From: warren@nysernet.org (Warren Burstein)
Subject: Re: Autopsy - Kahane and Rosenbaum
Reply-To: warren@nysernet.org
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:35:59 GMT

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 and the
latter was "not condemned" 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.

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.

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

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?

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

>	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.

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.
-- 
/|/-\/-\          Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
 |__/__/_/    
 |warren@         "Warren's slogan is an Anti-semite slogan."
/ nysernet.org 			    Gideon Ehrlich