Secular courts.
Secular Judges no matter the religious beliefs are not proficient in theological law.
They should not have the power or ability to dictate which side of a Religious dispute one must go with.
Thanks for your thoughts.
However Liberal’s were ardently in favor of forcing Hobby Lobby to cover birth control in spite of their religious beliefs.
If you read up on their current stance (there was a recent court decision) as to whether individual pharmacies are required by law to offer that drug you will see the same.
Again I am not arguing as to whether or not they are correct in their religious belief’s ( I am an orthodox Jew not a Cristian).
However it is an inarguable fact that the people in question were and are sincere in their religious beliefs (Mr. Green has spent millions to that extant- even when he is at at a disadvantage, Liberals do not like discussing the fact Hobby Lobby offers higher wages then the market dictates for certain positions because they believe it is the Christian thing to do, they are also closed Sunday’s for the same reason)
It is true Liberal Democrats believe strongly in “Religious Accommodation”, as long as it does not conflict with Liberal “Values”.
To be honest I personally am certainly not voting for Clinton and am still on the fence about whether I will vote for Trump or stay home.
I would have voted for any other Republican with the preference being Ted Cruz.
As for the substance.
1) To state that now-a-days there is no discrimination is a blatant falsehood.
Affirmative Action is inarguably “discrimination”, liberals argue that it is “worthy” discrimination I would disagree however the fact that it is in fact discrimination is indisputable.
2) Religious Accommodation- By Liberal standards if I, an orthodox Jewish person have a business which provides flowers, baked goods, professional photography or other such services.
And I can demonstrate that thfoughout my years in business I have served everyone regardless of who or what they are and do it with a smile on my face.
I can still be fined or shut down for one thing only.
If an irreligious gay “couple” ask me to cater their wedding event and I refuse.
Even if I show I have lived my whole life as a halachic jew and I can provide a reasonable halachic analysis that catering or providing services to this specific “marital” event violates the Jewish legal principle of “mesayeah” and as such I am constrained by the Halacha I have kept my whole life from supporting this marital event in any way and have to respectfully pass on the offer.
Still I am to be labeled a religious bigot who must be shut down.
That is the extent of “Religious Accommodation” in Liberal America.
3) According to “liberal” policies a religious OBGYN should be required to prescribe medication against their fervent religious belief, and perform medical procedures against their fervent religious belief – Religious Accommodation.
4) Muslim Immigration– I admit that my views on this matter are somewhat colored, I speak Hebrew and have relatives in E”Y including an aunt who was shot going shopping and a six month old cousin blown up on a bus leaving her father severely wounded and a mother who has been in and out of surgeries for ten years.
So yes I will state it is a complete unwillingness to see facts in front of your eyes. A complete unwillingness to see the dangers posed to millions of people by allowing people to immigrate from a region of the world where each and every single official and unofficial poll has shown at least 20% of the population wishes above all else to kill you and me and everyone else.
It is madness.
Even more it is the outmost disrespect to even attempt to compare those fleeing Nazi Germany to those coming here now when those fleeing Nazi Germany never held a gun in their lives hated the countries they were from and worshipped American as the “goldeneh Medinah” while the countries the “refugees’ are fleeing from now have exported terrorists who have literally killed and maimed tens of thousands of people worldwide.
Is it sad, even terrible, that some who are innocent may be forced into less then ideal circumstances by Trump policies?
Of course it is.
However the President of the United States first and foremost has a duty and obligation to protect the citizens of the United State of America only after that is done can the President afford to accommodate others.
That is basic principle that holds true for the Leader of each and every country worldwide. The leader of the country is first and foremost obligated to protect the countries citizens.
By allowing unfettered access to the USA from certain countries the lives and well being of thousands of US citizens are being cavalierly put at risk a fact that has been proven again and again again in this Country and in other counties including throughout the EU.
If/When a reasonable set of checks can be done to ensure that the safety and wellbeing of US citizens is not being placed in danger by admitting refugees from certain counties then Mr. Trump himself has stated the US should act.
5) Associates- The Liberal-Democrat party has not just associated, it has elevated race baiters who have attempted to divide this country and have Jewish Blood on their hands.
Is their any other way to describe Al Sharpton?
They have not just stood by, they have actively made a place in their party for a “movement” that has led to the lives of those who risk their lives each and every day to protect them, to be put at risk. A movement that is silent as Black on Black violence causes hundreds of deaths and tears the city of Chicago apart but will destroy the livelihoods of people by rioting and burning down a city when a police officer (even one of color- who somehow is labeled an “Uncle Tom” by putting on a uniform and attempting to make his neighborhood and city a safer place) makes a mistake and takes a regrettable action when they think their lives are at stake. Yes I am referring to Black Lives Matter.
And the Democrat- Liberal party accepts money from a self hating Jewish billionaire who pours millions of dollars into organizations dedicated to fighting the State of Isreal. Yes I am referring to George Soros and BDS.
It is truly unfortunate that any sane Jewish person can support this type of party.
PuHleese and ZDad,
I hear your comments, however,
a) Whether or not the Torah is the true guide is an objective question that is to be explored independently, that’s something that is beyond the contours of this forum but can and is done all the time. In fact according to many (i.e Chovos HaLevovos) it’s to be encouraged.
If an exploration of the origins of the Torah lead one to the conclusion that it is Divine in Nature, then any true path in life must be predicated upon it.
b) The Torah to the best of my Knowledge (which is admittedly limited) is the only “religious” “guidebook that does not enjoins someone to realize that even it’s greatest leaders can fail and fail and fail.
1) It is the Torah itself that records the failings of Korach the 3rd greatest person in Judaism.
2) It is the Torah itself that spends more time recording the relatively few failings of the Dor Deah our “greatest generetaion” then it’s triumphs. So we can learn how to live ourselves in the present rather then simply celebrate how others lived in the past.
3) It is the Torah itself that records the failings of Zimri one of the 12 leaders of the Jewish nation, the failurs of Shaul, Dovid, Shlomo, Achitofel, and Doeg.
4) It is the Torah itself that warns us “al tamin batzmecha ad yom mosech” one can never ever believe in themselves.
5) It is the Torah itself that warns not only can big people fail but “Kol Hagodol Michaveiroh Yitzroh Gudol Heimenoh” Anyone bigger then their friend has even greater Yetzer Horah.
The Torah Shebksav and Shel Bal Peh makes clear again and again and again we are alive in a war that exists literally to the death and big people can and do fail, and some do it precisely because of their greatness.
Saying some people who were big failed does not cast doubt on the Torah, rather it verifies it’s very premise.
That big people need boundaries just as little people do.
That Gedarim and Siyugim are needed not for show but for very real protection, appoint made all over Shas.
And if we do not understand that, then we have allowed ourselves to be infected by the very foreign thinking that only the weak fail and that man who is by necessity composed of two parts one the “guf” and the other the “neshomah” can in fact become immortal, beyond the limitation, temptations, and failings of human frailty.
That is the very essence of foreign Hashkofa.
I fell badly about what you have gone through but I’d like to make a couple of points.
1) At one point I was extremely sick, I was rushed to a local hospital where I was badly misdiagnosed, that wrong diagnosis almost cost me my life.
When I was brought into another hospital the Doctors overseeing my care actually stated that in this case they feel I should sue the pants off of them because the people who saw me in the first place should not be practicing medicine.
Yet I still see Doctor’s, in my case pretty frequently.
I know in my heart that medicine as a whole is beneficial it is “true” even if some Doctor’s messed up and used it wrongly.
2) When one goes on an extended road trip they sometimes get lost, they some times take detours. However the objective is to reach the final destination.
As such they are on the road.
If the pull off and decide to turn back, to cease driving they are off the road.
The fundamental tenant of Yiddishkeit is that we are alive for a purpose to reach “deveikus” in Hashem to overcome the Yetzer Horah.
The roadmap for that is the Torah.
We are all imperfect, that is why we are alive to meet the challenges the Yetzer Horah throws at us, to battle them, and to overcome them.
As long as we are trying we are on the road.
When we let those challenges win and turn around we are off the road.
Father goes to Target with their 9 year old daughter.
Daughter need the bathroom.
Father takes daughter to the ladies room and then stands outside waiting for her to come out so he can continue on with his wife errands.
A person with obviously male features, including the build of a man walks into the bathroom, but wearing a female “tank top” and lipstick walks into the bathroom
Might I add that while you were standing outside this was the only person to walk in.
In this crazy world it is discrimination to tell the cops.
Cause you see individual who has male body parts thinks that “it” is a female.
The names and sources of studies conducted that demonstrate that sexuality can be changed have been cited.
I can trouble myself to cite more of them, But I don’t really see the point.
Instead I would like to ask you to do something.
Can you please cite the studies which prove that such therapies are dangerous? Can you cite the scientific basis for the decision to remove “alternative lifestyles” from the DSM.
And I don’t mean simply stating The APA!
I mean doing what we have done state the actual scientific sources,
1) This was what you wrote
“And to top it all off, the study was not peer-reviewed, as is standard, before being published. It’s no wonder Spitzer retracted”.
As I wrote that is a completely false statement.
2) Spitzer actually stated he was “skeptic” as to whether therapy can work or not and the study convinced him it can according to the Washington Post article on his study this was because 66 percent of men and 44 percent of women actually reported a change as a result of the study, ( For comparisons sake read Dr. Meir Wikler’s intro to 10 minutes a day to a better marriage, the best marital therapies can only claim a success rate of perhaps 50%)
Again the point of the study was not to ascertain what the correct therapy is, it was to ascertain whether it was possible,
3)You wrote “It didn’t test any specific therapy; it lumped together people who worked with licensed therapists with those who engaged in independent Bible study or other methods”.
Again the point was to discover whether change was possible not what the correct course was so Spitzer (one of the most experienced researchers in his field) designed a study that di not focus on the methods rather on the before and after.
4) “And it wasn’t just the therapists who had a political agenda, it was many of the participants themselves. And I’m sure you know very well the meaning of “anti-gay bias”.
I don’t know what you determine to be a political agenda, yes many of the participants were those who wished to attempt to change what they considered their sexual orientation to be and yes that is a big reason why his study was attacked.
You do realize that anyone who undergoes such therapies by definition must wish to change their orientation?
And you do realize that by disqualifying such individuals from a study you are stating that it is impossible to determine if therapy works?
5) Yes Dr. Zucker also a prof in Canada practiced such therapies because he believed they worked and actually has written that they have worked
So in other words all Doctors who practice such therapies, who have experienced success at such therapies are disqualified.
And surprise surprise there is no proof that they work!
If you are actually aware of the study then you are getting your sources from somewhere that is slightly outdated.
1) Yes prior to publication there was an article in the Washington Post article about the study the APA criticized it and stated it was not unpublished and not peer reviewed however it subsequently was peer reviewed and published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, a leading publication in it’s field.
2) The point of Dr. Spitzer’s study was not to prove whether a specific form of therapy can work, it was to determine whether or not any therapy was possible.
3) the criticism was not that it lumped together those who studied with unlicensed therapists with licensed, rather that it included those who were treated by therapists with ” a strong anti-gay bias”, whatever that means.
4) The Dr. Spitzer under discussion is the same one who was the driving force behind the creation of the DSM as well as the removal of gay behavior as a psychiatric issue. He was one of the leading researchers in psychiatry and he used the same methodology that was is many of his other studies.
5) He tried to retract his study however the Editor of the Journal Dr. Kenneth Zucker Ph.D stated
” You can retract data incorrectly analyzed… You can retract an article of the data were falsified….As I understand it he’s just saying ten years later he wants to retract hi interpretation of the data. Well we’d probably have to retract hundreds of scientific papers with regard to interpretation and we don’t do that”.
You realize on the one hand you state that part of “feminism” is
“understanding that there isn’t such a thing as “men’s jobs” and “women’s jobs”
Then you continue on to write,
“Of course, you are going to see some pretty significant gender disparities within certain fields, just because of natural aptitude or self-selection (for instance, female construction workers and male speech pathologists are both very rare breeds!”
So in other words feminism requires us to think that since there are exceptions to every rule the rule is completely negated.
BTW I always thought that Hillary Clinton had the best line about what feminism requires,
“The willing suspension of disbelief”.
(Of course HC was using it in a different context, she was question Gen. Petreaus over the need for a surge and if it would work)
Are you even aware of what study I am referring to?
Are you even attempting to understand what was written?
I was not offering a scientific explanation of anything in that line, I was simply clarifying my own writing.