Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site bu-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!bu-cs!sam From: sam@bu-cs.UUCP (Shelli Meyers) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: % of "Non-Religious" Jews and Brass Tacks Message-ID: <549@bu-cs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 8-Aug-85 12:32:23 EDT Article-I.D.: bu-cs.549 Posted: Thu Aug 8 12:32:23 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 11-Aug-85 06:37:31 EDT References: <1241@ihuxi.UUCP>, <3780064@csd2.UUCP> Organization: Boston Univ Comp. Sci. Lines: 65 I apologize for my misunderstanding of the original purpose of this net and the religious persuasion or lack thereof of its readers. Thanks goes to Adam Reed for clarifying the inception of this net, which was, fortunately or unfortunately, before my time. Okay, so we cannot, in fact, assume that the majority of these readers are religious Jews. However, does that make this an open forum for attacking religious Jewish beliefs? Somebody once posted: >Wrong! Net.religion.jewish is NOT the appropriae place to challenge >Judasm. Rich Rosen powerfully defends the general anti-religion point >of view. Since his articles apply to religion in general, an not >specifically to Judaism, they do not belong in this newsgroup. While I think this may be a bit harsh...it does bring me back to a previous discussion with our hero Rich Rosen: >> Why? Because it is called net.RELIGION.jewish, not net.jewish. Therefore >> we've got to assume some sort of religious concepts here. We ought to >> discuss those religious differences, not the validity of individuals' >> beliefs themselves. >[ROSEN:]When you assume... Similarly, let's not discuss the "validity" of the >beliefs of Nazis. After all, if WE'RE entitled to these kinds of beliefs >abour "other" groups, so are they, right? (No, I'm sorry, there's a >difference. ... ... ... ...) I don't know Rich. Yes, it's okay to discuss the validity of religious beliefs, and (this is meant to be a compliment :-) you do that very well. But if there were a net.religion.nazi I don't think I'd bother to try to tell them that their genocidal plans were a gross adulteration of Christian morality. You've been arguing, philosophizing, and debating on the net for long enough to know that some people's minds will never change. >> Since you constantly dispute classic Jewish belief, do you consider >> yourself a "non-religious" Jew? If so, why not post the reasons why >> you still associate yourself with the Jewish people, rather than >> concentrating on why you don't. And if you or anyone else on the net >> doesn't think THAT'S an appropriate thing to discuss on the net either, >> then mail a reply to me. *I'd* sure like to know. >[ROSEN:]You would, eh? "Associate myself with the Jewish people"? What does >such a phrase mean? By "associating" myself (by virtue of birth), do >I obligate myself to adhere to certain types of behavior? Am I forbidden >from associating with certain people because I don't adhere? I don't >understand your question. If I did, though, I feel pretty sure I'd >resent it. Judging from your "eagerness" to know. You totally misinterpreted my question, I think. It was not meant in the sarcastic tone that you replied in. "Association with the Jewish people" can mean just about anything an individual wants it to, and I realize that. I am just inquiring about your own *personal* affiliation with Judaism. I am in no position to tell you what that's supposed to mean...whether it's supposed to be by virtue of birth or whether it means you're forbidden or supposed to adhere, etc. I don't know where you pulled that stuff from. It's just that I've really never met a non-religious Jew who still feels it important to BE a Jew. Do you still resent this question? Don't be so defensive. Shelli Meyers sam@bu-cs.UUCP