Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!spuxll!abnji!u1100a!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Orthodox Judaism and Force
Message-ID: <1205@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 13-Jul-85 09:01:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1205
Posted: Sat Jul 13 09:01:43 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 06:30:10 EDT
References: <146@erc3ba.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 41

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