Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houxt.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!houxt!hbb From: hbb@houxt.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Ann Landers on Judaism Message-ID: <458@houxt.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Aug-84 09:48:18 EDT Article-I.D.: houxt.458 Posted: Mon Aug 6 09:48:18 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 8-Aug-84 07:58:48 EDT References: <154@mhuxv.UUCP>, <585@ihuxs.UUCP> <457@houxt.UUCP>, <587@ihuxs.UUCP> Organization: ATT Information Systems, Holmdel NJ Lines: 100 Mark: I cannot imagine how you can criticize my position without even attempting to understand what that position is. Let me analyze your "response" piece by piece. >I hope you never hurt yourself on Shabbat and can't call an ambulance >because your too damn stubborn to use the phone to save your own life. > >I hope your mother or father never gets badly injured, and you're not >reachable because your too brainwashed with religion to answer the telephone >on Shabbat. Thank you, I, too, hope that neither my parents nor myself ever get injured on Sabbath (or any other time, for that matter.) Your response is totally ridiculous. I explicitly stated that calling for an ambulance would be one of several actions permitted on the Sabbath. It is permitted precisely because it is done to save a life. The saving of a life supercedes the Sabbath laws. What your statement does is bolster my claim that the arguments used against observance of the Sabbath laws (and any other laws of Judaism) are nothing more than straw-men! >I know I wouldn't want to find out in the newspaper that my parent was hurt. >That's pretty unfeeling, but typical of folks that are super-religious, to >suggest that you wouldn't want to be notified in case of an emergency >just because of some law that says you shouldn't use the telephone on Shabbat. If someone is injured and I am not a person that can help that person, then calling me is a waste of valuable time that could be better spent calling on experts who could help. An example would be a doctor. By all means, call the doctor. But since I am not a doctor, you shouldn't conatct me. While it is quite true that I am most interested in the welfare of my parents, and that I would want to know right away if something (Chas Veshalome) ever happened to them, I realize that letting me know about it on Shabbat will not improve their chances for recovery, precisley because I haven't the ability to heal them. I would be thankful that they received prompt medical attention before any thought of contacting me was made. As for the snide remark you made about lack of feeling being "typical of folks that are super-religious," I say that misrepresenting other peoples' point of view simply to bolster your own position about which you display a tremendous guilt complex is the epitome of an "unfeeling" characteristic! To subsequently accuse these same people of poor character traits you yourself display, is hipocrasy! It would appear that the "super-religious" do not have any sort of monopoly in those areas. >By the way, has it ever occurred to you that phones did not exist in biblical >times, and that therefore this law is not an original law. But yet you still >observe it! While it is true that phones did not exist in biblical times, this has nothing to do with originality of any of the laws. When new inventions or new discoveries are made, what the sages have always attempted to do was determine what characteristics there were in this new object so that it could be classified and the proper laws be attributed to it. Fire has been around for quite a while and electricity was found to have many of the same qualities. It is true that by going this route we have not formulated a law specifically designed for electricity. However, this is much the same process as modern day secular courts use to pass judgement on cases before them. The most important concept in U.S Jurisprudence may be precedence - basing judgements on previous cases. >Technology definitely was not an issue in biblical times. That's why that >argument was not used then. Now, however, the rapid and accelerated growth >of technology affects all of us. Technology was as much an issue in biblical times as it is today. You seem to have forgotten that tools were used in the contruction of buildings and in the manufacture of cloth and for metalwork in those days. The invention of the plow is attributed to Noah. During the construction of the Mishkan in the desert, the Jewish artisans produced very detailed and beautiful works. This may not be modern technology as we think of it today, but it was modern then. >It is the super-religious who want to hold back technology and, therefore, >hold back the advancement of mankind. Oh, brother. I hardly think that members of that "super-religious" group you speak about would ever have entered a fields like computer science had they really wanted to hold back technology. You will find religious physicists, educators, chemists, pharmacists, engineers, etc if only you will look. >It's no "straw-man" argument -- it's quite real. Wrong. It is nothing more than a straw-man! >Not seeing that is living with you eyes closed. That goes both ways. -- Harlan B. Braude {most "backbone" sites}!houxt!hbb