Search Results for: ABUSE

Hyehudi.org’s Non-Internet DISCLAIMER

Hyehudi.org absolutely does not endorse the use of offline media outlets (including those with a veneer of Torah), many of which enable child abusers, facilitate internal political corruption, feather their own nests, oppose the Temple Mount and its promise (and much more), malign [the true] Gedolei Yisrael, are bad for the Jews, and about match the very worst of the Jewish internet.

We only mention and quote “IRL” publications (per עת לעשות) for people who read those things anyway (for parnassa purposes), surely relying upon personalized rabbinical guidance and permission, employing hardcover, shtender-sized tomes only (as opposed to sleek and smart portable paperbacks) to avoid Yichud, chas veshalom. (And, of course, effective filters and an off-Web Chaver to ensure accountability.)

Note: Sarcasm. For a non-sarcastic comment regarding the internet, see this.

And Corona Communism Is Back! Yay!

A New Covid ‘Variant’…Just in Time for Election Season!

By Ron Paul, MD

Ron Paul Institute

August 29, 2023

 

Just four and a half months since President Biden declared an end to the Covid “emergency,” the media is suddenly full of stories about the return of Covid. This time a new “variant” is being rolled out and the media, in collusion with big Pharma and the fear-industrial complex, are churning out stories about how forced masking is making a comeback.

Also, the “unvaccinated” are again to be denied basic human rights in the name of fighting a virus that the vaccine demonstrably does not protect against.

In short, they are desperately trying to revive the tyranny, insanity, and utter irrationality of the two-year Covid scare. And they are pretending none of us remembers how they destroyed society with their lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccine mandates. They are hoping that none of us will remember the suicides, lost jobs, broken marriages, increased alcoholism and drug abuse, and the rest of what went along with the world’s experiment with global lockdown.

Even Fauci himself is back – like a moth drawn to the light of publicity. Despite all the scientific evidence that the lockdowns were a disaster, that they did far more harm than good, Fauci has re-emerged with his trademark arrogance and claimed that they were the right thing to do and should be done again if that’s what it takes to force people to take the vaccine. A vaccine that does not work.

They won’t even allow us to mention the spike in all-around mortality or the millions who may have been vaccine-injured the first time around. They want us to think that 20-year-old world-class athletes have always just dropped dead of heart attacks out of the blue. It’s all normal! Don’t question it! What are you, some kind of conspiracy theorist? Are you a science-denier?

Yes, look for a renewal of all those old hollow phrases used to attack those of us who can see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears. Their slogans are meant to silence any debate. The same “experts” like Fauci who claimed “I am the science” are back and they shamelessly demand to silence us again.

The big question is…why? Why are they doing this and how do they think they can get away with it a second time? One reason they believe they can get away with it again is that no one has ever been punished for what they did the first time. The Federal Government made sure that the pharmaceutical companies would not be liable for vaccine damages.

The public figures who openly became monsters, demanding the unvaccinated be drummed out of society and maybe even off the face of the earth have not been shamed or shunned. Politicians who displayed cowardice and worse have not been voted out of office for their treachery.

Why are they coming back around for another round of Covid tyranny? Fear is a weapon to gain control. Last time around they generated fear to radically change how America voted. Suddenly everyone was mailed ballots. How closely were they checked? No one knew and no one dared ask. The people who did ask about the election are now facing jail terms.

They want us to shut up while they do it again. Will we?

From LRC, here.

EXPOSING Anshei Sedom Retreads (No, Not Literally)

Eshel Preys on Orthodox Jews but Won’t Answer Questions

As the war on God and humanity approaches a climax, Amalek is making a full-court press to legitimize and spread all types of deviant behaviors. Amalek will be utterly destroyed in the end – this was prophesied already by Bil’am – but until that glorious day arrives we must prevent Amalek from taking our people down with them.

I don’t know if the people behind Eshel are truly Jewish or Jewish in name only, but they are doing Amalek’s unholy work.

Their mission page features the following statement: “We envision a world where LGBTQ+ people and their families are full participants in the Orthodox community of their choice.”

To someone with a big heart and a primitive mind, this will come across as innocuous, even virtuous. After all, it’s easy to feel sorry for people who are left out. Portraying such people as righteous underdogs, victims of cruelty and injustice, is a highly effective strategy. We see this tactic time and time again to seize the narrative and shut down serious discussion, let alone criticism of the perceived victims, because it works.

But if we stop a moment and actually consider the implications of Eshel’s “vision”, it’s not so innocuous.

What would it mean for LGBTQ+ people to be “full participants in the Orthodox community of their choice”? It would mean your son’s Rebbe or Rosh Yeshiva might be homosexual and proud of it. Don’t think your Yeshiva would never hire someone like that. Hiring practices that discriminate against people based on such criteria would be illegal and could get the Yeshiva shut down.

That would be fine with them, too. They might even prefer that to actually being hired.

It would mean your daughter’s seminary teacher might be a man who claims to be a woman and uses the same bathroom as your daughter. It would mean this same man would sit in the women’s section of the Orthodox synagogue of his choice, and you would be powerless to utter a peep of protest. Doing so might even land you in prison.

When we unpack the positive sounding, emotionally manipulative buzzwords and translate it to plain English, this is Eshel’s vision. Not today, and not tomorrow – they’ve been playing the long game for decades – but they are almost there, and they mean business.

Eshel was founded in 2010 by Miryam Kabakov and Steve Greenberg. Greenberg’s claim to fame is being ordained as a rabbi by RIETS and subsequently disclosing that he is homosexual. According to everyone who isn’t an Orthodox Jew, this means one can be an Orthodox rabbi and also gay, which is very convenient for falsifying the Torah and confusing people. Greenberg has made quite a career out of this – the secular world will shower such Jews with endless accolades and grants – and he generously co-founded Eshel to spread this bounty with more people who grew up in Orthodox Jewish environments.

Kabakov was not ordained as a rabbi – it is unclear why not – but this did not prevent her from marrying her wife and receiving an award for editing an abomination-promoting book called “Keep Your Wives Away From Them: Orthodox Women, Unorthodox Desires”. In a 2010 softball interview in the Forward, Kabakov referred to herself as “post-modern Orthodox” and noted that she attends a Conservative synagogue.

She also works with Footsteps, an organization that supports Jews in abandoning Orthodox Judaism. One of their great success stories is Abby Stein, “a formerly Ultra-Orthodox rabbi” who later “came out as transgender women”. Talk about self-actualization!

Of course, it’s not enough for people like Abby Stein to be assisted with cutting ties with the Orthodox world. That’s why Kabakov co-founded Eshel, to make sure people like Stein can remain entrenched in the Orthodox world – in the Orthodox community of their choice! – and be treated no differently than anyone else. The goal of Eshel is to convince disturbed individuals, their families, and their communities that being a transvestite and a homosexual is totally fine by the Torah. It’s not even something worth noticing, except to declare how wonderful it is.

If Eshel’s vision is realized, people like Abby Stein would teach children in Boro Park and Lakewood – and you’d better pretend to be fine with that.

Kabakov was quoted in the JTA article about the West Orange Bake Shop, which canceled an order for perversity-themed pastries. The article noted that Eshel “announced an “ally training” in West Orange… in response to the incident”.

On July 13 I emailed Eshel a media inquiry, requesting to interview Miriam Kabakov or a different representative from the organization regarding the incident with the bakery and related matters.

Just two hours later I received a response from Kabakov (who identifies in the signature line of her email as “she/her”). She – just to be clear, she! – wanted to know my questions and what publication I was working with. I replied that I am independent, but I write for a wide audience that includes Orthodox, secular, and non-Jewish readers, and my articles have been published in a wide range of publications. I then asked her eight questions, which follow. Although these are not the usual softball questions Kabakov is likely used to in interviews, they are most reasonable and on point.

I did not hear back.

The next day I sent Kabakov a follow-up email noting that the incident with the bakery was a timely matter and asking her to let me know if she would be responding to my questions.

I did not hear back. Kabakov’s hunger for media attention had completely disappeared. She must have realized I wasn’t writing an infomercial for Eshel, in which case she had nothing to say. I can’t say this surprised me – these people confine themselves to “safe spaces” and scripted interviews – but it’s remarkable to witness it up close.

On July 17, four days after Kabakov’s near-immediate initial response had turned to radio silence, I wrote to her as follows: “If I don’t hear back from you today I will assume you are declining to respond to the questions and will note that in the article. Thank you.”

Kabakov responded almost immediately. Techiyas Hameisim! A miracle!

Unfortunately, she declared that her reply was off the record, though you’re not missing much. She did not respond to my questions, save a single puffy quote that she permitted me to use. I will share that later. First, the questions:

1. In response to the baker’s decision not to fulfill the order for Pride-themed goods, Eshel announced “ally training” in West Orange. What does this entail in practical terms, and what is the end goal of this training?

There is nothing objectionable about this question. If the people at Eshel were acting in good faith, not working to subvert the Orthodox world, Kabakov should have been proud to elaborate. She would have explained how she is training people inside the Orthodox Jewish world to respond to business owners and others who are unwilling to fully acquiesce with the LGBT demand of the day, and to otherwise push their agenda forward. This would have been a great opportunity for her to share some of this training with a wider audience. Why not be transparent?

But since this is all about subverting the community, the last thing they want is for you and me to see what’s going on behind the facade. Only allies can be privy to their training.

There is a militaristic connotation even to the term “ally training”. Allies are people you seek in times of war, and training is for foot soldiers. Kabakov can’t state explicitly that she is at war with Orthodox Jewry, seeking to foment an insurrection from within. So she simply ignored the question.

2. There have been calls for a boycott of this bakery. Does Eshel support this measure?

There are two ways Kabakov could have responded to this question: yes or no. Neither answer would have suited her agenda.

If she said yes, many potential “allies” in the community would be horrified. It’s one thing to support sweet and cuddly LGBT people and assure them that their behavior is totally fine by Hashem, but it’s another thing to shut down a local kosher bakery and destroy people’s livelihood because they wouldn’t fill a religiously objectionable order. Allies of Eshel would love to see a torch-bearing mob destroy the bakery, but Kabakov can’t come out and say it. Not yet, anyway.

If she said no, on the other hand, many of Eshel’s allies would turn against her. How dare she cower before the primitive religious tyrants who wouldn’t fill the order? How dare she be gracious and understanding toward an Orthodox Jew who won’t do anything and everything they demand of him?

Although this question is most reasonable, there is no way Kabakov could answer it, and therefore no ally in the media would ask it.

3. What is Eshel’s position on the recent Supreme Court decision that upholds the right of the baker to turn down orders such as these? In a better world, would the business and the owner be subject to legal action and severe penalties? In essence, to what extent should businesses be forced to fulfill orders that conflict with their personal/religious convictions?

Ditto the above. This was an excellent opportunity for a sincere person to offer a thoughtful response, regardless of whether she felt the bakery should be shut down, legally protected, or anything in between. But no answer would have served her agenda to infiltrate and subvert the Orthodox Jewish world, so I am not surprised she declined to offer one.

4. What would be Eshel’s position if a baker canceled an order for a cake with swastikas because he finds them personally and religiously offensive? Where can we reasonably draw the line? Or can we draw a line anywhere?

I definitely upped the ante with this question, but it’s entirely reasonable. A sincere person might have answered in one of the following ways:

a) Argue that a religiously offensive order is totally different from a Nazi-themed order, thus the baker could reject the latter, but must fill the former. It wouldn’t be a strong argument, but I would be able to convince many people otherwise if I wanted to.

b) Argue that there is no substantial difference, or it’s too slippery a slope to try to determine where to draw the line, and thus the baker should swallow his disgust, fill both orders, and count his money at the end of the day. After all, if he wants people to tolerate him as an Orthodox Jew, he has to cater to Nazis and Satanists. God bless America.

Obviously Kabakov declined to answer this question.

5. If an LGBTQ+ business owner received an order for a product that is anti-LGBT (such as verses from the Torah or rabbinic teachings to that effect, or, to provide an extreme example, depicting a stoning), what would be Eshel’s position in such a scenario?

This question is a checkmate for any abomination agitator, assuming you can find one capable of anything more than screaming obscenities or scurrying away when confronted with an uncomfortable question.

Miryam Kabakov runs an organization and needs to appear respectable, so she opted for the latter.

6. Eshel is actively assisting LGBTQ+ individuals with a dating service, advertising this as “Find Your Bashert”. The traditional Orthodox position on bashert is that 40 days before someone is born, a voice from heaven proclaims that “the daughter of so-and-so is intended for the son of so-and-so”. In your opinion, has the voice from heaven changed? Was this teaching never intended to be gender specific, although it seems to have always been understood that way?

If someone is going to misappropriate a traditional Jewish concept, while posing as an organization that supports Orthodox Jews, they should have an answer for this question off the top of their head. But I’m willing to bet I’m the first person who ever posed it to Eshel.

It’s also remarkable the way people who reject the Talmud and Talmudic rabbis as the authoritative source of authentic Judaism and Torah law regularly poach material from this very source to prop up their illegitimate inventions.

This leads to the final two questions.

7. You previously described yourself as “post-modern Orthodox” who attends a Conservative synagogue. As a co-founder of Eshel, how does this reconcile with Eshel describing itself as an Orthodox organization? How does the organization overcome this seeming contradiction?

Indeed, what business does a non-Orthodox (by this point probably even post-Conservative) lesbian have creating programs within Orthodox communities and basically telling us how things should be done? As an Orthodox rabbi, what business would I have marching into a Conservative or Reform community and telling them how to run their show?

It’s an entirely reasonable question, but it would topple the boat, and hence Kabakov declined to answer it.

8. This final question really cuts to the core of everything. Why is it so important for people who identify as LGBTQ+ to also identify and be fully accepted as Orthodox Jews? Being that so many people interpret the Torah in a myriad of ways, why is it so important to insinuate oneself into congregations and communities which have adopted a more fundamentalist approach, and not just “do your own thing”, even if it isn’t called Orthodox? Why do so many young people despair to the point of suicide if they are not fully accepted as both LGBTQ+ and strictly Orthodox? Why not just be LGBTQ+ and Conservative, Reform, or something else entirely?

I mentioned that Kabakov gave me one quote I can use, and it seems to apply here: “Many frum Jews who are LGBTQ do not “insinuate” themselves into Orthodox shuls, but rather they are born into them and grow up to discover they can no longer be part of them, and thus lose their spiritual homes.”

She cleverly avoided the crux of the matter, instead cherry-picking a single word – an entirely expendable word – to springboard into an emotional appeal. That is the only card they can ever play, the “we have to empathize with the wonderful, suffering LGBTQ folks and do everything possible to accommodate them, otherwise you’re a terrible person” card.

Unfortunately for Kabakov, emotionally manipulative deflections such as these are losing power with each passing day, and get nowhere with me. In my final reply to Kabakov, I wrote as follows:

“As you founded and represent an organization, I asked highly relevant and pointed questions about the activities and policies of your organization, which I assume you would be prepared and willing to answer even if the one asking these questions was not already on your side… I think it behooves you as the founder of an organization to respond to such questions, which are entirely reasonable and logical. Avoiding these questions is not a good look – but it’s your choice. Please let me know either way.”

That was the end of the correspondence.

Although Eshel was founded in 2010, they started getting serious money in 2019, with over $350,000 in contributions and grants. $271,000 of that was spent on salaries, other compensation, and employee benefits, with Miryam Kabakov and Steven Greenberg netting a combined $175,000 in salary alone. In 2020 the contributions and grants for Eshel reached nearly half a million dollars. See the tax returns here and here.

You can make a lot of money being gay, especially if you promote the notion that you can be actively homosexual, dress like the opposite gender, and be an Orthodox Jew, too. Many organizations, foundations, and wealthy individuals who are very distant from Orthodox Judaism will throw money at you, the secular establishment will gush over your books, and the secular media will shower you with positive attention and well-placed quotes. All because you care so very much about the feelings of Orthodox Jews who are struggling, which is of course everyone’s number one concern.

Conversely, if someone used to struggle with same-sex attraction or was disturbed about his gender, yet he withdrew from the LGBT “community”, overcame his demons, and successfully married and raised a family, no foundation, organization, or wealthy individuals will throw money at him to share his story and encourage others to follow his “footsteps” into the light. The establishment will not give his book an award or any positive attention, nor will he be the media’s go-to expert for quotes.

If such people start an organization to encourage Orthodox Jews who are victims of abuse or otherwise severely disturbed that there is real hope, not only will they not receive half a million dollars in funding, they will be persecuted until they are shut down.

Interesting, no?

Amalek and their collaborators have snared enough of our precious souls.

Eshel and their ilk have no business running programs in our communities.

Keep them away from our children.

__________________________

chananyaweissman.com/

rumble.com/c/c-782463

Download Tovim Ha-Shenayim as a PDF for free!

If you received this from someone else and want to receive future articles directly, please send a request to endthemadness@gmail.com.

Calling the Cops on a Molester – Rabbi Elyashiv’s True View

Aguda’s twisted path regarding abuse & calling police

Monday, July 3, 2023

There have been a number of anonymous individuals who have repeatedly insisted – without offering any evidence  – that the Aguda’s policy on reporting child abuse is identical with Rav Eliashiv’s written teshuva on the matter. For someone who has patience and a strong stomach – I would suggest rereading the posts linked below. 1) Rav Eliashiv deals with the issue of tikun olam as a justification for allowing things such as reporting molesters to the police. He mentions the issue of mandated reporting but then says that he is dealing with the issue of tikun olam. 2) He clearly states that if it is definitely a case of molesting that the police can be called. 3) He says the police can be called if there is raglayim ledavar ( reasonable evidence). The Aguda claims that only a rabbi can determine whether the level of raglayim ledavar exists (Rav Eliashiv does not write that). 4) He does say if there is no raglayim ledavar then the police can not be called. 5) The Aguda claims there is no conflict between having a rabbi decide whether you can go to the police and the requirements of mandated reporting. Rav Eliashiv does not say that and says that if there is justification from tikun olam to call the police one does not need the heter that the king ordered it (mandated reporting) in order to call the police. He indicates based on the Ritva that it is necessary to obey the mandated reporting law if it exists which is also the position of Rav Moshe Feinstein based on BM 83

Rav Eliashiv’s position

Rav Eliashiv(Kovetz Teshuvos 3:231): We learn from the Rashba’s words that when action is needed for the well being of society (tikun olam), that the Jewish sages have the ability in every generation to act to preserve the society and to repair breaches – even when there isn’t a specific order from the king. The Ritva (Bava Metzia 83b) has stated that this order of the king is “if the king says to capture certain criminals, even though the government will judge without witnesses and warning [as required by Torah law] and there is no functioning Sanhedrin [as required by Torah law] – it is still permitted since he is acting as the agent of the king. Since it is the law of the land to execute criminals without the testimony of witnesses and warning – as it states [Shmuel 2’ 1:5-16] that Dovid killed the Amalekite ger who had acceded to Shaul’s request to kill him -the agent of the king is like him.”  However according to what has been said, in a matter which is needed for the well being of society
Rav Eliashiv(Kovetz Teshuvos 3:231): It is permitted to notify the government authorities only in the case which it is certain that the accused has been sexually abusing children. Informing the authorities in such a case is clearly something for the well being of the society (tikun olam). … However in a case where there is no proof that this activity is happening but it is merely a conjecture or suspicion, if we permit the calling of the authorities – not only would it not be an improvement (tikun olam) – but it would destroy society. That is because it is possible that allegations are being made solely because of some bitterness the student has against his teacher or because of some unfounded fantasy. As a result of these false allegations the accused will be placed in a situation for which death is better than life – even though he is innocent. Therefore I do not see any justification for calling the authorities in such circumstances.
Rav Eliashiv(Nishmas Avraham 4:208-211): Rav Eliashiv told me that there is in fact no difference in halacha between a teacher who is molesting boys or girls since in both cases we are talking about severe mental damages and danger to the public. He cited the Beis Yosef who cites the Rashba regarding R’ Eliezar ben Rav Shimon (Bava Metzia 83a) who reported thieves to the government… Regarding this Rav Eliashiv said that we learn from this that surely in the case of child abuse which is more severe then theft that it would be permitted to first report it to the principal of the school and if he doesn’t do anything to report the matter to the police even in the Diaspora.

Rav Eliashiv(Nishmas Avraham 4:208-211): Rav Eliashiv told me that it is permitted for a doctor to report the life threatening abuse to the authorities even when there is a possibility [in the Diaspora] that the child will be sent to a non‑Jewish family or institution. However the doctor is then required to the best of his ability to see that the child is transferred to a Jewish family or institution.

2008/09/child-abuse-calling-police-rav-eliashiv.html

2010/02/rav-eliashiv-calling-police-for-theft.html

2008/11/child-abuse-callling-police-harav.html

2009/11/rav-eliashivhis-rabbinic-authority.html

Agudah’s Position

/2011/07/aguda-attempts-to-clarify-views-on.html

2012/05/aguda-forced-to-eat-its-words-no.html

2012/05/ny-sun-defends-rabbis-as-police.html

2012/06/da-hynes-aguda-on-collision-course.html

2013/06/missing-boat-consequences-of-rabbinic.html

2010/11/novominsker-rebbe-publicly-discusses.html

2011/08/reporting-abuseat-last-r-zweibel.html

2012/06/saving-kids-lashon-harah-high-price-to.html

2009/06/abuse-calling-police.html

2012/06/pure-torah-law-vs-pragmatic-weeding-out.html

2012/06/rabbi-zwiebel-aguda-child-abuse.html

2012/06/4-views-of-rabbinic-role-in-abuse-cases.html

2011/06/reporting-even-suspected-abuser-to.html

2012/11/r-avi-safranoffensive-article-regarding.html

Reinforcing the Torah on Sodomy

A simple protest – because, pride lobby, the Torah is not changing

In the Orthodox coddling of LGBT in its ranks, the emperor has no clothes! He is not wearing alternative garb, he is distorting Torah! Op-ed

Rabbi Steven Pruzansky Jun 15, 2023, 8:20 PM (GMT+3)
“So we see there are two ways in which someone can err. One is to speak so much “truth” with so little love that he is not actually speaking truth…They are not at all worried about pushing others away with what they are saying. Perhaps they even delight in the idea…”

“The opposite of this is an equal problem: to show so much “love” that you are misrepresenting the real love of God, and are forsaking God’s truth in the process. You are so afraid of saying something that might push away the one to whom you are speaking that you cease to say anything at all controversial or potentially disagreeable.”

So writes the American religious and cultural commentator Eric Metaxas in his recent book “Letter to the American Church,” of which 95% could be co-opted (dare I say, converted) and applied to the American Orthodox Rabbinate. Metaxas’ starting point was the anti-Nazi German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer who tried to arouse the German church in the 1930’s to oppose the Nazi persecution of the Jews. After spending several years in America, he returned to Germany in 1939, was imprisoned by the Nazis in 1943, and executed in April 1945, just one month before the war’s end.

Bonhoeffer failed to convince his clerical colleagues to challenge the Nazis for reasons some of which should sound familiar to us. They were afraid of antagonizing the Nazis, they were not that sympathetic to Jews in the first instance, they saw the big picture and wished to focus on teaching religion, or they just did not want to get involved in politics, controversies, or cultural issues. Bonhoeffer was horrified by this spiritual neglect and condemned them for their failures and the emptiness of the Christianity they preached.

While the Nazi horrors are sui generis, Metaxas sees a similar dynamic at play today in his denomination’s reluctance to tackle the cultural and moral issues currently roiling American society. He mentions a number of such issues. One, certainly not as weighty as the Holocaust, stands before us as we endure yet another “pride” month. For how long will we remain silent? The easy road is to say nothing, ignore it, move on, focus on other matters, and wait it out, even as the society built on certain moral (and biological) assumptions collapses around us. But it is because of that collapse and the effect that it is having on our children that silence is not an option, a simple protest needs to be registered, and a new path forward recommended.

There are no illusions, at this point, that we can have any influence on secular Jews, Israelis, or Americans on this issue. The “pride” agenda is one of the few things in which they actually believe as dogma, absolute and unquestionable. Dialogue, although not impossible, is difficult, for they have fabricated their own system of sin and virtue unmoored from traditional morality.

 

But it is the infiltration of this agenda into the Orthodox world that demands we raise our voices and state the obvious: the Torah world will never accept same sex marriages or the cult of transgenderism. Period. We should stop pretending that accommodation is possible. It is not.

 

For almost two decades now, any open discussion of these matters has been stifled by the well-funded activists, with the now familiar litany of accusations: any dissenting voice endangers their lives, encourages bullying and suicide, is cruel and unkind, insensitive and a waste of our time and energy. Those who oppose the agenda are, by their definition, haters, bigots, suffer from a phobia, and are all “obsessed.”

Some of these contentions are risible, others dubious, some debatable, but together serve the purpose of suppressing any free and frank discussion of what this movement has engendered in broader society. This is the linguistic playbook they use. A complicit media serves their purposes and advances their agenda.

And too many rabbis have responded with such banalities as “there are more important issues to discuss,” “this requires nuance” (a word that apparently means “saying and doing nothing”), “now is not the time” (the appropriate time never comes), or pandering to the mob out of an excess of sensitivity and compassion – while fearing for their jobs, a loss of respect, cancel culture, media attacks, and the like.

 

And so, we refuse to face the issue head on. Which means what?

It should be stated openly. The LGBT movement, especially in its Orthodox incarnation, is the modern rebellion against Torah, no different than any other rebellious movement against Torah in our history beginning with that of Korach. It makes no difference whether the rebellion is conscious or unconscious; rebellion it is.

The Conservative Jewish movement first strayed by abolishing the mechitzah in shuls, as part of its general conception of an evolving Mesorah. That revolution pales before the LGBT insurrection, which seeks to literally excise a prohibition from the Torah, mocks the very definition of marriage, denies the reality that God created human beings “male and female,” and not three or six or sixty-four genders, as some would have it. It is the very essence of a heretical movement.

Rather than be challenged and distanced, if necessary, as the non-Orthodox movements were, they are coddled, especially when they threaten to “leave Orthodoxy.” We then distort the Torah, and in the process cheat our children who think the Torah is cruel, incomprehensible, malleable, or man-made, and they soon lose respect for the Mesorah and create their own. Our youth are being raised to think that what is abnormal is quite normal, that what is unnatural is quite natural, that what is a sign of mental illness is just self-actualization that should be encouraged, patronized, and subsidized. No wonder there is such mass confusion, dysfunction, and unhappiness.

Increasingly, Orthodox Jews are being compelled (in truth, many go quite willingly) to participate in charade weddings, complete with “clergy,” rings, blessings, a chuppah, and, of course, the broken glass. All this in the guise of “maintaining the friendship, rallying around the family, trying to keep the child in the fold” that he or she has already left – and in the process, they betray what is most dear to them and trample on the integrity of the Torah.

 
It is all one big game of pretend, in which no one is allowed to state the quiet part aloud: the emperor has no clothes! It is not that he is wearing alternative garb.

Do we ponder the ramifications of celebrating a sham wedding that defiles the very concept of marriage and family?

 

Do we even take a moment to consider that a four-year-old girl who thinks she is a boy needs her parents to take her to a competent mental health professional – not a surgeon?
 

It is hard to imagine a greater act of child abuse to which children – teens and younger – are being subjected, and all in the name of the golden calf of compassion.
 

Can’t we just admit that the pronoun game (individuals thinking they are plural) or the therian game (people thinking they are really animals) – is silly, and disturbing? Can’t we state publicly that an obvious-looking man or woman who claims to be non-binary is nonsensical? We help no one by mainstreaming mental illness or by egging on people who need therapy. And those who do not protest are accomplices to a rebellion against Torah.

Metaxas writes that many clergy fear being seen as “religious legalists rather than as loving and compassionate…” But he avers powerfully, “at what point does our silence encourage someone along in their sin and in their path away from God?” Indeed, one of the few prohibitions that remain is the contemporary one that abjures judgmentalism and declares that it is wrong to assert that sins are sins, banned by the Torah.
 
For too long we have been playing semantic games, such as “it is no sin to be a homosexual, but only to commit homosexual acts.” That is a distinction without a difference, and a vacuous one at that. Just reflect on how inane it sounds in other contexts. For example, it is not against the Torah to be a thief, only to steal. It is not against the Torah to be a murderer, only to murder. But what makes one a thief or a murderer? Only by stealing something or murdering someone. But we would not say that a thief is always stealing, or a murderer is always murdering someone, nor would we term someone with larcenous tendencies a thief or homicidal tendencies a murderer.

Deeds matter more than do thoughts or fantasies. But why then do we dance around the issue that a homosexual is one who has committed homosexual acts and not one who just has tendencies. No one’s tendencies are proscribed, only actions, as we all have sinful tendencies. But it is because the “pride” lobby – the only sin which has such a lobby – is purposely trying to dilute the gravity of the sin and excuse the sinner.

Certainly, we must love all sinners, including the homosexual. But is it really an act of love to ignore, rationalize, or celebrate his sin? Isn’t that really the opposite of love – to condemn someone to a life of sin without trying to help them overcome their urges and re-channel their energies? Do we really love the alcoholic when we ply him with liquor? Do we really love the slanderer when we feed her gossip so that she will then share it with others? Do we really love the adulterer when we procure for him new paramours because that is what he desires? Do we really love the thief when we suggest a ripe target?

There is an impasse in any reasoned discussion of these matters, given the threats, litigation, and cultural dominance, and because we have split into two camps. One camp fully embraces the new immorality as sacred and inviolable and demands legitimacy and acceptance from the Torah world – or else. They wish to control public discourse and impose their will on our schools, shuls, institutions, culture, and children. They have intimidated into silence most rabbis and opinion shapers in Jewish life.

The second camp – call them the traditionalists – pretend these groups do not exist, wish they would disappear, and, officially, hardly acknowledge their presence. This stagnation has caused many in the modern Orthodox camp to just surrender, accept the inevitability of their ultimate acceptance in Jewish life, and with it the loss of credibility of modern Orthodoxy as a Torah movement or ideology.

Is there a way out of this morass? Yes, but it requires an honest conversation heretofore lacking.

The approach is straightforward. To the groups and activists, nothing. They need to be told in every forum, clearly and unequivocally, that the Torah is not changing, and recognition is not forthcoming. Orthodox institutions that celebrate same sex weddings are as Orthodox (and faithful to Torah) as are Orthodox institutions that would celebrate interfaith weddings that take place on Yom Kippur and serve pork.

In the public discussion of these issues, we must revive the language of sin, right and wrong, objective truth, morality, and G-d’s will as embodied in the Torah, as well as the Torah’s immutability.

 

To the groups and activists, nothing. It is sufficient to restate our objections and try to remove the matter from the public domain. (It would be prudent just to ignore the parades. It should be noted, however, that polls show that anywhere from 70-87% of Jerusalemites oppose having a pride parade in the holy city. Funny how the media trumpet polls showing the Likud’s or the judicial reforms’ unpopularity – and then ignore these polls which reflect the people’s desire to safeguard the sanctity of Yerushalayim.)

We owe nothing to a group. But the individual is different. As rabbis have always done, to the individual struggling privately with same sex attraction, to their families who rightly love them and want to help them, we must offer safe counsel, sound guidance, and compassion without indulging or celebrating sinful behavior. There must be assistance provided to those who desire to overcome these passions or are otherwise plagued by gender confusion or some other dysfunction, if and where possible.
 

We should reiterate that no person has the right to blackmail family, friends, or communities into violating the Halakha or their consciences. No child has the right to say to a parent, “prove your love for me by eating this ham sandwich with me.” Privately we should encourage the parents to love and guide their wayward children, as we would privately encourage those children to observe as many mitzvot as they can – but never, ever, compromise a Torah value, eradicate, or celebrate a prohibition or make a mockery of all that is holy by sham ceremonies.

To the secular activists, wrapped in the euphoria of their current embrace by society’s elites, there is little that can be said, except perhaps, that they too should show tolerance to those who disagree with them. Yes, we retain the right to openly disagree with them, to respect and cherish the Torah’s morality, and even to publicly encourage its observance. The bullying of the activists has already unleashed a backlash, as we have recently seen in America with the boycotts of Bud Light, Target, the anti-Catholic mockery of LA Dodgers, etc. This will continue.

Cancel culture is a travesty – but it is also a two-way street. We should respond, without fear or rancor, by eschewing platitudes (compassion is a value but it is not the only or even primary value in Jewish life; misplaced mercy has always been a bane of Jewish existence) and by reinforcing the Torah’s morality at every opportunity in a pleasant and winsome way without compromising one whit. That would be courageous in today’s environment – and that would also be what once defined leadership.

Why even write about this subject when every word here has been stated and restated? So that we do not normalize and incentivize such behavior by indifference, by failure to protest. It is clear that the social media contagion has greatly contributed to the expansion of these movements, the confused identities of young people, and the concomitant assault on Torah and the Jewish family. Let it not be said that no voice was ever raised in protest.

 

Rabbi Pruzansky was a pulpit rabbi in the United States for 35 years and today is the Israel region Vice President of the Coalition for Jewish Values. He is the author of six books, including the recent “Road to Redemption” (Kodesh Press 2023).