While it’s true that in many places, governments are requiring masks on little children, in other places, this decision is being left to the individual schools to decide. Why are principals all over the world—and from my perspective as an Orthodox Jew, in Orthodox Jewish schools—insisting on suffocating kids with masks, and even very little kids, as old as six?

How do they not see the terrible problems with this?

And how do parents send their kids to such a school?

One part of it is the powerful influence of fear of government on our lives.

We are all citizens of modern governments. We know that if we break the law, there will be harsh penalties and social consequences, often rightly so. This creates a strong subconscious bias towards supporting the government and viewing its laws and edicts as justified. Even if we sense that we face injustice, and even in supposed liberal democracies with supposed freedom of speech, it is very intimidating to come out openly disagreeing with the government.

The same is true for a principal. The only way for a principal to reach his position is by getting professional training on what is expected of him, and this involves understanding that he must obey the laws dictated by the government. Obviously, there are laws about what is and is not allowed in schools and of course many of these laws are good and necessary. But the very fact that the principal must obey the government or lose his job, or have his school shut down, creates a bias in favor of the correctness of whatever the government is saying, even if it has a flimsy basis.

Also, in many places, private schools receive funding for various programs, and this creates a further conflict of interest. The schools could really use this funding, but the funding is in effect a bribe that further weakens the principals’ ability to fight against government overreach and tyranny.

So although the administrators are supposed to be looking out for the best interest of the children, they have a blind spot when it comes to government edicts.

Also, like everyone else, the administrators don’t want to be seen to be endangering others by members of the community, even if they know very well that they’re not. They may fear that this will damage their reputations or even lead to them losing their positions. This creates another conflict of interest.

The masks cause great pain and discomfort by making breathing difficult. They weaken the immune system. They prevent non-verbal communication through facial expressions. They make everyone seem to be scowling at everyone else. You can’t see smiles, you can’t see any facial expressions, you can’t talk and you cant hear people talking. You feel suffocated and downtrodden. The entire atmosphere is oppressive and miserable and you just want to flee.

Masks also communicate through sustained physical and mental pain the outrageous idea that healthy children pose a risk to others, that they could kill grandma simply by breathing. Which has no proof. Masks also strengthen in the mind of children the Big Lie that everyone needs to “socially distance” from one another lest they spread the dreaded disease. This itself creates tremendous distress and trauma, and imbues the bogus, socially devastating idea that physical touch with loved ones, a basic need of children (and adults too, but children even more so), poses tangible physical danger.

All this obviously causes certain severe psychological harm and trauma; I don’t need to be a professional to see that. Certainly, any parent should be able to appreciate that. The only way these measures should be mandated despite this harm is if there were truly solid scientific proof that they are absolutely necessary.

There is no such proof.

There is great disagreement about whether there even is a significant risk of dying from Covid, i.e., if there is reason to think that the figures have been grossly inflated, whether by accident or on purpose; and there is no proof that children can catch Covid, never mind spread it (which is why some experts argued that the schools should not have been closed during the lockdown); and on top of that there is great disagreement about whether masks provide effective protection, with the CDC itself admitting that masks do not work as recently as July 31.

Moreover, California Civil Rights Attorney Leigh Dundas published a video recently highlighting the devastating consequences of isolating children and forcing them to practice “social distancing” at school. She points out that social distancing and isolation was developed 70 years ago by the CIA to break down and torture enemies of state, that it is the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day AND being an alcoholic, that it doubles the risk of death, and that it destroys the part of the brain responsible for learning.

She pointed out that according to the statistics and the CDC itself, a child’s risk of dying from Covid is 0.0%, and no child has passed on Covid to a family member or third party, i.e., they do not transmit.

So what we have here is a remote doubt versus a certainty: An extremely remote, unproven and mostly fear-based possibility of the disease being spread and leading to a death on the one hand, and a clear and known certainty that masks cause psychological and physical harm on the other (the only question being just how much). The conclusion should be clear: Masks should not be required for children and social distancing propaganda should not be pushed on them.

This is all true even in New York where officially there were large numbers of deaths from Covid, but all the more so in places like Baltimore and Houston where there never even was a claim that there were mass deaths from Covid (i.e., there was and is no pandemic there at all).

There is no proof that there is a deadly virus circulating here now in these places, and even if there were, there’s no proof that masks are effective at protecting one from such a virus.

However, the idea of even asking for any solid proof from a supposed expert to justify his rulings, or to expect him to respond to the arguments of other experts who say otherwise, seems to be foreign to these principals.

I’ve approached three of them so far and they all say that they’re just following the advice of a certain expert, and so there is nothing to discuss.

I asked them if the expert showed them any solid proof for his claim and they said no, but that they trust him, because he is a supposedly an expert in infectious diseases, and they rely on him in general.

I asked them if they also consulted with an expert in child psychology on the harms of mandating masks for children. They said they hadn’t.

Just how sure is the expert of his opinion? What exactly does he base it on? Is he examining studies himself, or just following the “best practice” recommendations of some official body like the WHO or the CDC? Does he claim to view masks as an absolute necessity to prevent likely deaths or merely as an additional precaution to stay on the safe side? Has he fully taken into account the way in which masks cause one to rebreathe one’s carbon dioxide waste and weaken the immune system?

They didn’t know or wouldn’t respond.

Has he committed his opinion to writing with detailed arguments and sources?

Not as far as they know.

I also asked whether it’s right for an infectious disease expert to presume to express an opinion on a matter of child psychology that is not his field? Why is the supposed infectious disease expert not also concerned about children’s mental health, about the likelihood of psychological trauma?

Silence.

So much for science, reason, and evidence.

Another question I would ask them if they would talk to me again: Does this alleged expert have conflicts of interest? Does he stand to risk his career by disagreeing with the government or with the officially accepted academic position? If so, why do you view him as reliable at all? Shouldn’t such a person, if he has any integrity at all, recuse himself or herself?

Another pressure that the principals face is the demand from paranoid parents, victims of media mind control, fearful of the bogeyman virus, fearful of death. Even if the principal were to be skeptical of the government story, if the parents accept it religiously and view children and teenagers not wearing a mask as literally endangering their lives simply by breathing, then this puts the principals in a difficult position. The parents may choose to not send their kids back to school unless masks are mandatory. So a lot of the responsibility for this situation also rests with the parents.

However, if a significant number of parents would demand no masks on kids and no social distancing propaganda, then the principal would know that some parents may not be sending their children to school precisely because of the masks. Then the two groups would cancel each other out, and the principal might be in a better position to follow his own better judgment.

But there do not seem to be enough parents in the latter camp, sadly. In fact, I heard from one principal that most parents he has spoken with don’t care about the school’s restrictions, they are just desperate to get their kids out of their hair. They need a babysitter!

So the parents also suffer from a major conflict of interest. Even parents who sense that masks on children are unjustified and harmful have an interest in not taking a stand about it because it could mean being left stuck with babysitting and attempting to homeschool their kids, a task that many parents are really not up to or would find very challenging, or would be expensive to hire someone else to do. Also, they need to go back to work; staying home with the kids means losing much-needed income.

Another explanation of the principals is that all the other schools are doing it. I find this response particularly unfortunate, considering that I know as a father and a teacher that a regular part of raising children is explaining to them ad nauseam that the fact that the other children were doing something wrong doesn’t justify their doing likewise. We try to teach kids to overcome peer pressure and develop a conscience that guides their actions. All children have an internal sense of internal right and wrong and the well-trained child does what’s right regardless of what others are doing. Parents and teachers lecture children about this on an almost a daily basis. Yet principals will say with a straight face that they won’t look at the scientific evidence on whether children can catch and spread Covid, whether masks are effective, or whether social distancing is necessary because … all the other schools are doing it!

This really is a difficult challenge for these people, and I don’t envy them. But we need not go easy on them, because this is what they signed up for. Leadership is not about doing what the people say they want. Real leadership means standing up for what’s best for the people, in this case the children, even when it’s unpopular and flies in the face of popular perception.

The main reason that children are being subjected to this psychological torture is that the adults concerned are turning a blind eye to the inconvenient truth that even if Covid is real, masks and social distancing are totally unnecessary for children and very harmful. The information is out there to prove this, even information from official sources. Yet to face this truth squarely would lead to the inescapable conclusion that the government, in recommending these measures, is guilty of a mass deception, if only the deception that masks are needed on children, which is a very bitter pill to swallow, and it would demand they take an unpopular position that might detrimentally affect their social and family life, and that they fight against the system, all of which most people lack the courage to do.

It’s time the adults charged with caring for the kids developed that courage. Because the government tyranny will only get worse, and weakly complying with this institutionalized child abuse in its earlier, “softer” stages will lead directly to more and more outrageous compromises on the wellbeing of the children, all with the same pathetic excuses, blind rejection of any rational discussion, and willful ignorance.

And also because one day, when the devastating long-term psychological effects of social distancing and masks on children are documented, widely publicized, and undeniable (along with a full exposé of the fact that the principals know very well now that Covid doesn’t affect children and children don’t catch or spread it), the children will find out the truth and come forward with the harrowing demand (just as they are now relentlessly hunting down the predator teachers and administrators who sexually abused them):

Why didn’t you look out for me? Why did you ruin my childhood? Why did you subject me to such physical and psychological torture, such child abuse, all based on obvious pseudoscience and cowardly political considerations?

They want us to stay home. Clearly not for our health; that’s a laughable pack of lies. The government? Genuinely concerned about our health? What a joke!

But why? Why do they want us so badly to stay home? What is the hidden agenda? This is the question we should be asking.

In my view, it starts with understanding that this is a massive psy-op, a covert psychological warfare operation to instill fear in the populace for the sake of mass mind control—fear-based mind control. When the people are in a state of fear, they do not think critically. They operate emotionally and they’re much more susceptible to being controlled and dominated.

How does staying home accomplish this?

Let us count the ways:

We believe their story and we’re filled with fear from the dreaded virus, because if such measures are implemented, they must be necessary—the danger must be grave. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire!

They imprint in our collective mind the awareness that they are our masters and we are their slaves; they are entitled to order us around and inhibit our freedom, and they can do so even to the extent of forbidding us to even leave our houses, essentially putting us under house arrest.

Massively disrupting a person’s schedule and lifestyle also weakens him psychologically and makes him more susceptible to mind control.

They destroy our businesses—small, medium, and even large—so the big corporations in bed with government can swallow them up and expand their power.

The widespread, unprecedented poverty and unemployment brings the people to far greater dependency on the state for all their needs. Witness how even the supposedly anti­-socialist, conservative leaders of various countries are signing bills for socialist government handouts to all citizens. In some places, there are even bread lines, just like in socialist Venezuela.

They degrade otherwise productive people by subjecting them to idleness.

They traumatize people by depriving them of face-to-face contact with friends and extended family, despite the fact that these loved ones live around the corner. This separation from the elderly in particular creates a generation gap, where the influence of the elderly is diminished and their usefulness for the community as source of support is further diminished from its already sorry state. This division greatly lowers morale, and this is a key part of the agenda of all totalitarian governments—divide and conquer. United we stand, divided we fall.

They weaken us physically through lack of exercise, sunlight, and fresh air.

For those who have children and aren’t used to watching their kids all day, they want to create conflict in the family when parents who need a break get none and when kids fight incessantly and drive their parents up the wall for day after day. Everyone is encroaching on everyone else’s personal space. For those who don’t have children, even the constant contact with one’s spouse with no solid regular break is also disruptive to the relationship.

They want us inside so we won’t see the 5G towers they’re setting up all over the cities, especially in the schools, while we’re not around to see.

They prevent us from going out and protesting against the unjust laws they pass while we’re unable to go out and protest, including the recently-passed law mandating a quick rollout of 5G, a technology which was released without public discussion, was never safety tested and is said by many experts to emit toxic levels of radio-frequency radiation, and which poses serious privacy concerns.

They trap us in front of the television so we will be bombarded with their propaganda in the news and on the commercials. Even if you turn to alternative media like Youtube, they have imposed unprecedented censorship.

They force us to engage constantly with electronics so our every interaction with anyone other than immediate family will be tracked and recorded in their Orwellian databanks. Even the interactions within our houses may be recorded by our devices.

The anguish we suffered while cooped up in our houses is seared into our souls. When the time comes to lift the restrictions, we’ll remember that pain and reflexively, slavishly submit to mandatory testing, vaccines, microchips, and all the other infringements of our liberties they’re planning.

Don’t listen—get out of the house: go to a friend’s house, go to a park for exercise, drive around and say you’re going to a store. Anything that’s not discouraged but technically allowed, you should do.

Don’t conform with this corrupt, illegitimate, sinister edict. Don’t stay home.

Divine Law is Universal

Non-Jews are obligated to follow the Noachide Laws. We are accustomed to hearing about the Noachide Laws as if they were general, abstract principles. Or if we have studied some Talmud, in very technical, theoretical terms.

But this is a mistake.

The Noachide Laws are not some kind of fuzzy symbolic principles meant for a sermon, nor are they recommendations and good advice, or a topic for scholarly pilpul. They are (I know, it sounds obvious) laws.

So just as Jews are obligated to follow Shulchan Aruch, so are non-Jews obligated to follow the Noachide laws. The Noachide laws are their Shulchan Aruch.

Just as Shulchan Aruch is divine and therefore eternal and unchanging, so are the Noachide laws eternal and unchanging.

Moreover, for both Jews and non-Jews, obeying divine law is not a secondary part of life. We are not here on earth to enjoy material pleasures, even most worthy ones like Yiddishe nachas from our family. Our eternal souls were planted in temporal bodies in this lowly world for a brief while in order to perform a mission—to serve Hashem. And our personal fulfilment depends upon this, but there is a difference between Jews and non-Jews:

• Jews were created in order to serve Hashem by following their laws, as detailed in the Shulchan Aruch, the Code of Jewish Law, and only by so doing do they fulfill their personal mission and attain happiness.
• Non-Jews were created for the purpose of following the Noachide laws, and only by so doing do they fulfill their personal mission and attain happiness.

Universal Duty to Influence Others to Follow Torah

Part of our mission, both as Jews and non-Jews, is to exert a positive influence on others. This too is not merely good advice, but a halachic obligation.

In particular, Jews are duty-bound to influence fellow Jews under their influence to improve in their Torah observance. This is the mitzvah of tochachah, rebuke, which is an explicit verse: “You shall surely rebuke your fellow [Jew]” [1]. Likewise, “all Jews are responsible for one another” [2]—responsible to encourage fellow Jews to observe Torah.

When is one obligated to exert influence? Whenever and to whomever one can. “To the one who will accept [rebuke] from him”[3] and one should do so repeatedly, even “until 100 times”.[4]

Likewise, non-Jews are obligated to influence fellow non-Jews to follow the Noachide laws. The Rebbe states[5] that this duty is included in the Noachide mitzvah of dinim, the mitzvah to establish and maintain courts of justice. Just as courts are obligated to promote observance of the Noachide laws (see further below), so are individual non-Jews obligated to do so via whatever legitimate means of influence are at their disposal in that time and place.

In particular, Maimonides rules[6] that all the inhabitants of the city of Shechem were in violation of the mitzvah of dinim because “they saw, knew, and didn’t judge” Shechem (the ruler, after whom the city was named) for violating the prohibition of kidnapping. Maimonides holds that when regular citizens sit idly by and allow violation of the Noachide laws to occur, those individual citizens violate the Noachide laws. Even Nachmanides,[7] who holds that the citizens of Shechem were not liable for punishment for this neglect, clearly still maintains that they should have protested to the extent they were able.

Laws Violating the Noachide Laws Are Fundamentally Illegitimate

This brings us to the topic of the approach of Judaism to civil law. Judaism maintains that the concept of a civil law system is not merely a useful secular tool for maintaining civilized society devised by clever mortals. Rather, it is a divine mandate, as per the Noachide mitzvah of dinim, which contains two elements:

• The duty to set up courts of justice to enforce the other six Noachide laws—“[non-Jews] must set up judges and magistrates in every major city to render judgment concerning these [other] six Commandments, and to admonish the people [regarding their observance].”[8] (In fact, not only is the role of the justice system to enforce the Noachide laws, but it is incumbent upon the judges to actively educate the people on the Noachide laws, even if doing so involves considerable inconvenience and sacrifice.[9])
• The duty to pass laws to maintain civilized society and peaceful interactions between citizens such as laws of business contracts, road rules, and so on, as long as they conform to Torah-based principles of fairness and decency.[10]

As part of enforcing the Noachide laws, each country and nation is invested with divine authority to appoint lawmakers and judges to pass and enforce laws as safeguards (harchakos) against violation of the core Noachide laws, after considering environmental and cultural circumstances.[11]

It is precisely because Hashem requires the establishment of a civil law system that there is a divine mandate to obey that law in all its details incumbent upon both Jews and non-Jews, as the Talmud rules: “The law of the land is the [Torah] law”.[12]

However, this only applies to religiously neutral laws. If, however, a legal system requires a Jew to violate the Shulchan Aruch, that law is fundamentally illegitimate and the Jew must disobey it.[13]

Likewise, if a legal system requires one to violate one of the Noachide laws (such as, very notably, in the biblical city of Sodom), that law is fundamentally illegitimate and both the Jew and the non-Jew must disobey it.

Thus, a civil law that violates one of the Noachide laws and encourages the people to violate such a law is by definition corrupt and fundamentally illegitimate. Such laws of the land are absolutely not Torah law, neither for Jews nor for non-Jews.

Leadership Role of Jews

But how, as Jews, should we relate to morally corrupt, illegitimate laws of the land (aside from stubbornly refusing to obey them)? Is it our place to get involved with how non-Jews fulfill their mitzvah of dinim?

This is really a broader question: Is it our place as Jews to influence our gentile neighbors to follow the Noachide laws?

Absolutely.

In fact, this mission is crucial to our national purpose. G-d charged us, through the prophet Yeshaya,[14] with being a “light unto the nations.” What do these flowery, oft-quoted words mean? Rabbi David Kimchi, the Radak, explains that Jews reveal this divine light by directly teaching non-Jews the Noahide Laws.

In fact, Rambam rules unequivocally that Hashem explicitly commanded Moshe Rabenu at Mount Sinai to charge the Jewish people with the mission “to compel all the world’s inhabitants to undertake the laws commanded to Noah’s descendants”.[15] Tosafos Yom Tov explains[16] that Rambam means that we are obligated to compel observance of Noachide laws to the extent that as we are able, and so this law applies even during the era of exile, via kefiyas devarim—“verbal coercion”, i.e., persuasion.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe has stated[17] that in past times, spreading the Noachide laws would have brought danger upon the Jewish people and hence they were exempt from this duty. However, in modern times, there is not even a remote concern[18] that promoting the Noachide laws to the non-Jews in our host countries would provoke antisemitism, and therefore this obligation applies in full force. And not only should we influence non-Jews to observe the Noachide laws; we should influence them to spread the Noachide laws themselves,[19] until they build up into a mass Noachide movement.[20]

Thus, as regards the mitzvah of dinim, it follows clearly that according to Rambam’s halachic ruling, to the extent that Jews are able to exert such an influence, they should encourage non-Jews, whenever possible, to reform their legal system to bring it ever more in line with the Noahide laws.

Moreover, if we ought to even influence an individual non-Jew to observe the Noachide laws, all the more so is it imperative to influence non-Jews to reform a law so that it is closer to the requirements of the Noachide laws, for that impacts all the citizens and therefore dramatically elevates the entire society for the better. The same principle would surely apply to the imperative to get involved when possible in order to avert a proposed law that violates the Noachide Laws, G–d forbid.

This principle is based on the concept of communal and societal responsibility taught by our sages:[21] “Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai taught: One can compare this to a group of people sitting on a ship. One of the group takes out a drill and starts drilling a hole in his place. The others protest, but the man retorts, ‘What difference does it make to you if I drill a hole in my place? I am not making a hole in your place!’ They replied to him, ‘Will not the water rise and sink the whole ship?!’”

