jay@allegra.UUCP (Jay Hyman) (07/08/85)
In article <1137@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >Try this little test: > >Group X has a book that they consider to be the absolute truth. That book >says that another group, group Y, is abominable and worthy of being killed. > >Prove or disprove the validity of the claim using these examples: > >1) X = Jews, Y = homosexuals > >2) X = Nazis, Y = Jews > >NOTE: claiming that in example 1 the book used really is the absolute >truth while this is not the case in example 2 gets you an automatic zero >on the test unless you can prove that claim... Let's start with game 2. Here I think we all agree the claim is true. Group X, based on some arbitrary book that one of them wrote, has decided to wipe out group Y, which has not indicated any willingness to accept the contents of said book. Now for game 1. Let's go back to the revelation at Sinai. No, this is not based on my personal beliefs alone, but on well documented, almost universally accepted fact - some sort of revelation DID take place at Sinai, and was witnessed by some 3 million people: the entire Jewish people. And the gist of what happened there, in practical terms, is that these people, as a unit, accepted the Torah as the document which would govern their lives. Not all of it makes sense to us; the laws of Kashrut or of ritual purification make even less sense than those against homosexuality, and also can carry severe penalties. The point is, that this code of law was accepted by the entire Jewish people, and as such constitutes government by consent of the governed, which is perfectly legitimate whether or not you feel that this fits your idea of what is "moral". (What is morality?) Thus, your claim is false, unless you change it to read "Group X agrees among themselves to abide by a certain code of law, which deems a certain practice P punishable by death. Group Y, composed of members of Group X, decides to adopt practice P." Note that I did not even mention the divine nature of the covenant, which would strengthen the argument, but is not crucial here. This, you may say, is all fine for homosexuals living 2300 years ago, but nobody alive today ever signed an agreement to live by the Torah. This is true, but then again, no Jewish court today is killing anyone for anything. So let's define what we're questioning here. The Torah's injunction against homosexuality is no different than any of its other laws, and clearly has nothing to do with anything remotely connected to Nazism. Let's please agree on that, and stop beating this ridiculous notion to death. The main issue seems to be the relationship between the Torah and those Jews who today choose not to accept it. The Orthodox viewpoint is that the commitment made by our forefathers at Sinai was binding on their descendants for all time; anyone else will doubtless contend that this is ridiculously unfair. I contend that this is the root of the disagreement which has led to a month of drivel in this space - homosexuality and Nazism are good eye-grabbing buzzwords, but the real question is "Do orthodox Jews have the right to assume that the Torah applies to all Jews?" Of course, this is where divinity and belief come in, so it gets very difficult to prove anything - but I think a discussion of this topic directly would be much more productive than the current rank-out session. Apologies for the length of this piece, but I suppose it fits right in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- this is a religion group, right, Rich? so... "Like a clergyman (Gasp!), defrocked for the very first time..." Jay Hyman allegra!jay
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (07/09/85)
> The > Torah's injunction against homosexuality is no different than any of > its other laws, and clearly has nothing to do with anything remotely > connected to Nazism. Let's please agree on that, and stop beating this > ridiculous notion to death. I agree with you on this issue. Nazism can only compared with Nazism. > The main issue seems to be the > relationship between the Torah and those Jews who today choose not to > accept it. The Orthodox viewpoint is that the commitment made by our > forefathers at Sinai was binding on their descendants for all time; > anyone else will doubtless contend that this is ridiculously unfair. > I contend that this is the root of the disagreement which has led to a > month of drivel in this space - homosexuality and Nazism are good > eye-grabbing buzzwords, but the real question is "Do orthodox Jews > have the right to assume that the Torah applies to all Jews?" > Of course, this is where divinity and belief come in, so it gets very > difficult to prove anything - but I think a discussion of this topic > directly would be much more productive than the current rank-out > session. So please let us know whether you think that the orthodox Jews should impose the Torah on those Jews who do not accept it. > > Apologies for the length of this piece, but I suppose it fits right > in. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > this is a religion group, right, Rich? so... > "Like a clergyman (Gasp!), defrocked for the very first time..." > > Jay Hyman > allegra!jay *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/09/85)
>>Try this little test: >>Group X has a book that they consider to be the absolute truth. That book >>says that another group, group Y, is abominable and worthy of being killed. >>Prove or disprove the validity of the claim using these examples: >> >>1) X = Jews, Y = homosexuals >>2) X = Nazis, Y = Jews >> >>NOTE: claiming that in example 1 the book used really is the absolute >>truth while this is not the case in example 2 gets you an automatic zero >>on the test unless you can prove that claim... [ROSEN] > Let's start with game 2. Here I think we all agree the claim is true. > Group X, based on some arbitrary book that one of them wrote, has > decided to wipe out group Y, which has not indicated any willingness > to accept the contents of said book. > > Now for game 1. Let's go back to the revelation at Sinai. No, this > is not based on my personal beliefs alone, but on well documented, > almost universally accepted fact - some sort of revelation DID take > place at Sinai, and was witnessed by some 3 million people: the entire > Jewish people. [JAY HYMAN] Stop! "Universally accepted fact"??? Like the significant numbers of people who "saw" Jesus walking around after he had died, who saw the empty tomb and "realized" that he had ascended into heaven? If you can accept one set of fables, you must accept them all, for they are all of doubtable solidity and accuracy --- they were all written by those promoting their own religions, concocting "commercials", as it were, to sway the readers and listeners. "Universally accepted"? The Judaeo-Christian world, even the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic world, does not represent everyone on earth, unlike many Westerners might like to believe. > The point is, that this code of law was accepted by the > entire Jewish people, and as such constitutes government by consent of > the governed, which is perfectly legitimate whether or not you feel > that this fits your idea of what is "moral". (What is morality?) > Thus, your claim is false, unless you change it to read "Group X > agrees among themselves to abide by a certain code of law, which > deems a certain practice P punishable by death. Group Y, composed of > members of Group X, decides to adopt practice P." Note that I did not > even mention the divine nature of the covenant, which would strengthen > the argument, but is not crucial here. Even if I were to grant you the overt assumptions you make in the previous paragraph (which I won't), and EVEN if you were limiting your discussion to Jewish homosexuals, who are you to tell anyone how and what to believe? Do you break into MY house and string me up because I don't keep the Sabbath? Do you have the right to do the same to ANYONE? > This, you may say, is all fine for homosexuals living 2300 years ago, > but nobody alive today ever signed an agreement to live by the Torah. > This is true, but then again, no Jewish court today is killing anyone > for anything. So let's define what we're questioning here. Of course, the whole question we are arguing about is moot at present. Samet and his ilk are not in charge of the lives of all Jews, much as some of them might like to be. > The main issue seems to be the > relationship between the Torah and those Jews who today choose not to > accept it. The Orthodox viewpoint is that the commitment made by our > forefathers at Sinai was binding on their descendants for all time; > anyone else will doubtless contend that this is ridiculously unfair. > I contend that this is the root of the disagreement which has led to a > month of drivel in this space - homosexuality and Nazism are good > eye-grabbing buzzwords, but the real question is "Do orthodox Jews > have the right to assume that the Torah applies to all Jews?" If Samet-types were to try to make that so, to try to enforce and impose their ideas of what we should be onto all of us, doesn't that come pretty close to a fascist mentality? It's almost enough to make you anti-Sametic... Of course, this is where divinity and belief come in, so it gets very difficult to prove anything - but I think a discussion of this topic directly would be much more productive than the current rank-out session. > this is a religion group, right, Rich? so... > "Like a clergyman (Gasp!), defrocked for the very first time..." What's the net symbol for GROAN? [ :-() ??? ] And to think I thought mine had reached the depths of inanity... :-)