Ruling by Rav Moshe Feinstein regarding Shlomo Carlbach's Music

Shlomo Carlebach's Broadwasy Play -- "Soul Doctor" or should it be called "Soul Murderer"?

According to Rabbi Moshe Feinstein's ruling back in 1959, it is apparent that rabbonim were aware of Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach's predatorial behavior against women and teenage girls.



Stop the Music?
Excerpt from: "What to do with Abusive Rabbis: Halachic Considerations"  
By Rabbi Mark Dratch
http://jsafe.org/pdfs/What_to_do_with_Abusive_Rabbis.pdf

In 5719 (1959), Rabbi Moshe Feinstein was asked to rule on the permissibility of playing the music of a certain song writer who was rumored to engage in disreputable behavior. 

(Teshuvot Iggerot Moshe, Even Ha-Ezer, I, no. 96.) Rabbi Feinstein distinguished between this composer’s early compositions and his later ones. Any music written in his early years when this individual comported himself appropriately remained permissible; at that time he behaved properly and his later activities can not retroactively taint his prior achievements. One of the proofs that R. Feinstein brought is from the case of a Torah scroll that was written by a heretic—Jewish law requires that such a scroll be destroyed so as not to perpetuate his name, reputation or achievements. (Hil. Sefer Torah 6:8) However, the law also asserts that a scroll written while that person was a true believer remains valid, even if he later became an apostate.(Pit’hei Teshuvah, Yoreh De’ah 281, no. 2.) Concerning subsequent musical compositions, R. Feinstein stated that even those songs that this person wrote after his “reputation became objectionable” are permissible because music, unlike Torah scrolls, have no intrinsic holiness. Furthermore, the questionable activities had nothing to do with undermining the fundamentals of Jewish belief but rather with casualness with regard to the intermingling of the sexes that were not in keeping with Orthodox norms. Such a lapse would not render a Torah Scroll he wrote invalid; it would certainly not disqualify his music. R. Feinstein wrote nothing about learning Torah from this individual. However, based on R. Feinstein’s discussion, one might distinguish between the teachings and insights of a heretic before and after his apostacy: the earlier Torah would remain kosher; the latter Torah would be banned.

That was 1959. Since then the allegations about this individual have become more serious and his music has been widely integrated into the prayer services of many congregations. His music, as well as his stories and teachings, have become a meaningful source of religious inspiration to generations of Jews and has perpetuated his legacy. Alleged victims of this man have expressed hurt and disillusionment over the community’s embrace of his music and his personality. What would Rabbi Feinstein have said if he were responding to this question today?

For more information on the case of Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach go to: http://theawarenesscenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/case-of-rabbi-shlomo-carlebach.html

_____________________________________________________________________

Only in NY: Broadway Musical About Sexual Predator - Shlomo Carlebach 

By Vicki Polin

Examiner - August 16, 2012

Can you imagine the horror faced by the hundreds of alleged sex abuse survivors of Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach as they learn the musical “Soul Doctor” is making its way to Broadway? 

“Soul Doctor” has been around for a few years far off-Broadway but does nothing more then to glorify a known serial sexual predator, who raged a war against women while they were searching to connect with their Jewish identity.

Shlomo Carlebach was known to have been active from back in the early 1960s when he first moved away from the Lubavitch chasidic in which he was from, until his death in 1994. Throughout the years there have also been some mumblings that Carlebach left his Lubavitch roots under pressure, due to his “inability to maintain healthy boundaries with women”  CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Shlomo Carlebach Liked His Women . . .

Tashlich and Healing from Child Abuse

Tashlich (תשליך) is a ritual that many Jews observe during the High Holidays. "Tashlich" means "casting off" in Hebrew and involves symbolically casting off the sins of the previous year by tossing pieces of bread or another food into a body of flowing water. Just as the water carries away the bits of bread, so too are sins symbolically carried away. In this way the participant hopes to start the New Year with a clean slate.

Thank you Rabbi Hopfer for warning the community!

Thank you Rabbi Hopfer for warning the community!

By Vicki Polin

Examiner - August 14, 2012

 

August 5, 2012 -- (Baltimore MD) A letter written by Rabbi Yaakov Hopfer was posted on the wall of several synagogues in the ultra-orthodox Jewish community of Baltimore, warning neighbors of the dangers Rabbi Stanley (Zusia) Levitt posed to children in the community. Hopfer’s letter included a photograph of this convicted sexual predator. 

CLICK HERE TO READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

G-d, We Need Your Help!

Every Survivor who discloses is a SUPERHERO!

Alicia Kozakiewicz –– Someone You Should Know

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month

Alicia Kozakiewicz –– Someone You Should Know

Today I had the honor of meeting one of the bravest women I know, Alicia Kozakiewicz. 

Vicki Polin and Alicia Kozakiewicz

Paul Ryan on Sexual Assault

Mitt Romney's Stance on Sexual Assault

Thou Shalt Not Stand Idly By

OTD and Survivors of Child Abuse

So many young people who have been abused either at home or outside the home, who don't get the proper help consider going off the derech daily (OTD).  For those of you in the kiruv world should be addressing what the real issues are.  STOP PROTECTING SEXUAL PREDATORS!

Teach Curiosity

(UK) Why giving polygraph tests to sex offenders is a terrible idea

Why giving polygraph tests to sex offenders is a terrible idea

By Chris French

The Guardian - August 10 2012

 

 

Polygraphs are notoriously unreliable and easy to fool, and sooner or later sex offenders will discover the truth about them

 

It was recently announced that the government is keen to introduce mandatory polygraph testing for rapists and other serious sex offenders when they are released from prison, in the hope that this will reduce re-offending rates and thus protect the public. 

A pilot study has been carried out in the East and West Midlands suggesting that the routine use of such testing would lead to offenders being more honest with their offender managers. Offenders undergoing polygraph testing made twice as many "clinically significant disclosures" as a control sample. CSDs were defined as "new information that the offender discloses, which leads to a change in how they are managed, supervised, or risk assessed, or to a change in the treatment intervention that they receive." Examples included disclosures relating to increased access to children or contact with other known sex offenders. 

It seems, however, that these encouraging results were based not upon the ability of the test to detect when offenders are lying, but instead upon the offenders' belief that the test was capable of doing so. This raises serious issues regarding the wisdom of rolling out such a scheme on a mandatory basis across England and Wales.

Polygraphs are often wrongly referred to as "lie detectors". In fact, all that polygraphs do is measure various psychophysiological indices of arousal, such as skin conductance, blood pressure and respiration. It is assumed that most of us, when we lie, become more emotionally aroused. Polygraph operators claim to be able to detect such tell-tale signs of arousal and use them to determine whether a person is telling the truth or lying. 

There are several different techniques used in this context, but most rely upon the notion that liars will be more aroused when answering "relevant" questions compared with when they answer "control" questions, due to their fear that they will be detected.

Studies have shown that in general polygraph tests correctly identify about 85% of guilty individuals. This may appear to be impressive at first sight but it is necessary to take into account the proportion of innocent individuals who are wrongly classified as guilty. According to a report by the British Psychological Society in 2004, reviews suggest that between 12% and 47% of innocent individuals are also classified as lying. 

Innocent people may be more aroused by the relevant questions than the control questions for a variety reasons. For example, suppose the suspect did not commit the crime in question but was engaged in some activity at the time that, although perfectly legal, he or she was ashamed of. Alternatively, it may simply be that the suspect is terrified that he or she will not be believed despite their innocence.

It is clear from the results of the pilot study that it was the sex offenders' belief that the polygraph would detect deception that led to the increase in disclosures. Not only did most of the these disclosures take place during the polygraph session as opposed to during routine supervision, but they actually took place during the pre-polygraph interview before the test itself was carried out. 

Indeed, a previous experiment by the lead author of this pilot study, Theresa Gannon, clearly showed similar effects among a group of child molesters. Those who were connected up to a convincing, albeit fake, "lie detector" gave more honest responses on a questionnaire than those who were not connected.

It is clear that offenders only have to spend five minutes on Google to realise that experts generally agree that polygraph testing is in fact not a reliable technique for detecting deception. If such testing becomes mandatory, it is inevitable that this truth about polygraphs will become widely known among offenders. From then on, any effect that unfounded belief in the effectiveness of the technique had in terms of increasing disclosures is likely to disappear.

To make matters worse, techniques exist to beat the test. Once the underlying rationale of the test is understood, steps can be taken to either augment the psychophysiological response to control questions (eg via self-induced physical or mental pain) or else reduce the response to relevant questions (eg using mental training, such as meditation). 

Vaughan Bell described the case of Floyd "Buzz" Fay, who was wrongly convicted of murder on the basis of polygraph testing. During his time in prison, Buzz found out as much as he could about the polygraph and used his knowledge to train other prisoners to beat the test. After a mere 15 minutes of instruction, 23 of 27 inmates were able to beat the test. It is highly likely that a sex offender who was motivated to beat the test and thus give the impression of being low risk would easily be able to do so.

There is another reason to be cautious about the results of this pilot testing, one that was noted by the authors themselves. In their words, "It is possible that polygraph offender managers may have felt more motivated or 'expected' to provide large numbers of CSDs compared to comparison offender managers." 

By its nature, the design of this study could not be double- or even single-blind and it is highly likely that this would have had an effect on the results. In other words, the managers' body language and interpretation of offenders' responses could have been subconsciously skewed. 

The authors of the report estimated that polygraph testing would cost between £400 and £937.30 for each additional disclosure that resulted. Obviously, any intervention that might reduce offending is worthy of serious consideration. But we should be cautious about implementing an intervention that might only be effective for the short time it would take before the truth about polygraphs becomes common knowledge among offenders.

Perhaps even more worrying is the prospect that a motivated high-risk offender could probably beat the polygraph from the outset after just a little bit of background research.

Protecting ALL children within your eruv!

Even Children Can Report Suspected Cases of Child Abuse and or Neglect

Helping Survivors from the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Community Survive!

One aspect of helping Jewish survivors of child abuse in the ultra-orthodox Jewish world is helping them gain the tools they need so that they can earn a decent living.  All too many of these survivors have never been provided with a decent secular education.  Meaning they can not read or write in English, know math, science or anything the rest of us take for granted.   Funds are needed to assisted in helping this very special population to be able to survive.  Without your support and public outcry this will not change.

Protecting Children and the Basics to Combatting Mind Control

As long as individuals are not allowed to think for themselves, it will be nearly impossible to protect children from sexual predators


The quasi-orthodox Jewish world compared to the "BITE" Model of Cult Mind Control (11/06/2013)

Being Sexually Abused Does NOT Ruin Your Life!

Body piercing can be a form of self-abuse

One symptom of being abused as a child, primarily sexually abused is finding various ways of harming one's self.  For some they find relief from pain by having multiple body piercing.  It's important to note that not everyone who finds beauty in body piercings are survivors of child abuse, yet a large percentage of them are.

If you are a survivor of child abuse (emotional, physical and or sexual abuse), there is help out there for you.  Contact your local rape crisis center and they can usually direct you to people who are highly qualified to assist you on your healing journey.