Blood donation

Hello Rabbi, why is this a stupid war? It is part of a struggle to ensure that there is no legitimacy for something that in their eyes goes against the cultural character of the state that is supposed to be a Jewish state, and in general part of a global process of dismantling fundamental values. I am actually asking two questions: A. Does the Rabbi's argument suggest that this is a stupid war? B. Does the Rabbi see any value in the struggle against granting legitimacy? If so, how? If not, why?

Because this struggle is disconnected from reality. There is a significant part of the public that is there, and it is impossible to change this with technical struggles over titles on forms. In general, coercion is unjustified and ineffective. They are not forcing anything on anyone, they just want recognition according to their system. And these rabbis want to impose norms that are unacceptable to them on the entire public.
This does not in any way contradict the character of a Jewish state, unless you identify Judaism with religiosity. But there is a significant part of the public that is not with you. In the same way that you could not donate blood to Sabbath desecrators and those who commit niddah. This has nothing to do with the struggles for a Jewish state. It is simply a taboo that they have not yet freed themselves from.

Ok, I understand, thank you.
Just:
A. A small clarification, “To the same extent you could not donate blood to Sabbath desecrators and those who commit niddah” no one claimed or wanted to not donate blood to the well-off, God forbid (they talked about changing parent 1 and parent 2 on the forms).
B. In terms of legislation (status quo, etc.), we see that the state at least at that time identified Judaism with religiosity, is the rabbi actually claiming that since then the opinion of the majority of the public has changed?
C. So what does the rabbi think is the nature of a Jewish state? How was this expressed? Are there any laws in which this was expressed? I would appreciate a clear answer (because I already asked the rabbi about this once and did not fully understand the answer).
Many thanks to the rabbi.

In B’ I meant to *express in them (in the language of the future) [the same Jewish character for the state that the Rabbi wants]

A. I did not make a comparison, but used an example. The same reasoning can also be made regarding blood donations to LGBT people and Sabbath desecrators. In general, in a Jewish state (according to your definition), such offenses are punishable by death.
B. The majority opinion has never been that a Jewish state is bound by halakha. Even if halakha is part of Jewish identity.
C. There is no such character. Our state is not Jewish in any essential sense (except for the mother of most citizens). It is possible to define a state that is bound by halakha, but there is no Jewish state in an essential sense. Of course, there is a state of Jews in the ethnic sense, and the Jews who live in it will decide its character. There are no rules for this and I have no opinion on this empty matter.

Yesterday I saw the following segment and I'm still in shock. Although I didn't put too much thought into the issue, I'm still surprised why I didn't think of it right away myself?!
Listen to the beginning of the video that deals with MDA and Hora1-2:

On the occasion of Purim, Katan Demokfin, 5752

Ramada, 1st, Shalom Rav,

Since the honor and dignity of the father and mother have been honored, am I allowed to make preferences between them? How can I decide that one of them is ‘parent 1’ and the other is only ‘parent 2′?

For this, we will be taught by the Lord, and our reward will be greatly increased by our one parent in heaven.

With blessings, Simcha Fishel Halevi Plankton

I would also like to ask: Should the word ’woman of valor’ be changed to ’ Parent 2 is found. You will find it far from pearls. And a mine. And trust. The heart of its owner is mud. And the spoil will not be lacking. Will it be lacking? Etc. Etc.

Another question Leaf

As is known, Bedouins are allowed to marry up to four wives. Why don't they also mention ‘parent 3′, parent 4′ and parent 5’ Aren't we human beings whose feelings should be taken into account?

With greetings, Shams Razel, Raya Mahimna (Ra”m) in Qabat al-Najma

In practice, LGBT people do not want recognition. They want to engineer consciousness. They are not liberals. They are interested in dismantling the entire traditional human society. They are not some minority that just wants to be left alone and not enslaved. They are not willing to be exceptional. They want to be the norm and therefore fight the existing norm. From my perspective, it is legitimate not to donate blood until all forms say "father and mother." And whoever is bothered by it should not donate. I am convinced that the percentage of donors among "father and mother" is significantly higher than among LGBT people and their supporters on the left. The latter are motivated by (lack of or anti) ideology of extreme individualism and therefore of egoism. So the educational effect here has a significance that has implications for the very culture of donation itself.

All discussions about non-coercion do not belong in this case. The leftist public is the father of the coercive (Bolshevik) forces, no matter how big they are. And with coercion, it is possible (and sometimes there is no choice) to fight against coercion. That is what will create equilibrium. I don't know what kind of public Rabbi Michi is talking about. He is stuck in the 1990s. Soon, the majority of the public in Israel will be religious, ultra-Orthodox or traditional, and these are the norms that are accepted by him. He is so obsessed with his fight against religious coercion (which is actually not coercion towards decisions made in the Knesset, a trade-off between groups in the population on matters that are important to each group. And each group has its own religion. You don't see him fighting against religious coercion of other religions) that he is also fighting against the definition of Jews in the Law of Return according to halakhah, even though he himself says that there is no other meaning for the term Jew besides the halakhah definition of this term.

In the small Purim of Demokfin P.B.

To Emmanuel, greetings,

There is also a blessing in trolling, and in the constant attempts to erase the Jewish heritage as a religion and to engineer the mind to the point of erasing the father and mother, etc.

The attempt to erase the heritage is leading more and more parents (one and two 🙂 who define themselves as secular and traditional, to send their children to religious education. They are not interested in their children 'repenting' But they want their children to know the heritage of their people, so that they can choose what to adopt from it, and they are fed up with the atmosphere of permissiveness and cosmopolitanism that the state education system is being dragged into by the ‘thinking people’.

See the article: ‘Freedom of Religion: The Secularists Who Choose to Give Their Children a Religious Education’, on the ‘Channel 7’ website.

With greetings, Hanoch Hanach Feinschmecker-Palty

By the way, the child who is described as calling ‘My Father and My Mother’ is ‘Immanuel’ in the prophecy of Isaiah 🙂 The wife in the Song of Songs combines: ‘To my mother's house and to my mother's chamber’ 🙂 And for this it will be said to her: Hurrah

In the Book of Job, the father is also said to be a "man-parent" because he causes conception, but the father's momentary contribution to the pregnancy cannot be compared to the mother's continuous contribution to the pregnancy for nine months.

Even if we say that "parent" is from the word "to teach" The mother who cares for the child with love and devotion at an early age and instills in him the basics of language and love for God and His creatures and all good qualities is the child's first teacher, and she took as the basis for life what is called the "Torah of your mother."

Therefore, it is clear that "parent 1" is the mother.

With greetings, Pnina HaKohanat, teacher of justice at the "Ohel Leah" school, author of the book "Dina Dafshmina"

Emmanuel

I don't think that the standard lathi is motivated by the ideology you describe. Or by any ideology at all. Most of the time, these are people who are fighting for social recognition. For the desire to receive social tolerance because they are on the margins of society. A situation that no one likes. Of course. And among other things, as you mentioned, traditionalism and religion are a consensus and a huge majority in Israel 2022 (not that from my perspective as a religious person this is bad. This is a great thing). But there is no desire for ideology here. But a simple human desire to belong. Just as I don't think that the Russian who insists that they convert him and accept me as a Jew is necessarily a saboteur who wants to be identified as a Jew because of an internal desire to destroy Judaism from within. If you already mentioned the Law of Return, which is simply a person who is in a bad situation where he lives in a country whose entire social consensus is a fairly closed national-religious one. And he is simply not part of From the same people. (Try replacing the second-generation Jews with a standard assimilated Jew in any European country, whose eyes were usually on the liberal side of that society - do you think the ordinary Jew has some rigid ideological intention to change the character of the country in which he lives? He simply has an existential need for society to be more inclusive and tolerant toward him.)

This is not what you think, this is reality. What is recognition? What nonsense is this? Homosexual marriage? I am allowed to think that these are not marriages. Or they are not equal to heterosexual marriages. Just as spiritual disciplines are not equal to natural sciences. Even if humans are equal, marriage and other abstract things are definitely not equal. There is a hierarchy. I am allowed to think that sex change surgery is mutilation and that a transsexual man is not a woman but a man with a mutilation. Trying to force thoughts on me is impudence and a declaration of war. And in a war against a lie, the one who shouts the loudest will win. Only the power of these people understand.

It's great that people need inclusion and tolerance, but tolerance is not obtained by force and shouting. I don't owe these people anything. . Let them be tolerant themselves first. Impudent. And disagreement and acting on it is not intolerance. Why are they trying to force themselves into the center of society. So they are on the margins. So what. What happened? Did someone die? If an assimilated Jew lives in the US and receives all the services that another Jew receives, should he shove his Jewishness (which he himself denies) in the face of the nation in which he lives?

And are Jews allowed, after thousands of years of persecution, to have a state of their own?
Here's something I just read today:
https://e.walla.co.il/item/3489259