Defining RIGHT and WRONG.

I was reading over old posts, and I came upon a gem of a comment I wrote back in 2006. I still adhere to this ideology, and so I thought I would post it for you kind C4A folks: This was written back in 2006 in response to someone who claimed "nonviolence is always possible," and that "sin is only a religious concept."

You said again and again that 'nonviolence is always possible.'

Please point to a single case of nonviolent peaceful resistence against the Nazis by the Jews that resulted in the saving of Jewish life.

Obviously, I am aware that many Jews simply fled Nazi Germany and were able to live because of this. I also know that, prior to Nazi Germany starting the Holocaust, some Jews were saved out of Germany. That is not my question.

I want to know of a single case of Jews saving Jews in the middle of the Holocaust that was done in a nonviolent manner. One single case.

You flat out said on multiple occasions that 'nonviolence is always possible' and 'killing leads to more death.'

So point to one single case of this. You would certainly have half a leg to stand on if you could point to a single case of this.

The concept of sin has been linked to religion, but also is linked to secular humanism. I am referring to crimes against humanity, and NOT against God. Many secular humanists absolutely believe in morality and right and wrong.

The fact that you lump together what Israel is doing to the 'Palestinians' and what was done to the Jews during the Holocaust is the essence of BOTH moral absolutism AND moral relativism.

All killing is wrong, according to you. This is moral absolutism.

Hence, according to your very words: I don't see violence as being any more acceptable because it wasn't indiscriminate.

That means that aiming for Bin Laden is the same as aiming for a crowd.

Both involves killing. And killing is always wrong.

Your extreme stance on killing results in presenting equivalencies between very different scenarios.

Correct me if I am wrong, but according to you, there are two choices: die or fight back. Those are the only two choices if one wants to be ethically sound. Should someone fight back, they are no longer ethically sound to you, as killing is always wrong, regardless of why it is going on.

I already presented the most extreme examples of gunmen going into your home and hoping to annhiliate your family, and you still said that killing would be wrong EVEN THEN.

I realize you are being consistent, and certainly I cannot criticize you for that! I also realize you do not give Jews a double standard that you would not apply to yourself. What you are saying does not stem from antisemitism - I see that very clearly.

What I don't get if why you insist on these logical extremes. The 'choice' between killing and being slaughtered oneself is hardly a choice at all. If what you are saying is that you are hoping to avoid a slaughter, then isn't a slaughter going to happen if Israel does not and accepts 'Palestinians' coming in and massacring Jews? And is it ethical of a nation to allow the mass slaughter of its citizens because it refuses to fight back? What is the point of nationhood if NOT to get some measure of protection against the world?

You also said the following: In case you haven't read it enough times, my view is that genocides are always wrong because they entail the killing of innocent people. I don't make exceptions for those who wish to kill Jews any more than I make exceptions for those who wish to kill those of any other particular ethnicity or nation.

This assumes that Israeli Jews are actually trying to genocide 'Palestinians' when they fight back. This is absolutely untrue. The Israelis have the firepower such that if they wanted to, they could kill every 'Palestinian' in a matter of days. Yet they do not do this. Why? Because they take the time to only kill those who are terrorists and take great pains to avoid civilian death. This is never 100% - but the intent is not to kill civilians. As I said, this is equivalent to a robber coming into your home, shooting at you, and when you shoot back, you kill a civilian. The legal responsibility for that death is on the robber. Same applies here.

Where is there an intent to genocide? If there was such an intent, the 'Palestinians' would have ceased to exist long ago. I already showed you a link to an extensive archive of 'Palestinian textbooks' and media, showing a clear intent to wipe Israelis off the face of the earth. We know the 'Palestinians' are attempting a genocide (not all are, but at least the leadership is). This is definitively proven. If they had the firepower, they would kill every Israeli today. What do you point to when you claim that Israelis are genociding the 'Palestinians'? What shred of evidence can you even claims supports this?

The bottom line is that your claims of Israelis genociding the 'Palestinians' are as spurious as your claims of Israel being an apartheid state.

My words were as important then as they are now. My only quibble would be that I now do believe it is extraordinarily difficult to define 'sin' and 'right' and 'wrong' without religion. Unless there is a fixed star to define what is good and what is bad, I do fear moral relativism. This moral relativism can also occur with religion, and it is ultimately one of the greatest enemies of our times. It is why I have been studying Judaism now for about two years, and continue to study it weekly.

Why am I reposting this? Because of comments that have been posted on C4A in response to a post I wrote a year and a half ago concerning my night at the theater to see 'Masked' the play. The responses are not substantive, but center upon some idea that I do not believe in 'peace.' (Of course their version of 'peace' is ultimately the 'peaceful' destruction of Israel; they claim to love Jews, but they only appear to love the Jews of the Holocaust who walked peacefully to the gallows.)

I believe that these commentators believe what they believe because they fail to appreciate the difference between right and wrong, and fail to comprehend that you have to stand up for your rights. There is also a dynamic similar to the battered wife syndrome which I already commented upon in my original 'Masked' post. But I believe, in addition to the battered wife syndrome concept, these commentators simply fail to appreciate the difference between right and wrong. That is why I am posting the comment I wrote about 2 1/2 years ago.

Jews such as the ones who replied to that post will often be seen pouring over books on Yiddish and think this is an example of their 'love' of Jewry. This makes perfect sense to me. Such Jews believe in the weak and ghetto Jew as epitimized by the Jews of Europe during the 19th and early 20th centuries. And so "J-Street" Jews and their ilk will profess a love of Yiddish culture...only it really is a love of Jews of the Holocaust, who [mostly] walked meakly to the gallows.

This is not real love, it is ultimately hatred, despite the protestations to the contrary often witnessed by such leftist Jews. This is the sort of 'love' that the Neturei Karta engage in. They too claim to truly 'love' Jews - as long as they are the meek Jews of the Holocaust.

I was not diplomatic in my original post on the topic (and could have phrased things better), but I do stand by the sentiment I expressed concerning my encounter at 'Masked' the play.

Opposing Sharia law

The Archbishop of Canterbury recently said that "Sharia law is inevitable" in the UK, and claimed that it will "bring about social cohesion." Yeah, right. He is under fire from his statement, though some have stated that somehow it is 'Islamophobic' to be against Sharia law for Muslims in the UK, because the system would be voluntary, anyway. Ali Eteraz (who I have taken issue with in the past) wrote a very compelling entry on his blog, explaining exactly why Sharia would be so terrible for Muslims. (please note that he is a practicing Muslim who wrote this) The important part to note...

2 - Islamic family and inheritance law has issues that have not been resolved.

Men get a presumption when it comes to custody (it should be an issue of best interest of child).

Child support ends after three months (it should be as in US law where children “share in the good fortunes” of their divorced parents).

Boys get more in inheritance than girls (should be equal).

Men get bulk of marital assets (should be equitable distribution).

Apostasy automatically ends the marriage (yeah, I’m sure this one won’t be abused by evil in-laws). Think of how easily Muslims accuse one another of kufr.

In a divorce, a parent revealed to be (or more likely accused to be) a homosexual has no claim over the child (”your dad’s a fag, kid, you are fatherless!”). I mean, jilted women have never been known to demonize their exes like this.

A man can divorce in one sitting but a woman needs the permission of a religious authority.

This list is endless, please feel free to add to it.

The purpose of the law is to reflect and respond to social realities. Many parts of Islamic family law — as it stands today — don’t do that

It is a maxim of fiqh: “Changes of al-ahkam (judgments) are permissible with the change in times.” I don’t see changes.

Eteraz wrote much more, but one thing I take issue with is his moral equivalence - he states that the Beth Din in England somehow would be equivalent to the Sharia courts. Firstly, Jewish law is relatively well settled, after the publishing of the Shulchan Aruch. (at least compared to Sharia law) Yes, rabbis will publish responsa to situations as they come about - but this is nothing like the confusion of Sharia. Eteraz noted it as such...

5 - There is no standardized version of Islamic law

Sharia is not codified. It can be anything based on the whim of the arbitrator. For law to be law, it needs standardization. Who is going to do this? Muhammad Fadel and Khaled Abu el Fadl? Abdullahi an-Naim? Irshad and Reza Aslan? Faraz Rabbani? Taqi Usmani and Nameless Arab Guy? Suhaib Webb and Yasir Qazi? Yale University? Harvard’s Islamic Law Symposium? Remember, we’re a community that still haven’t been able to standardize what day to start Ramadan or celebrate our biggest festivals so let’s not get too carried away with pipe dreams about standardizing Islamic family law. If codification has not even been accomplished in numerous Muslim countries then how can you even think about getting a Sharia court going in the West?

And, I assure you that if you get the standardization issue going, its quickly going to devolve into an Islamic civil war — Sufi v. Salafi v. Liberals v. Right-Wing-Islamophobes (what, you don’t think they are going to show up at the public meetings?)

So that is difference one.

Difference two is what goes to the crux of the matter. Namely, there simply is a difference in Sharia law v. Halacha (Jewish Law). Please read Hugh Fitzgerland's explanation as such. Essentially, there is a difference in the way Jewish law is viewed - certainly not as supreme over the secular laws - and the way it is applied. Moreover, there is a difference in the goal; Jews do not hope to one day rule over England with Halacha.

It is for all these reasons and more that we have to be vigilant in our fight against Sharia law. We have to remind ourselves that Sharia is not just the 'Muslim equivalent' of Halacha. It is not. Unless and until Sharia is a) reformed; b) codified, it remains the law of the dark ages. Under the aegis of 'religious tolerance,' why are we okay with letting women be treated as second class citizens? Why? Why are feminists arguing this is actually a good thing? Did the feminist movement mean nothing? Why are so many liberals acting illiberally?

UPDATE: Christopher Hitchens wrote a great essay explaining the very real dangers of Sharia right here. To sum it up: allowing Sharia will mean that honor killings will go unpunished to a much larger degree. And most importantly, it will lead to oppression of women. Feminists, where are you? *taps feets* I am waiting to hear from you!

One Mans Terrorist is Another Mans Freedom Fighter?

I was sent a link to the following video recently. What are your thoughts in response to the arguments presented?