Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site eosp1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!eosp1!robison From: robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Noachic laws (disagreeing with Rosen) Message-ID: <1307@eosp1.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Dec-84 09:20:07 EST Article-I.D.: eosp1.1307 Posted: Thu Dec 20 09:20:07 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Dec-84 02:10:28 EST References: <341@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) Organization: Exxon Office Systems, Princeton Lines: 35 Xref: watmath net.religion:5162 net.religion.jewish:1120 Summary: (NOTE! Rosen quote at END of this article!) It is unbelievably important that every religion establish its point of view about what moral code outsiders are bound to. The reason for this is surprising, but easy to understand if you look at history. People tend to believe, unless instructed otherwise, that outsiders not adhering to their religion are pieces of dirt to be treated any which way and cheated/injured/etc when opportunity arises. Most religions err in failing to specify enough about people's reponsibilities to outsiders. I'm not sure that Judaism has gone far enough! Nor is it sufficient for a religion to tell its adherents how to treat outsiders, without stating what is expected in return. One-sided expectations don't work. I think it is not quite fair to say that a religion is imposing its laws to outsiders, but rather that it is stating how practicing insiders should judge outsiders. It is actually impractical to ask, say, Jews to judge every Buddhist, Catholic, Taoist and Hindi by their own religions, since most of us know nearly not enough to do so. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) {allegra, decvax!ittvax, fisher, princeton}!eosp1!robison The quote: In article <341@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >The point being: what right does any religion have to impose arbitrary laws >on people not under its domain? Do YOU adhere to the laws that other religions >say that you must, even though you are not a member of their sect? > >Which brings up the more important point: to those who would claim I am >attacking Christianity---I am attacking the right of ANY religion to impose >its moral code on those who don't hold to *its* beliefs.