Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!drutx!ihnp4!ihlpm!cher
From: cher@ihlpm.UUCP (cherepov)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Premises,Premises,Premises,...
Message-ID: <280@ihlpm.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 15:54:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpm.280
Posted: Thu Jun  6 15:54:05 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 7-Jun-85 04:01:38 EDT
References: <593@sfmag.UUCP> <1048@pyuxd.UUCP> <597@sfmag.UUCP> <1059@pyuxd.UUCP
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 28

While agreeing with Rich Rosen on value of Mosaic laws I do not
see any merit in his philosophical premises:
He is forcing on Samet comparison of Biblical intolerance
of homosexuals and Nazi intolerance of Jews.

I see critical distinctions - Nazi view of Jews was based on 
theory of superiority. If theory is invalid Nazism would have to 
come up with different reason for anti-semitism.
My point is that refuting Aryan superiority is very easy compared
to refuting Torah.
In fact Jewish inferiority is falsifiable within the framework of
Nazism.
Homosexuality is definitely a sin within framework of Judaism.

From Rich:
> "Internal self-consistency" is always the best a religion can hope to
> achieve in attempting to prove itself.  

I'd say it's the best any morality system can hope to do.
I do not see any other yardstick.

Although stuff like "your right stops where mine starts, everybody's
equal,..." appeals to me, it would only be one person's view.
Unless you want to vote on it...
Or to quote Woody Allen 
- Morals are subjective.
- Subjectivity is objective...
			Mike Cherepov