O C R rabbis call for olympic boycott
J J Levin
cindys
"J J Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4818c0ac$0$11641$607e...@cv.net...
> http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/108336.html
--------begin cite-----
Leading Jewish rabbis and lay leaders called on Jewish tourists not to
attend the Olympic Games.
More than 175 Jewish leaders, including the heads of the Reform and
Conservative movements, signed the appeal released Wednesday. It was
initiated by two New York-area Orthodox rabbis, Irving "Yitz" Greenberg and
Haskell Lookstein, after they learned that Beijing had set up a kosher
kitchen to accommodate Jewish tourists.
"We are deeply troubled by China's support for the genocidal government of
Sudan; its mistreatment of the people of Tibet; its denial of basic rights
to its own citizens; and its provision of missiles to Iran and Syria, and
friendship for Hamas," the statement says. "Having endured the bitter
experience of abandonment by our presumed allies during the Holocaust, we
feel a particular obligation to speak out against injustice and persecution
today."
The statement was timed ahead of Yom Hashoah commemorations Thursday. One of
the signatories, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union of Reform
Judaism, said the call targeted tourists only and that the organizers did
not expect Jewish athletes or Israeli officials to boycott the games.
"This is a moral appeal to Jewish individuals around the world," Yoffie told
JTA.
--end cite---
If Jews boycotted the Olympics every time the host country did something
objectionable, I suspect the Olympics would be boycotted every time.
Personally, I think it's really nice that Beijing is setting up a kosher
kitchen for the Olympics.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Don Levey
It *is* nice. In this case, though, it's not just that China does
something objectionable; they are doing things which are directly
harmful to Jews. To take care of our own, we should think carefully
before supporting the Beijing Olympics.
--
Don Levey If knowledge is power,
Framingham, MA and power corrupts, then...
NOTE: email server uses spam filters; mail sent to sal...@the-leveys.us
will be used to tune the blocking lists.
cindys
"Don Levey" <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote in message
news:m3fxt3j...@dauphin.the-leveys.us...
Is it true that China is providing missiles to Iran and Syria?
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
J J Levin
news:4818cb73$0$31759$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
While I can't answer that (presumably addressed to Don), there is no
question that, for oil China is looking the other way while the Darfur
massacres continue unabated in the Sudan, and is blocking any sort of
political solution at the UN.
The Chinese have become money-grubbing capitalists in all but name (by name
they are loyal Communists, of course!) who really do not care what toys with
lead, or tainted medicines they ship out, so long as payment is prompt. Not
to mention their poisoning their own streams and rivers with untreated
industrial waste, wiping out entire swaths of their own countryside
populations with horrible diseases, in their mad headlong rush to
industrialize. I wouldn't go to the Chinese Olympics if I had a free ticket.
Jay
Don Levey
THat is a good question (and why I say "think carefully"). Certainly,
these leaders seem to *think* that this is what's happening, and from
that perspective saying what they do is reasonable.
Don Levey
> Is it true that China is providing missiles to Iran and Syria?
>
Followup: According to http://www.iags.org/sinosaudi.htm this
has been happening.
fla...@verizon.net
On 30-Apr-2008, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> >
> > If Jews boycotted the Olympics every time the host country did something
> >
> > objectionable, I suspect the Olympics would be boycotted every time.
> > Personally, I think it's really nice that Beijing is setting up a kosher
> >
> > kitchen for the Olympics.
> >
> It *is* nice. In this case, though, it's not just that China does
> something objectionable; they are doing things which are directly
> harmful to Jews. To take care of our own, we should think carefully
> before supporting the Beijing Olympics.
I think the problem comes in when you realize that the
Olympics are about the athletes, & not China.
But I suppose the money CHina gets is important.
Sigh.
Susan
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
>>>> "J J Levin" <jjl...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> question that, for oil China is looking the other way while the Darfur
> massacres continue unabated in the Sudan, and is blocking any sort of
> political solution at the UN.
Hmm so Jews _are_ interested in stopping the slaughter in Darfur.
Where is that poster who questioned that?
> The Chinese have become money-grubbing capitalists in all but name (by name
> they are loyal Communists, of course!) who really do not care what toys with
> lead, or tainted medicines they ship out, so long as payment is prompt. Not
> to mention their poisoning their own streams and rivers with untreated
> industrial waste, wiping out entire swaths of their own countryside
> populations with horrible diseases, in their mad headlong rush to
> industrialize.
I read an article in Mishpacha Magazine, an O weekly, to the affect
that what China does to its "workers" is exactly like _slavery_.
> I wouldn't go to the Chinese Olympics if I had a free ticket.
Good for you.
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
May Eliezer Mordichai b. Chaya Sheina Rochel have a refuah shlaimah
btoch sha'ar cholei Yisroel.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
Micha Berger
> I think the problem comes in when you realize that the
> Olympics are about the athletes, & not China.
> But I suppose the money CHina gets is important.
> Sigh.
I think the problem comes in when you realize that the first international
TV broadcast was from the 1936 Olympics in Berlin.
Athletics as an end in itself can NEVER be made more important than the
oppression of people in the host country. The fact that the athletes
committed so much time in refining their art such that it's a pity
to them not to hold the Olympics they prepared for is also a pathetic
statement of misplaced values. A poor little girl spending half her
waking hours practicing the parallel bars. That's a meaningful life?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Don Levey
They get money, and publicity. They put up a false face for the world
to see, and it bestows some form of legitimacy to them. It says that
the world is willing to put *anything* to the side and unite with an
evil regime in the name of athletics - that the pursuit of physical
perfection is more important than oppression of millions.
fla...@verizon.net
On 1-May-2008, Don Levey <Don_...@the-leveys.us> wrote:
> > I think the problem comes in when you realize that the
> > Olympics are about the athletes, & not China.
> > But I suppose the money CHina gets is important.
> > Sigh.
> >
> They get money, and publicity.
Oh sure, that, too (how could i have forgotten?)
Susan
Ken Bloom
From the Jewish perspective, the whole Olympics is a statement of
misplaced values, starting from the Greeks for whom the Olymipcs
showcased their belief in the innate perfection of the human body.
<sarcasm>Judaism agrees with that real well</sarcasm>. That's why we have
a mitzvah to cut off a small part of that "perfect" human body when the
boy is 8 days old.
Moral: only God is innately perfect.
--Ken
--
Ken (Chanoch) Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
Evertjan.
> Moral: only God is innately perfect.
"innately" meaning "from birth"?
innascor, innatus sum [Latin], to be born.
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
cindys
"Evertjan." <exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9A92CB73...@194.109.133.242...
> Ken Bloom wrote on 02 mei 2008 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>> Moral: only God is innately perfect.
>
> "innately" meaning "from birth"?
>
> innascor, innatus sum [Latin], to be born.
He probably meant "inherently."
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
Evertjan.
> "Evertjan." <exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> Moral: only God is innately perfect.
>>
>> "innately" meaning "from birth"?
>>
>> innascor, innatus sum [Latin], to be born.
> --------
> He probably meant "inherently."
I would not second guess someone that is not absent in this NG.
"inherently" meaning "stuck to"
inhaero, inhaesum [L] to stick to, cleave to.
Better than "born with", wouldn't you say?
;-)
cindys
> cindys wrote on 02 mei 2008 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>> "Evertjan." <exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> wrote in message
>>> Ken Bloom wrote on 02 mei 2008 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>>>
>>>> Moral: only God is innately perfect.
>>>
>>> "innately" meaning "from birth"?
>>>
>>> innascor, innatus sum [Latin], to be born.
>> --------
>> He probably meant "inherently."
>
> I would not second guess someone that is not absent in this NG.
Ken is present in the newsgroup. He's here to say "yes, that's what I
meant" or "no, that's not what I meant." So, I'm not sure what you mean.
Best regards,
---Cindy S.
fla...@verizon.net
On 3-May-2008, "Evertjan." <exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> wrote:
> cindys wrote on 02 mei 2008 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
> > "Evertjan." <exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> wrote in message
> >> Ken Bloom wrote on 02 mei 2008 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
> >>
> >>> Moral: only God is innately perfect.
> >>
> >> "innately" meaning "from birth"?
> >>
> >> innascor, innatus sum [Latin], to be born.
> > --------
> > He probably meant "inherently."
>
> I would not second guess someone that is not absent in this NG.
>
> "inherently" meaning "stuck to"
Words have connotations as well as definitions.
We all know what was meant, & I suspect you
did as well. At least, I would like to think you
were that smart.
Susan
Ken Bloom
> Ken Bloom wrote on 02 mei 2008 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
>> Moral: only God is innately perfect.
>
> "innately" meaning "from birth"?
>
> innascor, innatus sum [Latin], to be born.
I guess I need to look at a dictionary a little more often.
Overview of adj innate
The adj innate has 3 senses (no senses from tagged texts)
1. unconditioned, innate, unlearned -- (not established by conditioning
or learning; "an unconditioned reflex")
2. natural, born, innate -- (being talented through inherited qualities;
"a natural leader"; "a born musician"; "an innate talent")
3. congenital, inborn, innate -- (present at birth but not necessarily
hereditary; acquired during fetal development)
Overview of adj inherent
The adj inherent has 2 senses (first 1 from tagged texts)
1. (7) built-in, constitutional, inbuilt, inherent, integral -- (existing
as an essential constituent or characteristic; "the Ptolemaic system with
its built-in concept of periodicity"; "a constitutional inability to tell
the truth")
2. implicit in, inherent, underlying -- (in the nature of something
though not readily apparent; "shortcomings inherent in our approach"; "an
underlying meaning")
I guess that "inherently" is a better word choice, though I'm not sure
where you get the definition "stuck to" from.
Evertjan.
> Evertjan wrote:
>> I would not second guess someone that is not absent in this NG.
> ----------
> Ken is present in the newsgroup. He's here to say "yes, that's what I
> meant" or "no, that's not what I meant." So, I'm not sure what you mean.
That is what I! ment. [not absent = present]
Evertjan.
Isn't the, inadvertent I am sure, mentioning of the in"born" properties
of G'd worthy of a jocular correction?
Why do I sometimes get the feeling, that not not all of Jewdom sees a
joke on face value?
Should I add "[joke]" to all my joking? No, that would lessen the fum of
it.
Do you know the story of the Rabbi and the ...?
======================
btw:
Today is WW2 remembrance day overhere, tomorrow liberation day.
I will give a guided tour about the "Enschede Shul during the war" today.
Evertjan.
> I guess that "inherently" is a better word choice, though I'm not sure
> where you get the definition "stuck to" from.
>
Hi Ken,
1 I was joking
2 I was taling about the etymology of the words, not the possible meanings.
Your meaning was clear and sound, You mentioning of the in"born" properties
of G'd, I ment only in the etymological connotation of "innate', not as the
exclusive definition.
However, the original meaning of words being central in "lehrnen",
such meaning should not always be considered.
fla...@verizon.net
On 4-May-2008, "Evertjan." <exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> wrote:
> wrote on 04 mei 2008 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
>
> > On 3-May-2008, "Evertjan." <exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> wrote:
> >
> >> cindys wrote on 02 mei 2008 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
> >> > "Evertjan." <exjxw.ha...@interxnl.net> wrote in message
> >> >> Ken Bloom wrote on 02 mei 2008 in soc.culture.jewish.moderated:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Moral: only God is innately perfect.
> >> >>
> >> >> "innately" meaning "from birth"?
> >> >>
> >> >> innascor, innatus sum [Latin], to be born.
> >> > --------
> >> > He probably meant "inherently."
> >>
> >> I would not second guess someone that is not absent in this NG.
> >>
> >> "inherently" meaning "stuck to"
> >
> > Words have connotations as well as definitions.
> > We all know what was meant, & I suspect you
> > did as well. At least, I would like to think you
> > were that smart.
>
> Isn't the, inadvertent I am sure, mentioning of the in"born" properties
> of G'd worthy of a jocular correction?
>
> Why do I sometimes get the feeling, that not not all of Jewdom sees a
> joke on face value?
Why do I get the feeling that anyone who thinks that it's just "Jewdom"
who can't read people's minds is the one with a problem?
>
> Should I add "[joke]" to all my joking? No, that would lessen the fum of
> it.
>
IOW, you'd rather just offend people by not being clear.
> Do you know the story of the Rabbi and the ...?
>
& the what? The guy who went out of his way to be onoxious?
I didn't just hear it, I live through it.
Susan
Evertjan.
>> Should I add "[joke]" to all my joking? No, that would lessen the fum
>> of it.
>>
> IOW, you'd rather just offend people by not being clear.
I think this is nonsense. We have talked about this before, methinks.
There is a difference between willfully offending and feeling offended.
I do not want to willfully offend people, but taking extreem measures so
that no people at all could feel offended seems counterproductive, as it
only lowers the feeling-offended-treshold of those few.
It seems there is a gap, called the "big pond", on the westside of which
the lack of complete prevention that people might feel offended seems
the ultimate sin, while on the other, my, side, more important things in
life are considered, like the healing power of a joke, and the moral
obligation to lighten differences and the pains by such jokes.
Attending a shive without bringing a fresh joke was considered bad taste
overhere for generations.
... and declaring "this is a joke" at the start of a joke will make the
joke partly defunct.
>> Do you know the story of the Rabbi and the ...?
>>
> & the what? The guy who went out of his way to be onoxious?
> I didn't just hear it, I live through it.
I am sorry if you have so lost the Jewish art of joke appreciation,
that you immediately combine a standard opening of a joke with something
you feel bad about. Why the "I live through it"??
In ordinary Dutch one of the words for joke is "gein",
from the [Amsterdam] Yiddish "chein",
from the Hebrew "hen".
Do you know the story of the two rabbies and the ...?