Likewise, one who stands idly by, ignoring the spiritual drowning of those around him without making any effort to save them, transgresses the prohibition of “Thou shall not stand idly by your brother’s blood”[22]. Moreover, “spiritual death is worse than physical death”.[23]

Current Application

In Australia now, there is a plebiscite, a national postal vote to determine the will of the people on the legalization of same-sex marriage. Such a law, G–d forbid, entails a gross, obscene violation of the Noachide mitzvah of dinim, to the extent that the Medrash testifies according to one opinion[24] that despite all their other sins, all of civilization was utterly annihilated during the generation of the Flood due to the severity of this very sin. Likewise, although the Romans were infamous for their utter brutality and degeneracy, and they violated all the Noachide laws, the Talmud praises them for at least not sinking to the ultimate depravity of legalizing same-sex marriage.[25]

In light of all the above, Jews and non-Jews have a clear and strong moral and halachic duty to vote No and to influence other Jews and non-Jews to do likewise.

Of course, the same principle also applies to elections in general, where every individual Jew and non-Jew can exert some influence and therefore is morally and halachically obligated to do so:[26] Every individual should influence their fellow citizen to use their voting power to vote first and foremost, before all other considerations, for the party whose platform and policies are more in line with the Noachide Laws.

_______________________________________
[1] Vayikra 19:17.

[2] Shavuos 39a.

[3] Yevamos 35b.

[4] Bava Metzia 31a.

[5] Likutei Sichos, Vol. 30, p. 226, fn. 52.

[6] Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, 9:19.

[7] On Bereshis 35:15.

[8] Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 9:14.

[9] Sefer HaSichos 5746, Vol. 3, p. 152. There the Rebbe equates the role of gentile judges to that of the Jewish Sanhedrin, of whom it is written: “They were obligated to go, tie iron garters around their loins, lift their robes above their ankles … and travel throughout the villages of Israel … teaching the people” (Tanna Devei Eliyahu Rabbah ch. 11).

[10] Cf. Hisva’aduyos 5747, Vol. 3, pp. 428-430; 432-434.

[11] Cf. Rashi on Bereshis 34:12:

.וכן לא יעשה לענות הבתולות שהאומות גדרו עצמן מן העריות מפני המבול

[12] Gittin 10b. Hisva’aduyos 5744, Vol. 2, pp. 612-613.

[13] Hisva’aduyos 5744, Vol. 2, pp. 612-613.

[14] 42:6.

[15] Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 8:10.

[16] In his commentary on Avos 3:18. Quoted by the Rebbe in Likutei Sichos, Vol. 26, pp. 133-134; 139-141. Hisva’aduyos 5743, Vol. 2, p. 1577; Hisva’aduyos 5745, Vol. 3, pp. 1979-1980.

[17] Hisva’aduyos 5747, Vol. 2, pp. 615-616. See also Hisva’aduyos 5747, Vol. 2, p. 615; Likutei Sichos, Vol. 26, p. 143; Hisva’aduyos 5745, Vol. 4, pp. 2466-2467.

[18] In the Hebrew, “chashash de’chashash.”

[19] Hisva’aduyos 5744, Vol. 2, p. 620; Hisva’aduyos 5743, Vol. 1, pp. 59-60; Hisva’aduyos 5745, Vol. 3, pp. 1840-1842.

[20] Likutei Sichos, Vol. 26, pp. 143-144.

[21] Vayikra Rabbah 4:6.

[22] Vayikra 19:16. Cf. Hisva’aduyos 5746, Vol. 3, p. 260.

[23] Derech Chaim 5a; Igros Kodesh Admur HaRayatz, Vol. 3, p. 520; Likkutei Sichos, Vol. 1, p. 111. Thus, “One who causes another to sin is worse than one who kills him”—Bamidbar Rabbah 21:4-5.

[24] Vayikra Rabbah 23:9:

.(ג”א ולנקבה) רבי הונא בשם רב יוסף אמר דור המבול לא נימוחו מן העולם עד שכתבו גמומסיות לזכר ולבהמה

[25] Chullin 92b.

[26] The Rebbe clearly came out in public for voting in order to influence the government to be more in line with Jewish law in the context of Eretz Yisrael, and the same principle clearly applies in the diaspora, where anti-religious heretics seek to uproot and oppose any vestige of faith in a Higher Force using the club of the civil law, and first and foremost by promoting the evil homosexualist agenda.

See Igros Kodesh, Vol. 11, p. 168:

… Anyone who has a passport in his hand automatically has the ability to vote. By registering for the passport he acknowledges, and not under coercion, the [political] leadership there. If after this he does not participate in the elections, and others see and do likewise, and this is liable to affect the determination of a “major” law or even a minor one, when they [the politicians voted in] vote for the legislation incorrectly, then he shares the blame for the calamity of many.  I have not yet found the person with the “broad shoulders” to be able to take responsibility for such a calamity. … Those who are there, and who take part in whatever manner there [but refuse to vote] … do damage to the many, as mentioned above. Especially after they have tangibly seen over the course of the years that have passed how the vote of one political representative could have prevented a stumbling block to the many that constituted violation of a rabbinic prohibition and even of a biblical prohibition. This will suffice for the understanding. It is self-evident that you have permission to write all that I have written here concerning the elections to the one mentioned above, and you may also add sharpness, because no matter how much you add, it will not do justice to the matter.

The Rebbe said how one should vote (ibid.):

Obviously, one should vote for the most G–d-fearing parties.

And again, from Igros Kodesh, Vol. 4, pp. 345-346, this time in a letter to Agudas Chassidei Chabad, the Chabad umbrella organization:

I have come to emphasize … the holy duty and privilege, that every one of those who tremble and fear the word of Hashem should take part in the elections. He should do so himself, and he should influence others, to vote for the most G–d-fearing parties, so that not even one vote goes to waste. I hereby give permission and authorization to publicize my opinion with full vigor and full force: Every single male and female among those who fear Hashem and think about His Name should do all in their power to increase the number of voters for the most G–d-fearing parties.

In Igros Kodesh, Vol. 11, p. 279, the Rebbe also stressed the disastrous spiritual effects on the country of simply failing to vote for the most G–d-fearing party:

… Refraining from this [voting for the most G–d-fearing party] automatically augments the strength of the parties who oppose Hashem, His Torah, and its Mitzvos.

I recently received the following message:

I have a legitimate question. I am an Orthodox Jewish woman married, thank G-d, with kids. I would not support my children being gay, or gay marriage in any Jewish community. However, why do we care what the non-Jews do? They have all sorts of unkosher behavior that we don’t concern ourselves with. I tell my family that LGBT issues are another part of the world we don’t concern ourselves with. It’s not Jewish. Thanks for the answer.

My response:

Divine Mandate to Promote Universal Morality
As Torah-observant Jews, we are charged with the duty to serve as a light unto the nations by teaching and promoting the universal moral code known as the laws of Noah. One of these laws is the principle of living a righteous family life, which includes the prohibition of various sexual sins. Under this code both homosexual acts and legalization of homosexual marriage are forbidden.

Reducing the Chillul Hashem Committed by Non-Religious Jews
Sadly, many of our non-religious Jewish brethren are leading or supporting the evil LGBT movement whose aim is to legitimize, normalize, and promote the wicked, socially destructive sin of homosexual acts, the homosexual lifestyle, and other related perversions. So we have a duty as Jews to speak out against it—in order to repudiate it, so we as religious Jews are not viewed as guilty by association, and in order to rectify or at least lessen the shameful chillul Hashem (desecration of G–d’s name) that those Jews are perpetrating.

Reducing the Chilul Hashem Committed by Religious Jews
Perhaps even more sadly, many of our religious Jewish brethren were and are also partly to blame for the success and ever-growing expansion of this grotesque movement. Modern-day moral wars are fought not with swords or rifles, but at the ballot box. Although the Jewish vote matter little on the federal level, it is truly critical in local elections in areas with sizable Jewish communities. So when Orthodox Jews choose to vote for leftist, Democrat politicians in those elections (notably in New York) and thereby enable those politicians—some of whom are themselves non-religious Jews and some even (to our great disgrace) self-identifying Orthodox Jews (such as ? Weprin and Dov Hikind)—to win, those Orthodox voters are to blame for all the evil laws legitimizing, normalizing, and promoting these immoral laws and ordinances that those politicians go on to sponsor or vote in favor of. We need to educate our fellow Jews to do teshuvah (repent) and never again vote for such politicians but instead vote exclusively for the most conservative candidate running.

Reducing the Negative Influence Upon the Orthodox Community
In the modern era, very few Orthodox Jews, if any, still live in isolated enclaves sheltered from secular society. The powerful, zealously hedonistic messages currently dominating the secular world seep into our consciousness and harm us and our communities. Worse still, many self-identifying Orthodox Jews lack religious education and spiritual sensitivity and are therefore not particular to draw their values from Torah. They succumb to the temptation of partly adopting degenerate values from the dominant secular progressive culture, a value system of noxious poison sugar-coated in deceptive, pretty euphemisms like love, equality, tolerance, and rights. Even those of us who resist adopting those values are tainted by osmosis, as we learn of these trends through our inevitable interaction with the surrounding world (including the world of our fellow non-Orthodox Jews) and we must exert ourselves to present a rational defense of our traditional stance.

Age-Appropriate Education
As for one’s personal family life, and the specific question of when it would be age appropriate to educate one’s children on these matters: It all depends on the child and the extent of his or her exposure to secular culture. But one can surely educate one’s children even from a young age about the basic principle that Torah is not just an ethnocentric, particularistic religion directed exclusively to the Jewish people, but it also contains a universalistic element, which mandates basic universal laws of moral and ethical behavior for all mankind, which, when possible, we should share with non-Jews.

Against Excessive Compassion

Rabbi Yehoishophot Oliver

Many well-meaning Jews, including Chasidic Jews, have been sharing this recently released video, which ostensibly argues for “compassion” for those who took part in the Tel Aviv shame parade. With all due respect, although the speaker has some valid points, I believe that the main point in the video is sorely misguided, wrong, and harmful. The lecture also contains a number of other worrisome, flawed, and dangerous ideas.

1. The video is not just talking about those with homosexual tendencies; it’s discussing those who took part in the shame parade. The new atheist immoral crusaders. These folks are on a zealous campaign to defile society, defile the Holy Land in general and the Holy City of Jerusalem in particular. They insist on their “right” to crudely shove their grotesque perversion in our faces, insist that it’s “love”, and proclaim that if we dare disagree and point out that it’s not love at all but sin, we’re haters. They are leading an all-out lobbying campaign for brutal Sodom-like laws that further degenerate society and turn all religious people into a persecuted minority. Through their own blatantly and rabidly hostile attitude to Judaism and all faith in a deity that prescribes a moral code, and their campaign to corrupt society with their perverse beliefs and obscene sexual practices, these folks forfeit their right to our compassion.
   In a different category altogether are those who struggle personally with this sinful desire, yet are decent enough to feel shame. They have not joined this evil movement and they recognize its degeneracy. These folks do indeed deserve our unqualified sympathy and compassion.
2. The speaker falsely equates Shabbos violation with the sin of homosexual relations. This is incorrect, as the two sins are in a completely different category. The former is a special mitzvah for Jews that is not one of the mishpatim, rational laws, while the latter is part of the basic sheva Mitzvos (the Seven Noahide Laws) incumbent upon all mankind. It’s one thing to support “compassion” for those who commit a sin that is not strictly rational, and another thing entirely to support it for a sin that is.
3. Also, to be consistent, you’d also have to support “compassion” for those who commit other heinous sins such as murder, incest, rape, adultery, bestiality, child sexual abuse, and so on. (There is no logical reason to differentiate between victimless and non-victimless sins and crimes when it comes to compassion.) Yet everyone shies away from such displays of compassion, because they realize that doing so would also have the effect of minimizing the severity of these sins in the eyes of the populace, thus causing these behaviors to become more prevalent and less so, which is why there is no mass campaign to promote compassion for those who commit these crimes and sins (at least, not yet).
4. The speaker states further that in fact, it’s not the will of Hashem for there to be a death penalty for desecrating Shabbos. This is outrageous; of course it is. Explicit verses aren’t written for nothing. We can’t implement this penalty in practice because we are in galus, due to our many sins—not because such an execution would be inherently wrong. (It is true that our sages view the death penalty as a last resort, and that there are many technicalities by which one can be released from the death penalty, and that the sages seek to find such exemptions when possible. However, that only means that it is desirable to avoid imposing it; it still in no way implies that imposing it is inherently wrong.) Moreover, although Jews are unable to impose the death penalty as we live in exile, non-Jews should do so even now for the crime of homosexual relations (along with adultery, bestiality, and incest) as part of the Noahide laws.
5. The words “we don’t believe it’s the will of Hashem even though it’s written in Torah; we will put in all our effort to read between the lines and understand the real intention” are very disturbing. This implies that although the Torah states its values very clearly, based on our own independent sense of morality we know that in reality, the opposite is the case, and in fact, it is to take what the Torah says at face value that would be immoral. This is the stuff of Reform.
6. Now on to the kabalistic talk. The speaker says that those who desire to commit these perverse deeds have a problem with their souls. True. However, this does not mean they lack free choice. Most disturbingly, he then takes this further and declares that expecting these people not to sin and to observe halacha “kills” them and would “destroy their lives”. This is outrageous. People have free choice not sin. Sure, a person can’t change his way of life overnight all at once, but slowly but surely, he can. In contrast, the Rebbe says (see here and here) that those who act in this way ought to be taught that this behavior is unhealthy and self-destructive and that they can and must stop. (Whether one can succeed at “conversion therapy” is a separate issue beyond the scope of this article, and I do not believe that a person can necessarily choose not to feel a forbidden desire; however, they can choose not to dwell on that desire and act on that desire.) On the contrary, the key to happiness is abstaining from sin.
7. He then develops this approach by misquoting quasi-kabalistic notions that these folks “can’t” keep Torah until Moshiach comes, because only then will the level of “atika stima’a” which is oh so very “ancient” and “impossible for us to understand” be revealed. Which will heal everyone. Yes, when Moshiach will come, all sinners and suffering souls will be healed. But so what? That doesn’t mean we don’t have free choice, nor does it mean we should minimize the severity of their sin, or sit idly by and allow this attack on G–d and civilized society to continue.
   So yes, they deserve compassion. But then again, all sin comes because of a problem in our souls, and yet we have free choice. These people, too, do have free choice. Yes, it may be very difficult for them not to sin. We should sympathize with their unusual struggle and thank Hashem that we were not challenged in this way. But we should not go so far as to exonerate them completely (cf. Tanya ch. 30).
8. He states that by promising never to bring another Flood, Hashem meant that He would never again punish the sin of homosexual relations. This is ridiculous. All Hashem promised was not to punish by means of a worldwide flood, not that He would not bring devastating punishment (whether for this sin or any other). Every schoolchild knows this explanation. Moreover, the Torah warns us explicitly how the inhabitants of Canaan were banished from the Land—after the Flood—for this very sin, among other violations of proper sexual morality.
9. He mentions Hashem’s rebuke of Noach, yet he fails to draw the correct lesson—that Noach was remiss in his failing to rebuke the people sufficiently for their severe sins. Yet the video draws the opposite conclusion, that these folks are doomed to sin until Moshiach comes, and they aren’t even able to do otherwise, so we shouldn’t rebuke them.
10. It’s one thing to express a “limud zechus” on sinners in private, fully out of their earshot. However, the ones about whom one expresses this view should not know about it (see here: Careful Love). The public nature of this video means the sinners themselves will come to view it. They will draw the clear conclusion that this man is endorsing their choice or at least greatly minimizing its severity, which will reinforce them in their ways.
11. He insists that the supporters of the gay agenda are not at fault and should not be judged for their actions. That’s absurd. The existence of a temptation doesn’t in itself exonerate the violator. They have a choice. They know it’s unnatural. They know it’s abnormal. But I wonder, how far does his determination of their innocence and unaccountability go?
    We see that he defends them when they defile the Holy Land with their obscenity parades. Will he and his fellow advocates for limitless compassion still defend them when they successfully lobby to pass laws that:

• require all private religious schools to adopt a mandatory “sex-ed” curriculum that explains to them the “GLB” lifestyle in graphic detail (as has already been mandated in many public schools), and teaches that homosexual behavior is normal, that having two mommies or two daddies is normal, and that in fact it is disapproval of this behavior that is sinful and “bigoted”?
• require rabbis to officiate at same-sex “weddings” or else be heavily fined or jailed and ordered to undergo mandatory “sensitivity training” in “re-education camps”?
• categorize all disapproval of homosexual behavior as criminal “hate speech” and station zealous modern-day yevsektsia members in shuls to inform on baalei korei and have them fined and imprisoned for simply reading out the pesukim in Vayikra?
• require that all religious literature be sanitized and censored from all disapproval of sexual sin, all in the name of promoting love and tolerance?
  Those who follow the news and listen to the words of these folks themselves know that these fears and many others are very far from exaggerated.

11. He then goes on to quote a story of a woman who said she destroyed her marriage so that she could live as a lesbian, and he buys her “I found love and now I just live my life together” narrative without a word of critique. Since when do rabbis endorse sexual sin as “love” and the choice to engage in it on a regular basis as bringing “happiness”?! No, one living in sin is not “in love” and cannot be happy. (See here: Inner Harmony through Living Up to One’s Inner Self). Nor is she “minding her own business,” as her sinful public relationship is destructive to society around her.
12. He states that these desires are inborn when this matter is still hotly debated even among secular researchers.
13. He raises the purely emotional argument “what if it would be your child.” Since when is something less sinful and wrong because it’s done by a relative? What does that have to do with anything? Also, it would prove nothing if one were to view sexual sin as less severe because a relative engages in it—all it would demonstrate is that family members’ natural love for one another inappropriately causes them to tolerate sins that they should not rationally tolerate.
    (Speaking of kids, there are kids standing in the background and listening. If they understand English, I’d find their listening to such a speech disturbing, even if I’d agree with its content.)
14. He describes the suffering that these folks experience as somehow justifying their sin. But suffering from challenges and temptations with the yetzer hara is our lot as humans; in fact, this struggle is our very purpose in life, and the struggle is supposed to be very difficult for everyone, as the Alter Rebbe states.: “ולכן אל יפול לב אדם עליו ולא ירע לבבו מאד גם אם יהיה כן כל ימיו במלחמה זו כי אולי לכך נברא וזאת עבודתו לאכפיא לס”א תמיד.” (Tanya ch. 27). The only “end” to this suffering is death or Moshiach.
15. And who’s to say that simply since their tests are so abnormal, they’re qualitatively more difficult? We can’t possibly know that, as we cannot see into their hearts. It’s just as likely that in many cases, the tests of normal folks are in fact more difficult. Either way,  “according to the camel is the load” (Kesubos 67a), and they are able to choose not to sin no less than anyone with more ordinary challenges (see here: An Unflinching Reckoning).
16. “People, charedim, they have what to say [about lesbian relationships]. Great, I understand you, it’s written in the Torah. … Charedim, you’re always right. … You’re always justifying yourselves, we always need to bow to you, to tell you you’re right. Yes, you’re a rabbi, for sure, for sure, of course, whatever you say, amen, kiss your hands. –Nonsense. Open your eyes. Reality. … “ Conclusion: Don’t you dare criticize this group.
    Vile. Yes, charedim are right, yes lesbian relationships are wrong and immoral. In doing so, charedim are not being condescending; they’re righteously promoting (albeit nowhere near enough) the Truth that Hashem commanded for all mankind, and all the more so for Jews, who are commanded to be a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Shemos 19:6).
    Although I imagine that the speaker is otherwise a fine Jew, in the case of this video, these are not the words of a “charedi” but of a secularist preaching hate against religious folks, and especially rabbis, for daring to take Torah and halacha seriously, for having the courage to stand up for the perfect, absolute, divine Noahide laws, which comprise the absolute, eternal moral code of our Holy Torah in the face of a fanatic, tyrannical mass popular movement zealously promoting obscenity, degeneracy, and rebellion against Hashem on a historically unprecedented level of depravity. Jews should not protest against it, he says?! Even non-Jews are obligated to protest against this evil movement as part of the Noahide law of dinim (promoting a just and moral legal system); all the more so are Jews so obligated.
17. I agree with his point that ex-members of this movement have a mission to influence those still stuck in it. Still, that doesn’t mean that all others dare not protest, and must sit by silently as this movement runs amok and increasingly corrupts society with its evil ideology. Those who are silent when they could have protested are guilty of collaborating with this sin.