sms@eisx.UUCP (Samuel Saal) (02/20/85)
From J Abeles and ??? > > ... In the Israeli army soldiers are > > not allowed to desecrate the Sabbath in public places (they are free to do > > as they please when in private -- unlike Iran where religious observance is > > forced on you). ... > This still amounts to religious observance being forced upon people. WRONG. It amounts to respect by one group for another. Desecration of the Sabbath can be avoided without too much effort to one's own personal integrity (where I define PI as the need to do things which some consider to be forbidden on the Sabbath - only moderately circular) The soldier may carry his gun on Shabbat but he should also avoid the neighborhoods inhabited by those who would be offended by his driving down the street. This seems reasonable to me as being respectful. Not as an imposition of one view onto another person. -- Sam Saal ..!{ihnp4}!eisx!sms Vayiphtach HaShem et pee ha'Atone.
dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) (02/21/85)
[] > The soldier > may carry his gun on Shabbat but he should also avoid the neighborhoods > inhabited by those who would be offended by his driving down the street. > Sam Saal ..!{ihnp4}!eisx!sms Does this mean that the soldier should only guard non-shomer shabbos neighborhoods? My opinion is that anyone should be offended by a soldier carrying a gun at anytime and any place, but sometimes self defense against terrorists and hostile neighbors is needed.
martillo@mit-athena.UUCP (Joaquim Martillo) (02/22/85)
I have not looked recently into the question of carrying weapons on Shabbat, but I remember that Ribbi Me'ir would permit the wearing of weapons on the Shabbat even when there was not a question of preserving life. The case of a soldier wearing a rifle on Shabbat for the sake of preserving lives from terrorists is probably not so hard. Yehoyaqim Martillo
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (02/22/85)
> [] > > The soldier > > may carry his gun on Shabbat but he should also avoid the neighborhoods > > inhabited by those who would be offended by his driving down the street. > > Sam Saal ..!{ihnp4}!eisx!sms > > Does this mean that the soldier should only guard non-shomer shabbos > neighborhoods? My opinion is that anyone should be offended by a soldier > carrying a gun at anytime and any place, but sometimes self defense > against terrorists and hostile neighbors is needed. I believe that Torah authorities find little or no halachic problem for a soldier on duty carrying his gun. Also, soldiers don't get stationed in neighborhoods. More typically, neighborhoods have their own mishmar ezrachi, a voluntary defense arrangement. There are civil guards stationed with guns at the Western Wall (sometimes with beards and yarmulkas) and I have never heard about complaints. In practice, soldiers are generally respectul, and virtually no one really gets uptight about them. On the other hand, the status quo is to avoid OFFICIAL Sabbath desecration by the government or its representatives. Menachem Begin felt strongly about this. Thus, while what he does privately is not clear, he considered it incompatible with his office, or for the State, to openly desecrate Shabbos, and was willing to walk at Sadat's funeral. Similarly, he ate no meat during his visit to Washington during the nine days. Whatever his inner beliefs, he impresses me as a mensche. It's sad that people with axes to grind regard such sensitivity as insensitivity to themselves or submission to coercian. Yitzchok Samet
ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) (02/25/85)
> I have not looked recently into the question of carrying weapons on > Shabbat, but I remember that Ribbi Me'ir would permit the wearing of > weapons on the Shabbat even when there was not a question of preserving > life. The case of a soldier wearing a rifle on Shabbat for the sake of > preserving lives from terrorists is probably not so hard. The word WEARING (instead of carrying) reminded me of a store in Brooklyn which made house keys into tie clips. For someone who wanted to lock his house and not have to carry his house key, he could wear (not carry) the key. The tie clip apparently became an article of clothing when it was worn. -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (03/01/85)
In article <499@sfmag.UUCP> samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) writes: || There are civil guards stationed with guns at the ||Western Wall (sometimes with beards and yarmulkas) and I have ||never heard about complaints. Just an aside: carrying on Shabbos at the Western Wall would never be a problem, since it's inside the Old City (a walled city) and therefore permitted. Now, is a gun muktzah? (I would think not, since although using it would be performing melachah, it could/would only be used in cases of pikuach nefesh. Therefore, it should be non-muktzah by definition.) Dave Sherman -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs hcr}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsri!lsuc!dave
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (06/04/85)
> Is the absolute belief in the importance of Christian theology > consistent with the toleration of Jews? I am sure that Christians > believe that disbelief in da-da-da is also an abomination. > Tolerance is not tolerance if you already accept what you're "tolerating." > > Frank Silbermann You seem to assume that I believe in absolute tolerance. This would mean that I am contradicting myself in not tolerating others. I don't recall saying anywhere that I believed in absolute tolerance. On the contrary, I've argued that this is an untenable and self-contradictory philosophy. I've accused those who espouse it of violating their own principles, not mine. If some group believes in what I am convinced is a false view, then I say they are wrong. If they believe in killing me, then I try to avoid being killed. I won't invite mortal danger by flaunting my disagreement, but if they ask me to bow down to an idol, I won't, even if they kill me. If I am disagreeeing with Jews on the net who subscribe to absurd dogmas, I'll disagree undauntedly. The most they can do is rant at me for not accepting their party line. Yitzchok Samet
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/05/85)
> You seem to assume that I believe in absolute tolerance. This > would mean that I am contradicting myself in not tolerating > others. I don't recall saying anywhere that I believed in > absolute tolerance. On the contrary, I've argued that this is an > untenable and self-contradictory philosophy. I've accused those > who espouse it of violating their own principles, not mine. [SAMET] And those accusations have been answered. Tolerating all that do not interfere with the lives of other people might be labelled by you as "absolute tolerance". For the last time, answer this: In the absence of such "absolute tolerance", why would people be wrong in being intolerant of you and your kind? If you can't show me why, if you only have ethnocentric self-interest as the basis for your believing that being intolerant of you is wrong, then what have you got? > If some group believes in what I am convinced is a false view, > then I say they are wrong. If they believe in killing me, then I > try to avoid being killed. I won't invite mortal danger by > flaunting my disagreement, but if they ask me to bow down to an > idol, I won't, even if they kill me. So why should the homosexuals be obliged to bow down to YOUR idol? > If I am disagreeeing with Jews on the net who subscribe to > absurd dogmas, I'll disagree undauntedly. The most they can do > is rant at me for not accepting their party line. It wouldn't surprise me to see you disagree with yourself. You've already shown how blatantly hypocritical your ideas are. -- "Ya dee apockety, rum fing f'doo. Ni, ni, ni, YOWWWWWWWWWW!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (06/06/85)
> > Rich, you leave yourself wide open to the same criticism. So far, > > you have shown as much intollerance on this net as anyone else. But your's > > is of course in the holy name of tolerance. Why is tolerance so holy ? > Precisely because it is the only way different groups of human beings can > expect to share a planet without mass destruction. If that's not important, > then just say so. Yes, avoiding destruction is important. However, not all intolerance leads to mass destruction. Absolutizing tolerance IS making it holy. Also, many believe that tolerating immoral practices invites Divine retribution on society. The Talmud cites homosexual sins as one of the reasons for the Flood, and associates the destruction of Sodom with sodomy. You are free to disagree, but recognize that I am just as free to define what I consider to be destructive to society and the world, and to disagree with you. > Who was it that said "extremism in the defense of liberty is a virtue"? The freedom to express condemnation towards practices you view as wrong is also a liberty. > Above I have stated the difference between being intolerant of people who are > doing nothing to interfere in others' lives and being intolerant of people who > are doing PLENTY to interfere in others' lives... 1 - You are virtually equating tolerance with non-interference. Holding an intolerant view towards certain practices, or expressing that view, is not the same as interference in peoples actions. You can be intolerant without violating individual liberties. One can believe in civil liberties and still not tolerate views and practices. The ACLU can be intolerant towards Nazi beliefs (and condemn them) and still defend their liberty to hold those beliefs. (I am not an ACLU-nik, just pointing out a logical distinction.) 2 - Your idea of wrong is not hurting others and not interfering with their lives. Other people have different ideas of right and wrong. They don't have to go along with your restrictive definition, and they don't have to prove their definitions to you (or anyone) before they express them. While you condemn others for believing that they have a monopoly on truth, you seem to believe that about yourself. Yitzchok Samet
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/07/85)
> Also, many believe that tolerating immoral practices invites > Divine retribution on society. The Talmud cites homosexual sins > as one of the reasons for the Flood, and associates the > destruction of Sodom with sodomy. You are free to disagree, but > recognize that I am just as free to define what I consider to be > destructive to society and the world, and to disagree with you. [SAMET] Are you free to define it for other people who DO diagree and see no rational proveable basis for your notions? >>Who was it that said "extremism in the defense of liberty is a virtue"? > The freedom to express condemnation towards practices you view as > wrong is also a liberty. Freedom of expression is different from killing or otherwise punishing a homosexual because you view his/her acts as "wrong". Which is what you are advocating. Is your freedom of expression any different from the Nazi who would kill or otherwise punish you? >>Above I have stated the difference between being intolerant of people who are >>doing nothing to interfere in others' lives and being intolerant of people who >>are doing PLENTY to interfere in others' lives... > 1 - You are virtually equating tolerance with non-interference. > Holding an intolerant view towards certain practices, or > expressing that view, is not the same as interference in peoples > actions. You can be intolerant without violating individual > liberties. One can believe in civil liberties and still not > tolerate views and practices. The ACLU can be intolerant towards > Nazi beliefs (and condemn them) and still defend their liberty > to hold those beliefs. (I am not an ACLU-nik, just pointing out a > logical distinction.) Intolerance in belief of an individual ("I dislike that") is something beyond the control of others. Intolerance in action IS interference, and that is what you have been advocating and what I have been discussing. > 2 - Your idea of wrong is not hurting others and not interfering > with their lives. Other people have different ideas of right and > wrong. They don't have to go along with your restrictive > definition, and they don't have to prove their definitions to you > (or anyone) before they express them. While you condemn others > for believing that they have a monopoly on truth, you seem to > believe that about yourself. Restrictive definition? IT'S THE MOST LIBERAL AND OPEN DEFINITION THERE IS!!! The only people it excludes are those who... Oh yeah, now I see why YOU see it as restrictive. What possible basis and justification could you possibly come up for enforcement of any other system of right and wrong? (Please answer this, if you can.) -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (06/07/85)
Senator Goldwater was paraphrased (or misquoted) as follows:
> Who was it that said "extremism in the defense of liberty is a virtue"?
What the Senator said was "Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no
vice." Maybe I'm being picky-picky, but I see a significant difference
in degree and kind between the two.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}