The life of a rabbi in Yehupitz

Following discovery of the first cases in 1981, it soon became clear a national health crisis was developing. With each passing month, death and suffering increased at a frightening rate. Scientists, researchers and health care professionals at every level expressed the need for funding. The response of the Reagan administration was indifference. By Feb. 1, 1983, 1,025 AIDS cases were reported, and at least 394 had died in the United States. Reagan said nothing. On April 23, 1984, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced 4,177 reported cases in America and 1,807 deaths. In San Francisco, the health department reported more than 500 cases. Again, Reagan said nothing.

What could Reagan have done? Well, let me throw the question back at you: what do you think Reagan _would_ have done if the growing epidemic described above was affecting white, middle class, married homeowners? Do you think he might have said something? Do you think he might have called for funding and research? Do you think he might have acknowledge that it existed? This isn't a rhetorical question either, by the way.

I know it's a hallowed Jewish custom to answer a question with a question, but I wish you hadn't.

I understand that he didn't "acknowledge" it. My non-rhetorical question remains: How did his lack of acknowledgment result in hundreds or thousands of deaths?

He could have made fighting AIDS a priority. He could has approriated money for research and testing. He could have spearheaded a "just say no" abstinance campaign, similar to his wife's "just say no" anti-drug campaign. He could have set-aside fedral funding for drug counseling, for needle-exchange programs, for condom distributions. Any one of those things would have been a responsible response to the epidemic. Any one of them would have saved some lives.

I'm not Jewish, and my jewish best friend Aaron tells me I can't convert to ethnically, but, isn't hindsight 20-20? What could we have done?

Jason, thank you for that serious response.

Now the way I see the options you listed:

1. Advocating abstinence, just-say-no: Abtinence of illicit hetero- and homosexual activity. That advice would have been rejected and accusations of "homophobia", if that term even existed then, would have been leveled. Impact: Zero.

2. Needle and condom distribution: Old arguments there. He would surely have said that those give-aways would amount to gov't approval of the activities in question. I can't say I disagree. But to expect a religious conservative to have done that is unreasonable.

Drug-counseling: Perhaps. I don't know what that entails.

The point you brought up about a white, middle class epidemic got me thinking. After some thought, I conclude that the situations are redically different from one another. Why? Because with a "non-controversial" illness, meaning one caused by activities that are non-controversial, yes the President could go on TV and tell the American people "stop using your old dishtowels. They contain germs that lead to the deaths of soccer-moms across the nation". In this case what was he to do. "Men of the USA, stop having anal intercourse with other men or whores."?? See the difficulty here? (non-rhetorical question.)

It is because you are pretending that this has to do with Noahide laws rather than decency.

You sir do not get to decide what is decent and what it not. Decency is defined by the torah, and the torah tells us quite plainly that idolatry is indecent. No exceptions. There is no way around this, unless you choose the path of hypocrisy, and moral equivlancy, a path that I judge you to have taken.

He can't be both a decent man and an idolator. The Torah recognizes no such category.

I'd be grateful if you restored my comments. Or do they frighten you?

How about you tell me why I see a difference between Clinton's indiscretions and Bush's Christianity.

It's simple. You like Bush, so his immorality is irrelevant. You don't like Clinton, so his immorality is impossible to ignore.

You're not letting the Torah tell you what is right and what it wrong. You're using the Torah when it can help you to pummel a politician you don't like, and ignoring it when the politician is someone you admire.

That is your first attempt at an answer. And it is incorrect.

As a matter of fact, I am not a GWBush fan. He doesn't impress me that much.He has made a few decisions that truly disappoint me.

Try again, if you want.

So let's return to my original question: Why do Jewis use the torah to denounce a president who keeps a girl on the side, but are silent when the president is an idol-worshiper?

That's what I asked you to answer.