HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni)
Subject: Re: Anti-Semitism is Alive and Well in New Jersey
Organization: The Department of Redundancy Department
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 00:21:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec3.144330.20826@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> stank@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (Stan Krieger) writes:

>   While details being reported in the media are sketchy at best, it
>   looks at though anti-Semitism is thriving at Chatham High School.

[...]

>     4.	At least the bigots are equal-opportunity.  Those of
>	Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Indian, etc., ancestry are
>	also treated as well as the Jews (understand that it's

This, to me, isn't anti-semitism, per se, so much as it is racism and
bigotry.  There are people who, under certain circumstances, will lash
out at outsiders, ireespective of what it is that makes them an
outsider.  

Some anti-semites will hate Jews regardless of the circumstances, and
without necessarily harboring the same vile feelings to others.  Other
anti-semites have special hatred for Jews but hate many others, as
well.  Others, still, just hate, without really caring or thinking
much about who it is they hate.  These last are not anti-semites. 

-- 
Jake Livni  jake@bony1.bony.com              10 years from now, George Bush will
American-Occupied New York                   have replaced Jimmy Carter as the
My opinions only - employer has no opinions. standard of a failed President.
From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Jews, Cincinatti, and the KKK
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:33:14
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
	<1992Dec14.011630.16397@nysernet.org>
	<9212151637.AA05506@hrt213.brooks.af.mil>
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil's message of Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:37:40 GMT

In article <9212151637.AA05506@hrt213.brooks.af.mil> tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil (Tim Miller) writes:

	   Well, the concept of "separation of Church and State" is an
   artifact of Supreme Court decisions through the years.  All the
   Constitution says is that there will be no religious tests for holders
   of public office (I'm tempted to say "elected officials" here, but I
   don't have a source to check handy).  Should the Supreme Court choose to
   change their current interpretation, the "separation" idea goes out the
   window. 

No, it says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (indeed, those are
the first and second clauses of the first amendment).

	   Even this ban seems only applicable at the federal level.  Many
   (most?) state constitutions require officeholders at least acknowledge
   that they believe in G-d; some (like Maryland, I think) even go so far
   as to state that holders affirm J*s*s.

The fourteenth amendment extends the constitutional protections to cover
state governments as well as the federal government:

Article XIV. [proposed June 13, 1866; proclaimed July 28, 1868]
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
       and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
   are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.
   No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
       privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
   nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
       without due process of law,
   nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
       the laws.
--
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: jgoldber@todah.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg)
Subject: Re: Question on "Jewish mother = jewish children"
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:26:41 GMT

In article <1gobr3INN4r8@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>Another question:
>If I (a Jewish woman) give birth to a child conceived by ZIFT, and the
>ovum was not my own (and not known to be from a Jewish woman), would 
>the child still be Jewish?
>Conversely, if I donated an ovum to a non-jewish woman and she bore
>the child, would the child be Jewish?
 According to the g'mara, the answer is unknown. In (chulin?) they
 discuss the case of two animals that are placed so that their wombs
 are touching, and the one give birth directly into the uterus of the
 second, the young subsequently emerging to daylight from the second.
 This is close enough to surrogate motherhood as to make no diffrence.
 The g'mara asks "which animal is the mother?" and the answer is "teko,"
 which means that no answer is known (and/or that it will be resolved
 by Eliyahu ha tishbi etc.)

 Of course, the discussion, and the entire page, were simply mental
 exercise as far as the talmudists were concerned, but they did
 address the issue.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Kahane's philosophy
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:46:23 GMT

In article <3020@israel.nysernet.org> warren@nysernet.org writes:

# In <1992Dec9.144821.16854@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:
 
# >	Let me just add that while "They Must Go" does talk about
# >transfer, it in no way calls for "punishing an entire race" it does
# >not call for "an entire ethinc group to be expelled", and it does not
# >state "that Israel should be 'Arabrein'".
 
# Yes, andy is incorrect. It is necessary to use accurate information to
# criticize one's opponents.
 
# Arabs are not to be "punished", but what is to be done to them is to
# be decided by Jews, taking their own interest into account first
# (although the author insists that this would benifit the Arabs as
# well).  Did we not object when decisions were made for us in the
# Diaspora?

	I have no problem with Israel taking Jewish interests into account
first.  It would seem as if (and if I am incorrect I apologize in
advance, but please tell me why) you do have a problem with this.

	Also, even though what you say sounds oh so nice and bleeding
heartish, taken to its logical conclusion it would effect aevery
decision ever made by a majority in a democracy that had an effect on
those in the minority.

# And they are not to be "expelled" if they agree to surrender
# civil rights including the right to vote.  If another country did this
# to Jews, would we not protest?

	We probably would protest.  However, Israel is a Jewish State.  It
seems to me as if (again, if I am wrong I apologize in advance but
please tell me why) you are willing to sacrifice that so as not to
bring in a condition that you would protest if it took place in
another country.  I have no prblem with keeping Israel as a Jewish
State even if it would mean creating that condition.
--
	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
From: bc744@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Irreconcilable Differences...
Date: 11 Dec 1992 21:28:29 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


   There have been various recent efforts to link Christianity to 
Judaism.  These efforts range from the repeated use of the phrase   
"Judeo-Christian" to groups of evangelists refering to themselves
as 'Jews' for Jesus.  All of these efforts, calculated to convert 
Jews to Christianity, are doomed to failure.  These attempts show
that they know little or nothing about Judasim.

   To begin with, there is show much of Christian dogma that Jews
regard as idol-worship, that Christian worship is somewhat vulgar
from the Jewish point of view.  Jews actually do not have visions
of God.  God is regarded as beyond anything that we mortals could
possibly grasp.  The mere suggestion that "Jesus is Lord" offends
the very foundation of the Jewish concept of God. 

   Moshiach(messiah) is not a supernatural being.  He is supposed
to be a man, and only a man.  For this reason, it is not possible
for the Jewish messiah to be born, die, and be resurrected, so he
can try to get right what he never accomplished the first time.

   And finally, the concept of God crucifying his own son for the
sins of any other person, let alone all of humanity, is, from the 
Jewish point of view, totally unacceptable.  It flies in the face
of everything that is important in Judasim.  Judaism teaches that
salvation is achievable by how one behaves.  In Judaism, even the
atheist who behaves in a decent and kind manner will have a place
in the world to come.  

   If, as Judaism teaches, one can achieve salvation by behavior,
then Jesus would have died for nothing.  And herein lies why Jews
can never accept Christianity.  This is not to be regarded as any
sort of value judgement of Christianity, for it is not.  Consider
this simply a statement as to why Christianity cannot find common
ground with Judaism.  It hopefully will shed some light on why we
Jews find Christian proselytising so offensive.



Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay)
Subject: Re: atonement thru death of righteous person
Organization: Jews for Melkor
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:25:54 GMT

In article <12059@hogg.ed.ac.uk> iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski) writes:
>In article <9212112131.AA01147@hrt213.brooks.af.mil> tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil (Tim Miller) writes:
>
><	Human sacrifice (which this is) is verboten.  Big time.
>
>What about Jephthah the Gileadite killing his daughter (Judges 11)?

Just because it's *forbidden* doesn't mean people didn't do it.

My take on the Yiphtach episode is that Yiphtach's oath (to make
an offering of the first thing he saw) was an impious, perhaps
blasphemous, one. (The odds that the first thing to come out of
his door would be suitable for a burnt offering-- i.e. that it
would be a goat, sheep, cow, dove, etc. without blemish-- were
astronomically small. The odds that a sheaf of grain would come
out to greet him were even smaller.) He should never have sworn
the oath, and the oath was not binding. (If you swear an oath to
commit a sin, I'm fairly sure it's not binding.)

Not that God does not tell Yiphtach to sacrafice his daughter;
rather, Yiphtach assumes that his oath must be binding. This
looks like pride, or hubris, to me; rather than break his own
sworn word, he commits a monstrous sin.

Mind you, I haven't Learned about this. What do Chazal say?
-- 
Andrew Solovay    

"SILENCE = QUIET"
                --Girljock Magazine
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: mk568652@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Mitchell Kotler)
Subject: Re: Jewish STEREOTYPES - the last time
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 21:26:15 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <1992Dec18.172759.14745@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>, seth@inst-sun1.tmc.edu (Seth Chazanoff) writes:
|> Mitch
|> 
|> 	Re: Jewish "Self-mocking"
|> 
|> 	I disagree that this is a dangerous trait.  I feel that being able to
|> laugh at one's self or one's circumstances is a sign of good health, and show
|> a high comfort level with one's beliefs.  It is also a good safety valve.  I
|> posted a Holocaust joke a couple of minutes ago.  I read it in a book entitled
|> "Humor in Hell."  "Humor in Hell" talks about the different classes of jokes,
|> when they were told, and the effects and what they were trying to achieve.
|> If you are not willing to laugh at yourself, there comes a time when the only
|> thing left is to lay down and die.  In telling jokes you not only lift your 
|> spirits, but you also bring a powerful weapon to bear on your enemies.
|> 
|> 
|> 	I am sure that the sages had something to say about laughter, (they
|> had something to say about everything else <G>), I my ignorance of their
|> teachings on the subject, I will leave you with my own.
|> 
|> 	Laughter is good for the body, Laughter is good for the soul.  Try
|> it sometime.
|> 
|> 				Shabbat Shalom
|> 					Seth
|>  
ANSWER:

1.  Laughter is good,  I agree.  Self-mockery in front of non-Jews is not.
2.  Self-mockery brings about the idea that if Jews can mock themselves, 
      then anyone can,  it's like 'open season'.
3.  If we want some respect as a Jewish people, in this world dominated by
     Christians and Muslims, then there has to be a better way.  I can't see
      self-mockery in the face of non-Jews (i.e., not among Jews) as a way 
       to achieve this.  Do we want to be respected or do we want discrimination?
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: sharon@unixland.natick.ma.us (Sharon Machlis Gartenberg)
Subject: Re: Excerpts From a Reader's Letter-to-the-Editor
Organization: Unixland Public Access Unix  (508) 655-3848
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 02:13:14 GMT

horen@netcom.com (Jonathan B. Horen -- [408] 736-3923) writes:

>It's Hannukah -- let it be *our* choice if, when, and where
>we will wear yellow stars. 

Only somewhat related, and perhaps this has been dealt with already
before, but I'd like to bring up one of my pet peeves of the "holday
season" --

Frankly, I would rather that both the media and my non-Jewish acquaintances
would pay more attention to the very important Jewish holidays, such
as Passover and the High Holy Days -- than put all this emphasis on
Hannukah because it happens to fall near Christmas and thus qualifies
for some kind of "equal-time" provision. 

I would be much happier if my non-Jewish friends wished me a happy New
Year on Rosh Hashanah than if they sent me Hannukah cards and gave me
Hannukah gifts. The first truly respects my traditions and culture;
the second seems more like bending my holiday to fit in with theirs.
(And, by the way, some of my non-Jewish friends *do* send me New Year's
cards for Rosh Hashanah, which I really appreciate. If they also then
wish to exchange gifts at this time of year, I can't honestly say that
I mind. :-) )

 


-- 
Sharon Machlis Gartenberg
Framingham, MA  USA
email: sharon@unixland.natick.ma.us   or   uunet!think.com!unixland!sharon
From: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Refuting Xian Missionaries (README)
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:58:01 GMT
Organization: New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, N.J.

In article <ALEX.92Dec15144456@diamond.idbsu.edu> alex@math.idbsu.edu (Alex Feldman) writes:
>
>While the book has some useful information in it, I found it rather
>shrill, and I was particularly offended by the following sentences
>from the last paragraph of the introduction:
>
>"I have no quarrel with Christian missionaries who try to convert
>pagans into becoming Christians.  That is highly meritorious, becuase
>they are then transforming an immoral, primitive person into a more
>moral and spiritual one."
>
>Frankly, if I'd seen those sentences before the fact, I probably never
>would have bought the book.

Neither I.  I have many friends who observe religions that are called
"pagan" by the uneducated masses.  Aside from a few cults that call
themselves "satanist" as an excuse to commit attrocities, most pagans
I know are quite moral and spiritual.  

Polytheism != immoral/primative

-- 
  |)  David Charlap          | .signature confiscated by FBI due to
 /|_  dic5340@hertz.njit.edu | an ongoing investigation into the
((|,)                        | source of these .signature virusses
 ~|~
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil (Tim Miller)
Subject: Re: STOP Spreading Jewish Stereotypes!!
Organization: AL/HRTI, Brooks AFB
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:34:17 GMT

On Thu, 17 Dec 1992 01:51:22 GMT, emc@doe.carleton.ca (Eli Chiprout) said:

 E> In <Dec17.010114.55602@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> mk568652@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Mitchell Kotler) writes:

  >**************************************************************
  >I RECENTLY HAD A "CONVERSATION" WITH MADDI HAUSMANN
  >TELL ME   WHAT  YOU  THINK OF THIS MESS.
  >[etc. deleted]

 E> Yup, its a mess alright!  Especially since we've seen this posting
 E> for the 50th time.

 E> We got your drift Mitchell!

	Well, I pointed out to Mr. Kotler in email that posting private
mail to Usenet is in violation of etiquette and policy, along with the
personal opinion that he might try to lighten up a bit.

	I got mail back that contained a cited copy of my mail followed
by 16 repititions of "Fuck you."

	Mr. Kotler is not stable, in my opinion.

-- Cerebus <tjm@hrt213.brooks.af.mil>
"Not by a long shot.  Mail like that is grounds for account removal; I
 should know, I'd nuke one of my users for it."
From: solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Vijay's Genuine Apology
Date: 16 Dec 92 19:41:37 GMT
Organization: People's Front of Judea

In article <1992Dec16.163129.24073@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> ucakrvb@ucl.ac.uk (Vijay Bhuchar) writes:
>...
>My first article was in a response to a question 
>* What is Messianic Judaism? * I showed you the Daniel 9 
>prophecy which is winning the Orthodox over in their 100's.

Ah. Clearly these are the "idiot Orthodox" that Mr. Bhuchar was
talking about.
-- 
Andrew Solovay    

"SILENCE = QUIET"
                --Girljock Magazine
From: miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Kaellis on proselytizing by Judaism
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:18:25 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

There has been much discussion here and elsewhere about
proselytizing of Jews by Christians.  A couple of years ago I read
a rather unusual book:

     Eugene Kaellis
     _Toward a Jewish America_
     Edwin Mellen Press: Queenston, Ontario 1987

This well-written book quite seriously advocates the resumption of
proselytizing *by Judaism* as a means of combatting what many
people see as a "decline" of Judaism in the U.S. (and of helping to
combat, at the same time, the progressive secularization of
American society).

I say "resumption" because Judaism has, of course, been a
proselytizing religion to varying degrees in the past (see for
example Bernard J. Bamberger, _Proselytism in the Talmudic Period_,
Ktav Publishing House, 1939, which portrays Jewish proselytizing as
persisting from late biblical times to many centuries after the
Christian period, up to and including the first century of the
Common Era; according to Bamberger the Rabbis had not, as is
commonly believed, soured on converts even by the close of the
fifth century).

In any event: has anyone seen the Kaellis book?  (I can summarize
his arguments if there's any interest.)  Any (new) thoughts on this
whole question?

-Ken
-- 
miner@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | Graecis ac barbaris, sapientibus et
opinions are my own      | insipientibus debitor sum
From: jacobsen@itexjct.jct.ac.il (Joel Jacobsen)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: An Jewish E-mail match service?
Date: 19 Dec 92 20:45:28 GMT
Organization: ITEX, Jerusalem, Israel

If someone posted here a service which match  singles via E-mail, PLEASE
REPOST IT.

        Joel

Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: jgoldber@todah.chem.utoronto.ca (Joel Goldberg)
Subject: Re: SCJ HAS BEEN DECONTAMINATED!
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 21:38:07 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.193923.22290@netcom.com> solovay@netcom.com (Andrew M. Solovay) writes:
>If the world followed "ayin tachit ayin", the world would be a
>lot better off, IMHO.
  Not to mention tachat tachit tachat.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: mark@fenris.albany.edu (Mark Steinberger)
Subject: Re: Jews, Cincinatti, and the KKK
Organization: State University of New York at Albany
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 02:27:45 GMT


Is it a coincidence that Marge Schott is from Cincinatti?


--Mark
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: rlk@think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Messiah Jesus: Miracles in the Talmud
Date: 18 Dec 1992 12:35:17 -0500
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation

In article <1992Dec18.044849.29522@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> dkhaikin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dmitry Khaikin) writes:

   Hey, Jews! I have a new idea, that improves the last idea of sending him
   a lot of messages at once. What do you say we set up a time each day or
   every week,  and exactly at that time send him the same thing about 3
   times. That is definately organized and just might drive this guy out of
   here!
   What do you say?

Really bogus, plus if you clog the spool directory on his machine the
sysadmin there will have a real beef with you, since you might interfere
with other people's work.  In security terms, that's a "denial of
service" attack, and things like that are taken seriously.

   (Quit my dear xtian, because if this goes through, you are going to be
   sorry you ever got an account! You what happens when you have no memory
   on the server's disk (that is run out of your quota)? Everything you
   save will automatically be NOT saved, so, you will be forced to delete
   them every time! Well, if you choose to do that, I, as a proud member of
   a free society, respect your choice! Then have a lot of fun, but hey,
   don't get tired though! Maybe if you spend all day cleaning your mail
   box you will not have as much time to write that nonsense. And just
   maybe you will actually spend the time (while cleaning the mail box)
   thinking. Don't yo miss that feeling? Well, I guess, you don't.)

And if he's smart (questionable, I admit), he'll set up his mailer to
simply bounce everything right back, without him ever seeing it.
-- 
ames >>>>>>>>>  |	Robert Krawitz <rlk@think.com>	245 First St.
bloom-beacon >  |think!rlk				Cambridge, MA  02142
harvard >>>>>>  .	Thinking Machines Corp.		(617)234-2116

Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write lpf@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
From: thos@suite.sw.oz.au (Thomas Cohen)
Subject: Re: and then he puked all over my sandals (was PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY'S INTELLIGENCE UNIT EXPOSED)
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:23:42 GMT

In <HEM.92Dec7182352@maverick.col400.att.com> hem@maverick.col400.att.com (Hillel E. Markowitz) writes:

>In article <2993@israel.nysernet.org> warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein) writes:

>   as = adam@endor.uucp (Adam Shostack)
>   ls = simon@school.enet.dec.com ("Curioser and Curioser...")

>   ls: Who is not liberal when young, does not have a heart.
>   ls: Who is not conservative when old, does not have a brain.
>   ls: 
>   ls: 				-- Attributed to many

>   as: Actually, I think it was Churchill who said it first, but I could be
>   as: wrong.

>   I think it was Hillel.  Or was it Shamai?

>It wasn't me


But the real question is : How old was the first person who said it?

regards,
-- 
thos cohen                                     |Softway Pty Ltd
                                               |ACSnet:         thos@softway.oz
 "Lex is a flaky implementation of a bad idea" |UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!thos
                          - Ken Thompson, 1988 |Internet:    thos@softway.oz.au