Showing posts sorted by relevance for query pruz. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query pruz. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, June 17, 2013

Pruzansky vs the Open Orthodox Jews: Part 1


This won't be the full treatment this topic deserves as I am short on time, but because I did promise the Facebook Society of DovBear Bashers that I'd elaborate on my disdain for Rabbi Pruzansky's latest fussilade, I present this abridged fisking.

Leading off we have this aside, made in reference to Nechama Leibowitz:

And she did not live with grievances against the Torah.

Pruz phrases it this way because he very much wants you to think that his opponents are unworthy of respect because they are carrying grievances against the Torah. Well, I'm calling him on it. The subjects of Pruz's piece aren't carrying a grievance against the Torah. Rather, they are opposed to one particular school of thought, one particular set of interpretations. We who think Judaism will be enhanced if women are given more respect and more opportunities to express themselves religiously and/or to serve the klal are opposed only to narrow-minded misogynists, their fallacious interpretations, and their mean-spirited teachings. We have no problem with the Torah itself.

This isn't the first time Pruz has tried to say that people who disagree with him (or people who expose his errors) are "anti Torah". Its a longstanding habit of his. See here

Following a mischaracterization of various statements alleged to have been made by members of the Open Orthodoxy movement, we arrive at another choice Pruzansky nugget

(Generally, the New York Times’ editorial page is a reliable indicator –if not the source – of the social perspectives and views of this camp, but that is a different discussion.)

Pruz, on the other hand, takes his cues from the far more prestigious Rush Limbough show. Here, for example, is a Pruzansky sermon that was lifted almost point for point from one of Rush's monologues. 

Also, I don't think its a coincidence that Pruz's views on abortion, feminism, immigration, homosexuality, and evolution track almost perfectly with the positions expressed by Evangelical groups like Focus on the Family. If you want to know what Pruz thinks about almost any social issue, you can check with your local churchman for a reliable preview. Now to be fair, I don't think that either Pruz or his opponents are deliberately modeling their styles of Judaism on Christianity or the New York Times . But I also wouldn't say that they haven't been influenced to some degree by the world around them. We don't live in vacuums. However, what I can't stand is Pruz's fantasy that his style of Judaism alone is unaffected by the Zeitgeist (and this is a fantasy shared by other conservative Rabbis like Avi Shafran and Yaakov Menken)

Next, Pruz wants to know why none of his fellow Orthodox rabbis has been willing to challenge the Open Orthodoxy movement or to publicly disagree with them. The main take-away from this is that Pruz doesn't read Sarfran and Menken (or perhaps he doesn't consider them Orthodox Rabbis?) But as an aside, I'll note that Open Orthodoxy isn't the first orthodox reform movement to meet little opposition. The same Orthodox Rabbis who today say nothing when Open Orthodoxy embraces new roles for women, also said nothing when other Orthodox reformers made kolel universal. They were similarly silent while Lubovitch messianism took root and while mainstream Judaism followed Charedi Judaism into two new intellectual models, namely, fundamentalism and willful ignorance about the world.

I am not sure why Judaism acquiesced to these reforms. Perhaps, as Pruzansky suggests, our Rabbis merely wanted to avoid strife. Or perhaps they are simply cowards, unlike Pruzansky who may be too cowardly to allow un-moderated comments on his blog, but certainly isn't afraid to share his decidedly conservative thoughts with his decidedly conservative congregation and other decidedly conservative New York and New Jersey Jews.

More later I hope. I really do wish I had more time.

Tuesday, March 08, 2016

Steve Pruzansky supports Trump. Sort of.

Who made Steve Pruzansky so stupid? Did he grow up drinking Flint water? In his latest article, America's Worst Rabbi (TM) argues that Trump is superior to Clinton. His argument can be summed up as follows: Clinton is a crook and a racist and the monster under Rush Limbaugh's bed while Good Old Donald Trump may have a few tiny flaws, but Party First!

Here are his exact words with my interpolations (As usual, the least of Pruz's crimes is his imposition on the attention span of the reader. His self-indulgent, 50,000 word posts can't be fisked in their entirety so please suffice with these excerpted lowlights.)

[Bernie Sanders] is the living embodiment of Gordon Liddy’s definition of a liberal: “someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money.”

Yes, Pruz, by all means, let's ask for an expert opinion on liberalism from a convicted felon, known thug, and organizer of the Watergate break-in. Good choice! Who will you call as your next witness? Attila the Hun? Surely his view of liberalism merits our notice as well.

Or, assuming that Hillary Clinton is not indicted (as she clearly should be)

Yes! Clearly! Because the FBI doesn't know what its doing. Obviously! Commie traitors! Why won't they just ask Pruz to take over?

or is indicted and then is pardoned by President Obama (think Friday night, midnight, story buried, and by Sunday all sides claiming it is old news and time for the country to move on)?

Two words. Scooter Libby. For those of you to young to remember, Scooter Libby is a convicted felon who went to jail for some dirty work he did on behalf of Dick Cheney, before eventually having his sentence commuted by George Bush. In other words, the imaginary Democrat scandal Pruz begs us to consider as make-believe evidence of liberal chicanery has actually happened, only it was perpetrated by his heroes, the sainted Republicans.

Everyone is against Trump – I am not too keen on him myself – except the people.

Well, no, not exactly. The only "people" who have shown themselves to be keen on Trump are Republican primary voters. Technically, I suppose they are people, but as a group Republican primary voters are entirely out of step with mainstream America. This is why their nominees have lost five out of the last six presidential elections.

If not for Trump’s personality, temperament, character traits and shallow command of the issues, his string of victories would have sealed the process if another candidate had won those same victories, and the media would have been trumpeting those successes as evidence of “Game Over.”

Odd complaint. You're agreeing that Trump sucks, but you want the responsible adults, ie, those of us who are not Republican primary voters to get out of the way and let someone with a bad "personality, temperament, character traits and [a] shallow command of the issues" coast into the White House? What kind of mad populism is this, and why is it being articulated by a Conservative Constitution-worshiper like Pruz? Do I need to remind you how terrified the founders were of the prospect of a Trump-like candidacy? Do I need to remind you that the implemented the electoral college system specifically to prevent it?

There is a growing sentiment among many Republicans that they would rather have Hillary Clinton win than Donald Trump win

Hurray! Sensible behavior from Republicans! Of course, their sensible behavior is the product of self-interest, but I'm happy to see it anyway. (Yes, Democrats also act sensibly from self-interest)

But it really comes down to a simple calculation that Republicans should start making now, if they didn’t do it yesterday: by what measure would Hillary Clinton be a better president in anything that Republicans, Conservatives and/or Jews hold dear than any of the current Republican candidates including Donald Trump? I cannot think of one.

Come on, Pruz! You just aren't trying. Here, let me help.

DOVBEAR'S INCOMPLETE LIST OF THINGS THAT REPUBLICANS HOLD DEAR THAT HILLARY CLINTON WOULD DO A BETTER JOB OF PROMOTING

  • Not making the US an international laughingstock
  • Not lowering the dignity of the presidency.
  • Not promoting bad family values (Three Trump marriages vs one strained, but still standing Clinton marriage. Also, let's be quite clear: I will bet you any amount of money Donald has both committed adultery and involved himself in escapades that make that Monica Lewinsky thing look like junior high school)
  • Not insulting fine Republican women like Megyn
  • Not being blasphemous or insulting to people of faith
For good measure let's throw in this great suggestion from the comments:

"You forgot "promoting and protecting Wall Street interests at the expense of the middle class and the working poor." And "gleefully accepting donations and favors from overseas theocratic oil-ocracies."

Too true! These are also cherished Republican values that Hillary is far more likely to support!
Clinton would continue and escalate the class and racial warfare in America. (Is there a more racist slogan today than “Black Lives Matter”?)

Meanwhile, Pruz's man has promised to deport 20 million people on the basis of their ethnicity. Won't that "continue and escalate the class and racial warfare in America" And yes, Pruz "Let's Toss Out All The Spics!" is a more racist slogan than "Black lives matter"

Clinton would accelerate the distribution of free stuff and the redistribution of wealth that has crippled the American economy and stifled the income potential of the middle class. 

And according to leading economists, Mister Four Bankruptcies' brilliant plan to raise tariffs and deport the people who do low-income jobs will drive up prices and cause a recession. Also, Pruz neglects to mention that the Republicans are also in favor of income redistribution, only they'd rather see the money go from the middle class to the wealthy. Corporate welfare yes! Regular welfare? Not so much.

On Israel? It is true that Trump is an unknown – “unpredictable” is his term, not to mention “neutral.” But how can that be compared to Hillary Clinton’s overt hostility to Israel

You're on drugs. No honest observer thinks she's ever been hostile to Israel. Also this

from her disdain for Israel’s PM (haranguing Netanyahu with 40 minutes of relentless invective for bidding out apartment construction in the northern part of Yerushalayim, which, of course, hasn’t even happened in reality)

She yelled at Netanyahu for embarrassing the United States, which is exactly what he did. Can you Republicans please make up your mind? I thought you wanted a strong leader who wouldn't let anyone push America around? Well, that's exactly the temperament Hillary demonstrated when she stood up for American pride and dignity. Also this was six years ago. Also, it doesn't take too much effort to find examples of Condi Rice yelling at Bibi in protest of an Israeli building project. As the Jerusalem Post said it on January 8, 2008, Rice: US entirely opposed to Har Homa

and her discomfort with Israel’s right of self-defense to pressuring Israel to make even more suicidal concessions to the Arabs to create another “Palestinian” state in the quixotic hope that such will satisfy the Arabs’ lust for Israel’s demise

Again Pruz is demonstraing his gift for amnesia. The pressure on Israel to create a Palestenian state became part of US policy thanks George W. Bush. He's the one who gave us the Road Map. He was the first president to call for a two state solution. The pressure he put on Israel to comply with his two-state vision, a vision that called on Israel to give back territory and dismantle settlements was legendary. In fact here's a headline from April 17, 2003 Israel faces US pressure over plan for 'road-map' If George Bush remained a saint after doing that, how can you tarnish Hillary for doing the exact same thing without opening yourself to charges of dishonesty and bias?

Can anyone imagine Donald Trump embracing and praising Suha Arafat

Yes, I can imagine it easily. I can also imagine him climbing into bed with David Duke, because I watched him do it with my own two eyes.

After this, the piece deteriorates into the usual Pruz mishmah of bad history as he ranks on Jewish Democrats. Most of what he sayswas dealt with successfully in my famous serious of posts, entitled Additional Pabulum from America's Worst Rabbi

As @efrex told us on Twitter, when it comes to Pruz "It's almost self-parody at this point."


MORE PRUZANSKY GOLD

http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2012/11/additional-pablum-from-americas-worst.html

http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2015/07/pruzansky-foot-finds-its-way-into-his.html

http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2013/06/pruzansky-vs-open-orthodox-jews-part-1.html

http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2015/07/fisking-pruzansky-on-obergfell.html

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

Monday, January 27, 2014

Not having any proof won't stop Stephen Pruzansky from slandering two Orthodox schools


I don't think I'll ever understand why rabbi Stephen Pruzansky is permitted to be strident, facetious, overbearing and even obnoxious in his opposition to women wearing tefilln, while those of us who think its a fine idea are required to mind our manners and to speak in only the most polite and deferential tones.

In particular, I don't understand why Cross Currents,  a blog that calls itself Orthodox, allows someone to publish a post that, absent any facts or evidence, accuses the administrators of two different schools of forming halachic policies on the basis of how many rich Conservatives Jews they can attract.

My fisk of his latest travesty after the jump

Friday, May 02, 2014

Pruz on Sterling


Did you read the new Pruzansky? It's not entirely awful, in that his main point about Sterling is exactly the same thing that I said earlier in the week. Both Pruz and I agree that Sterling's social crime deserves a social punishment.

Unfortunately, Pruz can't stop there. He needs to top things off with a repugnant tirade about how racism no longer exists but, damn it, we have to keep hearing about it thanks to huckesters who get rich from it like Barry Obama and his BFF Al Sharpton.

There will be more to say as I continue to digest his piece, but let's begin by reminding everyone that only lunatics like Pruz who get their info from Fox News think the Reverend Al is a credible figure. The liberal establishment has entirely disowned him. When Al he last ran for president he LOST the BLACK VOTE in the NY primary by 30 percent. Overall he took less than 1 percent of the total votes, scoring less than 30 votes [thirty: not a misprint] in Maine and North Dakota, and 0 [ZERO: not a misprint] in Hawaii and Idaho.

http://rabbipruzansky.com/2014/04/30/race-to-the-top/


 Search for more information about Al and BArry at4torah.com

Friday, November 09, 2012

So hey, what was really so terrible about Pruzansky's screed?

Now that Pruz's outrageous attack on minorities and the impoverished has been picked up by Cross Currents, some people are asking: What was really so terrible about  it?

I'm working up the energy to put together a Fisk. Meantime, here's something near brilliant I spotted on Facebook
1. It is not correct nor does the rabbi substantiate his inflammatory accusation that the people who voted for the President are "dumb," "ignorant," "empty headed" and "dunces" using the very language of his "argument." Nor do I believe it appropriate and becoming for the rabbi of the largest shul in one of the most concentrated MO communities to engage in such crass argument, if you can call it that. 
2. It is not correct that the 47 percent of people he demeans as free loaders and takers who just want "free stuff" and contribute nothing to this country. It is unbecoming and inappropriate for a leader of an ancient tradition that is centered around hesed and the concern for the other could so easily (and incorrectly) write off those who may not have the luxuries and benefits that many in his community have. It is also rather ironic, considering there is a significant element of the Orthodox community that leaves off the dole under the guise of devoting their lives to learning Torah. Does he ever once criticize that community? 
3. It is race baiting when he defines the free loading dunce elements of consisting in large part of blacks, Hispanics and the new immigrants who are not white and not European. He counts the president himself among these free loading "dunces," stating that the "President is part of this different America." This is a continuation of the rabbi's many screeds against the president including most recently his October 7 indictment of the president as an "affirmative action president" who is a likely a "foreigner" whether "Indionesian, Kenyan or Muslim." These are irresponsible accusations as they are not supported or supportable. One would expect more from a spiritual leader and teacher of Torah; 
4. It is a form of fear mongering to declare that the United States is doomed because his romanticized version of an "old America" where all were committed to being loyal tax paying citizens who give there fair share no longer exists. Yes, America has suffered a terrible economic crisis, with roots and causes that long precede the current occupant of the White House. But America is not doomed. And responsible leaders in our community have a duty and obligation not to scare people into believing such nonsense. It is all the more disquieting that the accusation is based on claiming that an increasing and significant part of this country's population is not lo
To this I will add the following:

  1. Like too many things Cross Currents publishes, Pruz's insanity is little more than a regurgitation of talk radio yelling points. 
  2. His facts are bad: The 47 percent for the most part DO pay taxes, including sales and payroll taxes, and DO have "skin in the game." Many of the 47 percenters are soldiers or veterans; others are people who worked hard their whole lives and now pay no income tax because they are living on a small fixed income. 
  3. His complaints are one-sided:  Pruz hates people who want Obama Care, and calls them takers,  but he has nothing bad to say about the people of his own demographic who enjoy veteran benefits, social security, Medicaid and Medicare.  
  4. Every generation has its idiots who believe that their own way of doing things is Really and Truly Authentic, while any new approach is an illegitimate threat to the old order. These morons don't seem to understand that everything changes with the passage of time. Authenticity is a chimera. Change is the true nature of things.
  5. The nativism he displays is offensive. Shouldn't an Orthodox Jew know better? It wasn't that long ago, that the American establishment railed against immigrant Jews using the same language Pruz now employs against the next generation of newcomers. 
Anything else?



Search for more information about ### at4torah.com  

Monday, April 18, 2016

The flaw in the RCA's Pruz Statement

While the RCA statement (below) is certainly no endorsement of Pruzansky, or his rape apologia, its still most unwelcome.

The man deserves no protection at all and certainly not from an organization that has, in the past, sat on its hands while men like Pruzansky savage liberal expressions of Orthodoxy. It's easy to call for polite discourse when your friends are being raked over the coals. If you want the public to take such calls seriously, however, you need to occasionally stand up for the dignity of the people you disagree with, too. Not having ever done that, the RCA's pleas for comity ring false and self serving.

ALSO: The piece begins by lamenting the fact that Pruzansky, who apparently possesses nude photos of the RCA leadership, is not known for his scholarship or pastoral leadership. Well, there's a damn good reason for that! Most of us know Pruz only through his blog posts, blog posts that consist entirely of reformatted RW talking points, lifted from people like Hannity, Coulter and their ilk. Where are the posts on parsha or halacha? Where are the posts that demonstrate compassion or concern for the downtrodden?

I've been a Pruz watcher for years, and I don't recall every seeing a post from him that wouldn't be equally at home on a gentile RW site like Drudge or Clown Hall.

If Pruz wants to be known as a Jewish pastor and a Jewish scholar let him act like one. Meanwhile, his behavior is drowning out the RCA's words.

The Rabbinical Council of America - RCA
An Open Letter Regarding Rabbi Steven Pruzansky and His Blog
We are writing this open letter, and not relying on a short press release, in order to more fully expand on the issues that Rabbi Steven Pruzansky's recent blog has raised.
We are saddened that a rabbi of his stature and talent is known by many in the wider community not for his empathetic pastoral skills, in the way in which he is known by members of his community, nor by his preaching, textual analysis, or leadership in important communal areas. He has contributed much to his community and to his rabbinic colleagues, even to those who may disagree with some of what he writes.
We personally feel that the blog entry could have and should have been written differently and with more compassion.
However, we are dismayed by the overkill that has become the response to Rabbi Pruzansky's blog entry. Some have misrepresented his remarks; some are fomenting personal attacks and boycotts against him; some, who are consistently disparaging of the RCA and its values, are disingenuously appropriating our words that were critical of Rabbi Pruzansky to attack rabbis and the rabbinate. These responses are irresponsible; this is not the way to conduct community business. Response to perceived disrespect is not through disrespect.
RCA leadership responded to a press inquiry about the blog and distanced itself from its tone and much of its substance. Although we do not usually respond to what individual members of the RCA write as individuals on their personal blogs and in their personal columns, we felt that it was especially important to do so in this case as the blog entry, while dealing with important issues--some with which we agree and some with which we disagree--was argued in a way that many find objectionable and was hurtful to many who themselves were victims of sexual violence or who were troubled by what he said. Our understanding of the issues around sexual violence differs from his. Many communicated directly with the RCA through phone calls and emails, others voiced their reactions in newspapers and blogs. Although he wrote as a private individual, not representing us or the RCA, it is impossible for him to divorce himself from these associations. The empathetic, pastoral ear and heart that were absent from his entry implicated his colleagues. We as religious leaders feel an added and primary responsibility for compassion, for the defense of the weak and the vulnerable, and to defend those who are or consider themselves victims of aggression and assault.
Rabbi Pruzansky's detractors are certainly entitled, and encouraged, to point out where they believe he is wrong and to share the ways in which they were hurt. It is only by presenting positions on the issues through reasonable arguments and analysis that we all can elevate the public debate and help each other understand the others' concerns, opinions, and experiences.
Rabbi Shalom Baum, President
Rabbi Leonard Matanky, Honorary President
Rabbi Elazar Muskin, First Vice President

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

Thursday, November 08, 2012

OMG! Is Pruz's hateful screed a re-packaged Rush Limbough sermon?

The Pruz screed  is now on Cross Currents, I presume with the blessing Yaakov Menken who has never hid his ambition to be the Jewish Sean Hannity. 

Via Facebook, Chakira [click here to see his blog] tells us this comment was blocked at both Pruz.com and Cross Currents. 

Gee. Wonder why.
I am reading your blogpost, and comparing it to today's Rush Limbaugh show. It seems like there are many parallels, from the specific numbers cited, to the rhetorical question of who can compete with free stuff. Probably, you listened to the most recent show and cribbed liberally. If not, you've still been influenced by the Hashkafot of this decidedly unorthodox Rebbe. Lets compare.  
Limbaugh: "It's just very difficult to beat Santa Claus. It is practically impossible to beat Santa Claus. People are not going to vote against Santa Claus, especially if the alternative is being your own Santa Claus."
RSP: "The simplest reason why Romney lost was because it is impossible to compete against free stuff. "

Limbaugh: "You want to hear a statistic that is somewhat surprising? Romney received two and a half million fewer votes than McCain did. Now, who would have called that? Who in the world would have? I think Obama's vote tally was down ten million from 2008, and we still lost. "
RSP: "As I write, with almost all the votes counted, President Obama has won fewer votes than John McCain won in 2008, and more than ten million off his own 2008 total." 
Limbaugh:"A bunch of libs are salivating over that. They think the economy is gonna come back no matter what, and that Obama's big government is going to end up being the explanation for the rest of our lives as to how that happened. Just like in Japan, just like in Greece. But look, you bring up Greece and you bring up Europe, and they're where we're headed. Their problems are acute."
RSP "The road to Hillary Clinton in 2016 and to a European-socialist economy – those very economies that are collapsing today in Europe – is paved." 
Limbaugh "Romney presented a picture... This is very frightening stuff to me. He presented a picture of the traditional view, the traditional roots, the traditional way things work in this country."
RSP "the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate" 
Limbaugh: "The reason that Obama won is he did not go to the people who have some intelligence and are liberal and they already knew who they were voting for. He didn't go to the women that already knew who they were voting for, or the Hispanics who already knew or the blacks. He went to the homeless shelters. He went to the people who were on welfare, that he was paying their salaries. He went to the people who are, you know, on unemployment but they got their benefits extended. He went to the people who really don't understand how the economy works.""you're basically saying what I'm saying, that Obama corralled the uninformed vote"
RSP "the inescapable conclusion that the electorate is dumb – ignorant, and uninformed. Indeed, it does not pay to be an informed voter, because most other voters – the clear majority – are unintelligent "

Tuesday, January 06, 2015

The inadvertently hysterical thing Steven Pruzanky said today


The rest of the Rabbi's latest blog post is a snoozer, but if you're looking for laughs the first paragraph provides plenty:
It is hard to deny that fear pervades much of the civilized world these days, fear in a variety of forms. There is fear of terror, fear of violence, fear of driving on certain roads or visiting particular neighborhoods, fears stoked by the sense that Western political leaders have no answers, fears of the outsized reach of dictators as evinced by the recent contretemps involving North Korea, Sony, and the awkward release of a movie comedy,  and even fear of repercussions – public ridicule and the like – for saying the “wrong” thing, using politically incorrect language, or otherwise not toeing the ideological line imposed by elite thinkers.
Never mind, that most of this so-called fear has been stoked by irresponsible hacks like Pruz and the loudmouths who provide him with both his ideas and his presentation style 

Never mind, that I perceive that the civilized world is currently pervaded with optimism, thanks to the humming economy and the president's demonstrated competence.

No, what matters is the last sentence. Read it again. Pruz is mad that "elite thinkers" are trying to tell him what to say and think. Um hello?  ALL PRUZ  DOES IS TELL US WHAT TO SAY AND THINK.

Why is it OK for this Rabbi - or any Rabbi, for that matter - to instruct us on how to behave and what to believe, but a terrible crime when non-Rabbis presume to do the same? Either both groups are entitled to boss us around - while responsibility for the final choice remains with us - or neither of them are.

Worse, Pruzansky is personally responsible for threatening repercussions – public ridicule and the like – for saying the “wrong” thing, using politically incorrect language, or otherwise not toeing the ideological line imposed by elite thinkers. 

He's done all of this himself to his own political enemies!

He's threatened Jewish feminists with ostracism and said Open Orthodox Rabbis have no right to call themselves Rabbis.

He's publicly ridiculed both groups, criticized their tone and choice of words, and beaten them up in print and from the pulpit for not toeing the ideological line, he and other elite (religious) thinkers wish to impose.

Now, I may side with Pruzansky on some of the big issues (God exists; Judaism is cool), and I do agree with him on some religious points, but I am not going to let him whine about the mean old elites who try to shut down opposing ideas when he sees himself as an elite, and regularly trys to bully his opponents into silence.


  Search for more information about at4torah.com

Thursday, April 07, 2016

Even I can't believe Pruz can be this stupid


Pruz strikes again! While I've been fisking this idiot  for years, I'm still astounded to see that he's capable of an atrocity such as the one he commits in his latest post.

In his new post, Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, the mora d'asra of an important Orthodox shul, basically argues that **MOST** college rape victims are silly little girls who went looking for love in all the wrong places.

Here's your money quote:
But most of them, judging by the media reports, involve the challenging “he said/she said,” with no eyewitnesses or corroborating evidence. Of those, the male(factor) contends, most are situations in which the couple had a romantic relationship that went sour after the intimacies in question. That is to say, the couple was dating, grew close (sometimes after a two-hour date, I suppose; people bond much more quickly these days), retired to someone’s quarters and quickly consummated their…friendship. Soon after the “friendship” ended, the woman, feeling used, as she was by the lecherous man, files a complaint for sexual assault.
Nope, that's not minimizing the experience of woman at all. Not one bit. But good news, true believers. Now that the Rabbi has misstated the problem, he has a solution! 
Here’s a novel idea, one that has been tried before with great success...
Sorry to interrupt, but "novel" means "of a kind not seen before" meaning that, by definition, it could not have been "tried before." Back to Pruz
...but has fallen into desuetude, apparently, on college campuses. It will solve all these problems, the “rape culture,” the “he said/she said,” the feelings of rejection by the party who had an emotional connection with another person who just sought a physical connection. It’s called… abstinence, self-discipline, or chastity. It involves waiting until marriage to engage in intimate acts, and then in a relationship in which the couple genuinely loves each other. It is preceded by a joyous ceremony known as a wedding, which too involves contractual obligations that are grounded in mutual respect. Problem solved…
Super idea, Grandpa! All we have to do is time travel back to never when sex always followed marriage. This is a little like saying we're going to solve the problem of malnutrition by rewiring the culture so that nobody ever gets hungry.

As part of my nearly decade old desire to share this platform and introduce you to new writers, I give you this excellent Fisk written by some other guy:

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Pruz the time traveler


Had Pruz lived in the 1920s do you think he would have published long, angry essays accusing old Sarah Schenirer of being a dirty feminist? Would he have claimed she was suffering from undue societal influences and that maybe all she really cared about was money? Would he have denounced her for derailing the glorious and holy tradition of keeping women ignorant and illiterate? Would he have joined forces with the Minchas Eluzer who called Schenirer's school Bes Esav and somehow managed the impossible trick of being (a) a daas torah godol ; and (b) certain that the future of the Jewish people was in Eastern Europe. 

Let's say Pruz was there when the Kabalas Shabbos minhag started to sweep through Europe. Would he have claimed that the Hasidim were only modifying the Friday night service for the purpose of appealing to the unaffiliated? Would he have perhaps denounced the entire Hasidic movement on those grounds? 

See, this is one of the fundamental errors that makes conservatives so unbearable. They wrongly imagine that all they see is all that ever existed, and that any attempt to update, modify or acknowledge new situation is an assault on nature rooted in the most nefarious motives.

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Obama does everything right, gets no love from Pruz


Here's Pruz killing the president both coming and going:

"By the way, is anything more repugnant that Obama’s repeated assertion that “Israel has the right of self-defense,” as if that is not obvious, as if it is a major concession on his part designed to win him plaudits from liberal Jews, and…as if he has to keep saying it in order to talk himself into it?"

Did you catch that? He find it REPUGNANT that the president is repeatedly saying the exact words everyone wants him to say. He'd rather Obama did not say this because it's "obvious" and would prefer Obama didn't "talk himself into it"

Of course, the real truth is Pruz hates the president for wholly irrational reasons and would still hate the president even if he moved to Israel and became a Rabbi. When you hate that much, facts cease to matter.


Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Why do Jews vote Democrat: Part 3

American's Worst Rabbi today attempts to explain why Jews vote for Democrat. He gives seven reasons, each of which I will address in turn. In this installment, we'll deal with the claim that Jews vote Democrats because ... hmmm.. as you'll there is actually no argument given here . [Other installments can be found here.]

We join Pruzansky already in progress...


That engenders the third reason why Jews remain tenacious Democratic voters. 

He consistently uses the word "engenders" in the sense of "brings us to" which is not a sense of the word recognized by the dictionary.

The dark secret is that few Jewish Democrats vote with Israel as their main concern, or even as a major interest. 

How does Pruz know this? And is he making the very common mistake of conflating support for Likud with support for Israel? I can oppose settlements and still support Israel can't I? (This is a bad example as plenty of Republican presidents, including Saints Reagan and Bush, also opposed settlements, but you get my point.) 

As long as the rhetoric is innocuous enough, the real policies do not matter. There is also a segment of the Jewish community that, by reasonable standards, can be construed as anti-Israel.

Right. We call them "Satmar Chasidim" 

They make common cause with Israel’s enemies, support boycott of and divestment from Israel, oppose Jewish settlement in the heartland of Israel and favor the establishment of another Palestinian state, and/or are openly hostile to Israel exercising its right of self-defense – ever, under any circumstances. 

There are lots of things on this list, many of which do not belong together. Opposing settlements is categorically different from supporting divestment. And, let's point this out again: Two of the items on this list -- opposing settlements and supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state - were the official positions of the last Republican president, while the incumbent and previous Democratic president emphatically supported Israel's right to self-defense! So why -- other than rank dishonesty -- is Pruz pinning this laundry list on the Democrats?

Some Jews even oppose the Jewish national idea, and think Israel itself is illegitimate.

We still talking about Satmar?

 The one common denominator is that all those Jews vote for the Democratic Party. They are not the only Jews who vote for the Democrat, but all those Jews do vote for the Democrat.

Pruz has fallen off a cliff. He's supposedly written this long-winded turd burger to explain to us why Jews vote Democrats. However, merely pointing out that people who support A- Z vote for Democrats does not achieve this. It doesn't tell us WHY they vote Democrat which, allegedly, is the point of the exercise. 

Tuesday, July 07, 2015

Fisking Pruzansky On Obergfell

Among the many crimes Pruzansky commits every time he posts is his attack on brevity. Why can't the man say what he has to say and be done in under, say, 3000 words?

This selfish indulgence of his make his posts difficult to read, and more importantly difficult to fisk (Once I labored through seven posts just to adequately deal with a single one of his eruptions) so we won't be addressing every stupid thing he says in his new post about Jonah and Obergfell. Just the highlights. Here we go..

That is a joke (I think) – and of course this is not meant to equate all sexual sins – but what is no joking matter is the threat to religious liberty posed by this decision. All of Kennedy’s protestations notwithstanding, people of faith – people who believe in G-d’s Bible and its objective moral laws and attempt to incorporate those laws in their daily lives – will suffer as a result of this decision. Wait – it won’t be that long – for a same sex couple to demand their right to hold their wedding in a church or synagogue. A refusal will result in prosecution, lawsuits and/or loss of tax exempt status. 

This is just stupid. No one will prosecute, because a church that refuses to host a gay wedding isn't breaking the law. The rejected couple might sue - you can always sue - but the the first judge to see the case will point to the Second Amendment and laugh the litigants right out of the building.  And who is going to strip the Church of its tax exempt status? Congress? Don't make me laugh. Even if they tried, the Court would go all McCulloch v. Maryland on their asses. 

Wait – perhaps a little longer – for a rabbi, priest or minister to be sued for refusing to officiate at a same sex wedding. 

I can sue a church, priest or minister for looking at me wrong. I can sue a priest, church or Rabbi for writing a long-winded and stupid blog post about gay marriage. I can sue for any reason I like (The answer to "Can I Sue?" is always "Yes.) So sure, a clergyman might get sued for refusing to officiate at a same sex wedding, but the important thing is this: The person bringing the lawsuit would never win. 

And let me add something brilliant our friend MarkSofla said earlier. In this country, Jews can marry Catholics. Its perfectly legal. Go to the county clerk and ask for a license to marry someone of a different faith, and you'll get it. Every time. But when was the last time, an interfaith couple sued a Hasidic Rabbi for refusing to officiate at their wedding? Has it ever happened? If it did happen, do you imagine that there's any chance the Rabbi would lose? 

The homosexual lobby masterfully (and disingenuously) conflated same sex marriage with interracial marriage; consequently, religious institutions or individuals that continue to object to same sex marriage will be no better than racists. Recall that Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status in 1983 because its policies banned interracial dating (it rescinded the policy in 2000). Get ready, people of faith. Our heads are now on the chopping block.

Has Pruz read the Bob Jones case? I haven't, but I skimmed the Wikipedia article about it and all it too was 30 seconds to determine that Pruz has the case and its consequences all wrong: 
The Court, speaking through [Justice] Burger found... "Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University's] exercise of their religious beliefs." The Court made clear, however, that its holding dealt "only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions." 
So some schools might have a problem if they wish to employ discriminatory admissions policies, but shuls can continue to rest easy. (This is nothing new. A yeshiva or day school that banned gay students was on the wrong side of the law before Obergfell. I'm not sure how Obergfell puts them at any new risk. Readers?)

That is the invariable next step now that individuals have already lost their religious liberties and rights of conscience. 

They haven't lost this at all. I'm still free to hate black people, for example. I can say nasty things about black people, and preach about their inferiority, and the government won't interfere. I only get into trouble if I refuse to sell a product or a service to a black person, on the grounds that he is black. This doesn't interfere with my "rights of conscious" I still get to hate black people. I just don't get to make the black person suffer. 
This is what makes Pruzansky's position so obnoxious. He doesn't merely want to hate gay people. He wasn't to harrass and humiliate them. He wants the right to get in their way, and  to cause them difficulties. And now that this privilege he been taken away he whines that all he really wants to do is hate them. Well, then he's in luck. Hating them is still ok. 

The Mozilla CEO was hounded out of his position because he contributed to a ballot initiative in California that – successfully but now futilely – opposed same sex marriage.

In the Mozilla case private people reacted privately to something that they found unacceptable. If they had drummed the CEO out of office for wishing to gay marry someone, presumably Pruzansky would applaud. 

Bakers, caterers, photographers, and florists have all refused to lend their personal services to same sex weddings on grounds of religious conscience, have all been sued, and have all lost. 

They sued on grounds of religious conscience, but that's not why they lost. The butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker all get to continue hating gays.  That hasn't been taken away. What they can't do is discriminate against  people on the basis of race, creed or sexual orientation. And as a member of a historically persecuted minority myself I think that's a very good thing. 

And here’s the secular danger to the decision: it will result in the collapse of the family, already under siege in this hedonistic society. American youth, already bedeviled by gender confusion and late to marry, if at all, will grow up in a society in which there is no preferred family structure – no vision of an ideal family unit that has the best chance of rearing healthy, well-grounded, and productive children. The radical homosexual activists would have us believe that it does not matter whether one is raised by a mother and father, two mothers, two fathers, one mother, one father, or any other permutation thereof. But, of course, it does, and G-d – and common sense – teaches us otherwise.

Where did God personally weigh in on any of this? Can you show me the verse, please? And common sense gets things wrong all the time. Comon sense told us that the sun rotated around the earth. Common sense told us that leeches were a great way to cure diseases. So rather then relying on Pruz's "common sense", I'd like to look at the science: 
Most research studies show that children with two moms or two dads fare just as well as children with heterosexual parents. In fact, one comprehensive study of children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers concluded that children raised by same-sex parents did not differ from other children in terms of emotional functioning, sexual orientation, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, learning and grade point averages. Where research differences have been found, they have sometimes favored same-sex parents.
More later when the vomit subsides


Thursday, November 15, 2012

Why Jews vote for Democrats: Part 4

American's Worst Rabbi today attempts to explain why Jews vote for Democrat. He gives seven reasons, each of which I will address in turn. In this installment, we'll deal with the claim that Jews vote Democrats because our hatred of gays is insufficient. [Other installments can be found here.]

We join Pruzansky already in progress...



Thus, the fourth reason why most Jews are Democrats – since Israel’s fate is of tangential interest to many –

Israel's fate is also of tangential interest to most Republicans! No one, outside of Jews and evangelicals, really pays any attention to Israel or the Middle East. So if most people who vote Democrat don't give two hoots about Israel, the same can be said of most who vote Republican. They also don't give two hoots about Israel! And again, Pruz needs to go back to logic school. You can't argue that Jews vote for Democrats "because they don't care about Israel" when they could very easily vote for Republicans -- also without caring about Israel!

 is that they 

Like the Biblical prophets....

are more aroused by the social agenda than by any other concern, including Israel. Many Jews are obsessed with abortion rights, and see it as a sacrament. They are fanatics about individual rights and freedoms, and loathe any constraints on personal behavior (even the Torah’s!) 

I feel very safe declaring that 99.99 percent of the people who vote Republican also would loath the Torah's constraints on personal behavior. 

And, by the way, don't Republicans loath gun laws, and helmet laws, and environmental laws, and laws that govern workplaces, including laws that tell you who to hire, how to insure them, and how to protect them from injury?  Why yes, of course they do! So, what in God's name is Pruzansky thinking when he suggests Republicans are cool with constraints on their personal behavior? Republicans HATE being told what to do. Did Pruz miss that whole Tea Party thing?

Jews, in fact, seem uniquely inimidated [SIC] by the contrived threats to these newfound freedoms. And they are in the forefront of transforming traditional society – supporting same-sex marriage, alternative lifestyles, and the abolition of any notion of objective morality. 

Yes. And can you work out the reason why? Its because we know that Jews are safest when the government understands that it has no business poking its nose into our private lives. If we permit the government to start dictating morality, what guarantee do we have that the government will always dictate our morality? Better that the government should stay out of the morality business all together. (Other then when there is a clear victim)

Strange, one might think, because Jews introduced to the world the concept of objective moral norms transmitted to us by the Creator of the universe.

No. not strange at all. I don't surrender my norms when I insist that enforcing those norms is not the government's proper role. I don't ask the government to enforce Shabbos,  do I? Yet I'm still able to observe Shabbos. So why do I need the government's help enforcing the Torah's position on homosexuality? What good has ever come -- in the whole history of the human race - from mixing church and state? 


Search for more information about ### at4torah.com  

Thursday, November 08, 2012

The madness of Pruz

Shorter Steven Pruzansky: My, God! I can't believe they let black and  Hispanics vote in this country!
The Democrat begins any race with a substantial advantage. The liberal states – like the bankrupt California and Illinois – and other states with large concentrations of minority voters as well as an extensive welfare apparatus, like New York, New Jersey and others – give any Democratic candidate an almost insurmountable edge in electoral votes. 
He might have just as easily written: The Republican begins any race with a substantial advantage. The conservative states – like welfare states that take more federal money than they pay, such as  West Virginia and Alaska  – and other states with large concentrations of evangelical voters  – give any Republican candidate a head start.

Round up of some of  comments already left on my FaceBook page

I'm starting to wonder what the Pruz is hiding. Nobody can be as xenophobic as him and not be hiding something insanely kinky.

Uhm: "Romney lost because the conservative virtues – the traditional American virtues – of liberty, hard work, free enterprise, private initiative and aspirations to moral greatness – no longer inspire or animate a majority of the electorate." Romney lost because a country is not a business it is a social construct. Romney lost because more people understood that words like "liberty" are codes for greed, and none have one tiny thing to do with morals and lack any real virtue. And greed alone can only sustain a few and not all. America is finally getting smart--finally.


I hate the whole message, the whole idea, that America is only and forever what we say it is, and not what other legitimate Americans say it is. No doubt he makes the same error of reasoning when he considers frumkeit.

What is scariest to me, is that someone with so much hate in his heart for anyone who holds an opinion different from his own (and an assumption that that individual must be unintelligent because of that different viewpoint) could be a Rabbi and a leader and in the same breathe as these spiteful words, praise his service of God. That is so much scarier than anything going on in this country’s politics right now and it should scare Republican and Democratic Jews alike. What a waste of a position of power.

He certainly one-uped Romney, this piece is an insult to more than 47% of the country.

I can't tell what annoys me more, his condescension or his racism.
To me, it is the racism. I cannot believe that he could write like this given that our community historically has suffered such discrimination. To the anti-semite, they do not care if you are conservative or liberal, Republican or Democratic. We suffered from the same attitude he is displaying in his blog.

Search for more information about nativism in the rabinate at4torah.com 

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Oh dear, Gil Student has commented on Pruz


Shorter Gil Student: "Its 100% okay that Pruz is a rape apologist, because lots of GOP politicians are, too."


Apparently* slut-shaming and rape-apologia are both perfectly okay, mainstream approaches that you can feel free to embrace if either are your "cup of tea."

*In an earlier version of this post, I incorrectly identified Rabbi Student as an employee of the OU. He does not work for that organization. I regret the error.

Search for more information about ### at4torah.com

Monday, March 21, 2016

Which party is Moshe's party?


Pleased to announce that we have a new Pruz!! This one is pure cheer-leading for Pruz's new best friend,  Donald Trump,  but is noteworthy for this classic Pruzism:

"Jews would vote against Moshe if he ran as a Republican, as of course he would."


The problem isn't the first clause, but the second.

Its absolutely true that some Jews would vote against Moshe; however there is zero chance Moshe would run for office as a Republican OR a Democrat.

As you know, I have gone through all 613 mitzvos and determined that the overwhelming majority of them would be rejected by both parties. Of the few that have some relevance to 21st century Americans, the majority happen to fit more closely with Democratic policies.  See it here

Monday, December 01, 2014

My late remarks on pruzansky's latest indiscretion

Dear Friends

I apologize for not doing my part to trounce pruzansky for his latest indiscretion.

As you probably know by now,  he recently published an article that even he (eventually) found embarrassing and had to delete but not before the Arab Hasbaraniks on social media were using it to prove that all Jews everywhere are racist and murderous at heart.

Only Jews like that Pruzansky are racist and murderous in their hearts, I told them. For whatever good that did.

In brief, Pruz reacted to the horrible events in Har Nof by calling on Israel to expel all the Arabs.  You can review the smoking snippet here.

http://m.forward.com/articles/209763/new-jersey-rabbi-steven-pruzansky-spews-savage-hat/

Certainly Pruz was writing from the perspective of the pain all of us felt viewing those horrible photos of blood drenched talitot, but that's no excuse.  Not all of us who felt that pain allowed ourselves to devolve into barbarism. Those of us with character, and respect for human life did not react to the horror by advocating for Jews to commit a new horror of our own.

Pruzansky isn't a terrorist.  He'd never pick up a weapon and actually follow through with any of his insane prescriptions. The same can be said for the overwhelming majority of Arabs.

We Jews like to pretend that we'd be murdered in an instant were we to enter an Arab town but it isn't true.  Most Arabs,  like most Jews,  aren't murderous at heart. Like most Jews,  most Arabs simply want to coexist, make a few dollars, raise their kids and stay out of trouble.

If this sounds like a wishful, liberal fantasy you can thank the Arab murderers and loudmouths. Though they make up perhaps 1 percent of the Arab population they are loud and vicious enough to make it seem like all Arabs are drooling madmen.

Pruzansky is loud and vicious, but not violent. I'd never equate words with actions. You can't kill someone with an insult. Pruzansky is just a preacher with an intemperate streak and that's no crime. But the damage his tirade did to our national reputation is real. Just as I want every Arab to know pruzansky does not speak for me, there are multitudes of Arabs who desperately want us to accept that the terrorists do not act for them.

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

In which I fisk that dumb Cross Currents masturbation post

Shorter Cross Currents
Those pro masturbation JOFA sluts need to stop bothering that nice Rabbi Pruzansky

Think I'm joking? Find it hard to believe that a Very Serious Blog such as Cross Currents would see the subject of female masturbation as an opportunity to attack JOFA and provide additional support for a rape apologist? Read it yourself.

The first thing we see is a note, in which the editors let us know that they intend to publish some dirty words for the express purpose of saving yiddishkeit. They had no choice, see? Preserving the mesorah demands it! NO OTHER WORDS WOULD DO!

Unfortunately, and to my great disappointment, the article contains no vulgarities -- all we get are words like "masturbation" and "vibrator."Y awn. But hey, now that you know such words have magical mesorah preserving abilities, please be sure to use them all the time.

[Editors’ Note: The piece that follows contains frank and graphic language, the kind that those faithful to derech Yisrael sava and kedushas Yisrael avoid using without euphemism, and then only in private. Nonetheless, there are times when dramatic means are necessitated to meet a challenge to mesorah. Readers are forewarned that the essay that follows is not for children, and indeed, not for many adults. We are mispallel for the day that Hashem will repair the pirtzos of Klal Yisrael.]

After the warning, the article begins with a rather bland, not very scholarly dvar torah. Be holy, blah blah, because the verse says "be holy" and its written in the present tense so you have to be holy all the time. An orangutan with access to a Stone Chumash could have done a better job.

As Jews, we are powerfully aware that the past is never just the past. The lessons, the struggles and even the victories of past ages are ours to relive in one generation after the other. In the Haggadah, we read, “You shall tell your child on that day, it is because of this that the Lord did for me when I left Egypt.” The reading is forever in the present tense, in my life. I am not to tell my child what the Lord did for the Hebrew slaves at the time of the Exodus. No, I tell what the Lord did for me.

The reading is forever in the present tense because its addressing the actual generation that actually left Egypt. You know. Context.

God’s freeing us from bondage is constant in all our lives.

At this point, I felt certain the dirty-words warning related to an S&M theme. Don't get excited spankos. Not happening.

So too, when God commands us to “be holy” it is clearly not a directive only to the generation in the Sinai. It is a command to all of us, for all time.

Like, um, every other commandment? Failing to see what the chidush is. Also, failing to see why we needed to go through Egyptian bondage in order to get here. Unless, you know, kink.

Each age and generation makes specific demands on those who live it. Ours is no different. While every generation confronted salaciousness and sexuality, what other generation has had to wrestle with the ever-present Internet? What other generation has had to endure a constant barrage of pornographic images rain down on it from billboards, television screens, movie theaters, radios, and concert halls?

Who can tell me where I can find this magic radio? The one I own doesn't provide images. Also, the poor dear! He keeps wandering into porno theaters and ordering smutty PayPerView and buying tickets to dirty stage shows and tuning his magic radio to the naughty sports station! Why doesn't he open a sefer instead?

The images, language, and messages benumb us. We become calloused. We become inured.

Sure, if like the writer, you spend all your time searching for pornographic billboards and radio programs you're going to eventually get a little jaded.

Happily, us ordinary folks aren't busy looking for it with every waking breath. And if you're not actively seeking it out, porn can be pretty hard to find. I've been online today for several hours, and not one salacious website has spontaneously appeared on my screen.

In doing so, we make the mistake of also becoming accepting of this pornographic tsunami. Oh, of course not “accepting” in the sense of thinking any of this is good. But we become accepting in that we simply allow it to continue in our world, viewing it as the necessary backdrop of our lives.

In doing so, we fail to take account of the damage it does to us and, more importantly, our children.

How does this generation protect itself from this onslaught?

We'll pause to note that no real evidence of any onslaught has been provided.

God’s call for us to be holy is an eternal call. It is as immediate a call today for us as it was to the Hebrews in the desert of Sinai. Holiness must be protected in order to preserve its spiritual essence. While it must be hidden and protected, our teaching is clear that creation is good. We are not to remove ourselves from the world. We must function in the world. We must engage the world.

If we are to be holy, that must mean that holiness also needs to function in the world.

But, in a very deep sense, it can never be of the world.

Those who try to compromise holiness, to fail to see the eternality of the command, do lasting damage to themselves and to the Jewish people. There is no place where the challenge of kedusha is more at risk than when it comes to sexual behavior.

There is no more self-serving 

Heh. Self serving

or hurtful excuse for the lack of kedusha than the excuse that it is “for mental health”. That is, for sexual health. Imagine, rationalizing deviant behavior, countering Torah teaching, for a positive reason! The world has been turned upside down!

This is where the article fails in fundamental way. Rather then provide us with any sources that confirm that female masturbation is forbidden by Jewish law the writer simply declares it deviant. And rather than provide any arguments in support of those sources, he chooses to just shriek about it. While our writer may have abdicated his obligation to persuade or convince, he does perform an admirable imitation of the preacher's wife from The Simpsons.

The Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance has taken hold of God’s divine declaration and rendered it a nullity. By aggressively championing sexual behavior – not just knowledge that a wife might use to benefit the sanctity and joy of marriage – JOFA stands opposed to the call to kedoshim tiheyu.

If Cross Currents wasn't wearing a hard-on for JOFA they might have written that sentence any number of different ways. For example:

  • The Haredi Community of Jerusalem has taken hold of God’s divine declaration and rendered it a nullity. By rioting in the street and assaulting Jewish policeman the HCoJ stands opposed to the call to kedoshim tiheyu
  • The Satmar Community of Kirya Joel has taken hold of God’s divine declaration and rendered it a nullity. By coddeling and protecting pedeophiles the SCoKJ stands opposed to the call to kedoshim tiheyu.

But Cross Currents doesn't write this way. Smashing liberalism is their one and only reason for existence. A bearded phony who behaves obscenely has nothing to fear from the self-appointed mesorah guardians at Cross Currents.

As reported in Lilith.org by Susan Schneider, JOFA is committed to “explicit and liberating sex education.” Interesting that sex education would be considered “liberating” when it was God’s liberation of the Children of Israel from Egypt to led to the command for us to be holy.

Have we fallen so far?

Yes, our ability to use words correctly, and in a variety of semantic senses is just one more example of our moral decline! Down with deviant synonyms! Take your slutty homonyms backs to Gomorrah, you gutter dwelling pervert!

In the article, Ms. Schneider writes, “Bat Sheva Marcus, a sex educator, has a new tool for enlightening not just the Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox women who are the base of her clinical practice, but the rest of the human race as well. She is the lively and genial — and often funny — co-host and resident sexuality expert for a new podcast series, ‘The Joy of Text,’ a forum for rabbinic and psychological perspectives on sexual behavior, from masturbation before (and during) marriage, to the use of sex toys, to whether fantasy can be a religiously approved aspect of sexual behavior. One such podcast which was recorded live at LimmudNY recently featured Marcus in conversation with Miryam Kabakov, author of the lesbian anthology “Keep Your Wives Away from Them: Orthodox Women, Unorthodox Desires”. In another segment, Marcus and her co-host, Rabbi Dov Linzer, answered a listener’s question about whether it’s permissible to “talk dirty.” Earlier episodes discussed premarital condom use and “sneaking out to the mikveh.”

Our writer seems to taking an awfully close look at JOFA's dark sexual underbelly. He's read their articles, and heard more than a few of their filthiest podcasts. I'm sure all this is being done for the article plus research and/or preserving the Mesorah, so let's applaud the little eager beaver's selfless, and possibly self-abusing, dedication.

I have quoted here verbatim because I don’t know that I could have found words to come close to capture how disturbing this all is.

Yes, you're bad with words. Which is why your article is basically one long whine, with no arguments or sources. About the only details you provide relate to the content of the scores of sexually descriptive podcasts you've been hearing.

Bat Sheva Marcus is, after all, a woman whose doctoral dissertation in human sexuality was on women and vibrator use!

Good heavens! In Donald Trump's America!

She takes great pride in telling high school students in Jewish day schools to intimately examine their bodies in a mirror and telling them to find the most pleasurable way to masturbate!

Oh My God! Note, I am not saying OMG because I think its terrible for a woman to teach other women about women things. I am saying OMG because I can't believe the moron who wrote this article thinks writing a sensationalist sentences passes for an argument. Again and again he begs the question (in the old fashioned sense) by simply asserting what he's should instead be demonstrating. We're more than half-way done and he still can't be bothered to give us even a single reason to oppose female masturbation. He just don't like it, and he can't believe people are talking about it for non-mesorah saving purposes.

Could anyone stand not before a mirror but before any of our rabbis and sages – let alone God – and convincingly explain how these animalistic teachings conform with kedoshim tiheyu?

Maybe not. Maybe yes. But that's not the point. You're against it. Tell us why. Don't skip that part!

Ramban teaches us that the concept of holiness is not limited to the observance of any particular category of commandments. To be holy is not to adhere only to the letter of the law but to embrace the fullness of holiness. In the words of our Sages, not only by refraining from what is expressively forbidden but from too much of what is permitted! How could JOFA answer that admonition?

By pointing at all the fat stomachs and all the big Jewish houses. In short, we are a self-indulgent people. We're gluttonous and greedy, and no one Rabbinic blinks. Why don't we say a few angry words about those bad habits before penning a complaint about female lust.

But is this screed really about female lust? ? The lack of sources suggest an agenda, as does the gratuitous mention of JOFA. Then, right at the end, we have this:

On whose book shelf of good and sacred books would “The Joy of Text” reside? Not on the shelves of those who would answer God’s call to holiness. Not to those who would heed JOFA’s vicious attacks and condemnations of a New Jersey Orthodox rabbi for openly speaking out about lifestyles that have the potential to lead all to what is decidedly not holy.

Yup. It seems this whole thing was about Pruz. JOFA took a shot at him, so here comes the Pruz brigade doing anything it can to throw some mud at people who have rightly and correctly criticized him for being a rape apologist. Terrible work guys. If you hadn't shown your hand at the end we never would have caught on to your real purpose.

Monday, April 18, 2016

Gordimer's defense of Pruzansky is as awful as you expected


Big weekend for Pruz-watchers, with both Gordimer and the RCA publishing statements in his defense.

First, le'ts deal with Gordimer and his despicable example of wagon-circling. His full-throated defense appeared on Cross Currents -a blog that is always first in line when a child molester, misogynists or rape apologist needs some help.

Helping a child abuser: 
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2006/04/valis-quote-of-day.html
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2008/11/menken-dissembles.html

Helping an adulterer
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2006/11/cross-currents-grosser-than-usual.html

Promoting mysoginy
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2011/08/cross-currents-and-yaakov-menken-show.html
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2011/08/our-friends-at-cross-currents-ushered.html

Helping an Anti-Semite
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2005/06/beating-dead-katz.html

Partial list of unsavory characters Cross Currents has assisted.
To which, or course, we can now add Steve Pruzansky.

We start our fisk of Gordimer with the title:

The Cowardly Smear Campaign Against Rabbi Pruzansky

Pruzansky is definitely facing a campaign, but why is the campaign against Pruzansky any more cowardly then the campaign against women or the campaign against Open Orthodoxy being led by Gordimer? And why is the Pruzansky campaign a "smear campaign"? All we did was publicize material written by Pruzansky. Is it smearing someone to republish his own ideas?

I am not defending the substance of his essays (here and here). For all I know, he could be dead wrong on every point, even though his presentation was based on studies and analyses – but they could be wrong as well.

As you'll see, Gordimer's defense exists in an alternative dimension of reality. The first clue that this is true is the assertion that Pruzansky's anti-woman screed was based on  studies and analyses" when in reality it was based on misinformation and slut-shaming he likely saw on a crappy right-wing website. 

Rabbi Steven Pruzansky’s recent writings about abstinence versus social permissiveness and promiscuity

Euphemism of the year!

...may have been worthy of a healthy rebuttal – I have no idea – 

Why don't you have any idea? If you're defending him, surely you've read the article in question.... No response? No opinion? You seem to have plenty of opinions about the ideas expressed by OO Rabbis. Why are you all Mr. I have No Idea when its your pal Pruzansky who is being questioned?

but what emerged instead was a hateful and shameful campaign of character assassination against Rabbi Pruzansky. Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance (JOFA) and its allies have, rather than address the substance of Rabbi Pruzansky’s essays, conducted an ugly smear crusade aimed at excluding him from community events, expelling him from the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), and even firing him from his congregation.

Meanwhile Gordimer, himself, has been running "an ugly smear crusade aimed at excluding" Open Orthodox Rabbis from rabbinic organizations and pulpit positions. Note the hypocrisy. If you think Pruzansky's ideas are bad, you can't touch him - and if you try, its a COWARDLY SMEAR CAMPAIGN. On the other hand, if your ideas are offensive to Gordimer, its perfectly OK for him to run you out of town.

The opposition to Rabbi Pruzansky’s recent essays has been dominated by toxic rhetoric; attempted rebuttals of the essays that did touch upon the substance were so loaded with insults (and distortions – please read the essays) that they overshadowed whatever material points were being argued. Some snippets:

Naturally, he shares only snippets, and the snippets he chooses to share are largely taken out of context, and not representative of the very solid, very learned, and, in some cases, very polite, essays that have been published in opposition to  Pruzansky's horrible piece.   

Rabbi Pruzansky’s essays were written in a moderate tone

Remember what I said about Gordimer dwelling in an alternate reality? Moderate tone? And what about the snide and condescending replies Pruzansky has given to his critics? He says they are , 'illiterate' 'borderline delusional', and 'shrieking feminists', among other choice terms.

At this point Gordimer detours into an attack on JOFA (they are just like Trump, see?) and a contributor to PORAT. We'll re-join him at the end

Agree with him or not, Rabbi Pruzansky is a man who has been unafraid to speak out.

Not a virtue. Sometimes, you need to be smart enough to keep your mouth shut. Especially when your ideas are as mean spirited and dumb as the ideas expressed by Pruzansky.

He backs up his writings with evidence and argues on the substance.

No he doesn't. He writes with a snide and obnoxious tones. He makes claims, with no back up. Often the "evidence" he supplies is stuff he invented or distorted. I've been documenting this behavior for years, and the full collection of my many rebuttals to Pruzansky;s nonsense can be found here.

He is a leader and a scholar. 

Why would you call him a scholar? Based on what?

A leader whom one can choose not to follow, and a scholar with whom one has the right to robustly disagree. But a leader and a scholar he is without question. The Orthodox community needs to cultivate more such rabbinic leaders and scholars, rather than assassinating them.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree. We need to assassinate, rather then cultivate,  rabbis who are misogynistic and mean-spirited and get their data, and, indeed, many of their arguments, from the Sean Hannity show.