- This topic has 36 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
If so, I’d be curious to know what, if any, kind of apology has been printed for their cover faux pas last week.
(I guess I’m not curious enough to buy it myself…)
The apology as such does not seem to appear anywhere.
The only reference to it that I could find is a sent-in letter where the writer compliments the editor for apologizing in the newspapers, followed by a comment from the editor that its only natural to apologise when a misjudgement was made!
For those of us who have not seen it yet, what was the mistake?
They have been semi-banned in Williamsburg, not by rebbes, rabbanim, or any sort of kol koreh, just some posters on street lamps calling it “maskilish.”
I love the ami. It was a mistake in judgement to show current anti semitism. These nazi type people exist and to open our eyes to it. The magazine is extremely well written and though provoking.
here are the Kol Kora Ban by Satmar aganst AMI magazine
photos: http://twitpic.com/88zyjp – http://twitpic.com/89d3a2
A manager of a food mart in BP told me he had many customers demanding he stop bringing it in, some because they think its maskili style, and even more cuz of the silly mishap last week with the front cover showing swastikas on the white house.
agreeing or not, it would be rather boring just to read stuff that you agree with, admitedly, they did something wrong, but is it really so nescesery to add one more to the ever expanding list of issurim?
I mean there are hunderets of rabbanim out there, every single one of them -eager that they name appear on print- inventing issurim weekly. That quite ads up, no?
After this week’s abominable interview glorifying the defense of a convicted child molester, will YOU be buying AMI Magazine next week?
Disgusting!
Where are “RABBI” Frankfurter’s standards?
I find it a bit sensationalist, but as I get that for free from Country Yossi, it’s not worth it to buy Ami.
artchill, +100,000,000,Ad infinitum
When he FRANKly apologizes to the victim, and does whatever he can to root out molesters from our midst, wake me up.
Artchill, being convicted in a secular court of law on a testimony of the alleged victim is zero in Halochah. There is an issue of believing loshon horah also.
Artchill, being convicted in a secular court of law on a testimony of the alleged victim is zero in Halochah. There is an issue of believing loshon horah also.
Does this mean that you would have no problems with the defendant giving therapy to your daughter (since you don’t believe the “LH”)?
The Wolf
There is an issue of believing loshon horah also.
And there is an issue in believing tens of therapists in the frum community, who are saying that theyre seeing other victims of HIS, who are telling of similar scenarios! Not one or two, by the way!
And there is an issue of keeping Hilchos Yichud, if youre a Yid mit Burd un Payis, and NOT saying it’s a man-made Halacha, all leading to the biggest Chilul Hashem in a very long time. Had he taken the 4 years he was offered, hed have spared the frum Oilem the huge embarassment of the court case and the resulting association of those who look like him, perhaps all living a double life, like him, for years straight.
Lets call a spade a spade.
mdd: +1,000,000.
Excellently stated.
chalila: There are no victims. Not the first or the imaginary others.
I actually thought the interview was done extremley well.
I also am curious as to what the objections to it could be.
Ami has already interviewd Charles Hynes for his side.
They wrote a detailed “introduction” stating they are not taking sides and are simply on the advice of Rabbonim,seeking to ensure both sides of the story are heard.
The Defense Attorney himself made frequent emphasis of the point that abusers must be prosecuted, however he astated that in this particular casse he believes his client is innocent.
Chalila, I’m not sure if he’s guilty or not, but I’ve yet to see one therapist come out publicly stating this (besides the original one that started this case).
And Wolfish, I’m sick of this question. Whatever one answers he/she is doomed. There is a concept in L”H of not believing yet being smart enough to “err on the side of caution”.
I purposely didnt read the article. I assume that an interview with a defense attorney can be summarized in one sentence, he is innocent and we will pursue all legal avenues to prove this. Why read 5 pages when one sentence is sufficient?
And Wolfish, I’m sick of this question. Whatever one answers he/she is doomed. There is a concept in L”H of not believing yet being smart enough to “err on the side of caution”.
And yet, if you’re “erring on the side of caution” then you DO believe it — at least to some extent.
The Wolf
Wolf,
Does the father of the boy you teach leining to *believe* that you are dangerous, or is he merely excercising caution?
Wolf,
Does the father of the boy you teach leining to *believe* that you are dangerous, or is he merely excercising caution?
He is exercising caution.
The difference is this: he would do the same with *any* person teaching his son. It’s not me, personally, that he’s worried about. He’s not reacting to any potential Loshon Hara he may have heard about me.
Or am I to assume that mdd would not allow *anyone* to administer therapy to his daughter?
The Wolf
Being suspicious that one takes precautions is a lower level of suspicion than judicial conviction and punishment under Jewish law.
Wolf,
I thought you would respond that way. So I ask, do you think he would stay there if his brother or father were the teacher?
The bottom line is, there’s a difference between believing and suspecting, and there are many levels of suspecting.
Wolf, sorry, but you are indeed an am ha’oretz. It is a befeirushe Halochah in Hilchos L.H. that you may not believe it but may exercise caution.
Well, most of us now wouldn’t allow a male therapist to counsel their teenage daughter, regardless of who it is so there’s technically no need to believe anything about Weberman specifically when reacting this way.
Problem is with boys it narrows the field to no one, and many kids that need help won’t get any. Best solution is probably recording sessions with video cameras that the parent can watch anytime (without audio if counseling, tutoring probably doesn’t matter either way). It’s doable but probably uncomfortable for ther kid when crying etc. and places additional pressure on therapists. It’s sad that we’ve reached this point.
I thought you would respond that way. So I ask, do you think he would stay there if his brother or father were the teacher?
Of course not. Let me be more clear… he would have acted the same way for anyone he does not know. Again, he is not doing so because he heard something about me.
Wolf, sorry, but you are indeed an am ha’oretz. It is a befeirushe Halochah in Hilchos L.H. that you may not believe it but may exercise caution.
The irony of someone publicly calling someone else an am ha’aretz while discussing Hilchos Lashon Hara is simply amazing.
You could have said “you’re wrong, it’s a b’frairush halacha.” You could have said “Perhaps you should look at siman xxx…” You could have made your point any number of ways without actually issuing a personal insult and attack.
But no, you have to actually call someone an Am HaAretz. Perhaps you should learn the Halachos of Lashon Hara yourself as well.
The Wolf
Wolf: So you concede mdd’s point.
Wolf, I am sorry. I just noticed that you do not mind calling yourself much worse names on this forum. So I figured you would not mind being called what I called you. If you really took offence, I apologize.
Thanks everybody for speeding up the closure of this thread… I’m holding my breath. (There was a double standard anyway with my recent posts on this topic not going through.)
Wolf,
The issur of believing LH, while simultaneously acting with caution, can be found in Chofetz Chaim klal 6, and in Guard Your Tongue chapter 6,18.
To be technically accurate, insulting someone with an anonymous screen name is probably not LH, but is probably ona’as d’vorim.
To Wolf’s credit he is no longer denigrating himself here. And that’s a backhanded apology. Most people don’t mind poking fun of themselves, sometimes to preempt others from criticizing them. They still usually take offense when others do the same.
mdd
So you are saying that Rabbi Horowitz and all the other Rabbanim that believe the victims are am haaratzim? Or maybe you and some other people here don’t really have a clue when something is loshon hora and when it isn’t and would prefer to defend abusers for the sake of your own lack of proficiency in the halachos of loshon hora as well as other simanim in shulchon aruch that apply to these cases.
WIY: Which other “rabbanim”? Names, please. Cause that ain’t the truth.
Rabbi Horowitz is a Rov? Nowdays everybody is a Rabbi.
- The topic ‘Is anyone buying Ami Magazine this week?’ is closed to new replies.