where is the outrage now?

[What the Heck]

I don't know…There's just something about this story that has me going hmmmm… Like it's a great distraction from the story about the near riot at the wall when Obama posted his huge banners. And it's a huge distraction from the story about Obama's refusal to visit wounded soldiers because the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to pimp them as campaign props. I don't know… I think this story has Obama's campaign's finger prints all over it. I'm just sayin'…

I'm not so sure. If it was his campaign, that would be a huge outrage to all those of the Jewish faith. As it is, it's still an outrage, but I don't attibute it to Obama. Although it does show that maybe Obama's trip to the Middle East wasn't as good as his campaign says it was.

I'm not sure why the Original Post combines the two events and asks why there was no outrage regarding this when there was for his posters? I wasn't outraged about the campaign posters, I just found it extremely tacky to put campaign posters on another country's property. Releasing his personal prayer is worthy of outrage though. It should have remained private (although the prayer itself I do applaud).

 

[What the Heck]

Well, I won't call his "message" to G-d litter....but I will say this: Do you really think that man thought his "message" would stay personal and private? I think not.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But the issue isn't what Obama thought about it or what would happen to it, but what did happen to it. It was an affront to Israel and the Jewish faith. In my mind it would be the equavalent of a janitor at a Roman Catholic Church hearing what is said in a confessional and then writing about it in the local newspaper. Some things are just not right.

 

[undercovermom]

I'm not so sure. If it was his campaign, that would be a huge outrage to all those of the Jewish faith. As it is, it's still an outrage, but I don't attibute it to Obama. Although it does show that maybe Obama's trip to the Middle East wasn't as good as his campaign says it was.

I'm not sure why the Original Post combines the two events and asks why there was no outrage regarding this when there was for his posters? I wasn't outraged about the campaign posters, I just found it extremely tacky to put campaign posters on another country's property. Releasing his personal prayer is worthy of outrage though. It should have remained private (although the prayer itself I do applaud).

that was my point -- the emphasis in the article Dawn posted (and in the Rush Limbaugh column I saw ) was NOT that theposters were n Israeli police barricades -- you sy it was "tacky" for him to put his campaign posters on another coungtry's property, Dawn feels the effort should not have been funded by US taxpayers -- but the article Dawn quoted clearly emphasized that the posters were at a holy site and implied that it was sacriligious. yet the people who did the most complaining chose to ignore a real desecration of the holy place.

it is rare for a note to be removed from the Wall and its contents published. but it would be naive to assume that Obama was not aware of the potential for the note to be retrieved and read.

but orchestrating it? not likely. too risky.

 

[undercovermom]

Perhaps, perhaps not. But the issue isn't what Obama thought about it or what would happen to it, but what did happen to it. It was an affront to Israel and the Jewish faith. In my mind it would be the equavalent of a janitor at a Roman Catholic Church hearing what is said in a confessional and then writing about it in the local newspaper. Some things are just not right.

good analogy/

 

[undercovermom]

What's wrong with being Jewish? Is there nothing you won't stoop to?

your sarcasm is not only an affront to Obama supporters, but an affront to all of us who are Jewish.

I would not dare to be so glib about your religious beliefs.

 

[mpls_mm]

Well, I won't call his "message" to G-d litter....but I will say this: Do you really think that man thought his "message" would stay personal and private? I think not.

I would never have thought that message would become public. Hundreds of celebrities and other politicians visit that wall. It is sacred and treated as such, right down to the last detail. I have never, ever, ever, heard of a message being leaked or even being taken. There are people that are employed to take care of the wall and take care of dislodged messages. I can't even tell you how holy a place it is, you are truly in G*ds presence and praying as countless others have before. I don't doubt he worded his message carefully, anyone feeling the presence of the place would. As a Jew, this troubles me greatly.

 

[corndog]

your sarcasm is not only an affront to Obama supporters, but an affront to all of us who are Jewish.

I would not dare to be so glib about your religious beliefs.

Well, nothing I have said is meant to be sarcastic. I'm sorry you interpret it that way.

Further, you should not presume to know the nature of my religious beliefs.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Well, nothing I have said is meant to be sarcastic. I'm sorry you interpret it that way.

Further, you should not presume to know the nature of my religious beliefs.

Giving you more attention than you deserve . . . your thoughts about Judaism are quite "interesting" from your initial post You said, "I guess I don't understand the outrage. Is there an expectation of privacy for your litter?"

So, just wondering . . . was that really a serious question from an inquiring mind or an anti semitic slur?

 

[ilisao]

Well, nothing I have said is meant to be sarcastic. I'm sorry you interpret it that way.

Further, you should not presume to know the nature of my religious beliefs.

Right. Because referring to prayers in the Wall as litter was not sarcastic at all.

This Jew would appreciate it if you refrained from any comments regarding my religion until you are a bit more educated.

 

[undercovermom]

corndog, I have made not assumptions about your religious affiliation or beliefs. I can probably guess, but I won't.

your first posts on this thread were insulting to those of us who are Jewish.

let me ask you a question...and be careful how you answer.

if I'm walking through Times Square and someone hands me a pamphlet filled with Biblical quotes...all New Testament stuff...and I take that pamplet and use it to wipe a mess off my shoes...would people feel just a tad bit upset with me?

 

[mickeyfan1]

Just a quick comment, why do so many of you not type out God? It's ok to do it you know. Or does putting it on the internet eqate to taking the name in vain?

 

[undercovermom]

mickeyfan....

the rule applies only to writing in Hebrew, not English...

the rule is not to write G-d's Name in a medium where it may accidentally be obliterated. prayerbooks are buried with some formality when they are no longer usable because they contain the Name.

we do it in English as a sign of respect.

 

[mickeyfan1]

Thanks for the information. I am always curious about that. I do notice that a lot of non Jews do it, too.

 

[corndog]

let me ask you a question...and be careful how you answer.

if I'm walking through Times Square and someone hands me a pamphlet filled with Biblical quotes...all New Testament stuff...and I take that pamplet and use it to wipe a mess off my shoes...would people feel just a tad bit upset with me?

I don't see why they would be.

 

[mpls_mm]

Thanks for the information. I am always curious about that. I do notice that a lot of non Jews do it, too.

I never heard that it was Hebrew only, His name is his name. But we all know how that goes, ask two Jews and get three opinions. The way I was taught, is that if there is any chance it can be destroyed, you can't write it out. For the internet that applies to all writings because they can be printed and destroyed by anyone.

 

[challer]

snooping -- reading someone else's mail -- is forbidden by Jewish law. a seminary student familiar with Torah and talmud would know this.

It may even be forbidden to read other's emails according to Jewish law.

 

[challer]

I never heard that it was Hebrew only, His name is his name. But we all know how that goes, ask two Jews and get three opinions. The way I was taught, is that if there is any chance it can be destroyed, you can't write it out. For the internet that applies to all writings because they can be printed and destroyed by anyone.

I agree - I don't believe it is just for the Hebrew writing. Even if the abbreviated name is written in English, if it is widely recognized as His name, it is to be treated with respect (ie don't toss the paper out with the trash). I have seen it written as G#d because the "-" instead of the "o" is too widely recognized as a valid name.

 

[corndog]

Bumping for undercovermom to continue where ever she was going with this.

 

[undercovermom]

it doesn't matter what the rule is, does it, so long as we understand the practice is to respect G-d.

Maariv now claims Obama made the contents public before he put the note in the wall...at least the student who took the note had the good sense to return it to the Wall.

 

[corndog]

corndog, I have made not assumptions about your religious affiliation or beliefs. I can probably guess, but I won't.

your first posts on this thread were insulting to those of us who are Jewish.

let me ask you a question...and be careful how you answer.

if I'm walking through Times Square and someone hands me a pamphlet filled with Biblical quotes...all New Testament stuff...and I take that pamplet and use it to wipe a mess off my shoes...would people feel just a tad bit upset with me?

But what about this? See my answer above.