Rabbi Michael Leo Samuel

A student asked an interesting question: Why don’t Hassidic Jews have cats for pets?

Black cats were also associated with the demonic realm. In one bizarre passage, the rabbis said that if a person really wanted to see what demons look like, he should perform the following instructions: Take sifted ashes and sprinkle around his bed, and in the morning he will see something like the footprints of a cock. If one wishes to see them, let him take the after-birth of a black she-cat, the offspring of a black she-cat, the first-born of a first-born, let him roast it in fire and grind it to powder, and then let him put some into his eye, and he will see them . . . R. Bibi b. Abaye did so, and experienced harm from seeing them. The scholars, however, prayed for rabbi and he recovered (BT Berachot 6a).

And you wondered: What do they teach young Talmudic students?! Well, now you know!

Such rabbinical beliefs were common in the Babylonian age; it is for this reason, the Talmud is very important text for understanding Babylonian folklore, which it absorbed from their culture.

Western folklore records that if a black cat crosses one’s path—especially it is missing a tale—symbolizes bad fortune; on other hand if the black cat walks along side of the person, it is a sign he will be blessed with good fortune. A cat’s tail was used as a medicine that is why they used to chop it and use it for any type of health problem.

KILLING CATS — ANOTHER STORY ABOUT EUROPEAN “CIVILITY”

It got so bad that in Christian Europe, the church made an effort to suppress witchcraft, and the cat came to be identified with witches. Any woman owning a cat was killed along with her cat, because she was purported to be a witch. Cats, as demons, were burned, usually in a rite on Shrove Tuesday, the day before Ash Wednesday.

The early 20^th century anthropologist James Frazer thus writes in The Golden Bough, “In the midsummer fires formerly kindled on the Place de Grève at Paris it was the custom to burn a basket, barrel, or sack full of live cats, which was hung from a tall mast in the midst of the bonfire . . . In the department of the Ardennes, cats were flung into the bonfires kindled on the first Sunday in Lent; sometimes, by a refinement of cruelty, they were hung over the fire from the end of a pole and roasted alive. “The cat, which represented the devil, could never suffer enough. . . While the creatures were perishing in the flames, the shepherds guarded their flocks and forced them to leap over the fire, esteeming this an infallible means of preserving them from disease and witchcraft. Squirrels were also occasionally burned in the Easter fire . . .” Cats almost disappeared from Europe, and this led to disastrous consequences when the rats brought the Bubonic Plague in the 1300s from China.

CATS BECOME SAVIORS OF HUMANITY!

Europeans back then (like now too) were not terribly astute. The mayor of London ordered the execution of all house-hold pets, but this political move did not stop the plague-it actually accelerated it. An explosion of the rat population only increased the plague’s intensity until the Europeans eventually realized that people who had kept cats, in violation of the law, fared better; for the cats, according to their nature, killed the rats that carried the fleas that really carried the plague. With this discovery, cats became the saviors of Europe and were soon became protected by law.

ARE CATS A THREAT TO BABIES?

Since cats were often seen as symbols of evil, some cultures in the 13th and 14th centuries believed that cats would “steal a baby’s soul.” Specifically, people thought cats were attracted to a baby’s breath. This belief still persists today; parents claimed in 2000 that an infant died with the family cat sitting on the baby’s face. However, upon an autopsy, it became clear that the baby died from Crib Death (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). The fact that the cat’s proximity was on or near the baby’s face was coincidental. Cats will often sleep near a person’s head.

The story proves that many superstitions of history have some basis in something that occurred. Since the medievalists did not understand the nature of Crib Death, they looked to demonic reasons why an infant died. Unfortunately, the poor cat got blamed.

Getting rid of the family cat may not be an altogether bad idea; it is not uncommon for new parents to get rid of the family cat before a baby is born. Although suffocating babies is very unlikely, a cat may scratch a baby especially if the baby annoys the cat. In any event, it is a good idea for an adult to be in the room with the cat and infant.

SOME CULTURES LOVE THEIR CATS!

Not all cultures share disdain toward the cat. In Egypt, where the cat was originally domesticated, the cat was considered to be the guardian spirit of the home. In addition, cats were also mummified—anyone in the afterlife would certainly want to have one’s beloved pet! If someone killed a cat, the crime: death! Cats were so beloved because they could walk in the shadows with no fear; their heightened senses gave them a vision that could penetrate the darkness of the night.

Cats in ancient India were considered saints, while in Nordic countries it was common for brides to get married on Friday, a day that was dedicated to the cat goddess called Priya.

Still and all, despite the bad press cats get in the medieval era, the Talmud does say “Had Torah not been given to humankind, our ancestors would have had to learn modesty from the cat” (BT Eruvin 100b). Throughout much of recorded European history, Jews often kept feral cats to keep the mice population in check. Continue Reading

A student asked an interesting question: Why don’t Hassidic Jews have cats or dogs for pets?

This questioned has often puzzled me for many years. I used to think that having animals during Passover might be difficult-since one is not allowed to give hametz (leavened food) to a pet throughout the holiday. Historically, dogs were often used to hunt and attack Jews-especially during the Shoah. Given the trauma of past centuries, it is not hard to see why Hassidic Jews are fearful of dogs.

Many of my friends are dog-lovers.

As I looked this question up, I decided to give a brief exposition about the Jewish attitude about dogs. It seemed to me that the Hassidic Jews of our original story were not familiar with the rabbinical literature concerning dogs. Most Jews who are dog-owners are probably unfamiliar with this topic; here is a sampling of rabbinic teachings gathered from a variety of sources.

THE EDENIC DOG

However, the rabbis of the Talmud recognized the devotion and love dogs give their masters. In one midrashic text, the Sage Rab said that God provided Cain with a dog as a companion. The same Midrashic suggests that Adam may have been the first to domesticate the dog.[1]

Were it not for dogs, our pastoral ancestors would have had difficulty in managing their flocks.

According to another Midrashic interpretation, after Abel was slain, he was lying in a field, his blood spattered over sticks and stones. The dog who had been guarding Abel’s flock now also guarded Abel’s corpse from the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky.[2]

Stray dogs posed all sorts of problems in ancient times, much like they still do today. That being said, there are several rabbinic teachings took a dim view of wild dogs—if they posed a menace to the public. Rabbinic tradition observes that witches were believed to be the principle reason why dogs go mad; they bewitch the animal!

On a practical note, the Sages urge that man should refrain from raising a vicious dog’s pup, even if it is docile.[3]

A “TAIL” ABOUT RABIES AND RABBIS

The Talmud further adds, “One against whom a mad dog rubs itself is in danger.” What is the remedy? He should remove his garments and run. Once, in the marketplace, a mad dog rubbed itself against R. Huna son of R. Joshua. R. Huna removed his garments and ran, saying [later]: I applied to myself the verse, ‘Wisdom preserveth the life of him who hath it’ (Eccles. 7:12).”[4] Most rabbinic students read the Talmud with no sense or appreciation of the Talmud’s wit and humor-this anecdote is really quite funny. Someone could make an interesting cartoon from the naked rabbi running away from the dog . . .

In another rabbinic teaching, we find: A dog’s barking may frighten a pregnant woman, and thereby induce a miscarriage.[5]

This passage has already been elaborated elsewhere in the Talmud in a teaching attributed to R. Nahman bar Isaac, who taught: Once there was a pregnant woman who went into a house to do some baking. When a dog barked at her, and the embryo violent moved inside her. The householder sought to reassure her: “Do not be afraid—the dog’s teeth have been extracted, and his nails are gone.” But she replied, “Keep your favors-throw them to the thorns. The embryo has already been uprooted from its place” for she had already miscarried.”[6]

HEROIC DOGS

The Jerusalem Talmud relates how a dog once saved the life of man’s wife. A certain man invited a sage to his home and seated a dog next to him. When the sage asked his host, “Do I deserve such humiliation from you?” the host replied, “Master, I owe the dog much gratitude: slavers came into the city, and when one of them attempted to rape my wife, the dog saved her by springing on him and biting off his testicles.”[7] Really . . .

One famous rabbinic teaching interprets the verse, “You shall be men sacred to me. Flesh torn to pieces in the field you shall not eat; throw it to the dogs” (Exod. 22:30). The verse implies that the Holy One does not deprive any creature of the reward due it. Thus, because Torah says, “But among the Israelites and their animals not even a dog shall growl,” (Exod. 11:7), the Blessed Holy One commanded, “Give the dog his reward.” Now, the matter may be argued a fortiori: if God did not withhold the reward due an animal, all the less does He withhold the reward due a man.“[8]

CLEVER DOGS

Dogs are even admired for their cleverness. R. Tanhum bar Maryon said: In Rome, there are dogs who know how to outwit people. Thus, a dog slumps down in a baker’s shop and pretends he has dozed off. When the owner of the bakeshop also dozes off, the dog dislodges a few loaves to the ground. While the loaves are being gathered up, the dog makes off with a loaf and gets away.[9]

Dogs are not always appreciated in the Talmud for their etiquette! Our masters taught: He who eats in the marketplace is like a dog. Some say, he is even unfit to give testimony.[10] Continue Reading

I remember the tornado that went through Rock Island, IL a few years ago, where the winds moved at 140 miles per hour; the entire city had thousands of trees land on top of houses; the city looked like a war zone and it took three years for it to recover. The destruction was devastating, but as bad as RI’s destruction was—it was nothing compared to the aftermath of a massive tornado that killed over 116 people, injured 400 and flattened the entire city of Joplin, MO.

Amazingly, the city’s residents only had 20 minutes to prepare themselves.

Yet, throughout the ordeal that has occurred—the wind’s noise was so loud, it drowned out the sound of the sirens.

While all of this was going on, President Obama visited an Irish pub, where he spoke to a large crowd in Dublin. He also took a helicopter trip to the tiny village of Moneygall, home of his great-great-great grandfather. Locals cheered and the Irish watched on live TV as Obama downed a pint of Guinness and Irish ale.

Frankly, I find President’s behavior bizarre. Why didn’t he visit the victims of Joplin, MO? Many years ago, President Bush took a tremendous amount of criticism for not visiting New Orleans immediately after Hurricane Katrina in September, 2005. The USA Today records:

“WASHINGTON — President Bush has shown that he can be empathetic, sensitive and decisive. But those qualities eluded him for days after Hurricane Katrina, and the lapse could become a defining moment of his White House tenure . . .Bush decided He didn’t cancel his vacation until two days after Katrina struck and didn’t visit the region until four days after the storm . . . Bush’s critics say his response to the hurricane proves that he’s not a leader . . . ‘Oblivious, in denial, dangerous,’ House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday” (September 5th, 2005).

I am wondering: What will the polls say about Obama’s peculiar behavior? Where is his empathy? I wonder: Why hasn’t Nancy Pelosi said anything about Obama’s behavior in Ireland, in light of the human carnage that we are witnessing in Joplin, MO? The President’s behavior is surprising. Surely the President could have taken a later flight (being President comes with certain perks). After everything has been said and done, I think the American heartland will express their disdain on next Election Day.

Since writing this article a few days ago, I was just informed that the economic impact these tornadoes have had cumulatively on the agricultural heartland of America may actually be analogous to the Katrina devastation.

Clearly, some of Obama’s Jewish mentors should teach the President how a mentsch behaves in a time of catastrophe.

Continue Reading

Recently, in his new Middle East policy speech, President Obama insisted that Israel help create a “contiguous Palestine.”

Contiguous is an interesting word; Obama wants the borders of Gaza and the West Bank to be joined together. But this raises an interesting question: If Israel allows the Palestinians to have their contiguous state, will Israel be contiguous? Anyone familiar with a map of Israel knows that if Gaza and the West Bank become contiguous, then Israel has effectively been cut into two.

Obama also mentioned he wanted to see the Palestinians and Israelis agree on a “land swap.” Does he realistically believe that the Palestinians would ever cede East Jerusalem to the Israelis? Granted, the Al-Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem is under Jordanian jurisdiction, but does the President really think Israel is going to trade land that has always belong to the Jewish people? In 1948, Jordan conquered East Jerusalem and annexed it—despite the fact it was an original part of Israel as defined by the United Nations in 1948. In 1967, King Hussein of Jordan personally gave Israel the keys to Hadassah Hospital, because it was obvious the rightful owners of Jerusalem had returned home.

When President Obama speaks about a land swap, he makes it sound like the Israelis and Palestinians are much like farmers exchanging animals. Jerusalem is not a piece of ordinary “real estate.” However, Obama has already gone on public record in declaring East Jerusalem as “occupied territory” (see my earlier blogs on this matter). Are we to go back to the good old days when the Jordanians used Jewish cemeteries as latrines? Are we to go back to the times when Jews and Christians were denied entrance into East Jerusalem? Does he think we’re stupid or something?

Obama acts as if the Arabs never started the 1967 war, when Arab armies attacked Israel from Gaza Egypt, Syria, and Jordan.

Since the “Arab Spring” has unfolded in the Middle East, we have seen how Obama abandoned President Mubarak of Egypt, a man who more than any other individual in the Middle East has kept peace between Egypt and Israel. Every change the President has encouraged in the Middle East has strengthened the hand of Iran. Yet, despite Iran being the most oppressive country in the Middle East, Obama treats the mullahcracy with respect; he offered absolutely no support to the pro-Democracy movement in 2009 when the people took to the streets, hoping that the American president would give support to their cause.

It was a golden opportunity for the President to shine, and yet he preferred to remain blind, deaf, and dumb when it came to confronting the mad mullahs of Iran.

One must wonder whether President Obama seriously thinks his plan will serve the cause of peace or not, and the answer is obvious. He is determined to weaken Israel to the point that it will be incapable of defending her borders. He is willing to sacrifice Israel to placate the Arab world, who will most certainly view such a victory as a sign from Allah that the West will also collapse under the weight of Muslim intimidation.

Does it ever occur to Obama the kind of mayhem legions of suicide bombers would do to Israel if the people were at their mercy. Think of what Hitler did to the Jews. Think of what happened in Rwanda. Obama’s hatred of Israel is obvious; his mannerisms are duplicitous. There is no room for error. Israel could very be easily defeated in a new war based on the 1967 boundaries-or worst-as Obama envisions.

Most of my liberal Jewish friends who campaigned for Obama are now disillusioned and petrified with fear; they have abandoned their support of Obama.

If Obama really wanted to make a meaningful statement about his policy in the Middle East, he would have made the following points:

(1) There will be no two-state solution, but a three state solution that will be contingent upon Hamas recognizing Israel’s right to exist. The same applies to the West Bank government of Abbas as well. Without recognition of Israel’s right to exist, there will be no peace agreement, and certainly no Palestinian statehood.

(2) Any degree of financial or military support for Egypt is contingent upon Egypt keeping the Camp David Accords. Obama, to date, has never made such a proclamation. Should the Muslim Brotherhood win big in Egypt, they have said the first act of legislation will be the repudiation of the Camp David Accords. If Egypt can renege on its peace treaty with Israel, why shouldn’t the Palestinians do so as well? It will take more than a piece of paper that says, “Peace on it . . .”

(3) There will be no “Right of Return” to Israel from the Palestinians displaced by their Arab leaders who refused to accept them.

(4) To the Palestinians, “Grow up and take responsibility for your peoples’ misery. You are largely responsible for your own wretchedness.”

(5) There will be no ‘Arab Spring” that does not respect human rights, women’s rights, and the rights of minorities-regardless who they are. There will be free press and the right to dissent . . .

(6) Not a nickle will go any Palestinian government that teaches its children hatred of Jews, or supports terror.

Continue Reading

Huckabee for President? With a name like that in the White House, our children might think that Yogi Bear is also in the White House. Donald Trump? He is another person that nobody really respects. Obama made him look very foolish at the evening before he revealed the news about bin Laden. I would not want to play poker with the President.

Mitt Romney? He lacks charisma, but he isn’t a bad candidate.

Yes, the Republican Party needs a new face that can energize the nation. For months I have been thinking about another Afro-American that would give the President a serious run for his money-and his name is Allan West. West is a definitely a fresh face; he personifies heroism and strength-attributes that I believe would make him a formidable candidate-especially because of his war experience. As President Obama laid out his plans for Israel to return to the pre-1967 boundaries, I am convinced that the President’s vision completely overlooks the history and hostility that such a return would entail. Far from serving the causes of peace, it would literally unleash the “dogs of war.”

I believe that Obama’s plan is reckless and foolish. Allan West’s response hits the nail on the proverbial head. He is the kind of man everyone can respect because is love for the United States is unfailing, as it is unflinching.

–Congressman Allen West (R-FL) in response to Barack Hussein Obama’s Call for Israel to go to “Pre-1967 Borders.”

Wouldn’t you like to see this man become our country’s next presidential leader?

Congressman Allen West Response to President Barack Obama’s Call for a Two State Solution in Israel

(WASHINGTON) — Congressman Allen West (FL-22) released this statement today:

“Today’s endorsement by President Barack Obama of the creation of a Hamas-led Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 borders, signals the most egregious foreign policy decision his administration has made to date, and could be the beginning of the end as we know it for the Jewish state.

