Forum Replies Created
December 10, 2019 9:23 am at 9:23 am in reply to: Should bochurim in mesivta date/go into shidduchim? #1809595
Why are 20 year old buchrim still in Mesivta?
As to them being allowed to date, sure why not? In the non-frum world they date in high-school. Of course, they try to teach them about the consequences of having a child then and how it might impact your life. When you look at the world it does seem that having a child in high school, seriously impacts your ability to form a healthy functioning family on secure financial footing (one of those things you take responsibility for when you write a Kesuba).
Not to get too deep in this, but regarding divorce, regardless of whether Chassidim or Litvish have a higher rate of divorce, such a conclusion ignores many other concerns. Namely, is a lower divorce rate by itself indicative of an overall better situation or not? Perhaps more Chassidim live in dysfunctional homes and due to increased barriers to divorce (financial/social/familial considerations) they can’t make a decision that would be beneficial for the entire family. Also this whole idea of trying to measure one community by another ignores some basic questions such as what is the right thing to do or how to live. Numerically growing or larger or more unified communities do not prove anything, as otherwise you would have to look outside the Jewish world to see how you compare to any number of Christian, Muslim, and other groups.
Is this Halacha? Why not take such a position to Beis Din? You should learn about things like Dina D’Malchusa Dina and Minhag Hamakom, and how they impact the actual rulings Beis Din would give on these things.
I mean just consider the consequences in refusing to do business with women as they need their husband’s permission. That would likely open the merchant to all sorts of legal issues. Would be very strange for any Beis Din to uphold such a strict approach (a strict “Din” approach to disputes is generally not how matters are resolved in Beis Din… and this FYI, is perfectly fine in Halacha).November 17, 2019 11:16 pm at 11:16 pm in reply to: After millions spent on promotion why are 30% of seats unsold? #1801510
Youngerman123 – I based it off what others mention is the cost of renting the place out for concerts and other events. No reason to think it would be more than that.
Gadolhador – They can charge what they want. No complaint with that. Rather I am pointing out that it seems they are commercializing religion here. Whatever, I get it that those who pay more money or have money get feted by various events and whatnot, but I just don’t recall seeing it approaching this level of being in your face. And of course, the choice to go or not is mine. As to having adequate input from Ashkonim or Rabbonim, not going down that rabbit hole. Maybe this is just my opinion, but I think many of these institutions are run opaquely with little transparency or accountability.November 17, 2019 7:57 am at 7:57 am in reply to: After millions spent on promotion why are 30% of seats unsold? #1801291
Follow-up to my prior comment (assuming it gets posted)… this is the direct description from Agudah’s website for the $1,800 section…
“The Amudei HaSiyum club seats offer the ultimate Siyum experience. Enjoy executive-level amenities, including VIP parking, security lanes, and entrances, and access to the exclusive Coaches Club. Stretching more than 18,000 square feet, the fully-heated Coaches Club provides unmatched panoramic views of the program and stage, dozens of video monitors throughout, and exclusive ground-level access. The upscale ambience and exceptional sightlines of the clubs will take your Siyum experience to the next level.
As an Amud HaSiyum, you will receive access to the fully-catered, spacious interior of the Coaches Club with other dignitaries, to elevate The Siyum for yourself and your family. Amudei HaSiyum VIP seats come with easy access to dancing, and are wide and padded, so that you can enjoy The Siyum in comfort at $1,800 per seat.”
I think I can pass on this and elevate myself other ways.November 17, 2019 7:55 am at 7:55 am in reply to: After millions spent on promotion why are 30% of seats unsold? #1801290
Renting Met Life probably costs about 1.5 Million. Even if they spend another million on this event that is 2.5 million. If they have 85,000 seats, they can sell them at $35 a seat to cover the cost no problem. If they are getting on average $50 a seat they have an extra 1.7 million after the above costs. So even if costs were 2 million in addition to the rental there is little to no financial reason (in terms of the siyum itself) to charge these rates. It is obvious this has become a gigantic fund-raiser for Agudah. Not against supporting Agudah but perhaps attempting to guilt Yidden into attended a siyum, which instead of being a “siyum” has now become the next commercialized thing (a la Oorah’s chinese auction), not surprising to see people a little hesitant to shell out the money to be part of it. At least Oorah convinces you, you can win prizes and you get a stupid DVD. Here you have to listen to speeches about how great it is for Klal Yisroel to join together, while thinking in the back of your mind, “well perhaps make it more inclusive and do your fund-raising elsewhere.” Definitely promoting the private boxes and the special level of access you get if you pay excessive amounts for seats is a turn-off as well. Klal Yisroel’s siym has inevitably clearly become just another commercial event where you pay to play. Yeah, I know in the past you also had more expensive seats, but somehow I don’t recall them being promoted like they are now.
Next, Yeshiva dinners will have special cordoned off sections with better food for those who pay more. The Yeshiva’s will still reach out to their alumni begging you to join just to show your support.
Before you think my issue is envy, it is not. I have no problem paying for nice seats, rather it is simply a distaste for the commercialization of religion.
R’ Eliezer, your position is quite interesting since apparently numerous chosuva Rabbonim in practice do not act as you suggest. All you need to do is look at a site like this one “agudathisrael.org /agudath-israel-federal-advocacy” to get an idea of what happens when respectable jews meet those in authority. When you get down to it, it seems that wearing hats when meeting Presidents or people equivalent to a melech the only ones that consistently wear hats are Lubabvitch and Chasidic Rabbis.
Sam, the Torah writes that but what does that mean? If you desire to do a mitzvah, should you not run after that? Perhaps you need to expound on your newfound issur d’oraisa of going to restaurants. I think in pashut it is pretty clear that such an admonishment is primarily referring to things that are assur. Perhaps you can learn from it a general approach to life to not chase after various desires and temptations but to suggest that running to a restaurant to have a juicy steak is an issur d’oraisa may be a bit of a stretch.
It should also be noted that in the chassidic world there are tremendous problems related to getting married at young ages. There are numerous cases and it is growing each year of boys or girls deciding after they are married they are not feeling the religion and it creates tremendous problems. There are many divorces related to this and many more families where people remain married but in these messed up relationships. You have a whole generation of kids growing up exposed to every sort of filth on the internet. Even chassidic yeshivos that tried banning the internet in the home instead off the record only push that the parents watch tv and movies in the car or in the office, but not in the home where the kids sees it. Frankly, in todays messed up environment where so many are not honest or sure where they are at when at aged 20, pushing people to get married at a young age is just a growing recipe for disaster.September 16, 2019 11:07 am at 11:07 am in reply to: Eida Charedis Against Participating in Knesses Elections #1786916
FYI, the Satmar Rebbe calls zionism avoda zarah… Which raises an interesting issue that how can anyone who claims to follow the satmar rebbe reside in Eretz Yisroel or even visit there.
The obvious conclusion is all these followers of the satmar rebbe are foolish folks who lack consistency in any sort of dedication to Judaism and should not be taken seriously as bearers of authentic jewish tradition.September 16, 2019 11:07 am at 11:07 am in reply to: Eida Charedis Against Participating in Knesses Elections #1786915
What is simple, is that post the holocaust, many had the realization that such a klap from Hashem must mean something was wrong… Perhaps it caused some to reevaluate some of these positions. Others, like the Satmar Rebbe (yes, we know he is the greatest ohev yisroel ever as well) decided to hunker down in their past opinions. Sadly today, we see the failure of the Satmar system, which in NY is the primary driver of the tremendous anti-yeshiva movement of the NYS Education Department. Sticking with a worldview that holds back their followers from being productive members of society, and instead being some of the largest takers of welfare, against the dictates of chazal, has clearly led to a full scale attack on all Yeshivos, even those that do meet their obligations to provide the necessary skills in this day and age for their students to go on and get jobs if they choose.
Encourage more girls to wait till they are 22-24 to get married. That will also solve the shidduch crisis. And girls can do that without making boys change. Boys have an obligation to support their family. How is a 19/20 year old girl able to take on that commitment before she has finished schooling. Further, things like automatic tuition breaks for kollel families is equivalent to support via tzedaka which goes against the dictates of chazal. Better to collect garbage than to take charity. So, going into life with the opinion that you will suffice with jobs that cannot provide for a family, just does not seem right to me.September 16, 2019 11:03 am at 11:03 am in reply to: Eida Charedis Against Participating in Knesses Elections #1786914
Is living off public support in accord with the torah? Since when did convincing masses to avoid working and instead spend all day learning, become something that is supported in the Torah? If you want to quote Gadol A or B who supports this, then how are you different than a Reform who quotes their Gadol A or B who supports radical innovations to the traditions we have from Chazal?September 16, 2019 11:03 am at 11:03 am in reply to: Eida Charedis Against Participating in Knesses Elections #1786913
More like the charedim like akuperma (not everyone charedi is opposed to listening to chazal and learning a livelihood… funny that those who don’t follow the dictates of chazal are called charedi…) are afraid that if they do participate in voting people will even have less tolerance for the derelict of civic duties.December 20, 2018 2:52 am at 2:52 am in reply to: Is the MO community concerned with SED? Why the silence? #1648335
They probably spoke with their lawyers and realized they have little to be scared about.
1. They may be offering already additional time then the right-wing Yeshiva’s do for secular education. So they might be meeting the requirements as is, and even if not, the amount off would likely not be much.
2. Their academic performance levels by all measures (regents, SAT scores, acceptance to college, etc) often place them in the top schools in the State
3. Very few students after graduating ever have to apply for welfare and they are overall self-sufficient.
Taken together, the State would have a very difficult time arguing with them how to educate. Freedom of religion does apply and if the State can’t point to any reason, other then an arbitrary set of guidelines, then the State will likely lose in court if they tried forcing them to do much.
Contrast this to the right-wing Yeshiva’s (especially the few that don’t teach any secular education… the Satmar Rebbe in a recent address, openly said this about his schools).
1. Secular studies is limited to 4 days a week, for 90 minutes to a few hours (depending on the specific school and assuming they actually teach secular studies).
2. Due to lack of secular education, some of the more extreme schools have no academic performance levels to assess them by or they are minimally relevant (e.g. is everyone taking regents, what about the kids who don’t show up to secular studies?)
3. With numerous students in Kollel, even from schools that academics are decent, they still rely heavily on social welfare and many are not self-sufficient. From schools with no secular studies, the amount of people on social welfare are seemingly from the highest levels out there (look at data for New Square, Kiryas Joel, and Yiddish Williamsburg).
On point 3 alone, which is kind of a big deal, the State can justify that since outcomes are not good they have a right to regulate. So Yeshiva’s have much greater reason to be concerned.
Some might argue that the reasons for social welfare are larger families, etc. It really does not matter the reason. Consider a thought exercise. If everyone in the country did exactly what these Yeshiva’s do, then the rate of people on welfare in this country would shoot up and very likely create an unsustainable situation. Hence, even if this is relatively a small part of the overall population it is not a good outcome. I am sure a smart person here could argue my analysis is wrong. It really does not matter. The burden of showing that Yeshiva’s produce good outcomes, is going to rest much heavier on the Yeshivas then on the State. So unless you have very clear and powerful arguments to bring to a judge, the State will very likely be found to have a clear right to regulate. As to the specifics of how to regulate, that might be up for debate.December 13, 2018 4:13 pm at 4:13 pm in reply to: Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah Fighting NY Department of Education #1644289
It gets very tiresome to have to respond to incorrect information and mischaracterizations of what I say…
1. Joseph wrote a long post regarding earning $93,000 based on NY’s SNAP guidelines. The data I uses is based off of Census data, which shows that the communities mentioned earn less then national standards. False information will not help you in court. As an aside, my point about the poverty level and reliance on social programs, is that it lets the State make a claim in court that the school is creating students that are a burden to society, hence the State has the right to burden religion in imposing its standards. This means the Yeshiva will be on the defensive to show that they should not be regulated strongly, that is all. It is significant as it changes the position you find yourself in court.
2. Joseph says the parent’s are best suited to determine the education of a child – I am not disputing this, rather following the logic of cases such as Yoder, and subsequent cases, where it is well established the State has certain rights to demand a child is given an education that it sees fit. Obviously, as in all things, the State’s right is not carte blanche, and there are limiting factors. This has all been expressed here already. Again you yelling that parent’s have rights, will not win you in court.
3. Joseph and DaasYochid makes certain claims about what the new regulations require such as 7 hours a day. First of all, it is not clear exactly what the requirement is. Second, it is not clear what will actually be enforced. Third, and this I absolutely agree with, if the State actually mandated 7 hours of secular study a day, I think the regulation would not be found to be legal. This is why I stated I would think the State will not start up much with Schools that perform well.
4. Joseph makes a comment about R’ Reissman and achdus. It is very clear that the driving factor is what he sees as difficult rules coming to Yeshivas that already provide a good secular education. He sees that as evidence of an agenda against Yeshivas. He basically implies that if they just went after the schools that don’t teach english he would not care. This is why I believe that the second the State clarifies that they will not make changes in schools that provide a good education, assuming Torah Vadaath meets that criteria, you will find this achdus falling apart very quick. It is one thing to have achdus against a perceived attack on Yeshiva education, another to have achdus to support Yeshivas that don’t follow the Torah and provide the necessary education for today’s jobs. One other point, the State likely has to go after all private education, as otherwise it would be accused of being discriminatory and it would be prevented from regulating, so I am not sure there is antisemitism at play here, just perhaps a reflection of the legal reality of engaging in regulation.
5. Joseph then makes some arguments about families with one parent working. Again this does not change the data as to income levels and social welfare reliance. The reasons will not matter much, simply the fact that there is lack of self-sufficiency will be enough for the State to meet its burden. Yeshivas will have near impossible standards of proof to argue that this outcome is not due to Yeshiva education (the State does not need to prove it is due to Yeshiva education, just that the outcome exists).
6. DaasYochid, makes arguments about the reason for impoverishment that if not due to lack of education it makes no sense to address by changing educational standards. This argument is flawed and will not hold up in court. Simply put, it makes a claim that is impossible to prove. You can’t prove that the impoverishment is not due to educational standards unless you first improve those standards and show that the result is not better. This is why the focus on outcomes is pretty much all that will matter and not the reason for them. The Amish, were self-sufficient and rejected social welfare, hence the State could not show any problems with the outcome that mattered to society. Yeshivas will not be in that position as the outcomes are not so good in many cases.
7. Joseph mentions about the Diocese and their protest of the standards. See point 3. If the State clarifies it requirements and schools that have good outcomes are convinced they won’t be negatively affected it will be all the schools that don’t provide a decent education on their own, and they will lose.
8. Mammele, who says she does not agree with me, actually does agree with me, as the points she makes are essentially the same one’s I make. (A) the 7 hour requirement will not hold up, (B) the State has the right to burden religion, but it has to limit itself to where it has a vested interest, hence teaching subjects that are not appropriate for Yeshiva students, if the Yeshiva can convince a judge that this subject is not critical, will be an area the State has to make reasonable accommodation for religion, (C) the Achdus is only due to the uncertainty about the regulations, the moment the State clarifies and only imposes reasonable standards, all the schools that meet the standards will leave the rest on their own.
I will refrain from posting further in this thread, as I am less then impressed with the arguments placed forth by some of those here. A decent amount of time spent reading and understanding legal decisions will go a long way to helping you understand the position the Yeshivas are in. Court is not 1rst seder, where you can engage in endless arguments. You can also be convinced you are right from today till tomorrow, but that will not help you in court. You need to meet the legal standards which is a very different standard then what your intuition tells you the result should be.December 13, 2018 8:03 am at 8:03 am in reply to: Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah Fighting NY Department of Education #1643722
“They teach their kids how to make a parnassah. They don’t have college degrees perhaps, but they do very well in business.
It’s also not the government’s business how we follow the Talmud.
The average income is higher than that of public school attendees, so your points fall flat.”
Kiryas Joel and New Square as two area easy to see the income levels, are far below national standards. The State will look at this on a school by school basis, and some schools in fact will likely do very well (RAMAZ comes to mind), others not so well. Also if you claim that overall the incomes are much higher then national averages, let’s see the tax returns that show this. While the Jewish population in the US as a whole fares very well economically, that is strongly based on income of people who do not go to the schools with the big educational issues.
My point about the Talmud should be elaborated on. It is not the State’s job to ensure we follow the Torah, but from our tradition, if we don’t follow the Torah, Hashem sends agents to get us on the right track. Hopefully the people who perpetuate the system of not sufficiently educating our children, will do Tsheuva and ensure they follow the Torah going forward. In this Zechus we should merit not having to suffer worse Tsaris.December 13, 2018 7:59 am at 7:59 am in reply to: Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah Fighting NY Department of Education #1643717
“That doesn’t make sense if the reason for the poverty level isn’t related to education.”
It is not so difficult. If the State can show that students of a Yeshiva are not self-sufficient and rely on social programs, the Yeshiva will not be able to make a strong case based on Yoder. The State does not need to show why they are impoverished, just that a disproportionate are. The burden of arguing that they should not be regulated will fall on the Yeshiva as a result.
FYI, if a school were to argue that they teach their students to avoid gainful employment and instead to rely on social welfare, the State may decide they have the right to shut-down such a school. So if in theory you were to argue that we teach a belief that the students should go learn, which will result in being funded via social programs, nevermind the chillul hashem such an argument would cause, it would be tossed out of court so fast.December 13, 2018 1:51 am at 1:51 am in reply to: Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah Fighting NY Department of Education #1643613
Joseph – In a prior comment you already engaged in nonsensical arguments that were clearly wrong, so I question the wisdom in responding to your nonsense. I will offer a few brief responses to your irrelevant points.
1. The Yoder case establishes very clearly that the State has a right to insist on minimum educational standards. That is what the discussion here is. In the Yoder decision due to the circumstances there, which don’t align with many of the Yeshivas, the State was limited as to what they can insist. Your comment about inalienable rights is simply rhetoric that does not address the specifics here. Further, cases subsequent to Yoder have lent credence to the idea that the child has rights as well that may supersede the parents rights to determine how they are educated. It is the child’s life after all that is at stake here.
2. The statistic I focused on was families living beneath the poverty line, which Lakewood, Williamsburg, New Square, and Kiryas Joel are above or far above the national averages. Impoverished families generally get social programs. That is enough for the State to argue that they have a vested interest in regulating the schools. Your point about larger families, etc, will not change this fundamental conclusion that there is a lack of self-sufficiency.
3. Your statistics about how some schools outperform is very nice. I think I mentioned this already that the State will address each school one by one. The rules will apply to all private schools, but if a school performs well, most likely there will be no significant changes required. On the other hand, the Yeshivas that underperform (e.g. especially the schools that don’t teach secular studies or teach very little) can expect to have to make big changes.
One last point. The concern expressed as to the regulations by many of the schools that perform well, likely is primarily due to their concern that the State may attempt to implement many hours of secular instruction. If the State can clarify the rules/standards so that the Yeshivas that provide an adequate education feel comfortable that they are not affected by this, then you would see very quickly that Satmar and few others would be out there on their own. The position of those that do not provide an adequate secular education is not something that a lot of the Rabbonim expressing concern here, actually support.
In any case, you will respond with irrelevant information that does not help the case you are making. When I look at legal cases in general, you see the losing side often clueless to the factors that made them lose. Instead they focus on various points that are external to the decision. All your points (assuming they are even valid, which I question based on your prior ignorant comments) are of minimal import to this issue and just won’t help.
Anyway, its been real. I will not bother with further comments beyond this. The issues are clear to many of us, and we should focus on the legitimate issues, such as what the standards actually require and if they are appropriate or not. For schools that don’t educate, as they go against the Talmud’s dictate to teach your child a parnassah, it is hard to see why I should be opposed to the State stepping in and doing the parent’s job. So long as the State does not use this to make unnecessary requirements that undermine our ability to practice and teach religion, it is hard to see what the big deal is.December 12, 2018 8:43 pm at 8:43 pm in reply to: Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah Fighting NY Department of Education #1643508
Five Towns Yid – Towns like Kiryas Joel and New Square have some of the highest number of people living below the poverty line. Also Yiddish speaking Williamsburg has a very high incidence of Section 8 voucher applications. You can point to your example of someone making 200k+ a year and getting child health plus, but that is ignoring the large population that makes very little and is eligible for all sorts of social programs.
Even if you take the Yeshivas that teach secular education, you will likely find an inordinate amount of graduates who are in Kollel on social welfare. So from a social welfare standpoint the State will likely have a pretty easy time showing they have a right to insist on minimal standards. Lakewood, has an increasing poverty rate (up about 6% over the period from 2000 to 2010, when the population grew 60,000 to 92,000) and they are also far above the national poverty rate.
There are the numbers based off census and tax return data. I think the State will not have much difficulty arguing that Yeshiva education, for many Yeshivas, does not lead to self-sufficiency, hence they have a very strong vested interest in improving the education standards. The State would also argue the parents do not have a right to decide that their kids should get a sub-par education and not be self-sufficient, as that violates the kids rights.December 11, 2018 4:11 pm at 4:11 pm in reply to: Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah Fighting NY Department of Education #1641864
Joseph – Your first response to me was that the Yoder case does not mention the rejection of reliance on social services, which I provided direct quotes from the case to show that it factored into the decision (nevermind it is mentioned in 2 out of 4 points in the header). Now you start to argue that the weight this has in the decision. Unlike you, I do not have time to engage in discussions where the goalposts are moving. You obviously in your first comment, said something clearly very wrong. Your follow-up comment is also very wrong. You are welcome to find the decision in its entirety and to read it. I won’t be bothering to debate this with you.
If you were in court and these were your arguments, you would likely be engaging in frivolous litigation. What you are saying is simply nonsense.
Your other claims are nonsense as well. But as you will simply ignore inconvenient facts and change the arguments as you go along, there really is no point in debating you, unless someone is interested in endlessly showing how each argument you make is flawed.December 11, 2018 7:56 am at 7:56 am in reply to: Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah Fighting NY Department of Education #1641342
Joseph – The full text of the case is easily found.
In the Syllabus of the court makes 4 points. Both point 3 and 4 refer to their non-reliance on social welfare.
From Point 3:
“long history as a successful and self-sufficient segment of American society”
From Point 4:
“for the Amish have introduced convincing evidence that accommodating their religious objections by forgoing one or two additional years of compulsory education will not impair the physical or mental health of the child, or result in an inability to be self-supporting or to discharge the duties and responsibilities of citizenship, or in any other way materially detract from the welfare of society.”
In the detailed decision there are numerous references to the sufficiency of their education, but here is one quote where rejection of public welfare is clearly noted:
“The State attacks respondents’ position as one fostering “ignorance” from which the child must be protected by the State. No one can question the State’s duty to protect children from ignorance, but this argument does not square with the facts disclosed in the record. Whatever their idiosyncrasies as seen by the majority, this record strongly shows that the Amish community has been a highly successful social unit within our society, even if apart from the conventional “mainstream.” Its members are productive and very law-abiding members of society; they reject public welfare in any of its usual modern forms. The Congress itself recognized their self-sufficiency by authorizing exemption of such groups as the Amish from the obligation to pay social security taxes.”
Finally, not going to bother with the quotes here, the Amish get 1-8 education, it was the couple of years of secondary education that was the issue. Many of the Chassidic Yeshivas don’t even have a sufficient secular education at the elementary school level. Regardless, the issue of social welfare will very likely be one that the State can use to claim that they do not need to allow a religious based exemption from secular education. The Yeshivas that do put out many students who rely on social welfare, will very likely find that the Yoder case does not help them much.December 11, 2018 2:06 am at 2:06 am in reply to: Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah Fighting NY Department of Education #1641304
If anyone suggested using Yoder V Wisconsin as precedent, I would suggest to think very strongly about it. I don’t think the Satmar or many of the Chassidic Yeshivas would win using such arguments. One of the key points in that case was that the Amish refused social programs and engaged in further vocational training, which resulted in them not being a social burden. Towns like Kiryas Joel and New Square as 2 notable examples of the products of the Satmar and New Square schools, are both heavily dependent on social programs.
As to the non-Chassidic schools, if the State can show a relatively high dependency on social programs (which may be a real issue due to the numerous number of people in Kollel) they may also find that the religious opposition to secular education won’t fly. Once the burden on social programs is significant, the State will claim they have a vested interest, which allows them to burden religious practice.
One other point… For all those supporting the Trump/Conservative bandwagon, just remember that the conservative justices are more likely to take a dim view to relying on social programs. I would actually suspect on this issue, you would find both the liberal and conservative justices finding for the State and against the Yeshivas.
1. You say that to risk one 1 life we can’t help or save 1,000. Interesting equivalence.
2. You call these people horrible things. Do you have any statistics for what percent of people who are apparently traveling with their children across the border actually commit the crimes you allege, or are you just repeating fake news.
Joseph – Are you advocating that when parents are arrested for the various crimes you listed (never-mind any consideration as to equivalence) their children should also be locked up separately from them. Or perhaps as a US Citizen you have the luxury that if your commit a crime, (1) if you are not a threat you will get sent home pretty quickly once posting bail and (2) your children can remain home with the other spouse or family members. Your attempts to conflate an immigration violation (which often can be due to trying to escape violence or lack of ability to find work) with the type of crimes that US Citizens typically get arrested and convicted for is just stupid.June 10, 2018 8:10 am at 8:10 am in reply to: Enforcement of gittin in civil court custody cases in New York #1536485
Regarding the Christianity vs Muslim upbringing of a child, I don’t think the case referenced here addresses such an issue directly (but it does give some indications where courts are moving on such issues). This case, was whether an arbitration panel could make the parent’s religious lifestyle a single factor that decides custody, which was determined to be a violation of here constitutional rights. No one seems to be suggesting that the emotional harm from such a lifestyle choice should not be considered, but that is not the same as determining it alone based on the parent’s religious observance (i.e. Which is not considering the emotional harm in light of the overall other factors. For example, perhaps it is healthier emotionally for the child to remain with the mother despite her mother’s lack of religion as opposed to being in a religious environment away from the mother… by removing the religious observance of the mother as the primary factor, you now can consider the overall situation). The issue with the specific upbringing of the children is more complex as we are moving beyond the personal life of the parent but to things directly impacting the children. In any case I would expect to see courts move away from specific religious upbringing requirements as they all place the court in a very difficult position of requiring something that the court is essentially supposed to be blind to.June 3, 2018 12:04 am at 12:04 am in reply to: Enforcement of gittin in civil court custody cases in New York #1531274
The little I know:
Courts respecting such agreements is not freedom of religion, but rather courts enforcing religion. It is problematic to have the courts enforce any religious requirement. FYI, in all contracts there can be provisions that courts for various legal reasons will not enforce, why should a provision as to religious observance be special and be respected when the law does not seem to want the government to be involved in such matters. As much as this is a contract between 2 people (is this a contract or an arbitration ruling?), it is a contract as to a matter that has little to no place in a secular court.
Also it should be clarified, that usually these contracts are the result of arbitration (i.e. the Get process). As far as I am aware, arbitration awards have to follow legal principles to be upheld by a court (i.e. arbitration cannot order something that a court cannot order), so any lifestyle requirement that exceeds what a secular court would or could order should not be upheld in court.
I think that a good part of the reason in the past such requirements were upheld was under the argument that it was damaging to the children to change the lifestyle (and not that it is a violation of halacha). However, what it seems is that the court is not willing to make such a consideration a primary factor, but rather a lesser factor in considering the overall situation (e.g. maybe it is more emotionally damaging to take away the child from the mother regardless of the religious issue, so why give precedence to the religious issue? Truth is I did not read the case, so not 100% sure on all this, so a bit surmising here.
I believe so long as they have a police escort they can use their lights and sirens and run lights. On the other hand without such an escort I think they are violating the law. When, say, the pope is in the US he gets a major escort, but then technically he is a head of state and he has millions of followers. Point is that escorts are not out of the norm for important leaders. But they should be done to comply with the law as to minimize any chillul hashem or racism that results (i.e. if you follow the law, you are more likely to get support from political leaders and others when people criticize your behavior, which hopefully minimize any negative fallout).June 1, 2018 1:26 pm at 1:26 pm in reply to: Enforcement of gittin in civil court custody cases in New York #1531063
Like it or not, the ruling makes sense. It does in effect make any Beis Din effort that tries to tie religious observance to terms of a Get useless, as a person can simply lie in the arbitration about it and there is no enforcement option afterwards. From a secular standpoint it makes no sense that a person should lose custody of their children because their beliefs changed. Consider an alternative, should courts be allowed to remove children from families that become more religious, on the specious basis that this is somehow harmful to children. If we don’t recognize that changing religious standards is harmful to children (seems like the whole Baal Teshuva movement, which much of the Orthodox community long supports, does not believe that changing religious standards causes major harm; somehow when it comes to divorce this concept suddenly matters), then the provisions to live a certain religious lifestyle simply boil down to, you can have custody if you believe in God “X”, which is clearly something the courts cannot be involved in and should have no legal standing in a US court.
1. You cannot prove God exists. Philosophy has well established this and all the arguments to the contrary are meant for those who do not understand why the arguments all fail.
2. Anyone trying to show from Archaeology that there is evidence for the biblical accounts is generally limiting themselves to interpretations of the material given by a handful of “biblical archaeologists.” The majority of the time the claims made by these are based on ignoring the problematic evidence or are based on too little evidence. To understand what I am saying, go to Aish.com and find articles on Archaeology and then go do a web search for that same item and see if when all the evidence is added up it makes sense to conclude the way that Aish presents it. I have found it does not.
3. The OP asked for help in approaching Yom Kippur from a standpoint of struggling with belief. He specifically asked not to get into proofs for and against religion as there are plenty of other threads here and in other places that have debated this issue a lot. If you want to be helpful, give him so inspiration to help get through Yom Kippur.