A clandestine undertaking on behalf of Israel, the Jets and the Jews.

 
Moral Equivalence

I've been disturbed and disappointed by news reports describing people who have violently looted electronic stores and gun shops in New Orleans as "looters" and identically describing people who have taken food and drinks from stores in New Orleans as "looters."

For example, a report in today's New York Post states that "people brazenly ransacked stores for food, beer, clothing, appliances - and guns" and refers to people who were "looting a grocery store."

Is the reporter unable to understand the moral distinction between taking guns and appliances - and maybe also beer - and taking food and drinks?

I looked up "looting" in a dictionary. The definition was stated to be "the activity of stealing from shops during a violent event."

Clearly, some people in New Orleans are looting, but many who are described as looters do not fall within the definition at all.

There is nothing violent or morally wrong about taking food and water from a store if such food and water is necessary for the survival or health of oneself or one's family. In the best case, if it is at all possible, the person taking the food or water will later compensate the store owner for the food or water that was necessarily taken.

Both Jewish law and common law recognize this.
posted on 9/01/2005