Lieberman and Chillul Hashem
Lisa Beth
announcement that Judaism does not ban intermarriage is that it
doesn't matter that he's not a rabbi or other religious leader.
There are five things in halakha where a Jew may not transgress even
if it involves a threat to his life. The most well known are the Big
Three: murder, arayot (certain illicit sexual acts) and idolatry. If
someone holds a gun to your head and says "Do one of these acts", you
are not allowed to do so.
Another one of the five is Chillul Hashem, or desecrating God's Name.
If someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to eat a pork chop,
you can eat it, because kashrut is not one of the five exceptions.
But if someone puts you up on a stage in public and says, "Eat this
pork chop or I'll kill you", you can't eat it. Because it's a public
display, and a desecration of God's Name by letting someone publically
force you to violate God's law in this way.
Lieberman lied. Not even to save his life, but to win an election.
He's abused the concept of pikuach nefesh to justify his desecration
of Shabbat, and it's clear that his political career is his primary
concern. He announced, as a public Jew, that intermarriage is not
banned in Judaism.
There's no excuse for it. None.
Lisa
--
I take responsibility:
I will be voting for Moshe Feiglin in the Likud primaries.
Ask me how you can, too.
Chana
Everything you said is entirely correct. You have a very good handle on
Halakha, btw!
Chana
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"It has been told thee, O man, what is required of you. To do justice, love
mercy, and walk humbly with thy G-d".--Micah 6:8
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
meirm...@erols.com
star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) posted:
>Lieberman lied. Not even to save his life, but to win an election.
The first reason isn't present but how do you claim to the second is
the reason. This line of thought is called post hoc, ergo propter
hoc.
>He's abused the concept of pikuach nefesh to justify his desecration
Did he in any way cite the concept of pikuach nefesh? If not he
didn't abuse it. You usually don't fly off the handle like this
Lisa. His basis for doing community business on Shabbos is AIUI that
discussing and voting on such things may not be Shabbosdik but it is
not against halacha, when it would be if it were his own personal
business. I know of at least one shul which couldn't get its board
together on a weekday to make shul decisions so they met on Shabbos,
and although I don't know all rabbis, some have ruled that it was
acceptable.
>of Shabbat, and it's clear that his political career is his primary
>concern. He announced, as a public Jew, that intermarriage is not
>banned in Judaism.
Perhaps his concern is that someone somewhere in his family is
intermarried. It is certainly true that Al Gore's son-in-law is
intermarried, but you may well not know that if you are in Israel.
Yet you expound as if you know all the facts. Maybe he should have
foreseen these problems and refused the nomination, but now that he
has the nomination, you don't know if it is family and personal
relations that are motivating him or his political career, and your
making absolute statements like you have is unwarranted.
>
>Lisa
mei...@QQQerols.com
e-mail by removing QQQ
Joseph Hertzlinger
>There are five things in halakha where a Jew may not transgress even
>if it involves a threat to his life. The most well known are the Big
>Three: murder, arayot (certain illicit sexual acts) and idolatry. If
>someone holds a gun to your head and says "Do one of these acts", you
>are not allowed to do so.
>
>Another one of the five is Chillul Hashem, or desecrating God's Name.
That's four so far. What's number five?
>Lieberman lied. Not even to save his life, but to win an election.
>He's abused the concept of pikuach nefesh to justify his desecration
>of Shabbat, and it's clear that his political career is his primary
>concern. He announced, as a public Jew, that intermarriage is not
>banned in Judaism.
"I now believe in the soul. I've seen Joseph Lieberman sell his." ---
Sheldon Richman in the latest issue of _Liberty_
Lisa Beth
>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 2 Oct 2000 13:49:37 GMT
>star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) posted:
>
>>Lieberman lied. Not even to save his life, but to win an election.
>
>The first reason isn't present but how do you claim to the second is
>the reason. This line of thought is called post hoc, ergo propter
>hoc.
Either he's an absolute idiot, or he was intentionally lying. There
is no third possibility. Every Jew with the slightest bit of Jewish
knowledge knows that Judaism bans intermarriage. You cannot convince
me that he's that stupid.
Hence, since he's clearly not an idiot, he was intentionally lying.
Ein adam choteh v'lo lo. No one sins unless they have something to
gain by it. The only thing he had to gain by this lie was the
furtherance of his campaign. If you have another suggestion as to why
he may have lied, please share it with us.
>>He's abused the concept of pikuach nefesh to justify his desecration
>
>Did he in any way cite the concept of pikuach nefesh?
He has, on multiple occasions, used that to excuse his "bending" the
laws of Shabbat as a Senator.
>If not he didn't abuse it.
You were assuming that I was going to answer "no" to the question that
preceeded this. Since I didn't, I take it that you realize this
statement is invalid, right?
>You usually don't fly off the handle like this
>Lisa. His basis for doing community business on Shabbos is AIUI that
>discussing and voting on such things may not be Shabbosdik but it is
>not against halacha, when it would be if it were his own personal
>business. I know of at least one shul which couldn't get its board
>together on a weekday to make shul decisions so they met on Shabbos,
>and although I don't know all rabbis, some have ruled that it was
>acceptable.
He has stated publically that he tries to avoid violating the laws of
Shabbat, but that he can't always do so. And he has used the idea of
pikuach nefesh to justify this.
>>of Shabbat, and it's clear that his political career is his primary
>>concern. He announced, as a public Jew, that intermarriage is not
>>banned in Judaism.
>
>Perhaps his concern is that someone somewhere in his family is
>intermarried. It is certainly true that Al Gore's son-in-law is
>intermarried, but you may well not know that if you are in Israel.
So? Is a non-Jew sinning if he marries a Jew? I didn't realize that
non-Jews were commanded not to marry Jews. Maybe, and I don't mean to
be too picky or anything, maybe you might see your way clear to giving
us a source for that?
>Yet you expound as if you know all the facts.
I know what he has stated. A person may not give eidut against
themselves in a beit din, but he's made public statements to the
media, and I will judge him on those.
>Maybe he should have
>foreseen these problems and refused the nomination, but now that he
>has the nomination, you don't know if it is family and personal
>relations that are motivating him or his political career, and your
>making absolute statements like you have is unwarranted.
I disagree. And even if he said what he did because there's an
intermarriage in his family, it does not justify his chillul Hashem.
To repeat the point that you've ever so skillfully turned this away
from, even pikuach nefesh isn't sufficient excuse for chillul Hashem.
And he doesn't even have that excuse.
Simcha Streltsov
: Perhaps his concern is that someone somewhere in his family is
: intermarried. It is certainly true that Al Gore's son-in-law is
: intermarried, but you may well not know that if you are in Israel.
this is, actualy, a good point, I did not connect the dots (although,
do we know that Gore's daughter's husband is a Jew - those banking
families probably saw a lot of intermarriage before this generation!).
So, he was almost in an unfortunate position of Napoleon's Sinedrion? -
he could not insult his boss, and a potential president who does not seem
to forget his enemies ... this is really a tough spot ...
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
Jonathan J. Baker
>On 2 Oct 2000 13:49:37 GMT, Lisa Beth <star...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Another one of the five is Chillul Hashem, or desecrating God's Name.
>>Lieberman lied. Not even to save his life, but to win an election.
>>He's abused the concept of pikuach nefesh to justify his desecration
>>of Shabbat, and it's clear that his political career is his primary
What desecration of Shabbat? If it's with a heter from a rav, how
can it be desecration?
>>concern. He announced, as a public Jew, that intermarriage is not
>>banned in Judaism.
>"I now believe in the soul. I've seen Joseph Lieberman sell his." ---
>Sheldon Richman in the latest issue of _Liberty_
How many times do we have to go through this?
1) It's rationalizable on the basis that halacha only prohibits shacking
up with non-Jews, not the legal ceremony of marriage. A "marriage"
of a Jew and a non-Jew has no halachic existence. So intermarriage is
nt' banned any more than, say, the equation of 1 == 0. It just doesn't
exist.
2) Maybe he didn't want Jews to be seen in the public's imagination
as racist xenophobes.
3) He retracted.
--
Jonathan Baker | Ksivechsimetoiveh!
jjb...@panix.com | (It's a contraction, like Shkoiech, or Brshmo)
Web page update: Ki-Tavo, Nitzavim. http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/
Chana
>meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>
>: Perhaps his concern is that someone somewhere in his family is
>: intermarried.
Someone is. On the news recently it was revealed that Lieberman was made
executor of the will of his uncle, who stated in his will that no money would
go to any relative who married out.
Lieberman had to play some fast ones to stay friends with his whole family over
that one.
James Kahn
>meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>: Perhaps his concern is that someone somewhere in his family is
>: intermarried. It is certainly true that Al Gore's son-in-law is
>: intermarried, but you may well not know that if you are in Israel.
>this is, actualy, a good point, I did not connect the dots (although,
>do we know that Gore's daughter's husband is a Jew - those banking
>families probably saw a lot of intermarriage before this generation!).
>So, he was almost in an unfortunate position of Napoleon's Sinedrion? -
>he could not insult his boss, and a potential president who does not seem
>to forget his enemies ... this is really a tough spot ...
It would be a good point if it were true, but it's not. Gore's
son-in-law's father is Jewish, but his mother is not, so he's not
Jewish. He just has a Jewish-sounding last name.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
meirm...@erols.com
star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) posted:
>On 2 Oct 2000 20:57:30 GMT, meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>
>>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 2 Oct 2000 13:49:37 GMT
>>star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) posted:
>>
>>>Lieberman lied. Not even to save his life, but to win an election.
>>
>>The first reason isn't present but how do you claim to the second is
>>the reason. This line of thought is called post hoc, ergo propter
>>hoc.
>
>Either he's an absolute idiot, or he was intentionally lying. There
>is no third possibility.
What's that got to do with it. You were alleging motives and there
are always many possibilities.
> Every Jew with the slightest bit of Jewish
>knowledge knows that Judaism bans intermarriage. You cannot convince
>me that he's that stupid.
What's that got to do with it. We're talking about motives.
>
>Hence, since he's clearly not an idiot, he was intentionally lying.
I'm not snipping what you're writing but I'm not ratifying it either.
>Ein adam choteh v'lo lo. No one sins unless they have something to
>gain by it. The only thing he had to gain by this lie was the
The "only" thing. Please. Lisa, let me be frank. That's maybe the
silliest thing you have ever said here.
>furtherance of his campaign. If you have another suggestion as to why
>he may have lied, please share it with us.
>
I'm still not ratifying your use of lie, because your whole point is
off-topic.
I gave you two examples of othe things to gain in my previous post.
You quote them below.
>>>He's abused the concept of pikuach nefesh to justify his desecration
>>
>>Did he in any way cite the concept of pikuach nefesh?
>
>He has, on multiple occasions, used that to excuse his "bending" the
>laws of Shabbat as a Senator.
>
>>If not he didn't abuse it.
>
>You were assuming that I was going to answer "no" to the question that
>preceeded this. Since I didn't, I take it that you realize this
>statement is invalid, right?
Its non-responsive (although it is immunized by the first two words
"If not".. It's only invalid if you answer other than No and you are
also correct. I'm not saying you're not correct. I'm saying the
statement isn't invalid just because you don't answer no. What's come
over you?
>
>>You usually don't fly off the handle like this
>>Lisa. His basis for doing community business on Shabbos is AIUI that
>>discussing and voting on such things may not be Shabbosdik but it is
>>not against halacha, when it would be if it were his own personal
>>business. I know of at least one shul which couldn't get its board
>>together on a weekday to make shul decisions so they met on Shabbos,
>>and although I don't know all rabbis, some have ruled that it was
>>acceptable.
>
>He has stated publically that he tries to avoid violating the laws of
>Shabbat, but that he can't always do so. And he has used the idea of
>pikuach nefesh to justify this.
We're going to have to let this drop, because you didn't answer No,
and I'm not going to do the work to pursue this.
>>>of Shabbat, and it's clear that his political career is his primary
>>>concern. He announced, as a public Jew, that intermarriage is not
>>>banned in Judaism.
>>
>>Perhaps his concern is that someone somewhere in his family is
>>intermarried. It is certainly true that Al Gore's son-in-law is
>>intermarried, but you may well not know that if you are in Israel.
>
>So? Is a non-Jew sinning if he marries a Jew? I didn't realize that
>non-Jews were commanded not to marry Jews. Maybe, and I don't mean to
>be too picky or anything, maybe you might see your way clear to giving
>us a source for that?
>
What are you talking about? Al Gore's son-in-law is a Jew.
>>Yet you expound as if you know all the facts.
I did snip the rest after all. None of it dealt with his motives,
which is what two of my three paragraphs dealt with after you wrote
like you know what his motives were. You don't.
Susan Cohen
Chana wrote:
> Simon says: :-)
>
> >meirm...@erols.com wrote:
> >
> >: Perhaps his concern is that someone somewhere in his family is
> >: intermarried.
>
> Someone is.
Or, rather, someone either used to be, or someone married a convert.
> On the news recently it was revealed that Lieberman was made executor of the will
> of his uncle, who stated in his will that no money would go to any relative who
> married out.
>
> Lieberman had to play some fast ones to stay friends with his whole family over
> that one.
And how, pray tell, does "finding the later clause/codicil (whatever)"
constitute "playing some fast ones"?
Do look to your own sins before inventing them for others.
Susan
Susan Cohen
"Jonathan J. Baker" wrote:
> In <> jher...@ix.netcom.com (Joseph Hertzlinger) writes:
> >On 2 Oct 2000 13:49:37 GMT, Lisa Beth <star...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Another one of the five is Chillul Hashem, or desecrating God's Name.
>
> >>Lieberman lied. Not even to save his life, but to win an election.
> >>He's abused the concept of pikuach nefesh to justify his desecration
> >>of Shabbat, and it's clear that his political career is his primary
>
> What desecration of Shabbat? If it's with a heter from a rav, how
> can it be desecration?
>
> >>concern. He announced, as a public Jew, that intermarriage is not
> >>banned in Judaism.
>
> >"I now believe in the soul. I've seen Joseph Lieberman sell his." ---
> >Sheldon Richman in the latest issue of _Liberty_
>
> How many times do we have to go through this?
>
> 1) It's rationalizable on the basis that halacha only prohibits shacking
> up with non-Jews, not the legal ceremony of marriage. A "marriage"
> of a Jew and a non-Jew has no halachic existence. So intermarriage is
> nt' banned any more than, say, the equation of 1 == 0. It just doesn't
> exist.
To be fair, I said this myself, only to be told that if this
is what he was thinking of, then he also didn't have any
right to say "it's frowned on" because if it doesn;t exist,
then there's nothing to be frowned on.
Now I think that was hair-splitting over a"short answer"
response (however poorly thought-out), but it is a *point*.
> 2) Maybe he didn't want Jews to be seen in the public's imagination
> as racist xenophobes.
Thank you!! I am also 110% sure this is his aim - that and
keeping the campaign being about the issues, and not Judaism.
> 3) He retracted.
Can you give me the URL for this last? I read it myself, &
thought I had bookmarked it - but no such luck! (With all the
nonsense I've got saved, you'd think--- ah, well...)
Susan
Lisa Beth
Hertzlinger) wrote:
>On 2 Oct 2000 13:49:37 GMT, Lisa Beth <star...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>There are five things in halakha where a Jew may not transgress even
>>if it involves a threat to his life. The most well known are the Big
>>Three: murder, arayot (certain illicit sexual acts) and idolatry. If
>>someone holds a gun to your head and says "Do one of these acts", you
>>are not allowed to do so.
>>
>>Another one of the five is Chillul Hashem, or desecrating God's Name.
>
>That's four so far. What's number five?
Milchemet Mitzvah. See the Minchat Chinuch. But al regel achat, if
pikuach nefesh applied to milchemet mitzvah, there'd be no such thing
as milchemet mitzvah, since we don't rely on miracles, and people die
in wars.
>>Lieberman lied. Not even to save his life, but to win an election.
>>He's abused the concept of pikuach nefesh to justify his desecration
>>of Shabbat, and it's clear that his political career is his primary
>>concern. He announced, as a public Jew, that intermarriage is not
>>banned in Judaism.
>
>"I now believe in the soul. I've seen Joseph Lieberman sell his." ---
>Sheldon Richman in the latest issue of _Liberty_
I *love* it!
Lisa Beth
>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 3 Oct 2000 17:24:42 GMT
>star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) posted:
>
>>On 2 Oct 2000 20:57:30 GMT, meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>>
>>>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 2 Oct 2000 13:49:37 GMT
>>>star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) posted:
>>>
>>>>Lieberman lied. Not even to save his life, but to win an election.
>>>
>>>The first reason isn't present but how do you claim to the second is
>>>the reason. This line of thought is called post hoc, ergo propter
>>>hoc.
>>
>>Either he's an absolute idiot, or he was intentionally lying. There
>>is no third possibility.
>
>What's that got to do with it. You were alleging motives and there
>are always many possibilities.
There are sometimes a limited number of possibilities. This is one
such case.
>>Every Jew with the slightest bit of Jewish
>>knowledge knows that Judaism bans intermarriage. You cannot convince
>>me that he's that stupid.
>
>What's that got to do with it. We're talking about motives.
Yes, indeed. And aside from the fact that there are no legitimate
motives for what he did, seeing that even pikuach nefesh would not
have justified it, he is a politician. As we have seen over and over
in his actions. He acts for political reasons.
>>Hence, since he's clearly not an idiot, he was intentionally lying.
>
>I'm not snipping what you're writing but I'm not ratifying it either.
Happily, I don't think I'll lose any sleep over your lack of
"ratification".
>>Ein adam choteh v'lo lo. No one sins unless they have something to
>>gain by it. The only thing he had to gain by this lie was the
>
>The "only" thing. Please. Lisa, let me be frank. That's maybe the
>silliest thing you have ever said here.
I'm sure others would disagree with you. That said, I'm wondering why
you're so gung ho about this politico. He's a liar, fine. Most
politicians are. But most politicians don't make themselves out to be
Orthodox Jews. That's my problem with him. I can't understand why
you aren't bothered by that.
>>furtherance of his campaign. If you have another suggestion as to why
>>he may have lied, please share it with us.
>>
>I'm still not ratifying your use of lie, because your whole point is off-topic.
Non sequitur. "Lie" is a fact. It doesn't require "ratification"
(and would you mind using a more appropriate word than that, please?)
from you or anyone else. And my point is not off-topic. To be blunt
about it, I started this thread, and I know what the topic is. It's
Joe Lieberman lying in public about what Judaism says because he
thought it would cause him political problems to tell the truth. Or
worse, because he doesn't care about intermarriage himself.
If you think that his lies are off-topic, I suggest that you may be in
the wrong thread.
>I gave you two examples of othe things to gain in my previous post.
>You quote them below.
>
>>>>He's abused the concept of pikuach nefesh to justify his desecration
>>>
>>>Did he in any way cite the concept of pikuach nefesh?
>>
>>He has, on multiple occasions, used that to excuse his "bending" the
>>laws of Shabbat as a Senator.
>>
>>>If not he didn't abuse it.
>>
>>You were assuming that I was going to answer "no" to the question that
>>preceeded this. Since I didn't, I take it that you realize this
>>statement is invalid, right?
>
>Its non-responsive (although it is immunized by the first two words
>"If not".. It's only invalid if you answer other than No and you are
>also correct. I'm not saying you're not correct. I'm saying the
>statement isn't invalid just because you don't answer no. What's come
>over you?
I could ask much the same thing. I've never seen you so adamant about
defending something that's clearly indefensible.
And if you say you've never seen me go off on someone who claims to be
Orthodox but has made a mockery of Orthodox Judaism, I don't think
there's a person here who will believe you. I'm far too vocal on that
issue for you to pretend to be surprised.
>>>You usually don't fly off the handle like this
>>>Lisa. His basis for doing community business on Shabbos is AIUI that
>>>discussing and voting on such things may not be Shabbosdik but it is
>>>not against halacha, when it would be if it were his own personal
>>>business. I know of at least one shul which couldn't get its board
>>>together on a weekday to make shul decisions so they met on Shabbos,
>>>and although I don't know all rabbis, some have ruled that it was
>>>acceptable.
>>
>>He has stated publically that he tries to avoid violating the laws of
>>Shabbat, but that he can't always do so. And he has used the idea of
>>pikuach nefesh to justify this.
>
>We're going to have to let this drop, because you didn't answer No,
>and I'm not going to do the work to pursue this.
You're dodging.
>>>>of Shabbat, and it's clear that his political career is his primary
>>>>concern. He announced, as a public Jew, that intermarriage is not
>>>>banned in Judaism.
>>>
>>>Perhaps his concern is that someone somewhere in his family is
>>>intermarried. It is certainly true that Al Gore's son-in-law is
>>>intermarried, but you may well not know that if you are in Israel.
>>
>>So? Is a non-Jew sinning if he marries a Jew? I didn't realize that
>>non-Jews were commanded not to marry Jews. Maybe, and I don't mean to
>>be too picky or anything, maybe you might see your way clear to giving
>>us a source for that?
>>
>What are you talking about? Al Gore's son-in-law is a Jew.
So what? So Al Gore's son-in-law intermarried. So Al Gore's
son-in-law is a bad Jew. So I won't vote for Al Gore's son-in-law.
What's your point? So if Lieberman had told the truth, he would have
offended Gore. And you think he didn't lie for political motives?
Meir, your entire thrust here has been very strange. Lieberman lied.
No one can dispute that. And you yourself are giving a reason why it
was to his benefit to do so. A political reason. So why are you
arguing about it?
>>>Yet you expound as if you know all the facts.
>
>I did snip the rest after all. None of it dealt with his motives,
>which is what two of my three paragraphs dealt with after you wrote
>like you know what his motives were. You don't.
You're posting very strangely, Meir. You know he lied, and you know
he did it for political reasons. You provided one of them yourself.
Lisa Beth
Finding -- "miraculously" -- an unsigned draft... that doesn't sound
like a fast one to you? Unsigned wills are worth so much.
If it'd been the other way around -- an unsigned draft that
disinherited the kids if they married out -- how much do you want to
bet that it would have been thrown out in court? And how much would
that have bothered you?
Colin Rosenthal
As I understood it, the unsigned draft wasn't upheld in court. Rather it
was used as the basis for private negotiations within the family with
Lieberman acting as moderator.
--
Colin Rosenthal
Astrophysics Institute
University of Oslo
Susan Cohen
Lisa Beth wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2000 03:55:46 GMT, Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> Finding -- "miraculously" -- an unsigned draft... that doesn't sound
> like a fast one to you?
Considering that others in the family confirmed that it happened?
Of course not!
> Unsigned wills are worth so much.
Was it unsigned? Okay, whatever.
> If it'd been the other way around -- an unsigned draft that
> disinherited the kids if they married out -- how much do you want to
> bet that it would have been thrown out in court?
a) it wouldn't have needed to be taken to court, as it would
merely have been repeating what was in the original.
b) if it could be authenticated at all, it would more likely have
been admitted as evidence to corroborate what his original wishes
were.
> And how much would that have bothered you?
It wouldn't be for me to say at all - it wasn't my money or my family.
The man has a right to do whatever he likes. My only problem would
be if he was being hypocritical - i.e., that he wasn't as observant as
he wanted his children to be, or if he didn't count their conversions if
they were genuine (that would be *awful*) - but even *then* it
would *not* be for me to say anything (or much!) about it - neither
my money nor my call.
My only interest in this case is finding out whether this guy actually
thought that being married to a convert was the same as marrying out.
I sure hope not!!! The silly accusations against Lieberman were
almost a side issue.
Susan
Binyamin Dissen
[ snipped ]
:>> 2) Maybe he didn't want Jews to be seen in the public's imagination
:>> as racist xenophobes.
:>Thank you!! I am also 110% sure this is his aim - that and
:>keeping the campaign being about the issues, and not Judaism.
Then he could have made it clear that Jews accept genuine converts.
Unlike a black who cannot make his skin white (other than Michael Jackson), a
non-Jew can become a Jew.
Sadly, his (insert your term here) about the issue has made it into a campaign
issue about his honesty and integrity.
[ snipped ]
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Susan Cohen
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
> On 4 Oct 2000 04:03:48 GMT Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote:
>
> [ snipped ]
>
> :>> 2) Maybe he didn't want Jews to be seen in the public's imagination
> :>> as racist xenophobes.
>
> :>Thank you!! I am also 110% sure this is his aim - that and
> :>keeping the campaign being about the issues, and not Judaism.
>
> Then he could have made it clear that Jews accept genuine converts.
a) he wasn't asked about thqt
b) the race isn't about his religion
> Unlike a black who cannot make his skin white (other than Michael Jackson), a
> non-Jew can become a Jew.
>
> Sadly, his (insert your term here) about the issue has made it into a campaign
> issue about his honesty and integrity.
So his retraction should clear that up. Okay!
Susan
Dan Kimmel
news:39dad0c5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On 3 Oct 2000 22:17:16 GMT, meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>
> >>Ein adam choteh v'lo lo. No one sins unless they have something to
> >>gain by it. The only thing he had to gain by this lie was the
> >
> >The "only" thing. Please. Lisa, let me be frank. That's maybe the
> >silliest thing you have ever said here.
>
> I'm sure others would disagree with you. That said, I'm wondering why
> you're so gung ho about this politico. He's a liar, fine. Most
> politicians are. But most politicians don't make themselves out to be
> Orthodox Jews. That's my problem with him. I can't understand why
> you aren't bothered by that.
You've been called on this by several people. The only person lying here
is
you in your provably false claim that he "makes [himself] out to be [an]
Orthodox Jew." He does not. He has repeatedly stated in interviews that he
calls himself "observant."
> >>furtherance of his campaign. If you have another suggestion as to why
> >>he may have lied, please share it with us.
> >>
> >I'm still not ratifying your use of lie, because your whole point is
off-topic.
>
> Non sequitur. "Lie" is a fact. It doesn't require "ratification"
> (and would you mind using a more appropriate word than that, please?)
On the contrary, the only "fact" here is that you have stated an untruth
about
Senator Lieberman. Or are you now claiming that anyone who claims to
be "an observant Jew" is automatically classifying himself as Orthodox?
> from you or anyone else. And my point is not off-topic. To be blunt
> about it, I started this thread, and I know what the topic is. It's
> Joe Lieberman lying in public about what Judaism says because he
> thought it would cause him political problems to tell the truth. Or
> worse, because he doesn't care about intermarriage himself.
But the topic has metamorphosed into why YOU would make a false claim
about SenatorLieberman, since he didn't claim to be Orthodox and you
have no direct knowledge to assume he willfully "lied" about intermarriage.
> If you think that his lies are off-topic, I suggest that you may be in
> the wrong thread.
>
> >I gave you two examples of othe things to gain in my previous post.
> >You quote them below.
> >
> >>>>He's abused the concept of pikuach nefesh to justify his desecration
> >>>
> >>>Did he in any way cite the concept of pikuach nefesh?
> >>
> >>He has, on multiple occasions, used that to excuse his "bending" the
> >>laws of Shabbat as a Senator.
> >>
> >>>If not he didn't abuse it.
> >>
> >>You were assuming that I was going to answer "no" to the question that
> >>preceeded this. Since I didn't, I take it that you realize this
> >>statement is invalid, right?
> >
> >Its non-responsive (although it is immunized by the first two words
> >"If not".. It's only invalid if you answer other than No and you are
> >also correct. I'm not saying you're not correct. I'm saying the
> >statement isn't invalid just because you don't answer no. What's come
> >over you?
>
> I could ask much the same thing. I've never seen you so adamant about
> defending something that's clearly indefensible.
>
> And if you say you've never seen me go off on someone who claims to be
> Orthodox but has made a mockery of Orthodox Judaism, I don't think
> there's a person here who will believe you. I'm far too vocal on that
> issue for you to pretend to be surprised.
Again, provide proof for your false claim that he "claims to be Orthodox."
Now apologize for making a statement that you know to be false.
med...@shore.net
>
> So his retraction should clear that up. Okay!
What retraction? There has been no retraction - as much as you
would like there to be. None. Nada. Zilch. Stop saying there was
one. When you said there was one before - you were told there
was not. You repeating it again becomes a lie.
med...@shore.net
> You've been called on this by several people. The only person lying here
> is
> you in your provably false claim that he "makes [himself] out to be [an]
> Orthodox Jew." He does not. He has repeatedly stated in interviews that he
> calls himself "observant."
You can easily see why Lisa would think that he called himself
"Orthodox" - has has been called "Orthodox" in the press for a month
before he in ONE interview stated that he is "observant". He never
explicitly denied that he is "Orthodox" - even when introduced as
such (I saw that on one of the Sunday morning political talk shows -
don't remember which - where he was introduced as the VP candidate, and
an Orthodox Jew - not a peep from him that he was not).
Dan Kimmel
<med...@shore.net> wrote in message
news:mbKC5.490$sL2....@news.shore.net...
Interestingly, this is largely taking place in your imagination. Lieberman
is under no obligation to go around classifying which stream of Judaism he
belongs to (BIG HINT: there is no religious test for public office in the
US) and if people leapt to the wrong conclusion that is their problem, not
his. When directly asked, he answered honestly.
I can easily see why people who are inclined to leap to conclusions would do
so in this case but, again, that is their responsibility, not the senator's.
Lisa Beth
wrote:
>In <> jher...@ix.netcom.com (Joseph Hertzlinger) writes:
>>On 2 Oct 2000 13:49:37 GMT, Lisa Beth <star...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Another one of the five is Chillul Hashem, or desecrating God's Name.
>
>>>Lieberman lied. Not even to save his life, but to win an election.
>>>He's abused the concept of pikuach nefesh to justify his desecration
>>>of Shabbat, and it's clear that his political career is his primary
>
>What desecration of Shabbat? If it's with a heter from a rav, how
>can it be desecration?
Does he have a heter from a rav? Or is his rav choosing not to make
an issue of things?
>>>concern. He announced, as a public Jew, that intermarriage is not
>>>banned in Judaism.
>
>>"I now believe in the soul. I've seen Joseph Lieberman sell his." ---
>>Sheldon Richman in the latest issue of _Liberty_
>
>How many times do we have to go through this?
I don't know. How many times are you going to deny clear facts?
>1) It's rationalizable on the basis that halacha only prohibits shacking
>up with non-Jews, not the legal ceremony of marriage. A "marriage"
>of a Jew and a non-Jew has no halachic existence. So intermarriage is
>nt' banned any more than, say, the equation of 1 == 0. It just doesn't
>exist.
Wrong. That's beyond rationalization. That's twisting things. And
it's only doable if you take what he said out of context. He said
that intermarriage is frowned upon, and gave reasons for why we don't
like it. Clearly he considers that it exists. You can't take one
part of the paragraph out of context of the rest of it. Susan's been
trying that, and it just doesn't work.
Furthermore, you chided me above about ignoring what Lieberman's rav
has said. But you're doing the same thing in this case. R' Freudel
has come out and said that Lieberman was wrong to say what he did. Do
you want me to listen to him or not?
>2) Maybe he didn't want Jews to be seen in the public's imagination
>as racist xenophobes.
I refer you to the first post in this thread. He committed a chillul
Hashem by posing as an Orthodox Jew and misrepresenting Judaism. Even
pikuach nefesh does not justify such an act. Kal v'chomer the reason
you give.
>3) He retracted.
So he understands that what he did was wrong and you don't.
He retracted, fine. Or rather, I'll take your word for it, since I
haven't seen that myself. So we all want a vice-president who will
lie in public when he feels there's a need for it. And maybe retract
later. True, that's a step up from what we have in office now, but it
doesn't change the fact that this is a soi-disant Orthodox Jew who
cares more about his political career than he does about Judaism.
Lisa Beth
>"Jonathan J. Baker" wrote:
>
>> 2) Maybe he didn't want Jews to be seen in the public's imagination
>> as racist xenophobes.
>
>Thank you!! I am also 110% sure this is his aim - that and
>keeping the campaign being about the issues, and not Judaism.
I refer you as well to the first post in this thread. That is *not* a
legitimate excuse for what he did.
med...@shore.net
> On 3 Oct 2000 18:21:47 GMT, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
>
>
> So he understands that what he did was wrong and you don't.
>
> He retracted, fine. Or rather, I'll take your word for it, since I
> haven't seen that myself.
Don't take his word for it. Lieberman never publically retracted
his statement. There were third-hand reports that while talking
privately to someone he may have said it was a mistake - but third-
hand reporting ain't worth much. There was no public retraction.
None - no matter how much we all would have liked there to
have been.
Susan Cohen
Yisroel Markov
here. It's the wrong place = for it. ]
In article <39dad4d7...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
star...@hotmail.com (Lisa Beth) wrote:
> On 3 Oct 2000 18:21:47 GMT, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
> wrote:
[snip]
> >3) He retracted.
>
> So he understands that what he did was wrong and you don't.
>
> He retracted, fine. Or rather, I'll take your word for it, since I
> haven't seen that myself. So we all want
Not all! :-) (Massachusetts being a solid Gore state, I plan to vote
Libertarian across the ticket.)
> a vice-president who will
> lie in public when he feels there's a need for it. And maybe retract
> later. True, that's a step up from what we have in office now, but it
> doesn't change the fact that this is a soi-disant Orthodox Jew who
> cares more about his political career than he does about Judaism.
It's not like this (even if we establish conclusively that you're 100% right
-- which I think you are) is going to deter those who plan to vote for Gore
from doing so. So why bother? Haven't we had enough of this already?
Yisroel Markov Boston, MA Member DNRC
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are we not drawn onward, we few, drawn onward to new era?" - Sean Gaeltach
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lisa Beth
<post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>On 4 Oct 2000 04:03:48 GMT Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote:
>
> [ snipped ]
>
>:>> 2) Maybe he didn't want Jews to be seen in the public's imagination
>:>> as racist xenophobes.
>
>:>Thank you!! I am also 110% sure this is his aim - that and
>:>keeping the campaign being about the issues, and not Judaism.
>
>Then he could have made it clear that Jews accept genuine converts.
Why? Marriage to a convert isn't intermarriage. The question was
about intermarriage.
>Sadly, his (insert your term here) about the issue has made it into a campaign
>issue about his honesty and integrity.
Shouldn't it? He deliberately lied. And it was a particularly stupid
lie, since he had to know that he'd be called on it immediately. Add
to "dishonest" the problem of being shortsighted. Do you want a VP
(and God forbid a President) who acts on whim like this without
thinking about what's likely to happen as a consequence?
Lisa Beth
I've seen the actual text of his lie. Wouldn't you have refused to
accept reports of his lie without seeing the actual lie itself? So
why are you pretending that reports that he retracted his lie are an
actual retraction?
Double standard, anyone?
Lisa Beth
wrote:
>"Lisa Beth" <star...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:39dad0c5...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > On 3 Oct 2000 22:17:16 GMT, meirm...@erols.com wrote:
> >
> > >>Ein adam choteh v'lo lo. No one sins unless they have something to
> > >>gain by it. The only thing he had to gain by this lie was the
> > >
> > >The "only" thing. Please. Lisa, let me be frank. That's maybe the
> > >silliest thing you have ever said here.
> >
> > I'm sure others would disagree with you. That said, I'm wondering why
> > you're so gung ho about this politico. He's a liar, fine. Most
> > politicians are. But most politicians don't make themselves out to be
> > Orthodox Jews. That's my problem with him. I can't understand why
> > you aren't bothered by that.
>
>You've been called on this by several people. The only person lying here is
>you in your provably false claim that he "makes [himself] out to be [an]
>Orthodox Jew." He does not. He has repeatedly stated in interviews that he
>calls himself "observant."
Only recently. And I expect an apology for your accusing me of lying.
Your inability to cope with reality does not constitute lying on my
part.
> > >>furtherance of his campaign. If you have another suggestion as to why
>> >>he may have lied, please share it with us.
>> >>
>> >I'm still not ratifying your use of lie, because your whole point is
>off-topic.
>>
>> Non sequitur. "Lie" is a fact. It doesn't require "ratification"
>> (and would you mind using a more appropriate word than that, please?)
>
>On the contrary, the only "fact" here is that you have stated an untruth about
>Senator Lieberman. Or are you now claiming that anyone who claims to
>be "an observant Jew" is automatically classifying himself as Orthodox?
No. He has recently refused to identify as Orthodox. Happily. As I
recall, you were one of the people who went nuts when I and others
first reported that he was no longer claiming to be Orthodox. You
were one of the people who insisted that we didn't have a right to say
that he wasn't Orthodox.
Now you take his recent demurrals and use them as an attack. You are
a game-player, Dan. You have no real interest in right and wrong or
true and false. You just want to score debate points.
I tend not to killfile people, because it's a major pain. You're the
second one into the hopper.
*plonk*
Dan Kimmel
The only reality here is that Senator Lieberman did not lie and yet you
slandered him by accusing him of such. I think that's all that need be said
on this subject.
> > > >>furtherance of his campaign. If you have another suggestion as to
why
> >> >>he may have lied, please share it with us.
> >> >>
> >> >I'm still not ratifying your use of lie, because your whole point is
> >off-topic.
> >>
> >> Non sequitur. "Lie" is a fact. It doesn't require "ratification"
> >> (and would you mind using a more appropriate word than that, please?)
> >
> >On the contrary, the only "fact" here is that you have stated an untruth
about
> >Senator Lieberman. Or are you now claiming that anyone who claims to
> >be "an observant Jew" is automatically classifying himself as Orthodox?
>
> No. He has recently refused to identify as Orthodox. Happily. As I
> recall, you were one of the people who went nuts when I and others
> first reported that he was no longer claiming to be Orthodox. You
> were one of the people who insisted that we didn't have a right to say
> that he wasn't Orthodox.
I went nuts? I don't believe so. (Checking.) Nope.
> Now you take his recent demurrals and use them as an attack. You are
> a game-player, Dan. You have no real interest in right and wrong or
> true and false. You just want to score debate points.
On the contrary, I am trying to set the record straight. You keep attacking
and attacking without regard to the facts. You were called on this. Now
you're backtracking.
I take it that this is the best you can do in admitting that you erred in
claiming that HE said he was Orthodox.
> I tend not to killfile people, because it's a major pain. You're the
> second one into the hopper.
>
> *plonk*
I accept your concession.