August 7, 2007, - 10:10 am

Lefty Loon Rabbi Defends Michael Vick, Plays Race Card, Rants Against Corporations

By Debbie Schlussel
Let’s make one thing clear: Rabbi Aaron Bergman, liberal loon extraordinaire, does not speak for me as a Jewish-American. Nor does he speak for most Jews. His absurd rantings are jarring and jaw-dropping in their absurdity. Actually, it’s an insult to most liberals to call his extremist column in The Detroit Newsistan “liberal.” Here’s a hint–the headline of the column: “Corporate Sponsors Deserve More Criticism Than Vick.”
Today, the esteemed Rabbi joins the National Association for the Advancement of Dog-Torturing People (NAACP) and Not-So-Neon Deion Sanders in defending Michael Vick’s torture and murder of dogs through drowning, dog-throwing, and other barbaric forms that the Rabbi has been outraged with when they are used on terrorists bent on our destruction, rather than helpless innocent creatures (ie., dogs).

rabbiaaronbergman.jpgdogfighting.jpg

Clueless, Far-Left Rabbi Aaron Bergman Defends Dog Torture,

Plays Race Card

His column, today, plays the race card–a usual theme for the Rabbi. It’s strange because while he’s constantly talking down to all of us racist White people, the fancy, exclusive private Jewish school he heads–the Frankel Jewish Academy of Metropolitan Detroit–has few, if any, Black students or faculty. Do as I say, not as I do.
He also invokes a preposterous non-existent concept he made up about Jewish law regarding corporations. How this is a defense for deliberate dog torture remains an enigma ( and clearly the Rabbi–who should be trained in reading texts–forgot to read the Michael Vick, er . . . “Ookie” indictment). And, by the way, Rabbi, who cares about Jewish law regarding corporations? Neither Michael Vick, nor Nike, nor the NFL are Jewish entities. And neither is the Court of Law trying him. This is a secular (or Christian, if anything) country, something you love to stress, when it conveniently aids in your columns attacking Christians.
The only thing the Rabbi does not do to defend Vick is invoke his puppy love for Islamists (he’s written columns gushing over Keith Ellison’s election as the first Muslim Congressman (column reposted on this Islamist website), attacking America’s treatment of Islamic terrorists, etc.).
I do agree with one single sentence in his entire column, though it has no place in a column defending Michael Vick:

These companies receive tremendous financial incentives to keep their offices in the United States, though they employ relatively few Americans.

That sentence would have an iota of credibility coming from the Rabbi, were he not an extremist defender of open borders and unlimited immigration for Muslims and other aliens who take jobs from Americans.
So, without further ado, here’s an excerpt of Rabbi Aaron Bergman’s absurd column:

Much of the coverage of black athletes is biased, despite the case of the Duke lacrosse players.
White athletes are often given the benefit of the doubt. Black athletes are guilty unless proven innocent. Take cycling’s Lance Armstrong and baseball’s Barry Bonds, both of whom are accused of using performance enhancers. Both have passed every drug test. Only Bonds’ record gets challenged. There is no asterisk next to Armstrong’s.
Scott Olsen, a white baseball player, was arrested for assaulting a police officer. There was little coverage. Olsen was called a hothead, not a menace to society. It is no wonder that many suspect bias in the reporting of the Vick case, even though the case may have merit.
The other aspect that bothers me concerns corporations cancelling their endorsement deals with Vick, apparently worried about their image. The irony is many of these companies lack morality. Vick may have done great harm, but nowhere near the amount of damage these companies do to the world.
Many of these corporations make products in poor countries and justify the pittance they pay to the workers as being in line with the local economy, if not slightly better. These companies do little to improve the appalling work conditions. Corporations have a vested interest in keeping the poor in manageable poverty.
These companies receive tremendous financial incentives to keep their offices in the United States, though they employ relatively few Americans. They sell their products for incredible profits, creating strain on working-class families.
It would be easy to say parents should just not buy these products. However, many advertising agencies bombard youngsters with messages that create artificial obsessions for these goods. In turn, the youngsters pressure their parents, who have trouble buying them because the company they worked for sent their job overseas.

Blah, blah, blah. Did he plagiarize this from Noam Chomsky? Karl Marx? The corporations made Michael Vick do it? Oy vey.
Defending Michael Vick’s torture murder of dogs–a sure sign of a sick, murderous pathology–should disqualify the Rabbi as a principal of what is supposed to be a community Jewish day school. Clearly, the Rabbi does not even know even the most basic tenets of Jewish law, which demand kindness–and forbid any form of cruelty–to animals. That is one of the reasons we as Jews have a specific form of slaughter for meat and poultry. Even though we are killing the animal that we will ultimately eat, we want it to feel as little pain as possible. And we don’t hunt for sport (or at all, given the Jewish laws of slaughter). Humane treatment of animals is also why we do not eat meat/poultry ingredients and dairy ingredients together and wait several hours between consuming them (because it would be inhumane to “cook a goat in its mother’s milk,” which would likely be the case in the days of ancient, small self-sufficient farms).
Time for someone to call this noxious Rabbi Run-Amok to the carpet. He DOES NOT speak for me or my religion.
Do us all a favor, Rabbi Bergman. Quit invoking Judaism to back up your bizarre, preposterous views.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

13 Responses

Last night on O’Reilly, the Atlanta NAACP President called what is happening to Michael Vick a “public lynching.”
I predicted this rhetoric would be used and I was right.

cankelz on August 7, 2007 at 10:57 am

This rabbi’s writings are pure drivel. Nothingness. Unfortunately, there are many Jews (including rabbis) who are just like him. What a Sad Sack. He just wants to be loved.

lexi on August 7, 2007 at 11:27 am

Debbie, this guy is a rabbi like i’m a professional NASCAR driver. Maybe you sould give him a qualified title, like so-called rabbi or non-rabbi, etc.

Anonymous1 on August 7, 2007 at 11:29 am

That is the most idiotic rationization I’ve heard since the “black rage” defense of Colin Ferguson. As far as white athletes are concerned, Mark Macguire, Floyd Landis (Last years Tour De France winner) Ralphael Palmiero, and many, many others, are forever tainted.
BTW, the main reason the press is out to get Barry Bonds is he’s had an adviserial relationship with sports writers for many years. He hates them and vice versa.

Rich B on August 7, 2007 at 11:50 am

The rabbi is absolutely correct about the Michael Vick issue and rather than rationally debate the facts, i suppose it’s more convenient for you guys to step aside the facts by deploying straw man arguments. Now, before some of you idiots begin, i do not condone or justify dog-fighting at all. Having said that, the man has not even been tried yet and or else i’m losing my mind, whites were the ones who, in the Duke lacrosse case, were the ones talking about “rush to judgement” before process is due. So much for that.
Now, i do not believe that Michael Vick is targeted SOLELY because he’s black, nor is he completely innocent of the charges against him. However, as blacks, we know far better and look at the wider picture whenever incidents like this arise. For many young, rich, black men like Vick who do not conform to (white) America’s standards, they are frequently targeted and their every move is being scrutinized.
The point is, whilst we can have our reservations about Vick as a man, allow him to be tried and if he’s convicted, so be it. If he’s vindicated, so be it. Don’t follow the mantra of “do as i say, not do as i do”.

Emperor on August 7, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Emperor:
Not sure what your point is here. Given an 82-count indictment, with allegations confirmed by multiple witnesses, there is little doubt that Vick is guilty, but, of course, the process has to play out.
Any analogy to the Duke case is flawed in that there was NEVER any evidence against the students other than the constantly-changing testimony of the stripper. What’s more, exculpatory evidence was suppressed. That’s why Nifong was disbarred.
I also resent this victim mantra about “young, rich Black men…” Why can it never be possible that a young rich Black man is also a thug?
Certainly, there could also be more going on here in the background, as the Falcons begin to realize that Vick is actually not a very good quarterback, but rather with his running ability is “exciting.” This could be a way for them to let him down easy. Who knows?
He is pleading not guilty because that what his attorneys are telling him to do. It is NOT good for him, but lets them charge greater fees. The smart move would have been to cop a plea and THEN get into all this crap about being a Black victim, and the cultural differences, etc etc.
That way, there would have been a chance for him to get some sympathy from the public, as the public will give supposedly repentant athletes many second chances. By denying the obvious, he made a big, big mistake.
His career is surely over now.

Red Ryder on August 7, 2007 at 5:52 pm

You know, you can withhold your suspicions about Vick (that isn’t my problem), and as a law student, i know that 82 pages of indictment is damning indeed but i’m sure you do know that you cannot “convict” him until the court of law does so, and that is my underlining message.
I don’t know what you’re talking about with regards to “victim mantra” (whatever the hell that is). You (or I for that matter) know nothing about Michael Vick and whilst i concede the fact that he probably surrounds himself with some less-than-noble acquintances, you have no right to call him a “thug”. Besides, if Brett Favre, Peyton Manning or some hockey player did something stupid (as has definitely happened), no one calls them thugs.
I am not saying Vick is innocent (or guilty); that is the responsibility of the jury and judge. The modern day lynching (verbal lynching that is) of a man who hasn’t even been tried has just got to end.

Emperor on August 7, 2007 at 6:59 pm

What does this article he wrote have to do with his job as director of Jewish studies? Nothing!
If I had a kid at that school (which costs over $16,000.00 a year btw – I checked) I would have serious concerns that the Rabbi in charge is a Marxist. Do you want your kid’s brain filled with Marxist anti-corporate drivel before they hit college? (Where they likely will be brainwashed by leftists anyway!) It’s ridiculous and frankly his premise is nonsensical. How does one get from Vick’s animal cruelty to how corporations “take advantage” of local populations?
Debbie’s right on this one – no surprise there.
I say he should be called the Marxist Rabbi.

CarpeDiem on August 7, 2007 at 7:45 pm

I just read the other article you linked to above about Keith Ellison’s election. I’d like to think that the Marxist Rabbi aka Bergman is either extremely naive or ignorant. But I’m afraid it may be worse than that. He seems to want to manipulate facts such as that this country was founded by Christians. He’s able to use moral equivalency in every case. I’d be alarmed by this individual – I wonder if the parents who send their children to his school realize what this guy is?

CarpeDiem on August 7, 2007 at 8:08 pm

Emperor: as to “victim mantra”–taken from your own post…
For many young, rich, black men like Vick who do not conform to (white) America’s standards, they are frequently targeted and their every move is being scrutinized.
Under what rubric can you assert that I “have no right to call him a thug”? [Def: a person inclined or hired to treat another roughly, brutally, or murderously] I COULD call him a thug even if the following weren’t already on his record…
April 5, 2005: Vick is sued by a Georgia woman who claims he gave her herpes. The lawsuit claims Vick used the alias “Ron Mexico” when seeking treatment for the disease. On April 24, the woman agrees to an undisclosed settlement.
Nov. 26, 2006: Vick flips off booing fans in Atlanta after a 31-13 loss to New Orleans.
June 19, 2007: Vick pulls out of a scheduled appearance at the 2007 Colonial All-Pro Football Camp at William and Mary, a month after canceling his own youth football camp.
April 25, 2007: Investigators search the Surry County property owned by Michael Vick and find 66 dogs, some injured and scarred, and items associated with dogfighting. The dogs are seized.
April 26, 2007: Vick says he’s “never” at the property, a two-story house on 15 acres. RIIIGHT
As to the comparisons to white athletes, for a law student, your power of logic seem a bit weak..
“Besides, if Brett Favre, Peyton Manning or some hockey player did something stupid (as has definitely happened), no one calls them thugs.”
What in the world does THAT mean?
Did you mention those names implying that those men did something “stupid,” or was that intended only as a generic example? Is dogfighting or giving some woman herpes only stupid, rather than immoral or even criminal? Do you mean to say that if a white athlete does something wrong, “no one” calls him a thug, but this world is freely used when it could apply to a Black man?
And you claim to not know what a victim mantra is?
As I implied earlier, Vick was the luckiest man in the world to get the contract he did, given that he is at best a mediocre–albeit “exciting”– quarterback. Bully for him. College football is not the same as the NFL. In the pros you have to be able to pass the ball–accurately, under pressure, and at all distances.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the notion that public figures should be immune to this so-called lynching. It happens every day to people of all races, and is a consequence of their fame.
They could stop it instantly by becoming less high-profile, and/or by cleaning up their pathetic lives.

Red Ryder on August 8, 2007 at 8:25 am

Emperor:
Before you pull the race card on me for berating Vick, here are two very high-profile big contract NFL washouts, who are white guys–
Brian Bosworth
Ryan Leaf
Any football fan could add to the list

Red Ryder on August 8, 2007 at 8:35 am

Oh please, don’t come at me with that bullshit “two high profile white guys” line; the comparisons aren’t the same. Both Bosworth and Leaf were dumped not because they were accused of crimes, but because they were just rubbish. Next time, pick a better point of reference.
You posed the question,
“Do you mean to say that if a white athlete does something wrong, “no one” calls him a thug, but this world is freely used when it could apply to a Black man?”
Actually, yes and i don’t mean to say it, i am saying it. Hockey players are perhaps some of the most unprofessional, ill-tempered, violent, savage idiots in the entire spectrum of sports who fight like brutal thugs. In fact, it’s well known by virtually anyone who watches sports so don’t pull no fucking “race card” here. Just this year, Chris Simon injured a fellow player (and could have put his life in dire risk but for where he got the guy), yet how many people were calling him (and other criminal white athletes) “thugs”? Yet NBA players fight and get called some of the worst invective short of nigger.
Is dogfighting “immoral” and “criminal”? Yes. But you know what? So is attacking referees and other athletes (Simon, Bertuzzi, Shore), using steroids -an illegal drug -(Giambi, McGwire, Clemens), killing your wife and kid (Benoit).
I could go on and on but i guess my point is clear. Yet how many refer to them as thugs, punks and what have you? All that is ever said is “they’re troubled guys”. My!!!
You know this and i know you’ll deny it all you want but i don’t care. The “thug” word is a racially loaded one and you can see it. Whether or not you’d admit it isn’t my prerogative.
I don’t know about all this talk of Vick being the luckiest guy for his contract given he’s exciting (Don’t even get me starting on the racial connotations of “exciting” and black quarterbacks) but he hasn’t done anything wrong for being a rich, young, talented black athlete. I know it makes the blood of some staunch racists out there boil but deal with it, okay? Just don’t convict a man who hasn’t been tried yet.
Just my opinion.

Emperor on August 8, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Debbie,
Rabbi Bergman was one of my elementary school teachers for a couple years (a couple decades ago), and I think you’re being too harsh on him.
You’re totally right to disagree with him about his stance on this issue and on his views towards corporations as a whole, but by calling into question his qualifications as a rabbi, I think you are showing far too little respect to a learned man in a position that deserves respect. I learned much of what I did about traditional Judaism from him, and if he had any personal views different from what he was teaching at the time, he sure never brought them up in any of my classes.
His views that he publishes in a large forum are definitely fair game, but I’m sure that we can both agree that terms like “noxious Rabbi Run-Amok,” “liberal loon extraordinaire,” and claims that he doesn’t know the basic tenets of Judaism are well within what constitutes Lashon Hara (the rules against which are particularly strong when it comes to rabbis). You should never stop calling out bad *ideas* when you see them, but you should also show more humility when it comes to assaulting the character of a rabbi.
GIVEN THAT HE’S IN HIS EARLY FORTIES, I DOUBT IT’S THE SAME GUY. BUT EVEN IF IT IS, WHATEVER HE FALSELY RANTS IN THE NAME OF JUDAISM IS AN EMBARRASSMENT TO ME AND OTHERS AND IS FAIR GAME. A RABBI–ESPECIALLY A CONSERVATIVE ONE, AS HE IS–HAS SPENT, ON AVERAGE, A LOT LESS TIME LEARNING IN SCHOOL THAN I HAVE. I HAVE NO EXTRA RESPECT FOR HIM, JUST LESS OF IT, SINCE HE INVOKES JUDAISM TO EMBARRASS IT IN THE NAME OF HIS EXTREMIST VIEWS.
RABBIS ARE NOT IMMUNE FROM SCRUTINY AND CRITICISM. WOULD YOU SAY THE SAME ABOUT THE NETUREI KARTA RABBIS WHO MARCH WITH PALESTINIANS AND HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH SUPPORTERS–THAT THEY DESERVE EXTRA RESPECT BECAUSE THEY HAVE RABBINICAL DEGREES? YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF “LOSHON HARAH”–“BAD LANGUAGE” OR GOSSIP–IN JUDAISM IS NOT CORRECT. PERHAPS BECAUSE YOU LEARNED IT FROM RABBI BERGMAN. YOU MUST LEARN TO DISTINGUISH PROPERLY AND NOT MAKE DISTINCTIONS WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE. THAT I ATTACKED HIM FOR WHAT HE WROTE IS NOT PERSONAL AND IS NOT AN ASSAULT ON HIS CHARACTER. IF I SURMISED HE STEALS, CHEATS, AND IS UNFAITHFUL TO HIS WIFE, THAT WOULD BE OUT OF BOUNDS AND WOULD BE AN ATTACK ON HIS CHARACTER. CALLING HIS OUTRAGEOUS REGULAR RANTS IN THE DETROIT NEWSISTAN LOONY, EXTREMIST, AND RUN-AMOK, ARE ALL VERY APPROPRIATE AND ACCURATE.
DEBBIE SCHLUSSEL

LibertarianBulbasaur on August 8, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field