matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (07/16/85)
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. 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. 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. Once a Jew starts to (chas v'sholom) "judge the Torah" by some other standard, that standard is his law, that standard replaces the Bible for him, that standard is what governs his conduct. Many movements within Judaism have "judged the Torah" and found it not up to some standard or another. Mr. Rosen is entitled to believe what he wants. 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. The real conflict in America today between the Orthodox and the gay population has come over proposed "gay rights" laws. THIS is the topic we should be discussing in this news group, not the potential danger to gays from a revived theocracy when Messiah comes. 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. In Russia, or in the U.S. Army, you live and work where you're told, and you can't move or quit without permission. 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. 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? Remember, no "right" to force someone to do business with you exists at common law. Such rights are creatures of statute, and do not come into existence until a statute creating them is enacted. So opposing such a statute violates no man's rights. The question for net.religion.jewish is whether Jews should support or oppose "gay rights" laws. -- Matt Rosenblatt (matt@amsaa.ARPA)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/18/85)
> 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
dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) (07/25/85)
> > 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. Okay Rich, this may have been asked before. I can't prove that the Torah was given at Mt. Sinai and that G-d exists; I can't even try to offer proof. So, the question to you is: Can you offer proof that G-d doesn't exist and the Torah wasn't given at Mt. Sinai? All I want to know is "the lack of rooting in actual fact that these beliefs have".
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (07/25/85)
> > 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. [MATT ROSENBLATT] > > 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. > [RICH ROSEN] First of all, I don't read Mr. Samet as threatening anyone. With what is he threatening gays? Divine punishment now? YOU don't believe that threat is any more real than threatening them with a voodoo curse, and if a gay man believes it is real, he has probably already become celibate. Is Mr. Samet threatening them with human punishment? That cannot occur until the Sanhedrin is reconstituted, which cannot occur until the Temple is rebuilt (b'karov, b'yamenu), which (according to the majority opinion) cannot occur until the Messiah comes. Until then, the gays can enjoy. So I see no threat. Second, if I were gay, I would rather be threatened by a Yitzchok Samet than bashed. It sure _is_ better. > > 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. [MATT ROSENBLATT] > > 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. [RICH ROSEN] > What "rights of employment/housing/etc."? Who says a man has any more right to compel an employer to hire him than the employer has to compel a worker to work for him? Who says a man has any more right to compel a landlord to rent to him than the landlord has to compel a tenant to rent from him? As you say, "It ain't a 'right' at all." -- Matt Rosenblatt
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/26/85)
>>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. [ROSEN] > Okay Rich, this may have been asked before. I can't prove that the Torah was > given at Mt. Sinai and that G-d exists; I can't even try to offer proof. > So, the question to you is: > Can you offer proof that G-d doesn't exist and the Torah wasn't given at Mt. > Sinai? [DAVID GREEN] I always thought it was those who posited the extraordinary claims who had the burden of proof, not those who didn't posit such claims. In the absence of evidence, your claims are just claims. They may be axioms in YOUR personal belief system, but that doesn't oblige me to accept them as axioms just because you choose to, for whatever reason. If you intend to make me or anyone else follow your rules, the burden of proof is on your shoulders. A burden Samet and his ilk seem unwilling to accept, perhaps preferring that we all just take his axioms as givens and accept whatever he has to say. > All I want to know is "the lack of rooting in actual fact that these beliefs > have". See the second sentence in your own paragraph (">") above. That sums it up. -- "Because love grows where my Rosemary goes and nobody knows but me." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
david@wisc-rsch.arpa (David Parter) (07/26/85)
this is getting really silly. On the one hand, we have jewish bigots
who aren't bigot because the torah said so. On the other hand we have
people who are enjoying all the attention and the arguing and have
long since lost the point of the whole thing.
lets drop this whole 'discussion' -- no one is changing their minds
and the level of the discussion is dropping rapidly...
david
--
david parter
UWisc Systems Lab
...!{allegra,harvard,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!david
david@wisc-rsch.arpablenko@rochester.UUCP (Tom Blenko) (07/26/85)
Enough stupid slop from Rich Rosen (posted over and over and over again). 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. ...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. It has been pointed out more than once that this is not the place to debate Judaism vs. non-Judaism. If this is you intent, please take your postings elsewhere (preferrably to a group I don't read). If you don't understand that this is the only thing you have been doing, I'm not surprised. If you have been as oblivious to your education as you are to the viewpoints expressed in other people's postings, the high ratio of blather to substantial content in your postings is quite understandable (but still unwelcome). A few points: One has rights and priviledges under a legal code. Actions are morally acceptable or unacceptable when judged according to a particular moral code (definitive judgement, of course, may be impossible). Neither "rights" nor "moral correctness" have any standing independent of the code with respect to which they are defined (if you don't realize this, consult your dictionary). Similarly, logical consequence is a property of formally-defined systems of logic. It is not something to be routinely invoked for any silly argument you wish to make. As a formal property is frequently used to model certain kinds of human reasoning, but this provides no prescriptive power whatsoever. If I believe that a particular car is red, and that all cars are Thunderbirds, I am certainly entitled to believe that the car is not a Thunderbird. No, no, don't tell me that either the conclusion or the antecedant is wrong. The material implication may be wrong. In fact, this is often where your problem lies because your implications are far too simplistic and undiscerning. The main point, of course, is that no extant logics are sufficient models for human thought. You also seem to have extraordinary misconceptions about what a fact is (or would or could be). Examples are in order: "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." "All you have shown is that the basis for Judaism is indeed different. The claims are more "persuasive", in that they would appeal to you more because they involve "mass revelation" instead of single prophets. But recognize that while you have shown the difference between the claims of Judaism and the claims of other religions, you have skirted the fact that different or even "better" claims (as in advertising) do NOT prove the point of the claims unless you already accept their sources as factual. These claims are no more or less viable than those that Christians offer from the Gospels. The amazing empty tomb. The virgin birth. All of these things are marvelous claims. If you base your choice of religion on who makes the "best" claims that appeal to you most, it is no different than buying laundry detergent based on what you are told in the commercial." The points is utterly trivial and uninteresting. Where are any facts? One cannot even prove in any rigourous sense that it did/did not rain this morning, or that mine was not an immaculate conception. This is a well-known philosophical problem. The only question is what the basis is for what people do in fact believe, which is quite different from the question of what they ought to believe (I know, most readers will realize this, but Rich habitually misses distinctions like this). And the reason is exactly what I think you have missed all along -- that discussion of what people ought to believe can only take place with respect to an assumed standard. With respect to the stupid remark at the end of the last paragraph cited, if you do not recognize many differences between the way one adopts religious beliefs and the way one chooses one's laundry detergent, you are yourself suffering from a serious deficit. If the attempt is to argue that since laundry-detergent-buying behaviors are influenced by advertising, so, by analogy, are religion-adoption behaviors, then your argument is at best shallow. Anyone (I think) would be willing to agree that one's beliefs are influenced by one's environment and experience. The analogy is bad (or worse), as I would expect anyone of age ten or above to be able to detect, and consequently quite unenlightening. Advertising may influence behavior of whatever sort, but until you examine with some care how it exercises that influence, the broad claims are merely speculative and hence of very little content. Broadening "advertising" to include all life experiences, or even just those planned by others, is similarly without merit. With regard to "maximal tolerance": What is tolerance? What is the measure of tolerance by which one may determine tolerance which is maximal? Is this different from minimal intolerance? Are tolerance-neutral actions possible? If you wish to limit tolerance to tolerance of actions which don't harm other people, are there any such actions (I doubt it)? Isn't there always an opportunity cost associated with an action? As a simple example, don't your actions harm other people working at Bell? And if there aren't such actions, isn't it true that you have been saying nothing at all, even if everyone else in the world's beliefs are "wrong" (I doubt this also)? I feel somewhat guilty including this last little bit because a reply is not appropriate to this newsgroup. So for anyone who would like to answer these questions, or to see the answers/discussion, I hereby volunteer to collect and distribute such. On a more operational level, I propose that henceforth all subscribers return to the practice of giving articles from rlr the attention they deserve (and I'll follow my own advice). Tom
dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) (07/26/85)
> >> Okay Rich, this may have been asked before. I can't prove that the Torah was >> given at Mt. Sinai and that G-d exists; I can't even try to offer proof. >> So, the question to you is: >> Can you offer proof that G-d doesn't exist and the Torah wasn't given at Mt. >> Sinai? [DAVID GREEN] >I always thought it was those who posited the extraordinary claims who had the >burden of proof, not those who didn't posit such claims. In the absence of >evidence, your claims are just claims. They may be axioms in YOUR personal >belief system, but that doesn't oblige me to accept them as axioms just because >you choose to, for whatever reason. If you intend to make me or anyone else >follow your rules, the burden of proof is on your shoulders. A burden Samet >and his ilk seem unwilling to accept, perhaps preferring that we all just take >his axioms as givens and accept whatever he has to say. [RICH ROSEN] First, I think that your contributions to net.religion.jewish are important and you should continue to post here. Now, Rich, down to business at hand! Instead of saying that there are three Jewish "Denominations", I would say that there are three Jewish "Affiliations" which are: Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform. The important difference between the three is the interpretation of the Torah and Talmud, Orthodox is fairly rigid and Conservative and Reform are more liberal in their interpretation of the law. The important commonalityis that all three believe, more or less, that G-d exists and that there was some sort of event at Mt. Sinai several thousand years ago which formed the groundwork for Jewish beliefs. I don't have exact statistics, but the number of people who are "affiliated" and born or converted are in the millions. I *assume* that there are as many atheists and agnostics in the world as there are Jews, if not more. The important issue is that this is net.religion.jewish NOT net.religion.atheist|agnostic|rosen|ubizmo. Many people in *this* newsgroup have differences of opinion, usually because of their "affiliation" and level of knowledge of Torah and Talmud. This difference of opinion leads to arguments, insults, and sometimes understanding. If you were to read the Talmud, you would see the School of Hillel arguing with the school of Shammai and various commentators insulting one and other, sometimes in good nature, sometimes not. Unless *you* can show me otherwise, Jewish people DO NOT try to force their beliefs on others, whether they were born Jewish or not; correct me if I am wrong. Some people ( including myself ) have suggested that you read some basic Jewish texts so that a discussion can be carried out on a higher level. You, Rich, sometimes counter that *we* should read the "Book of Ubizmo". I don't see how ( maybe I'm missing something ) that Samet's, Martillo's or my suggestions on reading material are foistering "our beliefs" on you or anyone else. Jews are just not noted for trying to convert or change other people's beliefs. Most certainly, we are not trying to force you or anyone else to follow our rules. Really, the keyword is force. At best, some of us are just trying to explain the rules of the various Jewish affiliations. Since this is net.religion.jewish and not net.religion.* I do not see why the burden of proof is on us. I can easily point you to a few modern ( recent ) books that attempt to "prove" the Jewish beliefs but since I don't want to read the book of Ubizmo I am not going to list them, unless asked to. And one final point before I summarize - - Samet was just trying to explain the orthopratic view of homosexuality, not the conservative view, the reform view, or even the "liberal" modern orthodox view. Much of what he said comes down to this: 1. In the days of the Sanhedrin ( > 2000 years ago ), if a homosexual act was seen by three valid witnesses ( who a valid witness is, is another story) the person commiting the act *could* ( not would ) be punished by death. 2. In the time of the Messiah ( Sorry, I don't know when the Messiah is coming but the time is in the "future" ) the Sanhedrin may be re-established and the above would be applicable, again. But this is really of philosophical interest only, because if you believe in the Messiah and the Messiah comes, there will be much more to worry about than homosexuality. 3. If an "orthopractic" jew has homosexual leanings, counseling/therapy/etc. is the only thing that would be offered to the orthopractic homosexual, not stoning! My summary is quite simple: Given that this is net.religion.jewish, there are a basic set of axioms that most of us agree with. It is difficult to carry on a debate about Jewish issues with affiliated Jews given those axioms. It is even harder to debate with an atheist/agnostic/ubizmist who not does not believe those axioms and does not want to do read the traditional or modern Jewish texts that explain those axioms. Shalom(Peace), David S. Green {ihnp4}!mhuxi!dsg PS If I do not answer any responses to this posting for the next week or so it is because I will be on vacation, working hard on my suntan, far far away from any full-screen async devices.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/27/85)
> First, I think that your contributions to net.religion.jewish are important > and you should continue to post here. Now, Rich, down to business at hand! > The important commonality is that all three believe, more or less, that G-d > exists and that there was some sort of event at Mt. Sinai several thousand > years ago which formed the groundwork for Jewish beliefs. I don't have exact > statistics, but the number of people who are "affiliated" and born or > converted are in the millions. The important issue is that this is > net.religion.jewish NOT net.religion.atheist|agnostic|rosen|ubizmo. I think you're stretching it with the notion of commonality. What about the humanistic Jews who do not base their beliefs on religion (i.e., god) but on humanistic tenets as fostered in Judaism? What about the completely non-religious Jews? (Are they not Jews any more?) Even if orthopracts had their own isolated community, not imposing their "Jewish law" (their view of it) on others outside their community, even if they were to set up judgment against "criminals" and prosecute only those from within that community, I would STILL be appalled and I would STILL speak out against it. > Unless *you* can show me otherwise, Jewish people DO NOT try to force > their beliefs on others, whether they were born Jewish or not; correct > me if I am wrong. Proposing capital punishment for Jews or non-Jews who engage in homosexuality or other practices deemed "wrong" by a book strikes me as trying to force your beliefs on them, no? I hope you stand corrected. > Some people ( including myself ) have suggested that > you read some basic Jewish texts so that a discussion can be carried out > on a higher level. You, Rich, sometimes counter that *we* should read the > "Book of Ubizmo". Because it's just as valid a text for determining societal morality: it has great stories about events of thousands of years telling a story of a people under the care of the great god Ubizmo, who tore the livers and elbows off of anyone who disagreed with Him. (I can see it now: Samet wants to convert!) The only problem is I haven't finished it yet. :-) > I don't see how ( maybe I'm missing something ) that > Samet's, Martillo's or my suggestions on reading material are foistering > "our beliefs" on you or anyone else. Jews are just not noted for trying > to convert or change other people's beliefs. On the whole, as a group... > Most certainly, we are not trying to force you or anyone else to follow > our rules. Would you say that to a Jewish homosexual? To his face? Or, like Samet, would you spit first and string up after? > Since this is net.religion.jewish and not net.religion.* I do not > see why the burden of proof is on us. I can easily point you to > a few modern ( recent ) books that attempt to "prove" the Jewish > beliefs but since I don't want to read the book of Ubizmo I am not > going to list them, unless asked to. I have some books that do the same thing for Christianity, by people like McDowell and Lewis. They only seem to work as "proof" if you already make the assumptions in advance. It's the same for all religions, is it not? > My summary is quite simple: Given that this is net.religion.jewish, > there are a basic set of axioms that most of us agree with. Key word: Most. Even if "all", no one is obliged to accept them. This IS the real world, not some haven from it. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (07/27/85)
> Instead of saying that there are three Jewish "Denominations", I would say > that there are three Jewish "Affiliations" which are: Orthodox, Conservative, > and Reform. I like to point out that beside the religious Jewish groups there are secular Jews who don`t have religious affiliation. The majority of Israelis are secular (chofshi'im). Many of them do not accept the religious belief system. > Unless *you* can show me otherwise, Jewish people DO NOT try to force > their beliefs on others, whether they were born Jewish or not; correct > me if I am wrong. Jews do not try to force their beliefs on non-Jews. However orthodox Jews feel obliged to force the religion on secular Jews, if they are given the oportunity. Israel is a clear example of these coercion efforts. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (07/28/85)
> What "rights of employment/housing/etc."? Who says a man has > any more right to compel an employer to hire him than the employer has > to compel a worker to work for him? Who says a man has any more right > to compel a landlord to rent to him than the landlord has to compel a > tenant to rent from him? As you say, "It ain't a 'right' at all." > > -- Matt Rosenblatt We are not talking about the general question of how an employer selects an employee. The question is can someone be hired/fired because he/she is gay, a black person, a Jew, etc. Can discrimination be discriminatory. Can the law prohibit discrimination of some groups while allow discrinating others. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
arig@cvl.UUCP (Ari Gross) (07/29/85)
> >>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. [ROSEN] > -- It's hard to have a net.religion.jewish that satisfies everyone. It is, however, fair to say that there should be some common ground among members of the net. Nobody is imposing on Rosen or anyone else to contribute to n.r.j. , but let's have certain ground rules for those who want to contribute. This net discusses different aspects of Judaism-- orthodoxy vs. conservatism vs. reform vs. reconstructionism vs. humanism ,,,, ,Israel,....etc. It has not, at least until recently, questioned the basic underpinnings of Judaism itself, nor should it. If someone isn't sure about what religion he belongs to, or chooses to affiliate with, let him discuss it outside of this group (in net.religion or elsewhere). Ari Gross
sam@bu-cs.UUCP (Shelli Meyers) (07/30/85)
>>What I am trying to demonstrate is the lack of rooting in actual fact >>it on others. [ROSEN] >It's hard to have a net.religion.jewish that satisfies everyone. It is, >however, fair to say that there should be some common ground among >members of the net. Nobody is imposing on Rosen or anyone else to >contribute to n.r.j. , but let's have certain ground rules for those >who want to contribute. This net discusses different aspects of Judaism-- >orthodoxy vs. conservatism vs. reform vs. reconstructionism vs. humanism ,,,, >,Israel,....etc. It has not, at least until recently, questioned the basic >underpinnings of Judaism itself, nor should it. If someone isn't sure about >what religion he belongs to, or chooses to affiliate with, let him discuss >it outside of this group (in net.religion or elsewhere). [GROSS] While it may be a valid point that perhaps not all Jewish beliefs are rooted in "actual fact" (by Rich's definition), it really isn't an issue here. Rich, you yourself have said that reading certain books to acquire "proof" of a religion's validity assumes basic precepts as being true to begin with. I think this net makes some assumptions, too. One of them is that the readers are Jews, and are not in the market to find proof of their beliefs, nor to have others provide proof against their beliefs. You have mentioned that there are "non-religious" Jews, who still consider themselves Jews. Perhaps this is so, but they are definitely a minority. And in that minority, probably only a tiny percentage reads this net. Why? Because it is called net.RELIGION.jewish, not net.jewish. Therefore we've got to assume some sort of religious concepts here. We ought to discuss those religious differences, not the validity of individuals' beliefs themselves. Since you constantly dispute classic Jewish belief, do you consider yourself a "non-religious" Jew? If so, why not post the reasons why you still associate yourself with the Jewish people, rather than concentrating on why you don't. And if you or anyone else on the net doesn't thing THAT'S an appropriate thing to discuss on the net either, than mail a reply to me. *I'd* sure like to know.
stern@steinmetz.UUCP (Harold A. Stern) (07/31/85)
> > Jews do not try to force their beliefs on non-Jews. However orthodox Jews > feel obliged to force the religion on secular Jews, if they are given > the oportunity. Israel is a clear example of these coercion efforts. > -- > Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories > Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho I seem to recall (although it was a long time ago, so I could be wrong) seeing on the news pictures of Orthodox Jews in the US somewhere burning Israleli flags. The idea was that they were against the government because it was not Orthodox enough for them. Please correct me if I am wrong. Also - as a sideline - an article in the Times spoke of efforts in Israel to ban the production of pork and pork products - sounds like coercion to me. -harold A. Stern GE CR&D Schenectady NY <--- don't ask me, I don't know where the hell Schenectady is, either stern@kbsvax.decnet@ge-crd
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/01/85)
>>>What I am trying to demonstrate is the lack of rooting in actual fact >>>it on others. [ROSEN] >>It's hard to have a net.religion.jewish that satisfies everyone. It is, >>however, fair to say that there should be some common ground among >>members of the net. Nobody is imposing on Rosen or anyone else to >>contribute to n.r.j. , but let's have certain ground rules for those >>who want to contribute. This net discusses different aspects of Judaism-- >>orthodoxy vs. conservatism vs. reform vs. reconstructionism vs. humanism ,,,, >>,Israel,....etc. It has not, at least until recently, questioned the basic >>underpinnings of Judaism itself, nor should it. If someone isn't sure about >>what religion he belongs to, or chooses to affiliate with, let him discuss >>it outside of this group (in net.religion or elsewhere). [GROSS] We lost news for a couple of days, so I missed this article quoted here. Is this the same "Gross" whose only retort was "bug off"? (I know there are quite a few Grosses in this newsgroup.) I'm quite "sure" about which religion to "belong" to, thank you, my interest is as a person of Jewish ancestry seeing other people of similar ancestry claiming the right to tell other people how to live when for centuries THEIR (and my) ancestors were vindictively told quite explicitly how to live (usually one of two ways, 1) conversion, 2) not at all). To whine about "But the Torah says so" in response to charges that the same type of intolerance is being engaged in strikes me as anti-human, anti-Jewish, and anti-everything that Jewish learning and ethics are supposed to have stood for. But, that's just me, I guess. > Why? Because it is called net.RELIGION.jewish, not net.jewish. Therefore > we've got to assume some sort of religious concepts here. We ought to > discuss those religious differences, not the validity of individuals' > beliefs themselves. When you assume... Similarly, let's not discuss the "validity" of the beliefs of Nazis. After all, if WE'RE entitled to these kinds of beliefs abour "other" groups, so are they, right? (No, I'm sorry, there's a difference. ... ... ... ...) > Since you constantly dispute classic Jewish belief, do you consider > yourself a "non-religious" Jew? If so, why not post the reasons why > you still associate yourself with the Jewish people, rather than > concentrating on why you don't. And if you or anyone else on the net > doesn't thing THAT'S an appropriate thing to discuss on the net either, > than mail a reply to me. *I'd* sure like to know. You would, eh? "Associate myself with the Jewish people"? What does such a phrase mean? By "associating" myself (by virtue of birth), do I obligate myself to adhere to certain types of behavior? Am I forbidden from associating with certain people because I don't adhere? I don't understand your question. If I did, though, I feel pretty sure I'd resent it. Judging from your "eagerness" to know. -- Providing the mininum daily adult requirement of sacrilege... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (08/02/85)
> > >>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. [ROSEN] > > -- > > > It's hard to have a net.religion.jewish that satisfies everyone. It is, > however, fair to say that there should be some common ground among > members of the net. Nobody is imposing on Rosen or anyone else to > contribute to n.r.j. , but let's have certain ground rules for those > who want to contribute. This net discusses different aspects of Judaism-- > orthodoxy vs. conservatism vs. reform vs. reconstructionism vs. humanism ,,,, > ,Israel,....etc. It has not, at least until recently, questioned the basic > underpinnings of Judaism itself, nor should it. If someone isn't sure about > what religion he belongs to, or chooses to affiliate with, let him discuss > it outside of this group (in net.religion or elsewhere). > > > Ari Gross I think Rich is raising a very important issue here, that of religious coercion. Unfortunately, religious coercion is central to orthodox Judaism thinking. The effort by the religionists in Israel to ban the sales of pork in Israel, recently, is just a typical example of the aim of the religionists to impose their dietary laws on the rest of society. It is quite clear that if they could have their way they would introduce Khumeinism Jewish style in Israel. In the light of the above religious imposition effort, I claim that Rich posting are very relevant to this news group. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
slerner@sesame.UUCP (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner) (08/02/85)
UUCP> <339@mhuxi.UUCP> <560@ihu1m.UUCP> postnews is ill -- if you have seen this before, sorry. > I seem to recall (although it was a long time ago, so I could be wrong) > seeing on the news pictures of Orthodox Jews in the US somewhere burning > Israleli flags. The idea was that they were against the government because > it was not Orthodox enough for them. Please correct me if I am wrong. > -harold A. Stern > GE CR&D The group above was probably the N'tura Karta or some Satmor Chassidim. I don't want to get into a long discussion as to the correctness of their actions. My point is that amoung observant Jews, there's a lot of people with a lot of opinions, you can't just group them all together. There are groups that (regretfuly, and in contradiction to the Torah command of 'love your brother as yourself') hate non-observant Jews, other groups that try and encourage (NOT force) these Jews to become more observant, and there are groups who just ignore them. Religious Jews are people too, with their own opinions and variaty. Some people on the net like to sterotype us by the behaviour of a few extreamists, and I feel this is not fair. Should I make a generalization that all southerners are bigots (no offense meant)? 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
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (08/04/85)
> There are groups that (regretfuly, and in contradiction to the > Torah command of 'love your brother as yourself') hate non-observant > Jews, other groups that try and encourage (NOT force) these Jews > to become more observant, and there are groups who just ignore them. In the US orthodox Jews do not have the power to impose their way of life on other Jews. In Israel, on the other hand, the orthodox, who take advantage of the Israeli parliamentary system, relentlessly, try to coerce the secular Jewish society. The policy of religious coercion is a standards policy of the religionist parties. This policy is supported by all orthodox organozations in Israel, and probably in the US. So the above statement that orthodox groups only encourage and not force other Jews to become more observent is groundless. -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho