Citizens aren’t a militia
Regarding Aaron Rubin’s latest letter to the editor (“Guns are needed,” Aug. 19), I would offer these comments:
The Second Amendment does not simply say “a militia,” but specifies “a well-regulated militia.” There is nothing well regulated about individual citizens having guns for their own private use or protection.
In the case of a disaster or uprising for which armed participation is needed, who will call up a militia made up of these individuals? Who will they be? What kind of regulation will they undergo or observe? Who will train them? Who will direct them where to go?
Mr. Rubin wrote, “The Second Amendment is about communities protecting themselves.” Yes, but communities behaving in a communal way as members of an organized militia, not as individuals acting on their own. I see a world of difference between these two entities and great danger in ignoring that difference.
We already have a well-regulated militia, capable of being called up in times of disaster, riots or other situations that are out of control. They are called the National Guard. They are trained and disciplined, and they fight as a cohesive unit, not as individuals reacting to chaos or danger on their own.
Mr. Rubin’s image of two neighbors standing shoulder to shoulder, at least one of them with a gun, does not present a reassuring picture for the community at large.
Stephanie Friedman | Berkeley
The language of the time
As many have learned in studying Torah, and in other scholarly pursuits, the language used at the time it was written or verbalized does not have the same meaning as the word or phrase does now.
Even the formative documents produced during the birth of this country, a mere 240 years ago, show this to be the case.
In Jack Kessler’s online comment to J. (“From the web,” Aug. 12), he generally describes a “well-regulated” militia as meaning “well subjected to regulation.” However, in the language used during the period when the Second Amendment was written in the late 1700s, the meaning was “well-trained.”
Charles Drucker | Pacifica
Don’t rebuild the Temple
Last week J. ran a frightening article about efforts to rebuild the Temple (“Jerusalem group’s first priority: Build a third temple,” Aug. 26).
The article cited Rabbi Yuval Cherlow, who seemed to temporize, saying that the rebuilding of the Temple would be good, but not before creating a virtuous society.
For various reasons, including that it would require the destruction of the Al-Aksa mosque, such construction would have catastrophic consequences. Accordingly, Moshe Dayan ceded religious authority over the Temple Mount to Muslim authorities. This controversial decision was buttressed by Jewish religious authorities who forbade Jews to enter the area, lest we inadvertently defile the site.
Our religious leaders should affirmatively disavow any attempt to rebuild the Temple.
Judaism has a complex relationship with its past. We admire the patriarchs and Moses, who all sacrificed animals. Our transformation from a sacrificial cult to a religion based on prayer was borne of tragedy, but the rabbis’ transformation of the nature of Jewish prayer was profoundly positive. Who wants to return to animal sacrifice as our form of worship?
Before engaging in political fights about rights to the Temple Mount, let’s define what the Jewish interest is. For that our religious leaders must reject rebuilding the Temple.
Yonkel Goldstein | San Carlos
More details on ’36 Games
I read with great interest your article about Helene Mayer, who taught German and fencing at Mills College in Oakland (“In 1936 Games, a Mills College teacher with Jewish roots won silver for Nazi Germany,” Aug. 12). Actually, Mayer was the only Jewish member of the German Olympic team at the 1936 Berlin “Nazi” Games.
It is true that German Jewish high jumper Gretel Bergmann was selected as a member of the German team, but at the last minute the Nazis replaced her on the team with Dora Ratjen. Later, it was discovered that Ratjen was a man!
Mayer won the silver medal in fencing for Hitler’s Germany and saluted with a heil Hitler on the podium. The gold medal was won by Hungary’s Ilona Elek, and the bronze by Austrian Ellen Preis.
It is worth mentioning that all three women were Jewish.
George Lazar | Piedmont
In clear violation of Olympic spirit, values
Eighty years after Jewish American athletes Marty Glickman and Sam Stoller were denied the opportunity to compete in the 4×100-meter relay at the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin in a shameful concession to the Games’ Nazi hosts, and 44 years after the Munich massacre of 11 Israelis by Palestinian terrorists at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro likewise were tarnished by anti-Semitism and anti-Israel hate.
First, the head of the Lebanese delegation refused to allow the Israeli team to join them on a bus to the opening ceremonies (“Lebanese block Israelis from riding Olympic bus,” Aug. 12).
Then, a Saudi judoka forfeited her first-round match to avoid facing an Israeli, Gili Cohen, in the second round. Finally, Egyptian judoka Islam El Shehaby refused to shake Or Sasson’s hand after the Israeli defeated him. (Commendably, the Brazilian crowd booed the Egyptian’s unsportsmanlike behavior.)
This is hardly the first time Israelis have been treated in this manner. At the 1968 Summer Games in Mexico City, Morocco’s soccer team refused to play Israel and was replaced by Ghana, which Israel defeated. At the 2004 Summer Games in Athens, Iranian judoka Arash Miresmaeili disqualified himself to avoid facing Israel’s Udi Vaks. And at the 2012 Summer Games in London, Iranian judoka Javad Mahjoub withdrew (citing what was believed to be a bogus illness) to avoid facing Israel’s Ariel Ze’evi.
It is time for the International Olympic Committee to sanction countries and individuals that act in this reprehensible manner, in clear violation of the values and spirit that the Olympic Games ostensibly aspire to represent.
Stephen A. Silver | San Francisco