From: gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: O-C-R debate
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:45:14 GMT
Reply-To: <gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)>
Organization: Nysernet

hap@scubed.scubed.com (Hap Freiberg)
><gertler@ptms_dev.sbi.com (User - Don Gertler)> writes:
>>hap@scubed.scubed.com (Hap Freiberg) writes:
>>	"Fundies" of any ilk are anathema. They
>>	tend to have tunnel vision, be self-righteous,
>>	^^^^^^^
>>What do you mean by "tend to"?  Do they or don't they have tunnel vision,
>>...

>Yes, by definition: fundamentalism "a movement or attitude stressing
>strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles" is no
>different whether it is Judaic, Islamic, or Xian in origin. It is
>equally narrow-minded, restrictive, absolutist, and exclusive.

Ridiculous.  While I agree with your definition of fundamentalism, it
doesn't follow that all fundamentalist systems are identical.  They
may be identical in their criteria as fundamentalists, but to equate
Judaism and Christianity, for instance, is misinformed.

Christianity, I believe, says all non Christians are doomed -- anathema,
if you will.  Judaism -- even the fundamentalist brand -- says nothing
of the sort.

I would even say that many perfectly normal people can be considered
"fundamentalist" in their "humanism."  The basic priciples to which they
strictly adhere may be a rejection of murder, theft, harming others, etc.
As usual, Political Correctness (another fundamentalism) will not permit
the use of the term in these "normal" circumstances, because then the
PCs would have to condemn less distasteful types as well.

>>	and to believe whole-
>>	heartedly that their "WAY" is the only way and that all non-followers
>>	or -believers are doomed.  Not a whole lot of room left for compro-
>>	mise, individuality, or divergent thoughts....

Again, I refer you to the above paragraph where I said that Judaism
does NOT doom non-followers.  As for compromise, if it means that I
must compromise my beliefs or principles, then you're right.  If I
can accommodate others without having to break the law, great.

>>It's funny that you use the term "anathema."  An anathema is one who (that)
>>is damned or cursed, or greatly loathed.  I guess they say about you exactly
>>what you say about them.
>>
>Anathema "1. one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority; 2. a ban
>or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority." I doubt that
>anyone has "ecclesiaastical authority" over another unless that authority
>is freely given. Of course, one could have the misfortune to live in a
>theocracy... You wouldn't happen to be proposing such, would you?

It was you who declared the fundies anathema.  I assumed that you, not
being a fundie (Is that fundy, or fundie?) yourself, have no ecclesiastical
authority.  I therefore ignored the ecclesiastical definition in your
use of the term.  The remaining uses, which you ignored, are as I had
offered.  You alone were damning or cursing or otherwise greatly loathing.
I refuse to return the favor.

Really, now.  You should be more tolerant of others.

>>You wouldn't happen to be a closet fundie, now would you?
>>
>Not at all. The major difference twixt fundies and me is that I couldn't
>care less what they may profess to be The Truth and The Way unless they
>attempt to force me to believe as they do. Then I care a great deal and
>tend to take measures to protect myself.

First, since you do appear to care I must assume that "they" have tried 
to force your belief.  I'm sure we're not talking about one or two
individuals here because I give you more credit than to stereotype
entire groups by the actions of a couple of nuts.  And, of course,
discussion and debate do not qualify as force, or so I assume.  So,
pray tell, what form of coercion was used by "the fundies" to force
you to change your belief system?  And how many jumped you?

>>	What is the "moral"
>>	difference between the Orthodox of Jerusalem throwing stones at other
>>	Jews who travel on the Sabbath and the former head of the Southern
>>	Baptists telling his convention that God does not here the prayers of
>>	the Jews?
>>
>>There's a great difference indeed.  The former can have tragic consequences,
>>while the latter cannot.  After all, G-d doesn't listen to the sermons of a
>>Southern Baptist minister.
>
>I must have missed your reasoning re the above differences.

Is it really so difficult?  Perhaps the problem is that you couldn't
believe a Jewish fundie would actually see fault with the throwing of
stones, monolithic as we are (no pun intended).  Or perhaps you think
the SB's statement is as bad as the stoning?  I guess it is I who have
missed your reasoning. 

News for the hard of thinking:  I condemn the stone throwing incidents.
I don't bother with Southern Baptist sermons unless they incite violence.

>And I
>missed the smiley at the end. Or do you really know to whom and not to
>whom God listens?

Of course I know.  I'm a fundie.  Remember?

Oh yeah, :-)

Please apply the above smiley where appropriate.

-Don Gertler
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish