Posted on 10/13/2010 12:33:57 PM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
I have sent an e-mail response to The Jewish Press in rebuttal to a liberal e-mailer.
I have done this in the past, but my responses hardly ever get posted. This being the case I have decided to post it here to FR.
Here is the original e-mail (name withheld) followed by the response I sent.
Re Rabbi Daniel Lapin's "Civilization and the Severed Flower" (op-ed, Sept. 24):
Rabbi Lapin writes that "as long as it [American culture] remained connected to its roots of Judeo-Christian values and biblical tradition, all was well." Is that so? To echo reader Zev Stern (Letters, Oct. 8), was all well when black people were ruthlessly enslaved? Was all well when women could not vote? Was all well when Jews were coerced into working Saturdays and holidays? During what period of American history did Rabbi Lapin discover evidence that "all was well"?
Equally bizarre is the assertion that marriage "has its roots in God's biblical blueprint" and that "without the first few chapters of Genesis, few would be getting married or staying married." In fact, the institution of marriage is found in most cultures and time periods. Evidently, the idea of a man and a woman building a family together is not as dramatically counterintuitive as it appears to Rabbi Lapin. Moreover, the polygamous marriages we find in Genesis are hardly the blueprint for today's institution.
Most insulting is Rabbi Lapin's effort to read the "prosperity gospel" into the pages of the Bible. He is entitled to his fantasies of unconstrained wealth generation and laissez-faire capitalism. But in thinking he has found the source for these innovations in the Bible - a system which, we must recall, mandates interest-free lending (Exodus 22:24), transfer of resources to the poor (Exodus 23:11, Leviticus 19:9), cancellation of debts (Deuteronomy 15.1), redistribution of property (Leviticus 25:8-23), welfare for the priestly class (Deuteronomy 14:29, 18, 26:12), and which inveighs mightily against the pursuit of wealth (Isaiah 5:8, Proverbs 11:4, Ecclesiastes 2:11) - Rabbi Lapin has somehow gotten the message entirely backward.
Now for my rebuttal:
It is true that Judaism is not the same as laissez faire capitalism. However, I note the irony of advocates of secularism invoking a Theocracy in order to justify their political positions. If G-d wants social justice, then advocates of social justice are by definition Theocrats, at least so far as that issue is concerned. The commandments of the Torah do not come from human reason or moral instincts but from G-d A-mighty. That is their justification. Is it not ironic to advocate Theocracy in economics while opposing it in social policy?
In fact there are polities in the world who mix socialism with "theocracy" (Libya is one example). I notice that the militantly secular Communist world never seemed to have any objections to such governments.
Mr. X mentions an issue that is often invoked by liberals, the enslavement of Blacks. This enslavement was wrong, but not because it offends liberal moral instincts. A thing is right or wrong depending on whether or not it is in line with G-d's Will as expressed in His Commandments. And the same Torah that mandates the social justice measures Mr. X mentions also permits and regulates slavery. There are two types of slaves: Jewish and non-Jewish. Non-Jewish slaves were property to be handed down in perpetuity. Debtors or thieves who could not recompense their creditors/victims were to be sold into slavery. And as I stated in a previous response to a previous letter, married Jewish slaves could be given non-Jewish spouses specifically to breed non-Jewish slaves. This is in Parashat Mishpatim.
All this is Torah. All this is just as much Divine Law as the laws of social justice Mr. X invokes.
Torah also permits and regulates polygyny, concubinage, "holy war" (including "wars of extermination"), and many other things which violate the consciences of modern man. The Torah is from Heaven in its entirety. While no one is perfect in observance, nevertheless the Torah must be acknowledged in its entirety because it is the direct, unmediated Word of G-d. Someone who picks and chooses, who invokes passages or laws he agrees with while rejecting those he does not plainly does not accept that the Torah is from Heaven and accepts those laws not on Divine authority but merely because they are in accord with his own opinions.
Need I go on? Finally, as to the grave injustice of women not having the right to vote . . . voting is not a basic human right. All governments make the rules as to who may or may not vote. And I notice that the absence of the franchise in Communist dictatorships never seems to bother them.
I am sorry if I seem harsh. But I hope that the Jewish Press web site will see fit to post this response of mine.
Ping.
zap!
They can’t argue anything there. Unless, of course, it fails to fit their world view, which is obviously in conflict with — and takes precedence over — their faith.
Sometimes I just have to shake my head...
The idea behind the creation of man was that he attain knowledge and grow in wisdom. The former is useless without the latter.
David a modern day luditte.
He is obviously an idiot and has a real problem seeing America’s ideals progress to inclusion and acceptance.
Inclusion of all people because while they are unique, they are still human and in this instance American.
You are free to live your life as you wish so long as it doesn’t directly impact or coerce another.
Blacks are no longer under the yoke of another man and their votes are counted wholly as any other man.
The same for a woman. She is free to pursue any path she wishes and is free to participate in the electoral process.
Jews are free to worship Sabbath on Fridays or not. They are free to practice their faith in whatever manner they choose including living a strict Rabbinical life.
Lost on David is the core of social and religious culture in the country which has at it roots a deep Judeo-Christian heritage.
No point in denying it and waste of time to put up a an argument that has it’s axis, invented or glossed over history and synthetic emotions to substitute for any genuine intellect.
Further, David demonstrates a real lack of fundamental reading comprehension and sorely at odds with ___’s word.
Exodus 22:24
To lend one money who is in need it is better to lend without interest, the right thing to do, the human thing to and -—’s will.
Why? because the piling on of interest would make it more difficult for the person who is trying to resolve a personal problem, having nothing to with profit and only needing a hand up. That debt must be paid back and rightly so.
God has no proscription against lending money for a profit, for say a business venture.
Mercy on one who is need is entirely different than one who seeks a profit.
It right that God has ordained we improve our lot in life and in doing so we are better prepared to provide for your families and are in a superior position to help others with presumption of ego but that of helping a fellow child of God and even forgiving the debt when it is not possible the debtor can repay.
Forgiving the debt is also right if it is clear no one is taking advantage of the other and circumstances make it impossible for demand of debt.
God’s will then would be to say to the debtor, that person “Don’t worry about it”.
Your cup will be filled and overflowing.
Knowing our past encounters, I'm not sure if that little comment is aimed at me or at him. But I'll take it regardless!
Gee, a real Bible sophisticate there.
I see you choose to ignore centuries of sage advice not to engage in arguing with an idiot.
Proverbs provided man with the first advice in this regard.
Proverbs 14:7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.
Proverbs 26:4 is perhaps more appropriate to your situation.
Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
This is just another way of saying that when you elect to argue with an idiot you run the risk at some point that the people listening will not be able to tell which of you is the idiot.
In today’s terms, the reason not to argue with an idiot is that the idiot will pull you down to his level and beat you with his vast experience at being the idiot.
All things considered, I feel you did a creditable job but I suggest you not pursue it further.
“Is it not ironic to advocate Theocracy in economics while opposing it in social policy?”
A very interesting observation.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
The reason I have done this (rightly or wrongly) is that so many people have completely disconnected Judaism from the Hebrew Bible. To them "Jews" are a progressive, downtrodden, free-thinking European minority group and the Israelites in the Bible are merely the forerunners of (lehavdil) the Spanish Inquisition and the KKK. Unfortunately, I can take only so much of this "Judaism says whatever contemporary liberalism says/Jews have never owned slaves" nonsense.
I apologize again and will endeavor to restrain myself in the future.
“Is it not ironic to advocate Theocracy in economics while opposing it in social policy?”
A very interesting observation.
Thank you. There inconsistency here has always bugged me.
I understand and apologize, though there is such a thing as coercion by circumstances. It's just that this was not the main thrust of my argument.
Thank you for your insight.
Besides, I doubt JP ever posts it so he'll probably never see it anyway.
But the very next verse says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." (Pro 26:5)
This is just another way of saying that when you argue with an idiot others may not know which of you is the idiot.
But the very next verse says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."
Proverbs 26:5 advises you that when you argue with an idiot the idiot may think his argument has merit else why would you bother to argue.
This is just another way of saying that when you argue with an idiot others may not know which of you is the idiot.
But the very next verse says, "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes."
Proverbs 26:5 advises you that when you argue with an idiot the idiot may think his argument has merit else why would you bother to argue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.