Rabbi Aviner on Child Sex Abuse

But what does Rabbi Aviner really mean?

Reporting Child Abuse
Rabbi Shlomo Aviner, 17 May 2009

["Be-Ahavah U-Be-Emunah" – Behar-Bechukotai 5769 – translated by R. Blumberg]

We unfortunately see a phenomenon of unbridled parental child-beating, and there are also cases of parents or other relatives raping boys or girls. This heinous phenomenon exists in the same percentages amongst the religious as amongst the secular. In fact, it is actually higher amongst the religious and Chareidi [“UltraOrthodox”], but it gets reported only when matters get too far out of hand, or it comes to light by itself, and by then many more cases crop up.

And why don’t people report it? “It constitutes forbidden gossip… It might destroy the lives of the abuser… it’s unsavory to report it… it will bring calamity on the abuser and his family…” Obviously, all this is wrong. This is the sort of report that one can and must make. After all, the child is small, and who will protect him? It’s one thing if abuse happens outside of a family. One can hope that perhaps the family will stop it and protect the child, but if it occurs within the family, the child has no one to save him. Therefore, whoever knows about it has to report it. Obviously, first one has to talk with the parents, or with the teacher if he is the abuser. If they stop and go for treatment, all the better. If not, however, one is required to report to the welfare department or the police. Some among the Chareidim argue that one is forbidden to report abuse in accordance with the Jewish law that one is forbidden to be a “mosser”, i.e., a person who “betrays a Jew to the non-Jewish courts”, which, by analogy, they apply to the courts of the State of Israel. Yet that is wrong as well, because the child’s life is at stake. The author of the book “Nishmat Avraham”, Rabbi Dr. A. Avraham, relates that he asked the illustrious rabbis of our generation, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg and Rabbi Shalom Elyashiv about this, and all of them said that it is a mitzvah to report the abuse, and the person who does so is no “mosser.” Quite the contrary, the parents or family members or the teacher who commits the abuse, whether physical or sexual, is to be categorized as a “rodef,” an attacker, and one who reports a “rodef” is not to be classed as a “moser." Those same rabbis rule that even if, as a result, the child will be removed from his family and placed into a secular institution or adopted by secular parents, or – in cases abroad – even if he is placed in an institution of non-Jews – this is a matter of life and death. We must certainly strive to have the child not undergo such placement, but even if there is a chance it will happen, as noted, this is a matter of life and death (Nishmat Adam, Vol. 4, page 207).

Therefore, whoever knows, has to report it. Sometimes the counselors in a youth organization notice the child’s tension and distress, and they must report to the next echelon in the organization. Sometimes they can tell that something has happened to the child. He is sad. He doesn’t function. He’s woeful and introverted. These are worrisome signs. Or the opposite, suddenly the child becomes violent and acts this way to other children. Often, the victim, himself, becomes the attacker. In short, such things have to be reported – and right away!

One time I asked people in the know: How can a religious, G-d-fearing person, a person who learns Torah, behave this way? They yelled at me: “Don’t be naïve! Do you think that an abnormal person who learns Torah is going to become normal? No! He must go for treatment!” They’re certainly right. For example, we see that Rambam did not make due with writing many books about faith and halachah, but saw the importance in writing a book called “Shemoneh Perakim” about improving one’s character. It may well be that a normal person who learns Torah will naturally improve his character that way. But if someone is in bad shape, it won’t suffice. He will need special treatment. In our case, he will need psychological treatment in order to take hold of himself. Have pity on the child!

In summary, if you see abuse, you’ve got to save the child and report it, and immediately!

G-d have mercy!

Earlier today, I asked Rabbi Aviner for a clarification of this part of his article:

…This is the sort of report that one can and must make. After all, the child is small, and who will protect him? It’s one thing if abuse happens outside of a family. One can hope that perhaps the family will stop it and protect the child, but if it occurs within the family, the child has no one to save him. Therefore, whoever knows about it has to report it.…

So far, he hasn't answered.

I think, however, it is reasonable to say that, like many rabbis, Rabbi Aviner doesn't get it. Even though he probably means well, at best his language is inexcusably imprecise. And that impreciseness puts children at risk.

Here is the English translation of the Nishmat Avraham Rabbi Aviener quotes, also imprecisely. Close readers of this blog will also note this Nishmat Avraham shows that those who say Rabbi Elyashiv or other major haredi rabbis rule that police should be called when abuse is suspected is a gross oversimplification of their rulings. It also shows, I think, that no internal solution to haredi child sexual abuse exists.

Please click to enlarge. It will be easier to read if you open the image in a new tab. You should be able to do this by right clicking the image: 

Update 8:30 PM – Rabbi Aviner has his own Awareness Center page. He allegedly sexually harassed two women in his community.

[Hat Tips: Yankel, steve.]

Comments

[steve]

If they stop and go for treatment, all the better.

This is the part that he just doesn't get. How many of these molesters claimed that they "stopped" and that they're "in therapy", only to continue molsting again and again? It's not enough to send them to therapy. They must be sent to jail!

[Vicki Polin]

CALL TO ACTION: Stop Allowing Alleged Sex Offender, Rabbi Shlomo Aviner From Being A Spokes Person On Child Abuse.

May 23, 2008

Back in 2002, serious allegations were made against Rabbi Shlomo Aviner of sexually harassing women both verbally and physically. These behaviors are considered to fall under the catagory of "clergy sexual abuse". Like in many other cases, those who tried to speak out where shunned and made to look as if they were crazy.

Rabbi Shlomo Aviner continues to be the senior rabbi and a Rosh yeshiva (dean of a seminary) in Jerusalem, Israel. In the last few months Aviner has been publicly speaking out against child abuse as a PR campaign to correct his image. This needs to be stopped!

Due to the seriousness of the past allegation, Rabbi Aviner's actions should be scene as endangering the safety of adolescent girls and adult women, who might see him as a "safe person." The Awareness Center is demanding that Rabbi Aviner undergo a psychological evaluation conducted by a mental health professional approved by our organization prior to him becoming a spokes person on the issue of child abuse.

[radical feminist]

Gee what a surprise another man in a position of religious authority molesting people.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Gambling? In Casablanca? I'm shocked, I'm shocked!

[radical feminist]

Haredi site addresses the problem of online Porn addiction
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212387707&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[A. Nuran]

Rabbi Aviner writes:

One time I asked people in the know: How can a religious, G-d-fearing person, a person who learns Torah, behave this way? They yelled at me: “Don’t be naïve! Do you think that an abnormal person who learns Torah is going to become normal? No! He must go for treatment!”

In summary, if you see abuse, you’ve got to save the child and report it, and immediately!

G-d have mercy!

Thank G-d! Finally someone in authority is telling the simple truth! If he follows through it's a great first step.

But as Steve writes:

If they stop and go for treatment, all the better.

This is the part that he just doesn't get. How many of these molesters claimed that they "stopped" and that they're "in therapy", only to continue molsting again and again? It's not enough to send them to therapy. They must be sent to jail!

Unless they're actually insane to the point where they cannot distinguish between right and wrong and are not in touch with reality we do not allow murderers, arsonists and thieves to go free because they're "in therapy". There may be opportunities for mental health services in prison. But separating the criminals from society where they cannot hurt innocents comes first.

When a molester is caught the first thing he or she usually does is rush to therapy and cry crazy. That's not a desire to change. It's a desperate attempt to evade justice. If they do these things they need the authority of the Law to keep them away from potential victims until they are deemed not at risk of re-offending.

[FriedFalafel]

I remember this story coming out. It's very unlikely that he actually did what he was accused of. Of course no one can really know, but Rav Aviner seems like a very gentle, kind person (anyone who listened to him on the radio can attest to that). According to him, he tried to help these women with some matter (as he had helped many many other people) and they had issues of their own which caused them to accuse him of harassment. At that time R Aviner decided that he will no longer provide direct assistance to women, because of the danger involved. Of course it's a matter of 'he said-she said' as many of these things are, but in this case I tend to side with the Rabbi (btw whose opinion I usually consider overly strict ie. I don't agree with him)

[radical feminist]

Wow, this sounds EXACTLY like what they said about me, when it came out I was involved with a Rabbi in Israel. "I was trying to help her, she is a sick girl who needs to get some help". These men pray on vulnerable women and understand that women cannot be viewed as reliable witnesses, in accordance with Jewish law.
Free meat to eat, enjoy the feast

[shmuel]

I'm sorry to stray a bit here---very good post, BTW---but if we rule that observant children facing down death, potentially, are permitted to be removed from the threat of death and placed in irreligious homes, why is that principle not applied to the Holocaust? Why did so many charedi rabbis, facing death and whose followers faced death, advise their people to not escape to the treif USA or Palestine? Why did Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman HY'D not avail himself of this theory? Surely life is better than death. We all know that. So why the difference in approach?

[LonelyMan]

As a rape crisis advocate who's had to deal with child abuse and sexual assault, has spoken more than a few times to survivors of it, I hope I can add something to the discussion. Overall, this article is a start, but I'm surprised how far the Chareidi community is behind the mainstream. I don't remember if Rabbi Aviner is Chareidi or RZ, but if this is where the RZ are, then we should be REALLY worried about the Chareidim. There has been little talk about the kind of rehabilitation the child needs, the process that it takes for the child to open up with play & art therapy which could take a long time, and the kind of survivors groups that counselors in the Orthodox community should be running. The last part would only be possible in the US, as finding a Chareidi with serious social work or psychological training in Israel is as likely as finding one with a white kippah sruggah. The fact that he recognizes that something is inherently out of whack with the rapist is a good start, but there's no good treatment model in Israel. Such a person would often refuse to be treated by secular therapists, and Hareidi therapists are as rare as kosher pigs there. We can always go for the option below, but it should best be utilized in combination with psychotherapy, though it should help by itself.

Just an interesting question, I'd like to pose. For those who molest children, what would be the Halachik, both MO & Chareidi, position on chemical castration. What I mean by that is forcing the person to take a medicine that causes their body to stop producing testosterone. In addition to just about stopping abnormal sexual desires, it also has the effects of stopping any and all sexual desires, including one for one's wife. With enough of a will, be it because of legal pressure or simply a will to change, together with therapy, it can allow a man to live nearly free of his urges, though I still wouldn't want him in my community and ask he still be seriously watched skeptically by those around him. On second thought, maybe the Chareidi world should do that for everyone, it would stop all of the "porn" watching and child abuse, make people hate sex more, and make it even more pro forma than it is now. Still, I put the question on the table and I hope people will add opinions other than my own. I'm all for it by the way, but without additional therapy, I would still not want such a person ever released into the community. The child will still bear scars into their 30's, if not far past that, and when pressured by a lot of stress, the well of can simply burst forth all at once, which is a difficult thing to see for a therapist.

[Archie Bunker]

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2009/may/180509-News-Pune-Pune-Airport-Israeli-philosopher-Daniel-Effrati-Lohegaon-Airport.htm

I suppose Shmarya is not the only one who tries to drag Chabad into everything.

[Archie Bunker]

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11179

Obama’s Jewish Problem

By Joan Swirsky

Monday, May 18, 2009

[Chicago Samson]

Good article; minus the Haredi madness, we actually both support a conservative candidates; I am proud to say that I did not vote for Obama; I think he and his party threaten to create a new kind of liberal McCartheism that aims to eliminate freedom of speech as we now know it. His affection for totalitarian regimes is frightening. Nathanyahu needs to stand his ground. Hey, as far as I am concerned, Israel can get its new jets from the Russians--an equal opportunity zonah--who does not care about principles but only money.

Do read Daniel Pipes's column, he says it all:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1242212395313&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[radical feminist]

CS writes..that aims to eliminate freedom of speech as we now know it. His affection for totalitarian regimes is frightening.

There you go again calling up the Republican Ghost of Presidents past.
Dare I say there is just a tad bit of projection here..

[Yochanan Lavie]

Both parties stink.

[Ela]

radical feminist writes: There you go again calling up the Republican Ghost of Presidents past.
Dare I say there is just a tad bit of projection here..

Could you be more specific? What Republican president (other than perhaps Lincoln suspending habeus corpus in the Civil War) has ever curtailed your freedom of speech? I agree with Yochanan that both parties stink, but with a charge like this you need to be more specific. I've lived through a number of GOP presidents, and so far as I know I've always been free to speak my mind.

Again, specifics, please...

[Ben]

Radical Feminist, you write "These men (Rabbis) pray on vulnerable women and understand that women cannot be viewed as reliable witnesses, in accordance with Jewish law. Free meat to eat, enjoy the feast"

You must be either extremely bitter and in urgent need of psycho therapy, or trully sick and then you should look for psychiatrist. It is insane to put a blame on all the rabbis. It is trully insane.

[Chicago Samson]

The "Fairness Doctrine" is an obvious attempt to subvert freedom of speech, and the Democrats who are spearheading this are willing to sacrifice civil liberties (oops, I almost wrote "civil liverties"), to keep the lid on conservative talk-show hosts because they are openly critical of the Democratic party and its agenda.

I am a lifelong Democrat--but I am a conservative Democrat of the Scoop Jackson and Harry Truman variety; in addition, I am an active member of the A.C.L.U., even though I think its leadership is almost as nutty as the Chabad.

I do not like politicians trying to circumcise free speech; if the Democrats want liberal talk shows, then let them produce it--I might even listen to it, but interfering with free speech as it is now is very misguided and wrong.

The political system as it is needs to allow for the freedom to dissent; the Democratic attempt to force unions to have open vote elections--with no private voting is wrong--even sinister.

BTW, Lincoln is not one of my favorite presidents precisely because he disregarded the civil rights of the nation. I think the abolition movement would have succeeded sooner or later like it did in other countries in Latin America; the massive loss of American lives from the Civil War was unnecessary. Suspending Habeas corpus was wrong and violated the Bill of Rights.

[A. Nuran]

CS, what chutzpah!

Your Beloved Decider, the Commander Guy Shrub the Second took a dump on the Constitution. He then spent eight years wiping his ass with the Bill of Rights. He ruled by decreed, had secret legal opinions written that said the Constitution and laws passed by (I quote) "a subservient branch of Government" i.e. Congress didn't apply to him. He kidnapped, tortured, murdered, tortured innocents and actual POWs to death. He cast his wiretapping net so wide that almost everyone was included. He used unilateral un-appealable Executive power to prevent a million Americans from exercising the right to travel freely. He built but didn't fill concentration camps. He arrogated more power to himself than any President in history. The shit he pulled would have made Nixon die of shame.

And you have the unmitigated fucking gall to parrot slanderous whispering campaign of the Republican Lie Machine by wagging your finger at Obama for what you're afraid there are hints that the tea leaves indicate he might do?

Your Party has become a one note Johnny. And with this sort of crap you show just how much trouble it has hitting that note.

[Chicago Samson]

The only problem with a woman acting as a supervisor for a conversion is if the woman supervising the immersion is non-OJ:

שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק א סימן קה

באשה כופרת ומומרת לטבילה אם נאמנת לעמוד על הטבילה. ד' אדר הראשון תשי"ז. מע"כ ידידי מהר"ר ישראל שטאק הכהן שליט"א.

הנה בדבר שאלתו אודות שהאשה המשגחת בהמקוה אינה שומרת דת ומומרת למקוה ברור ופשוט שאין שייך לסמוך עליה על עניני כשרות הטבילה לומר שנטבל כל גופה עם השערות בהמים דהא צריך ידיעה ברורה דאיתחזק איסורא ומטעם זה בעינן דוקא יהודית גדולה כדאיתא בסי' קצ"ח סעי' מ' משום דקטן אינו נאמן באיתחזק איסורא אפילו בדרבנן ועכו"ם אפילו בלא איתחזק אינו נאמן כדאיתא טעם זה בהגר"א ס"ק מ"ה וכן איתא בב"י שם מהכל בו והאגור בשם הר"מ. ובעצם לע"ד אין צריך לזה דאף בלא איתחזק לא היה קטן נאמן דהוא מדאורייתא עיין בסי' קכ"ז ברמ"א סוף סעי' ג', דאף שחציצת מיעוט הוא רק מדרבנן ובאם לא מקפיד אף מדרבנן אינו חוצץ אבל טבילת כל גופה וכל השערות שיהיו בהמים ולא יצא אף משהו משערה אחת הוא עכוב מדאורייתא ואינה טבילה כלל והכא הרי ההשגחה היא על עצם הטבילה לראות שלא ישאר אף משער ראשה צף על פני המים וצ"ע בכוונתם. ואולי לרוחא דמלתא כתב הגר"א הא דאינו נאמן אפילו בדרבנן וגם הא דאיתחזק איסורא הוא לרוחא דמלתא דהא הוא איסור מדאורייתא שבכל אופן צריך שיהיה גדול וגם לא יועיל מסיח לפי תומו דנכרית וגם אולי הוא בשביל שיטת הריטב"א הובא בהגר"א סי' קכ"ז ס"ק כ"ט דאף בדאורייתא רק באיתחזק איסורא אין קטן נאמן. ואשה מומרת לטבילה אינה נאמנת אף על אחרות דמה שאיתא בסי' קי"ט סעי' ז' דבשל אחרים נאמן אפילו על אותו דבר מפורש בש"ך ס"ק י"ח דהוא רק בחשוד אבל במומר שהוא מועד אינו נאמן אף בשל אחרים. ידידו, משה פיינשטיין.

Otherwise, she can function in that capacity.

[Ela]

A. Nuran (5:43pm):

Is it possible for you to pursue your passe Bush-bashing without resorting to foul language?

Bush kept us safe from another 9/11 for the next SEVEN YEARS after it happened -- and he did every single thing you mentioned (minus your rather primitive sarcasm) with Democratic support and approval in the U.S. Congress.

You're obviously a very angry person, who cannot stand dissent.

And exactly what kind of person cannot stomach any dissent?

[Ela]

Further, A. Nuran, Bush did not violate the Constitution even a single time, with a single thing you mentioned. The court upheld his actions, as well.

Again, you're just an angry person, who cannot stand dissent.

If you respond to me with more of the same, you've only made my point even more. There are any number of different, formula responses you could give, all of which are predictable and all of which I've seen.

Try not being a conformist, when/if you respond. And perhaps, seek counseling for that anger issue of yours. It's people like you who can just go off violently, with little or no provocation.

Get a grip.

[Chicago Samson]

Thanks Ela, Bush had to preside in the aftermath of 9/11 and frankly speaking, I personally do not regard terrorists as enemy combatants, who are governed by the Geneva Convention, which frankly needs to be completely written in light of terrorism today. Were it up to me, I would send these detainees to countries that throw away the key along with the cable television.

No wonder the totalitarian regimes in the world think we are a paper tiger; "emasculated" is a more apt metaphor.

Mind you, I am not that crazy about Bush, but Sadaam Hussein never met a terrorist organization he didn't like or financially support, he kinda like Bill Clinton and women in that respect.

So, we tied the hands of our soldiers in Iraq; were it up to me, I have sent a cruise missile to Damascus, followed by any apology of "Ooops, SORRY ...." and the Syrian front would have ended, drying up the weapons caches sent by the Iranians.

Instead, we chose to fight the war as if we were in Vietnam; my, my, were it not for General Pretreus, we would have really been bad despite the fact that the Democrats fought the surge tooth and nail.

Now we have an obamcized nation, and Israel faces the most anti-Israel American gov't (or is it the Obama regime?) since Jimmy Carter--if you don't believe me, just ask how Obama treated Shimon Peres in most recent trip .... Maybe if spoke like Chavez or Castro, Obama would have high- fived him.

A. Nuran doesn't bother me, I enjoy hearing a contrarian view. Liberals OTOH have to consistently demonize the opposition, because liberalism is America's secular religion (See Robert Bellah's "Habits of the Heart").

[Chicago Samson]

Oops pressed the wrong button again!

Thanks Ela, Bush had to preside in the aftermath of 9/11 and frankly speaking, I personally do not regard terrorists as enemy combatants who are governed by the Geneva Convention, which frankly needs to be completely written in light of terrorism today.

Were it up to me, I would send these detainees to countries that throw away the key along with the cable television. By sending them to Third-world nations who know how to interrogate, the U.S. would quickly obtain the information it needed.

It is no wonder why the totalitarian regimes in the world think we are a paper tiger; we are a nation that is into self-immolation and self-emasculation--a sissified nation that doesn't have any testicular fortitude to win the war that must be fought--vigorously and uncompromisingly.

Mind you, I am not that crazy about Bush, but Sadaam Hussein never met a terrorist organization he didn't like or financially support (Hussein is kinda like Bill Clinton and women in that respect); he used to pay $20,000 to suicide bombers' families and was a great menace to the world thanks to the United Nations scams.

So, we tied the hands of our soldiers in Iraq; were it up to me, I would have surely sent a cruise missile to Damascus, followed by a note of apology saying, "Ooops, SORRY ...." and the Syrian front would have ended, thus drying up the weapons caches sent by the Iranians.

Instead, we chose to fight the war as if we were in Vietnam; my, my, were it not for General Pretreus, we would have really been bad off despite the fact that the Democrats fought the "Surge" tooth and nail and did everything we could to prevent him from winning the war (just ask Madame Hillary, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer [Jim the Catholic, I raise your bet with three of the numskulls I just mentioned]).

Now we are an obamcized nation, and Israel faces the most anti-Israel American gov't (or is it the Obama regime?) since Jimmy Carter--if you don't believe me, just look how Obama treated Shimon Peres in his most recent trip .... Maybe if Peres would have spoken like Chavez or Castro, Obama would have high- fived him.

Who even knows whether Obama is an American citizen? His family in Kenya thinks he is Kenyan.

A. Nuran doesn't bother me, I enjoy hearing a contrarian view. Liberals OTOH have to consistently demonize the opposition, because liberalism is America's secular religion (See Robert Bellah's "Habits of the Heart")and I happen to agree with Michael Savage that liberalism is for many Americans a "mental disorder."

Now that I have probably offended nearly every person at this website, let's discuss another topic. I am proud to be an Independent, and I will not let liberal minded politicians do my thinking for me ... Now if the Republicans want to put up a strong candidate, they need to get over this "Christian nation" nonsense and follow someone like Rudi or Newt, who would eviscerate Oba,a in any debate--and forget about Palin, she's probably a Democratic operative (only kidding!).

And now you know the rest of the story ....

[A. Nuran]

Yes, let's talk about the great Republican regard for freedom.

Theodore Roosevelt was a fire-breathing reformer, so the Greedy Old Plutocrats turfed him out.

When his cousin was President and gave a voice to the silenced the Republicans called him a traitor.

Democrats and Republicans both did terrible things during the Red Scare. But it was (Republican) Joseph *spit* McCarthy who led the Republican campaign of lies, slander, bullying paranoia which destroyed so many lives. Nixon road on his coat-tails. When the Democrats decided in 1948 to treat Black people like human beings a huge chunk of them switched Parties to keep up the Jim Crow laws and the lynching.

When Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act which actually gave some teeth to the notion that nigras were people just like White Men he said that he'd just given the next generation to the Republicans. He was right.

The whole "God, Guts and Guns", "Kill a Commie for Mommy", "Ballad of Lieutenant Cally" crowd was grist for the new Republican mill. Nixon's Southern Strategy was based on fear, hatred and the destruction of anyone, i.e. Democrats and liberals (there is a difference) who stood against him. That included burglary, theft of confidential medical documents, the use of the IRS to financially destroy enemies and the support of some of the most murderous bastards in modern history from Pinochet to the juntas in Argentina. Nixon personally ordered the murder of President Allende of Chile because (to quote that disgrace of a Jew Henry Kissinger) "We won't let Chile go Socialist just because its people are irresponsible." Multiply that by support for the Fascist coup in Greece, the destruction of Cyprus and on and on. That's not even mentioning some of the worst of the Republicans' clients - Renamo - famed for forcing children to murder and eat their parents and gunning down Red Cross workers. They got so bad that the South African secret police got disgusted and turned on them. They only lasted as long as they did because of the personal support of Southern Republicans.

Strom Thurmond, a Dixiecrat, used his position as Senate Judiciary Chair to (and I quote from bitter memory) oppose "the First Amendment from getting in the way of prosecuting potential subversives at home."

Reagan and Bush I's terms were marked by continuous degradation of freedom of the Press, political prosecutions and the reduction in civil liberties, not as much the First as the Fourth, Fifth and Eighth. That's when we got for-profit prisons, civil forfeiture i.e. confiscation without trial, the well-documented militarization of the police and erosion of things like Miranda. It was under Bush Sr. that the AG first contended that coerced confessions should be permitted.

It was also George the First who declared that he didn't think atheists could be citizens because "We're one Nation under G-d"

And then we get to George II. Torturer. Murderer. War Criminal. He dealt the Constitution and rule of Law blows from which they may never recover. The degree of surveillance and its use against political enemies is staggering. And they didn't even bother to hide it.

It was your Protector 'Swinging' Dick Cheney who said in 2002 that people who opposed his policies should lose their jobs, their homes and their ability to do business just as long as it was a voluntary pogrom not actually a law. Then there's "You're with us or you're with the terrorists".

And what's the Unspeakable Horror on the other side?
The Fairness Doctrine.

And what's the Fairness Doctrine?
It's an assertion that since the radio spectrum is the common property of the American People it should be regulated for the good of the American People, not just the few who want to make a buck off it. That means that it should not be used exclusively to benefit a single point of view.

Even though the Republican Lie Machine keeps bringing it up their Chicken Little act is ringing a bit hollow. Nobody on the Democratic side is even bringing it up for Committee hearings let alone telling you you can't jack off to the dulcet tones of the limp-dicked bullying junkie who passes for leadership in today's Republican Party.

But what do I know? Like your Commander Guy's staff said I'm just part of the reality-based community

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

Is that really what you believe? Is that the Party you give your allegiance to?

Obama was my third choice this election after one of the best men to be shut out of the process, Dennis Kucinich, and also-ran John Edwards. What I most despise about today's Democrats is that their leaders have been doing their best to do whatever the Republicans want since about the mid 1980s.

[Ela]

A. Nuran said: "Is that really what you believe? Is that the Party you give your allegiance to?"

I guess if you're addressing me (even in part) then my answer is no -- since I'm not a Republican, and frankly didn't care for McCain.

A few corrections on your other points, however:

The dirty tricks you rattle off were hardly practiced EXCLUSIVELY by Republicans, as you seem to emphasize. If you're going to go back to all the sleaze in American politics over the past century or so, it's BOTH parties who are tainted almost beyond recognition. They both play the game and do the 'Potomac two-step,' as the man said.

FDR prolonged the Great Depression with the Great (Government) Expansion; not a single year of the New Deal (1933-40) did unemployment drop below 10%...that only happened with the onset of WWII. Was it not also FDR's government that turned back the ship of Jewish refugees from American ports (Voyage of the Damned)? Was it not also FDR that concurred with the obliteration of Dresden in the mass bombing? Was it not FDR that signed off on mass internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry during the war? And was it not FDR that packed the U.S. Supreme Court with his own cronies -- even expanding the number of seats on the bench, to do so?

His successor, Harry Truman, was the only President in history to TWICE order the nuking of another country.

Every single American war of the 20th century (with the exception of the Gulf War in '91) was planned, overseen and executed by Democrat presidents. Nixon inherited Vietnam from LBJ and JFK -- and did in fact get us out of it (he also saved Israel's behind in '73).

LBJ (and Robert Kennedy, for that matter), engaged in wiretapping of Martin Luther King Jr. -- and a greater percentage of Republicans supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did Democrats, who were the party of Jim Crow.

Incidentally, it was Nixon who pushed for (and achieved) the first actual nationwide integration of buses, and Reagan who signed MLK Jr. Day into law (1983).

The most senior Democrat in the U.S. Senate by tenure is Robert Byrd of W. Virginia -- who was also a former high-up in the KKK.

And again I say...everything Bush did post-9/11 he did with Congressional Democratic approval, and Court backing.

And both you and I still have full, unfettered freedom of speech -- like we always have, no matter who's been in charge. The very fact that we're having this exchange is proof of that -- and I haven't seen a single government agent in sunglasses here to shut us down. We're as free to speak as we've ever been.

As for the Fairness Doctrine (so named so that anyone opposing it will sound like they're 'against fairness' -- which is an old political game), it is designed to shut down talk radio. In case you hadn't noticed, A. Nuran, the left wing has ALREADY tried, repeatedly, to engage the right via talk radio and it's failed miserably (Air America, etc). You know why? Because people don't want to hear left-wing stuff on the radio -- they get that enough already, everywhere else! Now, you can scream about "FOX NEWS!" all you want, but when you put that up against ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, and who-knows-how-many-more other liberal outlets, you can begin to understand why folks gravitate toward conservative talk radio so much (because that viewpoint isn't heard many other places). Conservative talk radio isn't just this 'big thing' out there by itself, that needs to be balanced -- it IS the balance. And, unable to compete in the arena of ideas (talk radio), liberals are now attempting to resort to the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' to flat-out SHUT DOWN talk radio. If you can't beat 'em, DESTROY 'em. The Fairness Doctrine would require that a viewpoint give exact, equal time to an opposing viewpoint -- and impose such burdensome regulations that most stations would simply drop the program rather than comply -- which is EXACTLY the intention of the left, here. Yes, you're right -- the airwaves are public...and the public overwhelmingly wants conservative radio! Since when can government start regulating free speech, with the real intention of SHUTTING IT DOWN? That's not true liberalism; that's out-and-out fascism.

[Ela]

Another thing about the Democrats: with the ascendancy of the U.S. left has come an ascendancy of antisemitism. Whenever the U.S. Congress passes a resolution in support of Israel, it's not the Republicans who have to scramble to get their members on board. Most of the political antisemites today come from the LEFT wing, not the right -- where Zionist Christians are abundant. Some of the most vile antisemitism comes from left-wing Bush haters. I've actually experienced antisemitism, from left-wingers. They claim to be tolerant and diverse -- as long as you're not:

A) Fundamentalist Christian,

B) Zionist,

C) Jewish,

D) White Male (more generally), and/or

E) Anyone who disagrees with them.

[Chicago Samson]

Ela, you're terrific! My sister from a different mister!

Some Jews can't imagine that liberalism can be just as reactionary and intolerant as any fascist movement of recent history.

For example: Joe Lieberman faced considerable anti-Semitic attacks as the Democrats did their hardest to remove the "Jew" off the Democratic ticket.

The rank and file of the Party has become increasingly anti—Semitic and support for Israel has noticeably fallen. Democratic Congressmen have reflected this trend in very visible ways: their votes and actions in Congress reveal that support for Israel has eroded in alarming ways. Furthermore, more than a few Democratic Congressman have openly made statements that are either clearly anti—Semitic or can be fairly construed to be at least, 'anti—Semitic in effect, if not intent'.

In this Wall Street Journal op—ed, Bill Clinton's former Special Counsel, Lanny Davis expressed his distress at the increasing tide of anti—Semitism and vitriol spewing forth from Democratic blogs. Examples he noted:

"Ned Lamont and his supporters need to [g]et real busy. Ned needs to beat Lieberman to a pulp in the debate and define what it means to be an American who is NOT beholden to the Israeli Lobby" (by "rim," posted on Huffington Post, July 6, 2006).

"Joe's on the Senate floor now and he's growing a beard. He has about a weeks growth on his face. . . . I hope he dyes his beard Blood red. It would be so appropriate" (by "ctkeith," posted on Daily Kos, July 11 and 12, 2005).

On "Lieberman vs. Murtha": "as everybody knows, jews [sic] ONLY care about the welfare of other jews; thanks ever so much for reminding everyone of this most salient fact, so that we might better ignore all that jewish propaganda [by Lieberman] about participating in the civil rights movement of the 60s and so on" (by "tomjones," posted on Daily Kos, Dec. 7, 2005).

"Good men, Daniel Webster and Faust would attest, sell their souls to the Devil. Is selling your soul to a god any worse? Leiberman cannot escape the religious bond he represents. Hell, his wife's name is Haggadah or Muffeletta or Diaspora or something you eat at Passover" (by "gerrylong," posted on the Huffington Post, July 8, 2006).

[Chicago Samson]

Oh, BTW, here's more info gleaned from
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/09/the_democratic_party_and_the_j.html:

Leading Democratic Congressman John Conyers is on the House Judiciary Committee and held a mock impeachment hearing to criticize President Bush. The hearing did much more than that, however. Conyers called 'expert witnesses' who had histories of peddling anti—Semitic conspiracy theories regarding the 'cabal that controls the White House.'

The meeting was attended by 30 Democratic Congressmen. One of the witnesses, Ray McGovern, declared that the US went to war for

'Oil, Israel, and military bases coveted by neocons so that the US and Israel could dominate that part of the world'.

He also said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was 'doing the bidding of Ariel Sharon', Israel's Prime Minister at the time. The aforementioned James Moran cheered him on, despite (or because of?) McGovern admitted that a former head of the CIA had characterized him as being anti—Semitic. While this inquisition was underway, activists were handing out anti—Semitic leaflets at the Democratic National Campaign headquarters—where the proceedings were being telecast.

The most senior Democrat from Michigan, John Dingell, declared himself ambivalent about which side he wanted to win in the war between Hezb'allah and Israel. Hezb'allah has in its charter that its goal is a genocide against the Jews (not 'just' the destruction of Israel. Hezb'allah is the number one terror group in the world. It has killed hundreds of innocent Jews in Argentina, hundreds of Americans sent to Lebanon as peace—keepers, and makes clear its desire to continue such 'good works'.

Nevertheless, Dingell states that ' I don't take sides for or against Hezb'allah, or for and against Israel'. He has certainly shown it during his years in Congress, where he has compiled an anti—Israel voting record. Perhaps he is being educated on the issues by the websites that he linked to on his own official website: they included groups support Hezb'allah (when these links were publicized, Dingell took them down).

Jim McDermott, the Democratic Congressman from Washington, enjoyed his moment in the sun by traveling to Iraq before the war started to support Saddam Hussein. This particular travel junket was paid for by an Arab—American 'charity' group recently raided by the FBI and IRS. The federal government is investigating the group, which it suspects violated sanctions regarding doing business with Iraq.

The Democratic nominee for Congress in Minnesota's Fifth District is a Black Muslim who has a long history of anti—Semitism that he has tried to obfuscate by a variety of means—including name changes and pseudonyms. He seems to be following the Cynthia McKinney playbook.

Neil Abercrombie is a Democratic Congressman from Hawaii who takes such pride in his anti—Israel stance that he was the sole 'No' in a Resolution that stated that America should never give foreign aid to a Palestinian government if it is controlled by people calling for Israel's destruction. He also was one of 8 members who voted 'No' on House Resolution 921 that defended Israel's right to defend itself against Hezbollah. See also 'Neil Abercrombie, D—Hezbollah'on Front Page Magazine for a further analysis of his voting record.

Other prominent Democrats who may not currently serve but certainly have sway within the party include such anti—Israel and anti—Semitic luminaries as Jesse Jackson (who described New York City as 'Hymietown' and said he 'was sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust') and the Reverend Al Sharpton who led an anti—Semitic pogrom in Harlem and rails against 'diamond merchants' and 'bloodsuckers' in black communities.Both of these figures flanked Ned Lamont during his speech when he declared victory against Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut.

Of course, Jimmy Carter is the elder statesman of the Democratic Party. He had pride of place at the Democratic National Convention. His anti—Israel stances are by now widely known through innumerable op—eds and speeches he has given (his new book will be titled 'Palestine: Peace or Apartheid' ) that are basically screeds against Israel. Little—appreciated is that he held these views, and others that can be construed as anti—Semitic, during his Presidency. According to Cyrus Vance, his Secretary of State, had Carter won a second term he 'would have sold Israel down the river'

These anecdotes might give a flavor regarding the views of the Democratic Party. However, the plural of anecdote is not data and it would certainly be more probative to look at voting trends among Democratic members of Congress, with the focus on the House of Representatives. Since Senators are voted in to office by statewide votes, they tend to have more moderate voting records because they must appeal to a large variety of people.

Representatives, on the other hand, are elected by voters in their districts and these are often gerrymandered to ensure incumbents' reelections. The unfortunate side effect is that Representatives can become hostages to extreme activist groups within their districts.To be re—elected time and time again they often engage in a type of hyperptrophism: they become more ardent supporters of the views of these groups than they otherwise would be, had they been incumbents in more broadly drawn districts (hence, some of the more anti—Israel Representatives have districts with large Arab—American populations such as around Detroit (in particular Dearborn, which has been nicknamed Dearbornistan), Toledo, and certain areas of California.

[radical feminist]

Ela wants to know how the GOP pres. stifled freedome] of speach?
for starters the patriot act, there are several other cases of dismissal of employees who disagreed with Bush policy.
Ben, I was referring to predators not all Rabbi's, that should have been obvious, as the above article is about predators in the community.

[Ela]

The Patriot Act did not stifle freedom of speech, radical feminist -- not one single, tiny bit. The very fact that you were able to post what you did is proof of that in itself.

People lose jobs all the time for saying stupid things, at stupid times. And with something as major as NATIONAL SECURITY, would you keep someone on after they'd publicly disagreed with your national security policy (which had Congressional Democratic support), when lives and safety could be put at risk, by it?

When they've shown poor judgement by exercising their freedom of speech in such a way that security could be compromised, merely firing them is a pretty mild reaction. Presidents from BOTH parties have done this, throughout history.

Those people lost their JOBS, not their freedom of speech.

[Ela]

Further, Barack Obama seems to be morphing into George W. Bush more and more with each passing day -- right before our eyes. He is practically embracing the Bush doctrine (albeit with different terminology) in its entirety...stuff that was supposedly 'illegal' and that he previously denounced. Reality is a cold shower, even to a guy like Obama; unfortunately, some of his followers do not yet live in reality and so they criticize him when he changes policies to reflect it.