Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> In the News
Rabbi Leiter defends Alabama Senate candidate Judge Moore
Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

allthingsblue




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 5:35 am
southernbubby wrote:
A caller to one of these talk shows was saying that he wondered why Xtians like Moore were targeted and their religion mentioned as a factor while Jews who were accused of the same thing never had their religion mentioned. He blamed their houses of worship and wondered what Chuck Shumer's temple was teaching him as well.


Perhaps because Moore claims to be upholding religious morals while Jews like franken and Weinstein never made any such claims
Back to top

imasoftov




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 5:45 am
southernbubby wrote:
I think it is important to hear both the liberal and conservative sides to an issue before rushing to judgment.

So when you said "from what I hear on conservative talk radio," you meant?
Back to top

imasoftov




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 5:47 am
allthingsblue wrote:
Huh?

Just liking wasn't enough.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 6:12 am
imasoftov wrote:
So when you said "from what I hear on conservative talk radio," you meant?


I was sure that Moore was guilty and would have no chance to win an election but now I see where there is some room for doubt. I still believe those ladies personally but am not sure that the public will change their opinion of him.

I also think that we do need policies that protect religious people from having to involve themselves in activities that are against their religion.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 7:30 am
allthingsblue wrote:
It's like a game of "would you rather."


Actually:

(1) The Republicans could field a write-in candidate, and have proposed doing so;

(2) The Republican governor could postpone the election (its a special election to replace Jeff Sessions, so there is no mandated date) to allow a new name to be placed on the ballot.

His withdrawal would not mean giving the seat to a Democrat.

9 women have now made allegations of z3xual misconduct or z3xual assault against Moore; most were teens when it happened.

BTW, Moore also refused to remove a 10 Commandments monument he'd had placed in the Alabama Judicial Building rotunda. Remember that the Xtian 10 Commandments aren't the same as ours. I'd feel uncomfortable in court with Xtian theology front and center, wouldn't you?

As to abortion ... Moore supports the "personhood amendment." That's directly contrary to halacha. In particular, it would deny abortion rights to a woman who is carrying a fetus that would be severely disabled or die almost immediately, or whose pregnancy otherwise poses great health risks to her. IOW, if your rabbi would advise abortion, Moore would tell you that's not your decision or your rabbi's, its the government's. Jones, OTOH, merely stated that he would oppose a 20-week abortion ban, that is probably unconstitutional under current law. Please remember that most late-term abortions in the US occur in cases where there is a serious risk to the health of the mother, or the fetus is unlikely to survive, and would suffer. (Also remember that only about 1% of abortions occur after 20 weeks.)
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 7:41 am
allthingsblue wrote:
Perhaps because Moore claims to be upholding religious morals while Jews like franken and Weinstein never made any such claims


If they actually belong to a reform temple, then there is some claim to some sort of religious morals.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 7:49 am
SixOfWands wrote:
Actually:

(1) The Republicans could field a write-in candidate, and have proposed doing so;

(2) The Republican governor could postpone the election (its a special election to replace Jeff Sessions, so there is no mandated date) to allow a new name to be placed on the ballot.

His withdrawal would not mean giving the seat to a Democrat.

9 women have now made allegations of z3xual misconduct or z3xual assault against Moore; most were teens when it happened.

BTW, Moore also refused to remove a 10 Commandments monument he'd had placed in the Alabama Judicial Building rotunda. Remember that the Xtian 10 Commandments aren't the same as ours. I'd feel uncomfortable in court with Xtian theology front and center, wouldn't you?

As to abortion ... Moore supports the "personhood amendment." That's directly contrary to halacha. In particular, it would deny abortion rights to a woman who is carrying a fetus that would be severely disabled or die almost immediately, or whose pregnancy otherwise poses great health risks to her. IOW, if your rabbi would advise abortion, Moore would tell you that's not your decision or your rabbi's, its the government's. Jones, OTOH, merely stated that he would oppose a 20-week abortion ban, that is probably unconstitutional under current law. Please remember that most late-term abortions in the US occur in cases where there is a serious risk to the health of the mother, or the fetus is unlikely to survive, and would suffer. (Also remember that only about 1% of abortions occur after 20 weeks.)


The halacha upholds abortion when the pregnancy is a direct threat to the mother but it does appear to protect a disabled fetus, unless this knowledge that the fetus is deformed is a threat to the emotional health of the mother. It is only due to the advent of routine ultrasound that anyone even knows this ahead of time and these ultrasounds have been known to be wrong. I think that what most people object to is the possibility that the pregnancy would not be "real" to a drug addicted mother until the fetus was kicking and the pregnancy starts to show and then the mother would be opposed to continuing the pregnancy. Because the possibility of viability may be as early as 22 weeks, even when survival is extremely rare, there is a valid concern of denying medical care to a baby born alive. There have been laws regarding this, however, babies born at mid-pregnancy and kept alive, often have disabilities as a result.

As to Moore's religious views, many of us would feel that our own religious views are better protected by someone who has a strong religion, than to someone who is antagonistic to religion (I don't know where Jones stands on religion).


Last edited by southernbubby on Fri, Nov 17 2017, 10:33 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

Optimystic




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 8:58 am
Touching women and girls against their will is evil, but condoning it just might be worse. It is no wonder it takes a Me Too campaign for most women to come forward.

I am curious why presumption of innocence is always granted to alleged rapists and molesters, but never to their accusers. False allegations, slander, and filing false police reports are also crimes. Where is the presumption of innocence for the women who have come forward?

I am not offering guidance on how Alabama residents should vote. The top two choices are both very ugly. There is a difference though between saying 'vote for the lesser evil' and pretending he is perfect and that all his alleged victims are certainly guilty of lying.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 9:07 am
southernbubby wrote:
If they actually belong to a reform temple, then there is some claim to some sort of religious morals.


There's a difference between belonging to a house of worship, and claiming to uphold some sort of religious morals.

Hillary Clinton has expressed interest in becoming a lay preacher in the United Methodist Church. But I don't think that anyone ever mistook her positions for religious rhetoric.

Moore injects his religion into politics. He was censured for refusing to follow the laws of the US in connection. He made his candidacy about religion.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 10:22 am
Ok, so here is the official position of Rabbi Harry Maryles, a centrist rabbi and blogger. He basically says that although he once viewed Moore as standing for frum values, he feels that there is too much evidence of child molestation to ignore and it would therefore be wrong to support him and he disagrees with Rabbi Leiter.



Ivanka Trump made the following comment to the Associated Press when asked about about Judge Roy Moore, Alabama’s Republican nominee for the US Senate:
“There’s a special place in hell for people who prey on children. I’ve yet to see a valid explanation and I have no reason to doubt the victims’ accounts.”
I think she’s right. And so does just about anyone else that has been following the Roy Moore saga. But for those that haven’t. Roy Moore has been accused of s-xually molesting teenage girls as young as 14 many years ago when he was a prosecutor in his thirties. He has vehemently denied all accusations. Most of the reaction this has been to believe his accusers. Apparently the crimes he has been accused of are no longer prosecutable since the statute of limitations ran out a long time ago.

Few people doubt the credibility of those women. Even conservative House and Senate members of his own Republican Party. The Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has asked him to step down and has threatened to expel him for the Senate should he win the election. That has not, however, stopped his core supporters in Alabama from not only continuing their support, but doubling down on it. inmost cases. They believe that all these accusations are polticly motivated because of their timing.

I admit that for a moment, those thoughts occurred to me too. The timing was definitely suspicious. Why have these accusers come out at this particular moment when it was too late to change the ballot and substitute someone esle in Moore’s place? Were they politically motivated with an agenda of getting one of their own elected? If that is the case, it probably worked. Moore’s double digit lead against his Democratic opponent has vanished. Polls now show that Democrat, Doug Jones now leads Moore by as much as 12 percentage points.

I suppose anything is possible. But there is little doubt in my mind that the accusers are not lying. It is well known by professionals that deal with relations abuse that the vast majority of those allegations are credible. In Moore’s case, there are just too many accusations from around the same time by girls of about the same age for them to all be lying.

Why did they wait decades before revealing what Moore did to them? Experts say that it is not uncommon for victims of abuse to not report relations abuse when it happens. I think that might be because they are embarrassed by it and just want to get on with their lives in most cases. They do not want all the negative attention it would have brought upon themselves - fearing public disbelief or accusations like it was their own fault (blaming the victim). Why then did they do it at this particular time?

That’s an easy one. It probably had nothing to do with the election. What it did have to do with can be answered with two words: Harvey Weinstein. His exposure as a serial relations abuser has generated the # metoo campaign. Which has been encouraging victims of s-xual misconduct (both male and female) to come forward and tell the world what happened to them, no matter how long ago.

This is a wonderful development. A lot of respected people have been exposed as s-xual predators of one sort or another. Prominent names keep coming up. Almost every day there is a new revelation of a prominent member of society who has been accused of such behavior - far to many to list. The latest being Senator Al Franken. This phenomenon will allow our culture to ‘clean house’! All of these people will at long last suffer the embarrassment and dishonor they deserve. And hopefully be removed from the ‘public square’ (as some already have).

I don’t think this will eliminate relations abuse. There will always be sociopaths that will seek to gratify their own s-xual appetites – and find innocent victims to do so, They will be Dr. Jekyll by day and Mr. Hyde by night. That is the nature of the universe. And its been that way since the beginning of time.

What it will do is make people a lot more aware of the problem and better able to protect themselves. It will hopefully also change the culture of victims hiding abuse for fear of embarrassment into a culture of immediate exposure of the abuser – and the prosecution of predators (and their enablers where that applies).

We of the Orhtodox Jewish community should be pleased at this development. Our values are Torah values where crimes of relations are deemed the most unholy of acts. Jews are a [gentile] Kadosh – a holy people. Holiness demands that we remove ourselves as much as possible from forbidden s-xual acts. And there is little more disgusting than forcing relations abuse upon innocent children.

Which brings me back to Roy Moore. Or more specifically to what appears to be an Orthodox Jew publicly defending him. In front of a camera. I don’t know who that Charedi looking fellow in the above screenshot is . But I do know that, while he might mean well, what he has done is a Chilul HaShem. And whoever he is, he deserves to be called out for it!

Why did he do that? I guess he feels the ends justify the means. Whatever it takes to get somene into office whose public views match their own. In this case, Judge Moore is on the same page with this fellows religious agenda with respect to the moral climate of this country. Moore is campaign is based on that. The fellow in the picture said as much. He claims that all these accusations are being made because of Judge Moore’s position on morality.

I’m sorry. Even if this fellow is right and Judge Moore’s views are the Torah’s views - siding with the devil is not the right way to go about promoting that agenda. It is instead the way to show the world we don’t care how we get our own religious agenda done as long as it gets done. If it takes the devil, so be it. The absurdity of that should be obvious. Siding with a s-xual predator for purposes of supporting a higher societal standard of morality is absurd!

I used to think Judge Moore’s views did in many ways reflect our own. Before running for the Senate he was most famous for putting up a sculpture of the Ten Commandments on the front lawn of his courthouse. He was sued for that by the ACLU accusing of mixing church and state and ordered to take it down. He defied the ruling.

At the time I supported Judge Moore. How could a monument to the Ten Commandments displayed on public property be any worse than a display of the Nativity scene we find on public property during this time of year? At the time I felt he was being persecuted for seeing the values of the bible as a moral guide.

But now that he has been shown to be a hypocrite, I place no value on him. And neither should anyone that calls themselves a religious Jew. Ivanka Trump is right about him. How sad that this fellow doesn’t understand that his means do not justify his ends. They counteract them.
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 10:29 am
Optimystic wrote:
The top two choices are both very ugly. There is a difference though between saying 'vote for the lesser evil' and pretending he is perfect and that all his alleged victims are certainly guilty of lying.


Other than supporting abortion rights, which is a rather run-of-the-mill democratic opinion, exactly what is "very ugly" about Doug Jones? There have been NO accusations of corruption or impropriety. He's never been removed from a position due to refusal to follow a federal order. He's widely praised as the DA who successfully prosecuted a 40yo church bombing case in which 4 little girls were killed. The worst anyone can say about him is that he supports abortion rights. That makes him "very ugly"? What's so evil about him that even a child molester is only the lesser of two evils? Abortion has been legal in this country for more than 40 years. It's not like Doug Jones is singularly responsible for legalizing abortion. Does this single issue alone make him "evil"? By that measure a majority of the country is evil.
Back to top

Orchid




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 10:31 am
allthingsblue wrote:
Truth is though that Franken at least apologized. All the others denied.


Yeah, I guess when there's an actual picture it's a tad harder to deny and take any position other than apologize. That's big of Al. We should all be like Al.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 10:45 am
Jeanette wrote:
Other than supporting abortion rights, which is a rather run-of-the-mill democratic opinion, exactly what is "very ugly" about Doug Jones? There have been NO accusations of corruption or impropriety. He's never been removed from a position due to refusal to follow a federal order. He's widely praised as the DA who successfully prosecuted a 40yo church bombing case in which 4 little girls were killed. The worst anyone can say about him is that he supports abortion rights. That makes him "very ugly"? What's so evil about him that even a child molester is only the lesser of two evils? Abortion has been legal in this country for more than 40 years. It's not like Doug Jones is singularly responsible for legalizing abortion. Does this single issue alone make him "evil"? By that measure a majority of the country is evil.


Jones is gathering a more progressive following but the cautionary tale is that Moore beat Luther Strange so even though Jones pulled way ahead due to these accusations against Moore, there is a very RW conservative base in Alabama. Alabama, for example, protected it's Confederate monuments Puke by making a law against moving any monument more than 40 years old. (I don't love the Confederacy despite the fact that my great-great grandfather was both Jewish and served in the Confederacy). Basically people would have to abandon their conservative views to support Jones.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 10:46 am
Orchid wrote:
Yeah, I guess when there's an actual picture it's a tad harder to deny and take any position other than apologize. That's big of Al. We should all be like Al.


OTOH, don't be like Al and avoid inappropriate behavior.
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 12:01 pm
I don't have time now to watch this debate but from the comments it appears that Dennis Prager feels that it is more important to defeat the left then it is to punish past behavior while Ben Shapiro does not agree.

Back to top

Amarante




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 12:07 pm
Moore and his ilk are dangerous because they believe in a Xtian theocracy.

Be very very afraid when officials insert religious beliefs into government action and thereby ascribe a legitimacy to one religion or any religion over others.

And the hypocrisy of someone who states that modern society is evil while indulging in what even an atheist would find to be morally repulsive behavior is what is particularly venal.

His beliefs:

Terror attacks are caused by godlessness - uh what about immorality like pedophilia, Roy?

Stating that a Muslim Congressman should not be allowed to take the oath of office. How is that different than banning a Jew from taking office.

And as others have posted, banning abortion based on religious rights is abhorrent. You don't want an abortion, don't have one. You don't want to perform an abortion, don't do it. Don't impose your religious beliefs on other's extremely personal medical decisions. Once you insert a specific religious belief into government actions, it's a dangerous slippery slope to a Taliban type of theocracy.

And doesn't anyone really think that someone as Xtian as Moore doesn't believe that Xianity should be the state religion?
Back to top

southernbubby




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 12:59 pm
Amarante wrote:
Moore and his ilk are dangerous because they believe in a Xtian theocracy.

Be very very afraid when officials insert religious beliefs into government action and thereby ascribe a legitimacy to one religion or any religion over others.

And the hypocrisy of someone who states that modern society is evil while indulging in what even an atheist would find to be morally repulsive behavior is what is particularly venal.

His beliefs:

Terror attacks are caused by godlessness - uh what about immorality like pedophilia, Roy?

Stating that a Muslim Congressman should not be allowed to take the oath of office. How is that different than banning a Jew from taking office.

And as others have posted, banning abortion based on religious rights is abhorrent. You don't want an abortion, don't have one. You don't want to perform an abortion, don't do it. Don't impose your religious beliefs on other's extremely personal medical decisions. Once you insert a specific religious belief into government actions, it's a dangerous slippery slope to a Taliban type of theocracy.

And doesn't anyone really think that someone as Xtian as Moore doesn't believe that Xianity should be the state religion?


No but the left might want to have a say about what our frum schools teach about same gender marriage or what our shuls preach about it. They might decide that our very RW frum musicians, photographers, caterers, etc must treat same gender wedding the same as they would a frum wedding. At the same time, they might also be more likely to give the frum community needed government funds whereas a conservative government wants to end the entitlement gravy train. So in whose hands are we better off?
Back to top

Optimystic




 
 
    
 

Post Fri, Nov 17 2017, 1:30 pm
Jeanette wrote:
Other than supporting abortion rights, which is a rather run-of-the-mill democratic opinion, exactly what is "very ugly" about Doug Jones? There have been NO accusations of corruption or impropriety. He's never been removed from a position due to refusal to follow a federal order. He's widely praised as the DA who successfully prosecuted a 40yo church bombing case in which 4 little girls were killed. The worst anyone can say about him is that he supports abortion rights. That makes him "very ugly"? What's so evil about him that even a child molester is only the lesser of two evils? Abortion has been legal in this country for more than 40 years. It's not like Doug Jones is singularly responsible for legalizing abortion. Does this single issue alone make him "evil"? By that measure a majority of the country is evil.

I am sorry for my harsh choice of words. My principle objection to Mr. Jones is his stance on abortion, regardless of how many other people may agree with him. Honest error is not a character defect, so I should have chosen my words more carefully. (And maybe I am wrong on that issue; I don't want to derail the thread.)
Back to top

Fox




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Nov 18 2017, 5:20 pm
The key thing to remember is that this race is not a national race -- it is about representing Alabama. Which means we're dealing with a lot of long-term political landmines.

I don't happen to believe that Roy Moore would be some kind of boon to the conservative cause, even absent the allegations. Sure, securing another Senate seat is always nice, but the GOP is so busy snatching defeat from the jaws of victory that I'm not convinced another vote will do them that much good. He'll have zero seniority in the Senate and can hardly serve in a conciliatory role.

Doug Jones's stand on abortion, however, actually is a little out of sync with American attitudes -- and quite a bit out of sync with Alabama attitudes.

A clear majority of Americans agree that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned, but that misses the nuance which many feel about abortion. Believing that pregnancy termination should be an option in all or most cases does not mean endorsing it or treating it casually. We saw this when Iceland claimed that they had "eliminated" Down Syndrome through pre-natal screening and selective abortion. The fact, along with the nonchalance with which it was shared, was deeply disturbing to many, including many who strongly favor abortion rights. It is possible to believe that abortion should be available in some form without embracing a creepy Planned Parenthood-style eugenics agenda.

Jones's stand doesn't pick up on the that nuance -- he is firmly in the camp of "a woman's body is her own" rhetoric. Even people who believe that minimal restriction on abortions makes good law do not necessarily feel comfortable characterizing it as a positive or even neutral act.

But if Jones is slightly out of sync with Americans, he is considerably out of sync with Alabamians. Only 37 percent believe that abortion should be available with few or any restrictions. (Pew Organization on Abortion).

The bigger issue, IMHO, and the one with the longest reach, is the effect of media descent on Alabama; the invevitable Yankee bigotry; and the potential combustibility of Southern resentment. If the press has gotten one iota of this story wrong -- a single I undotted or t uncrossed -- Alabama will not elect a moderate or liberal for the next 30+ years -- regardless of party affiliation.

Actually, they may not anyway. Northern advice and mores are not particularly welcome. I believe Lynyrd Skynyrd warned us about that in Sweet Home Alabama:

Quote:
In Birmingham they love the Gov'nor
Now we all did what we could do
Now Watergate does not bother me
Does your conscience bother you, tell the truth
Back to top

anon for this




 
 
    
 

Post Sat, Nov 18 2017, 6:41 pm
PinkFridge wrote:
Yes.
I'm scratching my head on the Franken thing. I assume that people put up with it while he was an entertainer, so many open secrets in that world (e.g. Harvey Weinstein et al). So why didn't anyone say anything when he ran for senate? Because Gd forbid that a Republican retain the seat. It was all for the greater good.

Why is it coming out now? Is it because the seat is solidly Democrat even if he should leave? is it because he was going to start revving up for 2020 and someone wanted him stopped him now? I guess that's my question on the Moore thing. (Though if the yearbook thing is true, it just goes to show how surprisingly stupid people can be.)


I am almost certain that no Republican had that information when Franken was running for his seat in 2008. At that time, Franken was a long shot to win, and likely only ran because he wanted to take Paul Wellstone's seat back from Republican Norm Coleman (Coleman won the seat after Wellstone died in a small plane crash while campaigning weeks before the election). The Republicans branded him a carpetbagger, a NY comedian who knew or cared nothing about Minnesota (Franken grew up in MN), and repeatedly brought up his comedy career as proof he lacked the seriousness to serve Minnesotans properly. Franken won by a few hundred votes after an acrimonious and expensive recount. So if Republicans had that information in 2008, or even in 2016, I believe they would have released it.
Back to top
Page 2 of 5 Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Will Rabbi Jacobson be in Monsey for Purim?
by patzer
1 Fri, Mar 22 2024, 2:14 pm View last post
Rabbi Weisman's Yeshiva, Suffern
by amother
1 Wed, Mar 20 2024, 2:32 pm View last post
Anyone know how I can contact Rabbi Ari Bensoussan?
by amother
1 Sun, Mar 17 2024, 11:17 am View last post
HRH’s minister being forced to escort Rabbi
by amother
3 Fri, Mar 15 2024, 10:19 am View last post
Mesivta in Inwood- Rabbi Metz?
by amother
9 Thu, Mar 14 2024, 2:11 pm View last post