Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
In the United States, we hire the leaders. We select them. They are our servants. To pray for the welfare of the president and the congress would be analagous to praying for the welfare of your cleaning lady or your driver or your lawn service. It would be similar to Donald Trump praying for the welfare of his employees. This is probably why many American shuls feel uncomfortable with a “prayer for the government”. It is downright “unAmerican.”
In a constitutional monarchy there is no problem. The prayer for the monarch is a prayer for the country. The monarch serve to represent the country.
In a republic, it is a bit trickier. The legal role played by the monarch (theoretically) in a place such as Britain, in America is played by the entire citizenry of the country (which includes us as well as we are citizens). The executive and legislature are mere servants to the people (analagous, using British legal theory, to the role of the parliament and ministers who in Britain are servants of the crown).
Many synagogues have a prayer for the government patterned after one used in Europe, and I suspect written by immigrants who hadn’t yet figured out that in American it is the people who rule the country, and the politicians are just employees hired to serve the people.
Baruch ha-Shem that we live in a country where all the major political parties include frum Jews, and where the survival of the Jewish community is not an issue. There are many countries where there are anti-Jewish parties running. In Eretz Yisrael, there are major parties who are so opposed to frumkeit that their win might trigger mass population movement or at least civil disorder. Not so in American. We have frum Democrats and frum Republicans.
P.S. It would be nice if said parties also nominated good candidates for president, but to expect that much would be greedy. The gemara says we shouldn’t daven for impossible things. We should be happy that at least no one wants to massacre us.
Parve “milk” (typically made from soy or almonds) tends to have less calories then even “Skim milk”.
In English, “Schwartze” is definitely a perjorative. In English, the language of assimilated Jews, “black” is bad. Indeed, the reason words such as “Negro” (which is a latin root) or “colored” were used to refer to African Americans was that “black” was perjorative since it meant “evil.”
In Yiddish, or “yeshivish” it isn’t clear. Yiddish has far fewer words than English, and there are no ways to say “Black” other than “Schvartz”. Any of the Americans eupemisms sound alien and foreign sounding (and some secular Yiddish texts tried to introduce the word “Negro” into Yiddish, without success). Persumably if you are refering to whites as “Veissers” there shouldn’t be problem using “black” in that context.
A perjorative is rude and vulgar. Bnei Torah do not use such language. As they are directed against those created in the image of Ha-Shem, I fail to see why being “Jewish” has anything to do with it.
Accepting government money sooner or later ends up meaning you have to do what the government wants. It is a mistake to support the government in return for money – since sooner or later they will things like family restrictions (the better to reduce carbon emissions) or changes in halacha to accommodate gay rights and feminism (e.g. cutting off tax breaks for “homophobic” institutions, etc.). For a small and politically impotent minority, Libertarianism is the safest derekh.
When was Trump anything else? When was Clinton anything else? They appear to be what they have always been.
if you want honesty, principles, and somewhat not acting like a bully – vote for Johnson.
If diversity is a code work for excluding religious minorities, as it is becoming in “P.C” circles (cf. the recent comments by the head of the Federal Civil Rights Commission), diversity is bad for frum Jews. If American society will increasingly reflect the “P.C.” views, Libertarianism is good since it limits the ability of those in control to persecute us.
Johnson-Weld are good Republicans running as Libertarians, and they are on the ballot in all states.
A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump. However, if Johnson pulls ahead of Trump, the dynamics change. Remember Johnson and Weld are former Republican governors with libertarian views on social issues, and conservative views on economics.
Any Republican chosen by the Republican National Committee would lose the support of the “deplorables” (previously referred to as “Reagan Democrats”, i.e. working class whites). None of the Republicans acceptable to the Country Club Republicans would be tolerable to the Trump supporters. To unite all Republican factions would require a socially conservative tea partier who wants to build walls and persecute non-Anglo-Saxons, and there ain’t such a critter.
If a Republican wants someone with traditional small government, pro-capitalism principles, they should support Gary Johnson. However Johnson’s strategy was to carry a few states and hope for a close enough election that it has to be decided by the House of Representatives (first time in almost 200 years) and to win as everyone’s second choice – but a Trump “blow out” prevents that.
Actually Trump and Clinton (or Johnson) would both be quite impeachable since if elected they would not have any “mandate” since they would have won with a shockingly low percentage of the popular vote, and with most of their supporters having preferred someone else to be president. This might encourage them to act more mentchlicht if elected, but probably not.
It has to do with European Christian customs, and part reflect their traditional perception of women as being mentally and physically deficient. Traditionally among our people a man would not show favor in public to a woman since that would be flirtatious.
“Political correctness” is what a given group of people assume to be true. Among Democrats, it is politically correct to assume that people who are deeply religious are untrustworthy fanatics. Among Republicans, it is politically correct to regard such persons fine upstanding citizens. Most of the discussion of political correctness pertains to the views of the the “liberal” establishment which tends to dominate most mass media, most popular culture and the education establishment.
What you are asking for is actually asking a shailoh. It’s not a ruling as much as an opinion of what the law is. Remember the same sorts of people who answer shailohs are the same as those who sit on Beitei Din.
Both Trump and Clinton, and their supporters, focus on demonizing those who disagree with them and often very rudely with crude language that would be considered deplorable bullying if done in other contexts. Neither will lead a unified country, which will have a crippling effect on domestic and foreign policy.
1. Ben Carson had an excellent chance, but he wasn’t very well informed on the details of public affairs. Unlike Trump, he would have been acceptable to the bulk of the “rank and file” Republicans, including the Tea Party and the Neo-cons, and would have been tolerable to the Country Club. He would have had trouble with the “deplorables” (working class whites), but he probably would be leading Hilary at this point.
2. As we know (consider the Rubashkin case), there is a problem of the criminal justice system being “out of control.” The Democrats find this to be a problem only when their own supporters get shot and want a limited response focusing on “Blacks lives matter” while ignoring the rest of the problem. The alternative is to focus on the overall problem of police and prosecutors acting as if they are ruling over the population, rather than being charged to “protect and serve”. In all fair neither party really wants to disrupt the entire system, though the Libertarians come the closest.
The assumption that hareidim don’t value secular education is wrong. The difference is that while seculars (and Jewish wannabees in particular) view secular education as a source of enlightenment and as a badge to prove their worth as a person. Hareidim value secular education only for what it can do to benefit them. For enlightment and self-worth, Torah is what matters. The goyim learn secular subjects “lishma”, frum Yidden do it for ulterior motives. That’s the difference.
If a hareidi (hareidis) wants to cook good meals, he/she will learn cooking. Not since that makes him/her a superior person, but because they have a use for that skill. BTW, have you noticed that there are many hareidi households with excellent food – and they didn’t learn that in a frum school. One find hareidim with all sorts of job skills (you really think all those hareidi businesses pickup the need skills in heder?).
It would only be apikorses if you believe it is a mitzvah to establish a secular Jewish state in Eretz Yisrael. If one supports zionism because you believe it offers secular political, social and economic advantages, but do not hold it is a halachic requirement to establish the state, I don’t think even Satmar would consider you an apikores (a fool, perhaps, but not a heretic).
Define comfortably. Some people would not be comfortable with a spacious home with a room for each child, central air conditioning, multiple cars, vacations, ability to pay full tuition for yeshiva and college, going out to restaurants, buying new clothes, etc.
Some people are quite comofortable with beds for each child, adequate access to transportation to get to school and work, ability to finance education even if it involves creative use of scholarships, enough food to eat, ability to afford respectable clothes even if some of them were bought second hand and have been patched.
Seventy-five years ago, most frum Jews would be comfortable with a roof over their head, enough food so they weren’t starving, and not having someone actively trying to kill them.
Of course religious fanatics hold by: “????? ???? ???? ?????”
When governments give you something, it is usually because they want something in return. The zionists give the hareidim money because they want them to “behave”. The Americans give the Israelis money to make sure the Americans will do their bidding and not get in America’s way (with the added benefit that American aid is designed to reserve American jobs by requiring the Israeli to cripple their own military industries).
If Israeli hareidim want to free of zionist control, they need to reject zionist funding. If the Israelis want to be independent of the American government, they need to turn down foreign aid. Neither is likely to happen.
Clean people are considered middle class regardless of how much money they have. Marxists prefer the term “burgeois” because they don’t like getting hung up on economics in choosing whom to love and whom to vilify.
If the local kashrus agency is happy with certifying a sports bar (most wouldn’t), it is there problem. Very few frum Jews would go into a sports bar (“bar” is the problem, these are places for socializing rather than eating).
The government gives some Hareidim money in order to influence them and to try to pull them off the derekh of the “pure” hareidim (such as Satmar) who oppose the medinah. As the hareidi community is largely funded by money from overseas, stimulating it actually helps the Israeli economy since it attracts investments, business and transfer payments from overseas.
The Americans give Israel money for several reasons. A big one is to support jobs in America (by subsidizing Israel purchases of American made goods which could more easily be produced in Israel, albeit at a higher cost). It also addicts the Israelis to American money and gets them to do America’s bidding in the middle east.
Term insurance is only cheap if the insurance company is sure you won’t die during the term. When the odds of your demise go up, so do the rates. They don’t do it as charity.
Other types have an investment aspect which may or may not still be a good idea given the extremely low interest rates now prevalent.
In the US, remember that Social Security survivor’s benefits function as de facto life insurance if you are employed and are leaving dependents.
The fact that the Clintons emerged from a career of pubic services as solid members of the 1% pretty much proves deep corruption, i.e., bribery as a way of life. Better a shady businessman who makes profits than a shady public servant who steals from the people.
He is probably the best known “modern” artist of the 20th century at least among the politically correct elite (among normal Americans Normal Rockwell is probably better known, but his style was too traditional and his politics and lifestyle too conventional).
Are you talking about earliest times or latest times? Are you talking about someone who wants to sleep late, or someone who needs to get to work as soon as possible?
But being practical, since all the people you meet (and those you haven’t met) were all created in the image of Ha-Shem, if you are dan le-kaf zechus, you usually will be right.
1. Not showing up to vote can be a positive act, but it most likely is perceived as apathy. Note that in Eretz Yisrael the non-zionist hareidim do not vote, which has zero impact on the political process (an alternative used by Irish nationalists 100 years ago was to participate in elections, win seats, and then refuse to take the require oath of loyalty).
2. In America, one votes for many offices at the same time, so a “blank” ballot for president is counted as a blank (since they know how many voted altogether, and how many blanks in any given race).
3. If you are a committed neo-con, you no longer have a horse in the race. However on economic issues, Johnson is a real alternative. On “social” issues all candidates are probably too “liberal” (“permissive”) for our tastes, but a libertarian ideology is more likely to leave us alone.
Not a problem if the teacher is a Christian. Problem if the teacher is a secular Jew (helps to be familiar with the civil rights laws on the matter). And if you are explaining Hol ha-Moed to a frum Jew who ignores it, best to have the Shulhan Arukh with you.
It is the American custom, and reflects their cultural and social values. It is not prohibited to do so by halacha, though in our tradition a man would often not defer to a women (unless she was elderly, handicapped, or clearly more hashuv than he is, e.g. the Rebbe’s daughter) since that might be considered flirtatious (something the goyim have never found especially problematic, but that gets beyond what we disucss on YWN). So it probably would be best to let a woman get on the bus before you, unless you are in an all frum environment.
If the offered the conscripts the option of a kollel-style life (sleeping in doors, eating most meals at home, with a wife, not getting shot at, not needing to “jump” at a moment’s notice, etc.), I suspect most would choose it. Indeed, the fact that Israel is one of the few country’s to use conscription suggests that. That being the case, if a kollel person is a zionist they are being a hypocrite, and the fact that someone feels the need to justify a kollel life relative to the army suggests the person is a zionist (i.e. one who favors having “forever” war with the Arabs in order to give persons of Jewish descent political power). For someone who regards zionism as apikurses, and is willing to accept an autonomous non-sovereign Jewish community with a non-Jewish state as an alternative to the zionism, there would never be a need to justify refusing to serve in the army.
The road to serfdom by Friedrich von Hayek. It does much to explain modern society.
P.S. One can use Inter-Library Loan for any book from anywhere. Ask the Reference librarian at you local library.
In states (such as New York) in which the license is not defined as the marriage or a requirement (merely a revenue measure and a burucratic device) a valid halachic marriage ceremony constitute a 100% valid state civil marriage. Afterwards it is fraud if the be unmarried. if they file “single” tax returns they could go to prison.
Joseph: The real world situation that frequently occurs is someone has the idea of having a religious ceremony and not telling the government in the (usually mistaken) belief that the government doesn’t recognize a religious marriage absent the license. In many if not most states that is not the case. The people are married. They need a civil divorce (not just a “get”) to be divorced in the eye’s of the state. They are liable for joint debts (unlike unmarried people living together). They inherit from each other. They are required to pay taxes as a married couple. The purely religious marriage is not merely “legal” in that it is not criminal, it is usually a fully valid marriage.
Joseph: The question isn’t whether the state can regulate religious marriages (i.e. require that the meseder kedushin by a rabbi ordained at an accredited institution, or require that the witnesses be of a certain gender or religion) but whether the government will recognize a religious marriage as valid – meaning that if some frum Jews have a kosher frum wedding but without a license whether or not the government will choose to recognize the marriage (meaning they are required to file a joint tax return, whether they automatically inherit from each other when one dies, whether they need a government approved divorce before marrying someone else, etc.). In states with common law marriage, clearly a religious ceremony is a valid civil marriage. In state that banned common law marriages (such as New York), the question is whether the law recognizes a ceremonial marriage even with a license (regarding the license as a tax, not a prerequisite for validity).
Diamonds can be manufactured, unlike gold or silver. Whether they will preserve long term value is dubious. They are also hard to appraise and therefore not as easily sold as precious metal.
The president can pardon anyone for anything except Treason. New leaders traditionally, but not in the US, start off be giving mass pardons or amnesties in order to win over those who were upset with the previous regime. Given that the US has a high percentage of people in prison than almost any other country, that might be something he’ll consider.
Note that accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt, meaning it is political suicide to accept a pardon.
Probably. Or Trump might decide to pardon her, and perhaps initiate a mass pardon of everyone who has been prosecuted for political reasons. Since Trump has no record in public office, what he does would be unpredictable.
Note that the author is a columnist for the Washington Post who is well known for his radically left-wing views (he’s probably to the left of Bernie Sanders). One expect he would revile Trump, or any Republican, for that matter. Asking him what he thinks about Trump would be like asking Hitler what he thinks about Jews, and while the answer wouldn’t tell you much about Jews, it would tell you a great deal about Hitler.
As someone with no experience in public office, it isn’t surprising that Trump isn’t much for positions, and that he is more focused on style and rhetoric. In many ways he is reprising his role from his TV show. Clinton has settled positions, and liberally changes them depending on her most recent polls and focus group. If you want a consistent ideological position based on principles, consider supporting Johnson (Libertarian) or Stein (Greens).
In response to: “Some (but not all) States will consider you legally married if you marry under religious law, and reside together with your spouse, even if you never get a State marriage license. It depends on whether the license is considered a mere revenue measure as opposed to being part of what renders you married.
In New York, while there is no common law marriage, if you engage in a ceremonial marriage without a license the marriage is valid, but you might have trouble proving it. However if someone marries someone else they will be subject to a bigamy prosecution and the second marriage will be void – even if they have a “get” from the first since they still need a civil divorce.
1, Each state is different.
2. In some cases, the government won’t recognize a marriage without the license. In some cases, the marriage is recognized but the clergyman is subject to a fine.
3. In some cases, the marriage is recognized with or without the license (meaning that a frum religious wedding is considered a valid civil marriage regardless of whether there is a wedding, even if the parties desire that their marriage not be recognized by the government, e.g. if they want a kosher marriage but wish to keep filing as single for tax purposes).
4. Some states have “common law marriage”, meaning any sort of public statement that you are getting married is probably recognized as creating a valid marriage.
5, It is very hard to get a marriage recognized if you don’t bother with the license, even if technically the marriage is valid. This can be a problem in one spouse wants to include the other (and the children) in health care, it affects taxes and social security, it affect custody in the event of a divorce or death. In lieu of getting a license, you might at some point need to hire a lawyer and get a court order to prove the marriage, and you might be prosecuted for tax fraud filing a joint return or lose custody of one’s children to the state. Better to get the license.
If you buy the competitor’s product, that is encouragement enough. When a salesman loses a sale and the consumer says it was because the product wasn’t kosher, word gets to the decision makers who decide if a hecksher (or a better heksher) is worth the price, i.e., if the added cost is justified by the increased sales. Food manufacturers are in it for the money – that’s how capitalism works.
To stop speaking Lashon ho’ra about the other candidates and to discuss public policy instead.