Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Tolerance
Message-ID: <1060@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Jun-85 21:26:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1060
Posted: Thu Jun  6 21:26:19 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Jun-85 03:47:46 EDT
References: <598@sfmag.UUCP>
Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association
Lines: 54

> 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.  [SAMET]

Are you free to define it for other people who DO diagree and see no
rational proveable basis for your notions?

>>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.

Freedom of expression is different from killing or otherwise punishing
a homosexual because you view his/her acts as "wrong".  Which is what you
are advocating.  Is your freedom of expression any different from the Nazi who
would kill or otherwise punish you?

>>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.)

Intolerance in belief of an individual ("I dislike that") is something
beyond the control of others.  Intolerance in action IS interference,
and that is what you have been advocating and what I have been discussing.

> 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.

Restrictive definition?   IT'S THE MOST LIBERAL AND OPEN DEFINITION THERE
IS!!!  The only people it excludes are those who...  Oh yeah, now I see
why YOU see it as restrictive.  What possible basis and justification
could you possibly come up for enforcement of any other system of right
and wrong?  (Please answer this, if you can.)
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr