Forum Replies Created
As I showed previously there is the AMA and APA cannot state that those therapies are proven scientifically not to work because when they were actual scientific studies were carried out they were proven to work.
What they can state is there is anecdotal evidence of it not working since there are those whom it has no effect on.
Just as marriage therapy does not work on everyone and all other sorts of therapy.
However for some reason in all other cases the actual data is chosen over singular anecdotes.
You are aware that the “consensus” medical opinion until fairly recently was that homesexuality was a “mental disorder”.
So according to you up till the diagnosis was changed everyone was to believe that it was so and if they disbelieved it they were minority “nutjobs”.
The morning after the changed diagnosis, those who disagreed became “nutjobs”.
As for questioning everything.
Not at all.
There was one truth that God gave us and attested to the fact it will never ever change.
It’s called the Torah.
I am wondering why you are ignoring the thrust of the posts.
Karten is a practicing psychologist, He affirms it does work in his practice and his essential point is that you are dead wrong.
All actual scientific studies done with the same methodology used for any study have proven that it has the same rates of success of any other therapies.
That is a fact and he goes through the actual studies.
There are no studies done that show it not to work much less to be harmful.
Is there anecdotal tales from those it’s failed on?
A majority is not ruled out by a minority.
Much as marriage therapy is not deemed harmful because of the anecdotes of those who have been harmed by therapy in specific circumstances.
I have quoted articles, and pointed to exact studies.
You refutation is what?
Are there any specific studies you can point to?
And please do not point to the AMA again, I went through all six people who did that study, and showed how the idisputable facts are on record.
They rejected any attempt to have non-biased people do that study in favor of those who publicly admitted they were biased and had formed opinions beforehand.
Actually according to Judaism it is a fact that people are born with predilections to murder any one born under the Mazal Maadim, every person is born with a personality that allows for them to either be a “rusha” a “a “beinuni” or a tzadik.
Someone born under the Mazal Maadim essentially enjoys “blood’ so they can be either
1) A rotzaech, murderer which is a rusha
2) A Shocheit, ritual slaughterer, which is a beinoni.
3) A Mohel, circumcisor, which is a tsaddik.
And what I have written is essentially a quote from the Vilna Gaon brought in Even Shelaima.
Yes the fact is that the AMA has reputed reparative and conversion therapy.
However as I noted a cursory check of the board that supposedly conducted a “neutral and non-biased” investigation leading to this conclusion all had publicly and adamantly formed their opinions beforehand.
This is no theory, it is fact.
And any non-biased study done using the same methods of scientific research that are always used shows it does work.
This is a point that Karten himself a practicing psychologist makes again and again in the article I previously referenced witch is fully sourced.
And non-conspiratorial look into the fact shows one basic thing.
TO enter therapy a simple premise is required.
That it is better to be “straight” then “gay”.
That goes against the entire core of the pride agenda. And that is why therapy is being viewed as “non-workable”.
What I fond interesting is that using similar statistics why is marriage therapy not deemed harmful?
The fall 2012 issue of Dialogue features a 21 page article from Elon Karten Ph.D a practicing psychologist who deals with many frum people struggling with this problem.
In the article he documents that the “taskforce” that condemned “reparative therapy” consisted of individuals who were on record about their positions before the selection while those who were more neutral were turned away.
the six member board consisted of
Judith M Glasgold- Board member of the Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy.
Jack Drescher- well know gay activist.
Lee Beckstead- Self identified gay man.
Beverly Green- Co-editor of APA Gay and Lesbian Division 44 series on Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues.
Robin Lin Miller- worked for Gay Men’s Health Crisis.
Roger Worthington- Chief Diversity Officer and University of Missouri and recipient of the 2001 Catalyst award from the LGBT Resource Center.
This is the “neutral board that “investigated” reparative therapy and then condemned it as harmful.
In the article he further notes that the study by Dr. Robert Spitzer actually did find that sexual conversion therapy does in fact work and that study was consistent with an earlier study by MacIntosh in 1994.
Yes Dr. Spitzer did come under harsh criticism from the gay community and yes the APA did distance itself from his work however when approached the editor of the Journal that originally published the article Dr. Kenneth Zucker Ph.D, to ask to issue a retraction he replied
“You can retract data incorrectly analyzed, to do that you publish an erratum. You can retract an article of the data was falsified-or the journal retracts it if the editor knows it. As I understand it he’s just saying ten years later that he wants to retract his 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”.
I would encourage the posters who state that there is no proof that therapy can work in these cases to read the entire article which is full sourced.
The Democrats claim that all they want is the government to stay out o religion yet that is clearly not the case.
The Jewish religion has two crucial laws one is called Lifnei Eiver and the other is Misayeah.
If I own a catering company, wedding venue, bakery, or any facility that provides goods or services that play an integral role in a wedding ceremony and am asked to provide said good’s or services to facilitate a toeivah marriage ceremony then by any definition I am entering a Halachic problem of either Lifnei Eiver or at the very least Misayeah.
And yes I may be required to give up my livelihood rather then violate the Torah.
That is a fact.
Yet the Democrat position is that freedom of religion does not protect my right to operate my business in accord with my sincerely held religious beliefs.
And if I would like to continue to be in business I must violate said beliefs.
In other words right now, right here in the present day and age.
It is the Democrats and the Democrats exclusively who as a party overwhelmingly support a position that is not just ani-torah it poses a real and present danger to anyone who wishes to keep the Torah and remain with a livelihood.
I know of no Republican position that is the same.
Hence I believe anyone who votes Democrat may be a Jew in body but not is spirit.
So I don’t get it.
Is the claim against Trump that he is an anti-Semite?
Because his daughter Ivanka who, by any measure, is one of his closest advisors identifies as a Modern-orthodox Jewish woman and sends her children to Jewish schools.
Or is the claim that Trump is a liar.
‘Cuase he very well maybe, but if his wins the Republican primary and faces Hillary Clinton then it’s one liar vs. another liar.
Why is it more important to vote for one liar over another?
Actually the timeline is not Bush’s it was up to Obama to negotiate a Status of Forces agreement.
He failed to do so. Period.
As for preventing military access to care.
You are trying to distract but I’ll take the bite.
The actual member’s of the Armed forces do not seem to feel that the Republicans prevent them from getting care since they continue to overwhelmingly support them in elections.
As to whether or not I feel that this agreement allows them to become the equal of the USA.
Well they have a wide ranging Nuclear program an in house military program have demonstrated a commitment to using all spare cash fro military means and are about to essentially be given hundreds of billions of dollars.
As for all Mideast countries supporting it.
They all did not just Saudi Arabia or are you completely unaware of Mideast politics?
Yes I agree with Rubio’s recent op-ed instead of acting as if this was negotiations between a super power and third world country Obama made it negotiations between equals and that is one result that may come out of it.
One advantage Obama has over most Presidents is the sheer number of failed promises and policies make it impossible to keep up
with anything and people forget them simply because of the number.
1) The colossal failure of the stimulus which officially was designed to improve the infrastructure (shovel ready jobs anybody?) and did no such thing and was going to keep unemployment down below 8 percent (oops!) and lead to the “Summer of Recovery” remember that summer?
2) The Health Insurance Bill popularly known as Obamacare was going to get you better health insurance (which top doctor’s take Obamacare plans?) save you 1500.00 dollars on each plan (shucks that didn’t happen) and enable you to keep the insurance that you wanted ( well that didn’t happen).
3) We were going to close down Guantanamo and any prisoners released were of course harmless and not going to go back to trying to kill US citizens’ ( That didn’t happen)
4) We were going to completely withdraw from Iraq.Yup that happened and now we have ISIS.
5) We were going to be more respected in the world. I guess that means laughingstock.
6) We were going to have renewed unity no “blue state’s or Red state’s just Americans. Remember that. Tell that to the police.
7) Obama would ensure that Syria never crossed his red lines by using chemical weapons. Yup, that worked out and Assad would leave power. Yup that worked out.
8) Obama would ensure every option remained on the table to not allow Iran to get “the bomb”.
Gee what a pres.
Actually I for one think that Romney would have attacked Iran.
In fact I think that the circumstances in the Mideast would have been completely different Republicans won.
Whether you agree with them or not Republicans generally hold the military in higher esteem then the Democrats and tend to listen better.
I fully believe that the would have been a Status of Forces agreement in place had a Republican been President ( the general consensus is that Obama blew it because of a general lack of interest) as such there would have been a larger US presence in Iraq as there should have been.
Couple that with the fact that there would have been a more robust deployment of troops in line with he general’s requests.
There would never have been a timeline given for the US withdrawal.
The above facts on the ground would not have allowed the rise of ISIS to begin.
In addition during the “green revolution” American support for the opposition would have been clearer and possibly include covert arms from the nearby forces which possibly would have brought down the Iranian government as it brought down others.
The reason is simple
All of the Mideast countries would have supported it (unlike the embassy move) and any one with a half a brain understands what is already being said.
This agreement sets off an arms race in region already teeming with millions of armed individuals calling for the destruction of the US led by a country that Obama’s admits remains committed to the same goal.
Even without Israelis interest’s it is an epically bad decision to basically allow you enemy to become you equal.
Just to be clear.
During the debates with Romney Obama claimed there was no difference between the two in regard to Iran.
He made it clear, over and over and over again that if Iran refused to get rid of their Nuclear Program he would take it out militarily.
Now it seems that Obama is claiming that is not an option.
So I guess that means Obama is admitting publicly that he lied to the American People in order to get elected.
I am not pretending that the “love” between parent and child is the same as that between spouses.
I am merely pointing out that there are a great number of factors that make the relationship between same gender individuals vs a man and a woman completely different.
There is merely one factor present that may or may not be the same and that is love,
(And one can even argue based upon statistics that even that factor is different
If the “love” is the same then why is there so many more “break ups” and unfaithfulness in those relationships then in same gender relationships? but that is a sidebar)
However the presence of love does not make the relationship the same for if that was the case any relationship with “love” would be called a “marriage” and conversely any relationship without “love” would not be called “marriage”.
If two individuals marry for money or social status shall we stop calling that marriage!
Of course not!
A woman and man who wed are married because that is the term that has been used for generations to describe that unique and different relationship, just as a table is called a table and a chair is called a chair.
A chair is not called a table because it may have a flat part to it and table is not called a chair because it may have legs.
Put simply I find it absurd to thing the same term that is used to describe the marital relationship between man and woman can be used to describe a completely different relationship, that between two individuals of the same gender.
GAW: You started your post by stating that you cannot explain the positions of others then ended it by stating you see no reason not to extend the “rights’ of marriage to same gender couples.
So let’s try and define things.
1) no one was denied the right to marriage, any man can marry any woman.
2) There are those who choose for whatever reason not to enter a marital relationship, in a democracy you cannot force someone to do anything (except buy health insurance) and therefore they had the right to stay single or enter other types of relationships.
3) Due to the fact that some people did not like what marriage was they decide to change it.
Sort of like if I do not like what a table is I try and change it to a chair.
As such they began to insist that a loving relationship between two same gender individuals is also a marriage.
Now factually, scientifically, and inarguably any way you want to put it there are many huge difference between the relationship between a man and a woman and tow individuals of the same gender.
1) Biologically the relationship is extremely different
2) emotionally they are extremely different
3) The side effects are extremely different, on can have kids one cannot.
However these individual decided that none of above characteristics are what define the term marriage rather it is the presence of “love’ and any two individuals in a loving relationship are married.
If the only requisite for marriage is “love” then again why is a mother and daughterer not married?
Why are two best friends not married?
why are two close siblings not married?
In my mind the answer is quite simple.
Love is an important part of marriage but it is not the only part there are many unique aspects of that particular relationship.
The combination of all these factors are found only in the relationship between a man and a woman and it is that unique relationship that is marriage.
Hence the secular “argument” against same gender marriage is essentially.
It simply is not marriage. It is relationship it is many things but it is not marriage.
So can you give a cogent secular argument why the term “marriage” should be changed to include a relationship that is different both biologically, emotionally, and in what the tangential abilities (one can produce children one cannot?
As marriage has evolved from a structure in which a family could grow (the “original meaning”) to an affirmation of individuals’ love and a financial/legal “next of kin”, so too has the “right” to be married. From the opinion:
And so I would ask GAW,
Based on what you seem to think marriage has evolved to is a father and son “married” is a “mother and daughter” married?
I was not referring to that post, all I was doing there was merely pointing out the flaws of that the the fact that there are “marriages’ that cannot have children is irrelevant as to determining the general purpose of marriage.
However that is not my argument because I think the argument may be true but it’s is not intrinsic rather it is based on circumstance.
What I hold as the better argument is the one in my next post which Matan1 has not responded to.
Actually Reb Moshe was calling for people to go and protest against a sitting popular Mayor.
You asked for a secular argument against the re-definition of marriage.
I gave you one.
Incidentally it is one that more or less 4 Justices of the Supreme Court more or less agreed with and wrote detailed secular legal briefs supporting?
Why are you ignoring it?
Do you have a logical response to it?
Well it would seem that Reb Moshe zt”l disagreed with ZD.
No it is not a “rare” exception in the sense it is truly rare, however it is inarguable that one of the defining characteristics of a normal traditional marriage is the desire to build a family and it is the only union capable of doing so.
(unlike love which is a characteristic found in may different types of relationships)
The fact there are exceptions does not invalidate the rule, and to argue as much would mean that there can never be any rule’s since practically each and every single rule has an exception, however we generally rule based on the majority.
Even without that argument it’s a pretty cut and dry case.
Biologically Men and Woman are different.
That is a fact.
Emotionally Men and Woman are different.
That is another fact.
So it follows that a relationship between them is inherently different then one between two members of the same gender.
This is an unalterable truth, one that cannot be changed no matter the words used.
Until now secular society recognized that singular relationship as the one called marriage, the term marriage was not extended to include other types of relationships.
As such the recent decision changes the very meaning of the word it “re-defines” marriage to mean a relationship that is intrinsically different on many level’s, and yes, Justice Kennedy may argue that there is one commonality between them, love, but it would take a theologian, not a lawyer, to argue that is the defining quality of the term.
And I would note that any theologian would be unsuccessful.
The relationship between Parent and child is loving, is it not?
Is that relationship, which is in many way’s an unbreakable bond termed “marriage”?
It obviously is not.
It’s a loving relationship!
The answer is because love is an important component of marriage, however it is not the only factor involved.
So as Justice Roberts in his brilliantly argued dissent showed, the justices of the majority threw logic and law out the window and simply ruled with what they desired.
The argument that government sanctions marriage purely because of the fact that it is the union that produces future citizen’s is a pretty good one.
The argument that state’s if so “childless’ couples should be illegal is pretty weak intellectually.
As Jews we are all aware of some basic concepts 1) Every rule has an exception 2) We rule based on the overwhelming majority, and regarding the other’s “Lo Plug” we do not differentiate.
The overwhelming majority of traditional marriages are with he intent of producing children, if not immediately eventually. The fact that there are exceptions is irrelevant. “Lo Plug”.
TO bring up the votes for Romney or Obama is a pretty intellectually shallow move.
Romney’s campaign pitch was not “vote for me because I am a Mormon”, in fact he was criticized by some for not contrasting the fact that he was obviously a man of faith vs Obama’s dubious record on the matter.
The entire pitch that Romney made was based on his economic know how and Obama’s ineptitude on the World stage.
Again his faith was tangential at best.
However in the case that was recently decided 5 lawyers decided that a term that was until now reserved exclusively for the unique relationship between a man and a woman will be redefined to put relationships that the Torah, and until several years ago, the entire world understood were in no way the same.
As such this decision directly and with obvious intent seeks to redefine what is considered moral and right in the world we live in.
What should be even more cause for concern is the fact that there are Jewish Justices that were part of the majority decision.
In light of what this decision means there is no way to describe it other then to so state the obvious.
It’s a tragedy, and particularly for us who have to now raise our children in a world that has deemed immorality moral and morality immoral.
The way the question was asked by the OP it was women who are “dedicated” to talmud torah and want to celebrate their own talmud torah not the accomplishments they enabled.
The question of Ratzon Hashem is pretty spot on and it is quite profound however I think the answer cuts deep into our core.
We hold that aman and awoman are really two parts of one whole. We beleive that a marriage is not merely a partnership between one man and one woman.
It is the complete unification of man and woman.
As such the individual accomplishemnts of either of them are attributed to both of them.
This applies especially toa woman.
As in any company in order for success there must be defined roles. A well run company is one in which each person carrys out their role to perfection.
So to a Man and Woman create a family which is a “unit” charged with fulfilling Avodas Hashem. Hashem created each gender differently in order to ensure that biologicaly they are each suited to their roles.
The woman was given the role of being the “bacbone” the support while the man was given the role of action.
Interstingly in Jewish law the one who supports, the enabler is always given more reward then the actual doer and so to by women the Gemorah in Berachos (according to Rashi) states that they actually recieve more reward then men for enabling the learning of thier husbands.
Simchas Torah is not a celebration of Judaisim. It is a Siyum Hatorah. A siyum on the completion of the learnign of the Torah and the begining anew. When the men celebrate that is what hey are celebrating.
They are celebrating the completion of a year of them doing their Jobs.
A woman observing and watching Men celebrate what they have done, in essence watching the celebration of the completion of a task they have enabled.
Whjy would a woman want to be the one dancing and doing the actual completing of the Torah?
If one wants to do the “ratzon hashem then God has made his Ratzon clear by creating Men and Women differntly.
When women “switch” sides so they are the ones celebrating the Torah they are essentially declaring their desire to do that which God has said is not wanted.
It is not Ratzon hashem they are seeking to fulfill. It is Ratzonom that they are seeking to fulfill.
God wants women to be women not men,.
Actually we do have a Mesorah for shul last I checked its pretty famous that Chanah went to daven in the Beis Hamikdash and it continues till the modern era.
Ever toured Europe?
Most off the Chareidi shuls have an Ezras Nashim.
But no the way modern day feminists approach shul with womens tefilla gatherings has no mesorah and most mainstream Rabbonim do not approve of it.
First off the fact soemthing is different then the Mesorah does not automatically diqualify it.
It does mean that you need really, really, really big people who know the entire Torah and have reached the status where they are generally accepted to be Gedolei Yisroel to change it.
In the time when Beis Yackov was started there were many against precisly becuase it was against Mesorah.
Gedolei Yisroel at the time, led by the Chofetz Chaim and the Gerrer Rebbe, approved it as such it was implemented.
I do not see any Gedolei Yisroel of our time approving of this practice.
Once I was at the Simchas Beis HaShoeiva of a major Rav( He is considered one of the major Poskim in the USA) and he spoke about this.
The point of his drosha actually was that Halachically it’s not prohibited but as frum Yidden we have a Mesorah and we follow the Mesorah and there was never such aconcept in Judaisim.
In the Chasam Sofer’s words,
‘Chadash Assur Min HaTorah”.
actually I think that who is the initiator of a no-fault divorce has a alot of bearing in arranging child custody.
You see children are way better off on so many levels and in so many ways growing up in a home with both biological parents.
If a woman initiates the destruction of that home for selfish reasons and in spite of the husbands obvious willingness to work on things and keep things together so theat their children will not have to grow up in two homes and in two worlds.
Well I would think thats the first sign that perhaps the mother is not really the best person to be raising those kids.
I would tend to agree to an extent that if all issues are settled and the husband refuses to give a get simply out of spite or in some deluded attemptto save a marrigae that is over becuase he thinks the marriage is salvagable, then he is wrong.
However if the wife is the one who decided to end the marriage for no valid reason and the custody agreement put forth is not something the husband is happy with, then I really see no reason why he cannot tell the wife.
You want to end the marriage? Fine.
However you cannot force me to give up my right’s to my children. I’ll give a get as soon as there is a custody agreement to my satisfaction.
I don’t think that’s abusive. I think thats dealing with a spouse that has shown a callous disregard for other’s in the only way possible.
I actually think that walking away from a man she dated commited to marrying, built a home and had children with.
Now telling such a man that he is not good enough or she want to try something else is abusive towards hima and the children.
His refusing to give a get is more like a desperate attempt to shield himself from her abuse.
The thing is that in Judaisim the husband is under nop obligation in many of these case’s to give a get and Beis Din does not have the kegal basis to obligate him even if they feel that the “smarter” thing for him is to give one.
If there are children involved?
Then in many cases the “immoral” decision is a person (man or woman) who is trying to break up a home and thereby significantly impacting the children that he or she brought into the world.
If there are no such factors, then I do not know if it is “cruel”, there really are very very rare cases where the husband refuses to give a get simply for “spite”. (I am aware of several cases, none of them were cases where the husband was refusing to give a get simply for “spite”.)
Yes the q is what the husband should do.
However how about looking at it from another perspective.
Instead of asking whether the husband shougive the get, how about asking if the wife has the moral right to ask for the get?
You see in case’s (and there are many of them, sadly) where the wife really has no moral right to be asking for a get, I do not see why the husband is morally obligated to give the get.
I think Lior has some really great points.
In fact personally I’m aware of a pretty famous case where every Dayan involved was fully aware that there was no reason what so ever for her to demand a get.
In fact the Beis Din was in possesion of a letter she wrote right before leaving where she stated unequivically that the man in question was a “great husband”. She just decided she wanted something else in life. The husband then said fine, however he stated that he was not fine with the sutody arrangements and would withhold the get until it was arranged to his satisfaction.
In this case the Dayanim involved all agreed that from a Halachic standpoint there was absolutly no reason that he had to give a get.
Yet demonstrations were held in front of the mans house, and some Dayanim tried to come out with convulted reason swhey he was mechuyov to give the get even though halachically she was wrong!
I think the wider, underlying problem is that we as a society have absorbed a drop to much of the culture around us.
Even in America until recently there was no concept of a “no-fualt” divorce.
If you married and you committed to a relationship. You now had a responsibilty to maintain that relatonship, a responsibilty that was strengthened once children would come into the picture. If you wanted to end it you had to have a good reason to.
You could not just have “divorce on demand” and who cares about what it meant for the person you committed to.
I think the obvious question is that we did what we did not becuase we “interpeted” our religoun to mandate that.
We did it becuase at the very time G-d “personally. told our leader’s to do that. And since3 we were told to do it directly by G-d we did it , even though it went against our personal feeling’s of pity.
This is evidenced by the fact that year’s later Shaul HaMelech did display trait’s of mercy shouwin his personal discomfort with following the directives of SHmuel HaNavi and lost his crown becuase of it.
They (ISIS) do what they do becuase they enjoy killing, they are intrinsic murderer’s so they decide that g-d wants them to do it.
We abhor killing, and kill only when G-d tells us to, not when we decide he wants us to.
Again, why do you keep bringoing up McCain?
Obama last ran against Romney not McCain and Romney know’s more about the economy and how to fix thing’s up in his little finger then Obama will ever know!
To state someone with a chronic medical condition was worse off before Obamacare is a complete lie.
I had a chronic medical condition before Obamacare and still do.
Not only is it chrinic, it’s also extremley rare.
Good, Competent care for those in my condition under Obamacare virtually doesn’t exist per the Docot’s who treat me!
And as I stated before the insurance coverage that I had before Obamacare, the coverage that paid well over a million dollars in just one year ofr my care stopped covering Small busniess as a direct result of Obamacare.
And while my primary care Doctor was covered before Obamacare now he’s not.
But I am paying more.
And the Manhattan hospital where I am treated does not accept any Obamacare plans, period.
Of course I could go back to the Hospital which mis-diagnosed me in almost fatally for thier “care”.
You may know people that have a complex medical issue.
I personally have one.
And thank G-d it broke out before Obamacare had been implemented.
So I got treated by top dr’s who csually admitted that many of the things they did would will not be able to be done in 5 years from now if Obamacare still stands since they were long-shot’s.
Thank G-d they were done and I had the long shot recovery they hoped for.
And the following year the insurance plan that I had (which had shelled out over a million dollars covering my tratment) stopped covering small buisness’s as a direct result of Obamacare and I was forced to joing a different plan.
My new plan does not cover my primary care DR who incidentally saved my life after I had been mis-diagnosed by an ER.
So yes I am quite sad that Obama succeaded.
You see now as long as you don’t get sick and are within the proper age limit’s you can get health care but if r’l someone get’s sick then they have no hope.
Unless you are really wealthy or a connected politician. (Like Obama)
And I think that the economy has proven the Conservative Republican’s correct.
They claimed that the implementation of Liberal economic policies would cause stagnation that in many ways is similar to the Lost Decade of Japan (which implemented many similar economic policies).
And guess what?
We had a six year trial period.
And it caused utter stagnation unless you happen to be very rich, becuase under Obama the rich have been getting very rich.
Actually the real IRS scandal is when the IRS broke the law.
IT is no scandal for political groups to be doing exactly what the law allow’s.
Don’t try and obfusicate.
It’s funny how you go back to McCain.
I think that the results of the last six months have made it clear that we would have been way better off if Romney had won.
And yes Obama was not telling the truth over Benghazi, neither was he telling the truth over the IRS scandal’s.
And the economy remains in utter shambles unless you are pretty wealthy or work for the government.
Actually that proposal give’s credence to those who say that the overall point is to secularize chareidi youth.
If the point was merely to have Chareidim provide service to the country then any half honest observer would admit that Chareidim far and away are successful at that.
Chareidim have started and maintained numerous services that provide support for the entire population.
Ezra L’Marpeh, Bikur Cholim, Hatzolah, Zaka, Va’ad HaRabbonim, Yad Sorah, Exrah l’Marpeh and many more.
The overwhelming majority of these “chesed” orginizations were started by Chareidim and have a large number of chareidi volunteer’s that make them run.
So why not just recognize the important contributions that C hareidim already make?
Why the need to force them to do so under secular authority?
And if the tens of thousands of Chareidim sitting and learning are not at the minimum viewed as playing a supoorting role similar to those reparing the tanks, jets ect…then it’s afundemental disagreement.
As for the part that Chareidim pay no taxes.
That’s impossible there’s an 18% VAT tax in ISreal how can you pay not taxe’s?
Plus 45% of Chareidi men end up working as do the majority of Chareidi women.
Add to that the Tourisim industry in Isreal in which Chareidim play an outsized role. (El-Al’s most profitable route by far is JFK-Tel Aviv ever checked who goes on that flight?)
First of all I argue the point that Shivyon B’Netel is all about the money since a large part of the Chareidi population i.e Brisk, Eidah Hachareidis and Satmer as a whole, which together actually add up to a sizeable number, take no funding from the Medinah.
Yet the Draft Law make’s no exemptions for them.
Those that serve in the military with the intent of protecting Yidden I feel desrve thanks.
And what I feel is largley unimportant since the facts are that many of the same Gedolim that called for the Atzeres Tefilla also have stated that soldiers deserve thanks. I think YWN recently had such an article from Hagaon Rav Gershon Edelstien shlita.
However leaving out the emotions from all of this lets look at it in cold logical way.
Is “Shivyon B’Netel’ about chareidim sharing combat risks?
Well it can’t be since right now virtually all combat positions in the IDF are voluntary. Even if someone is drafted into the army they don’t serve in a combat position unless they volunteer for it.
Those that don’t volunteer serve in positions that are largley out of the line of fire and hardship. Many become “jobniks” of the sort that cost the military more then they gain.
So Shivyon B’Netel is not in any way about everyone in the nation taking an equal share in combat hardships.
However it can be argued that Shivyon B’Netel is because the p’tur of “Torati Umnati” has become a mockery. Hundreds of chareidi youth do not serve nor do they sit and learn rather they roam the streets.
The only problem with that is that many, many of these youth do serve and until the Ateres were encouraged to do so by Maran HaRav Aaron Leib Shteinman shlita, the very one who called for the Atzeres.
So Shivyon B’Netel cannot be about that either.
So what is Shivyon b’Netel about?
Well it can be argued that Shivyon B’Netel is about everyone at least playing a supporting role for the IDF since without support the combat missions can not be successful.
But if that’s the case then we really truly have reached an ideological impasse.
We chareidim believe, in fact our way of life the thinkinking that make’s us “chareidi” is the Mesorah that in fact is layed out in full display with literally thousands of sources in Nefesh HaChaim Shar Daled by Rav Chaim Volozhiner the founder of the modern day yeshiva movement, that the tens of thousands of Lomdei Torah are playing the most important support roles possibe.
We believe that the Yeshivos, and the Kollelim that is unparelled in the entire world and is largley chareidi, is what provide’s the zchusim for the combat missions to be successful.
Without them the military would lose, just as the odds in virtuallye very single all out war have said they should lose.
As such we Chareidim believe that “playing” with the Status Quo agrrements in Isreal is perhaps the single most dangerous thing that can be done.
And at this time when the State of Sireal is truly in Peril when the modern day nation of Haman in Persia raise they’re head, and the Sec of State of a country the State of SIreal has always counted on seem’s to be uniting the seventy wolves against the State.
Well, people would be wise to think twice over who cant teach us how to merit Divine mercy Lapid, Bennet, and co or the Gedolei HaDor Shlita.
Considering the fact that women in Yerushalyim are invited as well as children. I think you are already wrong.
I am sure you have may think that you are of the opinion that the “intent” of the Torah was for us to be happy in life.
However since that is not the understanding of the Pillars of JEwish though (Please see the Mesilas Yeshorim in the Introduction as well as Chovos Halevovos Sha’ar Avodas Elokim) you are simply wrong.
Unless you feel qualified enough to argue with them regarding the purpose of life.