Month: August 2017 – ח׳ באלול תשע״ז

To Promote Atheism Is to Promote Crime!

Many promoters of atheism make a personal claim about themselves; they don’t need to “believe” in Divine punishment here or in the afterlife to avoid committing a crime.

Forget about whether the claim is valid, and with what degree of accuracy, the true definition of “crime”, competing explanations, the non-sequitur inherent, etc., etc. There’s a bigger problem: For other individuals, predictions of punishment do act as a deterrent.

If they do succeed in corrupting someone else, someone who does, in fact, require this doctrine to stay innocent of a crime, these promoters have thereby lowered the subjective costs of committing crimes (howsoever defined), while all the perceived benefits remain just the same (not to mention Ahavas Hashem…).
It follows promoters of atheist beliefs for every man on earth are promoters of criminal activity.
P.S. This is why the Rambam (and those he quotes) call certain beliefs “necessary for civil society” (not an esoteric way of denying mitzvos!). As Voltaire said: “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him” (and he would know!). Indeed, the word “Atheist“, until circa John Locke’s time, used to be synonymous with “Criminal“.
N.B. I am not implying anything else.
By the way, we referenced the above article in our free, special ebook on answering atheists. To receive the full Hebrew ebook, subscribe to Hyehudi’s Daily Newsletter here.

How to Free Rubashkin

Letter to the Editor

There is an alternative, even simple way to free Rubashkin, using investigation tools we are allowed even as private citizens. It requires several reasoned steps.

If the prosecutor and judge in some way conspired – or if we don’t like such a strong word – use the word ‘inclined’ – to construct the case in a way that would ensure a mandatory long term sentence, then this would mean that they believe ‘the end justifies the means’ and they do not give weight to their oath of integrity and faithfulness to the principles of fairness and justice.

If this were the case then this means that there is quite likely something in their personalities that would allow them to utilize ‘extra-legal, even dishonest and deceptive, means to accomplish some end. This means that they likely would have used their ease of employing dishonesty at some earlier stage or stages in their careers, such as lying about some important credential or qualification.

So all that is needed is to hire a lawyer and private investigator to find some substantive flaw in their resumes or applications for their jobs as judge and/or prosecutor. To be clear, if they were dishonest in how they set up the Rubashkin case and trial, then it is highly likely that, with a  thorough and legal investigation, one would be able to find a substantive lie or misrepresentation in their credentials that would lead to their being dismissed from their positions as judge and/or prosecutor.

It could be strongly argued that a falsehood of such import means they weren’t qualified for their positions in the first place. This would give good reason to throw out the case against Rubashkin, especially in light of the many briefs of former Attorneys General and practicing legal scholars who raised serious questions about the fairness of the trial in the first place. Now we understand it. The judge and or prosecutor were never qualified to serve in those roles.

Again, it would be likely to find a ‘fatal flaw’ in their representation of their qualifications, if we are correct that they ‘inclined’ to set up the case in a most unfavorable way.

Another way to free Rubashkin is if the judge and prosecutor ever had a close personal relationship, not just professional. Perhaps in college, or surreptitiously at legal ‘conventions’ and ‘conferences’. This too could be uncovered by a good private investigator. If they ‘conspired’ against Rubashkin, then it could be ‘love’, ‘S&M’, ‘well known mutual hate for some class of citizens’, or some other ‘glue’ that bound them together in the past and influenced them at the time of the case and trial.

I hope I made the reasoning clear enough for someone with financial means and interest to hire the necessary lawyer and investigative team.