A Brainwashed People

Recently I came across an article by Daniel Greenfield.  He is a conservative Jewish writer who sometimes provides great insight.  This article engaged the subject of cultural brainwashing.  In Greenfield’s view, many of the people on the left or far left have been brainwashed.  They have not come to rational conclusions by weighing all the evidence, but have been conditioned.  There is a parroting like we experience when talking to people in a cult.  We have created a national cult society.  We watch the news and see so many speak the exact same talking points.  I have been lately amazed at the deep intense hatred for those who believe in traditional morality.  When I try to engage issues with some acquaintances, they simply get angry, dismissive and won’t or cannot engage arguments.  The issues are black and white and there is no alternative view point. If you press beyond that and ask questions for which there no stock answer, the intended dialogue partner simply bows out of rational discourse and resorts to name calling and abuse.  But issues are complex.  These responses are religious cult responses.  It is why there are violent protests on campus against reasonable conservatives. This mass conditioning takes place in schools, media and entertainment that repeat the same points over and over again.  It is group think and group speak on steroids.  George Orwell would have been amazed.  

Generally, the leftist culture (I am not speaking about classical liberals) is totally opposed to traditional morals.  Sexual fidelity, the reserving of sexual relationships and bonding to committed traditional marriage, avoidance of promiscuity, the sanctity of human life (it is not your body but a human being created in the image of God) the command to have no other gods before the Creator, and we could go on.  The leftist culture hates these with a vengeance.  Even the idea of not bearing false witness is compromised if such false witness gains the ends of the relativistic post-modern progressives.  (Note the Kavanaugh hearings)

Sometimes it is depressing to read the news.  Recently a California court required a Christian dating service to include LGBT people.  Chick Fil A is banned not because they discriminate in service and hiring, but because their founder embraced the standards of traditional morality and marriage.  Again and again we see Christians and conservative Jews censored in social media.  We see the symptoms of decadence all around us, but the culture formation elite seem to not even notice; the homelessness, the divorces, the opiate epidemic, the suicide rate, the sleaze, the alarmingly low birth rate.  Some on the more radical left point to global warming as the reason to not have children (others include the crises of this world, the environment in general, and the desire for meaning through a career for women).  The birth rate is declining at an alarming rate and will leave us with huge social problems.  Greenfield notes that so many think the same way due to the constant repletion of the same messages from Hollywood, in the universities, in journalism, and the internet.  The group think is amazing.  Greenfield believes that this cultural direction was planned; that gaining control of education, entertainment and media was central to the leftist revolution.  So was dividing the country in identity politics a key part of the plan.  In my view, one finds an amazing similarity in the brainwashing in the radical right and its racist world view, a conditioning that shows irrationality.  Both radical left and right are full of conspiracy ideas.  Both seek control of others and hence control of the society, but it seems the danger today is more from the left.  They seek control and are planning by every possible means to get control.  I  think they don’t believe in a democratic republic from of government but control by the elite on the left     

Greenfield notes the key elements of brainwashing. 

Those three elements are control, crisis and emotional resonance. To successfully brainwash someone, you have to control their environment, force a crisis on them, and then tap into core emotions, fear, love, guilt, hate, shame, and guide them through the crisis by accepting and internalizing a new belief.

Since the Left still lacks total control over the United States, it relies on repetition, itself a form of control and stress, to create fear and panic. It makes up for its lack of physical control by bombarding Americans with messages meant to inspire fear, love, hate and guilt through the media, through the educational system, through entertainment and through every possible messaging channel. 

The political brainwashing campaign in this country targets the upper class and the middle class. The best subjects for brainwashing are intelligent and emotionally vulnerable. They’re easier to manipulate by using the gap between their emotions and their reason, and their emotional instability makes it easier to force them into crisis mode. The ideal subjects are in their teens and their early twenties. In modern times, that’s a period in which identity is still developing, and can be fractured and remade.

Like every cult, the modern campus claims to serve an educational purpose, helping students find meaning and purpose, but insisting that they must first be cured of the subconscious evils such as white privilege and toxic masculinity that are holding them back through a process that deconstructs their barriers, encourages confession, expressions of trauma, shame and guilt, to create new identities.

This isn’t education. It’s not even dogmatic lecturing. It’s the same basic set of techniques used by any major cult in the country. Once colleges began trying to cure their students of subconscious evils at closed sessions, under the guidance of unlicensed therapists associated with a movement, there was no longer any difference between them and that of any cult, except billions in taxpayer dollars.

Some on the right respond by promoting a counter brainwashing. Have you noticed the amazing levels of repetition in some of  the right wing media? However, brainwashing is immoral and is a violation of the human person.  I note in talking to my more leftist friends and acquaintances an inability to dialogue in a reasonable way.  They cannot argue their points beyond a certain repetition or regurgitation of the content of the brainwashing. Because he or she cannot rationally defend the position they simply seek to shut up the other.   “In the hands of left-wingers, the mantle of oppression has become the greatest tool for oppressing others, denying free speech, the free exercise of religion, academic freedom, the free exchange of ideas, and intelligent free debate, thereby proving the doctrine of depravity” —Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph

Is there any hope.  In the movie The Matrix, the star character takes a little pill to awaken to the fact that he was living in a totally fake world.  He joins the opposition to the government controllers.  We have such a solution.  It is in the Gospel preached with power, with signs and wonders that break through the naturalistic world.  It is in the power of prayer which is mightier than the social conditioning of the culture.  It is the outpourings of the Spirit in revival that is mighty to reverse the decay.  As I was contemplating these issues in a semi sleep state, the power of prayer as mighty to pull down the strongholds of the mind, the mind of the culture.  May God give us the grace for prayer gatherings in every town and city, in every congregation, to realized the issue and to come against these forces of evil by the power of prayer and the proclaimed Word.  Also, today more then ever, we need to see that our children are not given over to the educational establishment for this conditioning, and to choose a college with real education that respects classical biblical views.

Bibi Wins a Fifth Term

Benjamin Netanyahu (nicknamed Bibi) has for now solidified his leadership in Israel. I think many in Israel voted for him because they felt safer with the continuity of his leadership. In my opinion there are many positives and many negatives for Israel in having another term with Bibi as Prime Minister. Here are some likely advantages.a

  1. First, there will be a continuation of a conservative economic management which has led to very low unemployment and increased wages. Under Finance Minister Kahlon’s leadership, Israel has expanded housing options. The increase in the cost of living has slowed.
  2. Secondly, there will be a continuation of Bibi’s strong foreign policy, which amazingly has developed a relationship with the Arab nations (in opposition to Iran), a strong relationship with the Trump administration and surprisingly a decent relationship with Russia! He has opened up African and South American connections at historic levels.
  3. Thirdly, due to the alliance with the ultra-Orthodox and national Orthodox parties, the LGBTQ+ agenda will not be furthered. In addition, as part of the fight against human trafficking there has now been strong legislation to criminalize paying for prostitution.   In regards to the Palestinian leadership, it is my view that they have not been serious about building lasting peace with Israel. Netanyahu will continue to manage the conflict seeking to foster Palestinian stability. [Some think that he needs to punish Hamas, remove their weapons and capture their terrorist leaders. This is a complex issue with no easy solution.]

On the other hand, in my opinion, here are some of the drawbacks to Netanyahu’s continued government, especially in the areas of human rights. 

  1. Many Russian Jews and mixed marriage Jews are not accepted as adequately Jewish by the ultra-Orthodox and are denied legal status as Jews. They are not given any option for an official marriage officiated inside of Israel! The conversion process offends them since they already see themselves as legitimately Jewish. Avigdor Liberman of Yisrael Beiteinu is fighting on this issue. 
  2. Many thousands of Ethiopian Jews waiting to come to Israel are not likely to gain this goal since the majority of the ultra-Orthodox do not look on them with favor. There is racism in their attitudes to these black Jews. This is tragic and unjust.
  3. Shas, the Sephardic Orthodox party under formerly convicted and jailed (!) Aryeh Deri, will continue to control the Interior Department and make it challenging for those who wish to move to Israel under the Law of Return (under which people with a Jewish parent or grandparent have the right to receive Israeli citizenship). Many applicants are legally qualified for citizenship but Shas will seek to keep them out. This also has very negative repercussions for Messianic Jews.
  4. The ultra-Orthodox are constantly working to change Israel’s basic laws so that Orthodox Jews who study Talmud will be released from military service. I am amazed at the number of secular people who voted for Netanyahu knowing this to be one of the issues that could be affected.

Many Evangelicals in other countries really love Bibi, without realizing what a combination of positive and negative elements he will bring with him into the next government. Let us continue to intercede that God will use Bibi to bring about changes that align with God’s principles and not the self-serving goals of the far right and the Orthodox.

THE MUELLER REPORT: AT LAST

Imagine my surprise when the front page top headline story in the Jerusalem Post, my religiously required reading on Friday morning, was on the Mueller report on Donald Trump, his circle and the issue of Russia collusion (Conspiring) and obstruction of justice.  The Post did a reasonably good job of summary.  

I had hoped that the report would end the focus on this, and that the Congress and the President could get on with the issues facing the country.  That was naïve on my part.  Whatever the report said, the Democrats would argue that it showed Trump was guilty even if the report did not show such, and the Republicans would say that it showed he was not guilty.  There is so much spin that avoiding dizziness is almost impossible. What was I to do?  I downloaded the report and read it myself.  Here is my take from a direct reading. 

First, on the issue of collusion and conspiracy, the report was quite clear.  There was no substantial evidence that President Trump, his circle or any American colluded or conspired with the Russians.  This is the big conclusion. However, Democrats are saying that Trumps use of the material that came from Russians and Julian Assange was almost a crime.  Really?  It was in the public domain.  If the Democrats had such material, they would not use it?  Also, the Steele Dossier used against President Trump for this investigation came from Russian sources!  The Democrats argue that the contacts Trump team’s with Russians was somehow terrible when such contacts are par for the course.

The issue of obstruction of justice is more complex.  This section of the report did not conclude that Trump was guilty of obstruction and did not conclude that he was exonerated.  It appears at times that he wanted to end, disrupt or influence the investigation.  However, his advisors and lawyers prevented this, so it did not take place.  Most of the issues of obstruction came from his hard push back against the investigation in public comments.  Could this influence grand juries in an undue way?  There were also cases where he wanted to contain the investigation.  However, none of this happened.  The descriptions of the President in this section are terribly unflattering.  They show that side of the President that his opponents and even some supporters most hate.  However, Mueller did not conclude that he obstructed and noted that different views and disagreements on what constituted obstruction was a factor in not coming to a clear conclusion.  So, there was no conclusion that he did obstruct justice or that he did not. Several past prosecutors and leaders of the justice department noted that it is hard to make an obstruction case when there is no underlying crime. The case is undercut by the first conclusion of no consipiracy/collusion.  Therefore, the issue is trying to disrupt an investigation when the person being investigated is innocent.  Does hindering the investigation or pushing back against it constitute obstruction?  The report says again that this is a matter of disagreement in viewpoints.  Obstruction of an investigation where the person would be found innocent is still on one interpretation obstruction.  But what if the innocent party believes that the investigation itself is unjust and a set up that is presenting false information?  The person in fear may try to prevent such an unjust conclusion.  It is clear that the President did not trust this investigation since the investigation team was a team of almost all Democrats and even some connected to Hillary’s team.  But Trump’s advisors persuaded him to cooperate to an unprecedented level, having his staff testify, providing tons of documents and not claiming likely upholdable executive privilege for some matters.   So the Special Prosecutor did not come to a conclusion.  If there was a clear and provable case of obstruction with corrupt intent the prosecutor would have said so. He left this ambigusous.  There was not such a clear case. The President’s actions were to proclaim his innocence and influence the process so this would be established, not to see a false conclusion made.  Corrupt intent would therefore be very hard to prove.  Congress can establish that his actions were so bad that he could be censored or impeached.  This would go nowhere in the Senate, so is a waste of time. 

Now the Republicans want to investigate possible criminal behavior in the Justice Department, the FBI, the Intelligence Agencies and the State Department that led to the investigation in the first place.  They want to look at why Hillary Clinton was not found guilty in handling classified information and also for obstructing justice (the case there seems very strong).  So if a corrupt regime led to the investigation how could President Trump be guilty of obstruction?  How complex this is?

The danger of both Republicans and Democrats is losing the independents who probably want the country to move on and end all these investigations.   

Bibi Wins a Fifth Term

By Daniel Juster

Benjamin Netanyahu has for now solidified his leadership in Israel.  I think many in Israel voted  for him due to feeling safer with the continuity of his governing.  There are many positives for Israel in having another term for Bibi and many negatives.  Here are the positives.

  1. First, there will be a continuation of a move conservative economic management which has led to very low unemployment and increased wages.  With the partnership with Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon of Kolanu, Israel has expanded housing.  The cost increase has slowed which is very important for the future.  Yet, some economists think that he has increased spending, and the deficit which is not good.  Israel always has great pressure to finance all the various sectors of the society,.  
  2. Secondly, there will be a continuation of Bibi’s strong foreign policy which amazingly has developed a relationship with Arab nations (in opposition to Iran), a strong relationship with the Trump administration, and amazingly a decent relationship with Russia!  He has opened up African and South American relationships at historic levels.  
  3. Thirdly, with his alliance with the ultra Orthodox and national Orthodox parties, there will not be an approval of gay marriage and new rights for LGBT people, though Israel is already very affirming of gays and LGBT people.   Abortion is already at terrible levels.  However, there has now been strong legislation to criminalize paying for prostitution to fight human trafficking.   
  4. With the Palestinians, the ruse will now be over.  It is my view that they never really wanted lasting peace with Israel and from their part, we see it was a ruse all along.  So new solutions and management will be sought.  He will manage the conflict, but some think that he needs to punish Hamas, remove their weapons and capture their terrorist leaders.  This is a hard issue. 

The negatives are in the areas of human rights.  

  1. Many Russian Jews are not accepted as adequately Jewish by the ultra Orthodox and are denied status as Jews.  This is almost 3-400,000.  They are not allowed to have Jewish marriages in the land.  The conversion process is off putting for them.  Avigdor Liberman of Yisrael Beiteinu is fighting on this issue, and he may stay out of the government of Bibi if he is not given something on this issue.  
  2. The 8000 Ethipoian Jews waiting to come to Israel are not likely to gain their goals since the ultra Orthodox largely do not favor them.  There is racism in their attitudes to these black Jews.  This is tragic. 
  3. Shas, the Sephardic Orthodox party under formerly jailed Aryeh Deri, will continue to control the Interior Department and make citizenship hard for those who come to Israel under the law of entry/descent (those with a Jewish father or a grandparent).  These folks are legally qualified for citizenship but Shas will seek to keep them out.  This has very negative repercussions for Messianic Jews. 
  4. The ultra Orthodox will try to change Israel’s basic laws so that Orthodox Jews who study Torah (really Talmud) will be released form Army and National Service.  This is a huge number of Orthodox men.  Basic Law is the closest thing Israel has to a constitution.  I am amazed at the number of secular people who voted for Netanyahu knowing this might be the consequence.  

Though Evangelicals in the United States really love Bibi, they really do not realize what a mixture we face in Israel. 

What We cannot Discuss: the Tyranny of the Left

Recently two events highlighted the tyranny of the left in seeking to shut out discussion of anything that any leftist group rejects.  A mother of a student at a Catholic College criticized young women who wore tights to mass as too revealing and distracting to men.  Then two airports, one in Buffalo and another in San Antonio rejected a Chick-Fil A concession due to their opposition to the LGBT community.   On the first matter, it was not long ago that mothers would teach their daughters that young men (really all men) were very attracted to the female body and dressing in revealing ways was a cause of lustful thoughts in men.  They counseled them to be helpful to the men.  This is quite obvious, but we are not supposed to say this, even if it is dress for the mass.  The intense rejection and protest of this one letter shows the hatred for traditional moral norms.  One comedian who does not care about modesty (he tells many dirty jokes) said his visit to the gym is like observing a gynecology exam.  He gets away with it because he is no proponent of traditional morality, but the reason for the push back is against any assertion of traditional moral sensitivities.  So also with Chick-Fil A: they do not as a corporation oppose the LGBT movement, and their hiring is without discrimination.  But their founder does give to Christian organizations like Athletes in Action which is a Christian group that fosters sexual relations as only intended by God for traditional marriage.  

One could ask why single out Chick-Fil A.  The position of Athletes in Action is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church.  Therefore by their reasoning, any person who supports Catholic Charities should also have their business boycotted.  Any member of a Catholic Church or an Evangelical church should be boycotted.  We are finding that the left now has a list of things that they have defined as no longer subjects for discussion, and that by intimidation they will shut down all discussion.  Here are a few:

  1. That human sexual physical relations is intended by God for traditional marriage alone.  
  2. That transgenderism is a rejection of clear biological realities. 
  3. That transgender treatments are dangerous to the body (This is very scientific)
  4. That transgender females (biological men who compete in women’s sports) have an unfair advantage and destroy women’s sports. 
  5. That Christianity is God’s way of salvation.  
  6. That black on black crime is much more of a serious problem in the cities than police abuses.  
  7. That some homosexuals flip and become heterosexuals.  Maybe we should look at this.  After all, some homosexuals speak of gender fluidity. 
  8. That the founders of the United States were good men and have to be judged by the progress they made in their age, not by our age.  Their statues should remain, and they should be honored. 
  9. That human rights were rooted in the Biblical faith.  

The intimidation has to stop, but only if we rise up and are not intimidated.  These points are legitimate points for discussion have to be asserted and boldly.  Also, it should be noted that the one common element in the intimidation and the claim of hate speech is the hatred mostly of Christianity and traditional morality.  The assertion of traditional morality is said to be hate speech.  We must fight back.  That morality is a great source of world progress.  Family stability based on traditional morality is the key to progress.  We are not demanding that we impose our morality on others, but that we can be proponents of our faith and morality and convince others of the truth. 

President Trump Recognizes Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights

Many years ago (1968) I was a classmate of Mark Noll, who became a famous Christian historian.  I asked him the basis of International Law since we did not elect an international legislature.  He responded that it is based in the treaties and accords that nations approve and then has to be enforced by the United Nations, as the one body that can enforce international agreements.  This enforcement is from the Security Council.  Without enforcement, there is little that can be done for violations.  

Donald Trump’s recent recognition of Israel’s sovereignty in the Golan Heights provoked a response from other nations, namely that Israel’s annexation of the Golan was contrary to International Law.  This is debated, and I won’t give an analysis of the controversies on International Law on this issue.  Here is a little history, however.  

In the history of the relationship of nations and wars, if a nation had power to conquer and keep territory, they had the right to rule.  The protection of nations was based on their ability to defend themselves or enter into alliances whereby they could be protected against the conquering of other nations.  Sometimes they submitted as a vassal of one nation to protect them from another.  If a nation gained territory in a defensive war, no one would begrudge them gaining territory as punishment for the nation that sought to conquer them.  And the conquered could rebel against the conquers.  The genocides in wars in ancient China and India are terrible accounts, but they prevented the rebellion of the conquered.  

After World War Two, many nations entered into agreement to fix the status quo of nations, their borders or territorial integrity.  Even if a nation gained territory in a defensive war, they were to return the the territory for peace.  Yet many times the nations created by the victorious powers, especially after World War I in the middle east, were unstable and though borders were drawn, they were not always good and rational borders.  Germany shrank after World War I, and Poland grew!  After World War II, nations ignored such international norms and conquered others in offense wars; China in Tibet, North Korea to South Korea, and Turkey in Northern Cyprus.  We see the injustice of the Kurds in having their own nation, though they are a coherent group with clear territory.  Syria and Iraq are artificial states.  

When a nation gains territory in a defensive war, perhaps they need that territory for their future security.  This is true for at least part of the West Bank, Judea and Samaria, with regard to the heights and the Jordan Valley as well.  It is very true of the Golan Heights where Syria reigned down artillery shells on the villages of the Sea of Galilee.  With Iran in Syria and Syria divided, the time has come to say that Israel deserves this territory of the Golan Heightss.  Syria would not make peace as part of its return over all these years.  International Law is only as good as the ability to enforce it.  International law should be revised to accept the punishment of the aggressor and their loss of territory if that territory is needed for the security of the defending state.  Donald Trump has recognized Israel’s sovereignty on the Golan.  It is just.  Any such law that would declare it in violation is an unjust law.  There will be no enforcement of any action against Israel in this.  Donald Trump made the right decision.   Israel originally conquered this area in the days of Moses!

The New York Abortion Law and Religious Values

A new abortion law in New York gives unrestricted abortion rights to women even up to the point of birth even if she is in labor. Surveys show that the majority of Americans want to preserve the right to abortion but also support restrictions so that abortion only takes place in the early months of pregnancy.  Defenders of the new law say that such abortions only occur if the child is very deformed and unlikely to live or if the birth will be a real health detriment for the mother (though other doctors say that there is no health detriment to the mother in giving birth at that point, and that third trimester abortions are almost never needed.)  Amazingly the legislature broke out in cheers after passage. Imagine cheering for having a right to kill a fully formed baby. God must be weeping and indeed ready to judge. 

The reaction of conservatives and committed Christians was pronounced.  Many Catholics said that Andrew Coumo should be ex-communicated.  What is his defense?  It is the same as his father.  Though he is a Catholic, he cannot make religion a basis for what he supports in law for the larger society.  This is a wrong view indeed.   In a pluralistic society law reflects the moral consensus of the society.  Different populations in the society form their moral views on the basis of their world views, whether Christian, Jewish, Muslim, secular, or Eastern religious.  A society thus has morals, and all the streams of that society contribute toward that moral consensus.  Than that consensus is reflected in the law.  Since in the United States there is no one religious foundation for our laws, the law reflects the popular consensus, unlike in the past when Biblical morals were the foundation and unlike ancient Israel where God’s revelation was the law.  However, the Biblical world view is a legitimate ground for our contribution to that consensus, and we seek to influence society so that the consensus would move toward the Biblical world view.  

The law of a society is based in the morals of that society.  This is the issue. For Hitler, the morals of Nazism allowed that you could kill those then called retarded or today challenged children.  Because they society rejected that all human beings were created in the image of God, some human beings were not worthy of life.  Professor Singer at Princeton supports killing fully born babies if they do not measure up and says they have less worth as developed dogs.  If Governor Cuomo was a good Catholic, he would seek to see Catholic morals influence the moral consensus and thus the law.  I note that killing the baby at the point of birth is not the moral consensus in the United States.  It is tragic.  

The religious basis of much of the law in the West goes back to the idea of the equal worth of every human being which is a Biblical idea.  In classic Indian society, the poor and most needy are that way because they deserve it in their re-incarnation.  In the Bible we are called to lift the poor and needy because they have equal dignity and worth.  In Communism large populations were killed as a necessary step toward the classless society.   The idea that our laws are decoupled from religious values is an incoherent idea.  And when that decoupling more and more takes place, we will see society slip to greater barbarism, especially to those who are vulnerable.  

Universal Medicare and Universal Free College

Leaders of the Democratic Party (some of whom are announced candidates for president) are calling for Universal Medicare including doctors’ visits and hospitalization.  The same ones also call for free College for all who qualify.  The bar is pretty low for qualifying.  Here are my responses.  

I understand the justified emotion on the issue of medical coverage.  As a pastor I had congregants who were financially ruined after their coverage for chronic and serious medical conditions ended.  We have to solve this problem.  This is not a new idea or so radical an idea since some nations do have such coverage.  This was part of the platform of Harry Truman in 1948i   Those who oppose this talk about it adding tens of trillions to the national budget.  However, this does not always take into account that the money put into private insurance would be switched into the government program, and if it is like Israel, the families pay the insurance tax on a sliding scale according to income.  Yet there are several issues. 

I don’t know why liberals never seem to face the terrible inefficiency of government programs.  In addition, the fraud in Medicate is quite alarming.  This plan will lead to rationing since the government never can pay for all that is needed in a fast and efficient way.  We have this issue  in Israel and have to use private insurance to overcome long waiting times even if the situation is serious.  This plan will also continue to inflate costs and produce great pressure to expand spending.  My view is that those who propose this too quickly seek solutions through bigger and bigger government.  Again, I would like to see private insurance and real competition as over against todays cartel like situation with insurance companies, hospitals and the present domination of trial lawyers also increasing costs.  If there were different kinds of medical accreditation which would qualify plans, even for some alternative medicine, people could be given vouchers when they cannot afford insurance.  Genuine competition could bring down costs.  And, yes, I think taxing heavily those that do not buy into insurance is important since we need all in the system to lower costs  The state can back up catastrophic situations beyond the ability of the private insurance. 

Free college is a terrible idea for several reasons.  First, the money could much better be spent in elementary and high schools by giving vouchers to families to choose the school of their desire for their children.  The public system has declined even in so called good schools.  We need to equalize educational quality for children.  Real justice requires a real choice giving real justice opportunity for children.  Better to support vocational training for young adults as well.  

In addition, accept for the hard sciences, much of today’s education is bankrupt.  Do we really want to spend money for young people to study leftist sociological theories, or liberal arts that dismiss the great classics of western literature and philosophy and study drivel.  I have great doubt about the worth of college education in all but some exceptional colleges that really preserve classical education.  I actually believe that the present colleges and universities outside of hard sciences mostly need to die and that alternative higher education needs to be reinvented. 

Real education has largely died in the leftist post-modern attack on classical education.  So much of the cost of college is an unbelievable expansion of administrators and bureaucracy.  There are better ways to lift the poor into opportunity than to have them sit in classrooms where education really is not happening.  

THE PAINFUL RULE OF THE SHAS PARTY

Some, but not most are aware that the ultra-orthodox Sephardic political party Shas controls the Interior Department in Israel.  This is the price Benjamin Netanyahu pays to stay in power.  His coalition government requires a parliamentary majority (the K’nessset).  Shas required this prize.  When the Netanyahu decided to dissolve his last government and go to elections almost 4 years ago, I feared that he was going to exchange the Yesh Atid party under Yair Lapide in his last collation for the ultra-orthodox parties in the new coalition. That is just what happened.  The leader of Shas is convicted felon, Arye Deri who spent a good bit of time in jail.   The Interior Department controls immigration into the land, visas-entries and exits, the population registry, citizenship issues and more.  There is great injustice form this party, not only against Yeshua followers, but against many others.  Here are some examples of gross in justice.

  1. The biggest one I see is that they have rejected the immigration of over 7000 Ethiopian Jews who have applied for citizenship and remain in poverty in Ethiopia.  Many have relatives here in Israel and want family unification.  These are the Falasha Mora who some centuries ago who were baptized under pressure in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.  They maintained a Jewish identity and are desirous of conversion to Judaism.  The Israeli parliament has approved this and allocated funds.  Yet, they are in limbo?  Why?  Do to prejudice and maybe even racism in the Shas leaders?
  2. The second situation is connected to medical treatment for Palestinians who are not Israeli citizens.  One of the great things about Israel is that when there are catastrophic situations of need, Israel will treat them with great care in the hospitals in Israel proper.  However, those in the territories need to get permission papers for this.  Such permission is granted for Gaza Palestinians as well.  However, there is a rule now that if a person in Gaza is sick and needing to come to Israel, Israel will not approve it if they have a relative from Gaza who has moved and is living in the West Bank (Judea-Sumaria).  This week the press reported on one who is in danger of losing their sight, but due to a relative in Ramalla they will not give permission.  The relative has to move back to Gaza.  Yet time is of the essence in this situation.  The reason is that the government does not want Gazans to swell the population in the territories.  Yet this is draconian and a terrible way to assure this.
  3. The third injustice was reported this week.  Two teenagers form South America flew to Israel to visit their mother and stepfather.  The mother married an Israeli and converted to Judaism.  The teen girls live in with the natural father.  The Interior Dept. authorities at the airport interrogated them, and then would not let them enter and put them on a plane back to South America.  They claimed they were not convinced they would not stay illegally.  The mother in Israel protested and got legal help.  They were going to take this to court and certainly would have won.  The Interior Dept. relented and accepted that they could visit?  Would they issue new tickets?  No.  The vacation period is over and a visit is no longer possible.  We regularly hear horror stories of people detained and put back on planes to go home without good reason. 
  4. The government rescinded policies that would require more of the ultra orthodox to be drafted or do national service and policies that would reduce the number on welfare who refuse to work for a living so as to study Talmud (Don’t call it Torah study.  It is not the books of Moses that they mostly study, but the Talmud.  After all, how many years all day can you study the Torah.  But studying Talmud and Rabbinic law can easily last  lifetime).  

For all these reasons a good number of Yeshua followers will not vote for Benjamin Netanyahu.  We like some of his policies, but are having a hard time knowing that a vote for him is a vote for the ultra-orthodox.  How would the prophets respond to these injustices?  I think it would be a pretty intense response.  

Due Process And Fairness

My Facebook followers are aware of my position on the hearings on Judge Kavanaugh. They know that I believe that the Democrats were involved in a campaign of personal destructing as part of a power grab. Justice, in my view, was not a motivation at all. Witness how Mrs. Ford was outed so the campaign of personal destruction could begin. During the campaign on the left we were told that the Judge should be judged on the basis of unproven accusations, and that even the lower standard of the preponderance of the evidence was not required since this was a job interview and not a court. When the Judge in anger noted that this was a partisan attack not based in seeking justice he was labeled too partisan! I noted that if Judge Kavanaugh was not approved, it would ruin his life. He has been dropped as a lecturer at Harvard, wondered if he could coach girls basketball, and would probably not be able to continue as an appellate judge. The only exoneration that would save his life was his approval. So the results would be as severe as any court conviction that would find someone guilty of the crime, not of rape, but of harassment and limited assault.

However, I want to speak on the idea that because this was not a court, due process and a standard of innocent until proven guilty, and at least a preponderance of the evidence standard was not required. The famous French Christian thinker, Jaques Ellul, argued that justice is something that we practice in our personal lives way before we are dealing with political issues, courts etc. So I take you back in time to when I was 11 years old. A student sitting behind me was sliding a ruler under my bottom over and over. I turned around and told him to stop. He did not. He did it again and again and I repeatedly told him to stop. My teacher sent us both to the principle for disrupting the class. My mother was called and came to the office. Thankfully the principle listened and my story was credible. But for a season I knew unjust judgment. For many years as a national leader of the Messianic Jewish movement in America things were spread about me by other leaders with no due process, and such things if believed would have ruined my reputation. Many did believe them, but I had so many friends who know these claims were false, and they defended me valiantly.

My point is that due process is not just for courts, though it is a rule for that. Judging on the basis of due process and innocent until proven guilty is a standard for personal relationships, family, business life, school and really in every sphere of life. The standard comes form the Bible and its strong strictures on spreading reports against another without due process. Sometimes the innocent suffer when the preponderance of the evidence standard makes it look like they are guilty and they are not. They are convicted by the court despite being innocent. However, we have to do the best we can and judge on the basis of evidence, when parents settle disputes with children, teachers with students, supervisors at the work place, the elders in governing a congregation, and Senate committees! The idea that sexual assault claims do not require evidence, but that the seriousness of the claim is so great that rules of evidence and innocence are suspended, which is now argued by some Democrats and many in the Women’s March Movement, is so wrong that I will say it is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. But this is a tactic only to attack conservatives. Witness Keith Ellison where there is real evidence and many others on the left given a pass because their politics are agreeable. All Franken comes to mind as well. There also are many false claims of sexual assault which are later proven to be false. It is a small percentage, but common enough.

As Senator Susan Collins noted, the destruction of a person’s career and reputation without the preponderance of the evidence standard would be a terrible miscarriage of justice. Let us not think of due process and evidence as only for the courts. It should be a way of life to guide us all in our relationships at all times. Sadly a good part of our society no longer believes in such fairness if their political opponents are the target. Anything goes. This is why the only just solution was the approval of Judge Kavanaugh.