▪ Missing picture on cover of forthcoming Rebbetzin Kanievsky biography
▪ 64% of Jerusalem’s Population is Jewish
▪ Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Writers Explore the Tension Between Obedience and Skepticism In Their Community
▪ Actor ‘comes home’ in Jewish series
▪ Rabbi and organic farmer trade jobs
▪ Rabbinic Court Annuls 20-Year Marriage: Witnesses not Shabbat Observers
▪ Will Gay Marriage Oust Military Chaplains?
▪ Confronting Cremation
▪ Chasidic Internet Cafe on Front Line of Culture War
▪ Spare the low-flying baby: A Hesder student responds
▪ Shooting down a canard: Torah study does boost GDP
▪ 1,000 Religious Zionist Rabbis Meet in Jerusalem
▪ Strong support for quotas on women leaders
▪ R Maroof: Some Thoughts on Gay Marriage
▪ Yom Yerushalayim: Rav Kook and the Hebrew University Speech Controversy
▪ SALT Friday
▪ Aquarius in Zion
▪ Blunting The Poisoned Pen
▪ Protesters Make A Stand At Fundraiser For Rabbi Accused Of Sex Abuse
▪ At Citi Field Sunday, Ultra-Orthodox Jews Will Rally Against the Internet
▪ The Communal Cost of ‘Free’
▪ Abuse Headlines Gives Push to Tough Laws
▪ Conference promotes prenuptial agreement
▪ New issue of JOFA Journal
▪ Engaging Millennial Jews: An Opportunity We Must Seize
▪ Pluralism In A Post-Pluralistic World
▪ SALT Thursday
▪ Bloomberg vs. the Rabbis
▪ Court rules Judaism, not place of birth, is grounds for Israeli citizenship
▪ Internet Kiosks A Boon In The Charedi Community
▪ Sheirut Leumi Officials Preparing to Enlist Chareidim
▪ As Pressure On Hynes Builds, New Revelations Of Rabbis’ Intimidation
▪ Ultra-Orthodox community in Brooklyn wrongly mistrusts justice system
▪ Facebook and Talmud
▪ Female Reform rabbi seated on religious council of Jerusalem suburb
▪ Internal Probe Clears Brooklyn College Official
▪ L.A. Rabbi-Turned-Candidate Raises Hackles
▪ Pickled to Perfection
▪ SALT Wednesday
▪ Not an Achdus Moment
▪ The Future Will Be More Religious and Conservative Than You Think
▪ Prosecuting Torat Hamelech
▪ Review of BDA Journal
▪ When Jewish women embraced mah-jongg
▪ Class shows haredi readiness to tackle sex abuse
▪ Young haredim want to study, open to army, work
▪ Either/Orthodoxy
▪ SALT Tuesday
▪ R Meidan: IDF Spokesman May Take Photos on Shabbos
▪ 1,000 reasons to allow Talmudic exemptions from the IDF
▪ Appeals court certifies N.Y. kosher law as constitutional
▪ Knowledge is power: The haredi internet problem
▪ In SoHo, Kosher Rules Get New Twist
▪ The Moral Costs of Jewish Day School
▪ Revealed: The scandalous history of Judaism’s most precious book
▪ New Program Aims at Integrating Ultra-Orthodox into Workforce
▪ Review: The Koren/Steinsaltz English Talmud Bavli
▪ Montreal’s Hasidic community reaches out
▪ Kosher food: What Could Be Wrong?
▪ Brooklyn DA Responds To Bloomberg’s Criticism Of Handling Of Sexual Abuse In Jewish Communities
▪ Bloomberg Objects To Brooklyn DA’s Treatment Of Sexual Abuse In Hasidic Communities
▪ Q&A with NYT Reporters re Abuse in Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Communities
▪ Chief Rabbinate Instructs Hotels to Serve Meat Meal Shavuos Night
▪ SALT Monday
▪ Prior news & links posts
Rules: link
I don’t see how any of this discussion is relevant. Let’s say the therapy worked – would the gay rights community support its use? I doubt it.
That people believe in quackery is אין חדש תחת השמש. What is relevant is, as I said: Dr. Spitzer’s recantation removes the last scintilla of scientific respectability. Therefore, any halachic discussion that relies on this bad science is subject to legitimate criticism.
IH,
But I still don’t see how this is relevant. The debate is essentially whether to accept homosexuality as a normative legitimate social phenomenon/institution or not. Whether it can actually be “cured” is neither here nor there.
aiwac — there are multiple threads; this closes out one (viz. the pseudo-science that homosexuality can be cured through therapy).
GIL:
“Yom Yerushalayim: Rav Kook and the Hebrew University Speech Controversy”
http://leimanlibrary.com/texts_of_publications/63.%20Rabbi%20Abraham%20Isaac%20Ha-Kohen%20Kook%20Invocation%20at%20the%20Inauguration%20Of%20the%20Hebrew%20University.pdf
Obviously, the person who wrote the article in Hakirah as to his being cured from homosexuality proves that the therapy involved, at least in his case, neither was quackery nor pseudo-science, and that, at least in his instance, and probably others as well, that the Torah does not command man to do the impossible. OTOH, if you you reject the view that man has the free will and moral autonomy to make such decisions, then you will view any such therapeutic techniques and their results as quackery and pseudo science.
Steve — to see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2630257/
STEVE:
“Obviously, the person who wrote the article in Hakirah as to his being cured from homosexuality proves that the therapy involved, at least in his case, neither was quackery nor pseudo-science”
seriously? is this what you think medical research is about? is that how you think medical guidelines are determined?
STEVE:
a friend asks you for advice: their daughter was offerred a shidduch but upon investigation he determined the proposed match had at one point struggled with homosexual activities. the boy has since undergone some type of therapy and has been cured. what would you recommend?
IH:
while that link is a very important read, it doesn’t actually address steve’s comment. the article debunks the claims made in one chapter by an alt med advocate, but doesn’t deal with question of basing medical guidelines on a self-reported case study in hakirah.
“Obviously, the person who wrote the article in Hakirah as to his being cured from homosexuality proves that the therapy involved, at least in his case, neither was quackery nor pseudo-science, and that, at least in his instance, and probably others as well, that the Torah does not command man to do the impossible.”
Obviously it does nothing of the kind. Who is this person? What actual sexual orientation did he have? What type of therapy did he have? What type of sexual life does he have now? We don’t know any of the answers to any of the questions. And that’s “proof”? Let’s say you have an anonymous letter saying that he made $10 million playing the stock market based on astrology. Well he (whoever he is) says so, so it’s proof, I guess, that while astrology might not work for everybody it works for some. Give me a break. No, make that give me some facts.
Abba and Joseph Kaplan-Have you actually read the article? Moreover, since such treatments more often than not run the risk of not being reimburseable by insurance or incurring the wrath of the gay rights movement, I think that the dictates of patient-phsyician confidentiality leave us with no choice but to accept what the author of the article in Hakira wrote about the success of his therapy.
I see no reason to view the article as devoid of credibility merely because the author is anonymous. Moreoever, in the article, the author describes himself now as a happily married husband and father. Viewing the same as akin to the anonymous letter re money made on the stock market is a poor comparison because we are dealing with a person’s ability to transform his life, as opposed to wasting his money based on astrology on something that he has no reason to believe will ever materialize in his life-a killing on the market.
As far as alternative therapies are concerned, I am all for using conventional therapies to aid anyone in diseases as described in the article, but if a patient feels psychologically improved or obtains the benefits of a placebo effect, even if the patient stands no chance of a cure, then the witholding of the same solely because they are not medically proven strikes me as cruel. I have heard that even Sloan Kettering allows for alternative treatment for patients whose treatment either does not respond to usual regimen of care or for patients whose main concern is providing them with psychological benefit of feeling better or a placebo.
Abba-There are many Poskim who discuss when, how, and under what circumstances such information should be revealed. I would wonder how, when, and under what circumstances the information was obtained and divulged in the first place, which strikes me as halachically improper until and unless the young man and woman have reached the stage where their dates go beyond social chit chat, and get into the more fundamental questions of whether they are “shayach” for each other and if they have any “baggage” in their background that they deem of vital importance that absolutely has to be discussed at that stage of the relationship. Assumimg there were no improprieties, one would or should then merely proceed to ask the usual questions about his current life, and how he views his life as a Torah observant husband and father.
Abba wrote:
“seriously? is this what you think medical research is about? is that how you think medical guidelines are determined”
Unless you view such therapy as out of the medical mainstream, why isn’t the validity of such therapy determined by its success or failure, as opposed to the denial by the gay rights movement that no such treatment is ever warranted in the first place?
The editors of Hakira noted the following in an asterisked footnote at Page 47 at the beginning of “A Personal Account:
“Although it is our policy not to print letters from anonymous people, the writer gave us a reliable source with whom we were able to verify his story. He asked that we include his email address, ex_ssa@yahoo.com, and urged those who feel that they would benefit from speaking to him to please contact him.”
I would suggest that anyone who has not read the article in question because they view the story as inherently false or of dubious medical veracity lack the intellectual honesty discuss the issue in its most stark terms, namely the abiiity of at least one person to transform himself and his life, which is the fundamental basis of the Mitzvah of Teshuvah. In many ways, the cynicism that many have approached this article is illustrative of what happens for all too many of us when a fundamental principle of Bchirah Chofshis conflicts with the dictates of what society views as “normal”, but which is viewed as abnormal by the Torah-inevitably our being so attuned to modernity tunes out our ability to appreciate that a person can transcend his past and live in accordance with the dictates of the Torah.
I will go one step further-I think that if one views the Hakirah study either as lacking sufficient facts, or of dubious medical veracity,or is criticizing it withoutb having read the article, then the issue is far larger in scope. Such a POV essentially rejects the transformative nature of the Mitzvah of Teshuvah-which IMO, the above referenced article in Hakirah depicts. Like it or not, such a stance unfortunately would go hand in hand with a cynical view towards BTs , Kiruv and Chizuk that is all too often voiced here.
For those interested, here is the link to the article in Hakirah.
http://hakirah.org/Vol13FormerSSA.pdf
The fact is that the homosexuals compose a very aggressive pressure group that uses various tactics to harass and intimidate those who say things they don’t like. Their targets can be anyone. Politicians. Psychiatrists. Professors. Businesspeople. Ministers. Priests. Rabbis. Even Orthodox ones. In such a climate of intimidation and fear, it is hard, if not impossible, to discuss the issues with the openness and intellectual honesty that they require and deserve.
Dr. Spitzer’s letter just addressed claims that an old study wasn’t done according to proper scientific standards. It doesn’t disprove the idea that people can change.
The New York Times caved in to the homosexual lobby long ago. As has the NAACP, which just passed a revolution supporting homosexual ‘marriage’. But the holy nation of Israel, especially those that follow the Torah hakedoshah, does not have to follow the immorality of others like sheep. No, there is and will be a remnant of the chosen people, that will follow in the footsteps of our patriarch Abraham and smash the idol of political correctness demanding that we submit to the whatever the homosexual lobby demands. We will not kowtow to the shmutz mongers, even when they dress the immorality up in a cloak of alleged progress and science. The NY Times is not our Bible (thankfully many Jews in recent years have taken steps to disengage from it). Like other parts of the liberal left, they are increasingly seen now as what they are, standing in opposition to us on various fronts, whether it be Israel, the diaspora, moral issues, tuition relief, or something else. Let the NY Times continue to decline, a fate that they have so well earned, and let us abandon the sinking ship that it is.
Steve b. – “story as inherently false or of dubious medical veracity…”
The story could be 100% true and have zero medical veracity as well – its hard to understand your lack of understanding in general on this matter. It’s also hard to understand why you cannot accept the fact for many people who have written about receiving this therapy it can be most harmful to their well being ( as well as leading to depression and possible suicide).
Re a halachic view of alternative therapies, see Minchas Asher: Vayikra; Parshas Bchukosai: No.66, where R Asher Weiss discusses halachic issues as to if the same is permissible, and noting that while a patient can choose such treatment after undergoing conventional treatments ( based on Shabbos 67a and the views of many Rishonim therein) such treatment cannot warrant Chilul Shabbos because it is medically unproven.
Ruvie-None of us can judge the veracity or credibility of the author. Obviously, assuming that the article is truthful, therapy worked for the author, and he is living a normal life as a Torah observant father and husband. I prefer to invoke Hamotze Mechavero Alav HaRayah as as opposed to either “medical veracity” or how others with cultural, political and sociological axes to grind have written about the treatment in question.
I believe that the article is telling us something very important about the transformative power of teshuvah, which is predicated on far different premises than either the mere medical veracity of the article and/or the presently accepted views of homosexuality.
Mordechai-excellent post!
“Abba and Joseph Kaplan-Have you actually read the article?”
Yes I did.
“I think that the dictates of patient-phsyician confidentiality leave us with no choice but to accept what the author of the article in Hakira wrote about the success of his therapy.”
Nonsense. Not only don’t we have to accept something that is anonymous and gives us very little information, but to base an opinion on such (non)information makes that opinion worth little.
“because we are dealing with a person’s ability to transform his life”
But that’s the question. Did he truly transform his life.
” but if a patient feels psychologically improved or obtains the benefits of a placebo effect, even if the patient stands no chance of a cure, then the witholding of the same solely because they are not medically proven strikes me as cruel.”
The problem is that this therapy, according to many experts, can be damaging. And in situations where alternative therapies are damaging, institutions like Sloan Kettering are adamantly against using them even though they might have a placebo effect on some few.”
So you try to smear your opponents as “intellectually dishonest” based on an assumption you make that they, unlike you, didn’t bother to read the Personal Story. But, as is so often true, your assumptions are groundless as is your conclusion from them.
“if one views the Hakirah study”
There was no Hakirah *study*. There was an anonymous letter with few facts. Perhaps one of the problems is that you think this anonymous letter was a study.
“Such a POV essentially rejects the transformative nature of the Mitzvah of Teshuvah”
Teshuvah has nothing to do with these issues because being gay is not a sin. Yes, a gay person can do teshuvah for committing sexual sins but after the teshuvah is all done, he/she is still gay. You can no more stop being gay through teshuvah than stop having cancer through teshuvah.
“Like it or not, such a stance unfortunately would go hand in hand with a cynical view towards BTs , Kiruv and Chizuk that is all too often voiced here.”
Utter nonsense and slander.
Steve — I have no reason to disbelieve the author, hence I take him at his word. However, he doesn’t actually say whether he remains attracted to men and/or whether he has a “normal” sexual relationship with his wife beyond that which was necessary for the birth of his children (or whether he is their biological father for that matter). Nor does he address whether he was bisexual. Nor any description of the therapy he underwent.
In short, his letter has insufficient information to derive any facts, despite that I take him at his word for the patchy narrative he offers.
To be more specific, this passage seems wordsmithed for ambiguity:
Joseph Kaplan-unfortunately, the tone of your comment betrays your POV. Here are some simplen illustrations:
1)The article in question described the person’s struggle and the results of his therapy. Your query as to his sex life was unseemly, to use the mildest possible adjective.
2)The author testified that he is a happy husband and father who sheps nachas being the same. That is what called transforming his personality.
3)I think that the letter proves that for at least one person, the therapy worked and that he is living a normal life, regardless of whether others have been depressed or committed suicide.
4)You wrote:
“Teshuvah has nothing to do with these issues because being gay is not a sin. Yes, a gay person can do teshuvah for committing sexual sins but after the teshuvah is all done, he/she is still gay. You can no more stop being gay through teshuvah than stop having cancer through teshuvah”
Adult homosexual relations are considered a Toevah. The Torah assumes that teshuvah is possible from such conduct. I can’t imagine anyone equating being afflicted with cancer with engaging in homosexual relations.
3)If you think that a person cannot transform his life from a life rooted in Toevah and view the same as subject to the dictates of the DSM, then you are in effect denying the efficacy of Teshuvah and reminding this person of his past transgressions. One can read many threads on this blog where BTs, Kiruv and Chizuk are viewed with disdain because they make FFBs uncomfortable .
STEVE:
i have nothing to add to IH and Joseph Kaplan
IH-I stand by comments-None of us can or should judge the veracity or credibility of the author. I read the passage that you quoted as evidence of his path and where he has arrived-like any other BT who has surmounted and transcended his past.
FWIW, see
http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2010/homosexuality.html, and then ask yourself whether “being gay is not a sin.”
Steve – Thanks! Keep up the good work as well.
One of the ways that people try to stifle debate on this is claiming that people have ended up, as G-d forbid, suicides, in the wake of failed attempts to change. So therefore they want to ban anyone from talking about it. But are those claims documented scientifically? Or is it just their opponents that are challenged that way?
Even if there were some such cases, what about cases when people were led to depression and suicide by being encouraged to come out and engage in homosexual behavior and not even attempt to refrain or change? Why are they not discussed? Whether suicide in which their lives ended swiftly, or suicide in which they engaged in actions that brought them AIDS, or some other slower form of death. Is that not suicide as well? Why such a double standard?
IH-I don’t think that anyone here or elsewhere has the right to inquire into what is rightfully considered Chedrei Chadorim as to the details of the author’s travails, or the nature of the frequency and degree of his marital relationship with his wife or his family life with his children. That is akin to asking a BT whether he enjoyed being Mchallel Shabbos or eating Treifos and Nevelos, or worse, why he would want to become a Shomer Torah UMitzvos in the first place.
“the person who wrote the article in Hakirah as to his being cured from homosexuality proves that the therapy involved, at least in his case, neither was quackery nor pseudo-science”
It proves nothing of the kind. People have recovered from cancer after being treated with agents that have later been shown to be worthless. The fact is, some people recover with no intervention, and some die with the best treatments. The same holds true for reparative therapy. He can not say that he would not have had the same result with no therapy. Use of an individual anecdotes to promote a medical treatment is considered the worst of quackery.
“Have you actually read the article?”
No. Could you tell me who were the epidemiologists who peer-reviewed it?
“accept what the author of the article in Hakira wrote about the success of his therapy. ”
As explained above, individual testimonies are completely irrelevant.
“why isn’t the validity of such therapy determined by its success or failure,”
It *is* determined by success or failure — in properly controlled clinical studies. And there actually have been a number of such studies, mostly small, and mostly over 30 years ago. If you know of a more recent one, please cite.
“I would suggest that anyone who has not read the article in question because they view the story as inherently false or of dubious medical veracity lack the intellectual honesty ”
This isn’t about intellectual honesty, it is about standards of science. You are trying to replace a scientific standard that has served the world well for generations with one that has been shown to produce nonsense. Your position is similar to that of a Reform Rabbi who is telling a talmid chacham that the entire methodology of Torah She Bal Peh is flawed.
“The fact is that the homosexuals compose a very aggressive pressure group that uses various tactics to harass and intimidate those who say things they don’t like.”
Presure groups have nothing to do with the lack of efficacy of reparative therapy. Its advocates have quite a bit of funding; if they really believed in the effectiveness of what they are pushing, why have they not done the clinical study to prove it?
While argument from authority is irrelevant to science, I think that in the interest of full disclosure I should report the following: I am a Professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, with a secondary appointment as Professor in the Saul B. Korey Department of Neurology at the same institution. I earned a PhD in Biostatistics at Johns Hopkins University and am author or co-author of approximately 97 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles. I currently receive research support from the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the National Institute of Aging, the National Center for Research Resources, and the National Cancer Institute.
I have no reason to assume that the anonymous account in Hakirah is anything other than 100% true. My objection is purely to the idea that it has anything to say about the efficacy of reparative therapy given its lack of success in controlled studies.
Charlie – Can everything be measured by statistics? Surely you know the old saw about lies, da*n lies, and statistics. Studies can be constructed to yield desired results, or make undesired results less likely.
Can you perhaps, based on your significant experience, share with us some thoughts about the limitations of scientific studies and statistics, which I assume you have witnessed and realized over the years?
“Missing picture on cover of forthcoming Rebbetzin Kanievsky biography”
Huh?
חז”ל אומרים ביתו זו אשתו.והרי יש תמונה של בית מרן הגר”ח שליט”א
Mordechai — do you reject the science that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer? After all, there are smokers who don’t die of lung cancer?
So it sounds like the Asifa was the unmitigated disaster everyone was expecting.
Steve,
do you believe that a person who suffers from depression can choose not to be depressed? Can pedophiliacs decide to change?
The talk suggesting that all homosexuals can become heterosexuals if only they really care about serving God, is cruel beyond description. Its perhaps worse than chavrei iyov.
Have you no sympathy for these people?
Is your theology really so simplistic?
I warned you about the asifa.
“The article in question described the person’s struggle and the results of his therapy. Your query as to his sex life was unseemly, to use the mildest possible adjective.”
The results of his therapy are very much about his sex life. We either speak about this or we don’t.
“Adult homosexual relations are considered a Toevah. The Torah assumes that teshuvah is possible from such conduct. I can’t imagine anyone equating being afflicted with cancer with engaging in homosexual relations.”
You either intentionally misrepresent what I say or you simply don’t understand it. The equation was not between having cancer and *engaging* in homosexual relations; it was between having cancer and being gay. And perhaps I should have given other non-illness related examples like being tall or black or having a bad voice. Thus, I explicitly said that a person can do teshuvah from committing sexual sins including homosexual acts. The argument you warp is that a person who is gay — i.e., has a homosexual orientation and is therefore sexually attracted to people of his/her sex — cannot do teshuvah from that because (a) having such an orientation is not a sin and (b) it is a biological fact like having cancer or being tall or having a bad voice.
I often read these exchanges although I have never commented. I imagine it’s the small percentage of me that has unresolved feelings about my learning and my time being observant.
To save everyone time so they can skip this post as irrelevant, I’ll say that: I’m gay. I was BT. (I can learn better than most FFB’s but we know that doesn’t really matter when was has no yichus). I am married to a woman but probably not for much longer. I didn’t know I was gay when I was dating. Shocking for someone who wasn’t frum growing up, I had no sexual experience before marriage at 35.
Reading the exchanges, it strikes me how irrelevant most of the argument is to the underlying problem. The modern world believes that personal happiness and fulfillment – physically, emotionally and sexually,intellectually, are the key to a good life. The Torah believes that doing G-d’s will is the key. The two views aren’t compatible. To the extent that the “anti-gay rights” faction (to oversimplify) gets involved with the happiness argument, they accept the modern position.
As I see it, it’s irrelevant whether some previously identified homosexuals can be happy living a standard heterosexual life. I actually believe that the letter writer is happy and maybe even if happier than many out gay people. I don’t really think that he has what one consider a regular sex life but that’s his choice. But whether a few people can find happiness doesn’t really matter. To me, once an anti worries so much about change, they have become fundamentally modern. They believe that their position be not only true, but also lead to happiness. And traditionally the Torah doesn’t care. The Torah wants what the Torah wants. Whether that makes a person happy isn’t really important. Suffering builds character and reward for the world to come.
Homosexuality is just one of many areas where this is true. There are women who would be better poseks than the vast majority of rabbis and dayanim. But that’s tough luck. There are hareidi men who should be working and not learning full time. But that’s not possible where they are. As I recall Rashi on Rosh Hashana (and it’s been a while), the commandments were not given for our benefit (nehenin) but as a yoke around our necks. But that’s not possible where they are.
Indeed, the honest letter would read something like this: “I’m gay. I have been married to a woman and we have wonderful children. We don’t really enjoy sex and it’s really, really difficult. But we believe it’s the right thing to do. And we feel that we’ll be rewarded in the world to come” That to me would be the true Torah argument.
I doubt that any journal like Hakirah would ever publish anything. Because for all the frum dressing, they accept the modern argument that happiness is really, really important. Or at least they realize that no one in the modern world would ever say that sexual suffering could be worth it.
Joseph Kaplan-your own views as expressed here http://www.edah.org/backend/journalarticle/kaplan2_1.pdf state your own priorities-pluralism, feminism and viewing the secular world as one of positive interaction, with no mention whatsoever of the role of Kiruv/Chizuk, as if the same did not exist in various means in the MO and Charedi worlds.
Moshe Shoshan wrote:
“do you believe that a person who suffers from depression can choose not to be depressed”
He or she can choose a cure via right the right psychiatrist or wallow forever in depression.
Modechai: I assume you are joking.
Steve — I gather you don’t know anyone with chronic depression who has confided in you. For a view in, see: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/magazine/10Depression-t.html?pagewanted=all
“your own views as expressed here http://www.edah.org/backend/journalarticle/kaplan2_1.pdf state your own priorities-pluralism, feminism and viewing the secular world as one of positive interaction, with no mention whatsoever of the role of Kiruv/Chizuk, as if the same did not exist in various means in the MO and Charedi worlds.”
As usual, you read what you want to think rather than what’s before your eyes. I invite anyone to read my article (I do thank you for the link) and they can draw their own conclusions.
Joseph Kaplan-I read the article that I linked prior to linking it here, and I stand by my assessment thereof. Other readers should obviously read and draw their own conclusions.
[...] News & Links (05/14) [...]