From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Autopsy - Kahane and Rosenbaum
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 00:32:38 GMT

In article <2851@israel.nysernet.org> warren@nysernet.org writes:

# In <1992Nov14.235158.4370@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
 
# >	Fine.  That is your right.  However, the way in which you do this
# >(talking about violence at his funeral which I can promise you he was
# >not involved with for one thing) does show ignorance,  a double
# >standard (lets hear you criticize the specific aspects of Judaism he
# >was for esides just criticizing him), or other not so nice
# >possibilities (including hate).
 
# Of course he did not commit the violence at his funeral or the grenade
# attack two days ago.  As the former was done by his followers

	How do youknow that?  How do you know they were just not trouble
makers who might know what would happen and would follow almost
anyone?

# and the
# latter was "not condemned"

	Even if they explicitly say it was not condemned (which really has
not been shown), there are many PR reasons for this.

# by them it seems to me that they are either
# continuing in his footsteps or misunderstood him (which do you
# think?).  If you'd like to talk about things that he "didn't condemn"
# when he was alive, you will find them not very different from the
# things that continued after his murder.

	Nope.  The old JDL line was not in the negative (we do not condemn)
but more in the positive (we support...) so there is a difference, and
it is you who is doing the misunderstanding.

# As to the specific aspects of Judiasm which he was for: I am against
# legislating halacha in general, however if someone wanted to legislate
# against all forbidden sexual acts I would not think that racism was
# the motive.  The departed wanted to outlaw sexual relations between
# Jews and non-Jews which says to me that he was using the Torah "as a
# spade to dig with", in the words of Pirkei Avot.

	Not really.  Not if you consider other "non" halachic issues such
as demogrphics and assimilation.

# As to his ideas about the rights of non-Jews in Eretz Yisrael which
# are found in the Rambam,

	Hey, EVERYBODY, read the above!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

# my criticism is not directed against the
# Rambam, but against those who seek to implement this law today.  I
# also have nothing against the Rambam for ruling that a woman may not
# be appointed to any public office whatsoever, but do criticize those
# who want to apply it.  These two cases differs from sex with a
# non-Jew, as most of us do not follow the Rambam in these matters.
 
	That may be, but at least there is a legitimate Jewish source for
the view.  It may be wrong to hold by it, but it cannot simply be
dismissed as racist.

# I imagine that you only follow the Rambam in the first ruling (Arabs)
# and not in the second (women in authority).  Could you explain why?

	What I follow has never been an issue here, and I have not mad
any statements on it.

# me: Whenever anyone claims in this group that the departed Rabbi is in any
# me: way a model for Jews or other humans, I will express my criticism of
# me: him, which will be totally absent of hate (which is not something
# me: which can be said about the departed).

# >	That ast parenthetical does show hate, since the only thing he was
# >"full of" was Ahavat Yisrael.  That you do not appreciate Ahavat
# >Yisrael is no excuse.
 
# We both evidently heard the departed speak.  You say that you heard
# ahavat yisrael.  I tell you that I heard hate.

	Well, than, I take it one of us misunderstood him.  By the way, he
made have had hate for Arab (as well as Jewish) foes of Israel who
actuallycommitted acts of terrorism, butnot against Arabs because they
were Arabs.  And that "hate" was merely an outgrowth of his love for
the victims.

# I heard mockery
# directed at Jews who disagreed with him.  This is what I heard, not
# something that I made up.


	That mockery is not hatred or racism.  And it may simply have been
his style.  However, comapred to the way all the establishments
(including the Israeli government) treated him, can you blame him?

# >	But you were not as he was not a racist.  Your "several short and
# >blunt assertions" cannot change this.  At "best" you were discussing a
# >faulty iage of him.
 
# I have explained, in this article and in others, why I feel that he
# was a racist in other than "short and blunt assertions".  I you care
# to deal with my views in other than another "short and blunt
# assertion" that he was not a racist this can go on for another few
# articles, I'm sure.

	You did demonstrate why you feel he was a racsit, which is not
demonstrating he was a racist.  At the most you have demonstrated he
was wrong.

# If however you start with the axiom that "he was not a racist" and any
# seeming demonstration to the contrary must therefore be wrong, we
# might as well stick to short and blunt.

	Well since I have never done that, there was no need (and will not
be a need) for you to be short and blunt.

	However, most people acusing him of racism have used that tactic.
They accused him of being racist and any seeming demonstration to the
contrary must therefore be wrong.
--
	There are three types of people in the world.  Those that are good
at math and those that are not.

makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu