In her August 30 column, “Magic in Jerusalem,” Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis recounted her recent encounter in Jerusalem with little boys in an orphanage.
She was left speechless when they turned down the candies she had brought for them. The little boys wanted first to be blessed by the Rebbetzin, and only then would they accept the present.
Who would not be speechless?
A true inspiration.
Dr. Elie Feuerwerker
Highland Park, NJ
Christie And The LGBT Agenda (I)
I find it troubling that Joey Aron and others like him are willing to risk the psychological well-being of children in the interests of protecting their parents’ religious or parental rights or preserving the role of churchmen in guiding the masses based on ancient religious teachings (“Chris Christie and the LGBT Agenda,” op-ed, Aug. 30).
We now know so much more about what makes the physical world tick. Why not assume the same with the psychological? Why not try to substantively counter the American Psychological Association’s modern thinking head on instead of simply dismissing it?
I too am troubled by any law that does away with something I’ve come to accept or grown accustomed to. But I would like to be shown, beyond any doubt, why it is still valid.
Christie And The LGBT Agenda (II)
Joey Aron had it right. By signing legislation that bans gay conversion therapy for minors, Gov. Chris Christie sent a profound message to the civilized world. It’s a message that further legitimizes activity that not too long ago was deemed criminal by most American states.
Actually, it takes us well beyond reversing that principle to a point where it is now deemed illegal to even suggest to a child that there is something negative about homosexuality.
Of course, in the process, supporters of the new law have descended into that popular refuge of scoundrels – the consensus of so-called expert opinion. But just because the American Psychological Association has been hijacked by amoral intellectuals doesn’t validate the principle underlying the new law. This is still America and even a governor can’t force anything down our collective throats. Or at least that’s what I thought until now.
Obama And Syria (I)
Whatever or whoever convinced President Obama to reconsider his “go it alone” plan to have Cruise missiles fired at Syrian targets, the change was absolutely correct. From a constitutional standpoint, congressional approval is a must.
Additionally, the idea was, strategically and geopolitically, a poor one. Both sides in the ongoing conflict are vehemently opposed to Israel’s existence, and neither can be described as friendly to the United States. Initially, two and a half years ago, the rebel forces consisted of ordinary Syrians who despaired of the brutal, despotic regime they live under. Those forces are now totally infiltrated and dominated by al Qaeda and other jihadist groups. Their intentions, if they should prevail against the Assad regime, would be to bring to Syria a terrorism element most unfriendly to Israel, America and the entire Middle East.
Like it or not, some conflicts such as the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, are a boon to civilized people. This is exactly the current scenario in Syria. No sane, civilized person approves of chemical weapons used in armed conflict, but it is in America’s interest to stay completely out of this latest Mideast conflict that has all the earmarks of another entanglement we would live to regret.
New City, NY
Obama And Syria (II)
The U.S. has made it evident to everyone who follows the news that it is not an ally to be relied on. Whatever Prime Minister Netanyahu may have once thought about the value of the commitment of the United States to Israel, he surely must realize at this point that he’s got to reconsider his options, particularly when it comes to Iran.
Netanyahu has to think long and hard about what is best for Israel rather than what the U.S. wants for Israel because, frankly, America doesn’t know what is best for itself, let alone for another country.
President Obama is playing for time and has shown himself to be unable to do anything in the Middle East other than protest loudly any time Israel starts constructing new housing.
The U.S. stands exposed as a dandelion in the wind. Israel can no longer afford to labor under the illusion that Washington will come to its assistance in a dangerous situation.
‘Tepid’ Response To Women’s Ordination
Re the front-page essay by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky (“The Incredibly Shrinking Rabbinate,” Aug. 9) and the responses you’ve run from readers both for and against:
Even though I am an Orthodox Jew from the old school, I personally have little problem with the Conservative and Reform ordination of women as rabbis. I think it is wrong, but until Mashiach comes, people can essentially do whatever they want.
What does anger me, though, is the re-labeling of what is a non-Orthodox practice as Orthodox. And I cannot believe the absolutely tepid response from mainstream Orthodox organizations. Other than a pro forma objection from the Rabbinical Council of America, almost nothing has been said or done to deal with this problem.
Why won’t the RCA back up its words by expelling from its ranks those rabbis who facilitate and condone women’s ordination? How about a warning that any rabbi who attends orientation ceremonies for women rabbis will be cast out of the organization?
Given the RCA’s clear position against the ordination of women, it seems hypocritical in the extreme that there are few if any consequences visited upon self-declared Orthodox clergy who are doing whatever they can to rewrite our history and traditions.
About the Author:
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.
If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.