fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (07/27/85)
Ari Gross: >> Rosen, you seem to also be a regular contributor to net.religion.christian. >>Why not decide which religion you really belong to and stick to it ??? Richard Brower: > Is this a statement to the effect of "If you won't play this game > by my rules, pick up your marbels and go home"? Not Ari's rules; not my rules; but net.religion.jewish's rules. > I have seen no evidence that Rich Rosen believes that he "belongs" > to any religion, and in fact have seen much evidence which would > indicate that he believes that such a "belonging" is not rational > without objective evidence to the basic tenats of any religion. Then it is not rational for him to participate in net.religion.jewish. > And he rightly challenges all religions in appropriate places. Wrong! Net.religion.jewish is NOT the appropiate place to challange Judaism. Rich Rosen powerfully defends the general anti-religion point of view. Since his articles apply to religion in general, and not specifically to Judaism, they do not belong in this newsgroup. Frank Silbermann
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (07/28/85)
I agree with the sentiments expressed by Silberman, et. al.:
n.r.j is not the place for people to question the underpinnings
of Judaism or of religious belief in general. It seems perfectly
appropriate to see discussion or even disagreement about matters,
but only within a Jewish framework. This is amorphous enough to
encompass a wide spectrum of opinion, but it seems to me that
Rosen is quite clearly speaking outside of this framework. Not that
his opinions are without value, but there are more appropriate
newsgroups like net.religion.
Incidentally, we had a similar problem in net.motss last year.
Take a tip from those who have seen it before: be firm, redirect the
postings, and finally, in the face of intransigence, simply ignore
any further material from the offender. By refusing to take such
postings seriously, the incentive to post is greatly reduced.
By the way, I don't wish to have this seen as a personal attack on
Rich Rosen. It is foremost an issue of civility and appropriateness
of newsgroups.
--
/Steve Dyer
{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbnccv.ARPAmatt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (07/30/85)
> Net.religion.jewish is NOT the appropiate place to challange Judaism. > Rich Rosen powerfully defends the general anti-religion point of view. > Since his articles apply to religion in general, and not specifically to > Judaism, they do not belong in this newsgroup. > > Frank Silbermann Rich Rosen's viewpoints belong in this newsgroup. The word "Judaism" can be, and has been, used to mean two things. The first is, what nearly all Jews believed until about two hundred years before my time (BMT). The second is, what most Jews (and especially their leaders) believe today, in Rosenblatt's time (IRT). BMT Judaism is based on the Revelation at Sinai. It continues, and (bs"d) thrives today, as Orthodox Judaism, true to Torah miSinai. But the majority of American Jews practice IRT Judaism. For, every one of the non-Orthodox branches of Judaism has discarded Revelation. The Reformers (2nd century BMT) and the Reconstructionists have done this openly. The Conservative theologians, if not yet their followers, have "buried Revelation quietly, like a thief in the night." If Jews are not to live by the Torah, then what are they to live by? Well, Jews are not stupid, and one thing they have noticed is that the Gentiles are going to hate us and try to persecute us whether we are religious or not, simply because it is a law that Esau hates Jacob. So a philosophy that encourages tolerance of everything and anything that does not harm other people is a good one to preach and live by, for the very practical reason that maybe, maybe, the Gentile will buy it and live by it too. This is the philosophy of liberalism, and so far it has worked in America. (It seemed to do OK in Weimar Germany, too.) And THIS IS WHAT MOST AMERICAN JEWS BELIEVE IN. Whenever there is a conflict between BMT Judaism and liberalism, "they always choose liberalism." The one common thread in the development (Durchfuhrung) of the vast Conservative Movement, both before and after Marshall Sklare's classic analysis was published in my Bar Mitzvah year, has been the discarding of Torah values wherever liberal values conflict with them. And in their eyes, why not? If Revelation is a "myth," if the written and oral Torah are only the work of a group of men (and foreigners, at that -- not even Americans!), then surely a group of men today, with our incomparably better knowledge of the world (it's gotta be better -- it's Scientific!), can modify and discard whatever they see fit, especially if doing so might make Esau like us a little more, or make us feel a little less guilty for all the terrible persecutions that (everyone knows) the Jews, and especially the white straight male American capitalistic imperialistic Jews, have been engaged in for millenia. That's Jewish liberalism, and that's most of American "Judaism" in Rosenblatt's time (IRT). And that's what Rich Rosen has been advocating in his articles. Would that it were not so! Would that all those who equate Judaism with "tikkun olam" would remember that the complete phrase is "tikkun olam b'malchus Sh-ddai"! Would that all Jews returned to Torah-true, Orthodox Judaism, so that BMT and IRT meant the same thing, viz., wholehearted t'shuvah and acceptance of ol malchus Shamayim, before it's too late and they assimilate and intermarry themselves into stam Gentiles. But in today's America, Rich Rosen speaks for the majority of intellectual Jews. It seems there is no hope for anything said in this newsgroup to be m'karev Mr. Rosen -- I doubt that he would heed even a bas kol. But his arguments are the ones that must be refuted if the Orthodox in net.religion.jewish hope to be m'karevim the poor sheep who are following the liberal Jewish mis-leaders on the path to spiritual destruction. We ignore him at our peril, for it is arguments like his that mislead orders of magnitude more young Jews than the blandishments of the missionaries or the Moonies -- they simply drop out of Judaism entirely when they get to college and their professors reveal that the Bible is a "myth," or even earlier when their secondary school curriculum, written by New York secular humanist Jews, ignores or laughs at "outdated superstition," or even earlier than THAT when their "rabbis" tell them (chas v'chalilah) that "you don't have to believe in G-d to be Jewish." What I would like to see is an end to name-calling and insults on the net. Rich Rosen (and others who use bad language) ought to be intelligent enough to realize that such language only detracts from the efficacy of their arguments, in the sense that they put off readers who might otherwise be receptive. There are all sorts of epithets, in Hebrew, Aramaic, Yiddish, and even Greek, that are used to describe people with liberal, skeptical beliefs that run counter to our Torah. The religious have refrained from tarring Mr. Rosen with these epithets, no matter how exasperated they have become with his stubbornness in clinging to his liberal position. I would request that Mr. Rosen similarly refrain from name-calling and insult, no matter how exasperated he may become with the stubbornness of the religious in holding positions that to him seem outrageous. Otherwise, Keep at it, Mr. Rosen! -- Matt Rosenblatt "Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide in the strife of Truth and Falsehood for the good or evil side. . . . Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside till the multitude make virtue of the faith they once denied." -- Lowell
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/02/85)
> Rich Rosen's viewpoints belong in this newsgroup. > It seems there is no hope for anything said in this newsgroup to > be m'karev Mr. Rosen -- I doubt that he would heed even a bas kol. > But his arguments are the ones that must be refuted if the Orthodox > in net.religion.jewish hope to be m'karevim the poor sheep who are > following the liberal Jewish mis-leaders on the path to spiritual > destruction. We ignore him at our peril, for it is arguments like > his that mislead orders of magnitude more young Jews than the > blandishments of the missionaries or the Moonies -- they simply > drop out of Judaism entirely when they get to college and their > professors reveal that the Bible is a "myth," or even earlier when > their secondary school curriculum, written by New York secular > humanist Jews, ignores or laughs at "outdated superstition," or > even earlier than THAT when their "rabbis" tell them (chas v'chalilah) > that "you don't have to believe in G-d to be Jewish." [MATT ROSENBLATT] Obviously I take a diametric opposite position to what you have to say. Obviously I think that it is YOU who are the "poor sheep", that "myth" and "outdated superstition" are ACCURATE words to describe your beliefs and that the quotes are not at all necessary. The professors and thinkers who show people this way of thinking have a very powerful tool on their side---logic and reason, from which comes real knowledge. What you call knowledge (of the "truth" of the Bible and of God) has its roots in supposition and presumption: remove the assumption of the existence of god in the nature you describe it to be, and the rest of the belief system (not necessarily ALL moral tenets, but the bulk of the capricious ones) falls to the ground. You're absolutely right, it is arguments like mine that you must face as more and more people see through the cloak of presumption and wishful thinking, and I have sincere doubts about your ability to show hard proof that contradicts any of this. > What I would like to see is an end to name-calling and insults on > the net. Rich Rosen (and others who use bad language) ought to be > intelligent enough to realize that such language only detracts from > the efficacy of their arguments, in the sense that they put off > readers who might otherwise be receptive. I'm just wondering what "bad language" you are referring to that *I* offered. Care to document instances IN CONTEXT??? > There are all sorts of > epithets, in Hebrew, Aramaic, Yiddish, and even Greek, that are used > to describe people with liberal, skeptical beliefs that run counter > to our Torah. The religious have refrained from tarring Mr. Rosen > with these epithets, no matter how exasperated they have become with > his stubbornness in clinging to his liberal position. I would > request that Mr. Rosen similarly refrain from name-calling and insult, > no matter how exasperated he may become with the stubbornness of the > religious in holding positions that to him seem outrageous. When you show examples of my language that you find offensive (other than just phrases that disagree with your position---or is that your idea of "bad"?) that exceed the badness of "bug off" or other threatening little jibes, I'll refrain from using them. I can't refrain from doing what I don't do. Sorry. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (08/03/85)
>Wrong! Net.religion.jewish is NOT the appropiate place to challange Judaism. >Rich Rosen powerfully defends the general anti-religion point of view. >Since his articles apply to religion in general, and not specifically to >Judaism, they do not belong in this newsgroup. As a general rule, I would agree to the preposition that there is no point in attacking religious beliefs. However, when the religion is applied to those who do not accept its premise, it is then becomes open to attack. Since the orthodox aim is to impose their religion on non-orthodox Jews, it is only resonable that those of us who object to coercion would point out its flaws and shortcomings. Do you expect us to be quiet, while the orthodox are trying to shove their religion (which we consider to be superstition) down our throats? In the light of the above, I cannot quite understand the complaints regarding Rich's contributions to this newsgroup. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
slerner@sesame.UUCP (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner) (08/06/85)
Yosi Hoshen writes: > As a general rule, I would agree to the preposition that there is no > point in attacking religious beliefs. However, when the religion is > applied to those who do not accept its premise, it is then becomes > open to attack. Since the orthodox aim is to impose their religion > on non-orthodox Jews, it is only resonable that those of us who > object to coercion would point out its flaws and shortcomings. I don't know where you get the impression that "the orthodox aim is to impose their religion on non-orthodox...", but it is far from truth. Orthodox Jews fall into on of a few chatagories (pardon me for generalizing, while there are exceptions, I want to keep this short): o Those who don't care what non-observant jews do (some regretfully violating Torah by hating them, some who just ignore them). o Those who care and try to __encourage__ (not force or impose) them to keep the Torah. o Those who accept all Jews (&& || all people) regardless of what they believe in. As a Lubavitcher Chossid who has participated in the "campaigns" for many years, I have never seen anything that could be described as "imposing" (although some do get carried away and show a lack of tact). Being relatively new to the net, I don't know what is bringing on this accusation, but I do feel that it is an extream exagaration. (No flames please - if you want to argue, reply to me via mail.) Peace. -- Opinions expressed are public domain, and do not belong to Lotus Development Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner {genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!slerner {cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!slerner slerner%sesame@harvard.ARPA
paulb@ttidcc.UUCP (Paul Blumstein) (08/06/85)
In article <604@ihu1m.UUCP> jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) writes: > Since the orthodox aim is to impose their religion >on non-orthodox Jews, ... >Do you expect us to be quiet, while the orthodox are trying to >shove their religion (which we consider to be superstition) down our >throats? BS.. that may be the aim of a minority of orthodox, but practically all of the ones I run across don't care what other Jews believe or disbelieve. Perhaps you should move to a different neighborhood. On the opposite foot, Orthodox baiting has become a national sport in Israel. Many secular Jews think its fun to purposely drive through Orthodox neighborhoods on Shabbos, etc. Is this what you mean by not keeping quiet. Perhaps there's a connection between your lack of respect for other people's belief's and your lack of religion. -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Paul Blumstein "I may be drunk, but you're ugly. Citicorp/TTI Tomorrow, I'll be sober." 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. W. Churchill Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 450-9111 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!paulb
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (08/10/85)
> In article <604@ihu1m.UUCP> jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) writes: > > Since the orthodox aim is to impose their religion > >on non-orthodox Jews, ... > >Do you expect us to be quiet, while the orthodox are trying to > >shove their religion (which we consider to be superstition) down our > >throats? > > BS.. that may be the aim of a minority of orthodox, but practically all of > the ones I run across don't care what other Jews believe or disbelieve. If one looks at the record of the religionists in Israel, one can observe a relentless effort of the orthodox to impose the religious law on the secular Jewish society. Examples of these efforts are: the imposition of the marital laws, the law to prevent the sale of pork and the the attempts to shut down movies on Friday evening. The former minister of religious affairs Dr. Zerach Varhaftig spelled out the religionist program of religious coercion in 1962. He said: ` According to the [Jewish] religious concept, every Jew is a religious Jew, the fact that he is a Jew makes him religious...' He then continues: `Every Jew has a Jewish spot, but his desires overpowers his mind. If the law comes and restricts his freedom to yield to his [negative] desires, his positive feelings will be awakened, and it will begin with coercion and end with a want.' ( t'chilato b'ones v'sofo b'ratzon) These quotes are taken from a special supplement to the Ha'aretz newspaper provided by the ministry of religious affairs in February, 1962. > Perhaps you should move to a different neighborhood. On the opposite foot, > Orthodox baiting has become a national sport in Israel. Many secular Jews > think its fun to purposely drive through Orthodox neighborhoods on Shabbos, It is regrettable that some secular Jews disturb the piece and quiet of religious Jews. Let us not forget that these acts are not mandated by the law, but rather perpetrated by mischievous individuals. > etc. Is this what you mean by not keeping quiet. Perhaps there's a > connection between your lack of respect for other people's belief's and > your lack of religion. [Paul Blumstein] Why you jump to the conclusion that I don't respect other people's beliefs. Not accepting a religious belief does not imply lack of respect to those who practice the religion. I don't scold you for believing, why do you scold me for a lack of belieef? It is quite clear that you have no respect for my belief/disbelief system! -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (08/10/85)
> Yosi Hoshen writes: > > > As a general rule, I would agree to the preposition that there is no > > point in attacking religious beliefs. However, when the religion is > > applied to those who do not accept its premise, it is then becomes > > open to attack. Since the orthodox aim is to impose their religion > > on non-orthodox Jews, it is only resonable that those of us who > > object to coercion would point out its flaws and shortcomings. > > I don't know where you get the impression that "the orthodox aim is to > impose their religion on non-orthodox...", but it is far from > truth. Orthodox Jews fall into on of a few chatagories (pardon me > for generalizing, while there are exceptions, I want to keep this short): > >[Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner] There are orthodox Jews who don't want to impose their religion on other Jews, but they seem to be the silent minority. In the United States the opportunity to impose Jewish religious laws does not exist. However, in Israel this opportunity exists, and the result is religious coercion. Regretfully, there are few orthodox Jews in Israel or in the US who oppose this coercion. Let me give you examples from my previous posting: If one looks at the record of the religionists in Israel, one can observe a relentless effort of the orthodox to impose the religious law on the secular Jewish society. Examples of these efforts are: the imposition of the marital laws, the law to prevent the sale of pork and the the attempts to shut down movies on Friday evening. The former minister of religious affairs Dr. Zerach Varhaftig spelled out the religionist program of religious coercion in 1962. He said: ` According to the [Jewish] religious concept, every Jew is a religious Jew, the fact that he is a Jew makes him religious...' He then continues: `Every Jew has a Jewish spot, but his desires overpowers his mind. If the law comes and restricts his freedom to yield to his [negative] desires, his positive feelings will be awakened, and it will begin with coercion and end with a want.' ( t'chilato b'ones v'sofo b'ratzon) These quotes are taken from a special supplement to the Ha'aretz newspaper provided by the ministry of religious affairs in February, 1962. > Being relatively new to the net, I don't know what is bringing on this > accusation, but I do feel that it is an extream exagaration. Are the facts that I cannot eat pork in Israel, or that I am coerced to be married by a rabi, or that the religionists are trying to shut down the entertainment for secular Jews on Saturday, are cases of extreme exagaration of the religious coercion situation in Israel? -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho