Senator Lieberman is merely another example of so-called Shabbat & Kashruth observers who fail to understand what it means to do Tzedakah.

Apparently you can all quote the parts of the Talmud to support their condemation of Sen. Joe, but missed the part where we are taught about Loshen Hara and where we are taught about the proper way to “correct” another Jew.
We are NOT to attempt to embarass other Jews in “public”. We are also to REFRAIN from any type of “correcting advice” if it will not be taken by the person to which it is aimed.

So how do you justify picking and choosing which laws to follow in a vain attempt to justify your own negative behaviors?

First, the true. Yes, Lieberman is a disappointment to the Jewish people. His inability to pick and stick with one side of any political debate or argument brands him as a flip-flopper on a good day and a traitor on a bad day. Only problem, he’s a Jew everyday.

But the idea that Lieberman lets down the Jewish people by being liberal is absurd. Judaism is about having convictions and beliefs, doing what is right even when and especially when it is unpopular and about having the freedom to make up your own mind. Judaism is not about being a liberal or being a conservative. Saying that all Jews should be liberal is taking away that freedom of thought and action which is crucial to politics AND Judaism.

http://www.jewishisraelipowwow.com

First, John (Yehonatan) is a JEWISH name, so I’m sure he’ll thank you for not assuming he’s a gentile from that fact alone.

Second, it is blatantly obvious that you have no understanding of Judaism. I mean, ACTUALLY no understanding of Judaism: you have not read one page of Talmud if you think that the Jewish conceptualization of private property rights is not so deeply ingrained in Judaism as to be inseparable. Judaism says that you own your property, to the exclusion of all others, and that right is not merely the product of a society allowing you to keep what is yours for some abstract social goal.

It might interest you to know that the first, the VERY FIRST PAGE of Talmud that a cheder talmid learns is that concerning lost property (Baba Metzia 21a). The next several hundred pages are much more of the same. That is, the fundamental teachings of Judaism are concerned first and foremost with the legal obligations towards others, along with the moral obligations.

Interestingly, there is no mention of the imposition of a legal obligation to health care. Sure, there are moral obligations, but along with the rest of Judaism, those are things you must choose when and how much to do. The choice is yours.

I’ll leave you with a quote from the Siddur, taken from a Mishnah that Jews say EVERY MORNING, VERY FIRST THING:

“The following have no prescribed measure (shiur): … deeds of kindness.” (from Birkat HaShachar, http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/bata/bata04.htm)

You can tell me that I should feel obliged to do something, you can even tells me that (your interpretation of) Judaism tells me that I should do it. BUT, you CANNOT say that Judaism requires me to agree to be COMPELLED to do ANYTHING.

Good people can disagree about the health care bills. Unfortunately, many on the left in the US, Navasky included, no longer tolerate dissent or disagreement.

Torah does not call for government health care, nor does it require left-wing political views, especially not so-called “social justice.”

The unfortunate accident of there being so many Jewish Communists and Socialists has led to much oppression – oppression and murder in the former Soviet Union and elsewhere, of Jews and non-Jews, but especially of “religious” Jews.

There’s simply nothing in the Torah or Jewish law that compels Jews to support a Government run health care system. It’s possible, no likely, that two different Jews could believe that the current Health Care bills before congress, including the one that formerly had the public option, would either be for the best, or make things worse for Americans. Holding Jewishness up to a political ideology, any political ideology, is not a place where Jews should want to go.

Maybe Mr. Navasky should worry about his own neshama before condemning another Jew for not being “Jewish” enough.

I may disagree with what Lieberman has done, but I won’t throw out the “betrayal” label. He represents his State of Connecticut and acts within his conscience. And that conscience is a Jewish one. Even if other Jews disagree with him, it’s possible for people to have disagreements in good faith.

sincerly karenJohnson
shalom

He is a Senator of Conn. and it’s up to them to to decide if he should be reelected.

I doubt you would like it if a leftist Jewish Senator was accused of being not Jewish enough, or too Jewish.

I don’t think you are an antisemite but such views are in essence antisemitic.

You should know better, Victor.

Moreover, charity and otherwise helping the poor are certainly Jewish values, but its superficial to argue that means any proposal to legislate new obligations on people, that its supporters suggest help the poor, is consistent with Jewish values. The debate is over whether this specific legislation will actually help the poor or will have unintended consequences that exacerbate their problems (e.g., creating job losses; bankrupting the country).

Taken to its logical conclusion, you are saying that socialism (communism?) is a Jewish thing…and that any Jew who prefers freedom is a traitor.

The joys of tribalism…

BUT- Navasky’s piece is about Jewish ethics. And what your two posts don’t seem to mention is the connection between your libertarian argument and the teachings of Judaism. That’s because you can’t- Judaism doesn’t teach anything like “you have no right to claim it as yours simply by dint of being alive.” Judaism teaches the opposite. I’m guessing, partly because you didn’t mention any connection to Jewish ethics, and partly because of your name, that you aren’t Jewish. So let me give you a short explanation of some of the ethical differences between Judaism and Christianity. Christianity is all (or mostly, depending on the variety) about what you believe- your faith. It doesn’t really care very much about suffering in this world, because so long as you believe in Jesus, you’re saved in the next world, where there will be justice. (e.g. Mother Teresa admitting she only cared about the poor to convert them.) Judaism believes in helping people in this world for its own sake, and that our acts in this world are what matters. We need to make justice in this world- we’re commanded to do so as Jews, and in fact, many teachings say that the Messiah will not come until we have earned it by sufficiently repairing the world. And justice as defined by Judaism is improving the material quality of life of people, especially the poor, the sick, and the weak. It’s true that the religion doesn’t require or detail a specific structure to how a health care system is set up- that’s why I think Navasky is wrong about Lieberman’s betrayal of Judaism because of his resistance to the public option (although, btw, I do support the public option and single payer as a matter of secular policy). But the religion is very clear that the healthy have a duty to take care of the sick. That is not compatible with the libertarian philosophy you promoted here. And that’s why nobody else on the message board has said what you said- it simply is not relevant to a discussion on Jewish ethics.

Now, this is the really important part when it comes to a discussion about health care being a right, so please pay close attention. The police are there to protect you against the infringement of your rights by others. The military is there to protect you against the infringement of your rights by others (even though many Presidents have abused this power, obviously). And the judicial system is there to protect you against the infringement of your rights by others (including the government, thankfully). But none of these government services is, in and of itself, a right you hold. They are services put in place to protect your rights.

Do you see the central theme? It’s protection against other people, whether they act alone or in concert with others. So, the question as it pertains to health care becomes: who are the other people involved in your illness or your need to see a dentist or eye doctor on a regular basis? And if you answer that maybe you’re ill because of the neglect or abuse of another person, then my response would be to sue them or file criminal charges. They are liable for your health care costs, as they are the infringers of your rights. Otherwise, your need to take care of your health – no matter how noble that desire is – in no way imposes a burden upon your fellow citizens to pay for those services. You see, unlike the police, military, and courts, when you get sick, no rights have been infringed. Health care, in other words, is not a legitimate government service provided in protection of any right you possess. Hope that clears things up for you.

It’s clear to me that Lieberman’s motivations for his actions are personal, rather than political. He has shown a tendency to bear grudges and to grandstand simply for the sake of getting attention. One gets the impression that he has little interest in what the final bill looks like, so long as it makes his personal enemies unhappy. When someone places their own petty desires above their responsibilities to the public good, then I believe it is fair to criticize that person as acting against Jewish values.

“Please don’t kill my son,” the baby’s mother screamed. “Your Majesty, I love him very much, but give him to her. Just don’t kill him.”

The other woman shouted, “Go ahead and cut him in half. Then neither of us will have the baby.”

Solomon said, “Don’t kill the baby.” Then he pointed to the first woman, “She is his real mother. Give the baby to her.”

Everyone in Israel was amazed when they heard how Solomon had made his decision. They realized that God had given him wisdom to judge fairly.

By saying “it’s my version of reform or no one’s”, Lieberman is the second woman. He clearly cares more about

Many of the commenters are putting forth the red herring argument that Lieberman’s stand is a principled stand against more government, as though Lieberman is disagreeing with the bill as a whole. In fact, he generally supports the notion of healthcare but has specific, petty, and often nonsensical quabbles with the Public Option and the medicare buy-in. He’s fine with the mandate and the subsidies, which are by far the most heinous portions of the bill from a libertarian’s standpoint. So he already disagrees with most of on the substance.

Where his behavior has been atrocious is his willingness to “cut the baby” — to foresake the portions of the bill which he *ALREADY BELIEVES* will save lives in order to stop the PO and Medicare Buy-in. This is crass political maneuvering.

Of course, we don’t live in the time of Kings, and no Solomon can decree that Joe be ignored. This is the strength of our system; it doesn’t excuse his poor behavior.

If there is a desire to refute the points made about Senator Leiberman’s behavior, it should be made in the context of the ideals he has claimed as his guides.

The same evaluations made by Mr. Navasky should be done for the other 99 Senators. The question that occurs to me is, how many of other faiths have been willing to challenge their elected leaders actions in this, and similar, contexts?

There’s no such thing as a “right” to anything that others are required to provide for you, like health care. If someone else has to produce it and supply it, you have no right to claim it as yours simply by dint of being alive. Period. The very notion is ludicrous. But in this ‘ends justify any means’ culture, this foundational point is routinely ignored.

Several writers made the point that Lieberman was “voting his conscience.” Mr. Navasky was quite clear in saying that Lieberman is free to vote his conscience but he is wrong in using the arcane and archaic (and may I add, in my opinion, undemocratic) rules of the Senate to hold the bill hostage to his point of view, rwgrdless of whether the reason is conscience driven or lobbyist driven.

Anyway the logic in your opening paragraph, even though it was in the spirit of a devil’s advocate, is an improper converse: identically, you could say most billion-dollar Ponzi-schemers are Jewish, that doesn’t say much about how characteristically Jewish it is to Ponzi scheme. So you should actively point that out. Unless you directly call that kind of statement into question you’re choice of devil’s advocate is perpetuating some problematic thinking.

Is is not un-Jewish to be on the take?

Should Sen. Lieberman’s Jewish ethics also require him to propose legislation to outlaw abortion unless granted permission by a beit din, outlaw driving on Saturday mornings, limiting profits to a maximum of 16.6% and impose strict regulation on mills which produce cotton and wool blends? And I’d hate to think of what would happen to Red Lobster.

I’ve been scouring through the Torah, Talmud, and just about every other Jewish text to find where it is written that this particular legislation is the only way to improve the health of the people. I mean, Navasky is pretty clear and adamant that this bill is basically a Halakhic imperative.

Or — perish the thought! — maybe this bill really was full of garbage that would make health care worse for Americans. Maybe Lieberman really was doing the moral thing by making sure it didn’t pass.

Lieberman swore an oath to the Constitution of the United States, a document which does not mention this particular bill or even universal health care in general. Throwing religion (or, cultural heritage or whatever) into his job is how you end up eventually with Iran.

This health care bill was wrought with terrible features cobbled together by, well, people who were putting self-interest above country. To say that Lieberman is a traitor to Jews for opposing it is an insult to me as Jew. I also think Lieberman as a Jew should continue being loyal to his oath to the Constitution on behalf of the people of Connecticut and the United States. That isn’t just him being a good Jew, it’s also good for the Jews — and Americans — too.