From the moment the modern day state of Israel declared statehood in 1948, to the end of the 1967 Six Day War, Jews were forbidden access to their holiest site, the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, controlled by Jordan’s Arab army.

The pre-1967 borders endorsed by President Obama would deny millions of the world’s Jews access to their holiest site and force Israel to return the strategically important Golan Heights to Syria, a known state-sponsor of terrorism.

Resorting to the pre-1967 borders would mean a full withdrawal by the Israelis from the West Bank and the Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem. Make no mistake, there has always been a Nation of Israel and Jerusalem has been and must always be recognized as its rightful capital.

In short, the Hamas-run Palestinian state envisioned by President Obama would be devastating to Israel and the world’s 13.3 million Jews. It would be a Pavlovian style reward to a declared Islamic terrorist organization, and an unacceptable policy initiative.

America should never negotiate with the Palestinian Authority- which has aligned itself with Hamas. Palestine is a region, not a people or a modern state. Based upon Roman Emperor Hadrian’s declaration in 73 AD, the original Palestinian people are the Jewish people.

It’s time for the American people to stand by our strongest ally, the Jewish State of Israel, and reject this foreign policy blunder of epic proportions.

While the winds of democracy may blow strong in the Middle East, history has demonstrated that gaps in leadership can lead to despotic regimes. I have questions for President Obama: ‘Who will now lead in Egypt?’ and ‘Why should American taxpayers provide foreign aid to a nation where the next chapter in their history may be the emergence of another radical Islamic state?’ [This ought to be common sense, but our country's penchant for supporting dictators and thug-ocracies continues to blindly pursue its goals -- MS] Continue Reading

Most of our readers probably remember the terrible Mumbai attack in the Chabad House, where 190 Jews-including a Chabad Rabbi and his wife-were killed in cold blood. Before every Israeli Independence Day, there is always a observance of Israel’s Memorial Day (Yom HaZikaron), which always occurs the night before, as Israelis commemorate the memory of those who have given their lives so the State of Israel can exist today.

Well, this past week, something very peculiar occurred in Israel that nobody anticipated. Israeli officials decided to invite Rabbi Shimon Rosenberg, whose daughter was the Chabad rebbitzen killed in the Mumbai massacre in 2008. Rosenberg was to light one of twelve torches Monday evening at the Mount Herzl military cemetery. Rosenberg currently resides in Israel, where he is raising his grandson, Moishe, who survived the Mumbai attack. Rabbi Rosenberg felt very proud and exclaimed, “This whole event is very exciting. To light the torch on such an auspicious day, especially this year, when the theme uniting the torch-bearers is ‘all Jews are responsible for one another.’ For me, this is a special Shlichus [mission]. The fact that they chose me is not a simple thing. I am not representing myself, rather, all the Shluchim [emissaries] of the Rebbe in Israel and the Diaspora.”

So far so good, but the nice rabbi did make some unusual changes to the prayer service that deserves special mentioning:

• He said the dead Rebbe will be the messiah.

• Refused to use the standard declaration said for these torchlightings, “La Tiferet Medinat Israel” (“For the Glory of the State of Israel”) and instead said “Le Tiferet Medinat Eretz Israel,” (“For the Glory of the State of Land of Israel,”) meaning the ‘state’ of Eretz Yisrael, i.e., the biblical Land of Israel, not the modern political state of Israel.

Why did he change the official wording of the ceremony? Also, why did he feel the compulsion to reiterate the Chabad belief that Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schnersohn is still the Messiah-even though he is already dead? This is curious indeed! However, most (if not all) Chabad rabbis still believe the deceased Rebbe is coming back as the REAL Messiah. Most Chabad rabbis do not realize just how similar their belief is with Christianity!

The simple truth remains that the Lubavitcher Rebbe never wanted to be seen as identifying with the Zionist movement. ” Hava Nagila” was once a Chabad melody used in the movement’s meditations just before the Rebbe would give over a Hassidic ma’amar (discourse on Jewish mysticism), but after it became the melody for the new Zionist movement, Chabad dropped immediately it.

Well, back to our original story about Rabbi Rosenberg. Although he felt proud that he represented Chabad emissaries all over the world, apparently the leading Chabad rabbis of Jerusalem decided to censure his behavior. The local Haredi papers printed the Chabad response: “Let it be known that the participation of a Chabad Chossid (R’ S. R.) at a ceremony which is foreign to the spirit of traditional Judaism, is at his own initiative, and does not represent the Shluchim or Lubavitch Chassidim. The Chabad Beis Din opposes his actions.”

Needless to say, the story has created some very bad press for the Chabad movement.

In fairness to the Chabad, their men do serve in the Israeli Reserves after graduating from rabbinical school. Their devotion to helping Israelis is not because of a belief in Zionism, but because of their love for their “fellow Jews.” So, as you can see, the Chabad attitude is definitely paradoxical. One of the Chabad Rebbes, Rabbi Shalom Dov Baer of Lubavitch, was one of the charter members of the Neturei Karta, a movement in Israel that is extremely outspoken about their rejection of Zionism and “the Jewish State.”

Rabbi Shalom Dov Baer Schnersohn wrote a famous epistle on the matter of Zionism, where he notes:

1. Even if the Zionists were G-d fearing Torah true Jews, and even if we had reason to believe that their goal is feasible, we are nevertheless not permitted to join them in bringing our redemption with our own strength. We are not even permitted to force a premature redemption by showering the Almighty with insistent entreaties (As Rashi comments on the Gemara Kesuvos 111A discussing G-d’s adjuring the Jewish people not to force the redemption), and certainly not by means of physical force and devices; We may not end our exile by main force: we will not thereby, achieve the spiritual redemption for which we are waiting. The Zionist notion contradicts our hope and yearning that G-d himself will not bring about our Redemption .

The past redemptions which were wrought by human beings were therefore incomplete. The redemption through Moshe and Aharon after which further exiles followed, and the redemption through Chananyoh, Michoel, and Azaryoh, although they acted in accordance with the prophecy of Yirmeyohu and other prophets are cases in point.

To insure a permanent Redemption from our present exile, we must hope and wait for a deliverance by the Almighty Himself, and not through the hands of one of flesh and blood. Thus only will our redemption be complete.

2. All their plans are built upon fantasies. They will not materialize, for there will never be an agreement to them. And besides our natural characteristics are not suited for it. Their leaders are blinded and bribed by their wish for freedom and power, and the ignorant masses follow them blindly.

3. The main point: The leaders of this project are totally hostile to G-d and His Torah. Their desire and interest is to cast off the yoke of Torah and Mitzvos, substituting nationalism for Judaism. Recently one of their leaders circulated a statement publicly blaspheming Judaism and boldly stating that a Jew is not necessarily someone who observes the Torah and mitzvos, etc. They state that many mitzvos of the Torah are-may their mouth be shut-a disgrace to the Jewish people. They plan to instill these ideas in the young by controlling the school system. Their purpose is to inculcate them with negative attitudes toward G-d given Torah and mitzvos and substitute the banner of nationalism as their guiding force. One of their leaders “reformed” the Torah, omitting those verses, passages and laws that did not please him. He is ready print this “new Torah”, and this is what will be taught in the Zionistic schools. Continue Reading

After I read about bin Laden’s death last week, I wondered: What if bin Laden is really alive?

Granted, this question is ironic—perhaps even comical—when considering that the President’s birth certificate credentials have been questioned. So far, Donald Trump has not asked anyone to see the death certificate. His wives seem attest that he was killed.

Dumping bin Laden’s body in the ocean seems odd; it is hardly the kind of burial we might of expected. On the other hand, it does prevent his burial from becoming a shrine.

Accomplishing this achieves several immediate goals. Declaring bin Laden dead allows the United States to use ANY means of obtaining information from him, since nobody will ever know the difference. Once they have extracted information from him, they can do with him as they see fit without anybody making so much as a whimper. By keeping his whereabouts top secret, the government does not need to worry about bin Laden’s constitutional rights (assuming he is on US property) or for that matter, the Geneva Convention’s Rules of War. Lastly, keeping his identity enables the American people to have closure-especially those who have lost loved ones on 9/11

Regardless of my political differences over Israel with the President, if this scenario is being played out as we speak, one must say that this approach would be worthy of a chess tactician; to win this war, one must play the game smart.

Just wondering . . .

Normally when we think about “targeted assassinations” we generally think about Israel. Israel has always targeted known offenders who have masterminded terrorist attacks against her people with remarkable success. For several years, suicide bombers wrecked considerable havoc in Israeli society. Starting in 2002, Israel began a policy of targeted assassinations, which when combined with creating a security barrier severing the West Bank from Israel proper; both these methods resulted in a dramatic decrease in the number of suicide attacks waged against Israel by her foes.

Despite taking criticism from the international community—including the United States government—Israel has found that the targeted assassinations keeps the loss of human life to a bare minimum.

It is ironic that a Democratic President would issue orders to kill a head of State like it did just the other week, when the military tried to kill Muammar Gaddafi in a bombing mission—but it did. Now, as United States was about to close in on Osama bin Laden, the world renowned criminal was shot in the face and killed—much against the wishes of the Pakistani President. Granted, one may not especially care what Pakistan has to say on this matter. Yes, President Obama looks like he took a page from the Israeli playbook on how to get one’s enemies.

According to President Obama, the President claimed he did not want any American soldiers killed during the operation. This explanation could possibly be true. What if Osama was wearing a suicide-bomb under his garments? On the surface, the United States’ behavior enacted a true lex tallionis penalty—a death for a death. Critics have rightly observed the blood-lust quality this execution seems to have.

But was this the right policy to enact?

While comparisons to Israel’s policy of targeted assassinations are obvious, the comparison may only be superficial at best.

After the Israeli secret agents captured Adolph Eichmann in Argentina, the Israeli agents were determined not to kill Eichmann, who was widely regarded as one of the principle architects of Hitler’s “Final Solution.”Instead, he was flown to Israel where he stood trial. Ultimately, he was executed—the only criminal to ever have been legally executed in Israel to this day.

Personally, I think Osama bin Laden should have been tried in a court of law. Keeping him alive would prove invaluable—if for nothing else—because of the information bin Laden has about the international web of terror.

In addition, the world would realize that the United States adheres to a Rule of Law and not revenge. Observing the law is how we distinguish our society from those that have no respect or reverence for human life. The Rule of Law is what separates Western society from the barbarism and Law of the Jungle that bin Laden adheres to. The failure to adhere to our country’s legal ideals appears at the very least, very hypocritical to the rest of the Western and non-Western world.

Secondly, trying bin Laden would in effect showcase a trial against Radical Islam. The whole world would see the insanity that has inspired this decadent religious movement.

Thirdly, in Semitic and Oriental societies, honor and respect is more important than life itself. Letting bin Laden die on a meaningful level actualizes his desire to be a martyr. On the other hand, dressed in an orange jumpsuit or displaying a striped outfit would serve to ridicule him before the entire world—a fate worse than death.

Fourthly, as a virtual databank of information, bin Laden is the key to capturing much of the world-terror-network. Besides, water-boarding is a lot better than killing him, isn’t it?

Besides, why rush to the death penalty? Why the frantic sense of urgency?

Why kill a man who has so much information about the international web of terror that he personally operates?

Dead men tell no tales . . .

I also wonder: What would Jack Bauer say? I think Jack would definitely keep Osama bin Laden alive . . . You betcha! After torturing him for information, then he would personally kill him. This sounds like a great script for a future 24 episode or feature film.

The spiritual fate of Osama bin Laden continues to intrigue me. None of us will ever know the conversation God/or the Heavenly Court would have with this twisted and demented human being. Maybe it would go something like, “Osama, you got it all wrong!” If I believed in the doctrine of reincarnation ( I have never arrived at a conclusion, yea or nay), I would imagine that God would incarnate this soul in a life where he experienced the hardship of discrimination and abuse . . . However, the Christian response to this ethereal meeting offers much fodder for discussion-especially since it is so diametrically different from the Jewish perspective.

One fellow blogger, Jonathan Marx raises a couple of interesting questions that I would like to focus on for the next few minutes:

Is Gandhi in heaven right now because he was good enough?

Is Osama bin Laden in hell right now because he was too evil?

The above author contends that just because a person is a “good” human being like Gandhi, does not necessarily mean or even suggest that he is automatically a given that he is going to Heaven.

He explains, “Christianity teaches that there is no one so far gone that cannot be forgiven—even Bin Laden. Here’s why. Christianity teaches that even when we are dead in our sins that God can make us alive with Christ. How does he do this? God “forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross” (Col. 2:13-14). Think of it. Jesus’ death on the cross was sufficient to pay the penalty for every sin ever committed (cf. 1 John 2:2).”

This has often been called, “the scandal of the cross,” or “the theology-of-the-cross” (Theologia Crucis) is a term that was originally coined by the theologian Martin Luther, who felt that the cross is the only source of knowledge concerning who God is and how God saves. It is contrasted with the theology of glory (theologia gloriae), which places greater emphasis on human abilities and human reason (Wikepedia).

As I mentioned to Professor Marvin Wilson, author of the book “Our Father Abraham: The Jewish Roots of Christianity”, if one follows the logic of this type of statement, all anyone has to do is simply declare “Jesus saves” and poof! One is instantly saved. Yet, despite all the theological rhetoric that stresses Jesus’s unconditional forgiveness of anyone, but the fact remains that Hell is a place of torment—not just for a momentary period of time, but for all eternity. Why can’t the miserable souls of Hell simply say, “I believe in Jesus!” and be immediately “saved”? Why have Hell altogether? For the serious Christian, you cannot have a God who forgives unconditionally, while toasting those who do not believe in an eternal barbecue. It simply doesn’t work. Moreover, if the God of justice is to have any meaning at all, then shouldn’t there be ultimate consequences for wicked behavior? Why have a world based on justice at all when forgiveness can be granted so easily?

Rabbinic tradition has long taught that anyone who acts compassionately toward the cruel will in the end act cruelly toward the compassionate. For all the carte-blanche forgiveness granted to the mass murderers and genocidal maniacs, the Christian track record toward the non-believers of their communities has been dreadful.

For nearly two millennium, the traditional Christian world has maintained that all non-believers are condemned, Gandhi and the Jews, or for that matter—all decent non-Christian people are not so fortunate. Pelagius argued with Augustine and rejected the belief that Jesus was necessary for personal salvation. Pelagius felt that according to Augustine, the countless number of people who never heard of Jesus are condemned to eternal damnation for having dared to reject the divinity of the Savior since “^ Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth ^and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6).

So based upon Augustinian theology, Buddha, Gandhi and Moses, sorry all you Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and whoever—you are out of luck-but all you miserable mass murderers are welcome to Hotel Salvation. All you have to say is “I accept Jesus . . .” What is wrong with this picture?! As my son observed, “What incentive is there for anyone one to act like a decent or moral human being, if all one has to say is ‘Jesus save me!’?” Sorry, this type of thinking is wrongheaded.

It seems to me that much of the New Testament reflects more the spiritual ideology of Paul more than the actual spiritual teachings of Jesus, or for that matter, James his brother. The Book of James stresses the primacy of deeds in a manner that is very reminiscent of the early tradition found in the rabbinic traditions of the 1^st century.

Listen to what James says:

“Anyone who listens to the Word, but takes no action is like someone who looks at his own features in a mirror—once he has seen what he looks like, he promptly forgets what he looked like. But the one who peers into the perfect law of freedom and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, such a one shall be blessed in what he does” (NT James 1:23-25).

“For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead” (James 2:26).

The best passage comes from James 2:17-26.

So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? ^ Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? ^ You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.” See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead; so too, is faith without works also dead.[1]

I have little doubt that James would say that any evil person like Hitler or bin Laden were irredeemable sinners-unworthy of God’s forgiveness. Continue Reading

One of my passions is the study of ethical dilemmas. I, for one, love raising the great philosophical and theological questions that challenge today’s thinking person.

Jesus says in his famous Sermon on the Mount,

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:43-48).

After we heard the news about Osama bin Laden’s death, I began wondering about several interesting questions.

This passage made me wonder: What would Jesus say about men like Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden? Are we commanded “to love” this kind of enemy? Put in a different way, had Osama bin Laden or Hitler accepted Jesus as their savior one minute before they were killed, would they be granted instant forgiveness of sin and enjoy an eternal life of companionship with God in Heaven or Paradise?

The Protestant theologian Karl Barth is purported to have been asked such a question. Bear in mind that Barth was one of the greatest Christian theologians who defied Hitler, yet when he was asked such a question, he would cite the passage from Romans 5:8-9 that reads, But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. How much more then, since we are now justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath. Only such unparalleled mercy and forgiveness, such unstinting gladness could have prompted the Führer’s genuine repentance. To accuse him, though justly, of his dreadful sins would have prompted Hitler’s self-righteous defense, his angry justification of his ‘necessary’ deeds.“[1]

Thus, according to the classical Protestant view, God would grant clemency and forgiveness even to the worst kind of sinner. Barth’s perspective is not much different from the Catholic view expressed after WWII, which claimed, “God forgives even the worst kind of sinners—such as Adolf Hitler. Just the other day, Jennifer Fulwiler wrote in the National Catholic Register: Continue Reading