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!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!spuxll!abnji!u1100a!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Down to Brass Tacks
Message-ID: <1236@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Jul-85 09:48:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1236
Posted: Thu Jul 18 09:48:18 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 06:25:25 EDT
References: <11605@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 93

> 	I have been following the exchange between Mr. Samet and Mr. 
> Rosen for a couple of months now.  I fail to see the relevance of either
> gentleman's arguments to the way people are going to act in the real
> world.  Those gay people who remain celibate because of the Torah's
> prohibition of homosexual acts are not suddenly going to feel free to
> engage in homosex because Mr. Rosen says that prohibition is without
> merit. [ROSENBLATT]

I would hope that they would.  If I have shown any reason for not
assuming what some people choose to assume, then they might perhaps
take that as a reason to exercise their rights as people instead of
imposing their assumptions on themselves.  Whatever they choose, it
is their right.

> Those people who practice homosexuality are not going to stop
> because Mr. Samet has revealed to them that they are violating the
> Torah -- they know that already.

I would hope not.  I would hope that they wouldn't give a damn what some
impositional moralist says.

> 	Conversely, those Jews who base their faith on the Revelation
> at Sinai are not going to change their beliefs, no matter how much Mr.
> Rosen demonstrates that these beliefs are illiberal and out of tune
> with modern American attitudes of tolerance.

What I am trying to demonstrate has little to do with the "modern
American attitudes of tolerance" you would seem to find so heinous.
What I am trying to demonstrate is the lack of rooting in actual fact
that these beliefs have, which shouldn't dissuade anyone from holding
them, but should certainly dissuade them from trying to justify imposing
it on others.

> Mr. Rosen is entitled to believe what he wants.

So are you.  And so are the gays.

> 	The fact is that Orthodox Jews have not been forming kangaroo
> Sanhedrins to try, condemn and execute gay people.  Did you hear of any
> Orthodox Jews among the cops at the Stonewall?  Are there Chassidic
> f*g-bashers?  Are Talmudists in black hats burning down gay bars on
> Rehoboth Beach, Delaware?  Of course not.  

I'm not sure what relevance this has.  Because Samet proclaimed that he's
not really out to "bash fags", he's only out to threaten them enough to
make them see HIS light, that's better than "fag-bashing"?  I don't think so.

> 	America has always had a free market.  You live where you want,
> you work where you want.  If a Jew buys the apartment building, you can
> move out.  If a homosexual is appointed as your boss, you can quit.  
> 	The same rule used to hold for the landlord and the employer.
> As recently as 1966, Californians voted overwhelmingly for "Proposition
> 14," which upheld the right of any person offering real estate for sale
> or rental to refuse to sell or rent such property to anyone whom the
> offeror, in his absolute discretion, chose to refuse.  (This particular
> amendment to the State constitution didn't last long in the courts.)
> What happened is that the American people and their leaders saw that
> the free market led to some groups of people being concentrated in 
> ghettos, in slums, in really lousy housing.  Employment discrimination
> led to some groups of people holding the most menial, dirtiest, lowest-
> paying jobs, where they could get jobs at all.  Not only that, these
> groups were groups protected by the U. S. Constitution -- races, religions.
> 	So the American people made an EXCEPTION to the free market in
> order to help get whole groups of people out of residential and employment
> ghettos.  This EXCEPTION puts the landlord or employer in America in the
> same position as the tenant or worker in Russia or the Army -- he is FORCED
> to house or employ someone against his will.  

Sorry, crude and very inappropriate analogy.  We are not talking about
"exceptions to the free market", we are talking about human rights.  Human
beings taking precedence over "free market economic rules".  (Good idea, no?)
We are denying people the "right" to impinge on other people's rights of
employment/housing/etc.  It ain't a "right" at all.

> 	I support this exception to the free market policy.  But each time
> some new group wants to force people to house or hire its members, I say 
> that there is a heavy burden on that group to justify making another 
> exception to the tradition American "willing-buyer/willing-seller" rule.
> Are group members living in slums comparable to the old-law tenements
> where Jews lived in 1920 New York, or the rat-infested slums where Black
> people live in Baltimore today?  Are they shining shoes, or scrubbing
> floors, or washing dishes, or pushing pushcarts for a living?  Or can
> they find a decent home and a high-paying job without FORCING Mr. Samet
> to do business with them?  

You really do miss the idea behind human rights.  The idea is NOT to
rewrite laws to "protect" each new "group".  The idea is that you
support the rights of a group because NO group (not even yours!)  should
be so discriminated against!  The idea is that you are seeking human rights
for ALL people, not for "groups".
-- 
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
	Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr