From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: more of ...can of worms....
Date: 17 Aug 92 20:23:23 GMT
	<1992Aug17.192210.15830@njitgw.njit.edu>
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com
In-reply-to: dic5340@hertz.njit.edu's message of 17 Aug 92 19:22:10 GMT

(This is my first posting here, at least in many years, and just so
people don't get confused I'm from a conservative/orthodox household but
personally nonobservant.)

In article <1992Aug17.192210.15830@njitgw.njit.edu> dic5340@hertz.njit.edu (David Charlap) writes:

   In article <56990@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
   >IF the person is not endangering others, we have the moral right only
   >to attempt persuasion.  What gives you the right to tell them what is
   >good for them?  Even if they know that it is likely to shorten their
   >lives, but they believe it will help their souls, you do not have the
   >moral right.  THIS is the principle of freedom, and it is no accident
   >that the Reform movement was started as a result of a realization of
   >the rights of man.

   There's a difference between forcing your groups beliefs on outsiders
   and forcing them on insiders.  I would agree if you meant
   proselytizing non-Jews, but there is nothing wrong with Jews trying to
   get other Jews to be more Jewish.  THIS is Judaism, which has never
   esposed personal freedom as a cornerstone of its religion, unlike the
   USA.

Well, suppose I don't want to be an insider?  Who are you to decide
who's an "insider" and who's an "outsider"?

   >And furthermore, what if you are wrong?  We now have the situation in
   >which government agencies are imposing their judgment, even when there
   >are many scientists who hold otherwise, to decide what we can and cannot
   >have.  It is quite possible that these government agencies have caused
   >hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of deaths, and considerable
   >suffering.  Until recently, the individual as an individual had no rights.
   >The early law codes only slightly limited the power of the authorities.

   This isn't a government agency.  This is religion.  Government has no
   business in religion, and you're stating total non-sequetors.

And religion has no business meddling with people who don't want to be
meddled with either, in my view.

   >The greatest immorality of all is to impose one's morality on others.

   But there's nothing wrong with imposing one's morality on yourself.
   Or on your own group.

What is "your own group"?  As far as I'm concerned, the only group (as
opposed to those organizations which I voluntarily associate with) to
which I really belong is the human race.  Quite frankly, I get worried
when I see people emphasize group affiliation, because it tends to
emphasize group exclusion, which leads to ignorance and intolerance (and
worse...).  This doesn't mean I'm going to push people to "assimilate"
who don't want to, but I expect them to show me the same courtesy and
not push me around either.
--
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 league@prep.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.jjapan