Letters To The Editor
print
tell a friend
Jews as a group are also among the highest earners, and it is true that high-income voters went largely for Romney, but the differences are not so stark as one might imagine. Among those with family income over $100,000, Romney won nationally by 10 percentage points (54 to 44). However, in New York, Massachusetts, California and New Jersey Obama won this highest income group.
Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, most American Jews live in large cities or suburbs. According to the exit polls, big cities and mid-sized cities voted decisively for Obama (69 percent vs. 29 percent and 58 percent vs. 40 percent, respectively) while the suburbs went only marginally for Romney (50 to 48).
Can this explain why almost 70 percent of Jewish voters selected Obama? No. But based on “race, status, education, employment, etc.,” there is no compelling reason to have expected a majority of American Jews to choose Romney. Instead, based on the nexus of location, education, and income, one might have expected large numbers of Jews to choose Obama, and that they did.
One final point: Rabbi Pruzansky states that “Orthodox Jewish voting patterns are almost the mirror opposite of the non-Orthodox,” which I would have taken to mean that 70 percent of Orthodox Jews voted for Romney. But what is the source of this information? According to the Republican Jewish Coalition survey, Orthodox Jews actually chose Obama over Romney (48 percent vs. 44 percent). There are certainly genuine differences between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox in voting behavior, but the only thing gained by exaggerating these differences is to make us feel more distant from one another.
David Fass
Teaneck, NJ
The Jewish Vote (IV)
I was disappointed by Rabbi Pruzansky’s article. There is insufficient space to address his misreading of Jewish history (e.g. Jews and Judaism actually fared better in less religious and secular states), his selective use of history (e.g. he fails to mention the Republican president who forced Israel to retreat from Sinai in 1956) and his misstatement of facts (e.g. unemployment rate actually dropped during Roosevelt’s first term).
Let me answer his question of why Jews support Democratic candidates year after year by explaining my own vote. As an Orthodox Jew I am uncomfortable with women choosing abortion. But no one forces observant Jewish women to violate halacha. The Republican Party and many of its most prominent and influential members want to ban all abortions, even if the mother’s health is at risk. This will endanger lives of pregnant women and force Orthodox obstetricians to choose between saving their patients’ lives or committing murder as legally defined by Republicans.
As a fervent supporter of Israel I realize the greatest asset the U.S. brings to Israel is its economic and military strength and its influence in the world. George W. Bush was pro-Israel but he did the Israelis no favors by allowing U.S. strength and influence to erode during his term. When I vote I consider who will be most sympathetic to Israel but also who will best strengthen the U.S. and thus best be able to help Israel in the long run.
Orthodox Jews have much to teach our secular brethren. But maybe they have something to teach us. Three times the Torah tells us not to cook a kid in its mother’s milk and the rabbis, to the glory of our faith, built fences upon fences to ensure that we meticulously observe this commandment. Yet thirty-two times the Torah tells us to remember we were strangers in the land of Egypt so that we will be compassionate to orphans, widows and strangers. The Democrats have traditionally been the party that looks out for these interests, passing (over Republican opposition) programs like Social Security and Medicare that have helped numerous widows and orphans and pulled countless seniors out of poverty and let them spend their senior years in dignity; programs like Medicaid and early childhood education to enable children to enter adulthood healthy and prepared for life.
We should be proud that secular Jews still remember the importance of a thirty-two-fold repetition and base their votes on their interest in helping the poor, the orphan, the widow and the immigrant.
tell a friendAbout the Author:
You might also be interested in:
You must log in to post a comment.
No Responses to “Letters To The Editor”
Loading ...
Even though Jonah advertises in the Jewish Press everyday, I was surprised you did not run the story that is making front page headlines and was featured yesterday on CNN TV.
The founder and co-president of JONAH, Arthur Goldberg is a convicted felon. His crime was fraud!
"The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a first-of-its-kind lawsuit today accusing a New Jersey organization of consumer fraud for offering conversion therapy services – a dangerous and discredited practice that claims to convert people from gay to straight.
The lawsuit, filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, charges that Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH), its founder, Arthur Goldberg, and counselor Alan Downing violated New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act by providing conversion therapy claiming to cure clients of being gay.
It is the first time a conversion therapy provider has been sued for fraudulent business practices. The lawsuit describes how the plaintiffs – four young men and two of their parents – were lured into JONAH’s services through deceptive practices.
“JONAH profits off of shameful and dangerous attempts to fix something that isn’t broken,” said Christine P. Sun, deputy legal director for the SPLC. “Despite the consensus of mainstream professional organizations that conversion therapy doesn’t work, this racket continues to scam vulnerable gay men and lesbians out of thousands of dollars and inflicts significant harm on them.”.
The lawsuit describes how the underlying premise of conversion therapy – that a person can “convert” to heterosexuality – has no basis in scientific fact. Conversion therapy has been discredited or highly criticized by all major American medical, psychiatric, psychological and professional counseling organizations.."
JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing) responded to allegations of “consumer fraud” outlined in the suit brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), based in Montgomery Alabama, on November 27th, 2012. The lawsuit is without merit, and is designed to create a chilling effect upon speech and programs that assist people in overcoming unwanted same-sex attractions.
JONAH will vigorously defend itself and gender-affirming processes from the baseless attack contained in the lawsuit.
Arthur Goldberg, JONAH’s Co-Director, stated, “We remain steadfast in our commitment to assist those with unwanted same-sex attractions. There are thousands of people who have shed their unwanted same-sex attractions, not only through our programs, but also through other similar programs”.
See http://www.voices-of -change.org.
“As indicated by the publicity surrounding the event, the lawsuit is designed to create a chilling effect on people and organizations that stand for the position that change is possible, a position that is not contradicted by the APA’s latest statements,” said Mr. Goldberg.
JONAH works only with people who express dissatisfaction with their homosexual ideation and helps them assess and overcome deep issues. JONAH does not seek to coerce anyone into changing his or her sexual orientation. JONAH supports the right of client self-determination, not “SPLC-determination,” of what is in the client’s best interests.
The intent of the SPLC’s lawsuit is to totally deny individuals the freedom to seek help for their own unwanted same-sex attractions. This bias denies the diversity of thought, belief and feeling within the GLBT and Questioning population. Whatever SPLC’s goals are, this narrow-minded lawsuit runs directly contrary to true support for diversity and tolerance.
It seems Mr. Rosenzweig, while demurring from legislating Halakhah in regard to sexual morality, nevertheless advocates a Theocracy when it comes to economics. How else to interpret his implication that abortion is no one's business but Jews should vote for Democrats so the Torah's economic policies may be enacted into law? Does the Torah make "mistakes" on sexual matters that it doesn't on economic ones?
Of course the welfare state as we know it is not the Torah's version of mandated compassion (though neither is it Social Darwinism; it's Theocracy, and as the only form of government from G-d is naturally unique). But perhaps Mr. Rosenzweig is unaware that the Seven Laws of Noach are as objectively binding on non-Jews (ALL non-Jews, even though most non-Jews have never heard of them) as Halakhah is to Jews. And the Democrat party is on record as opposed to the basic principals of the Noachide Laws (such as male homosexuality being a chayyav miytah for non-Jews as well as Jews). True, the Republican party isn't perfect in this regard either (since Xianity certainly violates the Noachide Laws), but that hardly gives an excuse to support a party that takes the positions which the contemporary Democrat party does.
The reason that people approve the legislation of economic morality but oppose that of sexual morality is that economic morality is allegedly "rational;" one can arrive at a proper understanding of "social justice" without appealing to G-d. But this rationalistic ethic is hardly Jewish (considering that even though the Torah assumes Derekh 'Eretz, there is still no Derekh 'Eretz without Torah). It comes instead from the eighteenth century European "enlightenment" brought to us by such people as Voltaire (who was not a big fan of the Jews, btw). It is hardly the Jewish mission to replace G-d's Laws with a purely secular ethical system. In fact, up until some three hundred years ago, ALL Jews lived in self-governing Theocratic communities governed by the Rabbinate and the Battei Din. THIS is genuine Jewish governance (maybe we could bring it back?); not the addlepated parroting of eighteenth century European rationalism.
As to abortion being such a sticking point, it is certainly true that Halakhah on the matter is not identical to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church (which are also not identical to the teachings of the Protestant churches), but considering that Roe v. Wade was issued on 1/22/'73 and that Jews somehow managed to live in the United States for hundreds of years prior to that time (as well as in other parts of the world where there was no legal abortion), it simply seems like a fig leaf of an excuse. If abortion were such a huge "Jewish issue" wouldn't we have heard about it at one point or another? And certainly a person who votes for Democrats with whom he has a few disagreements wouldn't use the anti-abortion issue as an excuse to avoid the Republican party. Perhaps people should have the freedom to opt out of Mr. Rosenzweig's economic "theocracy" as well so their "freedom of conscience" isn't subject to "religious fanaticism?"