Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DY
“You would not want to compromise your or your family’s safety”
I dont want to compromise anyones safty. This whole discussion is contingent on the refugees undergoing a vigorous vetting process.
joseph
“and we don’t trust the government agencies’ claims that it is not a major security concern.”
allthouh DY made that above stament, I assume you agree. didnt you say on the Iran deal thread that I cant argue with “those in the know” If they say its safe who are you to argue?
As for my guest bedroom. a) There are shelters available (and we have them and fund them for a reason) so your question is silly. b) hypotheticly, if there were none if he underwent a fraction of the vetting process they have to undergo, I’d consider taking him.
Btw teyereh ziseh Jospeh
I cant help but notice that as per your MO you STILL havent answered my question regarding children
bottom line I agree if there is a safety concern they shouldnt be allowed (I never said otherwise).
I am saying two things
1) Our attitude should be one of trying to help “getting to yes”, comng up with a way to make the vetting process safer. If it still isnt rigorous enough, then make it stricter. Still not safe? Make it stricter etc etc Saying there is no way case closed is unacceptable.
2) We should have an atttude of compassion and feel bad for those we cant help, whether after the above the vetting process is still not enough or the reailty that we cant take all. And realize that we were in the same boat as the (mostly innocent)refugees. ALL the excuses you and others are making where made then. Granted perhaps your excuses carry a little more weight than theirs. But they had all your moshols or your risks just directed against us.
Joseph
Yes and Yes
DY
No but I would favor building more. Wouldnt you?
Though I dont follow. did anyone suggest putting the refugees in your house?
Syag
“maybe all the other countries should be combining their efforts …”
They should!
Joseph
what are you talking about? No but i do think we should have homeless shelters for them and I support some of those shelters by way of taxes.
dont you agree?
Israel is different because it is a “jewish state” so there is a demographic issue.
syag
Why is that the refugees fault?
syag
I get your first paragraph.
Im lost on the second one. Are you saying becasue Arab countries are selfish we can be too? I dont follow. Yes Many Arab countries are doing a terrible thing by not taking intheir own cousins, how does that absolve us.
“I don’t remember the Jews ever being in such a situation.”
We were in the 30’s (minus the ties to terror part, but dont worry they had their excuses) Many said we should go to our cousins in Palestine. Of course much like the Arab countries today, the rulers of palestine didnt let us in. So that like your suggestion today wasnt a real option
Syag
i assumed “That” reffered to the situation ie condeming thousands upon thosands to people to death becasue of the (valid) concern that a small minority of them are terrorists.
The reason being that “I don’t think anyone believes that all the security will ever be in place” which even if true (though all anti-terror agencies disagree with your assesment)is a horrible horrible situation that you should have a very big problem with.
I’m sorry if you were reffering to something else
This op ed of yours was accepted
SDD
Its not worth arguing over, since I clearly misunderstood what you meant.
entitled means (one definition) they have a “JUST CLAIM” to do something. Just claim means it is correct. In your OP you said these questions are not correct.
Thats all.
As you explained you did not mean “entitled” in the sense that it is a correct action but rather that they have the right to.
That is fair. I am not arguing, I misunderstood.
For example is someone “entitled” to speak lashan hara?
No in the sense that as a yid it is not allowable nor just. but yes in the sense that it is not illegal so he has a legal right to.
flatbusher
“Despite the Administraton’s claim that it’s orphans and widows coming, at least two-thirds are able-bodied men,”
we get to decide who we let in.
SCD
“The terror threat could easily be avoided by doing the same thing they did with the Japanese in WWII”
Are you serious? that is one of the most vile times of our history. That is usually used as an exmple of what not to do
Syag
“I’m hoping you heard the rest of it, which I believe is pretty important. it is that getting to yes will probably never actually reach yes because I don’t think anyone believes that all the security will ever be in place.”
So lets strive towards it!
“I don’t think anyone believes that all the security will ever be in place.”
THe FBI, CIA, and department of homeland security feel otherwise
” And I have no problem with that.”
That is cruel. Which is what I was reffering to when responding to OP. Its one thing to feel bad for the suffering mostly innocent people becasue there is no choice. But to not have a problem with their suffering is cruelty and is why the st. Louis was sent back in 39.
DY
I missed it because almost all those statments are in the ou’s statement!
“The heinous attacks in Paris this week demonstrate that ISIS, and other similar militant Islamic terrorist groups, have both the desire and means to strike terror in the capitals of the Western world. Clearly, this must impact the manner in which the United States considers the acceptance of refugees from Syria and other war-torn countries in the Middle East. … security concerns are real and serious. We cannot be naive in our assessment of the determination of terrorists to exploit the refugee crisis. And we should limit immigration to those individuals who share our American ideals and aspirations…
Thus, we encourage a sensible process of reviewing and enhancing security. … While security concerns must be paramount, …Congress and the Executive Branch should review the screening program for refugees and strengthen it as appropriate. … America has both the creativity and compassion to successfully address the competing considerations and we urge our political leaders to work toward achieving this delicate balance.”
After rereviewing This line “America has both the creativity and compassion to successfully address the competing considerations” is the one you seem to disagree with (Though I guess it is creativty that you beleive we lack not compassion). Thanks for replying.
I reposted just the staments tho that effect.
Are yu saying you only agree with those statments, not the rest?
My question was which part you DISAGREE with? if any
Syag
“i agree with it because it states what i was saying, that we can be sensitive to the plight of refugees, but we cannot become idealistic and agenda-istic and ignore the fact that there may be some very dangerous people among them. sure we should be “getting to yes”…”
Great! i love when we agree. It is an issue of attitute. and the attitude many in our community and in the political realm (eg Trump, christie) have is one of xenophobia, which should have no place in the discussion. And we of all people should be very careful.
yehudayona
none refute the presence of gangsters among Jewish refugees. Though i am not saying there WERE gangsters, just that that could have been used as an excuse to send them back to their deaths.
“The argument against the Jewish refugees wasn’t that they were criminals, it was that they were communists,”
The argument could have been anything! It was wrong. and is prominently exhibited as an example of the world in general and the Us in particular ignoring our people’s suffering.
DY
“which part? Already posted.”
i’m sorry, mind pointing it out please. (do you mean the comparison Jewish refugees?)
Joseph
care to reply to any of my questions?
You often claim you do…
CA
I was confused by your post at first. i understood your first line “Comparing refugees that aren’t known killers with refugees that are known killers is wrong!” As supporting the refugees since after all we shouldnt compare most of those refugees who “aren’t known killers” with the few that are.
“being Jewish wasn’t associated with being in the mafia today being Muslim is being associated with being a terrorist”
Of course it was. People in the 30’s didnt (always) say we are a bunch of xenophobes and antisemites and dont want to take Jews even children on our shores. They had all sorts of excuses including mafia, communism, nazi spies etc etc.
Bottom line Here is the OU stament again:
“”The heinous attacks in Paris this week demonstrate that ISIS, and other similar militant Islamic terrorist groups, have both the desire and means to strike terror in the capitals of the Western world. Clearly, this must impact the manner in which the United States considers the acceptance of refugees from Syria and other war-torn countries in the Middle East. While most of those refugees are innocent bystanders whose lives have been wrecked by ISIS and similar groups, security concerns are real and serious. We cannot be naive in our assessment of the determination of terrorists to exploit the refugee crisis. And we should limit immigration to those individuals who share our American ideals and aspirations.
does anybody here disagree with it? whihc part?
DY
Yes! though partly
My next question is if you support a way of SAFELY letting in refugees
Thats all Im saying. None of us are actually making policy (sorry if you thought otherwise)
Syag
“but that still has nothing to do with the issue at hand.”
My issue is attitude
“you cannot confuse attitude with action here. feeling a strong desire to allow innocent syrians in because we were in the same situation cannot blind you to opening the door without discretion.
i have NO idea what the right thing is to do, but you appear to be discussing attitude with people who are discussing action.”
Lol the state department doesnt check the coffee room for policy ideas.
See the OU stament above.
Joseph
“What do gangsters in America have to do with European Jews”
Many of those gangsters where once European Jews themselves.
Can you garantee that none of the St. Louis refugees were going to join the Jewish Mob? (odds are some would have given the hardship at finding a job and the extensive network of Jewish crime existing at the time)
Can you garantee there were no Nazi spies hidden on the boat?
Can you garantee none were communists?
More to the point. Was there a way for the US to gaurantee that at the time?
Speaking of disengenuity care to address my main point:
Can we agree on the OU statment above. ITs not concrete its kind of vague and obviously meaningless but at least as an attitute.
If not. which part do you object to?
Syag
Just because you can point to one child who grew up to do bad things doesnt mean we should ban all children.
I can point to several jews who grew up to do bad things. IT would be wrong to ban all Jews becasue of that.
More to my point. In the 30’s those who banned my ancestors from arriving and left them to their deaths could have said let in “JEwish children like Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel etc “
What would you have told them?
I would ahve said YES! and I hold them accontable for turning back the st/ Louis, and today many are doing the same.
If you say The US was right to tur away Jews then because of those “non-innocent bystanters” Then I disagree but at least you are being consitent
“secondly – if you can keep paralleling jews in the 30s to terrorists who come in already part of a multi-million-dollar in-place plot with advanced training and networking behind them then I will bow out.”
I am not at all. chas Veshalom!
I am comparing the innocent Jews then to the innocent Muslims today. and if you say there are no innocent muslims today then join Trump in his forming a muslim database. MAybe we can have all Muslims wear a Yellow (or green?) cresecent.
BTW
i’m sorry if I’m not being clear. I’m not saying we should let them all (or even any) in. I am just talking about attitude we should have having been in a similar (though not the same by any means) boat a few decades ago
Syag
“by children do you mean, like, cute little innocent ten year olds? You know, like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was when he came? “
Yes. Muchj Like not all JEws should have be banned banned because of ALfred Rosenberg, MEyer lansky Bugsy Seigel, Micky choen, Arnold Rothstein, dutch Shultz
“Ubiquitin, is it feasible to take in the children without their parents?”
Yes!!! that is how my wife is here today her grandmother was sent off on her own and the English at the time wwere more compassionate than some people today.
jospeh
There were gangsters in America. The Americans were the ones banning. Their were nazis in Europe. there was no way to make sure that there was no nazi spy on the St. Louis.
“And the less than handful that might have been around did what, pickpockets? “
um no. Halevai
America had an aversion to communism violence or not. And I have news for you even among those sympathetic to islmaic extremism they also rarely engage in violence.
(and i cant help but notice that you still havent addressed the issue of children…)
Can we agree on the OU statment above. ITs not concrete its kind of vague and obviously meaningless but at least as an attitute.
If not. which part do you object to?
syag
“and dont kid yourself, the same people who say you cannot close the door on refugees just because known ISIS members are among them, will also tell you you cannot monitor them, background check them, put surveilance on them etc because then we are discriminating and profiling.”
So be different!
“Tell me which one of those lice infested Jews coming without suitcases, money, or resources was a known physical threat to the community he moved into? “
None where known! If they were they should have been banned from coming but not all Jews because of the few gangsters and communists.
joseph
“The idea that Jews in the 30s were in any serious way or numbers involved in violence is a clear canard.”
Many were communists, several were gangsters. I’m sure there was a nazi spy or two sent along with refugees to infiltrate other groups.
“There is no way for America to do a real background check on Syrian applicants. “
How about children? (you ignored that question like you usually do. so yes i am repeating myself)
Here is the OU statment on the subject do you agree with it
“The heinous attacks in Paris this week demonstrate that ISIS, and other similar militant Islamic terrorist groups, have both the desire and means to strike terror in the capitals of the Western world. Clearly, this must impact the manner in which the United States considers the acceptance of refugees from Syria and other war-torn countries in the Middle East. While most of those refugees are innocent bystanders whose lives have been wrecked by ISIS and similar groups, security concerns are real and serious. We cannot be naive in our assessment of the determination of terrorists to exploit the refugee crisis. And we should limit immigration to those individuals who share our American ideals and aspirations.
“
Joseph
So come up with a way
At the very least how about the children?
Also would you accept that excuse in the 30’s? Granted it isnt quite the same. But did the US governemt have the ability to make sure there were now Nazi spies among the >900 people on the St. Louis? Could they make sure non of them would join the very active Jewish Mob at the time? Could they make sure none were communists?
Go to Yad vashem there is a whole exhibit dedicated to the plight of the St. Louis and the calous indiference of the world at the time. As there should be.
SDD
Entitled “give (someone) a legal right or a JUST CLAIM to receive or do something” (From Oxford dictionary, emphasis added
But we arent really arguing that point. I misunderstood. apolagies
Your response to my 4 points isnt neccesary either. I am not saying there isnt a valid approach to strive towards only eating to serve the borei olam.
I am saying that not everybody is on that madreiga, and certainly not all children. Thus asking kids about their interests is completly appropriate and is actually excellent chinuch. Again depending on age and madreiga (of both involved).
SCD
It is. And we of all people should now that.
The rhetoric being used should make us veeeery uncomfortable. Ive heard commentators saying not to take in people who arent willing to assimilate. Donald Trump suggestd a database of all Muslims.
I’m not saying we should just open the borders. Put the call should be towards taking in as many as possible/safe with some exceptions not the reverse.
DY
“Is that a retraction? Because that’s not what you said.”
not a retraction at all. If Joseph had said Look it may come from the goyim, and if it does then it may be assur. I wouldnt have argued so vehmently certainly not year after year.
My argument is with the blanket dismissal of something as innocuous as gift giving and as practiced by most yidden and many frum ones as chukas akum. That is silly for several reasons.
The other idea that is silly is to view gift giving as a religious act. In spite of what you googled.
555
I’m sorry I have absolutly no idea what you are talking about
DY
1) those arent real theories. gifts is a form of human expresion, that some attach religous significance to it doesnt make it so. (did you think we are the only ones who do that with customs?)
2) Cool thanks.
Though thats not how its practiced by most people
(andI love how you accept academics for minhagim you dont like yet not for those you do, and do you agree that the gelt is not “milenia old” and was probably not always given to children?.)
The position that i think is silly is dismissing it as out of hand chukas akum. If someone said look it feels goyish, acccording to some shitas it might be chukas akum, its better to be machmir etc, i wouldnt argue.
But to outright dismiss what in Emes leyaakov is reffered to as a “minhag” and to say all those frum people giving presents are over a d’oraisah is absolutly silly.
That and the idea that gift giving is a form of avoda zarah is silly too inspite of what you say in 1
DY
“1) Gift giving on the chogo has religious significance”
why? and why more than smiling/having a party/singing
“2) We specifically copied it from them, in the sense that we do it on the holiday which falls in the same season (because we didn’t want our kids to be jealous).”
Agreed!
Though I wouldnt say “specifically”. I would say subconsciously absorbed via osmosis.
“This is dissimilar to your examples.”
why why why? Ive been asking over and over. gift giving isnt exactly wearing a specific color cape or putting a key in bread it is a basic form of human expression. You keep saying it is dissimilar. why?
“(as apparently do others)”
I was referring to Joseph,
“but your inability to see legitimacy in the other side is.”
Do you say the same to those who outright say it is chukas akum? In this thread it would seem you disagree with joseph (almost?) as much as with me. why not call him out? Especialy since its not like I’m saying there is a chiyuv to give presents. You dont want to give, gezunterheit dont All I am really doing is defending those who do give. why arent you doing the same if my opinion isnt wrong?
Sdd
I’m sorry perhaps I misunderstood “entitled” I assumed in this context you meant aas in have a right to or it is a correct act, which you clearly say in your op it is not.
You didnt reply to my point. There are many places in halacha where “favorite food” is discussed. whether with kedima librachos, or which Shabbos meal to eat them etc etc… how do you explain this if not only is having a favorite food is so bad but even for children!
As for your point here are some of dozens of posible replies:
1) There are shitos that argue on the metzudos david
2) That is a goal to strive towards for yechidim
3) He means food shouldnt be the thrust of your life, but there is nothing wrong with the having a favorite food
4) Even if food is eaten primarily to serve Hashem it is still allowed to taste good. Consider the mishna “pas bamelech tochal” Even if limited to bread salt can be added to enhance the flvor
Joseph
I try not to lie
Here is where you allowed christmas chocolate
You called giving Christmas chocolate on Chanuka
“Also sounds like a good idea that’s kind of borderline.”
“Your ignorance and inability to comprehend points that are repeated to you and broken down to you repeatedly, is no excuse.”
Its hard to comprehend points that arent logical and even harder to understand points that arent said
Here are several direct questions I posed to you that you have not responded too in this thread alone!
“Why the double standard?” [ie why you allow christams chocolate when called chanuka gelt but not christmas presents when called chanuka presents]
“How long does a Jewish practice have to be done until it is called a minhag?”
“The Gemara discusses Gelt? Rishonim?”
“source?”
“Why?” [as to why you were clerring chocolate might not be as bad as another christmas present.”
DY
“I have heard b’sheim poskim”
which?
“You’re repeating your same arguments,”
How are you not doing the same?
How is this entire tangent of the thread not the same?
“which I have addressed”
I’m sorry, where?
Again my question is why is gift giving more of a shemetz of avoda zara than smiling/having a party/singing all of which are basic modes of human festivity and take place on both Chanuka and lehavdil christmas? (and again keep in mind which came first doesnt necessarily matter according to many poskim)
“(sound familiar?).”
Yes its is your go to response when you have trouble responding to my points so you claim you did already then when I ask where, you stop responding.
Ask yourself this, weve had countless arguments on this forum have you ever given in? I mean by sheer luck alone at soem point I should raise a point that youd have to concede. My arguments are fact based, often sourced, thought out, though perhaps usually not well written and often full of typos. By sheer luck alone what are the odds that you can respond to every point with out ever being wrong? Not even once out of hundreds by now? Rather you arent man enough to own up when you are wrong so whe you lose or dont have a response you say you responded already. So yes it sounds quite familiar. You are not the only poster who does this.
Lol joseph
Your knowledge of history is almost as bad as halacha
Chanuka Gelt in its present form is at most a few hundred years old. Some Achronim (I beleive Magen Avrohom) do mention a minhag of giving money to teachers and from there it evolved to giving money to kids and from there to gifts.
After all Shava kesef kekesef
“Yes, millenia.”
source?
” I didn’t say chocolate is okay. I was clerring it might not be as bad as another christmas present.”
Why?
See Emes leyaakov 670: footnote 583 where he says this explicitly
DY
“Do you say that about anything you don’t agree with? “
Nope only things that are silly. And saying a basic expression of human festivities like gift giving is assur because it has a “shemetz of avado zara” is silly Goyim smile to each other on Christmas, they sing songs, they have parties/get-togethers are these assur on Chanuka? (as you know even if they copy us once it is part of an avodo zara it might become assur).
“There are poskim on either side”
That says chanuka gifts are chukas akum?????? I’m sorry Ive never seen any saying it is. (I have seen several saying it is not) source?
555
“That means they are giving ‘Chanukah Gelt’ as a Xmas present not the other way around. “
I dont follow. Christmas is among the busieset time of year for chocolate companies (the busiest according to some stats). From there it spread to Chaunuka. I assure you Rashi didnt give his kids chocolate coins
“”Chanukah Gelt” dates back before “J” was born.”
Nope it is a few hundred years old first mentioned by late achronim.
“Besides Who ever said Xmas chocolate was OK?”
Joseph did!
“‘How long something is done’ does not make it a good/kosher minhag. It’s the origin, Who started it and Why that matter.”
Lol! of course it does In fact in a hundred years or so our descendents will continue our argument, though yours will insist on hoyiche inyanim involved int eh “millenia old” minhag of giving davka presents based on all sorts of gematriyos while my descendet will respond actually gifts as minhag is only a few hundred years old and before that it was money and before that it was money to poor/melamdim
DY
Was silly last year and is silly this year. Gift giving, singing, eating and smiling are all basic human expressions of festivity and celebration and dont take on a “??? ????? ??????
Joseph
Millenia? Are you serious? The Gemara discusses Gelt? Rishonim? why do you make stuff up to fit your agenda?
And besides why is christmas chocolate ok but not christmas presents?
Joseph
“When did Jews start giving Christmas presents on Chunkah (and call it a Chanukah present)?”
Less than a century ago. Though if given on Chanuka it isnt a christmas present. A birthday present isnted a “Christmas present given on a birthday” and a Chanuka present isnt a “christmas present given on Chanuka”
“Also sounds like a good idea that’s kind of borderline. It is questionably Chanukah Gelt,”
When did Jews start giving christmas chocolate on chanuka (and call it Chanuka gelt)
I’ll bet more recently than presents. Why the double standard?
“which is indeed the tradition. “
For how long?
How long does a Jewish practice have to be done until it is called a minhag?
“Chanukah presents are chukas akum. “
Machlokes you and the Remah.
Y”D 178:1 (edited from wiki source)
[ny underlying]
R’ Yaakov explictly defends gifts in Emes L’yaakov on Shulchan Aruch.
DY, mw13 and whomever else
Do you agree with kerry’s comments here?
LC
I dont as painful as it is to read the ahistorical conterfactual illogical posts made by those in A I dont reply becasue of B and C.
Though why did you limit the question to one side?
sdd
In the op you did in fact deny the entitlement
“because it doesn’t even make sense. Colors are just various forms of light. Why should it be expected that one in particular appeal to you more than any others?
and “what’s your favorite food?”. That one is the opposite of chinuch. It’s in effect stating that food is to be eaten for purposes other than nourishment.”
Never mind the fact that halacha takes favorite foods into account eg regarding kedicma for brachos and doesnt dismiss it as “the opposite in chinuch”
Asking these questions is actually GOOD chinuch since at the age when most of these questions are asked these are things that children care about, and parents/others showing interest in things important to their children is excellent chinuch.
akuperma
Thats true, but in spite of that the Zionist government supports them financially anyway
I dont follow, you say “The only reason why most orthodox jews choose to live outside of Eretz Yisroel, Is Financial or gashmiyus”
but then you list several examples that are not financial nor gashmiyus related:
“For some it may be hard to adjust to israeli attitude.”
“For some, Living in a semi developed country is very difficult”.
“For Some, It’s simply the zionists”
“Some are scared of the rockets”
atloss
Not quite
They placed processed meat in category one which are “carcinogenic to humans”
They placed read meat in 2a which are “probably carcinogenic to humans”
they did not jst look at trends, they looked at over 800 studies on the sbject and have a few theories as to the mechanism.
They did in fact say that processed mead causes cancer and red meat probably does.
they last paragraph is correct though, generally speaking
Joseph
your opening line, indicates that like many news outlets you misunderstood the IARC.
In no way is processed meat as dangerous as tobacco. The only comparison is that both are now classified as “causing cancer” (along with alcohol, asbestos among others).
they did not comment on how much risk is associated w/ processed meat.
for example while 19% of all cancers are believed to be caused by tobacco, only 3% are believed to be caused by red meat (processed + unprocessed).
If no one in the UK smoked there would be 64,500 fewer cancers yearly, but only 8,800 fewer if no one ate processed or red meat.
Thus “Should the Gedolim ban processed meat along with tobacco?”
whther you meant it seriously or not, is simply silly.
BTW Joseph
There is a great article in the Atlantic which explains why your OP is silly.
It is called “Beefing With the World Health Organization’s Cancer Warnings”
Bellevue doesnt have a 19th floor
There is no 19th story.
joseph
Its no just the “regular liberal bloggeratti”
There where protests thorughout meah shearim, I was present when eggs were thrown at Rav shtiemnan r”l.
Grafiti saying “shteinamn = Kook” (and I dont think it was meant as a compliment) is still visible in areas of meah shearim and beis yisroel.
Gedolim are allowed to change their minds, and circumstances often change too. But please dont rewrite history most of us have better memories than that
Frumguy
1) that it no way changes the fact that he was “mevayesh a fellow yid b’rabim” As oldman says the gabai may have been right but that still sounds pretty embarassing
2) You really cant hink of another way other than the one you describe?
“Was he mevayesh a fellow yid b’rabim?”
Obviously!
But hey maybe THAT is the shul’s minhag
Excellence
what do you think of it?
Joseph
um, tobaco has been linked to bowel cancer too!
So lets start with tobacco (linked to bowel cancers, lung ancers, bladder cancer, tongue, esophagus, laryngeal, thyroid among many others. ) and then they can move on to banning processed meat
less chumros
Part of the answer to your question lies in the fact that the kriah for Simchas Torah (i.e. the second day of shemini atzeres even before it recieved the name “simchas torah”) is Vezos habracha. This has nothing to do with regular Shabbos reading
Even when the Torha was finished in three years. On Simchas Torah they lained vezos habracha. See Gemara end of Megila. Rashi gives the reason based on birchas hamelech
With time this turned into the Simchas Torah we have today
less chumros
There is a fantastic sefer on the subject called toldos chag simchas torah. All about the development of simchas torah over the ages.
The author traces the development of many minhagim over the centuries both in chul and EY.
DY
“Query if the benefit of free speech outweighs the danger.”
Yes I know the tzedadim.
Same query regarding freedom of worship.
and not capitulating to terror
DY
There is another flaw. Because while the pedestrian may have been wrong to cross against traffic, The driver is completely wrong for swerving in order to hit him.
Could you imagine the conversation the next day
“Did you hear about the crazy driver who saw somebody jaywalking and drove right into him, then was so enraged at the dent in his car that he started stabbing people who looked like the jaywalker?”
DY, Joseph, Mw13, and media “Weeeeeeeeeeell you have to understand the guy really shouldn’t have been jaywalking, he is partially responsible…”
And keep in mind, jaywalking is more wrong than ascending har habayis.
BTW as far as the cartoons
So should governments ban offensive cartoons in order to protect their populace?