Clarification

I read this comment on one of my posts, and I must say that I agree with most of the things Tamara wrote. Perhaps my post wasn't clear enough in saying what it was meant to say and therefore it "disgusts" people. As a teacher, I'm sure you understand that when someone asks a question it means that others have the same question, but didn't ask it. Therefore I want to clarify this issue for anyone that had, or will have, the questions you had.

First, I will briefly describe the purpose that my original post was meant to serve. Michael Goodwin of the New York Daily News wrote a column in which he thought the courts should make gay marriages permissible by law. He wrote that there were many problems with traditional marriages. Perhaps the solution for those problems would be through allowing gay marriages. My post was geared towards that thought. Gay marriages will not be able to fix those problems because those problems weren't caused by the fact that a man and woman got married. Domestic violence affect gay couples, too. I have nothing against gay people, they are human just like all other people, and deserve the same respect that every person deserves. However, I don't think it is correct for the courts to allow gay marriages.

As a teacher, I am sure that in order to explain things to your students, at times you will use examples which seem a bit far out and having nothing to do with the subject at hand. After a little clarification, however, the students can understand the connection between these two seemingly opposite things, and the original point you were trying to bring across to them. That is the background to the comparison of "freeing serial killers to gay marriage." It was never intended to be a real comparison, to honestly compare the two is just wrong.

There was another point you made in the comment, that influencing others to become gay is not on anyone's agenda. It is a valid point, a point which isn't even mentioned in my post, which is why I am not sure how you decided that I thought it was on anyone's agenda. What I wrote is that we, as role models, need to be self-conscious about the message we give to our children. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a single gay person adopting a child, just as there is nothing wrong with any single person adopting a child. But to legalize gay marriages just because it will better the situation of the children in the country is wrong.

I hope that this clarifies my original post. You don't have to agree with my opinion, but you can rest assured that the day that I "realize that murderers and gays are NOT equal" has long ago arrived.

PS The question I posted in the comment on your blog was rhetorical, but thanks for the answer. Happy Chanukah!

First Night of Chanukah

Well, tonight is the first night of Chanukah and I just lit my Menorah (not pictured above). Which makes me think about Chanukah and what it symbolizes. The Greek Empire wanted to rule the world and spread their hellenistic ways of life to all of mankind. Nearly all adapted to the Greeks or were killed, except the Jews. The Jews carried on learning the Jewish bible and doing the commandments God commanded, despite the threat of life if they were to be caught.

When the Greeks erected statues of their gods in Jewish cities and forced Jews to bow to them, the Jews realized that the only way for Judaism to survive would be to show the mighty Greeks the door. The Macabees started with an old man in the city of Modi'in, and his five sons. Their ranks grew by the day as did their strength and weapon cache. They started out with small raids on Greek soldiers, ambushes and hit-and-run attacks. But as their experience grew they started attacking bigger Greek installations. After many miraculously victorious battles, in which they were heavily outnumbered, they were able to drive the Greeks out of the capital, Jerusalem.

When they entered the Temple they found it in terrible shape. After cleaning it and removing the impurities the Greeks had placed there, they were ready to continue the services of the Temple. However, one of the services was to light a Menorah with pure olive oil but they were not able to find any olive oil. The Greeks had broken all the seals to the oil jugs, rendering them impure for use in the Temple. But after a long search they were able to find a small jug with enough oil to burn for one day. The only problem was that it took eight days to make new oil. But God performed a miracle and the oil burned for eight days and nights until new oil was made.

To commemorate this great miracle we light the Menorah every year for eight nights.

What to Do?

After numerous mortar attacks on Israeli cities, people are starting to get concerned. Rockets are landing very near to sites which contain vital things, such as fuel and power. This, however, hasn't stopped the Palestinians from bombing those sites. Earlier this week the Israelis said that they would cut power to Palestinian villages in response to the attacks, but refrained from doing so when they realized that Palestinian hospitals don't have their own generators (which is a question in itself, but not for now). Why are the Israelis so concerned about that? Are their enemies concerned with the Israeli infrastructure?

"Now that Israeli settlements have been removed from northern Gaza, militants can bring their rockets closer to the border fence, bringing the Ashkelon area into range." Duh! Isn't that what people have been saying all along? Wasn't that one of the many reasons people opposed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan? He said the disengagement would bring peace while others rightfully claimed that it would bring more terror by showing that Israel acquiesced to the terrorists and it will be a dangerous border closer to more Israeli cities, such as Ashkelon.

But now will be different according to the Israeli government. "'Certainly if the rocket fire on Ashkelon does not stop, there will be a very fierce response, and no option can be ruled out, including a ground operation,' said Vice Premier Ehud Olmert in an interview with Israel TV." Can we trust the Israeli government that this time they really mean what they're saying? How do we know that they won't decide to expel the Israelis living in Ashkelon and give the city over the terrorists, just as they have done in the Gaza strip? Not too long ago they said a ground operation was out of the question, they would not put Israeli soldiers back into Gaza. What happened now that they are saying that perhaps a ground operation may be needed? Can it be that their plans didn't work out the way they wanted it to? Did they honestly believe that it would?

"In an initial response to the rocket fire. Israel fired artillery at the empty fields used as rocket launching sites, and a Palestinian died in disputed circumstances. The family of Abraham Naana, 21, said he was killed by shrapnel from the shelling. The army said the area was empty during the artillery barrage." Is this the "fierce response" Olmert had in mind? How is bombing empty fields going to stop the rocket attacks? Did the ground launch rockets or were there terrorists there that launched the rockets? Even if their launching sites were to be totally demolished by bombings, it wouldn't be too hard to find a new site to bomb from. The only way to put an end to these shellings is by eliminating the power behind those rockets - the terrorists themselves. Mr. Olmert, that is a response, but you have promised a "fierce response." Let's see it now before innocent lives are lost.

Transit Strike

The city has been on edge since last week about the impending strike. The TWU and the MTA can't seem to agree on terms which are suitable for everyone, so they are preparing to go on strike. But why isn't the city preparing for that, too?

If there are people who don't want to work, that is fine. This isn't a communist regime, people can make their own decisions, and if they prefer to be unemployed, that's fine. However, they should not demand from the MTA that they should be paid more than before and have to work less than before, get better benefits and not receive any disciplinary actions. That's crazy! The city should have started preparing a long time ago.

The preparations for a strike aren't that complicated. All it requires is getting new workers and training them. If there are workers who want to strike then they should be fired. In a city where unemployment is holding at about 8% it shouldn't be too hard to find people willing to work for the MTA under these conditions which the TWU isn't accepting.

This isn't a chain store where a strike means an inconvenience for consumers. A NYC transit strike means the lives of the entire city's population will be altered in some way during the strike. During peak hours cars will only be allowed in Manhattan if there are four or more people in the car, for instance. This isn't a public inconvenience, this is trying to put a stop to the largest city in the country to gain public support.

Why should the public support the TWU anyway? Is the public is willing to start paying $2.50 a ride? That's what might happen if the MTA needs more money to cover the outrageous demands of the TWU. Therefore, the city should react to the strike by firing the workers who are striking. The workers of the bus companies currently striking should not be hired by the MTA when their companies join the city. If there is a citywide strike, then those workers striking should immediately lose their jobs, and hopefully their benefits, too.

Parenthood

There was this column in the New York Daily News yesterday in which the columnist, Michael Goodwin, described the advantages of gay marriage over the traditional marriage. Although he raised some valid points, that wedlock is all too common and many babies are born to single moms, they do not, however, validate gay marriage.

He mentioned the fact that many traditional marriages "are often a disaster for kids." Whatever problems there are that are causing these disasters will not disappear through gay marriage. The problems that are being faced regarding single moms and wedlock needs to be addressed and sorted out. Allowing gay marriage is not the solution. These single moms didn't become pregnant as a result of their homosexuality. The only thing gay marriage will accomplish is to destroy the meaning of a marriage with a husband and wife, which are by definition male and female respectively, as is father and mother.

Perhaps a perfect world will be when there is only gay marriage. Perhaps the traditional marriage should be banned in order to avoid "disaster for kids." What would result would be a new depiction of marriage. There would be two men or two women who adopt a child, who no doubt was born out of wedlock. Homosexuality is immoral, and should not be approved by law. If people have problems they should try to find help to correct it. Changing the law is not an option. Perhaps we should free serial killers who kill for fun, and change the law to actually allow it. These people are, after all, sick and they are therefore hurting others. If we allow these immoral acts to become law we will be laying the foundation of the destruction of humanity as we know it today.

Everyone will agree that it is beneficial for children to grow up in a home with parents, rather than only one. However, two fathers or two mothers instead of one parent may not be the solution. This is because the message that we should be giving over to our children and to future generations (if not for their sake, at least for ours) is that immoality is unaccaptable no matter the situation a person finds themsleves in.

Food for Thought

The views expressed in a comment on yesterdays post, are no doubt shared by many people aside from Joe. There are, however, a few misunderstandings which I wish to clarify. Perhaps then the post will be understood.

I think there are two main points that need clarification. The first one is that Joe obviously has mistaken my identity. He calls me a fundie, which implies that I am a Christian. That will also explain his last sentence, "Geez, way to make my side look bad." Because in his view we are on two different "sides," meaning two different religions. If the reader will read some of my previous posts it will be quite obvious that I am a Jew. Therefore, your "side" is my "side," too. We are both on the same team.

Second, even if I were to be a Christian, does that not mean that I don't know what God wants? "Such hubris, to think YOU of all people know God's will!" If the Bible says something explicitly, then regardless of your religion, that is God's will, and will forever remain God's will no matter what anyone does, or tried to do about it. It is a fact that will not change, just as the sun rises in the East and sets in the West always and will never rise in the West and set in the East. That's the way God created the world, and that's the way it's going to be for everyone.

In addition, although the comment doesn't say this clearly, I nevertheless get the feeling that when Joe writes that he's "a Jew who supports Israel," he actually means to say that he supports the Israeli government. Which brings me to this question: If in a few years the Palestinians have a majority population in Israel, and a Palestinian is elected Israeli Prime Minister, will you continue to support the Israeli government in all their decisions? If you would not support that government, why should you support everything the current government is doing if it is harming Jews and harming our sovereignty in our land?!

Just a little something to think about over the weekend. Shabbat Shalom to all.

A True "Genius"

Today the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that Israel should move to Europe. If you read the article you will see that his reasoning is that since Germany and Austria killed millions of Jews, they should now accomodate them. However, his argument has so flaws to it, that it is amazing to see a leader of a country make such foolish comments.

Raanan Gissin, a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, said in Tel Aviv that Ahmadinejad was voicing "the consensus that exists in many circles in the Arab world that the Jewish people ... do not have the right to establish a Jewish, democratic state in their ancestral homeland."

"Just to remind Mr. Ahmadinejad, we've been here long before his ancestors were here," Gissin said. "Therefore, we have a birthright to be here in the land of our forefathers and to live here. Thank God we have the capability to deter and to prevent such a statement from becoming a reality."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "It just further underscores our concerns about the regime in Iran and it's all the more reason why it's so important that the regime not have the ability to develop nuclear weapons."

The Bible clearly states that the land was promised to Abraham, his son Isaac, and his son Jacob. Genesis Chapter 17 God promises Abraham a son with Sarah. Verse 18-19: "And Abraham said to God, 'O that Ishmael might live before you!' God said, 'Nonetheless, your wife Sarah will bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will fulfill my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.'"

What is that covenant? Genesis 17:8: "and I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojourns - the whole of the land of Canaan - as an everlasting possesion; and I shall be a God to them."

That is all the reasoning needed, there is nothing more what to say or argue about. The land of Israel belongs to the Jews not because of the holocaust or any other persecution. It is Jewish land because God wants it to belong to the Jews. Besides for the fact that the Muslims themselves have persecuted Jews throughout the generations so that if persecution is a valid reason to give someone land, the Jews deserve it for that as well.

The problem is, however, that many people believe that Israel was made a safe haven, so to speak. It came as a result of the holocaust, when Jews had nowhere to go, nowhere to turn to, no one to help them, they were left alone without anything to defend themselves with. Israel was supposed to change that. It obviously hasn't, just look at all the bombings and terror attacks on Israelis and Jews in general worldwide. If the only reason for Israel's existence is to guarantee safety to world Jewry, then it has failed its mission. But that isn't the reason for Israel, despite what other people might think, or claim to know. Israel is Jewish land because God deemed it to be, it always belonged to Jews, and forever will. Just because for a while it was stolen and others held it, that does not take away the ownership of the land from its rightful owners.

A Doctor's Responsibilities

In yesterdays post I explained that the Palestinian psychiatrist, Dr. Iyad Zaqout is wrong for what he is doing. Today I want to show you a little bit of my reasoning why he is wrong. There are many moral and ethical violations he commits when he supports terrorism. There are those that will say, however, that his cause is justified. It is to such people that this post is dedicated. Below I bring you the Physician's Oath, by the Islamic Code of Medical Ethics, which was adopted in January 1981:


-I swear by God, The Great;

-To regard God in carrying out my profession;

-To protect human life in all stages and under all circumstances, doing my utmost to rescue it from death, malady, pain, and anxiety;

-To keep people's dignity, cover their privacies and lock up their secrets;

-To be, all the way, an instrument of God's mercy, extending my medical care to near and far, virtuous and sinner and friend and enemy;

-To strive in the pursuit of knowledge and harnessing it for the benefit but not the harm of mankind;

-To revere my teacher, teach my junior, and be brother to members of the medical profession joined in piety and charity;

-To live my Faith in private and in public, avoiding whatever blemishes me in the eyes of God, His apostle and my fellow Faithful;

-And may God be witness to this Oath.

Nowhere in this oath does it mention the fact that during an "intifada going on [and] incidents are escalating" is it permitted to kill others. This "doctor's" actions not only run contrary to most normal, humane societies, it is also contrary to Islamic medical ethics.

This is Ridiculous!

No, I haven't forgotten about you, my loyal readers (what readers?), my schedule has been a bit hectic lately so I wasn't able to post. However, after hearing about yesterdays suicide bombing in a shopping mall in Netanya, Israel, I decided that I need to publish this post with a video that someone emailed me. Here's the video for you to see. After you watch it, think about what you saw, and then continue.

The barbarians committing these atrocious acts of cowardice are no doubt mentally unstable. Many mentally unstable beings go to a doctor commonly knows as a psychiatrist, who helps them get better so that they can live in a normal society with normal people and interact appropriately. However, in this video we see that a Palestinian psychiatrist, Dr. Iyad Zaqout justifies what these animals are doing! Is that the role of a doctor??!

These are the exact words (minus the accent) that the "doctor" says, "As long as the intifada is going on, as long as the incidents are escalating, we will have children who are ready to become martyrs, who are ready to become suicide bombers." Why doesn't he try to heal these slumbags who are willing to die and kill others for $23? He shouldn't be justifying their crimes! Is it a wonder why the terror activities are continuing? The responsibility for yesterdays bombing and the deaths and injuries that resulted from that bombing, equally belong to those that preach terror and justify terror, and the suicide bombers themselves. These murderous "doctors" have innocent human blood on their hands, and should be punished severely for their criminal acts!