On April 16, I got an email from somebody calling himself the "Satmarer Chosid" poking fun of Rabbi Kalmanson‘s emotional speech about the rebbe (Rabbi Menachem Schneerson).
On April 17, I got more emails criticizing Rabbi Kalmanson.
I surfed the web and found a website where he got a ton of criticism.
On April 17, I emailed Rabbi Kalmanson for a response to these negative things said about him.
I did not hear back.
Today I finally got to speak with Rabbi Kalmanson.
He said he never received my email of April 17.
Luke: "I wanted to get your point of view."
Rabbi Kalmanson: "First you put all this shmutz about me on there and now you’re asking me for my point of view?"
"I would assume that one would try to get a second side or try to check something out unless there’s a motive here for all this?
"Anybody who is in the public eye as much as I am, literally traveling the globe, I have become a lightning rod. One item that you have there can you back up factually? Nothing. I challenge you to do that. Not that I have anything against you. I’m just trying to understand. What are the motives of this story?"
Luke: "I write a blog on Jewish life. The only motive is to try to find out what is true."
Rabbi Kalmanson: "All that you have there is dirt upon dirt upon dirt. You haven’t said one thing that may resemble some truths. If you were going to go looking, I’m sure you’d find some positives as well."
Luke: "I’m willing to go through things point by point."
We talk about my missing email of April 17.
Rabbi Kalmanson: "I’ve been dealing with media for many many years. I’ve been in the public eye for 40 years. It was brought to my attention last night by somebody. That was the first I’ve seen of it."
"Is there anything that you’ve written that you have an ounce of back-up? Even a shred?"
Luke: "I believe that all of it is accurate."
Rabbi Kalmanson: "Where do you have it accurate that the rebbe did or did not send me to serve under Rabbi [Zelig] Sharfstein?
"The rebbe sent me to Cincinnati. Rabbi Sharfstein never came to Cincinnati as a shaliach (emissary of the rebbe). Rabbi Sharfstein got married in 1956. Through Torah Mesorah as a work referral service, he came to the Chofetz Chaim Hebrew Day School in Cincinnati to become a teacher. He did not succeed. He became a principal to finish off the year. He did not succeed. Rabbi Silver, who was the chief rabbi at the time, took him in as a kosher supervisor. There he remained until an issue occurred.
"I was the one who saw to it that he got promoted to the rabbi of Nevalde Yeah (sp?). Nobody else did.
"The people who dealt with myself and the rebbe at the time have passed away. You may have heard the name of Rabbi Shmuel Dovid Reichitz (sp?)? He was an emissary of the rebbe to go to Rabbi Sharfstein’s father-in-law to not stand in the way of this particular shaliach [referring to Rabbi Kalmanson’s Cincinnati appointment for the rebbe]."
"I don’t really care. I just want to know what motive somebody in Los Angeles has to come forward and besmirch somebody.
"Let me ask you: If I am this big of a bumpkin, how come I am traveling around the globe speaking on behalf of issues of Chabad? Why would anyone emulate somebody who defied the rebbe? In Chabad, that would be the worst negative that you could talk about. Somebody defied the rebbe’s instructions? Would somebody in Chabad emulate a person like that?"
Luke: "That’s a good point."
Rabbi Kalmanson: "I travel to Israel, Australia, England, around the globe, all 50 states. If I was as big of a bum as you make me out to be? If I defied the rebbe’s will, I don’t think anybody would bother with me. I would be laid away somewhere like many other people. There are thousands of shalichim (emissaries for Chabad) around the world. Some are quieter than others. Some are just going on with their routine daily lives and nobody remembers that they are there with the exception of something occurs."
"Every person who is high profile has enemies. You become a lightning rod."
"Can you tell me one place where I have wasted money? And have needed someone else to manage my money? That was a statement in the blog."
Luke: "I quote from another blog that you are the only person to open and then close two educational institutions."
Rabbi: "Really? First of all, the yeshiva is open. I don’t know what you’re talking about. On the other hand, I will show you hundreds of institutions around the world. This is no different than any other business. If a person sits and does nothing, you can’t fail.
"The girls’ school didn’t close because of failure. My wife who was running it got breast cancer. She couldn’t run it at that time. That nobody’s telling you.
"That there are 15 or 20 other institutions in the city that are open under my auspices, that nobody talks about. That are very successfully running."
"Don’t you see through the dirt and the garbage?"
Luke: "I’m hearing what you’re saying and I’m taking careful notes."
"So the only schools that have closed?"
Rabbi: "Let me explain to you something… We have a successful Chabad house in the Amberley area. That’s the regional headquarters. We have a successful Chabad house in Mason and on the campus [of Ohio State?], we have a successful institution in Blue Ash, in Dayton, we have a Russian center, we have several synagogues running here… We have a mesivta — a yeshiva high school running. We have a cheder. We have a successful summer camp with 300 or 400 children. We have a separate winter camp. It’s the only American Camping Association accredited camp in this region.
"Just from this alone, tell me where my failures are?"
Luke: "I could not. Let me come back to you. Let me talk to my sources."
Rabbi: "You shouldn’t be taking anonymous garbage. If somebody is bold enough to make an accusation against somebody, let them stand up and say it openly. If I get mad at you, I can call some other blogger and make anonymous accusations against you. Obviously I don’t have to live up to any standards. If I want to besmirch somebody, I’ll do it straight to their face."
"I could call you up and say that so-and-so slept with somebody’s wife. Are you going to then print it? If you want to have some semblance of credibility, things should be checked out, or at least call the other side before you put it on the blog and see what he has to say. You can be like a journalist and provide both sides."
"From what I’ve told you now, you can check me out. Check to see how many institutions are running successfully under me."
Luke: "I’m going to do what you say and then I’ll come back to you."
‘The Torah’s Antipathy To Equality’
Dennis Prager was asked to contribute to a men’s commentary on the Torah. His essay is on the Torah’s antipathy to equality. For instance, the doctrine of choseness (that the Jews are God’s chosen people) is contrary to equality.
Listen to Dennis 30 minutes into this show.
Dennis Prager writes:
Americans seem mesmerized by the word "change." And, by golly, they sure got it last week from the California Supreme Court. It is difficult to imagine a single social change greater than redefining marriage from opposite sex to include members of the same sex.
Nothing imaginable — leftward or rightward — would constitute as radical a change in the way society is structured as this redefining of marriage for the first time in history: Not another Prohibition, not government taking over all health care, not changing all public education to private schools, not America leaving the United Nations, not rescinding the income tax and replacing it with a consumption tax. Nothing.
Actresses Ellen DeGeneres (R) and Portia de Rossi arrive for the Vanity Fair Oscar Party in West Hollywood in this February 25, 2007 file photo. DeGeneres annouced during a taping of "The Ellen Degeneres Show" May 15, 2008 that she plans to marry her long-time partner, actress Portia de Rossi, after a California court ruling allowing gay marriage REUTERS/Chris Pizzello/Files (UNITED STATES)
Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison.
And what is particularly amazing is that virtually none of those who support this decision — let alone the four compassionate justices — acknowledge this. The mantra of the supporters of this sea change in society is that it’s no big deal. Hey, it doesn’t affect any heterosexuals’ marriage, so what’s the problem?
This lack of acknowledgment — or even awareness — of how society-changing is this redefinition of marriage is one reason the decision was made. To the four compassionate ones — and their millions of compassionate supporters — allowing same-sex marriage is nothing more than what courts did to end legal bans on interracial marriage. The justices and their supporters know not what they did. They think that all they did was extend a "right" that had been unfairly denied to gays.
Another reason for this decision is arrogance. First, the arrogance of four individuals to impose their understanding of what is right and wrong on the rest of society. And second is the arrogance of the four compassionate ones in assuming that all thinkers, theologians, philosophers, religions and moral systems in history were wrong, while they and their supporters have seen a moral light never seen before. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system — East or West — since antiquity ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.
That is one reason the argument that this decision is the same as courts undoing legal bans on marriages between races is false. No major religion — not Judaism, not Christianity, not Islam, not Buddhism — ever banned interracial marriage. Some religions have banned marriages with members of other religions. But since these religions allowed anyone of any race to convert, i.e., become a member of that religion, the race or ethnicity of individuals never mattered with regard to marriage. American bans on interracial marriages were not supported by any major religious or moral system; those bans were immoral aberrations, no matter how many religious individuals may have supported them. Justices who overthrew bans on interracial marriages, therefore, had virtually every moral and religious value system since ancient times on their side. But justices who overthrow the ban on same-sex marriage have nothing other their hubris and their notions of compassion on their side.
Since the secular age began, the notion that one should look to religion — or to any past wisdom — for one’s values has died. Thus, the modern attempts to undo the Judeo-Christian value system as the basis of America’s values, and to disparage the Founders as essentially morally flawed individuals (They allowed slavery, didn’t they?). The modern secular liberal knows that he is not only morally superior to conservatives; he is morally superior to virtually everyone who ever lived before him.
Which leads to a third reason such a sea change could be so cavalierly imposed by four individuals — the modern supplanting of wisdom with compassion as the supreme guide in forming society’s values and laws. Just as for religious fundamentalists, "the Bible says" ends discussion, for liberal fundamentalists, "compassion says" ends discussion.
If this verdict stands, society as we have known it will change. The California Supreme Court and its millions of supporters are playing with fire. And it will eventually burn future generations in ways we can only begin to imagine.
Outside of the privacy of their homes, young girls will be discouraged from imagining one day marrying their prince charming — to do so would be declared "heterosexist," morally equivalent to racist. Rather, they will be told to imagine a prince or a princess. Schoolbooks will not be allowed to describe marriage in male-female ways alone. Little girls will be asked by other girls and by teachers if they want one day to marry a man or a woman.
The sexual confusion that same-sex marriage will create among young people is not fully measurable. Suffice it to say that, contrary to the sexual know-nothings who believe that sexual orientation is fixed from birth and permanent, the fact is that sexual orientation is more of a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive homosexuality. Much of humanity — especially females — can enjoy homosexual sex. It is up to society to channel polymorphous human sexuality into an exclusively heterosexual direction — until now, accomplished through marriage. But that of course is "heterosexism," a bigoted preference for man-woman erotic love, and therefore to be extirpated from society.
Any advocacy of man-woman marriage alone will be regarded morally as hate speech, and shortly thereafter it will be deemed so in law. continued…
From Dennis Prager’s blog: