So the RNC never Emailed...
So, neither the RNC, the DNC, the OU or the Aguda responded to my emails pointing them to this post. Okay, that's not true; the RNC sent me a "we got your email" email, and essentially told me to go play in traffic.
So this'll have to do for debate.
One "R Brand," about whom I have no other information, left me a comment that I'm going to pretend came from the RNC, because it's the best I can do, apparently, for argument.
I only changed one thing, which is to make some links out of the magazine and article R Brand mentions. You'll see it when it happens.
Ready? Go!
==========
Hi FrumDad,
Nice post. I don't agree with much of it, but you reason well. I'm not going to tackle your entire post; my response would be too long. But I do think it's worthwhile to address the "Iraq" issue. As you said yourself, election 2004 seems to be one of the most momentous events in history. Let's face it: the war on terror is more important, relatively, than the abortion issue, which has been simmering for decades.
I highly recommend that you head over to the "Commentary" website and grab an article from the September issue by Norman Podhoretz. [Ed. note: I think he means this article, which is about six times longer than my original post here and I don't think he really expects anyone to read it so much as be impressed by its heft.] As far as I'm concerned, it should be required reading for all voters. [Ed. note (that's FrumDad, if you're not paying attention): In an amazing show of magnanimity (say that ten times fast), I'll also link another Podhoretz article, "In Praise of the Bush Doctrine" for your reading pleasure.]
When you understand the Bush doctrine, you'll see that the war in Iraq is not a diversion from the War on Terror, but an intrinsic part of the plan. The Bush doctrine is basically composed of 3 parts.
First, the moral attitude: there is such a thing as good and evil. Also, America is good, while terrorists are evil. This may not come as a shock to frum Jews, but is actually quite shocking to leading "intellectuals." This was articulated in Bush's speech about the axis of evil.
Second, that terror is not the product of individual psychotics, but agents of various organizations that depend on government sponsorship. America will no longer treat terror as a crime, but act to drain the festering swamps that harbor terrorists. Afganistan was asked to hand over the Taliban, but refused. Of course, America has many instruments at its disposal - economic (Syria), diplomatic (Libya), etc. But war is an option to attack those that support terror.
Third (and I assume you won't like this), America has the right to preempt. Unfortunately, the old paradigm of deterrence means nothing to terrorists. And containment is not possible when dictators with great resources can deliver WMD to their terrorist allies. I'll admit that this is a somewhat dangerous proposition. But the realities of the War on Terror dictate its necessity.
Unfortunately, I feel that the Dems have succeeded in turning the war on Iraq into a sole "WMD issue." Nothing could be further from the truth. WMD was not the only reason for the war, and not even the major one. Iraq had an unbalanced dictator who had proved his hostile intentions (Kuwait, the Kurds, etc), and supported terrorism. Whether or not he was directly involved in 9/11 is immaterial. The world, and certainly America, is a safer place without him.
Liberals fault Bush for listening to "shady intelligence" about Iraq. Yet in literally the same breath, they demand that he take the blame for not preventing 9/11 by taking action on this same shady intelligence. Well, is the president supposed to react or not?
Bush is the only candidate with the moral clarity to win the War on Terror. Kerry will make nice with the world in the short term, and sell out our children in the long.
R. Brand
==========
I do have responses, and I really want to put them up. But if you look at the time/date stamp... well, I changed the date (per administrative notes, above) but I didn't change the time, natch?
--FD
So this'll have to do for debate.
One "R Brand," about whom I have no other information, left me a comment that I'm going to pretend came from the RNC, because it's the best I can do, apparently, for argument.
I only changed one thing, which is to make some links out of the magazine and article R Brand mentions. You'll see it when it happens.
Ready? Go!
==========
Hi FrumDad,
Nice post. I don't agree with much of it, but you reason well. I'm not going to tackle your entire post; my response would be too long. But I do think it's worthwhile to address the "Iraq" issue. As you said yourself, election 2004 seems to be one of the most momentous events in history. Let's face it: the war on terror is more important, relatively, than the abortion issue, which has been simmering for decades.
I highly recommend that you head over to the "Commentary" website and grab an article from the September issue by Norman Podhoretz. [Ed. note: I think he means this article, which is about six times longer than my original post here and I don't think he really expects anyone to read it so much as be impressed by its heft.] As far as I'm concerned, it should be required reading for all voters. [Ed. note (that's FrumDad, if you're not paying attention): In an amazing show of magnanimity (say that ten times fast), I'll also link another Podhoretz article, "In Praise of the Bush Doctrine" for your reading pleasure.]
When you understand the Bush doctrine, you'll see that the war in Iraq is not a diversion from the War on Terror, but an intrinsic part of the plan. The Bush doctrine is basically composed of 3 parts.
First, the moral attitude: there is such a thing as good and evil. Also, America is good, while terrorists are evil. This may not come as a shock to frum Jews, but is actually quite shocking to leading "intellectuals." This was articulated in Bush's speech about the axis of evil.
Second, that terror is not the product of individual psychotics, but agents of various organizations that depend on government sponsorship. America will no longer treat terror as a crime, but act to drain the festering swamps that harbor terrorists. Afganistan was asked to hand over the Taliban, but refused. Of course, America has many instruments at its disposal - economic (Syria), diplomatic (Libya), etc. But war is an option to attack those that support terror.
Third (and I assume you won't like this), America has the right to preempt. Unfortunately, the old paradigm of deterrence means nothing to terrorists. And containment is not possible when dictators with great resources can deliver WMD to their terrorist allies. I'll admit that this is a somewhat dangerous proposition. But the realities of the War on Terror dictate its necessity.
Unfortunately, I feel that the Dems have succeeded in turning the war on Iraq into a sole "WMD issue." Nothing could be further from the truth. WMD was not the only reason for the war, and not even the major one. Iraq had an unbalanced dictator who had proved his hostile intentions (Kuwait, the Kurds, etc), and supported terrorism. Whether or not he was directly involved in 9/11 is immaterial. The world, and certainly America, is a safer place without him.
Liberals fault Bush for listening to "shady intelligence" about Iraq. Yet in literally the same breath, they demand that he take the blame for not preventing 9/11 by taking action on this same shady intelligence. Well, is the president supposed to react or not?
Bush is the only candidate with the moral clarity to win the War on Terror. Kerry will make nice with the world in the short term, and sell out our children in the long.
R. Brand
==========
I do have responses, and I really want to put them up. But if you look at the time/date stamp... well, I changed the date (per administrative notes, above) but I didn't change the time, natch?
--FD
posted by Frumdad at 12:42 AM
2 Comments:
I won't go into the 'secular' arguments, because I don't disagree on the Bin Laden family or the economy.
Bush is not a saint, and he comes from very rotten stock. No argument there.
You're plain wrong on the WMD/Iraq issue. Go here
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
for the complete Duelfer report, and the key findings. There may well have been no WMD's in Iraq at the time of the invasion (although there is some question of some of them having been transported to Syria), but it is very clear that Saddam was capable of starting production and having them at his disposal within weeks or certainly months.
Watching you rationalize your stand on gay marriage or abortion would be funny if it wasn't so sad. You cannot have it both ways, be either an orthodex Jew or an atheist liberal. You should have been a lawyer, but you do not succeed in covering up a few basic points: According to Tenach, homosexuality is wrong (and I'm putting it mildly here, the word is abomination). To subsequently argue that it's wrong to give the government the power to forbid gay marriage is to turn the argument upside down. Government ALREADY decides who can marry and who cannot. If that sanity check were removed, who's to prevent the next person from wanting to marry 2 men? or 20? Or his horse? Or a child of 5 (like Mohammed did)? After all, the Government should NOT be allowed to interfere? This argument makes no sense. And it would in fact affect all laws, civil and penal.
Abortion is wrong. When you conjure up the one situation where it might conceivably be allowed, you prove nothing. Abortion in the US is used as form of contraception, and that is horrific. Abortion because of medical necessity is a rare exception, and is of course acceptable. A dishonest argument to emphasize the medically necessary abortion, while ignoring the actual 98% of all abortions, performed because people can't be bothered to use real contraceptives such as the pill or condoms or both.
And Kerry? Where Israel is concerned, Kerry has an impeccable voting record in the US senate. He says nearly all the right things, too (But then, he is to be found on nearly all sides of all issues, so there goes credibility).
Except he once had a slip of the tongue on the Fence, saying "we don't need another barrier to peace". Nice going. The Israeli response to stopping suicide bombers is to erect a fence. The US should be so restrained. And this from a man who boasts about killing people in a far away country where he had no business to begin with.
And Kerry wants to be friends with France, and Europe, and the UN. That he wants this is not a matter of debate.
Well, guess what. You CAN be a friend of these three despicable entities. You pay a price (and the price is Israel), but there you have it.
Kerry's been quoted as saying he'll put more pressure on Israel. Just what the doctor ordered. MORE pressure to do things that are BAD for Israel. Pressure from the one country that Israel has a hard time resisting.
No, people like you worry me more than Al-Zarqawi. Because YOU should have your issues and priorites straight. Because YOU sound like a reasonable man, and many will find your arguments appealing, perhaps even convincing.
When you're really just confused, and happen to have an intellect at your disposal to rationalize away your moral and religious floundering.
It's like many people want the Pope to let up on the use of condoms, because using them will prevent the spread of AIDS. First of all, if you're a Catholic, don't complain about the rules. They're 2000 years old, if you don't like them start a new religion, but don't try to change the current one. It is what it is (I happen to think it's bullshit but I accept it for what it is). If you go and change it, it is no longer Catholicism. You cannot be a practising gay man and a good Catholic. Or a good Jew. You cannot have sex outside of marriage and be a good Catholic. If you don't like it, don't be Catholic.
If you don't want AIDS but don't use a condom, don't blame the Pope when you get ill. DON'T HAVE SEX! Very safe, and very Catholic (or Jewish)! Wait until married, screw just the one person (check each other out just to be safe) and all will be well. No need to 'adjust' your respective religion there.
Why the point about the Pope? Don't try to argue away what is clearly stated in the respective rulebooks. For an orthodex Jew it should be clear: Homosexuality is wrong, certainly gay men married is very wrong, and I will not support that. It's really not that difficult.
A basic theme in your arguments is to make a distinction between secular and religious laws. Clearly the distinction exists, and in fact the two sets of law are often mutually exclusive.
But there needs to be no discussion here, no argument, except the one within yourself.
I am not a religious person, so for me the choice is easy and clear: Religious laws do not apply to me and are in no way a factor in my life.
You appear to want to have it both ways, trying to reconcile the Torah with 21st century daily life in the US. I am no scholar of the Bible, but know enough to be sure this can't be done. Either you believe in Leviticus, or you are ok with two men getting married. Not both. And voting to allow gay marriage because you think Government shouldn't have the right to forbid it, while being personally AGAINST such a marriage, what is that? I think it's a lie. Are you saying you'd vote against your own personal (strongly held, I assume) beliefs because of some abstract concept? Bullshit. I think you DON'T agree with Leviticus, in which case your position becomes much easier to understand. You really HAVE no problem with gay marriage, but are officially an orthodex Jew who needs to somehow explain how this is possible. You can't very well say: "Leviticus is non-sense", so you try and rationalize your position.
Didn't work well for me. You're not doing anyone a favour by supporting your position with arguments like these. Certainly, you are not doing yourself a favour by being intellectually dishonest.
Frumdad, when I am beset by Christians who speak like the posters who have come here calling you a bad Jew, I simply remember the example of Jeremiah who saw his letters to the King ripped up and was thrown in an empty cistern to starve after he told the population to submit to the will of G-d in the form of Nebuchanezzar.
The other prophets of the time supported the environment of war and contempt for the poor. But this was not, Jeremiah makes it clear, the will of G-d but the arrogance of the People. Perhaps there is a Nebuchanezzar waiting in the wings as we speak to chide us for our arrogance in believing that we can end evil in the world by evil means. Or maybe those who attack the likes of you and me are punishment to themselves and to us.
I remember, too, the last words in Job where YHWH tells Job simply not to attempt to understand the Divine Will. Bush tells us that he has moral clarity and yet he treats the poor of this nation with contempt. He wreaks war that harm more civilians than soldiers. He allows the members of the military and their families to suffer deprivations while he enriches his corporate friends.
Again and again, the Bible that we share speaks out loudly against materialism and hard-heartedness. It says "Beat your swords into plowshares." Bush is repeating the sins of Jehoiakim.
How little we trust the Lord to protect us when we invest in military equipment instead of our people regardless of race, creed, or color. How little we love the Lord when we fail to see the Spirit of G-d in all those around us.
If John Kerry wins, I look forward to a nation where those who oppose us are welcome. If Bush wins, the word shall be that we are not welcome. What is deciding me is that I am going to have to live with all kinds of people after this election. Only under John Kerry can we enjoy the full privileges of the free will and conscience that G-d gave us. George W. Bush blasphemes when he calls himself the servant of G-d. His analogy is Jehoiakim. My vote is for Jeremiah.
Post a Comment
<< Home