Rabbis To Rule Jews Must Vote For Bush?

Our friend (and regular contributor) The Town Crier reports,

According to [some] rumors, there are several “Gedolei Yisroel” (Rav Elya Svei, Rav Kotler, the Agudah, etc.) who were preparing to put forth an official psak calling for all frum Jews to vote for Bush in the upcoming presidential election. Supposedly a massive advertising campaign is being prepared to publicize the ruling and is being sponsored by a wealthy Flatbush baalabos.

Read on…

25 thoughts on “Rabbis To Rule Jews Must Vote For Bush?

  1. outrageous! and all those reform rabbis who tell their congregations that jewish values demand they vote for kerry should be lauded for counteracting those embarrassing retro anachronistic black hat wearing anti-semitic inducing ultra orthodox rabbis.

  2. I think it works this way;
    The ultra-orthodox don’t bother following ‘today’s’ society as much as we waste our time on it. They trust their Rabbi(s), and pretty much repsect him because he seems to be right most of the time and they respect his leadership, a lot. So, when Reb so-and-so ‘decides’ that one candidate is better than the other, who are they to think otherwise (or want to waste time thinking about it)

  3. Odd. i think i heard of another group doing a similar thing…who was it…wa, something. Wasabi? No, no. OH. Wahabi Islam. That’s right folks! WE NEED YOU! Folllow your Reb/Iman into the battle for HaShem/Allah today!
    G-d “Kids, keep your hands to yourself” Politics

  4. that’s pretty much my consistent criticism of the republican right soly. there’s practically no difference between christian fundamentalists holding office and islamic fundamentalists holding office. they both want to legislate morality and they both want to wage crusades against “the infidels.” they’re both oppressive towards women, homosexuals, and religious groups other than their own. and they’re not afraid to employ violence to get what they want.
    one of bush’s favorite lines used to be “they hate our freedom.” our freedom to what?look at porn?marry who you love?ingest what you want?petition your government for a redress of grievances?exercise the right to speech?retain privacy and anonyminity?share things you bought with friends and family?make decisions as to the nature of one’s own health and body?be an athiest?
    how exactly are we free? we’re under the thumb of southern christian wahabiists.
    if we were really smart (we being the jewish people) we would opt out of this whole mess by moving to israel and embracing its initially secular nature. one thing i think we ought to learn from our history is that “golden ages” beneath “benevolent hosts” don’t last long and tend to get pretty ugly in the end.

  5. yeah, mobius has nailed it again!! xtain fundamentalis in office practically no different than muslims in office: ok, just look for a the following stories: bush has jews and other minority religious groups executed; all movies, papers, etc. subject to government censorship; freedom of movement within and without the country is elimated….oh, that hasnt happened here, only in iran? afghanistan under the taliban? so only someone with iq 50 would draw a comparison between xtain and muslim fundamentalists? no, cant be, mobius must have an iq at least of 80…so is mobius just so filled with hatred of bush that he makes a fool of himself? possibly…but if he allows his emotions to make himself a fool, why would a jewish organization pay for him to go to israel? and why would anyone allow him to hold any position of authority? and why would anyone want him as a friend? maybe no one does…….

  6. If someone follows a dictate of a Rabbi,Imam/Ayatollah, or Priest/Pastor/Minister, simple because that leader says so they are sheep. Isn’t the whole point of the ‘American Experiment’ to think for yourself. I won’t President Bush and all of his policies are perfect. And I won’t say that there aren’t thinks about both candidates that scare the hell out of me. What I will say is that I don’t believe that anyone else’s opinion is anything more than that, There opinion.
    I know more buy the extreme BS that comes out of the ‘Far Right’ as I do from the ‘Far Left.’ The further you go to one extreme the more you look like the other extreme. Look at the 20th century political extremes: Communism was totalitarian socialism (A sort of Oxmoron). It believe that to replace the ‘religious’ and ‘moral’ cultures that religions put in place with a unified government doctrine for all citizen to follow. The Other extreme was Fasism. This in essence ‘totalitarian capitalism’ (A sort of Oxymoron). It believed that you could replace a religious ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ code with a government mandated series of state/social mandated social codes.
    The interesting thing is that they hated each other but were almost identical in the way they went about things. Both needed complete control of the population to survive. The truth is that acceptance of any doctrine: religious, social, political, simple because someone tells you to is being nothing more than a sheep. But rejecting an idea simple because you dislike the person saying it is just as bad.
    I have seen people spout the same old shit of the hard line on both side of the political spectrum with out any thought to the reality of the situation.
    Mobius: If all the Jews move to Israel only to become secularists, what is the point? If I truly want to be a secularist, I can stay where I am until the climate becomes untenable. If I move to an Israel that has lost its religious connection to the land, and is will to abandon G-D, have I really improved my lot at all. For one thing, I think you then have to worry about whether or not the Islamist nutjobs haven’t already one, because at some point a wholey securlar Israel will be convinced by the ‘Far Left’ in many countries that the only way to establish peace in the middle east and with the rest of the world is to ‘allow’ the Islamist nutjobs to kill us all and take the land. And to do so without our raising a single finger to defend ourselves.
    That doesn’t seem to be the right answer either.

  7. i’m not saying to be secular in israel…i’m saying keep the government secular in israel. in a free society, people should be permitted to openly practice the religion of their choosing. the should not be forced to practice one that is not.

  8. mobius, i have looked at the sites you use to support your pathetic arguments; i have one question for you: is english your 5th (and not very well understood) language? dude, get a grip, check back into the institution, take the meds, sit through the therapy sessions, take that class on remedial english, read logic for dummies, really, you can be helped.

  9. DAMNIT AVI!! Capitol letters exist for a reason!!! How did you get your head so far up your ass? You flame someone for lack of English skills, and then don’t bother to use them in your post?

  10. solomyr, forget the caps, read mobius’s post, then read the sites he claims back his position: then tell me what YOU think (see, there is a time/place for caps).

  11. avi said the government doesn’t target minorities. clearly the cia-crack epidemic was targetted at black people.
    other groups will likely be targetted in the face of another terror attack; particularly arab americans and people who identify with the left wing politically. how will they be targetted? perhaps by being incarcerated in any of the 800 detention camps which have been built around the united states while they await being stripped of their citizenship as will be permitted under the victory act. once stripped of their citizenship, they are no longer entitled due process and can be deemed enemy combatants and executed by a military tribunal without any legal proceedings whatsoever.
    couldn’t happen here? that’s what we said in germany all the way up to the moment they turned on the showers.
    avi said the media was not subject to government censorhsip; so i linked to an article about psyops units from the pentagon working inside cnn’s headquarters. if that doesn’t concern you, here is an article about the u.s. government telling scientific journals to censor their articles.
    finally avi said freedom of movement within the united states has not be eliminated, so i pointed to an article about the very well-known no-fly list.
    clearly i’m deluded…

  12. moby, in the past i have struck up conversations with different individuals representing lyndon larouche, scientology and peta, because they appeared to be relatively normal, and bright enough; but i discovered that when pressed on points where they were logically inconsistent, and without evidence, they began to parrot answers, their brains just shut down, and they were no longer rational human beings. i think thats what being in a (quasi or actual) cult is all about. this is not to flame you (though im sure i will in future), but in all seriousness you have stopped making sense. if you had a student who wrote a paper making your points with your backup, you would have a long serious discussion advising them that their work was not up to university standards, and belonged in a high school schoolyard b.s. session. consider this messsage that serious discussion.

  13. Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.
    Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.
    In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.

    “If this were a dictatorship, it’d be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” — George W. Bush

    Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft’s announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be “enemy combatants” has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.
    Ashcroft’s plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants.

    “The F.B.I. is dangerously targeting Americans who are engaged in nothing more than lawful protest and dissent,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “The line between terrorism and legitimate civil disobedience is blurred, and I have a serious concern about whether we’re going back to the days of Hoover.”

  14. For those of you following along at home, Avi is currently using a psychological defense mechanism called “projection ”. He doesn’t like the fact that he is making absolutely no sense, and so he is “projecting” that onto Mobius. Poor sap.

  15. Try that again…
    For those of you following along at home, Avi is currently using a psychological defense mechanism called “projection“. He doesn’t like the fact that he is making absolutely no sense, and so he is “projecting” it onto Mobius. Poor sap.

  16. mobius, your statement that youre trying to defend is that fundamentals whether muslim or xtian, once in power are little different. dont give me random musings that may be out of context to attempt to prove your point. according to you we have a xtian fundamentalist in power in the us. if you or anyone else thinks this country is anywhere close to iran, or afghanistan, then you would be a fool to not flee this country with all your family and possessions. have you permanently left? solomyr, how bout you, are you out of here. i guess youre having trouble getting a ticket on the next jet because so many jews are leaving. mobius, suggest you look at my prior post again.

  17. avi, i listed several reasons as to why i felt the christian fundamentalists in power were similar to islamic fundamentalists: puritanism, repression of homosexuals, repression of women, suppression of civil liberties, intertwining of church and state, etc.
    you then said — yeah but is the government targetting minorities? is it restricting travel? is it censoring the media? and so i replied, with evidence, that yes, the government is doing those things, though perhaps it should have been noted that i do not feel that it is for christian fundamentalist reasons. however, that doesn’t change the fact that those very same things are happening in america, and under the authority of a christian fundamentalist.
    my argument still stands, and you are nothing more than an apologist for actions which the founding fathers of our otherwise great nation would consider treasonous at best.

  18. Mobius:
    I have re-read what you posted that I had responded to and still get the idea that you had intended it the way I read it. Having said that, I will defer to you on the clarification and agree with your post.
    What is your problem, the US government today is taking ‘unprecidented’ steps at restricting our civil liberties. (That was sort of the point of the ‘Patriot Act’) As Mobius pointed out, Attorney General Ashcroft is several cards short of a full deck and would gladly restrict everyones freedoms if he could figure away to get around the US Constitution to do it. I find it interesting that at this point people like to forget that he ridiculously covered several statues in the Justice Department Building because they were ‘offensive’. It is okay to believe that President Bush should be re-elected but letting stupidity cover up the reality of the situation is really not a good idea. (And remember, Mr. Ashcroft couldn’t beat a dead man to be re-elected to congress by his own constituency, which should tell you something.)
    The reality is that the current Administration has made a number of moves to restrict freedoms, the only reason that some of them are still in place is that they have not been challenged for Constitutionality.
    The quote from President Bush, which I had seen somewhere before, is distrubing. I don’t remember the context but I am not sure it was intended to be a serious quote. That having been said, it is true to some extent, if anyone were a dictator they would have an easier time running the country. ( I keep telling my wife that I should be named Emporer of the world, that way I could get everything the way I want it and not have any problems doing so. : ) )
    Are you SURE you wanted to correct that post, it seemed much more entertaining before the correction. : )
    That having been said, I have an older computer that likes to glitch occasionally when I am trying to post, I appreciate any problems that anyone else has like that.

  19. wolf, mobius: you continue to avoid coming to grips with mobius foolishness (im being polite here): we can argue all we want whether particular policies restrict freedom and whether its a price that should be paid (waiting 2 hours in a security line to board a plane certainly restricts my freedom but im willing to do it); but to say any item mentioned by either of you as examples of intolerance =s iranian murder of jews is just nonsense. and that is why your rhetorical overkill is counterproductive to your position. people just think youre speaking nonsense and discount everything you say.

  20. Avi:
    I went back and quickly reviewed your posts, I am not sure I was argueing about anything to due with Iranian murder of Jews. I believe I was discussing whether or not the current Administration policies are restrictive and whether they could have the effect fo becoming more than just restrictive, but whether they could become discriminatory. The truth is the policies the current Administration has put in place with the Patriot Act and some of its extension are unconstitutional. This is not to say there may not be some justification for them. Waiting 2 hours in line at the Airport, or having to remove your shoes to make sure you aren’t going to blow up a plane, is sensible and not particular a big deal. (Depending on how the people are chose.) Having read the beginning of the 9/11 commission report though I am not sure that many of the new security measures would have necessarily stop all of the highjackers from getting on the planes.
    I am not against logical and Constitutional reforms to make life safer in the US. I do have a problem with giving any law enforcement agency the ability to get wire tapes on the simplest of basis. The FBI had lost that ability in the 1970’s because of abuse of the practice. I have no evidence to support the idea that they will be any better now even with a change in the leadership at the FBI.
    The problem is that programs stemming from legislation like the Patriot Act may very well have the desired effect, the issue is are they unconstitutionally being applied, or are the laws themselves unconstitutional. Please understand, I am not in favor of going back to pre-9/11 circumstances, I am in favor of intellegently changing the laws and not knee-jerk reactions to an event, which I feel the Patriot Act was. This may be the reason that parts of it are being reconsider by Congress right now.
    The security acts that have been put into place can be taken as intolerant if, and I say if, they are aimed at one particular group of people in the practice. They currently are aimed at stopping Arab/Islamic Terrorist, but could be used just as easily, the way the are written, against Jews, Blacks, Italians, or any other group an adminstrative or beauracratic person would care to ‘investigate’ for acts against the country. Frankly with John Ashcroft incharge of the Justice Department, I have a serious fear as what may ulitmately be done with the laws as they exist. Does this mean I wont vote for Bush? No. Does this mean I will vote for Bush? One issue is not the end all and be all, it is just one of the issues that make me question the current situation in this country.

  21. little, your prior post is well reasoned and argued, and while i may disagree with much of it (dont have desire to respond in detail in this forum) i respect the logic of your position. what i object to and causes me to go ballistic is the verbal blather of mobius, who once again makes a ludicrous statement, this time that xtian and muslim fundamentalists in power are almost equivalent; besides making himself look like a raging idiot, he also discredits your position since you and he are on the same side of the divide. suggest you respond to mobius, get him to appologize and stop vomiting out stupid statements; then everyone would more willing focus on the rational arguments you make.

  22. to say that there are parallels between the practices of christian fundamentalists in power and islamic fundamentalists in power is not raging idiocy. yes — the christian fundamentalists in power in the united states government do not have the power or perhaps even the intention to execute their opponents in the way that islamic regimes do. but they use every tactic available to them to marginalize, harass, and make those opponents as miserable as possible and often seek to do grave economic harm to those parties, which is, in some ways, as effective as killing them.
    so i will modify my initial remark — the only major difference between christian fundamentalists and islamic fundamentalists, in practice, as i see it, is that the christian fundamentalists in the u.s. do not have the power to physically eliminate their opposition in the way that islamic fundamentalists do. however, we should not forget that when they have had such power in eras prior, they have not hesitated to do so, lest we forget the crusades, the inquisition, and various pogroms waged against jewish people throughout history. if the religious right could do away with their liberal/”heretical” opposition, i am not so sure they wouldn’t seize the opportunity.
    i don’t think it’s such an extreme statement. i can provide you with quite a number of instances of pro-life activists murdering abortion doctors to demonstrate this contention…

  23. Avi:
    I thank you for at least letting me know where you draw the line. I will say this. I am not sure that I agree with Mobius’ premise at the absolute level. Having said that I am not so sure that he is completely off base either. And with all due respect to Mobius, sometimes a person on one exteme or the other can get good assessment of the situation and just not be able to explain the assessment as well as it maybe could be explained.
    The point I believe that Mobius may be trying to make, and Mobius please correct me if I am way off base here, is that Christian fundamentalist, and frankly any fundamentalist of any religious or politcal stripe, can take their belief to an extreme. I agree with Mobius in that the current US Administration uses religious justifications for things, and, as he stated in his last post, would possible be interested in physically removing a political opponent if they could. They have shown that they are more than willing to ‘remove’ an opponent in a political sense. (And before you take that as something it’s not, I am currently leaning toward voting for President Bush.) The Christian fundamentalists in the US have used violence on many occasions if they feel 1. they are religiously justified in doing so, and 2. they feel that the current political atmosphere is not going to address the issue.
    The best example is the one that Mobius himself suggested of the ‘Pro-Life’ activists. They have been known to use violence to try to make a point. (And the issue of abortion is really not the issue, but the violence.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.