Holy Hyrax 4 8 15 16 23 42

Atheists in Action

2009-06-17T14:59:00.001-07:00

Ever see movies where you have a den of vampires where you try to move slowly so that nobody notices you lest they spring on you? Well, I fell right into one here. :)

Honestly, I enjoy simple debate and try to at least make people rethink some of the venom they use.

The Cassuto Question

2009-05-13T16:12:00.000-07:00

Being a veteran blogger here (snicker), I have been perplexed about the rough treatment Umberto Cassuto has received in regards to the Documentary Hypothesis. Typically, skeptics shun him away, or simply call him crap. It's not like you can accuse him of being an OJ and simply trying to come up with ANY apologetics to keep his faith. My question is, why? Seriously. For the people that do this, I would honestly like to know, is it:

1) Really studying the matter and realizing his rebuttal to DH is wrong?

2) Some dogmatic allegiance to the majority of other scholars who hold by DH?

3) Not wanting to feel like you're not part of the intellectual crowd if you actually DID think Cassuto makes sense?

4) Since other rabbis have tried (unsuccessfully) to rebut the DH with apologetics in the past, an almost instinctual reply is to believe ANY attempt at rebutting DH is going to be

apologetics by definition?

Please answer below in the supplied comments section. Winners will receive a free autographed picture of me signing an autograph picture of myself. Thanks.

A Poem

2009-05-06T11:29:00.000-07:00

This is dedicated to you know who. :-D

Roses are red
Violets are blue
You are Garnel
And so are you......and You......and YOU.......and YOU

How does one cope with a bad experience?

2009-04-27T13:04:00.000-07:00

This is specifically geared toward Jews that have gone through traumatic or simply unpleasant experiences with authority figures in their lives. I am not one of these people so I can't really toward answering the question of how does a person cope with having bad experiences with, lets say a rabbi. But I have a feeling, what a lot of bloggers do, is probably antithetical the concept of coping and trying to find a way of pressing forward with their lives. Take this brand new site , it pretty much sells it all, doesn't it? Now, I am sure this blogger had a miserable time there, and perhaps even everything this blogger will say about this rabbi is true, but is this really the way to cope with such a troubling past? I mean, if one was to go to a professional therapist, would they recommend opening up a public blog to spew all the hate filled comments which I garner will transpire there? I can only imagine its a matter of time before this man's children finds this site. How would it affect them?

Each of us have had run ins with people that have wronged us, to different extents, but I dare say I can't imagine starting a public forum to bash that person would ever help me. I mean, sure, in the short run, it might relieve me of pent up anger and frustration, but is this helpful for the long term?

To Spread a Lie, till People Eventually Believe It.

2009-04-20T09:57:00.000-07:00

Iran at the UN conference on racism:

Israel is the "most cruel and racist regime"

Offthederech on his usual tirade against the evil and immoral religious people:

Religion, the greatest, and most often* overlooked, source of human suffering in the world

Doesn't matter if you are an atheist or theist, or muslim or Jewish. You repeat a certain lie over and over again, eventually, masses will pick it and start believing in it. Human nature, is human nature. It doesn't change. Interestingly enough, OTD is a good proof of this.

*word added because I left it out of the original

Can You Have it Both Ways?

2009-03-11T17:32:00.000-07:00

Can you believe in a God that is personal, loves you, judges justly and or with mercy, that you prayer for divine assistance and that everything happens for a reason while at the same time believing in something Harry Maryless said:

Speaking strictly about the existence of God and not theological concepts about the attributes of God...God created nature. Nature takes its course.

So does God give a child (or anyone else) cancer for a reason, or is it just nature?

JDHURF Responds

2009-01-16T16:37:00.000-08:00

in response to previous post. My post is in italics.

Holy Hyrax said:

”The thrust of JDHURF's comments imply that though Israel has a right to defend itself, the manner in which it is being done is basically a war crime. Specifically the issue of collective punishment, disproportionate attacks and blockades all of which he contends are against International Law (IL) and therefore, immoral. These are his opinions and are also share by humanitarian organizations, which all state they look at the entire situation "objectively." Question is, is there a priori ideology and does it affect how they look at the situation and how does it affect how they interpret IL. And what about morality, how does that play a role?”

You mean to ask: is there an a priori ideology? – and as I have made explicitly clear on JA’s blog: no. Setting aside for now all of the criticisms I would have of what you conceive of as ideology – the left critique of ideology as “false consciousness” and Zizek’s formulation that “the fundamental level of ideology, however, is not of an illusion masking the real state of things but that of an (unconscious) fantasy structuring our social reality itself” – you must be implying by ideology, political views. Again, as I made clear on JA’s blog, my political views don’t have anything directly to do with my positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I am a libertarian-socialist which means that, in principle, I am opposed to the existence of state powers; in the long-term, states should be dissolved. However, when discussing solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, dealing with the direct and immediate goals, I support the two-state solution – not necessarily in opposition to my objections to the existence of state apparatuses, but that is another discussion altogether – and this is in contrast to the very serious position being adopted all over Europe by even the moderate left: the one state solution. Very clearly then, ideology has nothing directly to do with the issue for me.

However, it is beyond clear that ideology has everything to do with your positions. The ideology motivating you to disregard the breaking of international human rights law by Israel, Israeli massacres and war crimes is an extreme form of militant nationalism, an ultra-Zionism.

”I think there is no doubt that underlying all of this (an anything0 is ideology. Questions like; does Israel have a right to exist? a right to the land it won? Do Arabs in general want Israel are all examples of ideological questions. Sure, the question of territories is also a legal one, but one cannot deny the ideological basis for each side in trying rationalize the law in their favor. I believe, people like JDHURF and organizations like Amnesty International, ideologically (and therefore also legally) are disgusted by the fact that Israel occupies the territories. This in effect will dictate how they look at the entire situation from now on. It will influence them in how things should be dealt with. This is an important point because now, the tilt will always be, by defintion, slanted towards the benefit of the Palestinians.”

You make a lot of unsupported assertions here – evidence not being required for the ideologically driven, such as yourself – and claim that AI and myself “are disgusted by the fact that Israel occupies the territories,” again, never mind supporting this assertion, that is apparently unnecessary. Are you discussing the OT proper, Gaza and the West Bank, or are you talking about the whole of Palestine? If you only mean the former, then it is not simply that Israel occupies these territories that disgusts fair-minded people who are not driven by nationalism and expansionism – many of whom support the complete ethnic cleansing of Palestine in favor of the state of Israel – it is the way in which Israel occupies the territories (breaking international law, denigrating human rights and committing atrocities).

Further evidence that you are ideologically driven is your disgraceful dismissal and unconcern for such atrocities. That you refuse to address the recent Zeitoun massacre is but one example:

“What is particularly horrifying about the Zeitoun massacre—details of which continue to unfold—is the sadistic behavior of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). This is a mass killing that has unfolded over days.....

[Article JDHURF is quoting is too long. Read the rest about the Zeitoun massacre here ]

That you have nothing to say about these atrocities is not only proof of your extremism, but a disgrace and an utter failing of objective ethics (a concept which defies you).

”For example: How many peole remember, at various times when different humanitarian organizations criticize the check-points that Israel was using? Humiliation! Degradation! they would cry. Of course, they are right. There is a feeling of degradation that the Palestinians would feel. But, is it immoral?”

Let’s take some clearer examples shall we? Examples that, for very straight forward reasons, you want to pretend don’t exist. How about the use of torture? “GSS [General Security Service] interrogators have tortured thousands, if not tens of thousands, of Palestinians.” – B’Tselem.

“Israel’s two main interrogation agencies in the occupied territories engage in a systematic pattern of ill-treatment and torture – according to internationally recognized definitions of the terms – when trying to extract from Palestinian security suspects confessions or information about third parties. Nearly all Palestinians undergoing interrogation are put through some combination of the same basic methods…Thus, the number of Palestinians tortured or severely ill-treated while under interrogation during the intifada is in the tens of thousands – a number that becomes especially significant when it is remembered that the universe of adult and adolescent male Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip is under three-quarters of one million.” – Human Rights Watch

The use of torture is made even more heinous when coupled with the kidnapping and indefinite detention of Palestinian civilians – as “administrative detainees – who are held without charge or trial and when charged are usually charged for having confessed under the duress of torture.

Does Holy Hyrax have anything to say about administrative detainees? The use of torture? Not yet, although I have already brought it up. How about house demolitions?

”Well, that depends who you ask. To the Israelis, who ideology for the most part does not come from a sociology class but from years of experience will say its a necessity. Do ALL arabs kill Jews? No. But there are enough that do and more than enough that believe its a legitimate way to fight occupiers by blowing themselves up. To the humanitarian worker, its not that Israelis are not important, but its just that more sympathy, almost by default has already been shifted to the Palestinians, hence their grievances are are now more of a priority. Any consequences that might arise, must be treated separately. The fact that bombers will come in becomes irrelevant to the greater cause and all check-points (though they work) are not to be permitted. Of course, someone might respond that sticking them in cattle cars can also work to keep bombers out. To this, there is simply no reply. Actually, there is, but to such extreme examples, there is no point but to simply turn around and sigh to oneself.”

This is actually all fabrication, another staple of the ideologically driven program. Every organization that I am aware of and I myself have no problem with checkpoints and even the separation wall that Israel is building so long as it builds these constructs on its own territory. The problem arises when Israel builds these constructs well into Palestinian land, annexing land, separating families from their farms, annexing valuable resources such as water and so on.

http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/Special%20focus%5CSeparation%20barrier!OpenView

http://www.btselem.org/english/Separation_Barrier/index.asp

http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList4/F06BB484D900B227C1256E3E00324D96

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0223-02.htm

”Coincidentally, this is why people like XGH, Dovbear (perhaps to a lesser degree) and JDHURF SAY Israel has the right to defend itself, but can never figure out how. Their mind is simply torn by the obvious that check-points and walls and blockades work vs. their other ideology build squarely on the legal aspect (ie, Israel can defend itself, but must follow these simple rules). Hence, so far all I have heard from this is that this is just a sacrifice Israel must endure. A missile every once in a while is just the price you will have to pay for living in this region. Of course, this in of itself highly immoral. What government can allow such a thing? But they have no other response or solution. Oh ya, except to say they should talk. That always works. A good example of ideology getting in the way is this:

There could also be argued that there are “all sorts of reasons” for torture, as Alan Dershowitz argues, but that doesn’t matter, nothing justifies torture, nothing justifies collective punishment and nothing justifies the blockade of Gaza.

JDHURF thinks he is being objective here. The problem is he is not. Any reader will see a subjective stance. He believes torture is bad no matter what. He believes blockades are bad no matter what. These are clearly opinions based on his subjective values. Of course, its his right. But to cloak it in anything less than subjective and not objective as he keeps trying to say is plainly dishonest. I believe torture is permissible under certain circumstances. I can bring justification. He can believe otherwise and bring his own justification. This is pure subjectivity at its best based on two different value systems. This is not a judgmental call against him by the way.”

More fabrications. As I have just made explicitly clear, checkpoints and separation walls are fine, if that is what Israelis want, there’s no problem so long as they build these constructs on Israeli territory and not well into Palestinian territory (annexing valuable land and resources). That you here are willing to defend the use of torture is beyond the pale and absolutely evidence of your violent extremism. Why sail from the very shores of civilization you are proclaiming to defend in the first place? Torture is self-defeating. President-Elect Obama’s appointment for Attorney General, Eric Holder, has this to say about water boarding and torture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdAt1GcIs6E&eurl=http://thinkprogress

”This brings us to the legal aspect. JDHURF has been copying and pasting legal text as proof of Israel committing war crimes. There is a problem wit this. First of all, JDHURF, nor I, are International legal experts. No legal text works in some vacuum on its own. There are any number of factors that play a role. JDHURF often quotes this.

“Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute…A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:

Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”

The problem is, experts can interpret this any which way. What does it mean "excesive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated?" Who decides this? Obviously, JDHURF is interpreting it for his advantage. Someone else will interpret it for their advantage.

This website takes another approach.

Side note: On this same site, the quoted law does not say "concrete" or "direct" in it:

or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

So there is always interpretation that plays a role. Do I have any reason to believe that JDHURF who admitted to being a leftists, is somehow looking at this objectively without ideology getting in the way? Absolutely not.”

You are being disingenuous to pretend that my being a leftist has anything at all to do with this conflict, as I made clear earlier in my response. That you cite a blog as an expert opinion is outright laughable. The blog itself goes quite a way in their disclaimer citing as much:

“The information contained on International Law Observer does not represent legal advice and no guaranty can be given for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information/facts presented here. The authors of International Law Observer strive to hold the contents on the newest status yet it can be that information becomes outdated, incomplete or false. In line with the befitting tradition of research conducted in the academic field, it is thus strongly advised to not rely upon facts expressed on this Blog without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in your independent judgment that it is true.

No assurance can be given by the authors of International Law Observer for the accuracy of information or assessments contained on other websites linked to on this Blog. Moreover, the authors of this Blog can not be held responsible for the contents of other pages (links to other sites - characterized by underlining), which link to International Law Observer or to which the present Blog links. It is to be guaranteed the user responsibility that each selected contents are free from viruses or the like.”

I don’t interpret the law, I cite it explicitly, while you cite blog opinions about the law.

Here is a very explicit case of Israel breaking international law, as reported by the Internatinoal Committee of the Red Cross, which I don’t doubt you will ignore:

“Relief workers found four starving children sitting next to their dead mothers and other corpses in a house in a part of Gaza City bombed by Israeli forces, the International Committee of the Red Cross said on Thursday.

The ICRC accused Israel of delaying ambulance access to the hit area and demanded it grant safe access for Palestinian Red Crescent ambulances to return to evacuate more wounded.

"This is a shocking incident," said Pierre Wettach, ICRC chief for Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

"The Israeli military must have been aware of the situation but did not assist the wounded. Neither did they make it possible for us or the Palestinian Red Crescent to assist the wounded," he said.

In unusually strong terms, the neutral agency said it believed Israel had breached international humanitarian law in the incident.

In a written response, the Israeli army said it works in coordination with international aid bodies assist civilians and that it "in no way intentionally targets civilians".

The Israeli offensive launched in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip on Dec. 27 to end rocket attacks by Islamic militants has drawn increasing international criticism over mounting civilian casualties.

Palestinian Red Crescent ambulances and ICRC officials managed to reach several houses in the Zeitoun area of Gaza City on Wednesday after seeking access from Israeli military forces since last weekend, the ICRC statement said.

The rescue team "found four small children next to their dead mothers in one of the houses", the ICRC said.

"They were too weak to stand up on their own. One man was also found alive, too weak to stand up. In all there were at least 12 corpses lying on mattresses," it said.

In another house, the team found 15 survivors of Israeli shelling including several wounded, it said. Israeli soldiers posted some 80 meters (yards) away ordered the rescue team to leave the area which they refused to do, it said.

The ICRC said it had been informed that there were more wounded sheltering in other destroyed houses in the area.

"The ICRC believes that in this instance the Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuated the wounded. It considers the delay in allowing rescue services access unacceptable," it said.

In all, it evacuated 18 wounded and 12 others who were exhausted, including the children, by donkey cart. This was because large earth walls erected by the Israeli army had made it impossible to bring ambulances into the immediate area.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, warring parties are obliged to do everything possible to search for, collect and evacuate the wounded and sick without delay, it said.

Dominik Stillhart, ICRC deputy director of operations, declined to say explicitly whether the Israeli inaction constituted a war crime.

"Clearly, it is (for) the International Criminal Court -- not for the ICRC -- to say whether this is or is not a war crime," he said, referring to the Hague tribunal.

Ambulances must be given "round-the-clock" access to the wounded throughout Gaza, Stillhart told a news briefing. "We cannot wait for the next suspension of hostilities for the wounded to be evacuated and brought to hospital."

The Israeli army said any serious allegations would need to be investigated properly after a formal complaint was received, "within the constraints of the military operation taking place". (Additional reporting by Adam Entous in Jerusalem) (Reporting by Stephanie Nebehay; Editing by Jonathan Lynn)”

”According to the Geneva Conventions, an invading army is responsible for caring for the sick, wounded, and hungry in the territory it controls. Israel clearly does not observe these conventions, effectively blocking the delivery of food and medicine, firing upon ambulances and preventing them from reaching the wounded, and leaving the sick and wounded under its own control to die.

The problem with him bringing this up should be obvious. Israel does not control Gaza. It's not being re-occupied. I don't think any other country though, would call for a 'time-out' and allow for humanitarian aid to come in. But, one thing is important, it's all about ideology that he brought this quote. It's first an emotional response to innocents dying, and then looking for something to aide to bolster that ideology in legal terms. Its nothing abnormal. We all do it. So I am not convinced by the legal jargon. There is no intelligence needed to go to a website and copy & paste legal text. I mean the U.S. has also killed thousands of Iraqis and other than the fringe left (which perhaps should say something there) I don't recall seeing anyone screaming that America should be prosecuted for war crimes.”

This is absolutely shameful. I have gone over this time and time again with you, which means you are simply willfully lying here. To begin with, Israel does control the land, water and air surrounding Gaza and has effective control, however, as I have pointed out time and time again, that is irrelevant because Israel has the same obligations under international law whether it is the occupying force or whether it is engaged in armed conflict. I will simply repeat myself yet again:

“One source of the obligations imposed on Israel toward residents of the Gaza Strip is the laws of occupation, which are incorporated in the Hague Convention (1907) and in the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949). These laws impose general responsibility on the occupying state for the safety and welfare of civilians living in the occupied territory. The laws of occupation apply if a state has "effective control" over the territory in question. The High Court has held contrary to Israel 's claim, stating that the creation and continuation of an occupation does not depend on the existence of an institution administering the lives of the local population, but only on the extent of its military control in the area. Furthermore, a certain area may be deemed occupied even if the army does not have a fixed presence throughout the whole area. Leading experts in humanitarian law maintain that effective control may also exist when the army controls key points in a particular area, reflecting its power over the entire area and preventing an alternative central government from formulating and carrying out its powers. The broad scope of Israeli control in the Gaza Strip, which exists despite the lack of a physical presence of IDF soldiers in the territory, creates a reasonable basis for the assumption that this control amounts to "effective control," such that the laws of occupation continue to apply.

Even if Israel 's control in the Gaza Strip does not amount to "effective control" and the territory is not considered occupied, Israel still bears certain responsibilities under international humanitarian law. IHL is not limited to protecting civilians living under occupation, but includes provisions intended to protect civilians during an armed conflict, regardless of the status of the territory in which they live. Given that Israel contends that an armed conflict exists between it and the Palestinian organizations fighting against it, which has continued even after the disengagement, such provisions apply. These provisions are found, for example, in the Fourth Geneva Convention, pursuant to which Israel must protect the wounded, sick, children under age fifteen, and pregnant women, enable the free passage of medicines and essential foodstuffs, enable medical teams to provide assistance, and refrain from imposing collective punishment.”

http://www.btselem.org/english/Gaza_Strip/Israels_obligations.asp

Ideology, Legality & Morality In Regards to Gaza

2009-01-15T22:57:00.000-08:00

The debate about Israels action is still raging on Jewish Atheists site after quite a few days. I would like to address JDHURFs comments specifically because they, though I believe are wrong, seem to carry some sort of "authority" behind it. Specifically this post will deal with how ideology, legality and morality play a role in this situation and how one affects the other... if at all.

The thrust of JDHURF's comments imply that though Israel has a right to defend itself, the manner in which it is being done is basically a war crime. Specifically the issue of collective punishment, disproportionate attacks and blockades all of which he contends are against International Law (IL) and therefore, immoral. These are his opinions and are also share by humanitarian organizations, which all state they look at the entire situation "objectively." Question is, is there a priori ideology and does it affect how they look at the situation and how does it affect how they interpret IL. And what about morality, how does that play a role?

I think there is no doubt that underlying all of this (an anything0 is ideology. Questions like; does Israel have a right to exist? a right to the land it won? Do Arabs in general want Israel are all examples of ideological questions. Sure, the question of territories is also a legal one, but one cannot deny the ideological basis for each side in trying rationalize the law in their favor. I believe, people like JDHURF and organizations like Amnesty International, ideologically (and therefore also legally) are disgusted by the fact that Israel occupies the territories. This in effect will dictate how they look at the entire situation from now on. It will influence them in how things should be dealt with. This is an important point because now, the tilt will always be, by defintion, slanted towards the benefit of the Palestinians.

For example: How many peole remember, at various times when different humanitarian organizations criticize the check-points that Israel was using? Humiliation! Degradation! they would cry. Of course, they are right. There is a feeling of degradation that the Palestinians would feel. But, is it immoral? Well, that depends who you ask. To the Israelis, who ideology for the most part does not come from a sociology class but from years of experience will say its a necessity. Do ALL arabs kill Jews? No. But there are enough that do and more than enough that believe its a legitimate way to fight occupiers by blowing themselves up. To the humanitarian worker, its not that Israelis are not important, but its just that more sympathy, almost by default has already been shifted to the Palestinians, hence their grievances are are now more of a priority. Any consequences that might arise, must be treated separately. The fact that bombers will come in becomes irrelevant to the greater cause and all check-points (though they work) are not to be permitted. Of course, someone might respond that sticking them in cattle cars can also work to keep bombers out. To this, there is simply no reply. Actually, there is, but to such extreme examples, there is no point but to simply turn around and sigh to oneself.

Coincidentally, this is why people like XGH, Dovbear (perhaps to a lesser degree) and JDHURF SAY Israel has the right to defend itself, but can never figure out how. Their mind is simply torn by the obvious that check-points and walls and blockades work vs. their other ideology build squarely on the legal aspect (ie, Israel can defend itself, but must follow these simple rules). Hence, so far all I have heard from this is that this is just a sacrifice Israel must endure. A missile every once in a while is just the price you will have to pay for living in this region. Of course, this in of itself highly immoral. What government can allow such a thing? But they have no other response or solution. Oh ya, except to say they should talk. That always works. A good example of ideology getting in the way is this:

There could also be argued that there are “all sorts of reasons” for torture, as Alan Dershowitz argues, but that doesn’t matter, nothing justifies torture, nothing justifies collective punishment and nothing justifies the blockade of Gaza.

This brings us to the legal aspect. JDHURF has been copying and pasting legal text as proof of Israel committing war crimes. There is a problem wit this. First of all, JDHURF, nor I, are International legal experts. No legal text works in some vacuum on its own. There are any number of factors that play a role. JDHURF often quotes this.

“Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute…A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv). Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”

This website takes another approach.

Side note: On this same site, the quoted law does not say "concrete" or "direct" in it:

or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

According to the Geneva Conventions, an invading army is responsible for caring for the sick, wounded, and hungry in the territory it controls. Israel clearly does not observe these conventions, effectively blocking the delivery of food and medicine, firing upon ambulances and preventing them from reaching the wounded, and leaving the sick and wounded under its own control to die.

But what if hypothetically, all sides conclude, legally speaking, Israel is in the wrong? Does that automatically and objectively mean Israel is immoral? Well, if you ask JDHURF and Amnesty, they will obviously answer yes. It's not like Israel crossed a red light here. They are killing innocent people as described by IL and IL decisions of ethics are objective. As JDHURF says so politely:

Israel of course has a right to protect itself, but it must do so without breaking international human rights law, it’s very simple, it’s not one or the other: either Israel protects itself by committing war crimes or it doesn’t protect itself at all (that’s your ignorant and illusory dichotomy).
Your argument that international law is subjective is just downright breathtaking in its idiocy.
For something to be subjective there must not be any factual arbiters, it is simply the emotional opinion of the person – preferences of taste and sound and so on – while something is objective when it is founded upon factual analysis and evidentiary reasoning. International law is not subjective in any sense, it is objective in that it is founded upon the factual analysis of specific acts and policies and their specific consequences. That you don’t understand the difference is staggering to the mind. That you argue that international law is subjective in order to render it meaningless and justify Israel’s war crimes and breaking of international law is yet further evidence of your militant extremism.

The problem is of course its subjective. What facts are you talking about here? That innocent people don't like to be killed? Well DUH!! But that is not what is being discussed here. The discussion is about parameters that were set. I am not saying IL is necessarily wrong, I am saying the parameters were laid down by human beings and could have gone in different ways. The fact that there are arbitrators does not make it objective, because they are still human beings debating as to where the parameters of war should lie. Considering acts of war have always changed in the course of human history, how on earth can someone claim its objective is beyond me. The fact that you say these parameters are objective does not make them objective. Just because you keep repeating something over and over, does not make it true. A council could have easily said, by looking at facts on the ground that blockades are illegal...UNLESS the nation that has launched the blockade has done so for defensive purposes and can legitimately show it. This is just as "objective" as anything else they said. Was the court ruling allowing same sex marriage in california objective? Of course not. It was a 4-3 victory and could have gone the other way. So even though its the law, its based on subjective reasoning of what they believe the law is referring to.

(BTW, I never knew if you think IL is subjective it automatically makes you a militant extremist. Oh well.)

But what if JDHURF is right, what then? IMO, Israel's first priority is towards its borders and citizens. The problem is, IL, according to JDHURF does not take specific things into account. Israelis for the most part have had to deal with a culture that doesn't subscribe to the exact western notion of war, ethics and values as wel do. How does IL deal with this? Well it doesn't. It can't. It's not going to have once set of rules of this culture and another for some other culture. But what happens when the way one deals with one culture won't work when dealing with another. This is why, IMO, IL does not necessarily equal morality. If Israel was dealing with a western nation, ti would fight a certain way, but here, its dealing with a culture that has taken death proudly, and killing others while dying is one of the greatest honors. Is this everyone? No of course not, but certainly it seems this culture has been taken over by this methods. So how do you deal with it? How do you deal with a government puts their civilians in harms way for a greater cause, knowing full way the consequences? I don't see it possible for Israel to fight a conventional war, dictated by IL the way JDHURF sees it and come out alive. Different cultures have different values. Some cultures are antithetical to the way we dream the world should function, and its a dream to think you can fight them in a conventional way. This by the way was the case with Japanese in WWII.

Modern sensitivities don't like to admit that some cultures want someone dead and evil lies in their ranks. Well, the world did once, thats why they were able to vanquish it. It knew what it had to do, and it did it, no matter what. Israel has to deal with this now, but once again, some people don't get this, cause its smacks of some old world notion of morality and racism and so, ideology rears its head again and Israel is wrong for having to deal with a mess that doesn't care for your rules. Israelis on the other hand see us in the western world, and rightfully so, as blind to the obvious. It is very hard for me now to beleive what JDHURF said:

Furthermore, your premise that the entire population of Gaza wants to destroy Israel is hysterical propaganda. The only statistics available on the view of Palestinians towards Israel is a majority acceptance of the two-state solution. So that is a bold-face lie on your part.

I mean, if they TRULY believed in a two state solution, and maybe they do, why on earth would you give the scepter to a group that obviously hates Israel and would rather see it destroyed? How on earth do you want me to take a statement like that on face value as truth?

So is a blockade, collective punishment illegal? Maybe, but war is always a collective punishement and not always terrorism. JDHURF believes otherwise:

As I said, although you ignored it, War in general is also very clearly different from willful collective punishment: the elementary difference between legitimate self-defense and terrorism.

Again, he is coming from his ideological perspective and from his ideological perspective, he is being totally reasonable. So there is nothing to even to respond to that. Morally speaking, Israel has to do what ever it needs against an unconventional enemy that could care less about IL. In the end, the moral responsibility of the Palestinian people lies with Hamas. It was their job to keep them safe. ( I am curious if anyone actually spends their time protesting Hamas's action with the same vigor as they do Israel's). So you can scream "war crimes all you want. It doesn't matter. Because, once again, morally, Israel needs to do what it needs to do. No wonder more than 80% of Israelis support this operation and mind you, Israel does not have 80% exteme right wing settlers. Israel cannot live with its hands tied behind her back while an enemy slaps her around and laughing knowing she can't hit back. Going by JDHURF, strict reading of how war should ALWAYS be waged, Israel would not be able to last. A good war, is one that ends decisively. Once and for all. Problem here of course is that Israel is not dealing with a uniform enemy, making it much harder. No, Israel has to deal with the hand it was dealt. But certainly, that doesn't stop those on the sideline, yelling at them as if they were dealing with a conventional force. I can guarantee you, that WWII would never have ended with this sort of mentality. Luckily for us, it didn't exist then.

To Stone or Not to Stone

2009-01-13T12:21:00.001-08:00

There is a report from CNN reporting that two men have been stoned to death for adultery and murder. Human rights organizations have obviously condemned this. Now clearly, there is no denying that our religion proscribes this punishment as well. I can't particularly judge stoning back then, because, well, thats what executions were. I can judge it nowadays because, well, we feel stoning is barbaric. My question is this: Are people bothered that a person can get executed for adultery, or are you really bothered by the method (i.e. stoning)? Had these people been executed by lethal injection, would you have a serious problem with it? Would you feel less bothered? Just the same? Be honest now.

Open quote from our friend XGH

2008-12-31T09:10:00.000-08:00

I just don't see how bombing Gaza is morally acceptable, when civilians will certainly get killed. Two wrongs don't make a right. So you'll say, what else is Israel supposed to do? Just sit back and take it? And the answer of course is yes, because bombing them back is not morally acceptable.

-XGH, Lord of the rational thinkers

It amazes me how, the more to the left people get, the more emotional they get to the point that their moral compass goes berserk. Israel should do absolutely nothing. They are as rational as the Arab sympathizers that protest against Israel claiming that Israel is using disproportional attacks (which is so silly and a new concept). Would they be happy if Israel shot one missle for every missle Hamas sent? No of course not. It's simply anti-Israel BS as usual. All I know is, thank God these sorts of people were not sitting with FDR and Churchill deciding whether to go to war. After all, thousands upon thousands of innocents died. But as XGH said, intent does not matter here. Action is all that matters. Amazes me how when all these skeptics start moving toward atheism and cynicism, they start thinking like this. And it has nothing to do with rational thought. Its simply that OJ, for the most part is conservative in ideals. Hence they feel they HAVE to move the other direction.

Rabbi Wolpe vs. Hitchens.

2008-11-26T22:33:00.000-08:00

and here is a more recent debate they had in LA

Israelite Origins

2008-11-19T15:33:00.000-08:00

PBS had a great episode of Nova last night, The Bible’s Buried Secrets (BBS). Not surprisingly, it dealt with the origins of the Israelites, scripture and especially how the idea of monotheism was able to spring up in the most unlikeliest of places. It is two hours long but you can watch individual chapters. The reenactments are interesting but the CGI in recreating villages for example is outstanding. Anyways, given that it was a two hour show, there is no way I can fit in all the arguments they made, but hopefully, just touch upon the new theory as to the origins of the ancient Israelites and they god. I would like to start by first quoting William Dever in this interview (as well as the show).

We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.

I wonder if James Kugel would consider him an apologist. From reading his site, I get the impression that he says one needs to understand the bible as they, the ancients thought that every incident in scripture ACTUALLY happened as written and any interpretation or meaning came later. Seems to me, Dever is saying from the very get go, the stories themselves were interpretations of events. But I could be wrong. Anyways, I feel that is an important quote given that sometimes people judge the ancients based on how WE would write a text.

Where I want to begin is where the episode discusses the conquest of Canaan. Tradition of course says, that Joshua led the people and conquered city after city in a relatively short amount of time until the country was taken. BBS takes us to one of these cities, Hazor. Like Jericho and AI—two other cities that tradition says Joshua conquers—Hazor has significant evidence of destruction. An idol was even found that had been decapitated. The archeologist on site believes that the only real candidate for this destruction is the Israelites. They are the only ones with a tradition of it happening an no mention of Hazor is mentioned in any of the Egyptian records. It would seem to be good news in favor of our tradition. The problem is, archeologists say that its not so cut and dry. The biggest problem is one of dating. Archeologist date the destruction of Ai to 2,500 BC, the destruction of Jericho to 1,500 BC and Hazor to 1,250 BC. This is over 1000 years and nowhere near what the book of Joshua allows for. The other problem is that most of these sites do not show any signs of a war. Interestingly, the archeologists discuss and important find. They found that Hazor was a city state built on two “levels.” The lower level was mainly inhabited by the serfs and slaves while the top level was inhabited by the elitists. What they found was that the lower level had been abandoned and the top portion of the city started seeing crumbling in its infrastructure. According to the archeologists, this was a time of great upheaval in the entire region, not just in Canaan. They conclude therefore, that Hazor was not destroyed from the outside, but from the inside. A rebellion of sorts as the entire region was crumbling. These freed peasants eventually scattered and created their own identity…the Israelites. More evidence is given from the pottery that has been found within Israelite dwellings. These pottery bare an amazing resemblance to those of the Canaanites

So now we have where the Israelites come from, but where does this odd idea of one god come from? For this, we have to go back to Egypt. Egyptian records tell us that King Seti I (1,300 BC, father of Ramses. Also, this date is close to the rebellion in Hazor) enslaved a group of people called the Shasu. These people come from an interesting place. It is called YHW, and it is located around the area the Torah calls Midian. Could these Shasu people have worshiped a god called YHW or YHWH?

Archeologists in the show are hypothesizing a new theory built on all this information put together. They believe there in fact WAS a group of freed Canaanite slaves leaving Egypt, but on their way back to Canaan, they entered the land of the Shasu and were inspired by the the God YHWH. This God, they believed was the one that had freed them from Egypt.

As they re-entered the land of Canaan, they were greeted by the newly freed slaves (now the Israelites) that had settled the land after the Canaanite states crumbled. The returning Canaanites from Egypt taught this new God that they learned about from the Shasu to the people. Slowly, as these brand new Israelites spread in the land, so did this brand new idea of one God. It inspired them and gave them meaning. As centuries passed and the populations grew the stories became exaggerated to give more meaning. It wasn’t just a small band of freed Canaanites that were freed from Egypt, but that EVERYONE was from God in Egypt. And so, the idea of one God for everyone, was formed. But clearly, old habits are hard to break and that would account for the large amounts of idols found in Israelite cities.

The show earlier discussed a rock that was found in Israel. This rock had the entire Hebrew alphabet on it and was also dated to about 1000 bc. Archeologists now believe that writing was possible long before they had previously thought. In fact, at this time they believe, the writing down of the “Israelite Story” may have begun. Different stories, myths and songs until it took its final form centuries later, the Torah.

I highly recommend watching all the chapters that the site offers. At the very least, it is interesting to get many powerhouse names in archeology in one show giving you the main essence of evidence and theories rather than having to go out read dozens of books. Though I like reading too :) I didn't finish wathcing the whole thing. There is still more discussing the united kingdom, but I just wanted to touch up on this one issue. Let me know what you think. Strengths? Weaknesses? Did I miss anything?

Should Mormons Be Punished?

2008-11-13T10:52:00.000-08:00

This ex-Mormon says going after their tax exemption status is the wrong way about it.

"There is a legal problem here that we realistically need to account for if we are to hold the LDS Church accountable (as well as the Catholics and all those Evangelical churches): The Mormon church did not break any law. It’s within their rights according to the IRS code to advocate publicly and spend money to advocate for political issues. Like all churches/non-profits, they are only barred from campaigning for candidates. The website “Mormons Stole Our Rights” is wrong on the legal facts (it ignores subsection (h) of the tax code they site) and this will lose in any court in America. Ask any tax attorney and they’ll spell it out for you. Even more problematically, the Mormon church itself donated exactly ZERO funds to this campaign anyway and asked its members to donate money; this is also completely within its rights as the law now stands."

Agriprocessors Shutting Down?

2008-11-11T23:47:00.000-08:00

Looks like it.

Propostion 8 and Lessons for the Gay Community in General.

2008-11-09T20:44:00.000-08:00

Why did prop 8 pass? Well, to the gay community it is but one reason "Hate." Simple black and white case. If you are against calling their union a marriage it MUST be about hate right? I would like to take a closer look at this and if anything, have the gay community learn something that actually might benefit their cause.

1) Stop playing the "Hate" card. Those that disagree with you, do no automatically hate you. I realize it is easier to indoctrinate a population--ESPECIALLY younger people who tend to have no life experience and that everything is either a case of love or hate-- but it doesn't work and it is wrong. People are sick of hearing it.

For some reason the gay community cannot fathom that people don't want to redifine an institution that has existed for thousands of years, but at the same time, do not hate them.

2) Stop comparing yourself to black people or the plight of the black experience. The establishment does not segregate you. You are politicians, business owners, celebrities and everything else anyone is. What you are basically fighting for, is a word, "marriage," not treatment. You have domestic partnership rights, with the exact same treatment (and if you don't have more rights, I would side with you). But to equate yourself as an oppressed people is a slapin the face to those that truly have been treated like an oppressed people by the majority.

3) Don't blame the mormon church. Don't blame the synagogue. YOU alone are responsible for your message loosing out, not others. It's totally logical that ANY proposition on ANY ballot will be financed by different people from different locations. I am not saying you don't have a right to protest, you do, but its simply a cop-out for your own failure. You are only hurting your cause by picking on this one group when there was so many others behind it.

4) Moderates don't trust you. They don't mind having gays marry but they wonder where your crusade will end. In Canada, there was a case of a reverend punished for talking against homosexuality. The gay activists have some of the most fanatic activists, and they want to know FOR SURE that the slippery slope will not end up like like Canada, or Illinois (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54683). If you did, but still failed, don't blame the mormon church, blame yourself.

5) Keep your sexuality to yourself. There are many people out there that think the gay lifestyle is either disgusting or immoral. And you know who is to blame? YOU! If you are attempting to show everyone else, that in fact you are no different than they are, stop parading yourself in the most vile intimidating manner for the simple sake of being intimidating. What you do in private is your business, but when you dress up with penises hanging out in public you are only furthering the stereotypes of yourself. In my opinion, no responsible parent wants their kids to see things like that OR be around you.

I myself voted in favor of prop 8. I do not believe one can redefine something simply because of a feeling they have, especially when all the 'actual' rights are given (if I am wrong, let me know). Either way, anything I feel goes out the window if this proposition was implemented illegally. The court has to now see whether this is an amendment or revision. If its an amendment, its legit, if its a revision than it has to go through longer steps which it did not. If it is indeed deemed a revision than the proposition has to be repealed whether I like it or not. Its in everyone's best interest that the majority does not have a free hand to revise a Constitution without going through the proper mechanism the law requires. Because guess what? If you can change the constitution then so can the other side and NO Constitution should be a ping pong table.

Le me know what you think. Right? Wrong? Some things right? Some things wrong?

Update: I saw this posted on this Facebook after writing my post:

Homosexuality has been a faux pax for too many years because of a conservative nation's fear of it's own sexuality. Unfortunately homosexuals are being defined by bedroom activities and not by the content of their character. Sound familiar? And unless they decide to reclassify homosexuality as a disorder there is nothing to say that we are different or 'less than.'

Like I said, gays have NOBODY else to blame but themselves for this. All you have to do is attend ANY gay rally or ANY celebration in the West Hollywood area.

Also, I think this whole "Oh, if we are second class citizens, why should we pay taxes" crap. Or, "no taxation without representation." I just don't understand this sort of stupidity. You DO have representation and this has nothing to do with your marriage rights. Whether gays like it or not, not ALL unions are allowed in the US but yet those people still have to pay taxes.

I am honestly re-considering my vote for prop 8, but the stupidity of the gay activists simply leaves me speechless.

Candyman - The Shit of the Nation, Part II

2008-11-06T17:04:00.000-08:00

There is no more moral equivalence between our two groups than there is between Hamas suicide bombers and IDF soldiers. The IDF soldiers have the moral high ground, just as liberals do in this country.

- Candyman

Oh well, at least he finally said something nice about the IDF

Candyman - The Shit of the Nation

2008-11-06T14:26:00.000-08:00

WARNING: SPORADIC RANT

If you have any brains, you would be appalled by a post like this. In his basic fanatic leftists bullshit, Candyman explains to all of us that those of us that voted McCain have no RIGHT to celebrate Obama

Candyman, nothing describes you better THAN a piece of shit, you don't deserve to live in this country, and for sure you have no right to champion Barack Obama who on his acceptance speech basically blamed himself for not earning the support of the rest of us. I celebrate Barack Obama because I celebrate the sheer awesomeness of how democracy moves in this country. I celebrate because even though I do not agree with the policies he tried to sell the nation, he is still my leader. The point of this nation is NOT to be divisive if we do not get what we want. My opposition for Obama does not come from the same disgusting hatred that YOU, YOU YOU YOU YOU YOU, a soft tolerant liberal have anyone on the right, but comes from policy only. I NEVER doubt that a person like Barack Obama wants the best for this country, I simply disagree with his views. So does this mean I still don't get to celebrate a new leader? Even if you disagree with a conservative, would one ever not reach over his hand to deny you the right to celebrate with him that our democracy still works? This is a victory for EVERYONE, you shit for brains. Its a victory that the gears of our democracy work and the people get what they wanted. If he does a crappy job, we vote him out.

You, have no right to claim any allegiance to this country with that attitude. Until you party is made up of saints with no money in their fat pockets, you have no right to judge those on the other side.

You really think the democrats are some godly party? You really believe the democratic party is NOT responsible for this economic slump? Wake up you moron. You don't think your god Obama didn't have some blood money in his pocket? Wake UP!

If anyone is the party of emotions it is YOU! Your crusade to always be kind and fait have brought on disastrous laws like the Community Reinvestment Act. It's people like you that never thought that the sexual revolution of love and peace would have any affect on the future generations. It is your party that is aiming toward more PC bullshit. It is your party that helps the gang mess. You breed an unhealthy tolerance toward the rotten in this society thinking that good might come out of it, when reality dictates they need to be deported. But you don't, cause you kiss the mexican lobbyist to get their votes. You are the party that is always concerned with not hurting anyones feelings. You are NOT the party of freedom. You are a party that has grown to making this country a Nanny State. Legislating what is good for us no less than what the right used to do.

No wonder I hate these leftist extremists. They condemn the right-wing extremists but think their own shit doesn't stink. I rarely hate people, but Candyman I hate. His posts are routinely filled with venom and insinuations about other people. He truly is a piece of shit.

Post Election Thoughts

2008-11-04T23:12:00.000-08:00

What an election huh? I will have to admit it is an amazing thing to have the first black American president. You can't deny this is a great historical moment in this country. Today, I voted for my very first time. It was a great experience (mainly because I got a cool sticker). Voting, made me appreciate what a great system we have. Not just the voting system, but the whole political edifice of this country. Seriously, when I look at other countries, even like Israel, you have to be thankful. What a mess over there. One day you are elected, the next day the government collapses and you have to start all over. It's just not healthy for any nation.

I really wish Obama luck. I hope to God that he will not create a nation of entitlement 10 year olds. Remember what Kennedy said: "Ask not what your country can do to you, but what you can do for your country." Part of the problem with what the democratic party has turned into is that it totally flipped this message. I hope this messiah complex that people have for Obama (cough::candyman::cough) will subside. This country is not based on that. It's based on hard work. It's based on personal responsiblity and that anyone can achieve anything with that hard work. Government does not need to pamper you. If government will always come to your rescue, when will you grow up. Ezzie has a great post on this. I hope some reason will come into the democrats senses rather that build their whole party base on emotions and "fairness" appeals. I hope.

There is a shinning light to Obama's win. Jackson, Sharpton and Farrakan will finally be out of business. They were literally the worst of the worst that the left was able to produce. I truly hope this culture of victimhood and self pitty will end with Obama's win. That it will inspire other black men and woman to work hard and achieve their dreams in a nation that is the greatest on earth and not the horrible racist sespool that the three stooges have portrayed (jackson, sharpton and farrakan). Oh, and I am at least happy this won't be a filibuster proof congress. That's just dangerous. No party should have that level of power

Anyways, its fantastic to be an American and I am really happy to have gotten my citizenship in time to vote.

What Happens When We Die?

2008-09-24T08:41:00.000-07:00

Interesting article

Back to Hammurabi

2008-09-17T00:32:00.000-07:00

We already know of the similarities between some of the Hammurabi laws and the Torah laws, so I decided to actually go down the list and read them for once. Law #146 sparked my interest:

If a man take a wife and she give this man a maid-servant as wife and she bear him children, and then this maid assume equality with the wife: because she has borne him children her master shall not sell her for money, but he may keep her as a slave, reckoning her among the maid-servants.

I don't know about you, but this law reminds me a bit about the story of Sarah and Hagar. As you remember, Hagar after giving Abraham a child, "Tafsa Tachat" (as Israelis would say) angering Sarah, her mistress, and eventually being sent away. Sarah, did not sell Hagar. Perhaps, she was not allowed to since this was some sort of common law. Now, I am assuming this story too place. One of the arguments some make in favor of an ancient Torah is that it's laws and customs date to a more ancient time, well before it could have been written by their supposed source authors. Or, could these customs still have existed later on and the authors merely inserted them in the stories of their forefathers? Or, am I simply seeing something here that doesn't exist?

Here is another one that I will admit may be a stretch, but it got me thinking. Law #116

If the prisoner die in prison from blows or maltreatment, the master of the prisoner shall convict the merchant before the judge. If he was a free-born man, the son of the merchant shall be put to death; if it was a slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina of gold, and all that the master of the prisoner gave he shall forfeit.

What I want to focus on here, is the fact that someone else (in this case, the son) can be put to death for the crimes of another. In Sefer Shmuel II 21: 5, it is described that there was a famine for three years. David inquires of God and he is told that it is happening because of what Shaul did to the Givonites. When David approaches them the Givonites demand the sons of Shaul to be put to death for the crimes of their father David, complies and hands them over and they are hung.

Now, is law of Hammurabi and the story of David similar? I'm not sure. The relevant part (for the moment) is that the very concept of having someone else be put to death (for whatever crime) was something accepted. Or is it?

This does seem to contradict many tenants of judicial law that a father cannot be tried for the sins of the son and vice-versa. On the other hand, we do have it saying it in the Torah that God visits the inequities of the father upon the child. Perhaps the sin of Shaul, was basically an immoral act against God, and not a regular legal crime like the Hammurabi law. Meaning, that a legal law like Hammurabi Law #116, would not exist in Israel and that something so sever as the Givonite story only occured due to the horrible moral crime of Shaul against them. I hope my point is cohesive enough. It's late here :P

Thoughts?

Can Samaritans Sing??

2008-08-25T14:29:00.000-07:00

They sure can!

Sofi Tsedaka is a Samaritan that converted to Judaism. For that, she was excommunicated from her family. If you take a look at the video, there is a part where she sings the first verse of Bereshit where you can hear the distinct Samaritan pronunciations. For more info, watch this interview of her speaking about her past as well as interesting footage of the Samaritans. She also sings in Arabic.

In Defense of the Skirt

2008-08-22T02:14:00.000-07:00

Rather than give the same old dissertation about skirts and modesty (and yes, the amount of written material out there about modesty and skirts sometimes does feel like a dissertation), I would like to approach this from a slightly different angle and offer why a preference for skirts is not such a bad thing. Let me be clear that I do not believe pants, in general, to be immodest. I’m not sure anyone really can. Do Orthodox Jews believe that Hillary Clinton is immodest for wearing pants? What about your average woman on the street? I believe, when Orthodox Jews discuss “modesty” we are really referring to our peoples requirements for modesty (ie, yes, these women are perfectly modest, but they are not “OJ modest” per our guidelines). This is fine of course. Every group can define its own parameters no matter how subjective it is to the rest of the world. The problem is, it’s for this very reason, that people are questioning it. The halacha itself is causing the problems. Saying something is “halacha” when the reasoning behind it is a bit weak is not going to fly for many women. For this reason, I believe a different and perhaps better value should be placed on the skirt.

Jews, seem to lack something that other cultures around have. I’m not sure exactly how to phrase it, but perhaps it’s a cultural expression to identify the group as one. Different cultures have a particular art or even architecture that identifies them as a whole. Mosques have a certain art form that is very unique to them. Asian countries have a certain art form as well, that is easily recognizable to identify their culture. The same can be said about dress. There are very specific trademark outfits. So for example, you have traditional Greek dancing with traditional Greek dress. Jews seem to lack this, and it’s quite understandable. Jews were dispersed and simply followed the dress, art, dance, and song of whatever culture they were in. Yemenite Jews and Litvak Jews seem very different. The present is no different. We simply dress like westerners. Ahhh, but you can say: "what about halacha, hasn’t that tied the Jews around the world together?" Well, yes. It has. Jews keep halacha. We pray, keep the same diet and wear tzitziot that identify us as one. And that, is my entire point in this. I believe, that even though the original reasoning behind wearing skirts was modesty, we should shift focus and see skirts as an identifying marker for the Jews. Sure it is not as interesting as a Dutch girls outfit, but I believe its the best approach with what we have to work with. I don’t think this is so far fetched. When we were in Yosemite this week, I immediately recognized a Jewish woman by her outfit. There was a certain kinship I felt and it was initially there because of how she was dressed. Israeli folk dancing also has a unique outfit for its female dancers, but that is only Israeli, not necessarily “Jewish.”

My point is simply to take an existing phenomenon and give it a different meaning. Many women believe these rules to be simply male attempts to control what they wear. Of course, to some extent it may be true, and so, if a woman realizes this, should she just chuck the skirts out the window? I say, she donesn't have to. They can take the skirt and give it a better purpose. Not just for themselves, but to add it as a significant cultural marker—you uniform, if you will—for our people. Is this full proof? Will every woman out there immediatly realize the wisdom of the skirts? No, of course not. But I believe it is a better approach then the same old modesty line. And like I said above, it's not that far fetched. We already do identify with each other when we see a common identifying feature.

And, just to help him out- Check out Dovbear's new book. You can buy it for a good friend or someone you really can't stand. This gift can work well for both :)

Round Tfillin?

2008-07-21T13:45:00.000-07:00

A commenter on GH's post brought up this link regarding Tfillin. The pictures though, show what appears to be round tfillin. I have never seen that before.

Also, if you notice in the first drawing, you will see the arm tfillin box is much smaller than what we are normally accustomed to. The only time I have ever seen one of this size, are the tfillin that were found in the Qumran caves. This link gives you the dimensions, but I recall seeing a photo of one box that was about the size of a dime.

A Short Vent and Maybe a Long Vacation

2008-06-30T16:59:00.000-07:00

What the hell is this blog about? Hmmmm? I don't know myself. I'll tell you what though. I'm very tired. My soul is tired. I haven't been happy in quite a while. I've been blogging for 3+ years now and I tell you, I'm just tired. I can't work, I can't live, I can't focus on anything. Anything, but religion that is, and there is nothing healthy about that. I mean, how much can you think about DH and morality and God and everything else that is discussed on these blogs ad nauseam.

I think it's obvious now. The Torah as we have it today, as we have had for at least 2,500 years is NOT all from the time of Moses. I say not all, because I think I do believe in revelation. That something was experienced and something was given (The problem is, "something" is not really going to motivate me to stop shaving with a razor). It seems when reading Tanach, an overall encompassing theme is that God took them out of Egypt and that commandments and laws were given to a man they supposedly all know and love, Moses (no, not me). The word "sefer" is used (I believe scarcely) but that can mean anything. Maybe Moses wrote a bit and things were were added here and there over centuries. Who knows? I am not really a supporter of DH, but that does not automatically make me a believer in the Sefer Torah being written all by Moses.

Everyday I come to work and blog, but it's always the same old crap. Honestly, the only blog worth anything for Jewish (historical) learning is probably On The Main Line. But I falsely deluded myself into thinking some great miracle could be found there. I also came a realization that most people are just sheep. That goes for skeptics too. Most skeptics knowledge of DH is but a "copy & paste" trick. They don't know anything. They know it exists and are eager to pass this information on. They have no idea of what real linguistics are but are quite capable of tossing Cassutto aside. Why? Because current scholars of tossed him. I am always curious to know if they really DO believe he is outdated, or they believe he is outdated because they are told to say that. Sheep. Of course this says nothing of DH. It might all be totally true, I am merely offering my view of the nature of the beast.

Anyways, my wife says I need to stop blogging. That if I stop blogging, I won't constantly think about about all this stuff. She might have a slight point. But nothing will change. I will probably always have this stuff in my mind. I think she will see that for herself. So, in light of that, I will be taking some time off. I will give it a month. That's a good start. I mean, honestly, what am I going to miss? If I slip up, then I slip up. It's not easy just quiting after so long after all.

I will be checking my emails, so feel free to email me anytime you want. Those with my number can even call me. After all, I met some wonderful people here that I consider friends. If anyone has some advice for motivation to keeping halacha or some of it, I would love to hear it. As long as it's not the same ol "even if its not directly from God, the fact that we took it upon ourselves is still a reflection of his will." Sorry guys, I tried that. It doesn't work :)

Where's Shifra

2008-06-25T15:04:00.000-07:00

Long ago, in another time, in another place there used to live a little ol' lady. A lady, by the name of, Shifra. She was our official Blogger psychologist and possibly had the best blog all around. Much funnier than Jameel any day of the week. In fact I would put my money on Shifra that she could easily kick Jameels ass. Anyways she has been MIA for about five months now.

I am officially offering a reward of $100,000* for her, dead or alive.

*will be paid via a one time $10 Coffee Bean gift card