Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sfmag.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!samet
From: samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Tolerance
Message-ID: <598@sfmag.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Jun-85 19:17:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: sfmag.598
Posted: Wed Jun  5 19:17:57 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Jun-85 02:18:22 EDT
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Summit, NJ
Lines: 46

> >     Rich, you leave yourself wide open to the same criticism. So far,
> >  you have shown as much intollerance on this net as anyone else. But your's
> >  is of course in the holy name of tolerance. Why is tolerance so holy ?
> Precisely because it is the only way different groups of human beings can
> expect to share a planet without mass destruction.  If that's not important,
> then just say so.

Yes,  avoiding  destruction  is  important.  However,   not   all
intolerance  leads to mass destruction. Absolutizing tolerance IS
making it holy.

Also, many believe  that  tolerating  immoral  practices  invites
Divine  retribution  on society. The Talmud cites homosexual sins
as  one  of  the  reasons  for  the  Flood,  and  associates  the
destruction  of  Sodom with sodomy. You are free to disagree, but
recognize that I am just as free to define what I consider to  be
destructive to society and the world, and to disagree with you. 

> Who was it that said "extremism in the defense of liberty is a virtue"?

The freedom to express condemnation towards practices you view as
wrong is also a liberty.

> Above I have stated the difference between being intolerant of people who are
> doing nothing to interfere in others' lives and being intolerant of people who
> are doing PLENTY to interfere in others' lives...

1 - You are virtually equating tolerance  with  non-interference.
Holding   an   intolerant  view  towards  certain  practices,  or
expressing that view, is not the same as interference in  peoples
actions.  You  can  be  intolerant  without  violating individual
liberties. One can believe  in  civil  liberties  and  still  not
tolerate  views and practices. The ACLU can be intolerant towards
Nazi beliefs  (and condemn them) and still defend  their  liberty
to hold those beliefs. (I am not an ACLU-nik, just pointing out a
logical distinction.)

2 - Your idea of wrong is not hurting others and not  interfering
with their lives.  Other people have different ideas of right and
wrong.  They  don't  have  to  go  along  with  your  restrictive
definition, and they don't have to prove their definitions to you
(or anyone) before they express them. While  you  condemn  others
for  believing  that  they  have a monopoly on truth, you seem to
believe that about yourself.

					Yitzchok Samet