Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
UJM:
I do have one, he’s my rav. Disbelieve me if you want, but to be honest, I don’t really care what you think. And last time I checked, there was only one who said that tv is an automatic forfeiture of olam habah. So by my count, the score is even.
Again, what happened to ask your posek? Or is it “ask your posek, but only when no other rabii disagrees?”
I’ll say this too: even if I DIDN’T have a rav who said that having a tv is not automatically assur, I would STILL question R’ Miller’s statement. I question anyone who supports Yehuda Levin…
Bogen:
I have my rav, who says that it is not categorically forbidden to own a television set. He is a rav from the “yeshivish” community, and since he is who I follow/ask my questions, I don’t particularly need another rav’s opinion, whatever it might be. Or does “ask your posek” only mean when you are sure that my posek will agree with what YOU think?
Notpashut:
I don’t know how bad your self-control is, but I don’t find it necessary to open my mouth against another to keep myself from being influenced by them.
Bogen/Doc:
I pay closest attention to what my own rebbe tells me, but I will look/inquire when I have the time.
Furthermore, there is a HUGE difference between not condoning a television and saying you will automatically lose your share in olam habah if you have one. The rabbis in the letter above did not go so far, and I would say you’d probably be hard pressed to find anyone else that would hold so broadly regardless of the circumstance of the television ownership. Very few things are black and white – this is certainly NOT one of them.
Will Hill/The Big One: I would never dream of posting my rebbe’s name on the internet without his explicit permission. But I can guarantee you, that while I am modern orthodox, he is certainly NOT (to the right, not the left, lest you assume otherwise).
Again, with all due respect to R’ Miller, he cannot possibly know that for a fact. And while the rabbanim on this letter urge everyone to get rid of their televisions, they do not go so far as to make such a broad-sweeping claim either.
Will Hill:
And there are rabbis who are well-respected who would disagree. Luckily, R’ Miller doesn’t decide whether or not I go to gehenom – that is Hashem’s domain, not the rabbanut’s.
There are very few statements about the certainty of causing someone to go to gehenom that should be acceptable to Judaism, considering that no human knows the reality of those statements until they have, unfortunately, passed.
I’ll stick with my rav who says that it’s ok so long as only proper programming is watched. Would R’ Miller say that my rebbe is going to gehenom too?
The Big One:
Clearly you ascribe to the “Divine Calculator” theory of Hashem, whereby Hashem is simply a scorekeeper who tallies objective sin vs. objective mitzva. Following your statement, it would matter not if you could say to HKBH that “yes, I had a television in my house, but I only ever watched 100% clean programming, or recorded and acceptable videos.”
But this is not so, for if it was, then intentions, thoughts, and circumstance would not matter. And we know that this is not so.
Brooklyn, thanks for pointing that out. The fact of the matter is that saying R’ Soloveitchik had a television set is not undoubtedly a derogatory thing. Broadly categorizing it as lashon hara is asinine.
The Big One:
Then I would be dan lkav zechus that perhaps he did, and that R’ Soloveitchik may have had to use the restroom. This is also a faulty analogy, as eating at McDonalds is inherently assur, whereas the physical television set is not.
Notpashut:
I have to wonder what the Chofetz Chaim would say nowadays when it is apparent that 90+% of the time, speaking lashon hara about such a person pushes them away from Judaism and all but eliminates the chances that the person will do teshuva. Ostracism doesn’t work like it used to – it has become easier to leave the community in this day and age.
Joseph:
I suppose you are in position to know whether Yanky is telling the truth or not? That you were there personally at the same time he was? If not, where’s the dan l’kav zchus you always scream about? Does it only apply when someone’s saying something you like? You’re such a hypocrite it isn’t even funny anymore.
Brooklyn:
Hashem doesn’t hold by anyone.
By your statement, there’s no point in anyone having their own rav to hold by. Believe it or not, it’s possible for 2 rabbis to hold differently, and both be “correct.”
I’ll prefer to let Hashem determine who will have a portion in Olam HaBah
See, it’s THAT, The Big One, which causes people to leave Judaism. Not the idea that one shouldn’t have a television in the home, but that attitude.
Jphone:
Well said. I know many who choose not to have a television, and that’s great. I know more who do, and are very careful about what they watch. Personally, I enjoy watching certain sporting events and even moreso the History Channel/Discovery/National Geographic/Biography Channel when I need some R&R. As far as the latter goes, I still feel like I’m taking a break, but I’m learning things at the same time. No-lose situation there!
SJS, thanks for pointing out the faultiness of the machine gun analysis. He tried to do it in the cell phone discussion too. But logical fallacies are nothing new to conversations with Joe.
Joseph:
Have you read what rabbonim have wrote about the internet? If it’s not about control and how you use it, then I don’t see any possible heter for you to be on here.
noitallmr:
I usually find that a belt won’t set off the detector, unless the buckle is bigger than usual (and you’re not a cowboy, so I don’t know why it would be :P). As for the shoes, I’m with you. The sad fact is that the only purpose it serves is to make us FEEL safe. It would take a very stupid terrorist to try something like that again. Unfortunately, removing unnecessary security measures is like decriminalizing something – once the restriction is there, nobody wants to take the initiative to reverse course for fear of being labeled soft on crime/security.
BYM: I think that’s a pretty fair assessment. Being in the middle is often times considered desirable, while being on an extreme to either side is sometimes seen as undesirable. “Normal” to many or most means “the middle.” Everyone likes to consider themselves normal, and place others based on comparison to themselves. That being said, nobody is “normal.” Normal usually = boring 😛
Keep up the running though, it is so good for you. Another thing to keep in mind is that it is best to run either on a treadmill (which I hate), asphalt (streets), or paths/trails. Running on concrete sidewalks is terrible for your joints, particularly ankles and knees. Asphalt and paths/trails (and obviously treadmills) provide more “give” and bounce to help absorb the shock.
If you’re thinking about training for a marathon, I say go for it! It’s an accomplishment you will never forget, and it will really show you that you can do anything that you work at. Achieving a goal like that is intensely satisfying and boosts self-confidence and image. Someone pointed out Hal Higdon’s program, and I’ll second that recommendation. You can access basic training programs online, or he has a book out called “Marathon: The Ultimate Training Guide” which is very thorough and gives you a ton of useful and necessary information.
asdfghjkl (and Yoshi, since I noticed your comment in the last post):
Besides stretching, obtaining proper running shoes is the most important thing you can do. They are a bit expensive, but without proper running shoes, consistent running can leave you exposed to serious injury, and moreover, once you run with shoes which were properly selected and fitted, you will want to run even more – the difference is like night and day.
In every major city there are running stores which can help you properly select running shoes tailored to meet your needs. The store I go to (my first time) had me run on a treadmill, so they could observe and analyze my gait, pronation, etc… and pick a shoe that was right for me. Running shoe manufacturers make an infinite combination of shoes with properties made for different types of feet and people. Personally, I’ve found that my Asics shoes are the most comfortable. They run me about $150 a pair, and I switch them out every 6-8 months or so, but I can tell you it is worth it – my knees and ankles used to get very sore, and now I haven’t had pain in them in years from running.
This is especially important for distance runners (those training for marathons in particular) and those who do a heavy amount of running on a regular basis. Any doctor who sees athletes or specializes in sports medicine (and I’ve been to a few) will tell you that it’s worth the extra cost to get analyzed so you can buy proper shoes. Unfortunately, Yoshi, I have my doubts on whether a $30 pair from Famous Footwear are going to protect you. They may seem comfy now, but they might be causing damage that you are unaware of (and if you increase running, you may notice). If you are considering training for a marathon, PLEASE invest in proper shoes. Running is only beneficial if it’s healthy!
JAPP:
Personally, I feel that my rebbeim were not really less strict. They may have tolerated slightly more “shtick” than usual, but as far as drinking/smoking, they were strict. Probably particularly because a school accredited in the state which has teachers serving students alcohol was too much potential for danger and chillul Hashem for them to stomach. They wouldn’t chastise us if we came a little shikkered up, but they ALWAYS made sure we were safe and didn’t do anything stupid. I doubt any rebbe would disregard their students’ well-being.
To be a little more clear on my personal view, for what it’s worth:
The likelihood of a prosecution for stam providing alcohol to a minor on purim, while conceivably MIGHT be prosecutable (though as Schwab pointed out, unlikely) is extremely low without any other problems. One exception to this might be large parties held on college campuses by various Jewish groups. I’ve known a few of them to get raided, though as far as I recall the only people who got in trouble were the underage drinkers, and there was some story about the parties having gotten so popular that many non-jews were showing up for the free booze. Be careful about that, though I doubt anyone here is likely to be involved with such an activity.
The likelihood of action is greater where something bad happens as a result of the minor drinking. There are a number of ways through which one could be held liable, even in the absence of social host laws. At the very least, the lesson is to control what goes on in your home, and what might happen after people leave. Be responsible and cautious. Liability is nothing compared to the grief you will feel if the child that leaves your house kills someone, gets killed, or both (c”v).
Anon, you are probably correct. The Constitution guarantees the right to free exercise, but it does not guarantee insulation from liability for the harmful results to others of your religious practice. Even if a social host law has an exemption, it does not mean that there will be no liability. Social host laws make it easier to sue, the absence of them does not make it impossible. It could be a sticky causation issue, but I don’t think a lawsuit in the absence of social host laws would be doomed to failure by any stretch of the imagination.
Joseph,
As I explained in the screen name thread, the 07 represents the year I made the account. It’s not surprising that you would insinuate that I fight traffic tickets, as you seem to be insistent on trying to besmirch or disrespect me at every turn. I’ve actually been on the opposite side as Mr. Schwab, at the prosecution table. If you think I’m not quite familiar with the constitutional issues relevant to criminal law, you’re sorely mistaken. I’ve since moved on to a different practice area. I’m pretty sure that Mr. Schwab, if he comes back, will tell you that while he may be confident that his position is the correct outcome, it is not a foregone conclusion and that there is room for argument on both sides.
Also, I’m still waiting for your qualifications. You believed yourself qualified before, and have avoided my question by trying to focus even more on mine. A clever tactic, but I’m afraid not a very compelling one.
But by the way, your calling my statement an ad hominem puts the onus of proof on you to prove that it is, not on me to prove that it’s not. This is a common fallacy that you seem to struggle with. Making an conclusory assertion does not put the burden on the disagreeing person to refute. That only happens when you back up your claim with something substantial.
If I truly meant anything negative by it, I would have used it consistently, but plainly in the next sentence I said “Schwab.” It was a cute-ism if you will, not intended to demean or insult.
Yes, I often do actually. In the above case, I am not stating that I am 100% confident how a court would rule – merely that it is not a foregone conclusion.
Also, you still haven’t informed me of your qualifications to engage in legal debate. I think it’s only fair, since you questioned mine and have engaged in FAR more conclusory statements (i.e., where you claimed to examine a statute and were positive that Purim was covered – and then couldn’t even point me to your source or the statute).
Joseph:
How is providing a contrary argument anything what The Big One said? Under you response, any response other than admitting defeat would be proving The Big One right. (And how exactly is Schwabbie ad hominem? Do you even know what that means?)
And for your information, Mr. Schwab isn’t the only attorney taking part in this discussion. I may not be retired yet, but more years in practice does not an indisputable legal authority make. *I* have the requisite knowledge, training, and experience to carry on a meaningful and intelligent debate about the law. Do you? Does “The Big One” know enough about the law to declare me “checkmated?” I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
BYM:
Likewise, I respect your opinion 😉 Agreeing to disagree is a perfectly acceptable result. Everyone gains from the exchange of ideas whether or not minds are changed.
The Big One:
I am nothing of the sort. Schwabbie may think that it’s an open and shut constitutional case, but I would disagree. Again, see the refusal of religious exemptions for marijuana laws as an example. If schwab’s constitutional theory was correct, there would HAVE to be an exception – yet federal and state courts have consistently rebuffed the idea.
Second, where *I” live, social host laws know no religious exception. If they recognize it in Nassau county, that’s great – but that doesn’t mean they do everywhere, nor is that constitutionally mandated. Furthermore, even without social host laws, it may be possible to bring suit in tort against the person who furnished the child alcohol. Religion is certainly not a case-closed defense in negligence cases.
Joseph:
First off, drunk driving is the preeminent problem. Don’t see how you can ignore it.
Second, it doesn’t have to be connected with driving. If the kid gets into a fistfight and hurts someone, or damages property, or anything else – you can be liable. Even worse, if c”v the kid walks into the street in a drunken haze and gets hit, you’re going to be liable. There are infinite liability possibilities, even without a car.
As a former defense attorney, you should probably be aware that “irregardless” is not a word 😉
First, I’d again like to see the NY or NJ statute, which Joseph claims to have read and assured everyone that it covers Purim. Your constitutional conclusion, while on its face seems reasonable, might not hold up. There is no exemption in the marijuana laws, for example, for consumption on religious grounds. As I’m sure you’re aware, the government can infringe on your religious liberties so long as there is a statute which is narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. Controlling underage drinking is most certainly a compelling state interest, and depending on how the statute is written, could be narrowly tailored even if it excludes Purim from the exemption. For example, someone who serves a child to the point where they need to go to the hospital would probably be ill-placed to claim religious exemption. It would all depend on the circumstances.
And again, there is potentially MASSIVE liability under social host law. Potential criminal liability, and even more likely civil liability (i.e., staggering verdicts). No jury will be sympathetic to the fact that “it was a religious holiday” when there’s a kid killed by a drunk driver who was served at your house. Beware.
Just to clarify, anon, I am quite sure you have a *fully* functional brain 😉
Anon, you’re right about the teen party laws. I’m not sure, but I believe that part of their origins may be in New York.
Joseph:
Everything I have said is verifiable, and I will provide citations if asked. You, on the other hand, make assertions which not only have no support which you are able to provide, but have also been disproved. See, e.g., Social Host laws.
Saying that I’ve made errors does not make it so. Your thinly-veiled attempts to brush off the clear repudiation of your assertions will not fool anyone with half a brain. See, e.g., anon for this.
Changing the subject is certainly one way to avoid admitting mistake…
Brooklyn:
I keep it under lock and key not because I don’t trust anyone in particular, but because it is prudent to safeguard your SS card from EVERYONE. Anyone who gets hold of your card can wreak havoc on your life.
You gave your personal experience, which-don’t get me wrong-is certainly a valid observational basis. However it does not establish fact. You didn’t “prove” anything but your own personal experiences. I explained why in my more general parenting philosophy, I disagreed, and you basically responded by saying that you were right because of your experience, and that I am wrong and have convoluted thinking. You did not rebut my explanation.
Again, you didn’t “prove” anything. For that matter, neither did I. But I wasn’t making the blanket assertion that a teenager should or shouldn’t have a cell phone, so the onus was not on me to prove anything.
Brooklyn:
First, a cell phone is not a lethal weapon. Let’s not get hyperbolic here.
Second, there is no legitimate reason that my children would need to have my social security card. Ever. Faulty comparison.
BYM:
Disagreement is not bashing. I tried my very best to carry on a respectful and intelligent dialogue, to be met only with “you’re wrong because I say so.” Eventually there comes a point where it is pointless because one side is interested only in talking, rather than listening.
000646:
Safe is a biometric safe. The override keys are in a safe deposit box. Theoretically, you are correct. Once in a blue moon I need my card and remove it, but I am always very careful to put it back in as soon as I return home. The chances of anyone getting a hold of it are slim to none. I do see your point, as most people probably aren’t as paranoid as I 😉
Joseph:
As I said, please provide a source or citation – you say you looked it up so it shouldn’t be that difficult (unless you really didn’t). I’m not taking your word for that one.
Also, as I said, drinking laws notwithstanding, you’re still open to civil and criminal liability for ANYTHING a child does while intoxicated after you provide them with alcohol.
000646: I actually do keep my SS card in a safe. I was under the assumption that most keep their card protected, if not locked up.
Also, Joseph, social host laws do not recognize religious exemptions one way or the other. You may still be criminally or civilly liable for anything your underage guests do when they leave your home.
Joseph:
Can you point me to the NY/NJ statute? I question your self-proclaimed legal expertise to determine that the statute definitively covers Purim. In the unlikely event that the statutes expressly mentions Purim, I will stand corrected – but I am certain this won’t be the case.
Furthermore, I’m pointing out the risks. You aren’t going to get off on a wrongful death lawsuit for millions of dollars because you had a conflict with the Shulchan Aruch. There are opinions which say you do not have to drink to satisfy the requirement. Proceed at your own risk, is what I am saying; do not complain when you must accept consequences, when you’ve been warned.
Hak:
The problem is that brooklyn19 doesn’t trust parents to decide when a child needs protection – that’s HER area of expertise.
Brooklyn:
Pardon me if I don’t accept your opinion as expertise. You are surely a very confident young woman, but I think your unwillingness to consider other opinions and points of view gets in your way of reaching an educated, intelligent position. I have tried my best to explain my position, and you simply reply that I am wrong, that you know about teenagers, and that I don’t. Again, my apologies if that isn’t the most convincing argument I’ve ever heard.
Anon:
It would seem that under Illinois law at least, there is no religious exemption in the home, it applies only within the four walls of a religious institution. It is possible that the law has been interpreted to cover Kiddush at home (though it’s equally possible that since Kiddush is often made at shul, it doesn’t). You are correct that there is NO EXCEPTIONS to social host liability for liquor consumed under religious exemptions.
Additionally, social host liability is imposed via case law or statute, so it is a state-level, not community-level issue. Both NY and NJ DO IMPOSE social host liability.
Finally, not all states have religious exception laws. In fact, so far as I can tell, neither NY nor NJ have religious consumption exceptions. I could be wrong on that, and would be glad if someone could point to a source if it exists.
Joseph:
Per Illinois law:
“…the possession and dispensation of wine by an authorized representative of any church for the purpose of conducting any bona fide rite or religious ceremony conducted by such church shall not be prohibited by this Act.”
Purim is not a rite or ceremony, and even if it were, any such liquor would have to come from an authorized representative. Provide liquor to minors on purim at your own risk.
Additionally, even if you CAN fit it into an exemption, if that child does something c”v, you will most likely be liable. Think about that before you start pouring.
Brooklyn:
Dear, please tell me what *facts* you have presented? A majority of your statements comes from personal experience and that which you’ve seen in your interactions with your peers. This does not establish fact. This establishes your proclivity and that of your friends. Certainly not a representative sample of teenagers generally.
I do believe that at the teenage (not necessarily at 13, let’s just say 16), the pros outweigh the cons. I think you forget that everyone was a teenager at some point – we’re not unfamiliar with the state of mind…
It’s clear that you haven’t fully left your teen years behind from your last sentence. You seem less interested in discussion and intellectual debate than proclaiming your experiences as undeniable facts of life.
When I want parenting advice, I go to my parents, who have “been there, done that.”
Joseph:
3 points:
1) States and more commonly, municipalities, have laws against minors in possession and/or minor consumption.
2) Even if, in a hypothetical jurisdiction, there is no law against underage consumption per se, there will be a law against providing/serving alcohol to minors. Often times, adults who serve to minors are held liable for anything the minor does while drunk. If the minor gets in a car and kills someone, you’re looking at a LOT of trouble.
3) The religious exception is for sacramental wine used in religious services. Kiddush would be a good example. Purim would not likely fall under such an exception – there is no religious ritual or ceremony involved. Additionally, as there exist opinions that say one needs not necessarily drink on Purim, no court would likely extend the exception on the grounds of necessity for free exercise purposes.
Brooklyn19:
Thanks for your input on my parenting philosophy, but I disagree. Your assessment that I’m “wrong” and have a “convoluted way of thinking” in no way address the merits of my point. They are conclusory statements which don’t disprove a thing I said.
It seems that your mother was not careful enough in protecting her social security number. The only people who know mine are my parents, and that is because they held on to my social security card until I was old enough to care for it myself.
I find it hard to believe that you were able to activate internet in that way. Chances are, the service plan included internet, and you simply enabled the feature on the phone itself. I have had phones where that was the case.
Finally, don’t be so sure that parents don’t know all the same technology. Many could talk circles around any teenager, your wise self included.
10+ times? Doubtful.
I’d expect a lot more of your comments to not show up if that happened too often 🙂
Joseph:
I posted numerous comments on the Mumbai stories praising klal Yisrael for coming together, and expressing my horror at the tragedy.
I’ve also posted several other well-wishes for my fellow Jews, which were not posted.
Methinks my content isn’t the problem.