ADVERTISEMENT

Shabbat: Any Possibility of a Waiver for Jared and Ivanka?

iSpider

Graduate Assistant
Dec 31, 2007
3,245
879
113
"Shabbat...or the Sabbath is Judaism's day of rest and seventh day of the week, on which religious Jews and certain Christians (such as Seventh-day Adventists and Seventh Day Baptists) remember the Biblical creation of the heavens and the earth in six days and the Exodus of the Hebrews, and look forward to a future Messianic Age. Shabbat observance entails refraining from work activities, often with great rigor, and engaging in restful activities to honor the day. Judaism's traditional position is that unbroken seventh-day Shabbat originated among the Jewish people, as their first and most sacred institution, though some suggest other origins. Variations upon Shabbat are widespread in Judaism and, with adaptations, throughout the Abrahamic and many other religions.” Wikipedia

After his address to Congress, it appeared that the Donald was settling in to a more presidential mode. However, on weekends, this past one being no exception, while Jared and Ivanka are away, he is most susceptible to reverting to his campaign modus operandi of foot-in-mouth disease, the symptoms of which are making major gaffes through his Twitter account. It is praiseworthy that Jared and Ivanka faithfully honor the Sabbath as prescribed by their religion, but when they do the Donald is left alone to his devices or solely with the guidance of Steve Bannon. This past weekend James Comey, perhaps the person singularly responsible for Trump's victory, was the latest victim as the Donald expressed a statement demeaning the integrity of his office suggesting something with absolutely no merit, merely as a defensive assault and reaction to recent accusations by others that those on the President's staff or other surrogates during the campaign may have illegally collaborated with the Russians to compromise our electoral process, the answer to which most all Americans want an answer.

This begs the following question: Under Jewish law is there is a way to get a waiver from the requirement of observing Shabbat for Jared and Ivanka for the next 4 (8) years? Maybe just a waiver for Ivanka inasmuch as she is a convert? If you, like me, want our President to have a chance to succeed in implementing his agenda (for the most part), he needs to quit insulting those people and agencies whose support is necessary, and he needs to forego his emotional and foolish assaults on anyone who criticizes his authority, decisions or statements.

How can we help him our President with this issue if we cannot obtain an acceptable waiver for Jared and/or Ivanka? The legitimacy of our Republic is at stake. We are becoming more of a global embarrassment each week. If we cannot obtain such a waiver, perhaps we need to force the Donald to get rid of Steve Bannon and let Reince Priebus take over Bannon's role. Bannon is an acknowledged Leninist acknowledging his goal as the "deconstruction" of our Republic, while Priebus is very level-headed, polished, traditional and politically experienced, and he is respected on both sides of the aisle (with few exceptions). In any event, Priebus needs veto power over the Trump tweets if Jared and Ivanka are not at hand to do so themselves.
 
this coming from a guy who believes the media narrative that the russians are the reason that hillary lost, what a crock. the media, ie, the democrats, have only one thread to hang with, the russians. how else could they lose? all the while ignoring that their god, obama, sent people to israel to meddle and help the hated netanyahu lose, which failed. if he can meddle, the russians can meddle though i think they did not, other than maybe, doing stories on hillary that the media would not write or broadcast. maybe we need the russians to even the media playing field. little i, you are hilariously out of touch with reality but that is OK
 
Not a Trump guy and never was, but can anyone offer proof that there was any sort of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign? Jim Clapper, Obama appointee, just stated on a national TV show Sunday that as National Director of Security he did not see any proof of connection. Raises the question - are facts or politics driving this story? Could have happened, but absolutely no facts to support the accusation at this point. I keep an open mind, but as they say in Missouri - Show Me.
 
the media, democrats, leftists, in the streets protesting a free election, next, a recount, which before collapsing, only showed that trump got more votes in wisconsin than before and that one town in michigan had more votes cast than residents, next going after the electoral voters, next trying to get the senate to not certify the election results....all failed, the last thread, the russians stole the election from clinton, a laugh but the narrative that the media and all the dems are running with no matter if any truth to it, ala duke lax. you leftists like to throw "straw dog" out, well, this is the granddaddy of straw dog. millions of americans disliked obama and his policies but they respected the free election results, the office and the man and therein is the big difference between the current democrat party and the one with which i grew up. trump said he would win, they laughed, said there was a prob in sweden, they laughed, said he was wiretapped, they laughed. think it is becoming clearer that he was, not saying who was in charge of it or who ordered it. feel we will see a grand jury in the not too distant future and maybe things will become clearer.
 
the new york times, can you really believe anything they print, said in an article on jan 17 that trump towers was wiretapped. if indeed that is true, the buck stops in the white house, period, on his watch. may not be fair but how things work and trump has every right to say that. if correct, trump should take zero flack for saying that and seems you are hitting him up R. the point is, this could be a very interesting, fun, time except for the fact that we need to be doing positive things for our country not fighting each other which seems to be the norm these days.
 
said he was wiretapped, they laughed. think it is becoming clearer that he was, not saying who was in charge of it or who ordered it. feel we will see a grand jury in the not too distant future and maybe things will become clearer.

Spinner that was the comment I was responding to -- first I didn't hear anyone laughing, I only heard people appalled. I have heard way to many try o say, he didn't mean it that way, or it was out of context, or he's new to politics. What he did was accuse a former President of a felony and throw more gasoline on an already inflamed nation. Our country is way to divided, where are the adults?
 
well, if done, and it looks like it was, who was in charge of the apparatus? should he have said the russians did it? we should be seeing a grand jury in the future and maybe it will all come out. to me, the media and democrats are laughing at everything he says and then when it is true, they move on to the next thing about which they can throw trash on him. have never, ever, seen anything like this in my lifetime and it is truly embarrassing and the fact that no democrat leaders are standing up and saying, enough of this BS.
 
There is clearly an adult speaking in the TED video below. If we could all adopt her views, it would change the tenor of this or many other such discussions on this board. (I include myself among those guilty of not having been able or willing, at times, to live by what is suggested in the video or in the description of Pascal's postulation below.)

And for those of religious conviction, I want to emphasis that by posting this video I AM NOT suggesting that you leave your church or abandon your faith. I feel certain that the beliefs which Megan Phelps-Roper was taught as a child, are certainly not typical of any church, Baptist or otherwise, attended by members on this board, though they do persist in many regions of the country.



The video brings to mind Pascal's Wager, the implementation of which would help us all in our discussions become maximally persuasive without angering other members of the conversation by intransigence, insults, slurs or other unpleasant means of response, which are typically the impulsive, natural response to assertions with which we do not agree on far too many occasions. I became familiar with this principle through my older brother, a lawyer, not as a method for convincing people of the naturally pragmatic belief in God, but rather as a method of persuasion in general best used to maintain a civil discourse while maximizing the potential of having my position appreciated by those with whom I was engaged in a discussion in which our beliefs were inconsistent with each other. I apologize, but I saved the quote below about a year ago without a cite for the source except for the reference to Brain Pickings. Perhaps Wikipedia, though I am not certain.

"The 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal is perhaps best known for Pascal’s Wager which, in the first formal use of decision theory, argued that believing in God is the most pragmatic decision. But it seems the French thinker also had a knack for psychology. As Brain Pickings ( https://www.brainpickings.org/ ) points out, Pascal set out the most effective way to get someone to change their mind, centuries before experimental psychologists began to formally study persuasion:

"When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true.
Pascal added:

"People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others. Put simply, Pascal suggests that before disagreeing with someone, first point out the ways in which they’re right. And to effectively persuade someone to change their mind, lead them to discover a counter-point of their own accord. Arthur Markman, psychology professor at The University of Texas at Austin, says both these points hold true."
 
what? did not read or listen, never do but keep on believing my friend
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT