gth@erc3ba.UUCP (A.Y.Feldblum) (07/11/85)
Just a few comments (mainly in response to Rosen and Hoshen). First, I have tried to make it clear that Orthodox Judaism does not force anyone to follow the Torah. I may think that you are losing your share of the world to come. I may tell you that I think so. But that in no way is forcing you to do anything. From a religious, halachik point of view, there is no mechanism to allow me to force you to do anything against your will. If the high court (Sanhedren) were in existance, then there would be judicial system that would "force" you to conform to the system of laws defined by the Torah, if you wished to live in an area under the jurisdiction of the high court. This scenerio is either one of only historical interest, philosophic interest, or future interest only if one believes in the coming of Mashiach (Messiah). As far as I can tell, the discussion has been on the level of the actual and practical. On that level, there is no FORCING of anyone to follow the torah. As far as the "validity" of Judaism vs. Christianity vs. Rosenism (="maximal" tolarence, where he defines what is covered under maximal), I have stated before that I do not believe that any set of societal norms have, from a philosophic point of view, any more or less validity than other set. However, from within the context of Rosen's set of societal norms, there is a fundamental difference between Orthodox Judaism and Nazi'ism. First, within Orthodox Judaism today, those actions that fall outside our definition of maximal tolarence can be dealt with only by societal pressure, not by actual physical violence against the offender. With Nazi'ism, those "actions" that fell outside their maximal tolarence (being a jew and being alive at the same time was one such "action"), were resolved by killing the offender. Christianity is a little more difficult to deal with. One can look at the actions of societies that were done in the name of christianity (e.g. pogroms in Eastern Europe and mass killings during the Crusader period) and say that they are little different than Nazi actions except maybe in scale. However the Nazi actions were clearly part of the "official" set of their defined societal norms, while the above cases one may wish to argue represent deviations from their accepted societal norms. The remaining issues I see are: what about Judaism in the time of the Sanhedrin, what if Orthodox Judaism is ever the "offical" set of societal norms anywhere, and what about Israel. I can give my thoughts on the first sometime in the future if there is interest. I do not see the second occuring in a "normal" sense, only in the event of Messiah. If you do not believe in Messiah (in the Orthodox jewish version, if you want) then the second is of no interest to you either. If you do, then you will have no problems with any of the above when Messiah comes. Israel is a much more difficult issue. The issue there is political, more than religious. Due to the nature of the political system, a parlimentary (sp?) system where the party of the prime minister must be able to control a majority of the Knesset (similar to England and much of Europe), special interest groups of all types can get legislation passed and that has lead to friction between the religious and nonreligious elements of Israeli society. It is, I think, a seperate issue from the one that has been under discussion. Avi Feldblum AT&T uucp: {allegra|ihnp4}!pruxa!ayf or !erc3ba!gth
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/13/85)
And now, to debunk some very flagrant and malicious lies: > As far as the "validity" of Judaism vs. Christianity vs. > Rosenism (="maximal" tolarence, where he defines what is covered under > maximal), First, "maximal" is a word you can look up in the dictionary, if you have the inclination to do that rather than labelling a philosophy as "Rosenism" (and claiming that "I" determine its "contents") for manipulative purposes. > I have stated before that I do not believe that any set of > societal norms have, from a philosophic point of view, any more or less > validity than other set. However, from within the context of Rosen's set > of societal norms, there is a fundamental difference between Orthodox > Judaism and Nazi'ism. First, within Orthodox Judaism today, those > actions that fall outside our definition of maximal tolarence can be > dealt with only by societal pressure, not by actual physical violence > against the offender. With Nazi'ism, those "actions" that fell outside > their maximal tolarence (being a jew and being alive at the same time > was one such "action"), were resolved by killing the offender. > Christianity is a little more difficult to deal with. One can look at > the actions of societies that were done in the name of christianity > (e.g. pogroms in Eastern Europe and mass killings during the Crusader > period) and say that they are little different than Nazi actions except > maybe in scale. However the Nazi actions were clearly part of the > "official" set of their defined societal norms, while the above cases > one may wish to argue represent deviations from their accepted societal > norms. Second, Judaism and Nazism were not being compared as societal moralities. The point was made that certain Jews feel that restrictions on other people and intolerance are perfectly OK, while not liking the same thing done to them by people like Nazis. My claim is that if you accept one as acceptable, you must accept the other. Furthermore, the smoke screen of "we're not telling other people what to do, we're not actually going to kill people for disobeying our laws, we're just 'persuading' them" to be a heinous hypocritical one. -- Like aversion (HEY!), shocked for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr