Friday, April 28, 2006
Shabbat Tazria-Metzora 5766
May you all have a restful and restorative Shabbot and may all your needs be meet.
Compassionate Conservative
Unitary Executive Jr. ran for office 6 years ago saying he was a Compassionate Conservative. At the time I had no clue what the meaning of that was. At this point I am beginning to believe that the phrase refers to the compassion the Jr. obviously has for the largest corporations in this country. He apparently does not see the record auto fuel prices and record oil profits as being linked in a way that hurts the average American. After all, Jr has never had to struggle to put food on the table, pay his bills or meet his financial needs. In fact Jr. has failed at a number of business and was bailed out each time.
Now in the wake of a 3rd straight quarter of incredible numbers for the quarterly income amounts of ExxonMobil and the other companies (with the exception of BP in this particular cycle.) Jr does not see the situation as anything but a way to 'promote' an alternative energy policy that he appears to be behind the curve on, not that that is surprising with this administration. When Democrats in Congress begin to discuss the concept of, perhaps, taxing the extreme profits of these companies, he responds " The temptation in Washington is to tax everything." I guess this as opposed to the Bush Administration policy to drive the country, much like the companies I refered to above, in to the financial dumpster. I do believe this financial situation that the administration is fostering is an intentional one, but that is really for another discussion. I believe that Exxon Mobil announced that it's profits were $8.6 Billion. If they were taxed at 25%, and that is not a proposal just an example, that would bring in to the coffers of the government $2.15 Billion. If that was done for all of the oil giants how many less bonds would the government need to sell to foreign governments in order to continue to operate.
My proposal would be that a percentage of the profits be subjected to a windfall profits tax, in order to avoid the tax, the oil giants would have to invest a larger percentage of their excess profits in the R&D of alternative energy sources. Otherwise a portion, and I would propose a hight tax rate, is subjected to a windfall profit tax.
Does Bush Never Learn?
I am really confused by the inability of the 'War President' who claims to be securing this country against foreign attacks in ability to grasp that parts of this countries military and security apparatus should not be controlled by foreign entities. As with Dubai Ports World, I was not aware that a major defense contractor was a British company, but I certainly don't like the idea. I find it very odd though that we would allow any foreign government take control of any part of our military and security production. First the Unitary Executive wanted to transfer port operations to a foreign government and didn't seem to think this was a problem. Now he doesn't see any problem with the transfer of several defense contractors that were previously owned by a British company to a Dubai government owned company.
To make this clear, I am not opposed to this deal because the ownership is by a Muslim nation, I am opposed because I think that there are certain assets that should be controlled by a nation, and one of those are those industries that are vital to the defense and security of the country.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Something That Bothered Me
I was flipping radio stations on my way home. The talk shows I normally listen to were being pre-empted by a minor league baseball broadcast, and the Indians pre-game programming hadn't started yet. While scanning just to see what else was on the air, I came across a 'Conservative' radio talk show. I have no idea who the two people were who were talking, but the discussion centered on abortion.
I was really rather bothered by the whole of the conversation. They kept referring to 'Pro-Choice' proponents as "The pro-death crowd." I have several problems with this, not the least of which is based on the discussion I am willing to bet that both the host and his guest would be in favor of the death penalty. (Would this not make them 'part of the pro-death crowd.')
The discussion went so far as to speculate what the position of the 'Pro-Choice' peoples position would be if science developed artificial wombs. (I actually began to wonder if either the host or the woman he was talking to were on some kind of drug at that point.)
Some points on the whole issue from my perspective:
1. I feel that abortions should be legal. I do have a problem with abortions being done as a form of birth control, either because none was used initially or because the method used failed, but that is MY problem and I don't believe in a free society I have the right to impose my views on others.
2. I am in favor of the death penalty also being legal. That having been said, I also have a problem with the 'level of usage' (for lack of a better term) of the death penalty, and I am always afraid of it being used to punish an innocent person. I also don't think, just as an additional point here, that Zaccarius Moussoui ( I am not really sure how he spells his name, and frankly don't care) should be put to death. He was NOT a contributor to 9/11, there is some evidence that he may not have truly known what was going to happen and is only saying what ever he has to, to get put to death so that he can be claimed to be a martyr.
3. My position on abortion (since that is really what I wanted to address) is that as long as the fetus can not survive without the aide of extreme medical technologies, an abortion should be legal. If at anytime after that point that the mother's life becomes endangered because of the pregnancy, then an abortion should remain a viable option.
4. To any 'Conservatives' that wish to debate me on this I have 2 questions:
a. Are you going to adopt an increasing number of these children if we totally outlawed abortion?
b. If you are not going to adopt these additional children, are you willing to increase your own taxes in order to help support those children until the age of 18? Many of the additional children will end up either being in orphanages, which need support of the government or a religious institution, or will need government subsidies paid to the mother/parents in order for the children to be raised to be healthy and productive members of society.
c. If your answer to both of your previous questions is NO (you are not willing to adopt the children and you do not wish to have an increase in your taxes to support them), what is your solution to the situation? (The first person who suggests abstinence education gets banned from the blog. After all, while a small percentage of teens do not engage in sex of some type, most due and abstinence education/abstinence pledges are not going to stop a number of teens from having sex. It didn't in the 1950's and 1960's, it didn't in the 1800's it won't now.)
I feel better and feel the need to prepare and eat my dinner. See ya tomorrow.
I was really rather bothered by the whole of the conversation. They kept referring to 'Pro-Choice' proponents as "The pro-death crowd." I have several problems with this, not the least of which is based on the discussion I am willing to bet that both the host and his guest would be in favor of the death penalty. (Would this not make them 'part of the pro-death crowd.')
The discussion went so far as to speculate what the position of the 'Pro-Choice' peoples position would be if science developed artificial wombs. (I actually began to wonder if either the host or the woman he was talking to were on some kind of drug at that point.)
Some points on the whole issue from my perspective:
1. I feel that abortions should be legal. I do have a problem with abortions being done as a form of birth control, either because none was used initially or because the method used failed, but that is MY problem and I don't believe in a free society I have the right to impose my views on others.
2. I am in favor of the death penalty also being legal. That having been said, I also have a problem with the 'level of usage' (for lack of a better term) of the death penalty, and I am always afraid of it being used to punish an innocent person. I also don't think, just as an additional point here, that Zaccarius Moussoui ( I am not really sure how he spells his name, and frankly don't care) should be put to death. He was NOT a contributor to 9/11, there is some evidence that he may not have truly known what was going to happen and is only saying what ever he has to, to get put to death so that he can be claimed to be a martyr.
3. My position on abortion (since that is really what I wanted to address) is that as long as the fetus can not survive without the aide of extreme medical technologies, an abortion should be legal. If at anytime after that point that the mother's life becomes endangered because of the pregnancy, then an abortion should remain a viable option.
4. To any 'Conservatives' that wish to debate me on this I have 2 questions:
a. Are you going to adopt an increasing number of these children if we totally outlawed abortion?
b. If you are not going to adopt these additional children, are you willing to increase your own taxes in order to help support those children until the age of 18? Many of the additional children will end up either being in orphanages, which need support of the government or a religious institution, or will need government subsidies paid to the mother/parents in order for the children to be raised to be healthy and productive members of society.
c. If your answer to both of your previous questions is NO (you are not willing to adopt the children and you do not wish to have an increase in your taxes to support them), what is your solution to the situation? (The first person who suggests abstinence education gets banned from the blog. After all, while a small percentage of teens do not engage in sex of some type, most due and abstinence education/abstinence pledges are not going to stop a number of teens from having sex. It didn't in the 1950's and 1960's, it didn't in the 1800's it won't now.)
I feel better and feel the need to prepare and eat my dinner. See ya tomorrow.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Why are so many Jews liberal?
The above is the subject of an email I received today. It is a reprint of an article by Dennis Prager.
Frankly, I found this article to be just plain ridiculous. The title of this post may change from Why are so many Jews liberal, to Prologue as this is the starting point of my discussion of on the problem with the Jewish community. This was not where I was planning to start, but felt that this was a very good place to begin as the it will begin to define my thinking on the issues, much as the article that I also commented on today will begin the discussion that I have in mind. The way I will discuss this article is to copy it as is, the writing below that is in red will be my responses to the points of discussion by Mr. Prager.
Why are so many Jews liberal?
By Dennis Prager
The most frequently asked question I receive from non-Jews about Jews is, why are Jews so liberal? I find this very hard to believe. I don't know what the most frequently asked question I receive is, but it is more theological, or religious not political. So Mr. Prager is obviously not being literal here, but I find this to be part of the problem with the article as a whole.
The question is entirely legitimate since Jews (outside of Israel) are indeed overwhelmingly liberal and disproportionately left of liberal as well. For example, other than blacks, no American group votes so lopsidedly for the Democratic Party. And the question is further sharpened given that traditional Jewish values are not leftist. That is why the more religiously involved the Jew, the less likely he is to be on the Left. The old saw, "There are two types of Jews — those who believe Judaism is social justice and those who know Hebrew," contains more than a kernel of truth. I found this paragraph to be very offensive personally and more than slightly distorting. First of all, since he points it out in the article, I would say that at least half of the people in Israel would qualify as 'liberal' and actually I would go so far as to say that even most of the 'right-wing' of those in Israel are politically not as far right as Mr. Prager would seem to be implying in this paragraph, after all on the political spectrum Israel would likely qualify as a socialist country based on the type of government/economy that sustains it. Further, Jews are probably traditionally Democrats in the US because of social issues, but I don't believe that as many are going to be as extreme as Mr. Prager seems to want to imply. I also find his 'old saw' to something of a fascination. While I have never heard this before, from my experience, the more religiously involved Jews are probably similarly divided between the two parties as the rest of the American Jewish community. Mr Prager is attempting to follow the political stance of separation.
In no order of importance, here are six reasons:
1. Judaism is indeed preoccupied with social justice (as well as with holiness and personal morality), and many Jews believe that the only way to achieve a just society is through leftist policies. First he says that only un-knowledgable Jews believe that Judaism is about social justice and then tells us that it is. The inconsistency is rather confusing to me, but I would belabor the point. I disagree with the premise of this point. As I pointed out before, I think that many Jews feel that the 'right-wing' in this country is not as in-tune with what Judaism teaches are the ideals of social justice as the 'liberals' in this country do. Basically the idea that many Jews in this country have is that social justice is the most important of the 'preoccupations' and that is where his debate should be if he wishes to discuss this type of issue.
2. More than any other major religion, Judaism has always been preoccupied with this world. The (secular) Encyclopedia Judaica begins its entry on "Afterlife" by noting that "Judaism has always affirmed belief in an afterlife." But the preoccupation of Judaism has been making this world a better place. That is why the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) is largely silent about the afterlife; and it is preoccupied with rejecting ancient Egyptian values. That value system was centered on the afterlife — its bible was the Book of the Dead, and its greatest monuments, the pyramids, were tombs. My discussion here is going to be based on my 'limited' religious education and the reading that I have done. My first disagreement is with the idea of Judaism dealing with the afterlife, this is, to my education, a personal rather than a theological decision and therefore not really of interest to this discussion other than as a red hearing to used to 'discredit' those that Mr. Prager is attacking in this article. Judaism is very much 'preoccupied' with making this world better, the idea of 'Tikun Olam' is really the idea, but even a political conservative can be interested in the improvement of the world around them, the difference between the to ends of the political spectrum as what is making the world better.
3. Most Jews are frightened by anything that connotes right wing — such as the words "right-wing" and "conservative." Especially since the Holocaust, they think that threats to their security emanate from the Right only. (It is pointless to argue that Nazism stood for National Socialism and therefore was really a leftist ideology. Whether that is theoretically accurate doesn't matter; nearly everyone regards the Nazis as far Right, and, therefore, Jews fear the Right.) The fact that the Jews' best friends today are conservatives and the fact that the Left is the home of most of the Jews' enemies outside of the Muslim world have made little impact on Jews' psyches. I guess one can't attack 'liberal Jews' without bringing up the Shoah and the Nazi's. Again I felt that this point was very much a red herring in the discussion, and his parenthetical aside rather useless. Just because the name of the political party contained the term socialism doesn't make it a socialist movement any more than the Bolsheviks movement in Pre-Soviet Russia were the majority simply because that is what they called themselves. As the old saying goes 'What is in a name?' Beyond this I really have no additional comments on this point, after all to discuss the rest of this point is lend additional validity.
4. Liberal Jews fear most religion. They identify religion — especially fundamentalist religion and especially Christianity — with anti-Semitism. Jews are taught from birth about the horrors of the Holocaust, and of nearly 2,000 years of European, meaning Christian, anti-Semitism. They therefore tend to fear Christianity and believe that secularism guarantees their physical security. I will get in to issues of secularism elsewhere at another time, but I will argue this point on two fronts. First is that secularly oriented people tend to discount religion. And I will not use the word fear because as with many other things in this article, Mr. Prager is dismissing his target of choice with a use language. I don't think 'liberal Jews' fear religion, actually some are religious, but people who are secular discount religion as being important no matter what their political affiliation. My issues with Christianity are religious and personal, not political or related to the Shoah and our sorted history with our neighbors of the last 3,300 years of time not just during the 'Christian era.' I also disagree with the final sentence in this point. After all my 'physical security' or sense that it is endangered has nothing to do with being or not being secular.
5. Despite their secularism, Jews may be the most religious ethnic group in the world. The problem is that their religion is rarely Judaism; rather it is every "ism" of the Left. These include liberalism, socialism, feminism, Marxism and environmentalism. Jews involved in these movements believe in them with the same ideological fervor and same suspension of critical reason with which many religious people believe in their religion. It is therefore usually as hard to shake a liberal Jew's belief in the Left and in the Democratic Party as it is to shake an evangelical Christian's belief in Christianity. The big difference, however, is that the Christian believer acknowledges his Christianity is a belief, whereas the believer in liberalism views his belief as entirely the product of rational inquiry. Once again Mr. Prager finds a way to offend me with out really making a good point. Apparently one can't be a liberal Jew, socialist Jew, or feminist Jew in Mr. Prager's mind. I am not really sure if Marxism fits in this point, and will refrain from actually discussing it. As far as environmentalist Jew, this seems to me to be repetative to me. After all we are charged with protecting the world, and I personally feel we have done the opposite. The issue Mr. Prager is discussing in this point is really more of his own world view of 'liberals' and those he disagrees with rather than anything of any real world issue. I think I have addressed the problem I have with this, oh and Mr. Prager if for some reason you actually read my response, what you are accusing a 'liberal' of could also be said to be the same for a 'conservative' who is of a secular belief system as well, just because the 'modern' image of the conservative is that of the 'Christian Evangelical Extremist' doesn't make that image any more correct that the idea of the 'secular anti-religious liberal.'
The Jews' religious fervor emanates from the origins of the Jewish people as a religious people elected by G-d to help guide humanity to a better future. Of course, the original intent was to bring humanity to ethical monotheism, G-d-based universal moral standards, not to secular liberalism or to feminism or to socialism. Leftist Jews have simply secularized their religious calling. If I could record laughter for the end of this point I would have loved to. (Bwa hahahahahaha, will have to do.) Naturally in order to continue to make his points Mr. Prager continues to 'tear down' those he disagrees with. I would also dispute one other point here. I am not sure I would agree with how this part of the point was made. After all, were we elected by G-D or did we choose/were chosen to be responsible for this task. One has only to consider that small change in concept in this point to understand where I differ from Mr. Prager on much of what he is saying in his article.
6. Liberal Jews fear nationalism. The birth of nationalism in Europe planted the secular seeds of the Holocaust (religious seeds had been planted by some early and medieval Church teachings and reinforced by Martin Luther). European nationalists welcomed all national identities except the Jews'. That is a major reason so many Jews identify primarily as "world citizens"; they have contempt for nationalism and believe that strong national identities, even in America, will exclude them. I would first like to refer Mr. Prager to the idea that many early zionists were also secular Jews who felt that Jews would always be outsiders in Europe where we didn't belong, and were striving to return us to our homeland. The simple fact that so many of the early zionists were secular very much disputes this whole point number 6. Of course if Mr. Prager had acknowledged this small point it would have brought down the whole house of cards of his arguments in this article. I have to say I know of very few jews who identify themselves as 'world citizens' and would like Mr. Prager to provide additional information on that point.
Just as liberal Jews fear a resurgent Christianity despite the fact that contemporary Christians are the Jews' best friends, leftist Jews fear American nationalism despite the fact that Americans who believe in American exceptionalism are far more pro-Jewish and pro-Israel than leftist Americans. But most leftist Jews so abhor nationalism, they don't even like the Jews' nationalism (Zionism). If one is afraid of nationalism than any nationalism is bad and it's opposite is the only good. My fear of the 'resurgent Christianity' is related to a fear of what will happen to the Constitution in the US as it is being slowly subverted in the name of Christianity, and in the name of security. This does not bode well for the country as a whole. Nationalism is no more 'evil' than anything else, but it is easy to state that others believe this is so. And 'modern Christianity' in not pro-Judaism, and is only pro-Israel as it suites their religious needs of the end-times.
If you believe that leftist ideas and policies are good for America and for the world, then you are particularly pleased to know how deeply Jews — with their moral passion, intellectual energies and abilities, and financial clout — are involved with the Left. If, on the other hand, you believe that the Left is morally confused and largely a destructive force in America and the world, then the Jews' disproportionate involvement on the Left is nothing less than a tragedy — for the world and especially for the Jews. Ah yes, then end of the argument is designed to further support his overall red herring argument, and of course continue to make certain that those who read the article will be drawn to the conclusion that he is really trying to make. That point is simple - Liberal Bad, Conservative Good. Those who disagree - are out to destroy America. Why do conservatives feel that the only way to discredit an idea is to say that it is destructive to America, or that those who hold the idea is out to destroy America? I disagree with Mr. Prager, but firmly believe in this country and the direction it SHOULD be going in. I just feel we are a bit off track at the moment. I don't want to change the world, just change this one sided view of it.
 | |
The most frequently asked question I receive from non-Jews about Jews is, why are Jews so liberal? I find this very hard to believe. I don't know what the most frequently asked question I receive is, but it is more theological, or religious not political. So Mr. Prager is obviously not being literal here, but I find this to be part of the problem with the article as a whole.
The question is entirely legitimate since Jews (outside of Israel) are indeed overwhelmingly liberal and disproportionately left of liberal as well. For example, other than blacks, no American group votes so lopsidedly for the Democratic Party. And the question is further sharpened given that traditional Jewish values are not leftist. That is why the more religiously involved the Jew, the less likely he is to be on the Left. The old saw, "There are two types of Jews — those who believe Judaism is social justice and those who know Hebrew," contains more than a kernel of truth. I found this paragraph to be very offensive personally and more than slightly distorting. First of all, since he points it out in the article, I would say that at least half of the people in Israel would qualify as 'liberal' and actually I would go so far as to say that even most of the 'right-wing' of those in Israel are politically not as far right as Mr. Prager would seem to be implying in this paragraph, after all on the political spectrum Israel would likely qualify as a socialist country based on the type of government/economy that sustains it. Further, Jews are probably traditionally Democrats in the US because of social issues, but I don't believe that as many are going to be as extreme as Mr. Prager seems to want to imply. I also find his 'old saw' to something of a fascination. While I have never heard this before, from my experience, the more religiously involved Jews are probably similarly divided between the two parties as the rest of the American Jewish community. Mr Prager is attempting to follow the political stance of separation.
In no order of importance, here are six reasons:
1. Judaism is indeed preoccupied with social justice (as well as with holiness and personal morality), and many Jews believe that the only way to achieve a just society is through leftist policies. First he says that only un-knowledgable Jews believe that Judaism is about social justice and then tells us that it is. The inconsistency is rather confusing to me, but I would belabor the point. I disagree with the premise of this point. As I pointed out before, I think that many Jews feel that the 'right-wing' in this country is not as in-tune with what Judaism teaches are the ideals of social justice as the 'liberals' in this country do. Basically the idea that many Jews in this country have is that social justice is the most important of the 'preoccupations' and that is where his debate should be if he wishes to discuss this type of issue.
2. More than any other major religion, Judaism has always been preoccupied with this world. The (secular) Encyclopedia Judaica begins its entry on "Afterlife" by noting that "Judaism has always affirmed belief in an afterlife." But the preoccupation of Judaism has been making this world a better place. That is why the Torah (the Five Books of Moses) is largely silent about the afterlife; and it is preoccupied with rejecting ancient Egyptian values. That value system was centered on the afterlife — its bible was the Book of the Dead, and its greatest monuments, the pyramids, were tombs. My discussion here is going to be based on my 'limited' religious education and the reading that I have done. My first disagreement is with the idea of Judaism dealing with the afterlife, this is, to my education, a personal rather than a theological decision and therefore not really of interest to this discussion other than as a red hearing to used to 'discredit' those that Mr. Prager is attacking in this article. Judaism is very much 'preoccupied' with making this world better, the idea of 'Tikun Olam' is really the idea, but even a political conservative can be interested in the improvement of the world around them, the difference between the to ends of the political spectrum as what is making the world better.
3. Most Jews are frightened by anything that connotes right wing — such as the words "right-wing" and "conservative." Especially since the Holocaust, they think that threats to their security emanate from the Right only. (It is pointless to argue that Nazism stood for National Socialism and therefore was really a leftist ideology. Whether that is theoretically accurate doesn't matter; nearly everyone regards the Nazis as far Right, and, therefore, Jews fear the Right.) The fact that the Jews' best friends today are conservatives and the fact that the Left is the home of most of the Jews' enemies outside of the Muslim world have made little impact on Jews' psyches. I guess one can't attack 'liberal Jews' without bringing up the Shoah and the Nazi's. Again I felt that this point was very much a red herring in the discussion, and his parenthetical aside rather useless. Just because the name of the political party contained the term socialism doesn't make it a socialist movement any more than the Bolsheviks movement in Pre-Soviet Russia were the majority simply because that is what they called themselves. As the old saying goes 'What is in a name?' Beyond this I really have no additional comments on this point, after all to discuss the rest of this point is lend additional validity.
4. Liberal Jews fear most religion. They identify religion — especially fundamentalist religion and especially Christianity — with anti-Semitism. Jews are taught from birth about the horrors of the Holocaust, and of nearly 2,000 years of European, meaning Christian, anti-Semitism. They therefore tend to fear Christianity and believe that secularism guarantees their physical security. I will get in to issues of secularism elsewhere at another time, but I will argue this point on two fronts. First is that secularly oriented people tend to discount religion. And I will not use the word fear because as with many other things in this article, Mr. Prager is dismissing his target of choice with a use language. I don't think 'liberal Jews' fear religion, actually some are religious, but people who are secular discount religion as being important no matter what their political affiliation. My issues with Christianity are religious and personal, not political or related to the Shoah and our sorted history with our neighbors of the last 3,300 years of time not just during the 'Christian era.' I also disagree with the final sentence in this point. After all my 'physical security' or sense that it is endangered has nothing to do with being or not being secular.
5. Despite their secularism, Jews may be the most religious ethnic group in the world. The problem is that their religion is rarely Judaism; rather it is every "ism" of the Left. These include liberalism, socialism, feminism, Marxism and environmentalism. Jews involved in these movements believe in them with the same ideological fervor and same suspension of critical reason with which many religious people believe in their religion. It is therefore usually as hard to shake a liberal Jew's belief in the Left and in the Democratic Party as it is to shake an evangelical Christian's belief in Christianity. The big difference, however, is that the Christian believer acknowledges his Christianity is a belief, whereas the believer in liberalism views his belief as entirely the product of rational inquiry. Once again Mr. Prager finds a way to offend me with out really making a good point. Apparently one can't be a liberal Jew, socialist Jew, or feminist Jew in Mr. Prager's mind. I am not really sure if Marxism fits in this point, and will refrain from actually discussing it. As far as environmentalist Jew, this seems to me to be repetative to me. After all we are charged with protecting the world, and I personally feel we have done the opposite. The issue Mr. Prager is discussing in this point is really more of his own world view of 'liberals' and those he disagrees with rather than anything of any real world issue. I think I have addressed the problem I have with this, oh and Mr. Prager if for some reason you actually read my response, what you are accusing a 'liberal' of could also be said to be the same for a 'conservative' who is of a secular belief system as well, just because the 'modern' image of the conservative is that of the 'Christian Evangelical Extremist' doesn't make that image any more correct that the idea of the 'secular anti-religious liberal.'
The Jews' religious fervor emanates from the origins of the Jewish people as a religious people elected by G-d to help guide humanity to a better future. Of course, the original intent was to bring humanity to ethical monotheism, G-d-based universal moral standards, not to secular liberalism or to feminism or to socialism. Leftist Jews have simply secularized their religious calling. If I could record laughter for the end of this point I would have loved to. (Bwa hahahahahaha, will have to do.) Naturally in order to continue to make his points Mr. Prager continues to 'tear down' those he disagrees with. I would also dispute one other point here. I am not sure I would agree with how this part of the point was made. After all, were we elected by G-D or did we choose/were chosen to be responsible for this task. One has only to consider that small change in concept in this point to understand where I differ from Mr. Prager on much of what he is saying in his article.
6. Liberal Jews fear nationalism. The birth of nationalism in Europe planted the secular seeds of the Holocaust (religious seeds had been planted by some early and medieval Church teachings and reinforced by Martin Luther). European nationalists welcomed all national identities except the Jews'. That is a major reason so many Jews identify primarily as "world citizens"; they have contempt for nationalism and believe that strong national identities, even in America, will exclude them. I would first like to refer Mr. Prager to the idea that many early zionists were also secular Jews who felt that Jews would always be outsiders in Europe where we didn't belong, and were striving to return us to our homeland. The simple fact that so many of the early zionists were secular very much disputes this whole point number 6. Of course if Mr. Prager had acknowledged this small point it would have brought down the whole house of cards of his arguments in this article. I have to say I know of very few jews who identify themselves as 'world citizens' and would like Mr. Prager to provide additional information on that point.
Just as liberal Jews fear a resurgent Christianity despite the fact that contemporary Christians are the Jews' best friends, leftist Jews fear American nationalism despite the fact that Americans who believe in American exceptionalism are far more pro-Jewish and pro-Israel than leftist Americans. But most leftist Jews so abhor nationalism, they don't even like the Jews' nationalism (Zionism). If one is afraid of nationalism than any nationalism is bad and it's opposite is the only good. My fear of the 'resurgent Christianity' is related to a fear of what will happen to the Constitution in the US as it is being slowly subverted in the name of Christianity, and in the name of security. This does not bode well for the country as a whole. Nationalism is no more 'evil' than anything else, but it is easy to state that others believe this is so. And 'modern Christianity' in not pro-Judaism, and is only pro-Israel as it suites their religious needs of the end-times.
If you believe that leftist ideas and policies are good for America and for the world, then you are particularly pleased to know how deeply Jews — with their moral passion, intellectual energies and abilities, and financial clout — are involved with the Left. If, on the other hand, you believe that the Left is morally confused and largely a destructive force in America and the world, then the Jews' disproportionate involvement on the Left is nothing less than a tragedy — for the world and especially for the Jews. Ah yes, then end of the argument is designed to further support his overall red herring argument, and of course continue to make certain that those who read the article will be drawn to the conclusion that he is really trying to make. That point is simple - Liberal Bad, Conservative Good. Those who disagree - are out to destroy America. Why do conservatives feel that the only way to discredit an idea is to say that it is destructive to America, or that those who hold the idea is out to destroy America? I disagree with Mr. Prager, but firmly believe in this country and the direction it SHOULD be going in. I just feel we are a bit off track at the moment. I don't want to change the world, just change this one sided view of it.
Time to Think Again
Well, tax season is finally over and I finally have the time to think about things and to write about some things.
I have also decided to not do a single post about what I think is the problem with the Jewish community, but the more I have thought about it the more I realized that it will require more time and information to fully flesh out my thoughts.
The first thing I would like to do is to discuss the following:
Rabbi orders maiming of dolls
Mar 26 2006 09:15:20:137PM
In a tough break for the children of Orthodox Jewish families, a former grand rabbi of Israel has urged parents to amputate their dolls to avoid the perils of idolatry. Jerusalem - In a tough break for the children of Orthodox Jewish families, a former grand rabbi of Israel has urged parents to amputate their dolls to avoid the perils of idolatry. Basing the move on a Biblical ban on the possession of idols, Mordechai Eliyahu, a Sephardic rabbi, broadcast his edict on a religious radio station calling for an arm or a leg to be dismembered. In the case of a teddy bear or other stuffed animals, the children will see their beloved toys lose an ear or an eye instead. "It is very important that these toys do not remain intact so as to remove the element of idolatry," said Eliyahu. His son, Shmuel Eliyahu, himself a rabbi in the northern town of Safed, said that it was inappropriate to own statues or dolls, even to play with or for artistic purposes. "They need to be amputated or at least altered," he said. Shmuel revealed that his father had forced one of his followers to snap off the ear of a replica of a statue of Moses by Michelangelo that he had bought at an exorbitant price. Religious edicts are not legally binding in Israel. http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1904953,00.html Now I will point out that story is a month old, but the link is still valid. When
I first read this item I nearly fell out of my chair. I find this concept to be most absurd. I had a G.I. Joe when I was a child, I never once confused the toy with being a god, or even of being representative of anything but a toy. I played with, and still have in storage, small military figures representing American, British, German and Japanese soldiers from WWII. Once again, I never thought of them or confused them with anything other than what they were, toys.
From the time I was a baby until I was 12 or 13 I had a stuffed animal Chimpanzee, and I never thought it was anything, at least that I can remember, other than a stuffed animal that I cuddled with when I slept. (I have to say I loved that little stuffed chimp with his banana in one hand. And that banana fit in his mouth.)
My wife has several collectors dolls, and we have, between us, a number of stuffed animals. I have never confused these with anything other than stuffed animals or dolls. I have never had the urge, desire or any other instinct to pray to, worship or anything else. I don't think that I am special, I don't think that I am mentally stronger than anyone else. I also don't think that children look at a doll and think of it as anything but a toy. I have to say that I believe there is a firm difference between what constitutes an idol and what is a toy. I think most, if not all, children can tell the difference. I doubt there is any child in the world that would look at the existence of a doll and say, oh look that is god, I must pray to it. (Think of this, can you see a person bowing down before a Barbie doll and praying to it.) (I have not seen any dolls that are 'anatomically corrrect' and if they existed, do you really think they would be for children.)
The problem with this concept is really two fold, one it assumes that children are stupid. I find that to be personally offensive. Now I am not saying that children understand everything in life, but they are certainly capable of differentiating between a divine representation and a toy. The other problem that I have is at what point do you draw the line. If owning a Barbie doll/G.I. Joe is bad, and my beloved stuffed Chimp from my childhood needs to be maimed, then what about destroying a picture of a person or animal. After all if the toys can be confused with an icon, then can't the pictures of some one or an animal be confused by those self same children as being representative of a divinity.
If the pictures or toys need to be maimed or defaced, what about pets. Isn't this just the next step. Should I take one or both of my cats (Maggie and Anina) to the vet to have a leg cut off or an eye poked out. After all a child may confuse Maggie, especially when you take her long-furred beauty in to account, as being of devine basis and there for in need of being worshiped. (I would have used Anina and her Siamese beauty as the example, but anyone who has been biten by her would know that she is nothing if not evil.) Is this not the ultimate extension of the idea, or perhaps that the ultimate extension is to maim every human being at birth, after all at various times in human history, individual humans were revered as gods.
I find this kind of mishigoss to be the ideas of the unrealistic. My wife collects cat items, one of the things that we purchased is a replica of the Egyptian goddess Bast. (Bast was a goddess in the shape of a house cat.) We have the item in the apartment, if you want to say that I own an idol, that may be, but art is art. I believe we own a piece of art, nothing more and nothing less. If the Rabbi's in the article disagree, then I have only one thing to say about that: "If they can't trust them selves to look at a piece of art and not worship it that is fine", but I have yet to worship any art I have ever seen, and as I said before I have never even had any inclination to worship any of these types of items. These items have no power if we don't grant them power, but if we grant them the power by fearing that they may be seen as divine by the uneducated or unsophisticated, then we are lessoning our selves not that which we are seeking to censure. We are granting power to items that they don't have. Is this rearly what this is all about.
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Pesach
I just wanted to wish everyone a happy, healthy and kosher Passover.
May you all enjoy your families and the time you have with them during this festival.
Little Wolf
Monday, April 10, 2006
OOOO, Look At The Time
I am actually home at a decent time tonight, which I wasn't expecting. I really want to blog, but aside from the post that I am working on, I have nothing to really write about tonight. If this happens again tomorrow, and I have the expectation that it will, I will definitely have something to say.
Having just written that, something popped in to my head that I wanted to get out of my head. While talking to a new client yesterday, I found out that she was relocated post Katrina from New Orleans. She lost almost everything thing that she owned. ( In the discussion though I did say that she got out with the most important thing, her life.)
She was rather . . . (the only word that is coming to mind is) disgusted by the lack of progress that is going on along the Gulf Coast. She is here because her fiance is here, and probably won't be going back. The other thing she said was that her parents live in Mississippi. Her comment was that her parents basically have ocean front property because everything between their house and the water is gone. They did have some damage as a tree went through the roof, but that has been repaired.
She said one other thing that struck me as rather odd. She said she had received a phone call from FEMA with in the last couple of weeks to see if she would like to return to New Orleans and move in to a trailer. Her comment after that was, things really haven't change much since September, and that they barely have anything working yet. She didn't really think she would be going back, at least not in the near future.
Have a good evening.
Having just written that, something popped in to my head that I wanted to get out of my head. While talking to a new client yesterday, I found out that she was relocated post Katrina from New Orleans. She lost almost everything thing that she owned. ( In the discussion though I did say that she got out with the most important thing, her life.)
She was rather . . . (the only word that is coming to mind is) disgusted by the lack of progress that is going on along the Gulf Coast. She is here because her fiance is here, and probably won't be going back. The other thing she said was that her parents live in Mississippi. Her comment was that her parents basically have ocean front property because everything between their house and the water is gone. They did have some damage as a tree went through the roof, but that has been repaired.
She said one other thing that struck me as rather odd. She said she had received a phone call from FEMA with in the last couple of weeks to see if she would like to return to New Orleans and move in to a trailer. Her comment after that was, things really haven't change much since September, and that they barely have anything working yet. She didn't really think she would be going back, at least not in the near future.
Have a good evening.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Several Things
I would like to thank both Shoozie and Ezra for their recent kind words. To address the issue that both asked about, basically my blogging. I can assure you that I will be getting to what I have promised. The reason for the lack of blogging is the time of year. My career is in the tax consulting and preparation area and of course with the deadline approaching rapidly my time is becoming even more reduced. (Not to mention the approach of Passover as well.)
I am going to give a small 'hint' as to what I have been working on as far as the overall problem with the Jewish community in the US. (And the more I have thought about it, well beyond.)
The thing that got me to realize this issue was a blog post by Heshy at Heshy's House on Kosher v. non-Kosher money. The thing that made me really begin to see the problem in a bigger light was a news item, which I will be posting on separately at some point, about an Israeli Rabbi who has ruled that all toy dolls (in human form) must be maimed, and that stuffed animal toys must be as well.
The final thing was just a general idea of how the current climate both in the US and around the world fit with our history. Again that is far more general than any specific event or activity.
I probably haven't given anyone any idea of what I am thinking, but I hope that will at least give you an idea of the background of what has been bubbling in the back of my head for several months while working on tax returns.
One final note on the 'personal side' of things. Wife and have been planning on purchasing a new car, and actually picked it up this week. We are the owners of a 2007 Toyota Camry. (Aloe Green Metallic in color.) Wife was being very obnoxious about the whole thing yesterday, it is her car after all, and for the first time since we have been married she has the 'better' car. (It is also the very first time that she has owned a brand new car.)
