Jay M--the author of this brazen and irresponsible outrage deserves loud criticism for having the gall to write such things--ignorance is simply no excuse.

Even if someone knows nothing of Torah, to write on the subject requires at least cursory examination of the relevant facts and since rabbinic authorities are prevalent, any author expressing notions of what the Torah says is required to ask a Rabbi.  Without any due deligence, a public forum that claims to state what is Jewish can gravely misinform innocent third parties who might take such blog entries at face value. It is crystal clear no real Rabbi could agree with anything penned by this author--so his conclusions about "Jewish reasons" "Jewish tradition" the point that Jewish law is sexist and asymmetrical, etc. have no basis in fact and his conclusions fail to cite even one Jewish source--the conclusions are merely transparent to the author alone.  

The most obvious example of the prohibition is somehow dismissed out of hand by the author:  Devarim 23:18:  "There shall not be a promiscuous woman among the daughters of Israel, and there shall not be a promiscuous man among the sons of Israel."   The Jewish concept of holiness is spelled repeatedly in the Torah, so many times, no reader could possibly miss it. Israel is contrasted with nations who have no such virtue and warned to never adapt the practices of those nation and most of those practices have to do sexual matters.  But it is clear that even non-Jews are instructed to refrain from the kind of sexual freedom Jewcy admires so much under the Noahide laws.  All of this is extended further to our laws prohibiting pre-marital sex (and even touching between the sexes!) and it is men, not women, who are commanded to marry so that there is no non-marital intercourse for men.  Perhaps the most famous warning in all of Torah applies to this matter specifically:  "do not follow your eyes and your heart" and Hashem extends the prohibition to make things even more explicit by specifically prohibiting sexual promiscuity during a time of war.

Ancient Israel was unique among the nations for its early ban of Temple prostitution.

The experience of King David and Solomon is understood by all to equate with no permission slip to have concubines, David was punished for his behavior.  Judaism is so chock full of standards for sexual purity, it permeates so much of Jewish law, it is one thing to ignore all of it at one's peril--it is quite another to state point blank that it does not exist. 

The author's claim that it is Paul and Christianity that created all the supposed trouble is some joke since it is the Jews who brought all of this to the world and while the Temple in Israel never had temple prostitutes, the early Church had many prostitutes, officially sanctioned by the Church for hundreds of years after Paul.

And lastly, I need to debate a point made in response by Jeffrey Weaver, namely that it is the hypocrisy of Spitzer and not his actions that is problematic.  I would argue that it matters not a whiff whether or not a Governor of a state has experience prosecuting prostitution rings and hence appears as a hypocrite.  At first, Spitzer seemed to be a Bill Clinton by claiming that it was private behavior and a private matter.  Then, he realized that it was a very much public matter with public implications.  It is the Jews, not the Christians who have always stood up to proclaim that sex is everyone's business and Spitzer's words (especially in marked contrast with Obama's failure to admit anything) easily and readily underscored his failings of his conduct.  While Jewcy writers wish to sluff off his actions as supposedly insignificant, Spitzer himself, after he was discovered, at least had the decency to admit that his conduct, in and of itself and without any context or mention of hypocrisy, was off the mark.

Something deep in his memory told him that this is the case.  He did not get that sense from Paul and Christianity--he got it from his Jewish roots. Since the perpetrator with every incentive to deny the truth sees it and admits it, we can all learn something from his demise.  

And yet this is the bottom line punchline from the author--a pure outrage:

If Jewish values mean anything, they mean that senseless war is worse
than a blowjob, and that billions of dollars of thievery and greed are
worse than a visit to a whore.

It is really amazing what people say.  I am pleased to defend the war against civilization as moral since it is very sensible but only those with dead arguments can attempt these kind of rhetorical contortions.  The subject is sexual infidelity.  What kind of man could possibly have the nerve to exclaim to his wife after being caught in a scandal getting oral sex from an intern--I did not start a senseless war or kill anyone today, it was only sex--give me credit for that!  If that is a line that could possibly work with a woman, a state or a nation--I sense it might have been tried long ago.