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!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Capital Punishment Message-ID: <1174@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 7-Jul-85 14:45:25 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1174 Posted: Sun Jul 7 14:45:25 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 8-Jul-85 01:23:00 EDT References: <619@sfmag.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 68 > = YITZCHOK SAMET > 1) Samet's view is that everything should always be done > according to the Torah. > > Yes, the Torah does prescribe capital punishment for things like > sexual sins and shabbos violation. In fact, it contains an > account in which a shabbos violater was executed in Moshe's time. > This fact may surprise those Jews who imagine that the Torah is > very much in tune with modern American values. > > Now, along comes someone and says "The Torah considers xyz to be > a capital crime." This information may be quite disturbing to > such people. They can react in different ways. Here are a few: > > 1) verify that the Torah is not what they thought it was, and > adjust to that reality, no matter how uncomfortable it may be > > 2) ignore what is openly stated in the Torah, and cling to wishful > preconceptions > > 3) attack the person who makes disturbing revelations about the > Torah rather than deal with the uncomfortable dissonance between > the Torah and modern values > > After stating the fact the Torah prescribes the death penalty for > homosexuality, I've been dismissed as a crackpot (for > misrepresenting the Torah) Hardly. I've never seen that here. On the contrary, I'm relatively sure you are representing the Torah quite accurately. > and compared to a Nazi for believing in it. And, again, rightfully so. The point being: you have based your views on what is right on the content of Torah. But who on earth are you to say that other people are obliged to hold that same view? You feel bound to those laws for yourself, and that is fine. But to claim that OTHERS *must* adhere to them because you do is ludicrous. What is your basis for doing so? Until you can give me such a basis, your assertions are NO DIFFERENT from those who would take some arbitrarily chosen book and declare that the content of that book consists of laws that everyone must follow. One (very extreme) example of this is Nazism: it holds that the content of Hitler's writings, which declare as a valid and good end, the elimination of Jews from the face of the earth. Who is any of us to question that "obviously right" set of writings? If you proclaim that to be arbitrarily true for one book, why shouldn't people like the Nazis do the same with theirs? The point is that if you can justify doing it for one book without solid reason behind it, you can do it with another. If you don't want to create a set of rules in which a Nazism could be justified in imposing its will on others, you cannot hope to do the same sort of imposition yourself! > The Nazi charge shifts attention to me rather than to the Torah, > which is the source of my view. I would reverse the charge as > follows: > > According to your reasoning, you should compare Judaism with > Nazism. Why do you avoid that conclusion? I think it's because > you recognize that such a comparison is ludicrous. If so, what > does that say about your reasoning? Read the above for the answer to that. In short: What is being compared is the set of metarules that would allow for arbitrary proclamation that MY (or YOUR) set of rules is enforceable as law because we say so despite our lack of evidential support for them. -- Like a sturgeon (GLURG!), caught for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr