Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What a pack of lies from the usual liars. There was NOT ONE THING antisemitic about anything Greene shared. And there’s nothing antisemitic or frightening about the “Qanon” kooks. They’re idiots, not Jew-haters. Unlike Antifa and BLM, who are outright violent criminals, in open rebellion against the USA.
The October Surprise will be Biden’s. Either his tearful announcement of his resignation due to ill health, or else his funeral. (And that is exactly how the DNC will present his choices to him: Either you resign or you won’t see tomorrow.) If there’s a funeral they will try to keep it from being as blatant a political rally as the infamous Wellstone funeral, but they will fail. And his replacement will be a surprise candidate, not someone who ran in the primaries, and certainly not Harris. Perhaps Michelle 0bama.
PS: Or Fauci.
Many years ago I spoke to Rabbi Schwarcz about this. He certifies Jewish-owned businesses that are open on Shabbos, by setting them up with a heter mechira. On Shabbos the business is owned by a nochri, and the Jewish former owner is not allowed to set foot there. Al pi din this is 100% permitted, IF the business is not publicly known to be Jewish-owned.
He also makes a point of occasionally visiting his places on Shabbos, so they don’t think Shabbos is a “free day” when the rabbi will not come and they can do whatever they like.
akuperma, the dichotomy you create is false. The “Palestinians”‘ are no less racist than BLM. In fact they’re more racist. Their ideology requires that Jews be allowed to live only as their subjects, and the very idea of a Jew who is free is anathema to them, like the idea of a feral cow or sheep. And their goal now is to finish what their grandfathers started, together with their German allies.
Meanwhile BLM is a Marxist movement, but they’ve replaced class with race. Their goal is to establish a dictatorship of the <s>proletariat</s> intersectionally oppressed. They don’t care about actual black people, any more than classical Marxists cared about actual working people.
Of course the execrable jackk deliberately makes up arguments. Of course police can’t go around shooting anyone known to bear arms. There’s nothing wrong with bearing arms, it’s one of our civil liberties, just like speaking our minds or going about our business unmolested. So long as someone is not doing anything to make them think he’s going to shoot them or anyone else without just cause, the presumption or even knowledge that he’s armed is irrelevant. But when someone is resisting arrest, refusing orders, and reaches for something that may well be a gun, the police can and should shoot him. They can’t afford to wait until he starts shooting. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO RESIST ARREST.
That we now know there was no gun in the car makes no difference. He was resisting arrest, repeatedly disobeying the police’s orders, and reached into the car. The moment he reached in the police were right to shoot him.
Yes, charliehall, in the back. And if you did that you would deserve to be shot in the back too. Do you seriously think they have to wait until he retrieves a gun, turns around, and begins firing?!
He was already armed with a knife. And now he was reaching for something. That’s enough.
Now that we know there was no gun we can only speculate what his intention was. Perhaps he was planning to get in and drive away, because he knew there was a warrant out for him and he had no intention of going to prison. Letting him escape would have endangered the community, so that would justify the shooting too, even under the modified fleeing felon rule that we have now.
The underlying problem is that too many black people imagine that being arrested is optional, that they have the right to disobey police orders and do what they like. George Floyd did the same thing, so that the police had to restrain him, which in his health condition was a bad idea for him. Eric Garner too. In both cases the police did nothing wrong, and the victims caused their own deaths by resisting while in such poor health that any kind of stress could kill them. Floyd had just swallowed a huge quantity of drugs, probably to avoid being arrested with them on him, so it’s really a straight case of suicide. Garner committed suicide by fighting when his heart wasn’t up to that stress.
The antisemitism of some or most Ukranians is irrelevant. They’re certainly not more antisemitic than they were when they slaughtered the kedoshim who are buried in Uman, or when Reb Nachman moved there for the specific purpose of being buried with those kedoshim, or when he asked that people come to him on Rosh Hashona.
GHT once again evading. Gamzu specifically paskened on the importance of the pilgrimage, which he had no right to do. And you cited him approvingly. Now are you going to defend that, or change your mind and denounce it.
No, GHT, I’m not going to let you get away with this dishonesty. You approvingly cited Gamzu pretending to be a posek, and now you must either attempt to defend it or explicitly renounce it. Neither Gamzu nor any “public health official” or “elected official” is entitled to even express an opinion on the importance or lack thereof of the pilgrimage to Uman. Not even rabbonim and dayonim, especially ones who are not chassidim, have the right to an opinion on the matter. The only ones entitled to pasken on it are those who try to go every year, and the eltere chassidim of Breslav who are the transmitters of the Breslaver derech. The government will ultimately decide whether to facilitate the pilgrimage or make it difficult to impossible, but they cannot pasken on its importance.
And your condemnation of those who will be moser nefesh to go this year proves that all your protestations about the carnival are dishonest. You were never upset about the carnival, you were always upset about thoe who sincerely go to the Rebbe AS HE REQUESTED. Which means לא עלינו תלונותיכם כי על גו׳
So Gamzu has become a posek, and can say what is or isn’t necessary?
People go to Uman because REB NACHMAN EXPLICITLY ASKED FOR IT and promised that he will look after anyone who goes. That’s why people were moser nefesh to go in the difficult years, before it became a carnival. In recent years, yes, there have been those who go for the sideshows, and Reb Nachman is an afterthought (but at least that!).
But this year once again going takes mesirus nefesh, so if GHT actually believes what he claims to he should be admiring those who brave the difficulties and go even this year. He might even say that if you don’t go this year it shows that you’re a fake and — in the event that Moshiach has ch”v not yet come by next year — you shouldn’t go then either. But since he doesn’t actually mean it he isn’t admiring those people, he’s condemning them! How does this make sense? Anyone going this year is not going to party! They’re going for the Rebbe, and surely the Rebbe will daven for them and help them.
My bobbe a”h used to make a pareve cholent, and put prunes in it.
No, charliehall, wartine does not suspend the first amendment. There is no exception in it for war. Schenck has been completely repudiated and is not good law, which is why those who quote Holmes’s line about falsely shouting fire in a theater make such fools of themselves.
Hitler never murdered anyone either. But he was responsible for tens of millions of murders. Marx’s philosophy was responsible for more murders than any other philosophy ever — including all of Hitler’s murders.
n0m, more ignorance. Your claim about displaying a confederate flag was that “There are two instances that it could be illegal. 1) To incite hate. 2) Anywhere that it is beholden to The Civil Rights Act. [Such as the workplace.]”. This is unambiguously wrong. Even if the “fighting words” doctrine were still law (and it probably is not) that would not justify either of your claims.
Inciting hate is not fighting words. Fighting words means one thing and one thing only: words directed to a particular person, said directly to his face, that are of such a nature that it would be completely natural for him to lose control of himself and punch you, so that in fact he didn’t consciously choose to punch you, you made him do it. In such a case the Court of 1942 erroneously believed that states could ban you from provoking him by saying such things to him. Speech not directed at an individual was NEVER included in this doctrine.
In any case it is very doubtful whether the doctrine itself is still good law. Chaplinsky has not yet been explicitly overruled, but only because nobody has tested it in decades; if it ever came up again it’s very likely that it would be overruled.
Your next claim refutes itself: For you BLM can be based on a lie. For people who live in it, it would be lying to see from without, all that is experienced in the first hand. A lie is a lie is a lie. It can’t be a lie for one person and not for another. And the FACT is that BLM’s founding claim is a lie. It is a FACT, which you cannot deny without being a damned liar yourself, that Michael Browne, rather than being shot with his hands up in surrender, was shot while he was charging at Darren Wilson. It is also an undeniable fact that BLM’s other founding martyr, Trayvon Martin, was killed while he was actively trying his best to murder George Zimmerman. There has never been a clearer case of self defense in human history. It is also a fact that there is no pattern of police murdering black people; on the contrary, police kill black criminals LESS often than they kill white criminals. Every single claim BLM exists to make is a lie. And if you defend those claims then you are a liar.
akuperma: Under American law, the only time being pro-Nazi was illegal was when the United States was at war with Nazi Germany.
Even then it was legal to be pro-Nazi. The first amendment has no exception for wartime. Taking actions for the purpose of helping the enemy is treason; but simply saying the enemy is right is protected speech.
n0m, wrong as usual: I do not think this post was questioning a general display of The Confederate Flag. There are two instances that it could be illegal. 1) To incite hate. 2) Anywhere that it is beholden to The Civil Rights Act. [Such as the workplace.]
The first amendment knows of no exception for “inciting hate”. Nor can the civil rights laws override it.
The situation of a confederate flag in the workplace is legally tricky. The government has no authority to make it illegal to display it in the workplace; however your employer can forbid it, and the government has effectively required all employers to do so. If you put up a swastika at work you are in no legal trouble; but if your employer doesn’t make you take it down he can be in trouble. But this hasn’t been thoroughly tested; if an employer were to refuse to ban it, and insist that doing so violates his freedom of speech, he might well prevail.
As for BLM, the entire movement is premised on a lie. Remember that it all started with “Hands up don’t shoot”, i.e. the LIE that the vicious thug Michael Brown was trying to surrender when he was shot. And from the very beginning, in Ferguson, it was antisemitic. Funded by Soros, the organizers blamed Israel for Brown’s death.
That Floyd swallowed a large dose of fentanyl immediately before he was arrested is not directly proven, but it is the most reasonable hypothesis that explains all of the evidence. The most likely reason he would have swallowed it just then would be that he was about to be arrested and didn’t want to be caught with it and charged with distribution.
n0m, calling a legitimate killing in self-defense “murder”, even with the caveat that it’s not in the legal sense, is still a filthy lie. It is not murder in ANY sense. It’s the exact opposite of murder.
Syag, Trayvon Martin was in the act of murdering George ZImmerman. He was bashing his head into the concrete. What he looked like had absolutely nothing to do with it. Nor did his race play any role in the entire episode.
And the death of such a person is a good thing, because it makes everyone around him safer. All the people who would have been his victims had he lived are now safe from him. Ba’avod Resha’im Rina. The Gemara says explicitly that although Hashem does not rejoice at the death of the wicked, he encourages others to rejoice. When the Egyptians drowned He didn’t want the mal’achim to sing, but He did want us to sing. Binfol Oyivcha applies only to our fellow Bnei Yisrael.
N0m, you continue to lie and lie and lie and lie and lie. You are incapable of telling even one word of truth.
That you consider killing in legitimate self-defense or defense of others to be “murder” is telling. It proves that at least your screen name is not a lie — you have no mesorah and you are anti-Torah. Killing in self-defense or defense of others is not murder it is a MITZVAH. And the death of the attacker is a good thing to be celebrated.
Floyd swallowed a large dose of fentanyl immediately before being arrested.
And the list I gave was just the names that BLM is championing, which is why they came to mind. And not one of them was murdered. (Two of them weren’t even killed by police. Trayvon Martin was killed by an ordinary person whom he was trying to murder, and Sandra Bland committed suicide.) If there were a significant problem of police murdering black people, why can’t the BLM movement come up with even a single case to protest?
And they are completely typical of police killings, except for one thing: They were black, and that is NOT the typical police killing. Police are MORE LIKELY to kill white criminals than black ones. But nobody complains when they kill a good-for-nothing white criminal who was attacking them.
Even when a Somali Minneapolis policeman, who was hired for no other reason than his skin color, shot a white woman, Justine Damond, (and that WAS murder), and it took the state almost a year to charge him, there were no protests, let alone riots, and you certainly did not say one word about it, even though it was all over the news. You miserable hypocrite.
2scents, the “victim” DID NOT ASPHYXIATE. There was no physical sign of it.
n0m, nobody could be that stupid. You are lying on purpose.
Floyd was definitely not murdered. There is no doubt of that. The worst possible verdict is manslaughter by neglect, i.e. the cops should have checked on him more frequently, and once he stopped struggling they should have moved him to a different position. Maybe.
But the main cause for his death seems to be the large dose of fentanyl that he had just swallowed, and his generally bad health condition. He brought his own death on himself, just like Eric Garner did. Pressure to his back (not his neck) may have contributed slightly, and may have been the factor that pushed him over the edge he had placed himself at. That is all.
n0m, you are probably one of those liars who insist to this day that Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, Alton Stewart, Sandra Bland, Tamir Rice, Freddy Gray, Jamar Clark, and many others were all murdered. The truth is NONE of them were murdered. Most of them richly deserved their deaths. The rest were unfortunate victims of circumstance. But not one was the victim of wrongdoing by anyone. And anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
DC, what on earth are you talking about? There is no such thing as “the Cairo-Jericho accords”, and in 1969 Israel did not give anyone anything.
“And no, when it gave Gaza to the PA nobody had any idea that Hamas would stage a coup there more than a year later.“
What did they think would happen? Hamas would just drop their guns and sing cumbaya?
Everyone thought the PA would remain in charge. Nobody at the time expecfed the Hamas coup. Probably not even Hamas.
BY1212, we certainly do own those places. How can you say we don’t? Even if we don’t control them (and for decades we did, so there’s no reason we can’t do it again) they’re still our property. They were our property throughout the years when various thieves and occupiers controlled them, and they will still be our property no matter who will control them in the future until Moshiach comes. The Arabs are squatters there, nothing more.
And the prohibition on giving away land from which it will be easier for the enemy to attack us, should they choose to do so, is an explicit and undisputed halacha in Shulchan Aruch, so those rabbis who held otherwise were wrong.
Every military expert agrees that giving these areas away will indeed make us more vulnerable. Even those who support it admit this, but say that the risk is worth taking for the sake of the promise of peace. If the Arabs are no longer our enemies, and decide not to attack us in the first place, then it won’t matter how vulnerable we are, and we’ll be safer than if we kept the land and they remained enemies.
But the halacha says explicitly that we are forbidden from taking this into account. We must make our calculation assuming that the enemy will attack, and consider whether control of this area will make a difference in that eventuality. If it will be of no use to them in an attack, then we may give it away (at least as far as Hilchos Pikuach Nefesh is concerned) but if it will be useful to them, as every serving military expert says it will, then we must not only not give it away but we must fight to keep it, even though fighting inherently involves risk to life. We cannot allow the country to be vulnerable to a potential attack, even from those who promise not to attack us.
Considerations of Kedushas Ho’oretz, Lo Sechoneim, and our lack of right to give away that which Hashem has given us, are all secondary, because they’re all subject to pikuach nefesh. (Except according to the Ramban, who holds that mitzvas kibush ho’oretz applies nowadays, and it’s obvious that that mitzvah overrides pikuach nefesh. This is why the zionist rabbonim oppose giving away land in all circumstances, even if pikuach nefesh demands otherwise. But the Lubavitcher Rebbe didn’t hold like the Ramban.)
Coffee Addict, you need some more coffee. Israel did not give anyone anything in 1969.
And no, when it gave Gaza to the PA nobody had any idea that Hamas would stage a coup there more than a year later.
Living in Eretz Yisroel, if one can do it, is definitely a good thing, but whether it’s an actual mitzvah depends on a machlokes Rambam and Ramban. The Ramban holds that the mitzvah of living in Eretz Yisroel applies at all times. But the Rambam holds that it was a one-time command to the generation who came in with Yehoshua and does not apply nowadays; nowadays it’s only a desirable thing, but not itself a mitzvah.
However there is one thing everyone agrees on: A Jew may never consider chutz lo’oretz his home. Eretz Yisroel is always every Jew’s home, it’s just that most of us, for one reason or another, are currently living away from home. A person may live away from home for an extended period, whether for work, or something he has to do in some other place, or just to experience a different country; but his legal home remains the place where he intends eventually to return. That’s where he is based for taxes and voting, and for his driver’s license, and that is what the gemara means when it says that “Whoever lives in chutz lo’oretz is as if he has no G-d”. The moment a Jew says of chu”l “This is my home, I have no reason ever to leave here”, then he has become an apikores.
Nobody ever plays on a level field. The world is not level. Nobody has the right to expect a level field, or to complain that it isn’t. You are expected to do the best you can with what you are given, that’s all. Some have a better start than others and will achieve more; you have no right to be jealous of them. What the other person has did not come at your expense; if he didn’t have it you wouldn’t have got it instead.
There is no “systematic racism”, or “inherent racism”. What there is is the fact that many black people are criminals. Many more, proportionately, than white people. When 1/32 of the population (young black men) commit more than HALF of the violent crime, it simply makes sense that whenever you see a young black man whom you don’t know, you have to consider that he may be a violent criminal. Every honest black person will admit that he does the same thing. Even Jesse Jackson admitted it, in a rare honest moment.
The difference between that and racism hinges on those two little words “may be”. A racist is someone who thinks that every young black man IS a violent criminal; a reasonable person is one who when he first meets such a person considers that he MAY BE, but if he has a chance to observe the person he modifies his consideration in accord with what he sees, and the more information he gets the more he modifies it.
But if a decent young black man is tired of always being suspected and feared, he should blame not the people who RIGHTLY AND JUSTLY suspect and fear him, but all the criminals who look like him. If they didn’t commit their crimes nobody would think twice about him.
It’s the same as Arabs in Eretz Yisroel. You’d have to be crazy to get in a car with an Arab driver, or not to worry a little when you see an Arab in the street, because so many of them have attacked and murdered Jews. So all the rest of them unfortunately have to pay a price by being suspected even if they’re tzadikim gemurim, because nobody can read their minds and know that.
DC, Israel did not hand anything over to Hamas in 1969! Israel did not hand anything to anyone in 1969. And it has never handed anything to Hamas. You’re just saying crazy things.
Joseph, Deutsch has a good chance because the leftist vote will be split between Clarke and her challengers from the left, who think she’s not leftist enough.
bsharg2, if you are not registered as a Democrat you CAN NOT vote in the Democrat primary. And it’s too late to change your registration. The deadline for that was Feb 14. (It used to be in the previous October, but they recently changed the law to move it to February.)
Whatever Lee was, he was not a traitor. He felt he owed his loyalty to Virginia. He was against secession, but when the state eventually voted to secede he had no choice. To join the North and fight his state would have been treason. So he did the honorable thing.
Jackk lied:
The republican party and Trump are openly and unabashed racists. White Supremacy is their party platform.Full stop.
They would love that all minorities should be slaves again. The minorities are sub-humans compared to the white master race.
L I A R . L I A R . L I A R . L I A R . L I A R . L I A R . L I A R .
jackk is a disgusting hate-filled liar and every word he writes is a disgusting lie. I don’t believe he’s even a yid. I’ve certainly seen no evidence of it. Just take you hateful lies and go. Now.
Edited
GHT, Cuomo can fire de Blasio. That is the only way he can be got out of office early.
But then Jumaaaaane Williams becomes mayor. That would be going from the frying pan into the atomic furnace.
And here we have the radical left-wing troll “n0m”, exposed as the enemy of humanity and civilization that he is. What is rational is by definition the right way to act; what other definition could there be? But he subscribes to the anti-rational and anti-Torah religion of leftism, which has its roots in ancient paganism.
There is NO evidence that the criminal justice system is racist. The “proof” is always the same — the irrational assumption that people of all races commit all crimes at the same rate, so any disparity in arrests and convictions is down to racism. I am simply not going to bother reading yet another social-justice-warrior’s attempt to square this circle.
Taxi drivers OF ALL RACES don’t like to pick up black passengers for three very valid reasons, none of which make them racists.
1. Fear for their safety.
2. It is very well known (ask any taxi driver, of any race) that black people tend to be poor tippers.
3. Black people are likely to want to go to a neighborhood where, even if the driver is not mugged (see item 1) he is unlikely to pick up a fare on the way back. This problem could be solved, and thus black people could stand a higher chance of catching a cab, if drivers were allowed to refuse destinations they didn’t like.All three of these reasons are completely rational, and therefore not racist.
Schnitzel says that people who are afraid for their safety shouldn’t be taxi drivers. Why on earth not? That makes no sense at all. What is it about taxi driving that makes it suitable only for those who are reckless and don’t care if they are robbed or raped or murdered? On what grounds do you presume to dictate that a normal person should be denied such a livelihood? It’s purely arbitrary. Or, if you’re relying on the law, then it’s circular. And it violates a person’s 14th amendment right to pursue a livelihood. (The immunities and privileges clause, before the supreme court unjustly gutted it.)
My shul was closed for the night, so I tried to say tikkun at home but just couldn’t do it. I fell asleep at my desk some time during the attempt, and when I woke up a little later I just gave up and went to bed. Sorry, to stay up properly and say tikkun properly I need the atmosphere of a shul where other people are also up and learning or whatever. I can’t do it by myself. I used to have the same problem every Hoshana Rabba, till I started going out of my way to find a shul where I will be with people, and that works.
Also, I’m used on Shavuos to daven at sunrise and then take a nap. Since my shul was closed there was no early minyan, so I would have had in any case to go to bed at alos hashachar and wake up again for the regular minyan, which I always find difficult to do. Once I’m in bed I want to stay there until I’ve slept enough. So it’s just as well I went to bed earlier. Next year IYH I’ll do it properly. Hopefully at the Beis Hamikdosh.
Hamas’ base in Gaza which Israel handed over to them in 1969.
Say what?!
(annexation requires giving citizenship and voting rights to all persons living in the annexed areas).
No, it does not. People keep saying it does, but there is no law that says it has to. If they want to be citizens somewhere, let Jordan give them citizenship, or let them move somewhere they can be citizens. But no country allows aliens to vote. The USA has millions of aliens who live here and pay taxes and must obey the law, but don’t have the right to vote, and nobody sees a problem with that. And often they can’t vote in their country of citizenship either, because that country doesn’t allow absentee voting. Or because they’re stateless persons. Or because their country of citizenship doesn’t have elections. Nobody thinks that gives them a right to US citizenship or to vote in the USA.
Israel can offer the residents a chance to apply for naturalization, but in any country one basic requirement for naturalization is a clean criminal record, and not having political beliefs that are contrary to the loyalty a citizen owes his country. So any Arab who has supported or committed terrorism, or has disputed Israel’s legitimacy, can be barred from naturalization.
But part of this deal is that Israel relinquishes its role in the rest of the West Bank and allows it to be dominated by the PA.
No, it doesn’t. That is the great thing about this plan, that makes it different from every previous proposal. If Israel accepts it, it gets to apply Israeli law to a significant area now, unconditionally and permanently. In return all the Arabs get is a promise that if they come to their senses within the next four years, Israel will negotiate with them in good faith about a state for them. If they don’t agree to such negotiations within the next four years the deal is off, and Israel will be free to do whatever it likes with the remaining, still-administered territories.
Our usual liars come out of the woodwork.
Defunding means exactly what it says. If they didn’t mean it they wouldn’t say it. If they meant something else they would have used a different word. Only now that normal people have heard what they’re up to, and are reacting in horror, have the apologists come out and started “explaining” that they don’t mean what they say. That is BS. It is a pack of lies. They mean it exactly, because they support criminals. Criminals are their people. Now they must own it.
And even some of these apologists are careful not to say that private property must be defended. Because their base doesn’t believe in private property. Which makes them enemies of all civilization, who need to be exterminated.
Trump has never advocated defunding police. But the responsibility for a community’s safety rests on that community, not on anybody else. Trump didn’t propose completely eliminating federal subsidies for local police forces (i.e. forcing people from some communities to pay for other communities’ policing), but he proposed reducing it. This is the same as his just insistence that our NATO allies pay more of the cost of their own defense, and today’s announcement that since Germany has thumbed its nose at this demand he will move 10,000 US servicemen out of Germany.
And then there’s that weird aside from “jackk” as if there is some contradiction between the sanctity of marriage and ending a failed one. Are you daring to allege that either Mr or Mrs Hannity EVER violated the sanctity of their marriage? How dare you? They were married, and in the absence of ANY evidence to the contrary we must assume that they were both faithful to each other, but at some point it stopped working so they agreed to end it. What’s wrong with that? Now they’re not married any more, and they’re each free to look for someone else, if they so choose. He’s not Catholic, so that’s not an issue.
Backyard minyanim are only a few months old, and already there are politics?! Soon there will be a split and they will make a breakaway minyan in the back yard next door..
1, it may feel like our communist mayor has had three or even four terms, but in fact he’s only a little over half way through his second term.
1, when the askonim think someone is going to win with or without our community, they think it’s better that he win with us, so that he will be friendly to us, whereas if he wins despite our opposition he will take it out on us. That’s why they often support insupportable candidates.
Never put a number on Klal Yisroel.
That’s a funny thing to say when we’re reading in the Torah about multiple times that Hashem commanded Moshe to make exact counts of people and reports the exact numbers. The Torah also says how to do it — indirectly, by using half-shkolim. Using forms is even more indirect.
But I refuse to cooperate with the census, because I want my state and my neighborhood to lose representation. Since there is no prospect of that representation going to anyone but Democrats, I want it to be as small as possible, and removing one person from the count gets me an infinitesimal step closer to that goal.
And what a bizarre thing it is co call it a chilul haShem! You seem to think that is a word you can just toss around to mean whatever you don’t like.
Oh, and the constitution requires the government to prepare a count of the population. It does not require me to cooperate.
If we can eradicate them, at least the ones that carry disease, then we should. Unfortunately we can’t really do that. But the idea that every species must be preserved is completely without any basis in the Torah or in logic. We have Boruch Hashem wiped out the smallpox virus. It is extinct and that is a wonderful thing. If we can make more dangerous species extinct, that would be wonderful too. Hashem’s creation is imperfect. He left the world unfinished so that we would have room to improve it. And one way we do so is by removing dangers from the world.
“Halacha treats killing an unborn baby EXACTLY THE SAME WAY it treats killing a nochri.”
And that is a lie, too.
It is the exact truth and you know it. Show us one difference between them.
And the Catholic position on abortion to save the mother’s life can easily be found in any work on Catholic ethics. Any action whose purpose is to kill the baby is forbidden. Any action whose purpose is to save the mother’s life is permitted, even if the consequence is that the baby unfortunately dies. Which is exactly in accord with what the halacha says.
But EVEN IF the result of banning abortion would be that some Jewish women would die who could have been saved, it would still be worth it because those few deaths would be far outweighed by all the Jewish lives that would be saved.
Charliehall, there is nobody in the USA who would abolish the necessity defense for abortion. I also don’t believe your claim that there is any other country where this is true, but even if it’s true it’s irrelevant to us. It is NOT the goal of the pro-life movement, ANY of it, and it is NOT the Catholic Church’s position. It’s because you lie about that that I don’t believe you about other countries. Harotze leshaker yarchik eduso.
The Catholic Church allows whatever is necessary to to be done, so long as the goal to save the mother’s life, not to kill the baby. If the baby dies as an unavoidable result of that legitimate life-saving, that is unfortunate but not a sin. And that is EXACTLY the Torah’s position.
Yes, we differ on IVF, and it would be unfortunate if IVF were to be banned, but it would be a very small and affordable price to pay for the great good of banning abortion and ending the current Holocaust.
“That’s outright murder”
No it isn’t. If it were, it would be treated as such in halachah.
It is. Halacha treats killing an unborn baby EXACTLY THE SAME WAY it treats killing a nochri. And I’d bet anything that you will NOT accept the proposition that killing a nochri is not outright murder! You’re right not to accept it because it’s obviously false; but you have to accept the corollary, that killing an unborn baby is also outright murder. There is nothing you can point to to distinguish them.
Among the general populace and especially from some of the priests, there was a lot of agitation.
What is your evidence for any significant antisemitism in Poland before the 20th century?