Sunday, June 01, 2008
Slippery Slope Stupidity
Akiva:
See, you have to make up your mind. Either the government can set standards, or it can't. If it can't, NAMBLA is ok, sibling relationships are ok, mixed-species is ok, multiple-relationships are ok, how about slavery? Basically whatever anyone consents to, right? Oh, and who decides what the "age of consent" is? Why not...12, or 8. Does the ability to be able to function sexually indicate ability to consent? (Why not?)Oh I'm being silly, one of those "slippery slope" people, and that's just silly. But so is every argument for SSM. If the gender of the people don't matter, why does the number, or age, or familial relationship (or species)?This might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. The reason why SSMs don't lead inevitably to NAMBLA is because legalizing SSMs doesn't also legalize child abuse. Just because we've said that the sate can't deny homosexuals the respect, dignity and financial benefits of "marriage", doesn't mean it also can't protect the safety of children! And how exactly does permitting marriage also permit slavery? The two things are categorically different. When someone is made into a slave, he is harmed in material ways. Unless you've got quite a dim view of matrimony, you can't say that making someone your wife is in any way the same.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Bit of housekeeping
Elsewhere that yarmulke who wears a lawyer and one of his very biased, anti-dovbear cronies had something of a snickerfest at my expense. [At his blog; find it yourself.] They found it oh-so-hilarious that I wrote: It has already been decided that the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right that no court and no vote can take away.
I don't know why this gave them the giggles, but I'd like to set the record straight: The courts DO recognize that that certain rights are inalienable, and they have said that the "pursuit of happiness" is one of them. (See Loving v. Virginia and Meyer v. Nebraska two landmark cases that guaranteed, among other things, a right to the pursuit of happiness.)
(Not incidentally, this is why I remain convinced that the California court got it exactly right when they ruled in favor of SSMs. Loving affirmed that "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." When homosexuals are denied this "vital personal right" they are also unfairly denied the dignity, respect and financial benefits that come with it. The court, in this case, didn't act as a"super legislature." They didn't create a new right. They simply said "We agree that this right belongs to you; it has always belonged to you; and the legislature acted improperly when they stripped it from you." This is the proper role of a court, and it is what protects minorities from the bigotry and tyranny of the electorate.) (What protects us from the bigotry and tyranny of unelected judges? Our power to appoint, and our power to impeach.)
I don't know why this gave them the giggles, but I'd like to set the record straight: The courts DO recognize that that certain rights are inalienable, and they have said that the "pursuit of happiness" is one of them. (See Loving v. Virginia and Meyer v. Nebraska two landmark cases that guaranteed, among other things, a right to the pursuit of happiness.)
(Not incidentally, this is why I remain convinced that the California court got it exactly right when they ruled in favor of SSMs. Loving affirmed that "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." When homosexuals are denied this "vital personal right" they are also unfairly denied the dignity, respect and financial benefits that come with it. The court, in this case, didn't act as a"super legislature." They didn't create a new right. They simply said "We agree that this right belongs to you; it has always belonged to you; and the legislature acted improperly when they stripped it from you." This is the proper role of a court, and it is what protects minorities from the bigotry and tyranny of the electorate.) (What protects us from the bigotry and tyranny of unelected judges? Our power to appoint, and our power to impeach.)
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Today's post in favor of SSMs, freedom, and the American way.
Richard Just writing in Justice Delivered says:
...it's the normative objections to the California decision that bother me most--the idea put forward by some commentators that winning gay marriage through the courts rather than through the legislative process is somehow a form of cheating. Is progress in a democracy somehow purer or more legitimate if it does not involve the judiciary? I can understand the appeal of this idea: Let the voters arrive at a consensus themselves; let the politicians do the voters' bidding; this is how democracy is supposed to work--end of story. But this is not how democracy works, at least not our democracy. Progress does not always happen perfectly in our country, and, if we demand that progress only happen in certain ways, we set ourselves up for a situation in which progress cannot happen at all. Most dramatic leaps forward in our country's history--and the gay rights revolution is one such leap--have happened through a combination of forces. They have neither been imposed solely from above nor driven solely from below. They have generally involved the work of courts, of legislators, of governors, and of faceless bureaucrats. Because their jobs carry different responsibilities, these actors rarely pull in precisely the same direction, and, on certain questions, some may rightly prove more influential than others. But to argue that judges have no role to play in one of the key issues of our time-- to pretend that state constitutions, not to mention centuries of accumulated legal precedent, have nothing to say on the question of whether it is permissible for government to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens-- defies any rational understanding of the way a constitutional democracy is supposed to work.
The California Supreme Court did not rule in a vacuum. For one thing, its decision comes in the midst of a generation-long shift in the way Americans view homosexuality. What was once viewed as a mental disorder is today widely recognized as a normal human attribute. More concretely, the court did not act in a political vacuum. The legislature has twice passed bills to legalize gay marriage, and one of the state's largest cities had been performing gay marriages before the courts ordered it to stop. What the California Supreme Court was doing last week was not judicial imperialism. It was simply taking a moral consensus that is clearly emerging, and applying it to the state's constitution.
Indeed, if you read the 120-page-plus decision itself, you can see the powerful and rather simple thinking behind what the court did. Critics have suggested that the decision is overly expansive or poorly reasoned. In fact, its logic is relatively straightforward. First, the court established that an implicit right to marry has long been recognized in California law. Then it established that inherent in this right to marry is a right to the dignity and respect that comes with marriage--a right that California's "domestic partnership" law could not fully afford. The court then distinguished between two standards of judicial review: a "rational basis" standard, which allows the court to strike down a measure only if it serves no legitimate purpose; and a "strict scrutiny" standard, which the court applies to laws concerning "suspect classifications," such as race and gender, and which allows the court to strike down a measure if the state cannot show that it is needed to achieve a compelling interest. Does sexual orientation constitute a suspect classification? It is not exactly analogous to race or gender, but it is comparable in two key respects: First, people do not choose to be gay, just as people do not choose to be black or female. And second, discrimination against gays and lesbians has been both widespread and institutional throughout American history. None of this should be controversial, and it is exactly what the court concluded. Having established that sexual orientation constitutes a suspect classification and is therefore subject to strict scrutiny, it was relatively easy for the court to conclude that the state had no compelling interest in excluding gays and lesbians from marriage. After all, the supposition that denying marriage rights to gays will somehow preserve the institution's dignity for everyone else is hardly a persuasive argument.
Anyone who has ever looked at a poll on gay issues that disaggregates the responses by age knows how the story of gay marriage is going to end. What no one knows is when it is going to end. Had the California Supreme Court let the state's political process grind forward--its obligation to interpret the state's constitution be damned--how long would it have taken for the state's gays and lesbians to win their marriage rights? Perhaps it would have taken only a year. But what if it had taken ten years? Or even a generation? Meanwhile, stuck waiting patiently would have been the million-plus gay and lesbian Californians who want to live as first-class citizens, not in some theoretical, distant day to come, when the maddeningly slow work of legislators and governors finally delivers the outcome via means that we might regard as ever so slightly more democratic--but now, right now.
If courts, by interpreting state or federal constitutions in light of the country's changing mores on homosexuality, can hasten the day when gays and lesbians throughout the country fully enjoy the fundamental rights they are owed, then I, for one, am not going to quibble. Yes, if I were drawing things up from scratch, I might marginally prefer to have gay marriage enacted by legislatures, not by courts. But history is not drawn up from scratch. And, sometimes, waiting for the perfect process means waiting much too long.
...it's the normative objections to the California decision that bother me most--the idea put forward by some commentators that winning gay marriage through the courts rather than through the legislative process is somehow a form of cheating. Is progress in a democracy somehow purer or more legitimate if it does not involve the judiciary? I can understand the appeal of this idea: Let the voters arrive at a consensus themselves; let the politicians do the voters' bidding; this is how democracy is supposed to work--end of story. But this is not how democracy works, at least not our democracy. Progress does not always happen perfectly in our country, and, if we demand that progress only happen in certain ways, we set ourselves up for a situation in which progress cannot happen at all. Most dramatic leaps forward in our country's history--and the gay rights revolution is one such leap--have happened through a combination of forces. They have neither been imposed solely from above nor driven solely from below. They have generally involved the work of courts, of legislators, of governors, and of faceless bureaucrats. Because their jobs carry different responsibilities, these actors rarely pull in precisely the same direction, and, on certain questions, some may rightly prove more influential than others. But to argue that judges have no role to play in one of the key issues of our time-- to pretend that state constitutions, not to mention centuries of accumulated legal precedent, have nothing to say on the question of whether it is permissible for government to treat gays and lesbians as second-class citizens-- defies any rational understanding of the way a constitutional democracy is supposed to work.
The California Supreme Court did not rule in a vacuum. For one thing, its decision comes in the midst of a generation-long shift in the way Americans view homosexuality. What was once viewed as a mental disorder is today widely recognized as a normal human attribute. More concretely, the court did not act in a political vacuum. The legislature has twice passed bills to legalize gay marriage, and one of the state's largest cities had been performing gay marriages before the courts ordered it to stop. What the California Supreme Court was doing last week was not judicial imperialism. It was simply taking a moral consensus that is clearly emerging, and applying it to the state's constitution.
Indeed, if you read the 120-page-plus decision itself, you can see the powerful and rather simple thinking behind what the court did. Critics have suggested that the decision is overly expansive or poorly reasoned. In fact, its logic is relatively straightforward. First, the court established that an implicit right to marry has long been recognized in California law. Then it established that inherent in this right to marry is a right to the dignity and respect that comes with marriage--a right that California's "domestic partnership" law could not fully afford. The court then distinguished between two standards of judicial review: a "rational basis" standard, which allows the court to strike down a measure only if it serves no legitimate purpose; and a "strict scrutiny" standard, which the court applies to laws concerning "suspect classifications," such as race and gender, and which allows the court to strike down a measure if the state cannot show that it is needed to achieve a compelling interest. Does sexual orientation constitute a suspect classification? It is not exactly analogous to race or gender, but it is comparable in two key respects: First, people do not choose to be gay, just as people do not choose to be black or female. And second, discrimination against gays and lesbians has been both widespread and institutional throughout American history. None of this should be controversial, and it is exactly what the court concluded. Having established that sexual orientation constitutes a suspect classification and is therefore subject to strict scrutiny, it was relatively easy for the court to conclude that the state had no compelling interest in excluding gays and lesbians from marriage. After all, the supposition that denying marriage rights to gays will somehow preserve the institution's dignity for everyone else is hardly a persuasive argument.
Anyone who has ever looked at a poll on gay issues that disaggregates the responses by age knows how the story of gay marriage is going to end. What no one knows is when it is going to end. Had the California Supreme Court let the state's political process grind forward--its obligation to interpret the state's constitution be damned--how long would it have taken for the state's gays and lesbians to win their marriage rights? Perhaps it would have taken only a year. But what if it had taken ten years? Or even a generation? Meanwhile, stuck waiting patiently would have been the million-plus gay and lesbian Californians who want to live as first-class citizens, not in some theoretical, distant day to come, when the maddeningly slow work of legislators and governors finally delivers the outcome via means that we might regard as ever so slightly more democratic--but now, right now.
If courts, by interpreting state or federal constitutions in light of the country's changing mores on homosexuality, can hasten the day when gays and lesbians throughout the country fully enjoy the fundamental rights they are owed, then I, for one, am not going to quibble. Yes, if I were drawing things up from scratch, I might marginally prefer to have gay marriage enacted by legislatures, not by courts. But history is not drawn up from scratch. And, sometimes, waiting for the perfect process means waiting much too long.
More obnoxious Jews on the far right of OJ
Rubashkin, one of the largest glatt packing plants, is managed/owned/operated by a bunch of unethical lawbreakers who hire illegal aliens, and have been charged with using inhumane methods of slaughter, and of being unsanitary, unsafe, and unfair to its employees. There are also allegations that the method of shchita used at the plant is not halachic.
In response, a prominent Washington D.C. Rabbi has publicly asked his local Vadd to investigate the matter, and to provide assurances that the meat Rubashkin sells is kosher.
To normal people this is a reasonable - even responsible -request. But not to the lovely people who read and write at Circus Tent, where the Rabbi's point and argument are being ignored, and he is instead being subjected to the lowest and most vile sorts of ad hom attacks. And why? Because he's clean shaven. (Yes, like the Ramchal who also wore no beard ---though don't hold your breath waiting for these phonies to throw out their mesilas yesharim.)
This is another example of tribalism. It's Kolko all over again. As the pile of evidence against that reprehensible pedophile was growing higher and higher we heard from men who dress like him, and from men who talk like him, who all urged us to to ignore the facts, who told us the case against Kolko was the work of the Jew-hating media. They were wrong, but they helped a monster escape justice. Now the Lubovs at Agriprocessors are on the hot seat, so of course the Lubovs at Circus Tent are running interference. Don't even consider the evidence, they say. Ignore the facts. There's nothing to see here. After all the arguments are being made by a Modern Orthodox Rabbi.
In response, a prominent Washington D.C. Rabbi has publicly asked his local Vadd to investigate the matter, and to provide assurances that the meat Rubashkin sells is kosher.
To normal people this is a reasonable - even responsible -request. But not to the lovely people who read and write at Circus Tent, where the Rabbi's point and argument are being ignored, and he is instead being subjected to the lowest and most vile sorts of ad hom attacks. And why? Because he's clean shaven. (Yes, like the Ramchal who also wore no beard ---though don't hold your breath waiting for these phonies to throw out their mesilas yesharim.)
This is another example of tribalism. It's Kolko all over again. As the pile of evidence against that reprehensible pedophile was growing higher and higher we heard from men who dress like him, and from men who talk like him, who all urged us to to ignore the facts, who told us the case against Kolko was the work of the Jew-hating media. They were wrong, but they helped a monster escape justice. Now the Lubovs at Agriprocessors are on the hot seat, so of course the Lubovs at Circus Tent are running interference. Don't even consider the evidence, they say. Ignore the facts. There's nothing to see here. After all the arguments are being made by a Modern Orthodox Rabbi.
mehadrin buses and National Religious passivity
A Guest Post by Rafi G.
(cross posted from LII)
Rav Yuval Sherlo, the Rosh Yeshiva of the Hesder Yeshiva of Petach Tikva and a rising, though sometimes controversial, star in the National Religious Rabbinate weighed in with interesting thoughts on two topics.
(cross posted from LII)
Rav Yuval Sherlo, the Rosh Yeshiva of the Hesder Yeshiva of Petach Tikva and a rising, though sometimes controversial, star in the National Religious Rabbinate weighed in with interesting thoughts on two topics.
- On the topic of the recent geirus controversy - Rav Sherlo wrote a column in which he lays the blame completely on the National Religious public.He wrote that because the National Religious leadership removed itself from the public leadership, by declaring in advance that it would sit in the opposition and not join the Olmert government, it removed itself from being in position to lead rabbinicly. The decision was legitimate, but it has ramifications. By staying in the opposition, it means that its Rabbis would lose out the appointments to the Chief Rabbinate and as city Rabbis. the Haredim win those positions now because their parties are in the right positions.
Also, the National Religious Rabbinate never held a serious discussion to come up with Halachic methods, that are acceptable lechatchila, for conversions, converts and how to deal with them. What is considered "acceptance of mitzvos", how much follow up there must be, how much ibvestigation must be conducted to reveal deception, and the like. Because they have not determined their positions on these matters, the National Religious public should be looking inward and should blame themselves. Until they came up with their own halachically acceptable decisions and positions, they cannot spend their time blaming others [i.e. the Haredim].
Rav Sherlo says that the National Religious should leave the Haredim alone, not lay blame at their feet for the situation, not complain about the Haredim. Rather, they should be working to fix the problem. They should be formulating positions and working on their own plans. When the time comes, he says, "We will return and will take the responsibility for those Torah issues, and that will strengthen the Israeli nation in the ways of halacha. - Rav Sherlo was asked for a psak by a female correspondent how she hsould relate to the phenomenon of Mehadrin buses.
She writes that the bus she takes to work is a mehadrin bus. It is not clear whether Egged has a right to make such a segregation, and the Supreme Court has yet to rule on the situation in the case pending before it. She writes that she personally has a problem with it. Her problem is two-fold:
1. the idea of it is degrading to her and the extremism involved distrubs her.
2. She is prone to motion sickness and sitting in the back, nearer to the engine, increases her discomfort.
So she asks Rav Sherlo what his position on these buses is, does she have to respect the religious extremism of others and sit in the back even though it increases her discomfort, if the back of the bus is full but there are seats available in the front half - can she sit there, and is there a difference for a pregnant or older woman?
Rav Sherlo responds that he belives there is great importance in keeping the public forum a place that is tzanua, not having immodest advertising signs up for example, and that we should live with tznius. But, Rav Sherlo writes, "I am against the mehadrin buses. These buses are mehadrin in shaming other people. in dealing with tznius in an immodest fashion, and more." Rav Sherlo continues that he thinks "that a person should not do it specifically, just to oppose it, and get on the bus in the front. One does not need to start a war over this, at this point. But if you are doing it not just to oppose - "Davka" - but for a purpose, such as your motion sickness, or when there are no available seats in the back, then you can sit wherever you want. And those who change things, they have the lower hand" .
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
I aim to please
Child Ish Behavior writes:
Shalom,
I am looking for a bigger audience for my Narishkiet.Perhaps you can give my blog a look and blogroll it. http://collectivisticindividualism.blogspot.com/
Much obliged,
Child Ish Behavior
some stuff thats not too bad.
http://collectivisticindividualism.blogspot.com/2008/05/at-gates-of.html
http://collectivisticindividualism.blogspot.com/2008/03/if-i-had-million-dollars.html
http://collectivisticindividualism.blogspot.com/2008/05/who-can-believe.html
Looks like those activist judges got it right
Californians support gay marriage: A majority of registered Californian voters oppose changing the constitution of the most populous U.S. state to bar gays from marrying, according to poll released on Wednesday.
Though I am pleased to see that the people of California, for all their faults, aren't gay-hating whack-jobs, I don't think this question should be decided by the people. Some rights are inalienable. I don't need the people to affirm my right to life and liberty, and the gay citizens of this country don't need permission to "pursue happiness" when the happiness they wish to pursue harms no one. When there are no victims, the state must remain neutral on questions of theology and morality. The fact that you think God hates gays, doesn't authorize you to impose that belief on anyone who disagrees. You don't have any evidence. You might be wrong. And the fact that you might be wrong, requires you to be silent on the subject, in part because your own silence helps to ensure that your own strange proclivities will be met with the same sort of polite indifference.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
SwiftBoat Watch!
YeshivaWorld is a disgrace. They've printed Obama's Auschwitz error, but not the obvious, and self-evidently true explanation. He was talking about his great-uncle, not his uncle, and because he's a black man of Kenyan descent, and not a Jew of Eastern European descent, he confused the names of the death camps. Not the biggest deal. How many of you can recite any of the facts of Kenyan history?
Unfortunately, the real story here isn't Obama's mistake, but the venality of the Republicans who are attempting to exploit what even your more intelligent barn-yard animals understand was a benign error. We shouldn't be surprised. We saw what the Swift-boat liars did to poor John Kerry, the war hero. We saw how poor Al Gore got himself roasted alive for providing an awkwardly phrased, yet factually correct account of his role in the development of the Internet. [Note to Fox News addicts: He never claimed to have "invented" anything.] And now its Obama's turn. Can't Republicans, for once, try to win a presidential election without using lies to demolish their opponents?
Unfortunately, the real story here isn't Obama's mistake, but the venality of the Republicans who are attempting to exploit what even your more intelligent barn-yard animals understand was a benign error. We shouldn't be surprised. We saw what the Swift-boat liars did to poor John Kerry, the war hero. We saw how poor Al Gore got himself roasted alive for providing an awkwardly phrased, yet factually correct account of his role in the development of the Internet. [Note to Fox News addicts: He never claimed to have "invented" anything.] And now its Obama's turn. Can't Republicans, for once, try to win a presidential election without using lies to demolish their opponents?
Am I a Zionist?
Yourfavoriteblogger was invited to join 60 other bloggers who are posting their reflections and perspectives on Israel at Happy Birthday Israel: 60 Posts in 60 Days.
My entry was published today. Read it here
My entry was published today. Read it here
Jewish Voters and Barack Obama
From the Times letter column
Published: May 27, 2008
To the Editor:
Obama Asks Jewish Voters to Judge Him on His Policies (May 23, 2008) Re “As Obama Heads to Florida, Many of Its Jews Have Doubts” (front page, May 22):
As a 60-plus Jewish resident of Boca Raton, Fla., who is deeply committed to Israel, I refuse to be identified and pigeonholed with all the people who fit my demographic profile and whom you quoted in your article about Jewish voters in Florida.
Contrary to what your readers might gather from your article, we are not a homogeneous bloc. This presidential campaign has been exciting and has energized so many people, not only because we are fed up with the mess created by the Bush administration, but also because it has shown that intelligence and leadership ability transcend race and gender.
It is high time that the media stop contributing to all the negative stereotypes. There are so many of us who care profoundly about Israel and just as much about America. We want to see the United States restored to a position of leadership and respect worldwide.
Myriam Weinstein
Boca Raton, Fla., May 22, 2008
•
To the Editor:
The distinction between older Jews and younger Jews, in terms of their views of Barack Obama, tells only half of the story.
As a 55-year-old Jewish woman, I support Mr. Obama, and have given little thought to his race (or Hillary Rodham Clinton’s gender). The fact is that baby boomer Jews — and younger — have had a great deal of experience working with and socializing with African-American professionals, an experience that older Jews may not have shared.
Truth be told, many of us baby boomers do not notice race or gender — what we notice is class. We are comfortable with Mr. Obama because he went to good schools, because he is an intellectual, because, despite humble beginnings, like many Jews of our generation, he is now part of the professional class, living the American Dream, sending his children to the best schools, camp, lessons and so on.
In this important way, we recognize him — he is like us. Does that mean that we all support him? Not necessarily, but if not, it is not because of his race.
Ellyn S. Roth
New York, May 22, 2008
•
To the Editor:
The community of older Jewish voters who were alive during World War II should understand better than any other group of voters the danger of choosing leaders based on ethnic origin and skin color, instead of the qualifications and policies of the candidates.
Noel E. Hanf
Guilford, Conn., May 22, 2008
Published: May 27, 2008
To the Editor:
Obama Asks Jewish Voters to Judge Him on His Policies (May 23, 2008) Re “As Obama Heads to Florida, Many of Its Jews Have Doubts” (front page, May 22):
As a 60-plus Jewish resident of Boca Raton, Fla., who is deeply committed to Israel, I refuse to be identified and pigeonholed with all the people who fit my demographic profile and whom you quoted in your article about Jewish voters in Florida.
Contrary to what your readers might gather from your article, we are not a homogeneous bloc. This presidential campaign has been exciting and has energized so many people, not only because we are fed up with the mess created by the Bush administration, but also because it has shown that intelligence and leadership ability transcend race and gender.
It is high time that the media stop contributing to all the negative stereotypes. There are so many of us who care profoundly about Israel and just as much about America. We want to see the United States restored to a position of leadership and respect worldwide.
Myriam Weinstein
Boca Raton, Fla., May 22, 2008
•
To the Editor:
The distinction between older Jews and younger Jews, in terms of their views of Barack Obama, tells only half of the story.
As a 55-year-old Jewish woman, I support Mr. Obama, and have given little thought to his race (or Hillary Rodham Clinton’s gender). The fact is that baby boomer Jews — and younger — have had a great deal of experience working with and socializing with African-American professionals, an experience that older Jews may not have shared.
Truth be told, many of us baby boomers do not notice race or gender — what we notice is class. We are comfortable with Mr. Obama because he went to good schools, because he is an intellectual, because, despite humble beginnings, like many Jews of our generation, he is now part of the professional class, living the American Dream, sending his children to the best schools, camp, lessons and so on.
In this important way, we recognize him — he is like us. Does that mean that we all support him? Not necessarily, but if not, it is not because of his race.
Ellyn S. Roth
New York, May 22, 2008
•
To the Editor:
The community of older Jewish voters who were alive during World War II should understand better than any other group of voters the danger of choosing leaders based on ethnic origin and skin color, instead of the qualifications and policies of the candidates.
Noel E. Hanf
Guilford, Conn., May 22, 2008
the inaccuracies of a translation
A Guest Post by Rafi G.
It is interesting to note how different news media translate the same Hebrew word to different English words, and how that can change the tone of the article.
Yesterday PM Olmert said that only those who are "Hazui" can still believe in the concept of a "Greater Israel".
"Hazui" is a Hebrew word that seems difficult to translate precisely. My Babylon translation software comes up with no suggested translation for the word when I submit it for translation.
A sampling of how the various media outlets translated it:
Haaretz: those who hallucinate
Ynet : delusinoal fantisists
JPost: bizzare people
This goes to show you that translations need to be taken with a grain of salt. The words the translator uses have been selected not necessarily for their accuracy, rather to convey a certain message.
This is why the Septuagint was considered such a tragedy. Until then the Torah had not been translated, and by setting a precedent, it was opening a door for corruptible translations to be entered into our libraries.
Whenever possible - read from the original in the original language. Even if the translator had the best of intentions, it is prone to inaccuracies just because it is not always possible to get an exact translation.
It is interesting to note how different news media translate the same Hebrew word to different English words, and how that can change the tone of the article.
Yesterday PM Olmert said that only those who are "Hazui" can still believe in the concept of a "Greater Israel".
"Hazui" is a Hebrew word that seems difficult to translate precisely. My Babylon translation software comes up with no suggested translation for the word when I submit it for translation.
A sampling of how the various media outlets translated it:
Haaretz: those who hallucinate
Ynet : delusinoal fantisists
JPost: bizzare people
This goes to show you that translations need to be taken with a grain of salt. The words the translator uses have been selected not necessarily for their accuracy, rather to convey a certain message.
This is why the Septuagint was considered such a tragedy. Until then the Torah had not been translated, and by setting a precedent, it was opening a door for corruptible translations to be entered into our libraries.
Whenever possible - read from the original in the original language. Even if the translator had the best of intentions, it is prone to inaccuracies just because it is not always possible to get an exact translation.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Magic and Mitzvoth
Sometimes, I wonder if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi might be jealous.
He was the chief editor of the Mishna, after all, the first great code of Jewish law, a code studied to this day by school children and scholars alike, while also serving as a key leader of the Jewish community during Roman times. Yet the glory -if glory is measured in songs and stories- goes to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, the man who may have written the Zohar, and is remembered, to this day, on his feast day, with bonfires and other tributes, including a pair of very long prayer poems which suggest, among other praises, that Bar Yochai was holy from the moment of his conception.
I want to win some of that glory for Yehuda HaNasi. I want celebrations in his honor, celebrations of scholarship, and for the talent for organization that made the Mishna possible. Too much is made of mysticism. Too many Jews seek redemption by dunking in Mikvahs and running to graves and miracle workers, by mumbling Pslams, or performing segulahs. A feast day for Yehuda Hanasi, one with all the accoutrements (save, of course, the hagiographies, and the extolments borrowed from Christianity that make up the Lag Bomer liturgy) might trim the boat, and redirect some of Jewish energy and attention toward the neglected idea that a Jew is redeemed through mitvoth -not through magic, mysticism, or miracles.
Original Post
He was the chief editor of the Mishna, after all, the first great code of Jewish law, a code studied to this day by school children and scholars alike, while also serving as a key leader of the Jewish community during Roman times. Yet the glory -if glory is measured in songs and stories- goes to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, the man who may have written the Zohar, and is remembered, to this day, on his feast day, with bonfires and other tributes, including a pair of very long prayer poems which suggest, among other praises, that Bar Yochai was holy from the moment of his conception.
I want to win some of that glory for Yehuda HaNasi. I want celebrations in his honor, celebrations of scholarship, and for the talent for organization that made the Mishna possible. Too much is made of mysticism. Too many Jews seek redemption by dunking in Mikvahs and running to graves and miracle workers, by mumbling Pslams, or performing segulahs. A feast day for Yehuda Hanasi, one with all the accoutrements (save, of course, the hagiographies, and the extolments borrowed from Christianity that make up the Lag Bomer liturgy) might trim the boat, and redirect some of Jewish energy and attention toward the neglected idea that a Jew is redeemed through mitvoth -not through magic, mysticism, or miracles.
Original Post
God's love is a double edged sword
A Guest Post By Rafi G.
Love. A double edged sword.
Last week we read from the Torah the portion of the threats and curses of punishments that will befall us if we do not follow Hashem and the Torah properly. So this week, we start out right away with Hashem telling Moshe to count the Israelites, with Rashi explaining it is because Hashem loves us so much that He counts us. Counting us is an expression of love.
But this love is dangerous. Moshe is then told to not count the Levite tribe. Rashi explains the reason to be because Hashem knows that all those counted will later be condemned to die in the desert and not enter the Land of Israel.
So do not count the Leviim because even though counting is an expression of love, it also is a marker for who will later be condemned to death.
So which is it? an expression of love or a sign of condemnation?
anybody have any ideas?
Love. A double edged sword.
Last week we read from the Torah the portion of the threats and curses of punishments that will befall us if we do not follow Hashem and the Torah properly. So this week, we start out right away with Hashem telling Moshe to count the Israelites, with Rashi explaining it is because Hashem loves us so much that He counts us. Counting us is an expression of love.
But this love is dangerous. Moshe is then told to not count the Levite tribe. Rashi explains the reason to be because Hashem knows that all those counted will later be condemned to die in the desert and not enter the Land of Israel.
So do not count the Leviim because even though counting is an expression of love, it also is a marker for who will later be condemned to death.
So which is it? an expression of love or a sign of condemnation?
anybody have any ideas?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)