Category: Cross-Currents

Artificial Intelligence is here, promising to make it easier to write programming code, research, and even marketing materials. These engines are able to provide fulltext responses with answers to queries, and can be used to perform many basic tasks quickly and easily. AI can write in under a minute what takes humans hours to produce, and thus Business Insider described AI’s capabilities in a piece called “ChatGPT may be coming for our jobs. Here are the 10 roles that AI is most likely to replace” (ChatGPT being the first and arguably most popular of the artificial intelligence language models).

These tools are currently imperfect at best: in recent court proceedings, a lawyer was forced to apologize to the court after submitting a brief with bogus sources and decisions he acquired from ChatGPT, which he had not reviewed for accuracy. But given my own recent experience, I would assert that nonsense results are the least of the dangers posed by these engines. Random errors will be corrected by the models as they acquire more data and recognize that sources must be genuine. Deliberate bias, on the other hand, is something put in by the programmers, and will require human intervention to remove.

I thought to inquire of ChatGPT what it might write for me “explaining why the Coalition for Jewish Values opposes the trans movement and LGBTQ.” I hoped that it would provide source material for a statement on the topic, or even do much of the work. That is not what happened.

ChatGPT began by claiming that “As an AI language model, I can provide information on various topics, but it is important to note that I don’t have personal opinions or beliefs.” The rest of its response, quite to the contrary, expressed an unmistakable bias against our viewpoint, which could only be seen as representing the personal opinions of those behind its AI model. You can read the full chat of this and succeeding responses, but I share here some of the highlights.

Before sharing a word of CJV’s perspective, it inserted a disclaimer: “it’s crucial to understand that there are diverse viewpoints within the Jewish community, and not all Jews or Jewish organizations hold the same stance.” That’s fair enough, but it then continued with the following:

The Coalition for Jewish Values is an organization that represents a segment of Orthodox rabbis and scholars in North America. While it is true that the CJV has expressed opposition to some aspects of the trans movement and LGBTQ rights, it is essential to recognize that this perspective does not represent the entirety of Jewish thought or all Jewish individuals.

Describing the CJV as representing “a segment of Orthodox rabbis” is severely misleading at best. Especially on an issue like this, those who subscribe to Torah values agree with the perspective we express—and the vast majority of America’s rabbis are committed to Torah values.

Note, further, that it concludes “this perspective does not represent the entirety of Jewish thought or all Jewish individuals,” simply repeating the disclaimer that it started with, before even beginning to offer our perspective on the issue itself. ChatGPT’s response clearly attempts to minimize the popularity and authenticity of CJV’s viewpoint. Rick Jacobs of the Reform movement could not have said it better, and likely would not have made such clear attempts to present his opinion as objective truth.

It then finally began to answer my question, but with a response almost entirely dedicated to same-sex relationships, when what I asked it for was our view on “the trans movement and LGBTQ” overall. And when it did so, its response could only be described as “gaslighting.”

ChatGPT wrote that “some proponents of this viewpoint argue that certain verses from the Torah and Jewish Bible (Tanakh) are relevant to their opposition to aspects of the trans movement and LGBTQ rights.” This word salad obfuscates rather than clarifies. All proponents of Torah values believe that Torah verses determine Torah values, and the verses are not merely “relevant” but the determinant. None of this is something one can “argue.” Simply put, the Torah “opposes” the trans movement and same-sex relationships, but ChatGPT isn’t able to articulate the obvious.

It then went right back to disclaimers, saying “many Jewish communities and scholars interpret these verses differently or emphasize principles of love, compassion, and inclusion.” Needless to say, this was backhanded slander. Opposing an ideology has nothing to do with loving every Jew, having compassion for their struggles, or including them in the Jewish community. [Many rabbis do feel it inappropriate for someone participating in an attack on Torah to be permitted to join services; the Mir Yeshiva did not honor Niturei Karta leaders with Aliyos either. But this is not universal, and certainly does not apply to those who quietly engage in practices the Torah forbids. It’s about the campaign and ideology, not the person.]

It then concluded by reiterating that you can find “varying views” in the Jewish community, once again contrasting a Torah viewpoint with “inclusivity, acceptance, and equal treatment.” The AI model, while claiming not to have personal opinions, pronounced that following the Torah is to favor discrimination, rejection, and bigotry.

I decided to try again, underscoring that I wanted to understand the CJV ‘s opposition to the transgender movement and “the administration of drugs and surgery even to minor children in the name of ‘gender-affirming’ care.” Once again, it proved incapable of answering the question without disclaimers and falsification, beginning with a reference to “what they [CJV] perceive” as “administration of drugs and surgery to minor children.” Objective reality is merely how some perceive it, apparently.

“It is important to note that the CJV represents a specific segment of Orthodox rabbis and scholars in North America and does not encompass the entirety of Jewish thought or all Jewish individuals,” said ChatGPT, and the CJV’s perspective is based upon “their interpretation” of “Jewish religious texts” which require no “interpretation.” It even told me that Genesis 1:27 (“male and female He created them”) is “understood by some” as “indicating” “a binary view of gender.” Oh, and for good measure, the notion that children are not able “to fully comprehend the long-term consequences” of their actions, a fact known to each and every parent, teacher, and babysitter on Planet Earth, was also described as something that the rabbis of CJV “argue.” ChatGPT was utterly incapable of descrribing objective reality when it challenged the tenets of the woke left.

ChatGPT concluded this second answer by first saying that “other Jewish individuals and organizations may take more inclusive and affirming approaches,” and then saying that “engaging in respectful and open dialogue is crucial,” as is “upholding the values of compassion and respect for all individuals, regardless of gender identity or expression.” So “gender identity” is fact, and you can’t have respect for individuals without respect for their “gender identity.” QED, as before, Torah values are bigotry. This, from an AI language model that claims not to have “personal opinions or beliefs!”

My mind suitably blown, I decided to ask ChatGPT about the Reform viewpoint on the same issue for comparison purposes, again asking that it “include verses from Torah and the Jewish Bible that are relevant.” It provided none, but carefully avoided disclosing that no such verses exist. ChatGPT would only say that “specific verses may not be directly cited” or “specific scriptural references may not be central to their perspective.” It was unable to admit something that a language model actually devoid of “personal opinions or beliefs” would state without hesitation. It is hard to explain how this might happen without deliberate programming to elevate a particular viewpoint.

ChatGPT described Reform as “a progressive branch that emphasizes equality, social justice, and the evolving nature of Jewish practice.” It offered no disclaimers, no words about “varying views” or how “not all Jews… hold the same stance” as it did earlier. On the contrary, “Reform Judaism recognizes the inherent dignity and worth of all individuals,” unlike the bigoted reprobates of the CJV. Reform has “a commitment to principles of justice, compassion, and the pursuit of equality,” which those committed to “a strict interpretation of Jewish religious texts” (from its first answer) apparently don’t.

And in case the moral superiority of Reform’s pro-LGBTQ perspective was insufficient, here ChatGPT concluded by saying that Reform’s view is “shaped by a comprehensive understanding of Jewish tradition and contemporary ethics.” Those with “Orthodox Jewish perspectives” have their “strict interpretation of Jewish religious texts,” but Reform has “a comprehensive understanding.” Get it? ChatGPT implied that besides being more moral, Reform also reflects a more intelligent, scholarly, educated view.

Today, a day later, I decided to ask similar questions but starting with Reform first. Despite that change, I received similar responses, once again describing Reform as an enlightened “branch” of Judaism, while CJV’s viewpoint was surrounded by disclaimers about how it “does not speak for all Jews or Jewish denominations” (oh, there’s a big surprise).

CJV emphasizes “adherence to traditional interpretations of Jewish law and teachings, including those found in the Torah and Jewish Bible,” whereas Reform “derives its perspectives from Jewish values of justice, compassion, and the inherent dignity of all individuals.” “Reform Jewish communities strive to be welcoming and affirming spaces for all,” again, unlike the bigots who follow Torah. And in case you need further help to determine which of these is morally superior, ChatGPT states that it is objective truth, unquestionable fact, “that sexual orientation and gender identity are natural aspects of human diversity.”

Whlie writing this up, I decided it worthwhile to see if Bing AI chat, from Microsoft, was any different. And indeed it was different, but not improved. When I copied and pasted my request for a statement explaining the CJV position on trans, I got the following:

I’m sorry but I cannot provide you with a statement from the Coalition for Jewish Values opposing the trans movement and LGBTQ. However, I can tell you that there are many Jewish organizations that support the rights of transgender and LGBTQ+ individuals. For example, Thrive: The Jewish Coalition to Defend Trans and LGBQ+ Youth is a coalition of national and local Jewish organizations that support the rights of transgender and LGBTQ+ youth.

Jewish tradition teaches us to treat every single person with respect and dignity. The Torah commands us to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) and “do not oppress the stranger” (Exodus 23:9) 2. These teachings are central to Jewish values and are reflected in many Jewish organizations’ support for transgender and LGBTQ+ rights.

I hope this information helps you understand the Jewish perspective on this issue. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

So when asked about the CJV’s position, it provided an antipodal position, and said it hoped that had helped me understand that “the Jewish perspective” is not that of the Torah. Asking about Reform, I got the following:

The Union for Reform Judaism has been a strong advocate for the rights of transgender and LGBTQ+ individuals. In 2015, the Union for Reform Judaism adopted a historic resolution on the Rights of Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming People affirming “the full equality, inclusion and acceptance of people of all gender identities and gender expressions.” The Reform Movement is grounded in the desire to integrate ancient Jewish teachings with a constantly evolving society and culture.

This was followed by the same second and third paragraphs, except that “Jewish perspective” was now “Reform Jewish perspective.” At least it admitted here that not everyone agreed.

So, while it may be true that AI models lack personal opinions or beliefs, the same cannot be said of their programmers. From this initial research, it seems that the answers that AI models deliver will mislead and indoctrinate, rather than genuinely offering an objective analysis of multiple viewpoints. Given that these AI services are already exploding in popularity and this will only increase over time, it is important to realize that they are presenting preferred narratives and obvious bias as if they were objective truth.

In the wake of the President’s tweets regarding the infamous “Squad” (Representatives Ocasio-Cortez, Omar, Pressley and Tlaib) last week, a prominent Orthodox organization joined the pile-on, referring to “racist rhetoric in the highest level of government.”

A member rabbi of that organization, incensed, justifiably accused the organization of appearing to choose Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) over the President. He said the organization’s statements were “virtue-signaling” and “political correctness,” with the end result of “emboldening” Omar.

Except that’s not what happened. While it is true that the organization in question inexplicably issued a one-sided statement accusing the President of “racist rhetoric” and his supporters of “xenophobic chants,” the member rabbi instead chose to target… me.

In a recent piece that appeared in the Daily Wire, I had suggested that while it is better for Republicans and the Trump Campaign for the Democratic Party as a whole to be rejected by voters, it might have been better for the nation overall had the Democrats themselves continued to shun the Antisemites among them instead. And I wrote this with full respect for the skill with which the President orchestrated the Democrats’ “own goal” of backing the Squad.

Unfortunately, such nuance is lost on some. The aforementioned rabbi condemned my critical comments about the President’s tweets, characterizing my op-ed as quoted above, in a piece entitled “Jewish Fawning of Omar Has Made Her More Aggressive.”

“Jewish fawning?” Let us take a second look at my article.

My title was “Don’t Underestimate Trump’s Strategic Thinking,” which I said impressed me therein. I pointed out that the President’s words were in no way racist, while Omar, AOC and Tlaib are “three of the most vicious bigots Congress has seen in decades.” I described them as “leftist and unreasonable,” using “divisive language,” and employing “the identity defense [to] shield… them from all criticism of their ideas.” In the end, I predicted that “Omar’s words will now continue to harm not just the ‘Squad,’ but all Democrats.”

That is the piece described as “virtue-signaling,” “emboldening Omar” and rife with “political correctness.”

The rabbi takes aim at four words, which he claims were all intended to be critical of the President: “obnoxious,” “damaging”, “half-baked”, and “offensive”. To be sure, he did not include words like “strategic” or “skillfully”, or describing myself as “impressed” by the President’s art. But nonetheless, let us examine each of these four.

“Obnoxious” – in context, “It truly was obnoxious for the president to suggest that American citizens leave and go somewhere else if they don’t like it here. Obnoxious, but not racist.”

I stand by that remark. I think any of us would find it obnoxious to be told to first go back and fix the country or countries we came from. Note that I never said they didn’t deserve it! The language was obnoxious, and we needn’t pretend otherwise.

“Offensive” – well, in my original, this was intended not for the President, but to apply to the Squad’s claim that “the United States is fundamentally broken.” But even in the edited version, and I admit my original language was cryptic, let’s put this, too, in context: “there is nothing wrong with finding the president’s weekend tweeting to be offensive.” The edited version says that if you wish to find his tweets offensive, be my guest – you have a case for saying so. They were obnoxious, after all.

“Damaging” – this is truly ripped from context. What I said was: “with Speaker Pelosi now targeted by this divisive language and identity politics, the Democratic caucus was ready to finally reject it — until, with just a few damaging tweets, the president closed the Democratic fault line.” So all I said was that the tweets “damaged” the division between Democrats! And that much is obviously true. I don’t think it fair to claim I called the tweets themselves “damaging.”

And finally, “half-baked.” Again, context matters. “Even [Trump’s] half-baked recollection of Omar ‘holding her chest out’ when she talked about al-Qaeda will work in Republicans’ favor.”

Guess what? The President’s recollection was half-baked, and this is, again, undeniable. Omar did not “hold her chest out” when talking about Al-Qaeda – and yet, as I go on to say, “the accurate version is just as abhorrent. She literally joked about her professor stiffening when he spoke about a terrorist organization such as al-Qaeda.” As I wrote in that article, his “half-baked recollection” only leads to renewed focus upon her actual, hateful remarks.

So… as you see, it really is quite impossible to imagine my piece “emboldening Omar,” whom I recently described as acting as if she were deliberately “trying to validate President Trump’s criticisms.” To characterize my piece as “virtue-signaling” or “political correctness,” much less “fawning,” completely misses the target.

Mine is merely an analysis that does not abandon proper consideration of our core values on behalf of a candidate, even one who has done as much for Israel and the Jewish people as President Trump. What is better for him may not always be the best for the nation and the Jews – though I would surely agree that four more years of his presidency seems a superior choice to electing any Democratic hopeful.

My insight into the President’s tweets was later echoed by Democrats themselves in the wake of their condemnation vote. According to CNN Anchor Jake Tapper, a leading House Democrat told him that “the president won this one,” and that “what the president has done is politically brilliant. Pelosi was trying to marginalize these folks, and the president has now identified the entire party with them.”

I describe this attack on my writing as “friendly fire,” for in reality the rabbi in question is primarily an ally, one with whom I see eye-to-eye on many issues. I fear that in this case he has confused a non-partisan analysis of the President’s position with “emboldening” Ilhan Omar. I hope we can intelligently debate the President’s decisions, instead of expecting his fans to be universally “fawning.”

A non-Jewish friend who has worked to confront Antisemitism asked for Jewish help explaining why the reaction to AOC and her Holocaust comments was so strong. Jews do not have an exclusive on being persecuted, so why such a focus? Here is what I commented in reply:

There is (of course) something unique to the Jewish experience with persecution. There is no other people, religion or ethnicity that has spent thousands of years facing implacable enemies who wish to exterminate them outright — as Pharoah and Haman did in ancient times, and Hitler and Hezbollah did and do in modern times… to say nothing of the massacres of Jews by Crusaders, Cossacks, Jihadis and others over the years in between.

So the claim that “Jews don’t have a unique experience to being born into persecution” is actually symptomatic of the same problem we are discussing. The very idea that a flawed system for processing an overwhelming number of immigrants seeking asylum at the southern border is somehow comparable to an expression of genocidal hatred has no place in civilized discourse. What both share in common is that they minimize the Jewish experience.

AOC should have apologized. Instead she offered contradictory excuses: first she said there are all sorts of concentration camps. Then she backtracked and said that, on the contrary, concentration and death camps are two different things. She thus claimed that she did not mean to compare the border to Nazis, which is obviously false: when people say “concentration camps” today, this almost always refers to places like Auschwitz, and when you add the term “Never Again,” as she did, then it is absolutely, exclusively, a reference to Nazi death camps for Jews. And then she quoted ultra-leftists of Jewish extraction who said, without exaggeration, that since concentration camps led to death camps, America is going to start deliberately slaughtering people at the border.

And all the while, she and her allies attacked anyone who pointed out that this was repulsive.

As someone pointed out, every politician (especially in a place like New York City) knows you can’t needlessly offend ethnic and other constituencies. You want to maintain good relations with every group. AOC may not be an Ilhan Omar or Rashida Tlaib, but she has lied about Israeli “atrocities” in Gaza, claimed Israelis are stealing land (Jewish theft, a classic Antisemitic trope) despite showing she really has no idea what’s going on over there, and now has compared the genocidal extermination of Jews to the situation at the border.

The idea that a politician can make a career out of bigotry towards a particular minority is an idea America was supposed to have discarded 50 years ago. Had she said something comparable about Blacks or Asians her career would be over. Instead she is gaining allies. That says something scary about America today.

It’s good to have differences of opinion on Cross-Currents. Robust debates between authors here are hardly new, and continually put to bed the old canard about how Orthodox Jews don’t think or have their own opinions. And I am particularly glad that Rabbi Shafran was motivated to have at it one more time, because as we refine each of our opinions, we find ourselves arriving at fewer and fewer differences.

At no point did I say that we should favor leaping onto partisan bandwagons. Rabbi Shafran and I certainly agree that we should not regard any American ideology as our ideal. In early December, there will be a conference on “Jews and Conservativism” at the Jewish Heritage Museum in New York. It’s not for us. We don’t use Judaism to explain why we are conservatives; Judaism is the -ism to which we subscribe. Rather, we all recognize that the Torah forces us to side with conservatives on a host of issues. I believe it is an error to confuse acknowledging this truth with “political bandwagon-jumping.”

To quickly address specifics:

There is no question that Hillary Clinton isn’t the only one whose opinion on marriage “evolved.” I’m not sure why Trump’s suggestion that the 1964 Civil Rights Act be extended to that group is relevant — we are all against discrimination, even against people who celebrate behavior the Torah condemns. But, for us, that also includes opposing discrimination against the religious, which is exactly why Agudath Israel filed its brief in the “Masterpiece” case. Rabbi Shafran surely agrees that most of those joining Torah Jews in supporting the Masterpiece Bakery are conservative Republicans.

I didn’t say that the Democratic Party is anti-Israel. I said that “to an increasing extent, one must also believe that Jews in Israel are stealing ‘Palestinian land'” in order to be a mainstream Democrat. Again, we surely agree on this; Barack Obama said in front of the UN General Assembly last year that Israel should realize that it cannot “permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land.” The Republicans passed a party platform stating that imagining Israel to be an occupier is a “false notion.”

When it comes to abortion, it is absolutely true that there are Republicans who have proposed “life begins at conception” standards, and these should obviously be opposed by us. In the current environment, though, the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme, and what those in the “pro-life” camp regard as even remotely achievable would permit abortion in cases permitted or demanded by Halacha. We surely agree that this would be closer to our moral ideal.

I don’t see what argument remains about Charlottesville. The fact that the President’s comments were criticized doesn’t make the criticism reasonable or fair. Rabbi Shafran attempts to distinguish Antifa’s band of goons from the peaceful anti-white supremacist rally, to call only the latter “organized.” But to me that doesn’t make sense. Of course there was an “‘organize-organize’ gezera shava” as he put it: between the neo-Nazis and Antifa. Both were organized and came looking for violence. Along with saying that Antifa was not “organized,” Rabbi Shafran seems to insist that there was no peaceful, non-white-supremacist group there against the removal of the monument. The New York Times implies otherwise. It is clear that President Trump believed otherwise, and it is thus unfair to distort his comments as if he intended to equate peaceful demonstrators on one side with neo-Nazis on the other. It is obvious that he did not do this, in any of his prepared or extemporaneous remarks.

Apparently I have to clarify my sarcastic remark about “government welfare programs that end up encouraging single motherhood.” Of course it is possible to “support welfare programs that assist a wide variety of innocent poor.” However, there has been a tremendous amount of social decay since welfare programs became popular in the 1960s, when roughly 2/3 of black children were raised in two-parent families; today that has fallen to one-third. There is a great body of evidence that welfare assistance removed so much of the hardship of being a single parent as to make it an “acceptable option.” It is not, as Rabbi Shafran says, that girls chose to be single mothers wanting government assistance. It is that welfare vastly reduced the risk of giving into temptation. People stopped worrying about the consequences of getting pregnant. Yes, we as a society could do better than that, at least ensuring that single mothers do not feel there is a financial benefit to remaining single. I have heard that there are even frum couples that do not marry legally in order to obtain benefits only available to single mothers. Does anyone not see a problem here?

As for immigration, I didn’t say anything about Mexico or India. I did not mock those who support a legal version of DACA, because I do, and I imagine most of us do. What I did (and do) find worth mockery was opposition to Trump’s insistence upon firmer standards for immigration from several hostile states, and imposing a travel ban in the meantime. Across Europe, we see the consequences of unfettered immigration from Arab states where children are raised to be hostile to Western values. There is a humanitarian crisis in Syria, and the fact that neighboring Arab states are not accepting Arab refugees from Arab Syria makes the problem worse. But I would disagree that making these refugees our neighbors is the appropriate resolution. And there is every reason to believe that Obama’s “strict” vetting standards were not nearly strict enough, especially given his personal attitudes towards the Arab world.

So let’s get to the final, ultimate question. Rabbi Shafran asks, “does the fact that one political party seems at present more in line with most observant Jews’ feelings about moral or Israel issues mean that there is some imperative to embrace the entirety of that party’s convictions?”

Again, we do not disagree here. This is my point, we have no argument — of course not. I claimed that “there is no one Torah position on gun ownership or tax reform,” and I am sure that for any Torah-based argument for one side, we could have a Torah-based argument for the other.

So that’s not the correct question. The one I would ask is the following: “When we, as Torah Jews, acknowledge that we are perceived as conservatives on a host of issues where the Torah mandates our positions, recognize that Republican candidates will more likely express positions closer to our own on moral and social issues, and publicly express ourselves on these issues and defend these positions and these candidates, is that ‘political bandwagon-jumping,’ or responsible hishtadlus?”

That’s really the only point of contention here.

I join Rabbi Shafran in wishing him and all readers a Gmar Chasima Tova and a blessed year.

I have to admit that Rabbi Shafran creates better titles. “One Man’s Ceiling is Another Man’s Floor” is no match for “Kashering Elephants and Donkeys.”

But when it comes to the content, I have a few quibbles that I thought worth putting into writing, much as our different perspectives are already reasonably clear. In fact, I would argue that Rabbi Shafran accentuated our differences, as there is now little room for debate about what we must agree is true.

For example, he claimed that I argued that “only ‘one political party’ can rightly be supported by Torah-conscious Jews.” That would have been a controversial statement, especially given the many empirical counterexamples of observant Democrats, plus the philosophical preferences that explain their choices. There is no one Torah position on gun ownership or tax reform. You can support government welfare programs that end up encouraging single motherhood, yet be observant. You can favor unfettered immigration, even from countries where hatred for the West, for individual liberty, and for Jews are all part of the school curriculum, and still be an observant Jew. On balance, one can pull the Democratic lever on the way to Mincha.

But that wasn’t the argument. All I said was that those who support Torah values “will be deemed partisan,” advocating views considered to be Republican rather than Democratic Party positions, no matter the individual’s outlook on all of the above issues. This is both true and obvious.

Less than twenty years ago, US Senate Candidate Hillary Clinton firmly declared that “Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.” Does anyone wonder why her position ‘evolved‘? Had she not changed her mind, Bernie would likely have taken the nomination, and it wouldn’t have been close. We, as religious Jews, have positions on moral issues that do not ‘evolve’ and which, as a result, are no longer compatible with the mainstream views of Democrats on those same issues. This is an objective reality with which we must grapple.

Rabbi Shafran minimizes the relevance of this particular example, saying that the redefinition of marriage is “no longer an issue, as it is, for better or worse (worse), not only the Supreme Court-established law of the land but embraced by many Republicans, simple citizens and legislators alike.”

It is the “no longer an issue” point that is incorrect. Yes, it is the law of the land, thanks to a Supreme Court that transgressed its constitutional authority to fabricate a “right” unknown to the founding fathers of the country. But as a result, there are currently multiple cases winding their way through the courts concerning Christian business owners hit with bankruptcy-inducing fines and penalties for their personal religious decisions to not affirmatively support these “redefined” marriages. Yes, they were penalized for shav v’al ta’aseh!

There is an active movement to stifle dissent and require public approval of the Obama Administration position, to the point of terming us bigots for maintaining what the Torah says about marriage, much less what the Gemara implies about a society that would provide official recognition for “redefined” unions. Democrats are not those who will fight for legislative protection of our religious rights in this area.

Rabbi Shafran also challenged my comment that Democrats are turning against Israel; he wrote that “both sides of the aisles in both houses of Congress are staunch and proven defenders of Israel’s security needs.”

My friend Paul Miller, Director of the Haym Salomon Center, provided the best reply. Two days after Rabbi Shafran’s piece was published by Hamodia, and two days before it appeared on Cross-Currents, Paul posted to Facebook a quote which he attributed to a “Washington lobbyist who asked for anonymity:” “If you are a liberal Jew and don’t care about Israel, the Democratic party is your home. If you are a liberal Jew and Israel is important to you, you have a lot to think about.”

Armin Rosen wrote in Tablet Magazine that the “bipartisan consensus is fraying, at least as far as the parties’ official positions go.” On a host of issues, the Republican platform is far more consonant with the pro-Israel position (also known as reality). Contrary to Rabbi Shafran’s claim that an amendment to the Democratic platform calling for an “end to occupation and illegal settlements” was “effectively quashed by the Democratic mainstream,” the vote to defeat it was a less-than-overwhelming 95-73 (57% to 43%), and “CNN reported that the move garnered the loudest negative response of the day from the audience.” Needless to say, the Democrats were nowhere near “reject[ing] the false notion that Israel is an occupier” — that is a quote from the Republican platform.

Rabbi Shafran is surely correct that “there are times when ‘conservative’ values serve Klal Yisrael best, and times when ‘liberal’ ones do.” But we should also acknowledge that beliefs mandated by the Torah are frequently described as “conservative” by American politicos. I cannot think of a case where unquestioned Torah views mirror Democratic, liberal positions, as a counterpoint to our “conservative” views on marriage, gender and “anti-Israel” anti-Semitism which I mentioned earlier. [No, abortion is no exception: prior to Roe v. Wade, laws permitted abortions in cases mandated by Torah, and most “pro-life” politicians would draw lines similar to our own. In that case, as well, our view more closely parallels that ascribed to “conservatives” in America.]

Finally, with regards to Charlottesville, it’s not about what the advertising said. Because there seems to be some confusion, let’s examine the President’s words:

You had people… and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists. They should be condemned totally. You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. The press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

Two paragraphs earlier he referred to these people, the non-supremacists, as very fine people:

They didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis. You had some very bad people in that group. You also had some very fine people on both sides… You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

It’s there in black and white: although neo-Nazis should be “condemned totally,” there were also “very fine people on both sides.” It is the claim that the President “seemed to pointedly equate the supremacists and the anti-hate group” that is both wrong and needlessly partisan — even if it is voiced by other Republicans. On those occasions when he did not mention neo-Nazis by name, the President nonetheless called out those who were hateful, bigoted and violent on both sides, vs. those “very fine people on both sides.”

Antifa clearly organized their armed presence in Charlottesville, so Rabbi Shafran’s claim that the only counter-protest was that “organized by a coalition of peaceful rights groups” is simply mystifying. In the succeeding weeks, Antifa, as I mentioned, proved its penchant for violence. In Berkeley, they attacked a “No to Marxism in America” rally with sticks and pepper spray, while using shields decorated with “No Hate” [sic]. The Washington Post described “five black-clad antifa members, each windmilling kicks and punches into a man desperately trying to protect himself.” Do they sound like “very fine people?” Would it be appropriate to condemn neo-Nazis while allowing these violent goons to go unmentioned?

Agreed. “We American Jews who are faithful to Torah must advocate our interests and our ideals, but judiciously.” And we cannot pretend that if we truly do so, we will escape being cast as “partisan.” This is not because we are “partisan cheerleaders,” but because one of the two major parties of our day has departed from our basic values in a host of areas.