Translate

15.4.16

Religious teachers are stupid. It is possible to generalize about groups of people. To say one can't is absurd. You might as well say you can't generalize about child pornographers. Or you can't generalize about pedophiles. How can you say they are all bad. No. I can say they are all bad.

Religious teachers claim to be able to understand the Talmud.That is clearly false to anyone who has ever asked them a question about anyplace in the Talmud.

They always lie about what the Torah says because they are trying to change Torah into a recipe for making people give them money. They will claim whatever clams people like to hear about anything besides this one basic point.

It is possible to generalize about groups of people. To say one can't is absurd. You might as well say you can't generalize about child pornographers. Or you can't generalize about pedophiles. How can you say they are all bad. No. I can say they are all bad.


People in Litvak (Lithuanian) yeshivas certainly do know the material well, but all practicing religious teacher not only are stupid when it comes to the Talmud but also do not care what it says. They just want to continue their pretense in order to preserve their status quo in which they get all the perks and the working people have to bow to them. They make good money off of rituals.
{See Animal Farm in detail by George Orwell.}



There are two reasons for saying this. One is Rabainu Yona. That is his is the opinion that Lashon HaRa (slander) does not apply to truth unless the damage caused by it would not be according to the din (law) of the Torah. That is in plain English Lashon Hara (slander) to him is specifically on lies. Truth (true slander) is only forbidden because of collateral damage. [See the Chafetz Chaim Vol I chapter 4 and Vol I chapter 7.] In this case, the damage the religious teachers cause is so vast and encompassing of every single Jewish home, that there is no choice but to make this public. And the Chafez Chaim decided like Rabainu Yona.[That is in chapter 7 he makes this clear even though he uses the language of the Rambam in the beginning of chapter one. For some reason I do not understand the Chafetz Chaim did not mention this argument between the Rambam and Rabainu Yona openly. This is very curious to me.]

But I think that even the Rambam would agree here. Even though to him Lashon Hara is on truth still to warn people about a danger that they otherwise would not be aware of I think he would agree is permissible and even praiseworthy. [Otherwise the only time you could even warn someone would be in Bet Din. You could not even warn your own teenage children about avoiding some bad cult. What the Rambam might do is go a completely different route than Rabainu Yona. That is he might say מומר לדבר אחד אינו מומר לכל התורה כולה a person that does not keep one mitzvah is not a person that keeps no mitzvot. But he is still a "mumar,"  and thus lashon hara on him is allowed. It is allowed not because it is true but because the prohibition of lashon hara does not apply.]

That is to say: You have trusted the religious teachers until now. How did that work out for you? If you think they ruined your life, you are not alone. And they get this power from the pretense of knowing the Talmud.


Stupid is not the same as dumb. Dumb is just Dumb. But Stupid implies a kind of damage that they do. Stupid jerks telling others about Morality and ethics just can not have a good end to it.

______________________________________________________________________________


There are two reasons for saying this. One is רבינו יונה. That is his is the opinion that  לשון הרע does not apply to אמת unless the damage caused by it would not be according to the din (law) of the Torah. That is in plain English לשון הרע  to him is specifically on lies.  אמת true slander is only forbidden because of collateral damage. See the חפץ חיים חלק א' פרק ד'  ופרק ז. In this case, the damage the religious teachers cause is so vast and encompassing of every single Jewish home, that there is no choice but to make this public. And the חפץ חיים decided like רבינו יונה. That is in chapter שבע he makes this clear even though he uses the language of the רמב''ם in the beginning of chapter one. For some reason I do not understand the חפץ חיים did not mention this argument between the רמב''ם and רבינו יונה openly. This is very curious to me.

But I think that even the רמב''ם would agree here. Even though to him  לשון הרע is on truth still to warn people about a danger that they otherwise would not be aware of I think he would agree is permissible and even praiseworthy. Otherwise the only time you could even warn someone would be in בית דין. You could not even warn your own teenage children about avoiding some bad cult. What the רמב''ם might do is go a completely different route than רבינו יונה. That is he might say מומר לדבר אחד אינו מומר לכל התורה כולה a person that does not keep one מצווה is not a person that keeps no מצוות But he is still a מומר  and thus  לשון הרע on him is allowed. It is allowed not because it is true but because the prohibition of  לשון הרע does not apply.


________________________________________________________________________________

And  you could ask but he is still בכלל עמיתיך? So לשון הרע still applies to him? Answer Yes לשון הרע still applies to him but not on that one מצווה that he is not doing.