Petition: Minto must refund $66K to a single mother!请大家签名支持！
- 主题发起人 budaowen
- 开始时间
- 注册
- 2003-09-30
- 消息
- 79,687
- 荣誉分数
- 23,511
- 声望点数
- 1,373
- 注册
- 2003-09-30
- 消息
- 79,687
- 荣誉分数
- 23,511
- 声望点数
- 1,373
幸好你不是犹太人，or Christians，否则看了这篇文章，还不立马就崩溃了
。犹太人虽少，强敌又多，仍能立足以色列，并不是偶然的。中国人多却一盘散沙，也不是么有原因的:blink::blink::blink:http://samsonblinded.org/blog/jewish-charity-is-only-for-jews.htm
Jewish charity is only for Jews
Jewish aid to non-Jewish causes bothers me. Look at the Israeli government, which “economically develops” Palestinian areas while lacking adequate funding to fortify Sderot schools.
The issue of government funding is never clear cut. Is it moral to pay for infrastructural projects while the same money can directly save lives if invested in healthcare? At least, such questions pit Jewish life versus the quality of Jewish life. Often enough, it is Jewish life versus the quality of the others’ lives.
The Torah law is straightforward: we only aid fellow Jews and proselytes (gerim, which is often mistranslated as strangers). The legist does not indulge in political correctness. We don’t need his omniscience to understand that any money devoted to foreign causes is money taken from Jewish ones. In effect, aiding foreigners means robbing Jews.
This logic is particularly relevant to Jewish charity organizations, whose donors count on their money being spent for Jewish causes. Robbery or breach of trust, you choose. The charities often misrepresent that their large, politically motivated donors are content with aiding foreigners. In truth, the large donors are really small. For many years the Bronfmans posed as the financial pillar of the World Jewish Congress, which allowed the alcohol manufacturers great financial clout. Not long ago, internal strife in the WJC brought out the ugly fact that Bronfman donations accounted for only a small percentage of the budget, with most of the money coming from the very small donations of hard-working Jews. Had they wished to support foreign causes, they had plenty of appropriate charities to give to. The fact that they gave money to Jewish charities confirms beyond doubt their intention to subsidize Jewish causes only.
The rabbis expanded the law a bit. First they allowed foreign visitors to Jewish towns to benefit from local charity—but only after Jewish needs were satisfied. Perhaps that was their tongue-in-cheek way of saying, “never.”
The Exile necessitated further expansion: Jewish charity funds were made available for gentile neighbors. Permission for this was nominal at best: in their closed communities, Jews rarely interacted with gentiles on social matters. More important is the rabbinical reasoning behind the permission: we only give money to gentile paupers lest they harm us. The harm might stem from the paupers themselves or from their communities.
The criterion for aiding the foreign poor is this: they will harm us unless we aid them. Thus, we don’t give money to nations at war with us (like Indonesian tsunami aid), neutral nations (like Brazil), those unable to realize their hostility (like Poland), or nations where we don’t fear violence even if we refuse donations to local gentile causes (like the United States). Certainly we should not donate to Israeli Arabs. If there is the slightest reason for Jews to fear them, the commandment tells us to expel them.
Charity to hostile gentiles is appeasement at best, extortion at worst. The rabbinical view on extortion is clear: we don’t ransom Jewish hostages because that endangers other Jews. Channeling Jewish charity funds to Israeli Arabs increases their demands and induces them to stay in Israel, endangering many Jews. A strong Jewish state has no reason to submit to extortionists.
Jewish charity to others is immoral, as it leaves needy Jews without aid. Hundreds of Jewish organizations aid thousands of irrelevant causes while many American Jewish families cannot afford to send their children to Jewish schools. To me—indeed, to any normal Jew—a Jewish child’s education is more important than any number of people left homeless by the tsunami in Muslim Indonesia. Consider the impropriety of taking money from the United States government and pro-Israeli Christian organizations while spending Jewish money on Muslims and pagans.
If that sounds rude, think of the good Christians who bequest their money to specifically Christian causes, from churches to orphanages. The exclusion is offensive; inclusion is not. It would be offensive, though not necessarily wrong, for a Christian to be willing to help any group except Jews, or for a Jewish charity to aid anyone but Poles. It is normal to benefit one’s own: Christians help Christians, and Jews help Jews.
Aiding one’s own is charity’s raison d’etre: we help those who are statistically likely to help us.
- 注册
- 2003-09-30
- 消息
- 79,687
- 荣誉分数
- 23,511
- 声望点数
- 1,373
您的意思是当年您天天看电视，就象现在天天上网看BDW事件进展一样？:blink:当年您不了解大地震到底是天灾还是人祸（有一说大地震是由于三峡大坝储水压力过高造成的，DG又犯一祸国殃民的大错）所以你不能支持大家同情地震受害者？
您说的好复杂，好复杂啊～～
您先沉住气沉住气，看清我引的您的那一句话才说的那句话～～～～
如果还不明白，我再给您解释～～
一听您说话，就知道您当年没看电视，光粘CFC了吧～～:blowzy:
那么多百姓们手牵手救人的感人场景，您都没看到，难怪您就凭BDW的事得出＂中国人多却一盘散沙，也不是么有原因的＂的结论～～:blowzy:
- 注册
- 2003-09-30
- 消息
- 79,687
- 荣誉分数
- 23,511
- 声望点数
- 1,373
复杂吗？一点也不复杂。
您可以断章取义，我也可以歪曲理解。 我说过从BDW的事儿看出了中国人一盘散沙啦么？中国人一盘散沙论或多个中国人虫论以前提的人还少么？您怎么就看出来我是从BDW的事儿才悟出的这个道理呢？
现在理解您了，当年您是被感动了，忘记追寻事件真相了。BTW，除了天天看电视，可否采取点儿任何实际行动？:blink:
您可以断章取义，我也可以歪曲理解。
我说过从BDW的事儿看出了中国人一盘散沙啦么？中国人一盘散沙论或多个中国人虫论以前提的人还少么？您怎么就看出来我是从BDW的事儿才悟出的这个道理呢？现在理解您了，当年您是被感动了，忘记追寻事件真相了。BTW，除了天天看电视，可否采取点儿任何实际行动？:blink:
您说的好复杂，好复杂啊～～
您先沉住气沉住气，看清我引的您的那一句话才说的那句话～～～～
如果还不明白，我再给您解释～～
一听您说话，就知道您当年没看电视，那么多百姓们手牵手救人的感人场景，您都没看到，难怪您就凭BDW的事得出＂中国人多却一盘散沙，也不是么有原因的＂的结论～～:blowzy:
