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 (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Re: What is really important?
Message-ID: <1247@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 21:25:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1247
Posted: Thu Jul 18 21:25:30 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 08:25:15 EDT
References: <335@mhuxi.UUCP> <453@osu-eddie.UUCP> <1803@aecom.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 71

> 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.

Why you insist on posting your ideas again and again is also beyond me.
Does that mean your doing so is without merit?

> ( 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 ).

If that's all I show TO YOU, it says something about your own intolerance.
The only thing I show intolerance for is belief systems that threaten people's
lives and freedom and rights to do non-destructive things as they wish.
Real heinous and horrible and "intolerant" positions I offer.

> 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.

Why they insist on posting these non-force-advocating positions again and
again is beyond me.  Unless they're trying to non-force them down people's
throats through "convincing" them.  

> 	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. 

Funny, that came from another person, not me (nice of you to mention that).
But you had said in an earlier article that I disagree with EVERYONE on this
net.  Clearly the person who posted that remark about Samet got fed up and
emitted his pentup frustration with Samet's attitudes all at once.  I do it
a little at a time.  I guess you were wrong about "everyone" holding your
party line position.  Others also find such intolerance abominable.  Some
have the gall to actually say so.  How awful.

> 	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?

It wasn't a nice thing to say.  But surely claiming that capital punishment
for homosexuality wasn't nice either.  (I know, the Torah says so.)  And the
fact these people hold the extremely undefendable double standard that a
group that advocated capital punishment for being Jewish is unconscionable,
while Jews advocating capital punishment for homosexuality is not (just because
a book says so) is all the more appalling.

> 	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 ).

You're right.  I doubt that you would listen to the other side of the
discussion.  I do agree that the discussion has gotten overheated.
The subject is a hot topic.  Justifying degrading a whole group of people
should evoke such discussion.  Actually, it should be obvious to all
how wrong that is, but since it isn't, it's right that discussion should
be heated with those who would justify it.
-- 
Providing the mininum daily adult requirement of sacrilege...
				Rich Rosen 	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr