ubiquitin

Eidde
“It is no different than me going into your grocery store and demanding that you have no right not to sell Cholov Stam products”

Agreed. And that’s a right you absolutely have. When Stella Dora switched to ou d many many people complained called in etc . They aren’t required to just say ok let’s buy other cookies.

All the more so when the law is on their side.
When Ben and jerries stoped selling in Israel gues what happened? If Ami were to start printing pictures of women do you think stores in williamsburg would say “ok that’s their right”. Of course it’s their right. And it’s my right to try to change it. Again,especially, if the law is on the parents side

Ujm
3 points all independent none really true. Particularly b since we ate t talking about “serious” education we ate talking about basic education at the elementary school level which they did have more of a few decades ago. So the argument thst this is “part of satmar” like the argument thst Satmar could just go to chasan sofer I just not true, and that R Moshe was “very against” bas mitzvahs is just not true

eddee

You have a nice passionate post, but it might be in the wrong thread.
tHis is about Chasidish schools.
The one comment you made about Cahsidish schools “If not, I shouldn’t send there. This includes in a chassidic community” Is not correct.
It is not like A Satmar chossid has a choice.

You can argue, too bad thats the way it is.
But you cant argue if you don’t like it don’t send there.

ymbriat

“The most obvious would be standardized test scores for secular subjects.”

I guess I misunderstood wha tyou meant by “For everyone proclaiming that Jewish education is “just fine”, ”

I thought you meant in the sense that Avira was using it, that overall Chasidim are doing fine “I don’t see why they have to change, as I’ve been saying – it works.”

The point I am making that keeps getting lost is.
Does it matter if they are successful.

The State requires schools teach math/English to elementary school
Chasidim are not.

That is the gist of the article .

The responses are manifold

One of the most common Reponses is “I don’t see why they have to change, as I’ve been saying – it works.” In other words Who needs math/English (otherwise this doesn’t work as a response)

To which I reply, that is the requirement, if you don’t like it either go to court get them to drop that requirement and/or don’t take government money (the fact that you pay taxes and are net payers) is irrelevant .

THIS is the issue that is being overlooked. I f the law requires schools teach Math/English. should schools be allowed to break the law?
And Does it matter if parents approve (this is waht I meant in my first comment, that Besalel took as a “given” it isnt a given at all, its the crux of the issue ? and how many parents do you need all parents approval? 90 %? how do we know wha t the Parents want. donl;t say they choose to send there. Its not like, well if an Aroni school doesn’t offer enough English, just choose a Zali school, that isnt how it works

“Substantial equivalency was never defined or enforced”

YEs!
And that is what some students , and parents are upset about !
EXACTLY it was the law, and not enforced

This part isnt true either
“and they are not harming any other part of klal yisroel in their ways”
Due to their inaction in 2019 they almost had all kids chinuch undermined.

“Mentioning that the majority are successful in business or blue collar work is a simple, demonstrable fact to present”

It is a fact, and it is simple but it has little to do with topic namely the lack of “basic education”

Now if you want to argue “basic education” in math/English is unimportant for the reasons you mention. . Go for it! As I said I’m not even sure I disagree. But that isn’t really the argument I’m hearing. ITs more of a distraction

“You’re just parroting all of their talking points.”
Was this directed at me?
What did I parrot from the Times?

Besalel

“This topic is also not about the parents’ right to choose to educate their children however they please.”

The thing is THAT is EXACTLY what the conversation is about.
Everything else is filler.

The NYT accurately reported that many schools do not provide even basic math/English throughout elementary school.

Most of the arguments ive seen:
The NYT are anti-Semites,
Chasidim don’t murder
its 9/11 we shouldn’t talk about other things
Non-Chasidish schools do have a decent education
Public schools are also bad.
Some Chasidim are successful

ALL those arguments (even if true) aren’t relevant to the issue at hand .
Namely that many chasidish children aren’t getting a “basic education.”

Now, you could argue that is the parents’s right.

And honestly I’m not sure where Parent’s right ends. Surely we agree that if Parents taught their children when you cross the street close your eyes and daven and make a run for it, that wouldn’t be their right “to choose to educate their children however they please.” Is teaching basic English the same,? Certainly not. I’m not sure where that line is drawn.

further complicating things is that Some Chasidish parents want the schools to teach more, they can’t just send to another school . not to mention the fact that the impetus for the scrutiny is largely from people who were affected by it, and have since tried to move on.
Of course there lack of education is holding them back, which is PRECISLCY the point. The question is is that a right parents have?

Its not an easy question to answer. And there probably is no perfect answer

AAQ

“So then why people here post exaggerated statements?”

A question I’ve had for a long time. In fact those discussions are the one I find most fascinating. Ive had ridiculously long conversations (even embarrassingly long) where another poster clearly made something up, and when called out on it just doubled down
I was pretty sure I was right, but others spoke with such certainty that I hedged a bit. (I since verified that the OP is completely wrong)

“I wonder whether anonymity here relaxes moral norms,”

I think that plays a role, but in we have’ all seen even non-anonymous people make statements/predictions that are blatantly false. Chazal say Chazaka people don’t lie if they will be found out, it doesn’t seem to be true anymore. either they are hoping people won’t follow up, or if they do others won’t be interested and will have moved on

UJM

So to be clear, you asked regarding YU ““Don’t they love people who are struggling with the yetzer hora to commit adultery?””
Do you?

Aaq

“Maybe difference is between grad school and undergrad yeshiva”

Exactly right, see my first comment in this thread

UJM

“how do Orthodox Yidden teach in Conservative Jewish schools?”
you’d need to ask them

“Also, could you imagine RIETS being under the umbrella of the Mennonites?”

no, why?

” And the Roshei Yeshiva of RIETS saying we protested other Mennonite subsidiaries worshipping getshkes but we have no control over what they do?”

I don’t really understand, why would that be a problem?

“If not, why would anyone think being under the YU umbrella, with YU condoning and funding many aspects of outright kefira, any different?”

so its not different. nu nu

Damoshe wrote “Yeshiva University decided the time was right to ask for the legal right to block the club”

I don’t think this is correct. In fact the reverse is true, the current case was begun by the group suing YU.

In fact I think his entie post has it wrong “Let’s daven that their request is granted, and the club gets shut down permanently.” We can daven for that but I don’t think that is waht the lawsuit is about. YU is not fighting “the club.” that has been there that was “long opposed”

The Roshei Yeshiva can still be wrong for staying at RIETs when it umbrella organization supported such clubs, I never commented one way or the other on that. It is hard to imagine RIETS as a subsidiary of Menonite University, though if it were I wouldn’t have a problem if other subsidiaries of the university bowed to getchkes. If you do you do you don’t need to like it

“Ner Israel in Baltimore gives a highly regarded BTL ”

I don;t know what “highly regarded BTL ” means

It is a BTL, it is accepted. Nobody in Graduate school, nor any employer looks at NIRC BTL and says “Wow that is very impressive”
sure if you do well on LSAT, MCAT or otherwise have a good resume, they will overlook the BTL, but to say it is “highly regarded” is a stretch

(full disclosure I have a BTL from NIRC)

UJM

“Kastner never told his fellow Jews and instead let Eichmann round them up without them resisting or trying to run away”

Were all those who opposed resistance or running away wrong? (at least once the reality of Auschwitz et al was known?)

Akuperma

“Ambiguity as to whether a crime even occurred would result in the search warrant be thrown out ”

Again, you don’t know what crime the warrant alleges (correct me if I’m wrong) I sure don’t . That is all I am saying.

You can certainly argue, as others have, that you suspect (hope?) the justice department did a sloppy job that they don’t actually have any “probable cause” or that they otherwise messed up in some way, or even that the alleged crime is so petty to make the whole thing blatantly partisan. I get that.
But at this point all you have is a suspicion (hope?) nothing more. You don’t know that the fourth amendment was violated. You just hope it was.

Again correct me if I am wrong

Menachem
“If this would be done in Russia against a Putin rival, there would be a global uproar.”

If what was done?

Do you know what the search warrant contains? Very few do.
We will find out soon enough, if it is false or even for something true but inconsequential then yes you’d be right. but if it is for something more serious then I’t imagine the part that has been professing to support “law and order” “back the blue” would be the most supportive of the FBI

ujm
these:
“The 6 days of creation were in fact 24 hours. How could they not be? Aren’t days 24 hours now? So when did this change? Where does it indicate in the slightest that the first Sunday after creation (or the first Shabbos?) was suddenly shorter than previous days?”

The when did it change question,
In general this whole approach doesn’t appeal to me, it helps one “issue” and ignores others for example the order of creation, So you get all twisted into a pretzel for what exactly?

years ago I heard some fellow explain how the days are really billion years or whatever then when he was questioned on the long lifespans, he explained 700 years was really 70 or something like that.
So these days are abnormally long those years are abnormally quick the whole thing is odd to me.

But if some people gain from it, besder, I don’t understand why other people get all bent out of shape. This leading to not keeping Shabbos, concern is completely absurd

We keep Shabbos because Hashem told us to. Why? To remind us of brias haolam which we are told occurred in 7 days. does matter as far as observance if they were “really” 7 days or 7 billion years? No of course not

Similarly We keep Sukkos because Hashem told us to. Why? To remind us of Sukkos we were in in the midbar does matter as far as observance if they were real sukkos or the ananei hakovod ? No of course not

Lol Mennachem

Your question is absurd and story made me laugh at loud

I genuinly don;lt understand the conncection why does the length of Shabbos have to mirror the length of the days of brias haolam.

Hashem said rest every seventh day, so we do. period. the Why is interesting but it doesnt affect the practice

In order to celebrate Pesach, do you have to believe Hashem walked around Mitzrayim and physically jumped over (the literal definition) every house r”l ?

Are you saying the Rambam didn’t avoid Gid Hanasha because he did not believe Yaakov’s thigh was literally struck (he writes it was a dream, sure the Ramban argues) After all in your view if something didn’t literally happen it makes no sense.

According to the Reb Eliezer (the Tanna,) that Basukos hoshvti are not literal Sukkos, does that mean he holds we dont need to sit in a Sukkah on Sukkos?

I’m not big into this idea that days are million years, but your problem with it is silly .

There are several examples where we commemorate something not literal* (Ribono shel olam passing over us, Anneini Hakovod as Sukkos) in a literal physical way. So it is possible Hashem created the world in 6 “days” lasting billlions of years that we commemorate every 7th day in the literal sense. IT isn’t even a tiny stretch to say this

*Note please don’t confuse “not literal” for fake ch”v. Hashem’s Zeroa Netuah is not literal (to say it is is kefira) nonetheless it is real., Similarly Hashem doesn’t literally pass over a house, nonetheless He did. A Ananei hakovod is not literally a sukkah (obviously) it is still real thing Hashem protected us with

“so why does not the enormous gravitational pull of the sun dislodge the earth from being stationary in the center?”

Because the momentum and velocity pull it away. The sun keeps the earth in orbit.

IF not fur the sun the earth would be moving through space in a straight line, the sun pulls the earth towards it. The result of the two forces is Earth moving around the sun.

“Why talk hypothetical minutes?”

Because it is a useful way t o make my point .

We’ve come so far
do you mind answering the question

Would your view on guns change at all if we uncovered those imaginary minutes ?

“I am not insisting on “no limits” position”

shlom al yisroel!

“unfortunately everything is viewed as partisan, so even you’ll propose “reasonable” measures, the other side will see it as an attack and fight back.”

YES! NAILED it!

The word you are looking for that describes a group that opposes “reasonable” measures is unreasonable

The reason I brought up Heller, was just to show that the constitution argument is fluff. I understand why people like guns, I get it completely.

Thought experiment:

Say we find the minutes as the the 2nd amendment was written:

“Ok so we agree that states need a milita”
“Yes, very important”
“What if someone thinks it applies to individuals”
“Easy lets write “A milita being necessary…” Like this nobody could possibly think it applied to non-militia members”
“Ok but still a bit risky, we can’t have a free for all militia with who knows who has weapons”
“Ok lets make sure it is “regulated””
“I don’t know guns can be dangerous, I’m not sure a little regulation is enough”
“Ok lets make it “well regulated””
“Ok so it is settled the amendment protects a milita only, not individuals”
“Yes though make sure to write “well regulated militia””
[all in unison] ” Agreed! Huzzah”
“On lets make sure we all sign these minutes and clip it to the bill of rights that way it will never get lost and can be consulted on in the future should some group wonders why we included that phrase”

Would your view on guns change at all?

My guess is no (correct me if I’m wrong)
You would argue that even if not in the constitution it is an American tradition, people have the right to defend themselves, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun… (again correct me if I’m wrong)

THAT is my point. I’m not trying to convince you that more gun control is necessary. I’m trying to show that the reason those who support guns do so has nothing to do with the constitution, without the constituion you’d have the same view. So forget the fluff arguments and stick to real ones

AAQ

“yes,,,,”
That in no way answered my question.

My question to Mencth was as follows:

One of his arguments why banning guns was a bad idea, is that people won’t listen.
My question was, Is there any other law that he opposes passing becasue people won’t listen? for example would he oppose banning abortion becasue people won’t listen (obviously not all people will)
The words you typed do not (as far as I understand) answer this

“even less than 100 years ago, they were occupied”
as mentioned that was in spite of an army more armed than even the most liberal and expansive interpretation of the second amendment would allow.

“So, then, one should discuss statistics of those and what are possible reasons behind it”
Sure! ITs becasue we have more guns.
More guns = more murder
This is obvious and is born out by data. ITs true fo states its true for countires (developed countries anyway)
see for example Harvard Injury Control Research Center > Firearm research > Homicide for a bunch of studies

“I was just giving you etza tova to achieve your mental balance without fighting a (hopefully) impossible fight.”

not to worry.
balanced quite fine.
I enjoy these discussions its just hock for hock sake

I find it funny when Someone argues that he opposes a tyrannical government, yet if you don’t like his ideas you should leave.
You (almost) can’t make this up

It doesn’t get me upset, just the opposite its amusing

“If you want you can subscribe to the NRA and get their magazines. They have a section on all the newspaper clippings of people who saved themselves with guns. ”

Seriously though
THAT is precisely my point

Nobody would seriously argue that there is no individual who benefited from having a gun. The question is do we look at the individual or the collective

If you look at antiseatbelt magazine (if there was such a thing ) they would highlight a few people whose lives were saved by NOT wearing a seatbelt.
We ignore those few at look at the collective ALL must wear a seatbelt (in most states) because overall we all benefit. sure an individual might not.

THIS is the point of disagreement

The Constitution argument is fluff, for arguments sake lets say it said “an unregulated gun toting populace being fun, the right of each individual to bear any arm wherever and whenever he wants shall not be infringed ”
That still wouldnt answer the OP here was his question “I am genuinely confused by Americans who have tried to explain why gun control is not the correct response to hundreds of mass shootings a year”
Answering oh the constition,… doesn’t address his question, so change it. And if not why not?

Your reason is twofold
1) The cat is out of the bag, there are two many guns
2) Some indiviudals benefited

#2 Is where we disagree (as I said in my first post)
#1 Might be another point of disagreement, I’m not yet sure if it is a real argument or not

Mentch
“Your comparison to roe is limited at best. Roe was bad law with no constitutional backing.”

Roe is but one example.
My point is “the reality of the Supreme Court decisions .” is nonsense. Supreme court decisions can and have been overturned.

Again I understand that you think Roe was bad and Heller was good. My point is that once the Supreme court has spoken conversation is over is simply incorrect.

” and logic is on the side of private ownership.”
History isnt, though.
And even if it was it clearly allows regulation (both based on history and text)
and even if it didn’t that doesn’t really argue WHY we should live this way (whcih was the OP’s question) it just shifts the blame/ Ok so we are stuck with a constiution lets chaneg it and if not why not ? ((rhetorical question I know why not, I explained in my first comment. But the reason why we Allow easy access to guns is not BECASUE of the constituion that just begs the question, why not chaneg the constitution)

“Ubiq
The tanach argument is fallacious”
I agree completely. Though Iwas not the one who commented regardign Tanach I dont think it is relevent at all, nor do I think a selective choosing of examples is meaningful

“But feel free to pack the courts with liberals who overturn the second amendment sometime in the next 50 years. By then we will have another 200 million guns in the hands of Americans. Then what?”

packing the court wont need to overturn, we can just interpret it the way it was originally undersatood. As to then what.

I dont know. buy back programs?
Ban further sales of ammunition?

I don’t know, (Though again I’m not calling to ban all guns so I’m not super worried about what to do) but the idea that people won’t listen is not a reason not to enact a law

I asked you this in the other thread.
Can you think of any other such example, where you oppose a law being enacted because people wont listen ? (we do find this by Chazal lehavdil) People use this argument for abortion, that people will just abort anyway and unsafely (which is obviously true) I don’t find that a convincing argument do you?
Is there any other potential law that you find this convincing?

“I think we can all agree on some measures. Especially mental health and background checks. And I fault the NRA and states for not implementing these measures.”

Agreement!

Mentch

“All the others ignoring the reality of the Supreme Court decisions .”

nope not “ALL the others” I gave no fewer than 3 reasons why the reality is that that argument is completely irrelevant (I gave 4 reasons though in responding to this point the first 2 work together)

“Gun ownership has become enshrined…Real believers will not give up their weapons without a fight”

so had abortion. Arguing that people won’t like their “rights “taken away and may/will get violent Is not a compelling argument

If gun ownership is a good idea argue for that if not this is irrelevant

These arguments are examples of the “fluff” I referred to earlier

they sound substantive, but they aren’t after thinking about them for a bit

Ditto for the Holocaust argument. the Polish and French Armies were better armed than the most liberal and expansive interpretation of the second amendment would allow . Both armies fell rather quickly it is a bit silly to think oh my AR 15 will hold back the US army should they attempt another Holocaust. There were many armed uprisings NONE of them succeeded in stopping Holocaust. Sure a few individuals may have saved themselves (probably at the expense of numerous others killed in reprisals, though I don’t think that makes their act improper)

but again this feeds back to my point namely weighing the indivual vs the collective . THAT is the real question at hand .

constitution, Supreme court those are distractions

Katonti’s
your comment perfectly illustrates my point

You quote the constitution as if that ends discussion
It isn’t simple at all.

You say “The Constitution unequivocally grants the right of citizens to own firearms.”
1) This is debatable, that was not the interpretation of the constitution for well over a century (as I pointed out with sources in other threads)
2) Even if it was, the constitution can be reinterpreted. in 1973 the court said the constition grants right to abortion,. in 2022 they changed their mind. In 2009 the Court said the constition grants an individual the right to own firearms in 202? 203? they may change their mind
3) The constitution can be amended

That is putting the cart before the horse. If you think allowing guns is a good idea say so. If you don’t saying well the constitution ties our hands is nonsense

what you really believe is EXACTLY what I said here are your words : “But since when is public health an excuse to take away ones GD given rights?”

Of course Halacha believes an individual must give up rights for the tzibbur, as other posters have pointed out. But I grant America is not a halachic country. Putting the individual over the collective is EXACTLY what I said was the reason

“just like banning cars in the pursuit of eliminating car crashes would be considered ridiculous.”

As you may know cars are very regulated
you need a license to operate one
They need to be registered
There are limits how/where you can use them
You need insurance
If A Doctor deems you unsafe to drive can get your “right” to drive revoked

These are excellent ideas to enact with guns
YOU compared gun ownership to cars. I agree that would be great.

Gefilte

thank you for taking the time to type and share that.
Interesting

No Avira it’s unusual because R Moshe ignores or argues with the vast majority of achronim who have dealt with the issue. This is not unusual for R Moshe kdarko b’kodesh but generally other poskim didn’t Pasken in that style
The tzitz Eliezer is more “grounded” in chain of mesora going through achronim.

To be clear. Of course R Moshe could, I am not chas veshalom questioning his psak chas veshalom. Nor am I choosing who to follow. I am just relaying that in practice R Moshe is not followed in this regard

“I think “most rabbonim” quoted here refers to shul rabbis and communally involved modern Orthodox or black hat wearing religious zionists, to be honest.”
In my experience, shul Rabbis don’t deal with these questions. They start at the ob gyn and go straight to the relevant poskim if chasidish then chadidish yeshivish then their community (I’m not as well worked in modern orthodox community though I doubt shul rabbanim get these questions there either)

thanks for the kind works Rebbe.
You’ve taught me well