Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site aecom.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!aecom!teitz From: teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Re: What is really important? Message-ID: <1803@aecom.UUCP> Date: Wed, 17-Jul-85 13:41:54 EDT Article-I.D.: aecom.1803 Posted: Wed Jul 17 13:41:54 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 19-Jul-85 01:49:51 EDT References: <335@mhuxi.UUCP> <453@osu-eddie.UUCP> Organization: Albert Einstein Coll. of Med., NY Lines: 85 > In article <335@mhuxi.UUCP> dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) writes: > >Note that the controversy about the orthopractic view of homosexuality > >has generated much more net traffic than my posting about jewish singles. > >Why? > > Because Samet's head is so far up his bigoted ass that it has taken almost > all the Jews on the net to try to get it out. Still no success. I hope he > doesn't have any kids. I leave the net for a few weeks and I miss all the juicy articles. Oh, well, I guess I'll have to get into the fray now, in the middle of everything. From what I've seen of the articles about homosexuality, and I admit I missed the original postings, we have an argument as to whether we can force our ideas on anyone, whatever the ideas, whoever the person. On one side w have Avi Feldblum and Yitz Samet who say the Torah forbids homo- sexuality, but that we cannot force anyone to abide by this ruling. On the other side we have, as usual, Rich Rosen claiming: how dare anyone force anyone else to do anything, especially since the Torah is meaningless. So far everything is fine. Nothing we haven't had before. Rich is always trying to tell us that the Torah is a good novel, but nothing else. Why Rich insists on posting this idea again and again is beyond me. ( Rich will say he's trying to show how intollerent we are by sticking to our belief in a book when there is no objective proof to this belief. All he shows is how intollerant he is of other people's beliefs ). Also, a usual, Rich is arguing a point not even argued here. How can we force etc, etc. The proponents of the observant attitude said that they are not advocating force here. But some people just don't bother reading articles carefully. With the article I am responding to we have finally sunk to our lowest level. Invariably someone comes out and starts slinging mud. From what I had seen of the discussion so far, it was getting a little hot, but no real defamation. Now, we get someone posting about another person's toilet problems. And then, just to finish Mr. Samet off for good, a prayer that he never have children. I ask you, the readers of this net, is this what we are all about? Has N.R.J and Judaism in general just become a forum and way of insulting one another? Does the author of the article to which I am responding feel better, now that he has insulted Mr. Samet? Does anyone feel better? We can have interesting discussions, indeed heated discussions, about anything in Judaism, even the validity of the Torah ( although most of the discussions would be fruitless, since those discussing have no intention of listening to the other side of the discussion ). But, when we do sit down to discuss articles, we must be gentlemanly ( and gentlewomanly, for those who get insulted about by the quirks of language ). There is no need to insult an adversary. It does not enhance the argument one iota. In fact, it tarnishes the argument. Do you insult the other person because you have no answer to his query, and you wish to deflect attention from that point? We are now in a period known as the Three Weeks, a period of mourning for the entire Jewish people. These weeks are the time when in 69 CE ( or 68 or 70 depending on whose calculartions you use ) the Romans broke the walls of Jerusalem and marched on the Temple. On the last day of this period, the 9th of Av, the Temple was destroyed. It is written in the Talmud that the TEmple was destroyed due to unwarranted hatred. The groups in Jerusalem couldn't get together to form a unified front against the Roamns, and in fact, aided the Romans. The Talmud continues: the Temple will not be rebuilt until the Jews can get together again. We can have discussions about the different attitudes to Judaism. We must be careful not to make these dicussions personal vendettas against others on this net. Likewise, we should not use this forum as a means to show our assumed superior knowledge of Torah or other subjects. We should use this arena to furter tolerance of Judaism amongst ourselves, and tolerance of others, too. Tolerance does not mean that you can do whatever you want and you are right in doing it. I can say that you are wrong in doing something. I just can't stop you from doing it. I will tolerate your actions, but Ithink that they are wrong, for whatever reason. You may think that my reasoning is wrong. Fine. But you must tolerate me in my thinking. Hoping that everyone will take a lesson from the bitter one we as a nation learned more than 19 centuries ago, Eliyahu Teitz.