Quantcast
Channel: Stop Noahide Law
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 11

Public Law 102-14 Honors Anti-Gentile Rabbi

$
0
0

Public Law 102-14 not only states that the Seven Noahide Laws are the principles upon which the American Nation was founded, it also honors Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson of the Lubavitch Movement (also known as Chabad) as being a “great spiritual leader”. According to Rabbi Schneerson, the Noahide Laws are to be kept by force if possible, and if not by “pleasantness and peace”.  This same Rabbi also stated that non-Jews are inferior to Jews, saying that they have “satanic souls” and their lives are worth nothing accept as service to Jews.  Why would the USA honor such a Rabbi who preaches the most militant form of Noahide Law and who obviously hates non-Jews?

LEARN MORE ABOUT NOAHIDE LAW

JOIN OUR FACEBOOK GROUP

7StopNoahideLaw7@gmail.com

schnee01[1][1]

Rabbi Schneerson Is Honored In USA Public Law 102-14

 Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991; Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe’, this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving’, the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws;  – GOOGLE “Public Law 102-14″, Library of Congress

Schneerson – Keep Noahide Laws By Force

Scheerson: “It is obvious that this obligation [found in Maimonides, Malachim 8:10] is not limited only to a Jewish court, since this commandment is unrelated to the presence of a ger toshav (resident alien), and thus what is the need of a beit din. . . . Thus, this obligation is in place in all eras, even the present, when no gera toshav can be accepted and it is obligatory on all individuals who can work towards this goal. So too, this commandment is not limited to using force — where, in a situation we cannot use force, we could be excused from our obligation — since the essence of the obligation is to do all that is in our power to ensure that the seven Noachide commandments are kept; if such can be done through force, or through other means of pleasantness and peace, which means to explain [to Noachides] that they should accept the wishes of God who commanded them in this rules. This is obviously what is intended by Maimonides.” – http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/noach2.html#responsa

The Rabbi’s Anti-Gentile Bigotry In Context 

Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky

THE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS PARTY 59

Israel Shahak (Hebrew: ישראל שחק‎; born Himmelstaub, April 28, 1933 – July 2, 2001) was a Polish-born Holocaust survivor and Israeli professor of chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, known especially as a liberal[1] secular political thinker, author, and civil rights activist. Between 1970–1990, he was president of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights and was an outspoken critic of the Israeli government.
Israel Shahak (Hebrew: ישראל שחק‎; born Himmelstaub, April 28, 1933 – July 2, 2001) was a Polish-born Holocaust survivor and Israeli professor of chemistry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, known especially as a liberal[1] secular political thinker, author, and civil rights activist. Between 1970–1990, he was president of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights and was an outspoken critic of the Israeli government.

Rebbe,” Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who headed the Chabad movement and wielded great influence among many religious Jews in Israel as well as in the United States. Schneerson and his Lubovitch followers are Haredim; nevertheless, they involved themselves in Israel’s political life and shared many concepts with Gush Emunim and the NRP. The ideas of Rabbi Schneerson that appear below are taken from a book of his recorded messages to followers in Israel, tided Gatherings of Conversations and published in the Holy Land in 1965. During the subsequent three decades of his life until his death, Rabbi Schneerson remained consistent; he did not change any of the opinions. What Rabbi Scheerson taught either was or immediately became official, Lubovitch, Hassidic belief. Regarding the non-Jew the Lubovitcher Rebbe’s views were clear even if a bit disorderly: “In such a manner the Halacha, stipulated by the Talmud, showed that a non-Jew should be punished by death if he kills an embryo, even if the embryo is non- Jewish, while the Jew should not be, even if the embryo is Jewish. As we [the talmudic sages] learn from Exodus 22:21, beginning with the words ‘and if any mischief will follow.'” This quoted verse is a part of a passage beginning in verse 21, describing what should be done “if men strive and hurt a woman with child,” thus damaging the embryo. Verse 22, whose beginning is quoted by the Lubovitcher Rebbe, says in full: “And if any mischief will follow, then you shall give soul for soul.” (Some English translations use the wording “life for life” instead of “soul for soul.”) The above stated difference in the punishment of a Jew and a non-Jew for the same crime is common in the Talmud and Halacha. The Lubovitcher Rebbe continued: The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: “Let us differentiate.” Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have a case of “let us differenti- ate” between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world … The Old Rabbi [a pseudonym for one of the holy Lubovitch rabbis] explained that the passage in Chapter 49 of Hatanya [the basic book of Chabad] : “And you have chosen us” [the Jews] means specifically that the Jewish body was chosen [by God], because a choice is thus made between outwardly similar things. The Jewish body “looks as if it were in substance similar to bodies of non-Jews,” but the meaning … is that the bodies only seem to be similar in material substance, outward look and superficial quality. The difference of the inner quality,

Norton Mezvinsky (born 1932) is an American historian, professor, and author. He is a Distinguished University Professor, Emeritus, Central Connecticut State University and is the president of the International Council for Middle East Studies, an academic think tank in Washington, D.C.  He has written numerous published books, articles and book reviews that deal with various aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict and Zionism.
Norton Mezvinsky (born 1932) is an American historian, professor, and author. He is a Distinguished University Professor, Emeritus, Central Connecticut State University and is the president of the International Council for Middle East Studies, an academic think tank in Washington, D.C. He has written numerous published books, articles and book reviews that deal with various aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict and Zionism.

60 JEWISH FUNDAMENTALISM IN ISRAEL

however, is so great that the bodies should be considered as completely different species. This is the reason why the Talmud states that there is an halachic difference in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews [as opposed to the bodies of Jews]” “their bodies are in vain.”An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness. As has been explained, an embryo is called a human being, because it has both body and soul. Thus, the difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish embryo can be understood. There is also a difference in bodies. The body of a Jewish embryo is on a higher level than is the body of a non-Jew. This is expressed in the phrase “let us differentiate” about the body of a non-Jew, which is a totally different kind. The same difference exists in regard to the soul: the soul of a Jewish embryo is different than the soul of a non-Jewish embryo. We therefore ask: Why should a non-Jew be punished if he kills even a non-Jewish embryo while a Jew should not be punished even if he kills a Jewish embryo? The answer can be understood by [considering] the general difference between Jews and non-Jews: A Jew was not created as a means for some [other] purpose; he himself is the purpose, since the substance of all [divine] emanations was created only to serve the Jews. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” [Genesis 1:1] means that [the heavens and the earth] were created for the sake of the Jews, who are called the “beginning.” This means everything, all developments, all discoveries, the creation, including the “heavens and the earth – are vanity compared to the Jews. The important things are the Jews, because they do not exist for any [other] aim; they themselves are [the divine] aim.” After some additional cabbalistic explanation the Lubovitcher Rebbe concluded: Following from what has already been said, it can be understood why a non-Jew should be punished by death if he kills an embryo and why a Jew should not be punished by death. The difference between the embryo and a [baby that was] born is that the embryo is not a self-contained reality but rather is subsidiary; either it is subsidiary to its mother or to the reality created after birth when the [divine] purpose of its creation is then fulfilled. In its present state the purpose is still absent. A non-Jew’s entire reality is only vanity. It is written, “And the strangers shall stand and feed your flocks” [Isaiah 61:5]. The entire creation [of a non- Jew] exists only for the sake of the Jews. Because of this a non-Jew

THE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS PARTY 61

should be punished with death if he kills an embryo, while a Jew, whose existence is most important, should not be punished with death because of something subsidiary. We should not destroy an important thing for the sake of something subsidiary. It is true that there is a prohibition against [hurting] an embryo, because it is something that will be born in the future and in a hidden form already exists. The death penalty should be implicated only when visible matters are affected; as previously noted, the embryo is merely of subsidiary importance.

 


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 11

Trending Articles