Do you agree with this analysis of Jewish abortion stance? sm
Posted By: MeMT on 2008-10-31 In Reply to:Jeremiah - ExMQMT
Jewish beliefs and practice not neatly match either the "pro-life" nor the "pro-choice" points of view. The general principles of modern-day Judaism are that:
The fetus has great value because it is potentially a human life. It gains "full human status at birth only." 2
Abortions are not permitted on the grounds of genetic imperfections of the fetus.
Abortions are permitted to save the mother's life or health.
With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women.
"...each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law." 5
Historical Christianity has considered "ensoulment," the point at which the soul enters the body) as the time when abortions should normally be prohibited. Belief about the timing of this event has varied from the instant of fertilization of the ovum, to 90 days after conception, or later. There has been no consensus among historical Jewish sources about when ensoulment happens. It is regarded as "one of the 'secrets of God' that will be revealed only when the Messiah comes."
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The only purpose to release these pictures can be to persecute the former administration. We all and they all know that they are guilty.
Also, right, NOW is not the time to go after them.
I agree with your analysis. It's gonna be ugly, especially if
Hezbullah wins in Lebanon.
I agree with one thing you said. Abortion is
definitely evil.
I totally agree with your sentiments, it angers me deeply also for those who are using abortion as .
birth control, but I also think that these "whores" are somewhere in the minority, all I am saying is let us not, by not supporting certain social programs, CONDEMN AND NEGLECT the babies that are born whether it is by accident, neglect, "slutting around," whatever....these children and their welfare, safety, and care cannot be neglected by society. I am just saying, once these babies are HERE, right or wrong, they are going to have needs, and if these women/men (let's not forget the absentee dads/families) cannot provide, the innocent babies that we are all concerned about are really going to need support. It is not about the mother once the baby is born. When will we make stricter legislation for penalties for baby daddies who walk away? I know it is far from a solution, but there are other factors, too.
My belief? "late-term abortion" or partial-birth abortion" = infanticide, it is sickening
So in these cases I do think, as in most things, there is no ABSOLUTE, but a judicious guideline for this should be investigated and established by the medical community, as far as survival/outcome, but then we must be willing to prosecute mothers and doctors who go outside the guidelines...with established jail terms....and more money to house these "criminals" for years. Why not let God by the ultimate judge, He has the wisdom and the power, and eternity without God is worse than anything we as humans can mandate, don't you think?
meant is against abortion...didn't mean supports abortion (NM) analysis is exactly what you need
nm
Response to your analysis...sm
First, let's clear away everything you said about Obama's motives, because they are completely irrelevant. A man can act from the purest of motives and the best of intentions, and yet be entirely wrong.
So, to start us off let's just concede that Obama is a patriot, has the best interests of the country at heart and has no ulterior motives or personal interests driving his agenda.
Then, let's also set aside the desirability at least most of the agenda that Obama is promoting, because that, too, is irrelevant to our disagreement with him. At bottom, "we the people" of both/all parties want much the same things. No one would argue, or is arguing, that good schools for our kids, job security with a decent wage, equal opportunity for everyone, access to affordable healthcare, safe streets and national security.
We do have some problems with parts of Obama's agenda. The "science" of global warming, for instance, is simply abominably bad, and many scientists have said so. It has become a business, starting with AL Gore and spreading outward to the greedy hands that grasp for government money allocataed to "combat" this Don Quixote windmill. It is at least strongly possible that the earth is simply going through a cyclical climate change that has existed since the earth was formed - and some of us are saying that before we undertake the enormously expensive and economically damaging measures that the "sky-is-falling folks" are demanding, let's get the science right first and stop using models that start out by assuming the truth of global warming in order to prove global warming. The science has been hijacked by greed for government money.
We do have problems with Obama's policy of appeasement, and so far we have already had three very disturbing confirmations that appeasement is a very bad idea (Russia, Iran, and North Korea). It hasn't been pleasant watching Obama get slapped around in front of the world by Putin, the Ayatollah in Iran and Kim Jong Il.
But let's get closer to home. I said that people of all parties want much the same things. The questions that divide us are not what we should do, but how these things can best be achieved, at what cost, and how rapidly.
As to how these things can best be achieved, Obama believes that government should do them. He proposes to expand government more than Roosevelt did during the New Deal, and extend government's reach into every nook and cranny of American society. Under his budget, the government will account for 25% of the American economy - spending 1 in every 4 dollars. This alone should both stagger and worry everyone, because every government dollar must first be taken away from us (the government makes no money of its own), because the government is infamous for waste and corruption that will siphon dollars off as they do by the $billions with Medicare/Medicaid, and because government dollars always have very burdensome strings attached.
A good question to ask yourself is: Name 5 things that government does well (meaning, effectively and efficiently). You'll have a tough time filling out your list, if you're honest with yourself. Think about education, government-funded healthcare like Medicare/Medicaid, etc. and try to convince yourself that government is doing them well.
Time and again, it has been proven that private enterprise does a much better job of delivering desirable goods (an economic term for both "things" and "services") than government does. Rather than expanding an inept institution (government) to provide these goods, we should be encouraging the private sector to do so. The private sector is required to pay attention to costs, whereas the government is not (anyone can easily find millions of examples of that!).
Then, there is the second item of disagreement - "at what cost". This is related to the third item - "how rapidly". As desirable as many of the items on Obama's agenda might be, I have a lot of items on my personal agenda that are pretty desirable but that I simply cannot afford, or cannot afford RIGHT NOW. We, the people, are in exactly the same position. We have a deep recession that must be our first priority and perhaps, at this moment, our ONLY priority. In fact, so much money is being spent on this agenda item that it may well be the only thing we will be able to afford for quite some time to come, because the bill for all this stimulus spending has yet to come due. Make no mistake, though - we will pay, and pay, and pay, and pay.
When you look at the stimulus package, for instance, there is an incredible number of items that are "compartmentalized" - meaning that the states will get the dollars ONLY if they use them to do certain things that are on Obama's social agenda. And, a large number of these things will generate few if any jobs. The CBO's own numbers confirm that job creation is likely to be only half of what you're hearing from the White House, and unlike the White House, the CBO can explain where they get their numbers.
If we press forward with Obama's programs, the forward deficit (not one that Obama inherited from Bush!) will be nearly $10 trillion. This number is so staggering that governments around the world are beginning to wonder if Washington has lost its mind, and to worry that Washington will be the fountainhead of global superinflation.
It's time to set aside any questions of whether you like Obama or not...or whether you like his agenda or not. IT DOESN'T MATTER whether you like him or his agenda or not. The simple fact is, WE CANNOT AFFORD IT. We seem to think that the government doesn't need to recognize its limits and live within its means, just like families must do. The prospect of a $10 trillion deficit should strike more fear into your heart than terrorists or Russian missiles. It will literally enslave the American taxpayer, while at the same time increasing the price of everything you buy. Some goods will no longer be available at all to the "middle class" because they will become luxury items. Don't just whistle past the graveyard - think!
No society is ever perfect. A hundred years from now, we will still be looking around and seeing things that need to be done, or things that could be improved, or things that need to be eliminated, or things that need to be done differently. And, in that year of 2109, we will still have to say "There are some things on this list that we can afford, and some things we can't afford." We will still have to say "There are some things on this list that government should do, and some things that the private sector should do". It's the ability to make those distinctions that marks the difference between people who are driven by "party politics" and agendas, and those who realize that there are very real constraints that trump any agenda. They are the constraints of the limitations of government, the budget and the longer-term unintended consequences of rushing headlong to achieve any agenda, no matter how desirable it might be.
Very well put Tired MT. Your analysis is spot on. sm
I have been reading the posts for quite a while and I have to agree with you. If you don't agree with political viewpoints on this board, you are jumped on with both feet. I have been on the receiving end of it alos. I figure it this way, I must have really struck a nerve to get people so incensed that they go ballistic. I do have to say that Sam can more than hold her own and I love reading what she has to say. Kudos to Sam for having the courage of her convictions and kudos to you for putting a finger on the problem.
Wow! Thanks! According to your analysis there is no need to hold an election!
X
I respect your analysis about how the people in the
Middle East are going to react to the exposure of the torture pictures. But it is a risky thing. The Muslim people's, the everyday people that is, reaction was also standing in awe to the 9/11 catastrophy and condemning it, as they knew it will backfire on them, the people.
But, I guess, their reaction seeing the torture picture, would not be favorable to us, in no way. The pictures will be met with horror, not respect by the Muslim people and the people all over the world. It is cruel torture, and who wants to see humans suffer in such way?
They will ask, 'What is the logic and reason to post those pictures?' They most probably will misunderstand it and maybe judge it as provocation. No good can come out of this. And I do not even dare to think of the reaction of the extremists. Why should a country expose its humiliating mistakes so openly to the world?
1. Homosexual marriage: For it. If homosexual couples are afforded other freedoms, I am for this one too. If they are allowed to adopt children, they should be allowed to get legally married in the eyes of the state.
2. Welfare: Not for it. I do, however, believe in subsidies to provide help for those in need. Welfare needs an upgrade.
3. Abortion: I am for the right of choice and the right to privacy on these matters.
for what I said above. Government shouldn't have 80% of AIG. They should have let AIG fall on its face. They shouldn't have given them money in the first place.
Here is a little blurp I've copied: I will provide the link below.
On March 5, New York Fed officials forwarded to the Treasury Department a summary of AIG’s bonus and retention payment issues, including details of the retention program for officials of the Financial Products. This information included that $165 million in payments were expected that very month, as well as the fact that the contracts were in place in the first quarter of 2008, and so not covered by the limitations in the stimulus bill as articulated by an amendment to the stimulus bill offered by Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.
As ABC News' Capitol Hill Correspondent Jonathan Karl reported, in February, the Senate unanimously approved an amendment restricting bonuses over $100,000 at any company receiving federal bailout funds, but during the closed-door House and Senate negotiations the provision was stripped out and replaced with a measure by Dodd exempting bonuses agreed to prior to the passage of the stimulus bill on February 11, 2009.
You can read the whole article at this link: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/obama-adminis-1.html
So this basically shows that these bonuses were pushed through by Dodd and so the government had its hand in giving out these bonuses and now they are going to turn around and take that away. It is a contract. I understand that AIG got butt loads of money from the government.....which was wrong in the first place.....but don't you see how scary it is for our government to have this kind of control and power. To give and take away at the drop of a hat. To null and void a contract that someone in government (Dodd) pushed through to make happen and then they turn around and want to tax it to death or just take it from them.
Why in the he!! did Dodd get this slipped in there in the first place? that is the real question. This wouldn't even be an issue. Dodd slips this in because he received the highest amount of money from AIG. So of course he wanted to pay back the hand that fed him...so to speak. And guess who had the second highest amount of contributions from AIG.....Barrack Obama..... So Dodd slips this through and allows a loophole for the AIG execs to get their big ars bonuses and now that it has gone public and people are furious......now government wants to take control and make them give the money back. Isn't it the governments fault in the first place....first for bailing them out and then for letting this loophole slip by to pay back AIG for contributions to campaigns.
This is why our government sucks. They don't care about Americans. All they care about is getting money back to the groups, etc. who contributed money to their campaign. That is why we can't get away from wasteful spending and earmarks.
on politics. She forever tries to make a laughing stock out of everyone who doesn't share her views. I think she is ridiculous and I get a kick out of her when she cracks a "supposed funny" but no one laughs. She is he11 bent on views so much, she makes me sick. I don't see where or why she is part of that program. It's supposed to be open topics, but when someone she likes it on the program, she keeps her mouth shut. I just wish she would keep it shut more often.
There's an old Jewish saying. TI
Prepare yourself with truth before you argue. You speak about debate, but I haven't seen any real debate here. A lot of hysteria. A lot of disinformation. No debate. Israel is not an ally because we haven't sent troops to Iraq. When I finished laughing about that, I had to be disturbed from the lack of real knowledge among you. You get all your facts from news sources, I am guessing most of them partisan. I am not only speaking to you but to other posters here. You give yourselves names like Liberal and Democrat and you speak from political points and not humanity. There is no humanity in your words. You have no idea what goes on in Israel. Unless you are there or have lived and breathed there, or know what the struggles are from minute to minute, you know only what you read. That is the truth. My Jooish friends and I won't bother to educate you. You already know everything and my time here is wasted. It's a big contest about who can paste here articles they find that say what they want. Whether they be true or no. Les enfants israeliens meurent aussi.
EPA slants analysis to favor Bush's agenda
Report Accuses EPA of Slanting Analysis Hill
Researchers Say Agency Fixed Pollution Study to Favor Bush's 'Clear
Skies'
By Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday,
December 3, 2005; A08
The Bush administration skewed its analysis of pending legislation on air
pollution to favor its bill over two competing proposals, according to a new
report by the Congressional Research Service.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Oct. 27 analysis of its plan -- along
with those of Sens. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) and James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) --
exaggerated the costs and underestimated the benefits of imposing more stringent
pollution curbs, the independent, nonpartisan congressional researchers wrote in
a Nov. 23 report. The EPA issued its analysis -- which Carper had demanded this
spring, threatening to hold up the nomination of EPA Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson -- in part to revive its proposal, which is stalled in the Senate.
The administration's Clear Skies legislation aims to achieve a 70 percent cut
in emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide after 2018, while Carper's and
Jeffords's bills demand steeper and faster cuts and would also reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide, which are linked to global warming. The Bush plan would also
cut emissions of neurotoxic mercury by 70 percent, while Jeffords's bill reduces
them by 90 percent.
Although it represents a step toward understanding the impacts of legislative
options, EPA's analysis is not as useful as one could hope, the Research Service
report said. The result is an analysis that some will argue is no longer
sufficiently up-to-date to contribute substantially to congressional debate.
The congressional report, which was not commissioned by a lawmaker as is
customary, said the EPA analysis boosted its own proposal by overestimating the
cost of controlling mercury and playing down the economic benefits of reducing
premature deaths and illnesses linked to air pollution.
EPA estimated the administration's plan would cost coal-fired power plants as
much as $6 billion annually, compared with up to $10 billion in Carper's measure
and as much as $51 billion for Jeffords's. It calculated that Bush's proposal
would produce $143 billion a year in health benefits while Carper's would
generate $161 billion and Jeffords would yield $211 billion. Carper's measure
would achieve most of its reductions by 2013, while Jeffords's bill would enact
even more ambitious pollution cuts by 2010.
EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said the agency based its cost estimates on
mercury controls by gathering comments from boilermaker workers, power companies
and emission control companies, whereas the Research Service used a single study
to reach its conclusions on mercury.
Clear Skies delivers dramatic health benefits across the nation without
raising energy costs and does it with certainty and simplicity, instead of
regulation and litigation, Witcher said. Because of our commitment to see this
become a reality, EPA went above and beyond to provide the most comprehensive
legislative analysis of air ever prepared by the agency, so it does a real
disservice to this discussion to have a report that largely ignores and
misinterprets our analysis.
But aides to Carper and Jeffords said they felt vindicated by the
congressional study.
The CRS report backs up a lot of what we initially said about EPA's latest
analysis, that it overstated the costs of controlling mercury and understated
the overall health benefits of Senator Carper's legislation, said Carper
spokesman Bill Ghent. The report clearly states that there's no reason to settle
for the president's Clear Skies plan because the legislation doesn't clean the
air much better than current law.
At a fundraising luncheon, he said he told Gilani "the only way we're going to be successful in the long term in defeating extremists ... is if we are giving people opportunities. If people have a chance for a better life, then they are not as likely to turn to the ideologies of violence and despair."
What kind of opportunities is he talking about giving them? And it does not matter what you give them...it is not about despair. I guess he did not see the poll done recently of Muslim students in London...way over half polled said it was okay to kill in the name of Islam, in fact it should be done; and way more than half thought Sharia law should be part of English law and supercede it in most cases. These Muslims are not in despair. Obama does not get it, he does not understand it, and that makes him plenty dangerous. Just like he says we cannot drill our way out of the energy crunch (and I disagree with that...might not drill our way out completely but certainly could take a bite out of our foreign oil dependance while working on those alternative forms of energy, which I do support...but there are no immediate answers there either)...we cannot talk Muslim "extremists" out of their extremism. And to think we can is naive at best and that is the nicest way I can put it.
Here's one. Palins' stance on war and peace.
nm
How is posting his stance bashing?
People are not supposed to compare the two?
OMG! Check out O's stance on immigration
Please note, these are from 2008 before the election, but I think they still hold true.
I didn't say because you were Jewish
I said it's not right to think that Christianity should be taken out of everything just because you don't agree.
And you did say that you are getting "Christian things shoved down your throat" everywhere. Usually when you say something is shoved down your throat it means you take offense to it.
I have a serious question to ask you though - do you not believe in Jesus? If not, what is the reasoning as far as you are concerned for getting into heaven? I mean what are the requirements from a Jewish point of view? I'm asking this in all honesty, not sarcastically or anything like that.
Not all Jewish grandparents think the way you do
@@
Republican Jewish Ad
What's with all this hating of the Jews, anyway? Sickening!
ok, here goes - I know I'll get flamed, but I am firm on my stance. SM
Well over 50% of the American population is either Hispanic or African American (I am being conservative because it is probably higher). This population IMO voted for Obama because of his skin color, without researching his view on major issues that revolve around being capable of tackling the presidency of the U.S. I think it is only a matter of time when this will come back and kick all who voted for him in the "you know what." It's not about our ethnicity or religion, but rather about a candidate who is experienced enough to tackle the job. I just cringe at the fact that someone as inexperienced as Obama is now running this country.
Since when does questioning a stance on a single issue
"changing his mind?" In fact, it is media's JOB to exercise both sides of an argument (in the same way that debaters are required to argue both sides of a premise). The mere fact that a reporter is doing just that during a broadcast does not necessarily say anything whatsoever about his personal beliefs.
It would be even funnier if it was written by the guy with the "wide stance"
what is it with those guys and airports? Larry Craig - what a twit! At least Spitzer likes women! In this economy, it's probably the only guaranteed job - and tax-free!
So, gt, are YOU the Jewish expert on this board. sm
So what are your thoughts on Gaza and it's historical and Biblical significance? Do you think Egypt will encroach upon the left bank? How about Hamas and their recent aggressive actions. Do you think they will rebuilt Gaza? What do you think about the relocation of the Gaza settlers? What is the significance of losing Gaza? Do you think the Arabs will uphold their part of the peace agreement, and if so, why? Don't you think Sharon is doomed as far as ever being reelected. Netinyahu is pretty steamed as are most Israeli. Do you think they should vote him back in? Tell us your thoughts.
Jewish Voices For Peace
Not all jews agree with this latest Israeli/Bush aggression, myself included. Check out the web site Jewish Voices For Peace.Org.
Jewish Voice For Peace
It is Jewish Voice For Peace.Org, not Jewish Voices For Peace as I previously posted. Sorry.
try this Republican Jewish Coalition
Not sure why it didn't show up. When I clicked on it here, it worked.
Obama pressures Philly area synagogue to drop RJC Rrepresentative from a ... The RJC has launched a new series of ads raising critical issues for the Jewish... www.rjchq.org/ - 44k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Replace Republican with Jewish and think...
Germany. Do you really hate a group of people that much? Really?? That you want to go down the marxist path of quashing or belitting any kind of dissent or disagreement? I thought liberals were all about the right to dissent! Oh...what on earth am I thinking? They are for THEIR right to dissent and dam* anyone who doesn't agree with them.
Does really need to be said that Israel is predominantly Jewish?
When I speak of Israel, I speak of the Jews.
You Said: "And yes, I did bring Hitler into the conversation. He systematically tied to wipe out a group of people, which is exactly what Israel is doing right now."
That statement is exactly what makes you anti-Semitic. The fact that you can compare Israel to Nazi Germany is obscene and anti-Semitic. You are using something horrific done to the Jews (who make up 75% or more of the Israeli population) and using it to illustrate what you perceive is going on in the Gaza Strip. Can you not find some other means to make your point other than conjuring up prejudice perpetrated by Hitler? Could you have maybe made your comparison to Kosovo/Bosnia? Nope, you chose the holocaust to illustrate your point. You intent was to shock and to be controversial. You wanted to provoke a reaction.
What exactly did you think using the name "Hitler" would provoke? You argument in and of itself is anti-Semitic.
By the way, I am a messianic Jew. I know a little bit about anti-Semitism. So before you continue to insult both my intelligence and my homeland, choose your words wisely.
Wow, and you can ascertain all that from 4 weeks in office? Amazingly rapid political analysis!.....
nm
The no-political-stance rule applies both ways
this is not exclusive to just anti-war speakers. To remain non-profit pastors cannot endorse a political party or agenda, eventhough Reverends Jesse and Al do it all the time and they seem to get away with it. There is a church in my area who was threatened with having their non-profit status pulled due to the fact the pastor urged people to vote for Bush. Believe me this is not unilateral nor one sided.
I understand the moral stance, but feel the rhetoric is over-the-top.....sm
This man is NOT pro-abortion, as many of us are not. He is preserving the right of choice for ALL women, and does not believe that a poor woman who has undergone a rape, incest, domestic violince/intimidation situation, or even has just accidentally gotten pregnant with a child she cannot carry for medical, emotional, or financial reasons....I hate abortion also, but if Americans are to be equal, then a poor woman needs to have resources available to her which would be available to others, or you are damning her to the back-alley abortionists. That is reality. I, Myself, married 18 years, vigilantly spacing my children and on birth control, came up with an unexpected, very difficult pregnancy. Yes, we made the choice to love and take this baby into the world, but we also had SOME resources and family, some girls do not.
There are not many folk who are PRO ABORTION, but preserving the individual choice, though abhorrent to many of us, is part of true liberty. And God Himself will judge as appropriate.
And I do feel that those few who use abortion as a means of birth control, well there should be restrictions and a definite "no."
I was quoting from a Jewish website publication.
It wasn't "my statement." And it made perfect sense if you had read the article. The Gaza strip pull-out was not instigated by the settlers who were moved but by their government which is ISRAELI and is therefore JEWISH. You should read the news a little more.
Arresting officer, who is Jewish, took no offense. sm
He pretty much said what I did below.
Arresting Deputy Didn’t Want To ‘Defame’ Gibson
‘I don’t take pride in hurting Mr. Gibson’ says officer, who is Jewish
MSNBC The Associated Press Updated: 7:56 p.m. PT July 31, 2006
Excerpt:
CALABASAS, Calif. - The deputy who arrested Mel Gibson on suspicion of drunken driving said Monday that he feels bad for damage to the star’s reputation but hopes Gibson thinks twice before drinking and getting behind the wheel.
James Mee, a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy, told the Associated Press that he considered it a routine arrest and didn’t take seriously any comments that Gibson made.
Gibson reportedly unleashed an anti-Semitic tirade and made other offensive comments when he was pulled over, initially for speeding, early Friday along the Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. He was then arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol.
Gibson has issued a public apology for his conduct without specifying what he said or did.
“I don’t take pride in hurting Mr. Gibson,” said Mee, a 17-year deputy who is Jewish. “What I had hoped out of this is that he would think twice before he gets behind the wheel of a car and was drinking. ... I don’t want to ruin his career. I don’t want to defame him in any way or hurt him.”
*snip*
TMZ reported that Gibson said, “The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world,” and asked the arresting officer, “Are you a Jew?”
In the interview outside his home, Mee would not comment specifically on what Gibson said.
“That stuff is booze talking,” the deputy said. “There’s two things that booze does. It amplifies your basic personality. If you are a laid-back kind of person, just an easygoing kind of person, booze is going to amplify that and you’ll be just sitting around going how it’s a wonderful day.
I might be missing something here but I can't find posts by Kfir discussing her Jewish faith. It was all about the war. It was about the state of Israel not about the Jewish religion. Isn't that 2 different things?
Citing U.N. statistics, the IMC said more than 300 children were killed in Lebanon and 1,000 wounded while a further half million youngsters were displaced by battles between Hizbollah guerrillas and Israeli forces in southern Lebanon.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry names eight Israeli children killed by Hizbollah rockets, including two 18-year olds. The total Israeli death toll is estimated at more than 150. It is unclear how many Israeli children were wounded.
Jewish family flees Delaware school district's aggressive Christianity
by JewsOnFirst.org, June 28, 2006
Note: On July 11th, we posted two follow-up reports, which you can find here. And on August 23rd, we posted another update here.
Links to articles and documents cited in our report appear immediately below it
A large Delaware school district promoted Christianity so aggressively that a Jewish family felt it necessary to move to Wilmington, two hours away, because they feared retaliation for filing a lawsuit. The religion (if any) of a second family in the lawsuit is not known, because they're suing as Jane and John Doe; they also fear retaliation. Both families are asking relief from state-sponsored religion.
The behavior of the Indian River School District board suggests the families' fears are hardly groundless.
The district spreads over a considerable portion of southern Delaware. The families' complaint, filed in federal court in February 2005, alleges that the district had created an environment of religious exclusion and unconstitutional state-sponsored religion.
Among numerous specific examples in the complaint was what happened at plaintiff Samantha Dobrich's graduation in 2004 from the district's high school. She was the only Jewish student in her graduating class. The complaint relates that local pastor, Jerry Fike, in his invocation, followed requests for our heavenly Father's guidance for the graduates with:
I also pray for one specific student, that You be with her and guide her in the path that You have for her. And we ask all these things in Jesus' name.
In addition to the ruined graduation experience, the Dobrich-Doe lawsuit alleges that:
The district's custom and practice of school-sponsored prayer was frequently imposed on impressionable non-Christian students, which violated their constitutional rights.
The district ignored the Supreme Court's 1992 Lee decision limiting prayer at graduation ceremonies -- even after a district employee complained about the prayer at her child's 2003 graduation..
District teachers and staff led Bible clubs at several schools. Club members got to go to the head of the lunch line.
While Bible clubs were widely available, student book clubs were rare and often canceled by the district.
When Jane Doe complained that her non-Christian son Jordan Doe was left alone when his classmates when to Bible club meetings, district staff insisted that Jordan should attend the club, regardless of his religion.
The district schools attended by Jordan and his sister Jamie Doe distributed Bibles to students in 2003, giving them time off from class to pick up the books.
Prayer --often sectarian -- is a routine part of district sports programs and social events
One of the district's middle schools gave students the choice of attending a special Bible Club if they did not want to attend a lesson on evolution.
A middle school teacher told students there was only one true religion and gave them pamphlets for his surfing ministry.
Samantha Dobrich's honors English teacher frequently discussed Christianity, but no other religion.
Students frequently made mandatory appearances at district board meetings -- where they were a captive audience for board members' prayers to Jesus.
The Dobriches said the prayers to Jesus' ruined the graduation experience for Samantha. Mona Dobrich, Samantha's mother, repeatedly called district officials to complain. A board member told her she would have to get the matter put on a meeting agenda -- then refused to put it on the agenda. The school superintendent slipped the topic onto the agenda and then told Mona Dobrich she would need to raise it during the public comment period.
School board unyielding The board opened the June 15, 2004 meeting at which Dobrich was prepared to speak with a prayer in Jesus' name. The board was not forthcoming to her request that official prayers be in God's name rather than in Jesus' name. The high school athletic director veered from his agenda topic to encourage the board to keep praying in Jesus' name.
Board member Donald Hattier followed Dobrich out and offered to compromise by keeping graduation free of prayers to Jesus. And, according to the complaint, he warned her not to hire a lawyer.
A large crowd turned out for the next board meeting and many people spoke in support of school prayer. Mona Dobrich spoke passionately of her own outsider experience as a student in Indian River District schools and of how hard she'd worked to make sure her children didn't also feel like outsiders.
Hattier again approached her after the meeting. This time, the complaint alleges, he told her he'd spoken with the Rutherford Institute, a religious right legal group.
Talk show calls out a mob The district board announced the formation of a committee to develop a religion policy. And the local talk radio station inflamed the issue.
On the evening in August 2004 when the board was to announce its new policy, hundreds of people turned out for the meetng. The Dobrich family and Jane Doe felt intimidated and asked a state trooper to escort them.
The complaint recounts that the raucous crowd applauded the board's opening prayer and then, when sixth-grader Alexander Dobrich stood up to read a statement, yelled at him: take your yarmulke off! His statement, read by Samantha, confided I feel bad when kids in my class call me Jew boy.
A state representative spoke in support of prayer and warned board members that the people would replace them if they faltered on the issue. Other representatives spoke against separating god and state.
A former board member suggested that Mona Dobrich might disappear like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the atheist whose Supreme Court case resulted in ending organized school prayer. O'Hair disappeared in 1995 and her dismembered body was found six years later.
The crowd booed an ACLU speaker and told her to go back up north.
In the days after the meeting the community poured venom on the Dobriches. Callers to the local radio station said the family they should convert or leave the area. Someone called them and said the Ku Klux Klan was nearby.
Killing Christ Classmates accused Alex Dobrich of killing Christ and he became fearful about wearing his yarmulke, the complaint recounts. He took it off whenever he saw a police officer, fearing that the officer might see it and pull over his mother's car. When the family went grocery shopping, the complaint says, Alexander would remove the pin holding his yarmulke on his head for fear that someone would grab it and rip out some of his hair.
The Dobriches refinanced their home so that Mona and Alexander could move to Wilmington, away from a situation that had become untenable, according to the complaint; Marco stayed behind because of his job, .
Ultimately, it continues, the expense of two households forced the Dobriches to sell their home. And Samantha was forced to withdraw from the joint program she attended at Columbia University and the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York. She is being treated for depression.
The lawsuit states that the Doe family wants to remain anonymous in order to avoid the retaliation experienced by the Dobrich family. Jordan and Jane Doe are also suffering from depression related to their opposition with the Indian River School District's religion policy.
Elusive religion policy Even after Mona and Alexander Dobrich moved to Wilmington, the family and its lawyers continued to request the district's policy on religion in the schools and to ask for meetings with the board. Their requests were stonewalled, so in February 2005 they filed suit.
In a statement issued through her attorneys and quoted by the Delaware Wave, Mona Dobrichexplained why the families were suing: We are not trying to remove God from the schools or the public square. We simply don't think it is right for the district to impose a particular religious view on impressionable students.
The families seek to recover damages and to compel changes in the school district's policy.
That policy, however, remains elusive.
At the request of a board member soon after the infamous graduation, the Rutherford Institute, prepared a prayer policy for the school board, according to the complaint. In October 2004 the board reportedly adopted a new policy on religion in response to the Dobrich's complaint.
It is unclear if that policy is the one prepared by the Rutherford Institute -- because no one has seen it. The Dobrich's complaint states that the policy was unavailable and when the families requested it the district told them to file a freedom of information request.
This June, the board had a reading of a proposed change in the unseen policy. They said the policy and its changes would be posted on their website, (www.irsd.net) but on June 27th, it was nowhere to be found among several dozen policy documents.
The Rutherford Institute enters the fray At the boisterous August 2004 district board meeting, the head of the Rutherford Institute, John Whitehead, urged the board to set an example for other schools, according to the Daily Times, a local paper.
A Rutherford affiliated lawyer, Thomas Neuberger, came into the case representing one of the school board members. Before he left the case last August (because the judge dismissed the individual board members from the case), Neuberger was reportedly feuding with other lawyers.
While he was in the case, his client, Reginald L. Helms reportedly admitted one of the lawsuit's allegations: that school officials invited Pastor Fike to the 2004 graduation. That undermined the district's claim that students chose the speakers.
Neuberger was quoted by the Delaware Wave newspaper denying that the Dobrich's son Alex was taunted as a Jew by classmates. I seriously doubt that it ever occurred, he told the paper, contending that the plaintiffs were using the allegation used to defame the good citizens who serve on this school board.
In its response to the lawsuit, the district reportedly called some of the families' claims immaterial, impertinent and scandalous, and intended only to cast the district in a negative light.
Settlement rejected In February 2006, the board unanimously rejected a settlement offer that would have required renaming Christmas and Easter breaks to winter and spring, respectively, and to put a Dobrich child at the top of a waiting list for an arts school. It would have permitted board members to continue praying at their meetings. (US District Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., who is hearing the case, ruled last year that the prayer was a historic tradition and could continue.)
In April the board's insurance company, which had been representing the district in the lawsuit, filed suit against it (and the individual board members) because they had, against its advice, rejected the settlement offer. The board then fired the attorneys that had been representing them and hired a new set. The insurance company is reportedly refusing to pay for the board's legal defense from the date the members rejected the settlement offer.
According to the Coastal Point, the insurance company's complaint is sealed, as is the district's response. The district's taxpayers, who will pay the bill if the insurer prevails, cannot know the details of the case.
Attorney Thomas Allingham, who represents the Dobrich family in their case against the school district, says the board's behavior suggests it was not negotiating in good faith. Allingham told JewsOnFirst that several board members attended the settlement negotiations, which were under the auspices of a federal mediator. He said the members approved the settlement during those negotiations. But, when the board voted on the offer, they rejected it unanimously.
Allingham said the plaintiffs remained open to the possibility that the case could be settled. But the case is set for trial in June 2007 in Wilmington.
Board prayer allowed with settlement
By Jonathan Starkey, Coastal Point (Sussex County, Delaware), June 16, 2006
A settlement offered by the plaintiffs in the Dobrich/Doe prayer suit and denied unanimously by the Indian River School board on Feb. 27 would have allowed board members to continue opening monthly meetings with a prayer, a board member and two other sources close to the case told the Coastal Point. Click here for the report (a PDF file).
School board to discuss religion policy
By Jonathan Starkey, Coastal Point (Sussex County, Delaware), June 23, 2006
The policies regarding prayer at graduations and religion in school that were adopted by the Indian River School Board on Oct. 19, 2004, after they heard complaints from a Jewish family, might be amended next week.
The board held a first reading on the amended ordinances Tuesday but deferred a vote until after an executive session on Tuesday, June 27. Board members and district Superintendent Lois Hobbs wouldn’t comment on the specifics of the proposed amendments. Click here for the report (a PDF file).
School prayer lawsuit filed against district
By Sean O'Sullivan, Gannett News Service, Delaware Wave, March 2, 2005
Two sets of parents filed a federal lawsuit in Wilmington on Monday that seeks to bar the Indian River School District from promoting religion at school functions.
The parents, who also are seeking damages, claim in the lawsuit that their rights to free speech and to be free from state-sponsored religion have been violated.
We didn't want a lawsuit, but at this point we feel like we don't have any other choice, said Mona Dobrich, one of the parents, in a statement provided by attorney Thomas J. Allingham. We are not trying to remove God from the schools or the public square. We simply don't think it is right for the district to impose a particular religious view on impressionable students. Continue
School district disputes lawsuit
By Sean O'Sullivan, Gannett News Service, Delaware Wave, May 4, 2005
WILMINGTON -- Indian River school officials have filed papers in federal court denying virtually every claim in a Jewish family's lawsuit over school-sponsored Christian prayer.
John Balaguer, attorney for the school district, also asked a U.S. District judge to strike large sections of the complaint as immaterial, impertinent and scandalous.
Balaguer said the items were included solely to cast the district in a negative light. Continue
ACLU Sues to Stop School Board Prayer: Dobrich v. Walls
Rutherford Institute website entry on the Dobrich case.
JOF note: the ACLU is not involved in the case!
Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to dismiss a lawsuit recently filed by the ACLU against Reginald Helms in his official capacity as a member of the Indian River School District Board of Education. The lawsuit, which was filed by the ACLU in February 2005 against school board members in their personal and professional capacities, alleges that school- sponsored prayer “has pervaded the life of teachers and students” in the Indian River District schools. In their motion to have the case dismissed, Institute attorneys argue that as a school board member, Helms should have immunity from liability claims under the established doctrine of absolute legislative immunity.
An official with the Indian River School District Board of Education contacted The Rutherford Institute for help in August 2004, after the Wilmington, Del., branch of the ACLU demanded that IRSD board members stop opening their monthly business meetings with a prayer. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute agreed to represent Reginald Helms, vice president of the IRSD Board of Education, in his individual capacity should the Delaware school district’s practice of opening meetings with a brief prayer be challenged. Despite pressure from the Wilmington chapter of the ACLU to cease issuing prayers at public events, officials with the IRSD opened a school board meeting on Aug. 24, 2004, with a brief invocation. Several hundred members of the community gathered at Frankford Elementary School for the monthly business meeting broke into applause after Board President Harvey Walls asked board member Dr. Donald G. Hattier to lead the board in a word of prayer. Hattier read a prayer given by George Washington during the Revolutionary War. During the business meeting, the board also issued a first reading of a policy concerning school prayer at baccalaureate and commencement ceremonies, which states that student-initiated, student-delivered, voluntary messages may be permitted during graduation ceremonies. Thomas Neuberger, a Rutherford affiliate attorney with the Neuberger Firm, which is based in Wilmington, Del., is defending school board member Reginald Helms against the ACLU’s lawsuit. (link)
Fair Use Statement: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Your telling me that a child that is born from a botched abortion should be left to die?
That is what this bill is about. If a child is born after an abortion attempt, that it should be treated as a US citizen with all rights of a citizen given, including the right to lifesaving medical care. You don't think that's fair?
Abortion
Haven't you guys who are going on about this given any thought that every time politicians start speaking of abortion, gay marriage, etc., it is a smoke screen. They know how to push our buttons, but then they are always hiding something else. The know if they keep our minds on these types of issues, we won't be paying attention to other under-handed things that are going on.
This is not about abortion. It is about a man who...
voted AGAINST giving medical care infants who survive abortion, who are living and breathing outside the mother and unattached even by the umbilical cord. That is horrific, and frankly I don't feel real good about someone who wants to fight for that TO happen, instead of AGAINST it happening. If he can't muster up enough sympathy for poor children dying alone in a dirty clothes closet, how could I possibly believe he cares about the "middle class?"
Talk about a STRETCH.
abortion
I think that it is sad that people do not believe abortion is murder. I am pregnant by surprise and had an ultrasound at 12 weeks (when many abortions are performed) and was able to see my baby move around and his hands and feet. If that is not a baby, heaven help us all. Having said that, I am not sure that abortion should be illegal. In my heart, I know that it is wrong, but in my head, I also know that it will continue to happen in an unsafe manner if it were to become illegal. However, perhaps not so prevalently, so this is a toughie for me, but I cannot believe that God condones it.
ABORTION
who KNOWS there are other alternatives out there? Come on people!! We all type this stuff...There are sooooo many different kinds of birth control out there. Why wait and kill a baby? Bottom line, that's what abortion is. I just cannot believe the mentality of some of you people. I may not have all the fancy words some of you use but I think this is just common sense. I don't even know that I think a woman should have her "choice" taken away but I do think abortion should not be considered birth control. If you don't want to have a baby and CHOOSE abortion, and it happens again and again, how about an old fashioned TUBAL LIGATION? All this talk truly makes me ill to my stomach.
I'm curious how many of you out there are willing to fess up about an abortion and sharing your feelings about your "choice." My sister had a "choice" to make years ago and she has nightmares about it still. The guilt she has felt is unreal. Maybe some of you do live with yourselves and I honestly think any woman who has made this "choice" and can live with herself without any sort of guilt EVER, is just a very hard person.
marks the location of current message within thread
