From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Subject: Re: Child abuse ordered by G-d
Summary: Christians say the darndest things.
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:14:27 GMT

In article <765363d8129599t281@witsend.uucp> "D. C. Sessions" <dcs@witsend.tnet.com> writes:
>In <jtamdor.727419262@vincent1.iastate.edu>, jtamdor@iastate.edu (Jason T Amdor)  wrote:
># 
># In <1993Jan11.185943.16029@cbfsb.cb.att.com> hem@col400.att.com (Hillel E. Markowitz) writes:
># >Once the appropriate "case law" is taken into account, the
># >talmudic statement that this is a case which "never was and never
># >will be" (literal translation of legal phrase) is understood.
># 
># 	Not to add anything specific to this argument, but on the
># channel discussion as a whole: I guess, then, that we are lucky
># to have someone like yourself who is an expert on such biblical
># remarks.

Hmmm. Let me get this straight - we have a law which, on the
surface, lets a parent kill their child for being a drunkard,
insolent, a thief; We all seem to be agreed that if this
punishment were ever to be applied, that would be a BAD THING.

Hillel here quotes from an "interpretation" in the case law which
piles so many preconditions on it, that it will never be applied.
In fact, that intent is expressed in the text as well. And that
makes this horrible law into a good law, a law that expresses the
character of God. Or so it is claimed.

"This," I thought to myself, "is the most ridiculous rationalization
I have ever heard." But not trusting my own judgement, I walked
over to the next cubicle.

"Hey, Joe," I said, holding up a newspaper and reading an imaginary
article, "Senator YoHoWaHoy from Hawaii has introduced a bill
that would let parents have their kids killed if they testify
that they are drunkards, thieves, and insolent."

Joe Fundy sez: "WHHHAAAAT!! That is the craziest thing I've
ever heard."

"No, it's okay - there are so many preconditions it will never
be applied." And I read off the case law (rewritten in legalese).

Joe Fundy sez: "YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND! If it can't ever be
applied, what is the point? If it is ever applied, it's monstrous."

"Yeah," I say, "that is what I thought." Casting a sidelong glance
at the Bible on his desk, I left his cubicle.

Hasn't it occurred to any of you apologists that maybe, just maybe
at some point in their history found that law as objectionable as
we do, and in self defense started adding preconditions? That
since they can't repeal "God's Law", they simply interpreted it
out of existence? Now _THAT_ would make sense.

Which just goes to show Christians (and Jews too) will believe
any absurdity required to patch up holes in their belief system.

D. C. Sessions:
>  This shouldn't be a problem, since the commandment in question
>  (along with 606 others) were given specifically to Jews, who
>  DO have the judicial system to prevent abuse.  The trouble
>  arises when others pick and choose portions of the text for
>  their own use.
>
>--- Note new network address:                dcs@witsend.tnet.com ---
>--- Author (and everything else!) of TMail  (DOS mail/news shell) ---

If the only way to prevent abuses of a law is to pile on so
many preconditions that it never applies, how can it be a good
law?

	Max G. Webb
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,soc.culture.german