A constitutional theocracy for Israel

[Overload]

This is a an article to discuss the future of Israel. I support the creation of a constitutional theocracy. This is a large subject, and I am not one to preach, but I am one to answer any questions or objections one might have about this idea. Remember there are no stupid questions, there are only stupid answers. I only ask that you approach the subject with maturity, keep personal insults to a minimum and stay on topic; I will ignore flamebait and trolling. In return, I promise to answer whatever questions anyone has in the most satisfactory manner possible. I am most interested in what people who have objections have to say about this. I think that if we keep these general guidelines in mind, we can learn from each other.

So I will start with the basics.

A constitutional theocracy is a form of government in which within the context of a modern democracy, a particular religion is granted a central role in the legal and political system. In contrast to a pure theocracy, power resides in political figures operating within the bounds of a constitution, rather than religious leadership. I am not talking about Iran here. People will still be elected from whatever political party, but it will finally define the "Jewish State" with Jewish values. The Torah is inherently democratic. Both the United States and Switzerland were inspired by the political system of the "Old Testament."

I will eleborate as questions are asked.

[KettleWhistle]

First of all, Tanah/Christian Old Testament are in no way democratically-minded. Democracy means unrestricted access to the ballot box by all citizenry. Nothing more really.

And secondly, what you are proposing is really nothing short of a forced cultural stagnation.

[Overload]

First of all, Tanah/Christian Old Testament are in no way democratically-minded. Democracy means unrestricted access to the ballot box by all citizenry. Nothing more really.

As many political theorists would tell you, democracy does not simply mean access to a ballot box. Saddam Hussein made people vote, it didnt actually mean that it resulted in political change. As Stalin said:"It doesnt matter how the people vote, it matters who controls the ballots after they vote."

Elections are not in themselves a sufficient condition for the existence of democracy.

Elections have often been used by authoritarian regimes or dictatorships to give a false sense of democracy. This can happen in a variety of different ways:
* restrictions on who is allowed to stand for election
* restrictions on the true amount of power that elected representatives are allowed to hold, or the policies that they are permitted to choose while in office
* voting which is not truly free and fair (e.g., through intimidation of those voting for particular candidates)
* or most simply through falsification of the results

So no, Democracy is a form of government where the elected officials are held accountable for their decisions to the will of the governed. It is there to make sure that decisions are accountable and the process is transparent. It means that people have the right to debate policy freely.



And secondly, what you are proposing is really nothing short of a forced cultural stagnation.

Judaism is the universal principle of the Jewish people. Without it Jews are shells of themselves. Just as there are Christian nations, Islamic nations, and Indian nations, there is no reason to say that Jews, the proginators of most world cultures cannot have a state based on their principles. The Jewish people have thrived and created culture according to Jewish principles for centuries. Limiting the scope of what is appropriate to uphold as valuable in society is not stagnation.

[KettleWhistle]

As many political theorists would tell you, democracy does not simply mean access to a ballot box. Saddam Hussein made people vote, it didnt actually mean that it resulted in political change. As Stalin said:"It doesnt matter how the people vote, it matters who controls the ballots after they vote."

Elections are not in themselves a sufficient condition for the existence of democracy.

I did say unrestricted access. I think the only one thing I missed is that of any citizen being able to run for an office.



[quoteJudaism is the universal principle of the Jewish people. Without it Jews are shells of themselves. [/QUOTE]
Not at all. There is more to Jewish people than Judaism. There are plenty of people, myself including, who don't believe in God and see Judaism as mere Jewish/Hebrew mythology. And there is also a secular culture that has developed upon the Judaic moral principles, but without attaching them to Biblical directives and fearmongering.

[FOGOMAINS]

This is a an article to discuss the future of Israel. .....

A constitutional theocracy is a form of government in which within the context of a modern democracy, a particular religion is granted a central role in the legal and political system. In contrast to a pure theocracy, power resides in political figures operating within the bounds of a constitution, rather than religious leadership. I am not talking about Iran here. People will still be elected from whatever political party, but it will finally define the "Jewish State" with Jewish values. The Torah is inherently democratic. Both the United States and Switzerland were inspired by the political system of the "Old Testament."

I will eleborate as questions are asked.
Maybe possible for Israel, but i wouldn't like it for my country. Religions and politics must be separated (s. Iran and others). A constitutional theocracy would force me to leave my country at once. We got all religions i heard about and our constitution guarantees religious freedom.

What would happen to people who live in Israel without being Jews? New minorities?

I still remember the day when i decided to leave the protestant church. I had to visit a church office and they asked for a written explanation! I refused, because i didn't apply for a membership. It was a custom to christening a newborn. Nobody asked for my opinion.
To leave the church i had to pay a fee!

[KettleWhistle]

What would happen to people who live in Israel without being Jews?
Nothing. Judaism is accepting of other peoples living with and around Jews as absolute equals. Torah is full of examples of that.

[Ophra]

This is a an article to discuss the future of Israel. I support the creation of a constitutional theocracy. This is a large subject, and I am not one to preach, but I am one to answer any questions or objections one might have about this idea. Remember there are no stupid questions, there are only stupid answers. I only ask that you approach the subject with maturity, keep personal insults to a minimum and stay on topic; I will ignore flamebait and trolling. In return, I promise to answer whatever questions anyone has in the most satisfactory manner possible. I am most interested in what people who have objections have to say about this. I think that if we keep these general guidelines in mind, we can learn from each other.

So I will start with the basics.

A constitutional theocracy is a form of government in which within the context of a modern democracy, a particular religion is granted a central role in the legal and political system. In contrast to a pure theocracy, power resides in political figures operating within the bounds of a constitution, rather than religious leadership. I am not talking about Iran here. People will still be elected from whatever political party, but it will finally define the "Jewish State" with Jewish values. The Torah is inherently democratic. Both the United States and Switzerland were inspired by the political system of the "Old Testament."

I will eleborate as questions are asked.

Okaaaaaaaay...... (I'm trying hard to be serious here but it aint easy .)

Errrr .... just how will this come about ??

[Reffo]

Errrr .... just how will this come about ??Overload, before you answer Ophra's question, you need to answer even more fundamental ones, namely: Why would you want to do this ? What would be the benefits ? What objectives are you trying to achieve ? Why do you think that what you are proposing would be better for Israel ?

Before you answer, yo must remember that the majority of Israelis (and for that matter, Jews worldwide) are secular. So, your answer should be convincing to secular people as well.


Elections are not in themselves a sufficient condition for the existence of democracy.

Elections have often been used by authoritarian regimes or dictatorships to give a false sense of democracy.Yes, but they fooled no one, not even their own populations even though they tried to brain wash them. People may be naive but they are not stupid....

[BrotherNicea]

This is a an article to discuss the future of Israel. I support the creation of a constitutional theocracy. This is a large subject, and I am not one to preach, but I am one to answer any questions or objections one might have about this idea. Remember there are no stupid questions, there are only stupid answers. I only ask that you approach the subject with maturity, keep personal insults to a minimum and stay on topic; I will ignore flamebait and trolling. In return, I promise to answer whatever questions anyone has in the most satisfactory manner possible. I am most interested in what people who have objections have to say about this. I think that if we keep these general guidelines in mind, we can learn from each other.

So I will start with the basics.

A constitutional theocracy is a form of government in which within the context of a modern democracy, a particular religion is granted a central role in the legal and political system. In contrast to a pure theocracy, power resides in political figures operating within the bounds of a constitution, rather than religious leadership. I am not talking about Iran here. People will still be elected from whatever political party, but it will finally define the "Jewish State" with Jewish values. The Torah is inherently democratic. Both the United States and Switzerland were inspired by the political system of the "Old Testament."

I will eleborate as questions are asked.

A truly noble idea! In the U.S. I have been working with Reverend C. Verey(Ret.) who has been fighting the forces of godless secular humanism at the National Education Association (NEA) for over 15 years.

I believe that such changes can be brought about by reforming our educational system to bring back the proper values and Christian morality. Israel should do the same in regards to their schools, except for some small modifications to adapt it to their culture and religion. Here is a small five-point manfesto by Reverend C. Verey on the subject of saving our (American) public education:

What will save our public schools. by Reverend C. Verey (Ret.)

1) We need to get rid of this cockamamie idea of "separation of church and state". The United States was colonized BY Puritan Christians, FOR Puritan Christians -- NOT Catholics, NOT Muslims, NOT Hindus, NOT Witches and Satanists. The United States is a CHRISTIAN country FOR CHRISTIANS. This IS our country and others need to behave according to OUR customs and OUR traditions.

2) We need to bring back mandatory CHRISTIAN prayer and Bible study into our public schools. Students ought to be required to memorize the creation story from Genesis; the story of Noah and the Flood; the story of the Tower of Babel; the story of Abraham and his son; the story of Sodom and Gomorrah; the plagues God sent to the Pharaoh and the Exodus; the Ten Commandments; the portions of Isaiah which foretell the coming of Jesus Christ the birth of Christ as told in Matthew and Luke; the Sermon on the Mount; Jesus Passion, Death, and Resurrection from all four Gospels; all of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy; and the Book of Revelation.

Why do we have rampant homosexuality? Because people do not read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and take it to heart that God destroyed those cities because of their homosexual perversion and wickedness. Because people don't read Romans 1 so they know that God hates homosexuals and God has given them up to their vile affections. Because people don't read 1 Corinthians 6 and Galatians 5 and know that homosexuals do not go to Heaven.

3) We need to bring back dress codes, which teach men to act and dress like men and women to act and dress like ladies. That means, dark slacks, white shirts, ties and jackets for the boys and dresses for the girls.

4) We need to bring back corporal punishment and allow teachers and principals to discipline students as they see fit, without fear of recrimination and lawsuits. All of this "attention deficit disorder" is a bunch of cockamamie BS. If students are going to misbehave, they need suffer the consequences for it or risk spending an eternity in Hell!

5) We need to end all welfare and all social handouts in order to teach our children some responsibility. People who are poor are that way because they've chosen to be poor. Women who breed illegitimate children like roaches are that way because of their fornication. People who have diseases need to learn to bear their suffering as part of God's intended will for them, and quit looking to the government and churches for handouts.

YOU want to know what will save our public schools? Well, this is a start.

Rev C Verey (Retired)


I hope this will help in further formulating this noteworthy thesis.

[Overload]

There is more to Jewish people than Judaism.

Of course there is more to Jewish people than Judaism. But Judaism is the essense of being Jewish. Now I am not a dati, perhaps one day I will be, but right now I am just a Jewish nationalist. I have come to realize that our civilization is built on Judaism. How we came to be defined as Jews comes from Halacha, our belief in social justice ext. All of this comes from our national consciousness. For example, people in America are tought to value principles of liberty and self reliance. That is American culture. Jewish culture is interlaced with Judaism, without it it becomes an alien creation.


There are plenty of people, myself including, who don't believe in God and see Judaism as mere Jewish/Hebrew mythology. And there is also a secular culture that has developed upon the Judaic moral principles, but without attaching them to Biblical directives and fearmongering.

I dont know how you connected Biblical directives to fearmongering, but I digress. Lets get back to how it relates to a constitutional theocracy. If you accept that the Jewish people are a constitutional people, i.e. a people born from the Torah, whose cultural practices have developed over the ages from the Torah and its antecedent documents, than you can accept that to have a Jewish state, one needs to represent those values within the document that will constitute the nation. I believe that the Torah is the raw Source of the Jewish people, a source that contains our most cherished values and principles. These values can be translated into the "modern" world in conjunction with modern theories of government, into working principles. When we dileneate into a constitution what a government can regulate (imports and economic activity, direct the school cirricullum, regulate safety of food and drugs, animal cruelty, ext.), especially where the sphere of government duties lie, secular values and theocratic values merge into civil values, which are meaningless in distinction. If a government has the right to ban imports then a government has the right to ban imports of treif. If the government can regulate how products are made, they can decree that those products be kosher. If a government can inspect the food safety of restaurants, they can add into their procedures that food be prepared in a kosher manner, and that animals are kashured humanely. Finally, a government can ban economic activity on the Shabbas, but allow a general day of rest by instituting a 2 day weekend (long over due anyways). As you can see, these are not totalitarian invasion of individual rights but legitimate government actions instituting fostering Jewish life into a natural act.

The most important factor to come out of acceptance of government sphere of power isn't more regulation, but education. Through a constitutional theocracy, a public can learn the basic values of the nation. Even if you are secular now, no one is forcing you to pray, no one will break into your house and demand you put on tfillin and turn off the lights on Shabbos. It is for your children that education will be instituted, so over generations, people become Jews, and accustomed to the culture of their forefathers, not the foreign Diaspora.

As you can see, this is what a constitutional theocracy is. There will be no Ministry for the Prevention of Vice and the Promotion of Virtue. No one will violate your right to privacy or prevent you from voicing your opinion. I am not talking about the Taliban, or a dictatorship or religious fascism. It is a benign democratic version of theocratic society, a society with a purpose.

[Overload]

Okaaaaaaaay...... (I'm trying hard to be serious here but it aint easy .)

Errrr .... just how will this come about ??

Well I am at least happy that you decided to contribute and ask something in a relatively mature manner. So I might as well answer your question first and Reffo's later, as his question is the most important of the questions at hand.

This will come about as any political agreement. It will take time and there will need to be some basic restructuring of the government. There will be a constitutional assembly and people will write a constitution. I don't know the actual steps to this, but I know some important things that must happen first to have a situation where such discussion is possible.

1.) A decrease in the Arab population in Israel
2.) A solution to the Israeli Palestinian conflict
3.) A raise in the percentage needed to qualify for Knesset representation.
4.) A reform in the education system
5.) For the National religious public to organize push for and convince the general population that this is what Israel needs to survive.

I will answer Reffo tomorrow.

[KettleWhistle]

1) We need to get rid of this cockamamie idea of "separation of church and state". The United States was colonized BY Puritan Christians, FOR Puritan Christians -- NOT Catholics, NOT Muslims, NOT Hindus, NOT Witches and Satanists.

...

I hope this will help in further formulating this noteworthy thesis.

I like it, but you forgot to work in scientific experiments based on Mark 16:17-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2016:17-18;&version=9;) into the creation science classes.

[Overload]

I like it, but you forgot to work in scientific experiments based on Mark 16:17-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2016:17-18;&version=9;) into the creation science classes.

Lets keep the discussion focused on Israel.

[Mediocrates]

Ok so what's here different from establishing a state religion? If its the same thing then the real debate is how intrusive that state religion is to be. They for example call it the Church OF England but the Church has little official role in the UK. At the other end are states like the KSA which is first and last an Islamic theocracy. So what role does religion play, pragmatically, day to day in the operation of the state under your plan?

[Overload]

Ok so what's here different from establishing a state religion? If its the same thing then the real debate is how intrusive that state religion is to be. They for example call it the Church OF England but the Church has little official role in the UK. At the other end are states like the KSA which is first and last an Islamic theocracy. So what role does religion play, pragmatically, day to day in the operation of the state under your plan?

I personally envision a clause in the Constitution that states that laws passed by the government cannot contradict the Source ie Torah. For anything to be done, the Rabbinate will have to be reformed into a Senhadrin, with the most qualified community accepted Torah sages having a seat. It would act as an autonomous part of the government within the government, with its own fixed budget. This to decrease reliance on the state for its rulings and to decrease meddling in politics through shady deals. The idea is to have cooperation between synagugue and state, but independence of each organ from political interference, with each having delineated duties. The Sanhadrin would be a unified authority that would issue judgements of ethical areas (medical practice, marriage and other areas) as opinions to the government, the constitutional court and the Knesset. As an interperter of the Torah, it would be up to them to issue what law is against the spirit of Judaism. The president of the Sanhadrin would act as a religious head of state and preside over ceremonies.

I picture a semi presidential system similiar to France (not in every way) in place before these reforms can come to place.

It would choose a representative to sit in every government (without the right to vote) and bring any objections or suggestions when drafting laws to be proposed.

It would work with the Education ministry to help integrate Jewish values with other studies into the schools.

It would advise the constitutional council, a sort of constitutional court similiar to the one in France, where legislation is judged on its constitutionality before it is passed.

The Sanhadrin would give crucial advice on laws that deal with the character of the state (for example education, kosher, Shabbas, Jewish identity) and other areas, for example someone wishing to legalize porn shops.

It would also govern the Beit Dins throughout the country and administer the religious assets spheres of life in a devolved manner. It would also act as a court of cessation in religious manners.

And thats just the actual manner of law, It would do great wonders for the Jewish community to have a unified authority in religious law. It would serve as a unifying force between Jews. We will have our own "pope" so to speak, with the president of the Senhadrin.

He would probably swear in the Supreme Justices of the courts, and preside over the Knesset prayer ceremonies ext. In other words, take on some ceremonial duties in domestic affairs that the president currently has, while the president would take on other roles, similiar to the President of Ireland.


It is against religious law to make someone follow a religion judiciously if the majority cannot do so. I am not a theocrat, I do not accept immediate observance of every religious precept; that would be counter productive and result in a backlash against religion. But there is nothing that says that the government cannot promote certain ideas or make programs so in future generations, people would be more pliable to a religious life style, until the people themselves ask for a larger role for religion.

If a constitutional theocracy is enacted, immediatly, your life would not change to such a great extent. You would probably notice only kosher food sold in the stores, restuarants would have to be certifiably kosher, there would be no economic activity on the Shabbas, advertising and television would be less hedonistic and provocative, there would be a Jewish Broadcasting Station. In other words, you will notice an increase in Jewish ideas and certain economic regulation. The most important changes would be among the army and the school system.

[NewsGuy]

This is a an article to discuss the future of Israel. I support the creation of a constitutional theocracy.
That's fine, but we should mention that no one in Israel is advocating going to a theocracy. The idea is not on the table.

[Overload]

That's fine, but we should mention that no one in Israel is advocating going to a theocracy. The idea is not on the table.

Please read the information before responding.

[Mediocrates]

It sounds like the Iranian supreme Council of Guardians. They are chartered with the responsibility to vett everything in terms of their own interpretation of Islamic law and practice. They can ignore or change legislation at will, throw out regional elections and permit or deny specific candidates to run. The council also administers the religious foundations that own all of the nominally nationalized industries. In practice this amounts to private ownership of those industries.

[KettleWhistle]

I personally envision a clause in the Constitution that states that laws passed by the government cannot contradict the Source ie Torah.

Cool! So, let's see, that means kill homosexuals (Lev 20:13), stone disobidient children (Deut 21:18-21), no farming every seventh year, no use of composite materials, such as blended fabrics, and few other laws of that nature. So sure, sign me up!

[Overload]

It sounds like the Iranian supreme Council of Guardians. They are chartered with the responsibility to vett everything in terms of their own interpretation of Islamic law and practice.

But nowhere did I advocate a creation of something like the Supreme Council of Guardians. The Senhadrin would be another part of the government judicial system which for public interest and the interest of the seperation of powers, manages it's own affairs. For example, the German Constitutional Court also has its own budget and an autonomous standing within the government precicely so its rulings are independent of political interference. In France, the Judicial system is self governing. All of this is based off of democratic systems.


They can ignore or change legislation at will, throw out regional elections and permit or deny specific candidates to run.

None of these powers would be vested in the Senhadrin. We are talking about a democratic system with theocratic institutions and principles.


The council also administers the religious foundations that own all of the nominally nationalized industries. In practice this amounts to private ownership of those industries.

The economy would be a free market, but the social services would be devolved to private community charities, staffed by individuals recruited from schools to do years of community service. Remember, this isn't a sham like Iran. We are talking of seperation of powers here.

[Overload]

Cool! So, let's see, that means kill homosexuals (Lev 20:13), stone disobidient children (Deut 21:18-21), no farming every seventh year, no use of composite materials, such as blended fabrics, and few other laws of that nature. So sure, sign me up!

I am not sure if you are familiar with Talmudic writings, but if you think of the Torah as a guide, and the Talmud as the operations manual, then you would see that literal translations do not mean much when they are confronted with the Oral Torah that are attached to the meaning of these passages. Instead of going into what each one means, I will reassure you by stating that none of passages you have quoted is similiar in action as they are in word.

[KettleWhistle]

A big whatever. First of all, the "Oral Law" is a bunch of jabberwocky, and at that, Tanah supercedes.

And Tanah explicitly says what I cited. There is really no room for weaseling around there.

[Overload]

Why would you want to do this?

long term survival for one. I suggest you read this article. http://www.meforum.org/article/348

Pakistan is like Israel, an ideological state. Take out the Judaism from Israel and it will fall like a house of cards. Take Islam out of Pakistan and make it a secular state; it would collapse.
-- Zia ul-Haq, Pakistan's ruler, December 1981


What would be the benefits?

Living in an authentic Jewish state, not an imitation of foreign lands.


What objectives are you trying to achieve?

The objective is to create a unified Jewish state. We went into Galut and had our civilization as soveriegn people interrupted. We learned from the sorrounding nations, gave some of our knowledge to them, and now we have returned to our ancient homeland. Why should we ape the customs of foreign nations when we have the tools to restart our civilization based on our principles. I am trying to achieve for a lack of better words, an enlightened Jewish nation who serve as "a light unto the world".

Remember Israel is an ideological state. We have a state of our own but we need to define the purpose. To be a nation like any other does not mean to assimilate as a nation.

Without Judaism, the State of Israel is dangerous to Jewish nationhood. Zionists believe that Israel should be a state like any other. According to them, Israel was established according to the Zionist dream of Jews being a people like any other with their own right to self-determination. The reason for such establishment was to have a state where Jews would not be afraid of anti-Semitic attacks and live in peace.

I counter that assimilating to be "a nation like any other" without embracing one's culture does to us what anti-Semites have not been able to achieve for thousands of years, mainly the destruction of the Jews as a people.


Why do you think that what you are proposing would be better for Israel?

A secular state of Israel is in danger of becoming merely a country of "Hebrew-speaking Gentiles" who are on the path to abandoning their Jewish heritage. An authentic Jewish commonwealth would preserve and encourage our culture. If we look at diaspora Jews who assimilated (voluntarily or otherwise) into other cultures and abandoned Jewish culture, then the creation of a secular state in Israel is tantamount to establishing a state where Jews assimilate en masse as a nation: this is nothing but an anethema to Jewish national aspirations.


Before you answer, yo must remember that the majority of Israelis (and for that matter, Jews worldwide) are secular. So, your answer should be convincing to secular people as well.

Of course, I think that given the information I have provided, specific objections (I am not particulary religious in action) should be voiced by members so I would be able to answer them. I tried to synthezise the modern with the traditional here as much as I could.


Yes, but they fooled no one, not even their own populations even though they tried to brain wash them. People may be naive but they are not stupid....

Indeed.

[Overload]

A big whatever. First of all, the "Oral Law" is a bunch of jabberwocky, and at that, Tanah supercedes.

You are arguing based on shadows here. What you think it should function as or think it functions as, has nothing to do with how Orthodox Judaism functions and how judgements would be carried out according to those passages.


And Tanah explicitly says what I cited. There is really no room for weaseling around there.

The Tanach includes the Oral Law along with the 24 Books of Moses.
Perhaps your position is more appropriate to that of the Kariates, but I am not talking of instituting Kariasm as the principal religion of the Jewish state.

[KettleWhistle]

The Tanach includes the Oral Law along with the 24 Books of Moses.
No, it doesn't. Oral Law is just a collection of insane rules, that defy both sanity and common sense, and which simply lay out some rules for Rabbinical interpretation of scriptures. There rules were abused by Rabbis to claim that something that Tanah says actually means something else. Yet, those arguments lack any logical basis or even a uniform system.

Either way, even within the Rabbinical philosophy, Tanah supercedes Talmudic writings.

Additionally, my position certainly mimics much of that of Karaites, but it is based on common sense and historical fact, not on allegiance to some movement within Judaism, be it Karaism, Rabbinism, or any other.

[Overload]

Additionally, my position certainly mimics much of that of Karaites, but it is based on common sense and historical fact, not on allegiance to some movement within Judaism, be it Karaism, Rabbinism, or any other.

Ok, so you follow the precepts of KettelWhistliasm. Once again, not the basis for a Jewish state.

[KettleWhistle]

No, the premises of common sense.

BTW, the Rabbinites are not supposed to use composite materials, and the Orthodox and Conservatives don't wear blended fabrics. So I guess, no sport shoes, computers, or airplanes for you, right?:D

[Overload]

No, the premises of common sense.

BTW, the Rabbinites are not supposed to use composite materials, and the Orthodox and Conservatives don't wear blended fabrics. So I guess, no sport shoes, computers, or airplanes for you, right?:D

The Torah is a constitution and constitutions come with interpertations. This interpertation is the Oral Law. It is a legal document; common sense has to do with it but it must have legal precedent. What you call common sense, with an uneducated mind would mean ignorance of the highest caliber.

Anyways, I am versed well enough in Religious law to know when I see hyperbole. Now, can we please get back to discussing the Jewish state?

[KettleWhistle]

The Torah is a constitution and constitutions come with interpertations. This interpertation is the Oral Law. It is a legal document; common sense has to do with it but it must have legal precedent. What you call common sense, with an uneducated mind would mean ignorance of the highest caliber.

Anyways, I am versed well enough in Religious law to know when I see hyperbole. Now, can we please get back to discussing the Jewish state?

If you want to discuss theocracy, then don't try to weasel out of discussing theocratic law on which you want it to be based. Now, first off, the Oral Law is not the interpretation of Torah. It is one version of rules for interpretation. Secondly, if you believe that Torah was given by God, are going to take your interpretations to God and argue with him that something he said really means something else, something you decided to interpret it into?

And finally, when something is being explicitly stated within either Tora or a legal code, there isn't any room for interpretation. If it says that doing so and so is punishable by death, there is simply no leeway to claim that it says death, but because it says something else when you count three paragraphs down diagonally, there is a word that says something else, so it doesn't really mean "death." I'd like to see you make a legal argument in that manner.

[Overload]

If you want to discuss theocracy, then don't try to weasel out of discussing theocratic law on which you want it to be based. Now, first off, the Oral Law is not the interpretation of Torah. It is one version of rules for interpretation.

Rules by which the Jewish community functioned on for the last 3000 years.



Secondly, if you believe that Torah was given by God, are going to take your interpretations to God and argue with him that something he said really means something else, something you decided to interpret it into?

The Oral Law was given with the Books of Moses at Mt. Sinai.



And finally, when something is being explicitly stated within either Tora or a legal code, there isn't any room for interpretation. If it says that doing so and so is punishable by death, there is simply no leeway to claim that it says death, but because it says something else when you count three paragraphs down diagonally, there is a word that says something else, so it doesn't really mean "death." I'd like to see you make a legal argument in that manner.

No one in orthodox Judaism uses these basis to make these kinds of judgements.

[Reffo]

long term survival for one. I suggest you read this article. http://www.meforum.org/article/348

Pakistan is like Israel, an ideological state. Take out the Judaism from Israel and it will fall like a house of cards. Take Islam out of Pakistan and make it a secular state; it would collapse.
-- Zia ul-Haq, Pakistan's ruler, December 1981Neither the article, nor Zia's quote answers my question which was: "Why would you want to do it ?". I am afraid that I don't consider Zia ul-Haq to have been the source of all wisdom. Let Pakistan do what it will, what suits them does not necessarily apply to Israel which has a greater number of differences with Pakistan than similarities....


Living in an authentic Jewish state, not an imitation of foreign lands.Whether that's a benefit is a matter of opinion. Personally, I don't mind imitating worthwhile things while at the same time keeping the more desirable elements of Jewish heritage and culture. I believe that cultures (like people) are better off as adaptive entities rather than non-changing calcified relics of the past.


Why should we ape the customs of foreign nations when we have the tools to restart our civilization based on our principles. I am trying to achieve for a lack of better words, an enlightened Jewish nation who serve as "a light unto the world". For god's sake, give up on this idea of being "a light unto the world". The world does not want us to be that (in fact they hate us for it). How about just aiming to live good lives and if in the process we happen to do something well, then don't worry.......there will always be people who will be happy to learn from it........as we should be happy to learn from the successes of other people. That's what I mean by wanting to be flexible and adaptable.


Without Judaism, the State of Israel is dangerous to Jewish nationhood. Zionists believe that Israel should be a state like any other. According to them, Israel was established according to the Zionist dream of Jews being a people like any other with their own right to self-determination. The reason for such establishment was to have a state where Jews would not be afraid of anti-Semitic attacks and live in peace.

I counter that assimilating to be "a nation like any other" without embracing one's culture does to us what anti-Semites have not been able to achieve for thousands of years, mainly the destruction of the Jews as a people.You are misinterpreting the Zionist ideal. When they said "Jews being a people like any other", they meant: to allow Jews to lead their lives each according to their beliefs. This means that if one wants to be a secular Jew who believes in Jewish heritage, history and culture, they can live freely according to those principles. Equally, if they are religious, they can practice their religion freely. The common element that binds them is that they should be prepared to defend each other's rights to practice their belief systems without being targeted by others for their Jewish background and heritage.


A secular state of Israel is in danger of becoming merely a country of "Hebrew-speaking Gentiles" who are on the path to abandoning their Jewish heritage.I don't agree. They still learn about Jewish history in school, they still practice Jewish festivals. However, I do agree that over time, such a culture is more adaptive and evolutionary and that in the longer term it will evolve into something different but it would always recognize it's roots and Jewish heritage. I don't consider such an outcome to be inferior.


An authentic Jewish commonwealth would preserve and encourage our culture. If we look at diaspora Jews who assimilated (voluntarily or otherwise) into other cultures and abandoned Jewish culture, then the creation of a secular state in Israel is tantamount to establishing a state where Jews assimilate en masse as a nation: this is nothing but an anethema to Jewish national aspirations.The secular model will also preserve the more worthwhile elements of Jewish culture but it will also have the added advantage of being flexible and adaptable to the modern world. Moreover, even the more archaic Jewish customs need not be forgotten. Firstly, they may be practiced by those sections of the community who choose to keep being religious but even if everybody would become secular, those customs can be recorded in books, videos and museums. It would be up to individuals to choose which is the best way to preserve ancient customs...

[KettleWhistle]

Rules by which the Jewish community functioned on for the last 3000 years.
No, only for about 1,400 years, exculding the last 200 years in which the Jewish community has done just fine without them, and even during that time it wasn't all of it anyway.


The Oral Law was given with the Books of Moses at Mt. Sinai. Chapter and verse please.


No one in orthodox Judaism uses these basis to make these kinds of judgements. Really? How about the rule about not eating meat with dairy? Tora doesn't prohibit that, except in one very particular case, but the Rabbis used numerology to make up the rules to contrary.

[KettleWhistle]

The secular model will also preserve the more worthwhile elements of Jewish culture

The secular model is the more worthwhile Jewish culture. And it is the one that actually accomplished anything in the past 2000 years. Move out of the ghetto, public education of Jews which resulted in numerous Jewish scientists, doctors, lawyers, and other worthwhile professionals, and last but not least, the creation of Israel.

[Reffo]

The secular model is the more worthwhile Jewish culture. And it is the one that actually accomplished anything in the past 2000 years. Move out of the ghetto, public education of Jews which resulted in numerous Jewish scientists, doctors, lawyers, and other worthwhile professionals, and last but not least, the creation of Israel. Yes, people like you and me believe that. But I would also like to believe that if other Jews choose to live according to old laws as religious Jews, that's OK too as long as they don't force the rest of us down the same paths (like the Ayatolahs). I say, good luck to them and perhaps it's a good thing too if they can preserve old traditions ......

[Overload]

No, only for about 1,400 years, exculding the last 200 years in which the Jewish community has done just fine without them, and even during that time it wasn't all of it anyway.

All the way up to the Holocaust, (minus a small time period where Kariates had adherence to about 30% of the Jewish population), Orthodox Jews constituted 70% of the Jewish people. Until the Holocaust, secular Jews were an anomaly. Throughout history it was always those who did not believe in the Oral Tradition that were in the minority, from the Sudducees to the Karaites.



Chapter and verse please.

It is in Exodus. I do not remember which part, but when G-d tought gave Moses the Torah, He tought Moses how to interpert it. In kind Moses was the only one to know the law, that is why everyone came to him for guidance, until one day because he was overtaxed, I think Aaron or someone suggested that he delegate judges from the community and teach the the tradition. So Moses assigned 120 judges, who until the 2nd century CE tought the Oral Law until it was written down. It says that however these wise judges rule, it becomes tradition equal to the law, as long as it doesn't contradict the commandments. This constituted the first constitutional document in history.


Really? How about the rule about not eating meat with dairy? Tora doesn't prohibit that, except in one very particular case, but the Rabbis used numerology to make up the rules to contrary.

No one used numerology. It was expanded to all meat and dairy products. Honestly, you do not sound like you are well versed in this. Instead of fuming about trivial matters such as dietery laws, go and ask an orthodox rabbi. If your problem is that it is hard to keep kosher, than there would be no such problem in a Jewish state, and if your problem is with how the Torah is interperted, then that a general lapse in your knowledge. The Torah is a legal document with many antecedent documents that come with it. "Common sense" doesn't come into it, thats why everyone asked Moses on points of the Law. If everyone was immediately versed by just reading the Torah, they would not have needed to seek Moses's advice nor have 120 judges appointed to understand the law. If they didn't understand it through common sense right after Revelation at Sinai, they would not understand it today, when they are infinetely more ignorant and cynical too boot.

[KettleWhistle]

All the way up to the Holocaust, (minus a small time period where Kariates had adherence to about 30% of the Jewish population), Orthodox Jews constituted 70% of the Jewish people. Until the Holocaust, secular Jews were an anomaly.
Are you kidding us? Have you ever read any books on Jewish history? Vast majority of W. European Jews secularized in the 19th century. Pretty much all of the younger generations of East European Jews were secular the late 19th-early 20th century.


Throughout history it was always those who did not believe in the Oral Tradition that were in the minority, from the Sudducees to the Karaites. Not only is this not the case, but even if it was, so what? Being in the minority doesn't mean being in the wrong.


It is in Exodus. I do not remember which part, but when G-d tought gave Moses the Torah, He tought Moses how to interpert it.
Chapter and verse please.


No one used numerology. It was expanded to all meat and dairy products. Honestly, you do not sound like you are well versed in this.
Yes, they did use numerology, claiming that because it says three times not cook (emphasis on "cook") a young goat in its mother's milk, the versese really mean something else. Nowhere does it say that God prohibited, or even advised that meat dairy would be eaten together. I don't need to ask any rabbis about this, because I know their reasoning, and I know ahead of time what they will tell me, and how they will be weaseling around once I corner them with specific Toraic refferences. It is one of the simplest examples of how rabbis twisted the meaning of the scripture to give it some BS meaning.

[Ophra]

Monopoly on religion

Basis for tension between religion and state found in bible
By Avraham Burg

As we begin the Book of Numbers this week, the Jewish people enter the home stretch leading to the end of the long years wandering in the desert. After all the trials and tribulations of Egypt, the biblical narrative brings us to the gates of the Land of Israel, the fought-over land, the final destination.

The Book of Numbers is essentially the book of preparation to conquer and inherit the land. The book begins with a census, just two years after leaving Egypt, before the decree that the Jews would wander 40 years in the desert (to get rid of the doubting generation that came out of Egypt and to create a generation with the strength to conquer the land).

Most people are not involved with the count – a small administrative infrastructure is charged with counting the tribes, princes, flags, camps during those early days in the desert.

Perhaps this favoritism remains with us to this very day.

Levites singled out

The interesting part is that at the end of the general census, the tribe of Levi is singled out. Not counted like all the others, but singled out for work in the tabernacle and other holy and religious duties.

The Biblical reason given for singling out the Levites and making them responsible for holy work isn't clear at first glance, but is fascinating on second reading.

God says: "And behold, i have taken the Levites from among the children of israel in place of every first-born, the first issue of every womb among the children of Israel, and the Levites shall be mine. For every first-born is Mine; On the day I struck down every first-born in the land of Egypt, I sanctified every first-born in Israel for Myself, from man to beast; They shall be Mine -- I am God." - Numbers, 3;11-13.

It isn't totally clear why the destruction of Egypt's first-borns should be related to the inherent holiness of Jewish ones by God. But we know, from both academic studies and tradition, that many ancient peoples and religions attached great significance to first-born sons.

We continue to find reverberations of this phenomenon in many biblical sources: sometimes in human sacrifice. Perhaps this is one of the messages of the sacrifice of Isaac, back in the book of Genesis.

Sometimes, a first-born was set aside to do God's work from the time he was born, as was the case with the prophet Samuel.

As we open the Book of Numbers, the Torah re-assigns the huge responsibilities of the first-born: no longer would all first-born boys be assigned to serve God. That job would be relegated to the Levites.

Apparently, something happened. The Levites, as a tribe, were turned into God's first-born, and therefore His servants. This is bad, in my opinion, not only because of the problematic symbolism of their violence – remember, it was the tribe's founder and namesake that participated in the pillaging of Nablus in response to the rape of his sister Dinah (Gen. chapter 24), thus uprooting the standing of his their father Jacob. The Levites who were overly-involved in selling their brother Joseph, who mercilessly murdered their brothers and sisters at the time of the golden calf – they, in my opinion, are not so worthy of the honor of serving God.

But I am far more worried about the implications of expropriating questions of identity. When the responsibility to connect with the Creator is placed with the first-born of each family, I know that each one of us has an equal stake in the fundamental questions of faith and national identity.

But when that responsibility is unequal and undemocratic, and is placed as a monopoly in the hands of one tribe whose "Torah is it's faith", and falls on a Jewish baby the moment he is born, it becomes a barrier between the Jewish people and their Father in Heaven.

More than a few of Israel's trials and tribulations of the biblical and first temple periods have their roots in this break, in the barrier created by the priests (cohanim) and levites (leviim) between the Jewish people and God.

More than a few of the Torah's commandments and ethical norms are slanted towards favoring the Levites. The rest of the nation bears too little responsibility in these areas.

And if this was correct for a previous generation, a generation in which almost everyone identified, felt connected, and had faith - how much more so for our generation?

Democratic identity

Instead of all of us - religious and secular, believers and heretics, men and women, new immigrants and veteran Israelis, people of different ethnic groups and colors and sexual orientations – all taking part in creating the spiritual makeup of today's Jewish people, we have placed our responsibilities in the hands of religious institutions, who jealously protect their sectarian interests and are cut off from the will of the majority.

Most Israelis are simply not part of the discussion about Israeli identity.

The decision to leave questions of identity in the hands of a small group of religious people is one of the most painful foundations of the destruction of Jewish identity in today's Israeli society, and one of the most dangerous sources of tension between state and religion, between law and Jewish law, between the Knesset and the Beit Knesset (synagogue).

We must take Judaism away from the rabbis and return it to the Jewish people. Because a Judaism that is limited to a small tribe is a Judaism of the desert, of exile, of wandering.

In contrast, a Judaism that is relevant to the whole society - that is the meaning of becoming a free people in our own country.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3094266,00.html

[Overload]

Are you kidding us? Have you ever read any books on Jewish history? Vast majority of W. European Jews secularized in the 19th century. Pretty much all of the younger generations of East European Jews were secular the late 19th-early 20th century.

I majored in Jewish history and I know that you are wrong. Most of the Jews up to the Holocaust resided in Poland. Those Jews that lived in Western Europe were a minority of the Jewish people, with much of the European Reform movement bieng close to conservative Judaism stream of today. The minority of Jewish people who were secular were a minority within the nation. The Haskalah increased Jewish assimilation, secular education and some areas, particulary Berlin had a large secular majority. Not until the Holocaust did the population shift.


so what? Being in the minority doesn't mean being in the wrong.

Nor does it mean being in the right. What I am saying is that for thousand of years this was the composition of the Jewish people; we are living in an anomolous age.



Chapter and verse please.

Sigh, Exodus 18:13-27, especially the part where Moses as he is about to go die in Exile, tells the Jews to follow the words of the judges.

The original Divine plan was to take the B'nei Yisra'el out of Egypt and to bring them directly into Eretz Yisra'el. In other words, the generation of the Exodus (Dor Yotz'ei Mitzrayim) would be the same as the generation of the Conquest (Dor Ba'ei ha'Aretz). As a result of the tragedy of the M'raglim, this plan was subverted and these two events, Exodus and Conquest, were "spread" between two generations. Mosheh, then, had an awesome task - to tie these two generations together, such that the distance between Sinai and Tziyyon would be bridged.

This is where Mosheh "earned" the title by which he is forever known - Mosheh Rabbenu - "Mosheh, our Rebbi". Indeed, the job of a Rebbi is more than instructive, even more than inspirational or exhortative. The Rebbi is the bridge with previous generations, taking us back to Sinai (along with taking us back to the Beit haMikdash, to Yavneh etc.). In simple terms, the Rebbi's job is to turn the past into the present. [I recall experiencing this first-hand when participating in the shiur of Rav Soloveitchik zt"l, seeing the Tannaim, Amoraim and Rishonim all sitting around his table as he orchestrated their debates. It was a marvelous experience, one which he describes beautifully in "uVikkashtem Misham" (pp. 231-232).]

The first person to set out to do this job was Mosheh, as he turned the generation of the Conquest into the generation of the Exodus. Indeed, the Plains of Mo'av was the first "Beit Midrash" and Sefer D'varim the first "Shiur". that Mosheh originally taught D'varim orally and then God commanded him to commit it to writing.)

How did Mosheh do it? One simple device which he utilized is one that became the staple of the Haggadah - talking about the past in the present and talking to the people as if they had experienced these events first-hand. In other words, by saying "You approached me..." etc., they were drawn in to the sense of "being there".

[Note that Mosheh barely mentions any of the events which this generation "really" saw - the majority of the events mentioned belong to the previous generation].

Mosheh was indeed "Rabbenu" - to the second generation! He was the first to perform this function - a function which guaranteed the potential for the eternity of the Jewish people. If it can be done once, it can be replicated every time! If one generation can be "brought back" to Sinai, so can every subsequent generation.
VIII

THE "THREAT" OF RENEWAL

This successful "education" project brought a terrifying danger in its wake - one to which the master teacher, Mosheh Rabbenu, was acutely aware. He was poised to bring them back to Sinai, to that great moment of Revelation - after which, he would ascend Har ha'Avarim (or Har N'vo) and die. Mosheh had already been told that that was he would die, when God instructed him to ascend that mountain (Bamidbar 27).

Mosheh remembered well what had happened the last time he had "disappeared" atop a mountain. When the B'nei Yisra'el had just experienced (in "real time") the Revelation, Mosheh ascended the mountain to receive the rest of the Law (along with the tablets). When the people were concerned about Mosheh's disappearance (remember - they did not know how long he was supposed to be on top of the mountain), they regressed to the idolatry of the golden calf.

How could Mosheh avoid the same pitfall? How could he insure that the B'nei Yisra'el would not achieve a "complete" return to Sinai, including the tragic aftermath of idolatry after his "one-way" ascension of the mountain?
IX

THE SOLUTION

Here is where the master teacher utilized his wonderful talent for education. In advance of retelling the people about their most glorious moments (Chs. 4-5, including the stand at Sinai and the Exodus), he instilled in them the understanding that he would not completely be leaving them. He told them about the two major functions which he held - leadership and instruction - and how he empowered others to continue his role. He immediately told them about the judges and how he charged them, such that even in his absence, there would be judges who would be an extension of Mosheh-as-instructor.

We now understand why Mosheh introduced the judges at the beginning of his historical recitation - to reassure the people (as they felt closer to their past) that his leadership would still be their guide as they conquered and settled the Land.

We also understand why Mosheh shared his charge to the judges: The people needed to hear for themselves about the close relationship he had with those judges, such that they were not just filling a position, but really continuing his role.

We can also understand why Mosheh shared God's command to him vis-a-vis Yehoshua: Just as the people needed to hear about his connection with the judges, they needed to hear about how his "presence" would be felt through Yehoshua. The phrase Oto Hazek (give him strength/encourage him), said about Yehoshua, reminds us of the empowerment which is the purpose of the S'mikhah (laying on the hands), by which Mosheh Rabbenu transferred the mantle of leadership to Yehoshua.


Yes, they did use numerology, claiming that because it says three times not cook (emphasis on "cook") a young goat in its mother's milk, the versese really mean something else. Nowhere does it say that God prohibited, or even advised that meat dairy would be eaten together.

Anyways, the simple answer is that you lack alot of information on the subject. I don't know where your vitriol for Judaism came from, but it isn't going to be solved here.


I don't need to ask any rabbis about this, because I know their reasoning, and I know ahead of time what they will tell me, and how they will be weaseling around once I corner them with specific Toraic refferences. It is one of the simplest examples of how rabbis twisted the meaning of the scripture to give it some BS meaning.

Then continue to wallow in your bitter ignorance. I can't remedy it, only discussion with learned sages can. If you do not have the courage to sit down and discuss your problems with people who are many degrees more qualified to answer you than I am, I do not see how anything can be done about the subject. It is a simple decision: Either you discuss your problems with orthodox Judaism, or continue with a mask of self imposed superiority, and go through life bitter about something you do not fully understand.

[Overload]

Neither the article, nor Zia's quote answers my question which was: "Why would you want to do it ?". I am afraid that I don't consider Zia ul-Haq to have been the source of all wisdom. Let Pakistan do what it will, what suits them does not necessarily apply to Israel which has a greater number of differences with Pakistan than similarities....

Zia is not the source of all wisdom. I don't know why you brought it up. He is the leader of a state founded on an ideological basis, just as Israel. Israel as a Jewish state cannot exist without Judaism. It is that simple. We want it because we want Israel to survive and have a purpose.



Whether that's a benefit is a matter of opinion.

Whether it is benefitial for Israel to survive as a Jewish state is a matter of opinion? Whose opinion are we counting here?



Personally, I don't mind imitating worthwhile things while at the same time keeping the more desirable elements of Jewish heritage and culture.

That is what a constitutional theocracy would bring about. A democratic system of government with certain laws tailored specifically to Jewish culture. Like Japan. It is a Western democracy but it's culture is not western in many ways. Incidentely, the second most popular party in Japan is a constitutional theocratic one.


I believe that cultures (like people) are better off as adaptive entities rather than non-changing calcified relics of the past.

Please eleborate on this. How do you see Jewish culture calcified? Will there not always be a commandment to observe the Sabbath, and keep kosher? Some things stay the same while others can move on. Discarding everything is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We have a chance to build a nation from scratch. Instead of infusing it with a Jewish spirit, we are infusing it with the spirit of the Diaspora.


For god's sake, give up on this idea of being "a light unto the world". The world does not want us to be that (in fact they hate us for it).

I do not care. It is more an act that is important to us as Jews than it is to the world. We are a people with a mission. That's why we survived for so long.


How about just aiming to live good lives and if in the process we happen to do something well, then don't worry.......there will always be people who will be happy to learn from it........as we should be happy to learn from the successes of other people. That's what I mean by wanting to be flexible and adaptable.

You do know that Jews endowed the Western and Islamic world with their civilization? Everything we have to learn we already have, and no one will stop us from learning science or anything else other nations will have to teach us. Our nation is supposed to be based on the moral code of G-d.


You are misinterpreting the Zionist ideal. When they said "Jews being a people like any other", they meant: to allow Jews to lead their lives each according to their beliefs.

You can do that in America. Jews did not come all the way to the land of our forefathers where the Temple lies to build America Jr.


This means that if one wants to be a secular Jew who believes in Jewish heritage, history and culture, they can live freely according to those principles. Equally, if they are religious, they can practice their religion freely. The common element that binds them is that they should be prepared to defend each other's rights to practice their belief systems without being targeted by others for their Jewish background and heritage.

That is not going to last very long. There are certain secular values that are antithetical to Jewish values. I believe that Jewish values are more important for the survival of the Jewish people, who are a cultural creation above all else, than secular values that we take on because we were born in the Diaspora.


I don't agree. They still learn about Jewish history in school, they still practice Jewish festivals. However, I do agree that over time, such a culture is more adaptive and evolutionary and that in the longer term it will evolve into something different but it would always recognize it's roots and Jewish heritage. I don't consider such an outcome to be inferior.

How could it evolve when it did not start from a position of prominence? Let Jews be emersed in Jewish culture in the Land of Israel and move from there. From the point at it is now, any changes would be degenerate.


The secular model will also preserve the more worthwhile elements of Jewish culture but it will also have the added advantage of being flexible and adaptable to the modern world. Moreover, even the more archaic Jewish customs need not be forgotten. Firstly, they may be practiced by those sections of the community who choose to keep being religious but even if everybody would become secular, those customs can be recorded in books, videos and museums. It would be up to individuals to choose which is the best way to preserve ancient customs...

I'd rather that Judaism not be relegated to the museum.

[Ophra]

than secular values that we take on because we were born in the Diaspora.

I'm having lots of problems trying to understand what you are saying.... but the above quote really is way over the top.
Are you aware that 70% of Israelies are secular ??
I have lived here all my life and I can count on one hand the number of religious people that I know.
I can assure you that we did not get those secular values from the Diaspora :rolleyes: ... I never truly understood how Diaspora Jews thought until I joined this forum... I have never had anything to do with them before.

We were taught Jewish history at school ... it was a long time ago ;)... but from what I remember I thought that most Jews before the holocaust were from Russia . ?????

[Overload]

I'm having lots of problems trying to understand what you are saying.... but the above quote really is way over the top.

What is the source of your problem? I want to see what I can do so we can understand each other better.



Are you aware that 70% of Israelies are secular ??

Thats a false misclassification. 15% are orthodox 40% are masorti (traditional) and about 50% are secular, in a broad sense of the word, with many in that catagory merging with the masorti part of the population. The idea is to make those 40% who are masorti into more religious Jews, or at least their children more religious, and that subsection that consider themselves secular (which is a large catagory, with a small minority hard secularist, a little less than the haredi population), to be masorti. Through generation of strong Jewish education, the majority would become religious. Studies show that for something to become normative, it takes about 30 years.


I have lived here all my life and I can count on one hand the number of religious people that I know.

But you were born in a very secular section of the population if I remember correctly, an atheist kibbutz. You are a product of your environment (more or less). Sadly, most people judge the world around them through familiar perceptions. I am a product of a secular household, but I have some religious education. Basically, it depends on the mindset. I know many people who are secular by action like I, but religious in mindset. All they need is an environment that fosters and encourages their heritage.


I can assure you that we did not get those secular values from the Diaspora :rolleyes: ...

By "got" I mean, brought over from the Diaspora. Ben Gurion wanted to build a socialist paradise, and the new Jew to be a strong sabra who shed his heritage and ties to the Diaspora. Afterwards he became more nationalistic, but the generation that came after him became more or less secular. He made a decision based on a dead ideology to have people raised without Judaism. It was mostly thanks to the Sephardim that lived uninterrupted lives as religious Jews that brought some semblence of Judaism to Israel. But Mapai tried to wipe that out too. Anyways, the Labour Zionists brought over foreign values and foreign ideas into Israel, and built the state upon them. I am advocating that when restructure the state, to strengthen Jewish values within it.


I never truly understood how Diaspora Jews thought until I joined this forum... I have never had anything to do with them before.

But you meet Diaspora ideas everyday you turn on the television or simply look at how the state is organized. From my Soviet days, I can tell you that Israeli bureaucracy is modelled on the byzantine Soviet system. I am sure you have your stories. :)


We were taught Jewish history at school ... it was a long time ago ;)... but from what I remember I thought that most Jews before the holocaust were from Russia . ?????

Well, most Jews were from Eastern Europe, that is where the majority were situated. But there was a sizeable minority in Western Europe and America, not to mention the Arab world.

[Reffo]

Zia is not the source of all wisdom. I don't know why you brought it up. He is the leader of a state founded on an ideological basis, just as Israel. Israel as a Jewish state cannot exist without Judaism. It is that simple. We want it because we want Israel to survive and have a purpose. Actually, you brought Zia up. By the way, he is no longer their leader, he died.... Israel will hopefully survive because of it's people who will think of themselves as the Jewish nation some of whom will maintain their traditional Jewish religion and others will be secular but maintain Jewish culture, including the language, the traditions and the festivities. The key is that each person will have the freedom to choose what to practice and what not, because Israel was set up as a democracy. The main purpose of Israel was to be a haven for Jewish people and that will continue to be it's purpose...


Whether it is benefitial for Israel to survive as a Jewish state is a matter of opinion? Whose opinion are we counting here?You are twisting my words. I too maintain that Israel should survive as a Jewish state but our definitions of what that means are obviously different. You seem to think of Jews as a monolithic entity with all people practicing religion according to a single definition. I think of Jews as an ethnic group who have a common root but consisting of a variety of people who practice Judaism in a variety of flavours (traditional, orthodox, progressive, Ashkenazi, Sephardim etc). Some don't practice religion but believe in Jewish history and values. All these people think of themselves as Jews and they are Jews so Israel will survive as a Jewish state as long as those people and their descendants live there. Same as Italy will survive as an Italian state, Greece as a Greek state, Turkey as a Turkish state etc...


Please eleborate on this. How do you see Jewish culture calcified? Will there not always be a commandment to observe the Sabbath, and keep kosher? Some things stay the same while others can move on. Discarding everything is akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. We have a chance to build a nation from scratch. Instead of infusing it with a Jewish spirit, we are infusing it with the spirit of the Diaspora.Jewish culture is definitely NOT calcified but any religion including the Orthodox Jewish religion tends to be static. By definition, it practices an old belief system and lifestyle as handed down to them by their fathers and their fathers before them etc....I have no problems with that if it suits them. In fact, I respect their lifestyle, I only have problems with people who insist or would force other Jews to do likewise against their will (because they claim to be the only true guardians of God's will).


I do not care. It is more an act that is important to us as Jews than it is to the world. We are a people with a mission. That's why we survived for so long.Yes, but there is no need to "stand on top of the mountain, beat our breasts" and yell about how good we are. Like I said, it is better if we:

just aim to live good lives and if in the process we happen to do something well, then don't worry.......there will always be people who will be happy to learn from it........as we should be happy to learn from the successes of other people. That's what I mean by wanting to be flexible and adaptable.


You do know that Jews endowed the Western and Islamic world with their civilization? Everything we have to learn we already have, and no one will stop us from learning science or anything else other nations will have to teach us. Our nation is supposed to be based on the moral code of G-d.I am just as proud about Jewish achievements as you are. At, the same time I recogniize that we are part of the human race and therefore we are just asprone to make mistakes as anyone else.....so, we should be both proud and humble and we should be willing to learn new things from others and be adaptable.


You can do that in America. Jews did not come all the way to the land of our forefathers where the Temple lies to build America Jr.No we haven't. Israelis have built a uniquely Israeli culture as a haven for Jewish people. This culture is based on Jewish traditions but italso adopted elements of their experiences from other parts of the world (good, bad and indiffrent), just as other cultures in other countries who are part of the modern world include elements of their past traditions and that of the modern contemporary world.


That is not going to last very long. There are certain secular values that are antithetical to Jewish values. I believe that Jewish values are more important for the survival of the Jewish people, who are a cultural creation above all else, than secular values that we take on because we were born in the Diaspora.That is your opinion but not everyone agrees with you. So, what are you proposing ? Surely you are not proposing to force ALL Israeli Jews to adopt your belief system ? If on the other hand you are proposing persuasion and education,that's OK by me, but be aware that even that is not going to work 100% because people are different and there will always be many sceptics. I hope you propose to have tolerance for differences.


I'd rather that Judaism not be relegated to the museum.It probably will not as long it will have enough faithful people willing to live traditional lifestyles. But you cannot mandate and force this on unwilling people. I certainly don't object to the idea of traditional Judaism but I personally choose not to practice it. I do however believe in God, I do believe in Jewish history, I do believe in Jewish culture and I do believe that Jews as a people have a right to have self determination and an inherent right to live their life as any other nation. Above all, even though I live in the Diaspora (in a tolerant democratic country), I do believe that only in Israel can Jews achieve true self determination in the long term because our history suggests that when Jews are minorities there is always a chance that their hosts may sooner or later turn on them or perhaps in our time, a bigger threat to Jewish survival in the Diaspora is that Jews will assimilate, intermarry and may ultimately disappear as Jews. This is less likely to happen in Israel.

[Overload]

Actually, you brought Zia up. By the way, he is no longer their leader, he died.... Israel will hopefully survive because of it's people who will think of themselves as the Jewish nation some of whom will maintain their traditional Jewish religion and others will be secular but maintain Jewish culture, including the language, the traditions and the festivities. The key is that each person will have the freedom to choose what to practice and what not, because Israel was set up as a democracy. The main purpose of Israel was to be a haven for Jewish people and that will continue to be it's purpose...

That is all well and good in a secular society, but unlike other countries which institute democracy as an end in of itself because secular patriotism is supposed to bind them, Israel is a young nation. As a young nation, it does not have the luxury to immediately institute a incredibly tolerant society. Nationalism and religion go hand in hand with the Jewish people. It is important to have revered institutions that bind the nation together. So far, it is the army. I must admit that the first thing I will do after aliyah and the whole ulpan haplah is enlist in the IDF. But it is just one institution that binds people out of an existential crisis. Basically, Israel is a country stuck in the survival stage. It cannot go on as it is in its present state. It needs reform and meaning inscribed in its constitution for after all the Jewish people are there.


You are twisting my words. I too maintain that Israel should survive as a Jewish state but our definitions of what that means are obviously different.

Our difference is the classic argument of Jewish state vs state of Jews. Only a constitutional theocracy, a democratic system built on Jewish principles is a Jewish state. A state of Jews is stuck in perpetual survival mode. It literally becomes like every other state, with moral decay and nihilism rampant.


You seem to think of Jews as a monolithic entity with all people practicing religion according to a single definition.

Of course not, Jewish orthodoxy is as varied as its people. And culture attached to such orthodoxy has always been rich.


I think of Jews as an ethnic group who have a common root but consisting of a variety of people who practice Judaism in a variety of flavours (traditional, orthodox, progressive, Ashkenazi, Sephardim etc).

I do not think that anything below modern orthodox is authentically Jewish. Some streams of conservative Judaism are also authentic, but today, reform and others are influenced by protestanism not Judaism. There is pluralism in orthodoxy, and when we have a Senhadrin, that pluralism will produce a new orthodoxy as time goes on.




Some don't practice religion but believe in Jewish history and values. All these people think of themselves as Jews and they are Jews so Israel will survive as a Jewish state as long as those people and their descendants live there. Same as Italy will survive as an Italian state, Greece as a Greek state, Turkey as a Turkish state etc...

Greece has national church and Italy has the Vatican. The difference between all of those states and ours that their state is based on secular nationalism, our construction a religio nation precludes such a relationship. As a unique people we need to construct a unique state.


Jewish culture is definitely NOT calcified but any religion including the Orthodox Jewish religion tends to be static.

Orthodox Judaism changes as needed. It is by definition a legal system, and a value system. G-d's value system by definition doesn't change, but the rabbis due to the authority given to them as judges, have the power to alter certain practices as long as they aren't heretical.


By definition, it practices an old belief system and lifestyle as handed down to them by their fathers and their fathers before them etc....I have no problems with that if it suits them. In fact, I respect their lifestyle, I only have problems with people who insist or would force other Jews to do likewise against their will (because they claim to be the only true guardians of God's will).

Like I said before, it is against Jewish belief to force the majority to follow every precept if they do not believe it. In a constitutional theocracy, at least in the first stages, there will be no such coercion. There will be a tightening of rules already on the book, but there will not be anything that alters that much the life of those born secular. But the children will have a different education.


Yes, but there is no need to "stand on top of the mountain, beat our breasts" and yell about how good we are. Like I said, it is better if we:


I am just as proud about Jewish achievements as you are. At, the same time I recogniize that we are part of the human race and therefore we are just asprone to make mistakes as anyone else.....so, we should be both proud and humble and we should be willing to learn new things from others and be adaptable.

By definition, standing on top of the mountain and doing that is not how it works, leading by example is how it works.


No we haven't. Israelis have built a uniquely Israeli culture as a haven for Jewish people. This culture is based on Jewish traditions but italso adopted elements of their experiences from other parts of the world (good, bad and indiffrent), just as other cultures in other countries who are part of the modern world include elements of their past traditions and that of the modern contemporary world.

But Israel doesn't need to be like the rest of the world. Other than a democratic system of government, our culture is our own.


That is your opinion but not everyone agrees with you. So, what are you proposing?

I am proposing adopting a constitutional theocracy that inscribes Jewish values into the education system and gives the power to the Jewish government to foster Jewish culture. I have written about this throughout this thread.


Surely you are not proposing to force ALL Israeli Jews to adopt your belief system?

Not at first. Other than general enforcement of Shabbas, and Kosher, the most important part will be education.


If on the other hand you are proposing persuasion and education,that's OK by me, but be aware that even that is not going to work 100% because people are different and there will always be many sceptics. I hope you propose to have tolerance for differences.

A democratic society pressuposes tolerance for difference, up to a point wher e it threatens the majority.


It probably will not as long it will have enough faithful people willing to live traditional lifestyles. But you cannot mandate and force this on unwilling people. I certainly don't object to the idea of traditional Judaism but I personally choose not to practice it.

Well, I certainly cannot force you to do anything. It is the next generation I am talking about.


I do however believe in God, I do believe in Jewish history, I do believe in Jewish culture and I do believe that Jews as a people have a right to have self determination and an inherent right to live their life as any other nation. Above all, even though I live in the Diaspora (in a tolerant democratic country), I do believe that only in Israel can Jews achieve true self determination in the long term because our history suggests that when Jews are minorities there is always a chance that their hosts may sooner or later turn on them or perhaps in our time, a bigger threat to Jewish survival in the Diaspora is that Jews will assimilate, intermarry and may ultimately disappear as Jews. This is less likely to happen in Israel.

My hat is off to you. But Israel todays seems to be taking the worst parts of American culture for itself. There is such a thing as cultural nationalism too.

[KettleWhistle]

I majored in Jewish history and I know that you are wrong. Most of the Jews up to the Holocaust resided in Poland. Those Jews that lived in Western Europe were a minority of the Jewish people, with much of the European Reform movement bieng close to conservative Judaism stream of today. The minority of Jewish people who were secular were a minority within the nation.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/jewpop.html

That really says it all. Seems like whoever taught you Jewish history was among the same rabbinical sages that you like to insist know Tora.


Nor does it mean being in the right. What I am saying is that for thousand of years this was the composition of the Jewish people; we are living in an anomolous age.
Anomolous age? Hardly. Having the majority of the nation live outside of our homeland is anomalous. Being ashamed of one's ethnic identity like the German Jewry and most of the American Reformist Jews is anomalous. Rejecting acceptance of some ancient fairytales as reality is progress, one that paves the way for societal development, which became stangnant the moment our ancestors were exiled.



Sigh, Exodus 18:13-27, especially the part where Moses as he is about to go die in Exile, tells the Jews to follow the words of the judges.
It doesn't say anything about any "Oral Law" It simply talks about Moses establishing judicial hierachy.


Then continue to wallow in your bitter ignorance. I can't remedy it, only discussion with learned sages can. If you do not have the courage to sit down and discuss your problems with people who are many degrees more qualified to answer you than I am, I do not see how anything can be done about the subject. It is a simple decision: Either you discuss your problems with orthodox Judaism, or continue with a mask of self imposed superiority, and go through life bitter about something you do not fully understand.
Did you actually read what I wrote? I neither have any problems, nor have I ever shied away from discussing theological issues with rabbis, orthodox or otherwise. It is them who have problems unswering my learned questions. This is the reason they can never give a direct answer to anything, and suddenly have to go an appointment or a meeting when I bring up the particular citations, chapters, and verses that say to contrary of what they propose.

The first thing rabbis are being taught at rabbinical schools is that they are Men of God, so they are never wrong. Even when they are wrong, they are still right. This is their MO; they will simply never admit being wrong. But that doesn't mean that they aren't. I've given you an explicit example. If you'd like to get one of these "sages" in here, I'd be glad to make a proverbial mincemeat out of their innane arguments.

[Overload]

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/jewpop.html

That really says it all. Seems like whoever taught you Jewish history was among the same rabbinical sages that you like to insist know Tora.

Which part did I get wrong? The part where most resided in Eastern Europe or the part that said that most resided in Poland?



Anomolous age? Hardly. Having the majority of the nation live outside of our homeland is anomalous. Being ashamed of one's ethnic identity like the German Jewry and most of the American Reformist Jews is anomalous. Rejecting acceptance of some ancient fairytales as reality is progress, one that paves the way for societal development, which became stangnant the moment our ancestors were exiled.

Ethnic identity? What does that even mean without that part which is the culture. You are promoting a dessicated husk for a Jewish state, a state without a soul. Contrary to what you believe, Jewish culture thrived in Europe, especially in the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. We had an entire kingdom, the Khazar Khanate, converted to Judaism, the first Jewish European state, but even after it was destroyed by the Russians, we had had vassal self governing communities all over Europe, and a kingdom in Spain. Jewish culture developed just fine. All that was missing is self determination, and we got it when Israel was reborn. Sadly, many of the great carriers of our culture were murdered, but it doesn't mean we cannot fuse democracy with Judaism.




It doesn't say anything about any "Oral Law" It simply talks about Moses establishing judicial hierachy.

Moses instituted the judges to act as his proxies with the people who were ignorant of the law. When he left to die in Exile he made a speech to the nation where the master teacher utilized his wonderful talent for education. In advance of retelling the people about their most glorious moments (Chs. 4-5, including the stand at Sinai and the Exodus), he instilled in them the understanding that he would not completely be leaving them. He told them about the two major functions which he held - leadership and instruction - and how he empowered others to continue his role. He immediately told them about the judges and how he charged them, such that even in his absence, there would be judges who would be an extension of Moses-as-instructor.

In other words, the judges are instructors of the law just like Moses. What they teach, as long as it is not heretical, is there to help us carry out the mitzvahs and carry the same word as Moses himself. If you can't take the Tanach as one document instead of reading one passage as a vacuum, you can't make learned judgements about the law.

The Oral law is the procedure that these judges use to come up with their rulings. After the destruction of the Temple, these procedures were written down so as to have them preserved in the Diaspora. Your simplified Torah for dummies doesn't fly in the face of how the law is understood throughout the generation and by people. People do not read and carry things out like automatons, G-d wouldn't need to give us free will for that. Instead he gave us an intellect and told Moses that whoever he entrusts with the law and how His instruction to man is understood by Moses and the judges that this is how the commandments will be. The Commandments are made for men, not for G-d. As long as it is not against the spirit of the Torah as a whole and doesn't abolish or contravene meaning, tradition has the same weight as the law.

It is the classic dispute. There is a passage that says if someone takes out a person's eye, his eye is to be taken out by the court. What if the perpertrator has only one eye? Should he be blinded and suffer unproportionally to his crime? The judges ruled no thqt instead it should be a monetary payment; because they read the Torah as a whole and tempered their ruling with mercy. They gave the same rulings to other readings of the Torah because everything has to be taken into context.



Did you actually read what I wrote? I neither have any problems, nor have I ever shied away from discussing theological issues with rabbis, orthodox or otherwise. It is them who have problems unswering my learned questions. This is the reason they can never give a direct answer to anything, and suddenly have to go an appointment or a meeting when I bring up the particular citations, chapters, and verses that say to contrary of what they propose.

So you say.


The first thing rabbis are being taught at rabbinical schools is that they are Men of God, so they are never wrong. Even when they are wrong, they are still right.

No, that is what you think they are taught.


This is their MO; they will simply never admit being wrong. But that doesn't mean that they aren't. I've given you an explicit example. If you'd like to get one of these "sages" in here, I'd be glad to make a proverbial mincemeat out of their innane arguments.

I don't think I can do that. You vendetta is your own, and I suggest you solve it privately.

[KettleWhistle]

Which part did I get wrong? The part where most resided in Eastern Europe or the part that said that most resided in Poland?

That majority of pre-Holocaust Jews weren't secular. Nearly a million of Romanian Jews and 2.5 million of Soviet Jews would by themselves constitute a plurality. BTW, majority means 2/3, and by no means had 2/3 of pre-Holocaust Jewish population been Orthodox.


Ethnic identity? What does that even mean without that part which is the culture. You are promoting a dessicated husk for a Jewish state, a state without a soul. blablabla...

Religion and culture are two separate things. You don't need the former to have the later.


Contrary to what you believe, Jewish culture thrived in Europe, especially in the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. We had an entire kingdom, the Khazar Khanate, converted to Judaism, the first Jewish European state, but even after it was destroyed by the Russians, we had had vassal self governing communities all over Europe, and a kingdom in Spain.

This nonsense isn't even worth a response. If you don't mind, where did you study the Jewish history? And if you can, would you provide the names of your professors. I'm just really curious who would come up with something like that.


No, that is what you think they are taught. Not "think," I know.


I don't think I can do that. You vendetta is your own, and I suggest you solve it privately.
I don't have a vendetta. Nothing there to resolve. If you want to deny the facts because some self-proclaimed authority told you to do so, then be my guest.

[Overload]

That majority of pre-Holocaust Jews weren't secular. Nearly a million of Romanian Jews and 2.5 million of Soviet Jews would by themselves constitute a plurality. BTW, majority means 2/3, and by no means had 2/3 of pre-Holocaust Jewish population been Orthodox.

You have already proven to be ignorant about Jewish history; don't sink deeper into a hole you can't get out off. These are the most basic facts a person learns when reading modern Jewish history.

There were 6,670,000 Jews in Eastern Europe, the majority of them orthodox. There were 766,600 Jews in Western and Northern Europe 1,644,200 in Central Europe along with other small minorities in other European countries. Most of the Jews in Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands were leaned more to the secularism, with a minority to what we would now call secular and a majority to what we would call traditional.




Religion and culture are two separate things. You don't need the former to have the later.

You can have Goyish culture, but you certainly will not have Jewish culture. Judaism is Jewish culture. "Secularism" i.e. Hellenism is Goyish culture. That is what Hunnukah is about. Judaism triumphing over alien hellenism. Here I am debating a self proclaimed nationalist who happens to be promoting hellenist culture for Israel.




This nonsense isn't even worth a response. If you don't mind, where did you study the Jewish history? And if you can, would you provide the names of your professors. I'm just really curious who would come up with something like that.

It isn't worth a response because you can't respond, as you have very little knowledge in Jewish history. At least not enough to make an informed decision. I studied under Prof. Hoffman in UC Davis.

Here is some general information.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Four_Lands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth


Not "think," I know.

I am sure the knowledge you posses is in the same catagory as your knowledge of Jewish history.



I don't have a vendetta. Nothing there to resolve. If you want to deny the facts because some self-proclaimed authority told you to do so, then be my guest.

Yes, I am the one denying the facts. Of course.

So when will you answer my response to your "chapter and verse" game?

[KettleWhistle]

You have already proven to be ignorant about Jewish history; don't sink deeper into a hole you can't get out off. These are the most basic facts a person learns when reading modern Jewish history.

There were 6,670,000 Jews in Eastern Europe, the majority of them orthodox. There were 766,600 Jews in Western and Northern Europe 1,644,200 in Central Europe along with other small minorities in other European countries. Most of the Jews in Germany, Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands were leaned more to the secularism, with a minority to what we would now call secular and a majority to what we would call traditional.

LOL. You should be the last one to call anyone ignorant. By 1933 the majority of Eastern European Jews weren't Orthodox. Majority of Jewish in Western Europe were so secularized, they were ashamed of being Jews.


You can have Goyish culture
Wrong. Being a Jew/Hebrew I cannot have a Goyish culture.


It isn't worth a response because you can't respond, as you have very little knowledge in Jewish history. At least not enough to make an informed decision. I studied under Prof. Hoffman in UC Davis.
It isn't worth a response because it is ignorant. I have no need to respond to such stupidity same as I have no need to respond to flat-earthers.

And if that's what Hoffman teaches at UC Davis, then he takes the cake from Lowenstein at the University of Judaism and Sundquist at UCLA.


So when will you answer my response to your "chapter and verse" game?

I gave you a response: the verses you cited talk about Moses establishing judicial hierachy. There is no loaded meaning or any hints at "Oral Law."

[Overload]

LOL. You should be the last one to call anyone ignorant. By 1933 the majority of Eastern European Jews weren't Orthodox. Majority of Jewish in Western Europe were so secularized, they were ashamed of being Jews.

You have nothing to back up your ignorant assertions. Take a history class and come back, because talking with you about the most well known facts is giving me a headache.


Wrong. Being a Jew/Hebrew I cannot have a Goyish culture.

Sure you can, by adopting the cultures of other nations. You are no different than a Reformer who adopted protestanism and called it Judaism. All you did was adopt secularism and called it Jewish culture.


It isn't worth a response because it is ignorant. I have no need to respond to such stupidity same as I have no need to respond to flat-earthers.

What is ignorant? That the Council of Four Lands didn't exist? that the Khazar Khanate didn't exist? You boggle the mind.


And if that's what Hoffman teaches at UC Davis, then he takes the cake from Lowenstein at the University of Judaism and Sundquist at UCLA.

He teaches the same thing that any educated professor teaches about Jewish history.


I gave you a response: the verses you cited talk about Moses establishing judicial hierachy. There is no loaded meaning or any hints at "Oral Law."

I am done on this part of the discussion. You aren't learned enough to have this conversation so I shouldn't have started it in the first place. You sound like a Christian fundamentalist.

[KettleWhistle]

Yeah, sure. The Earth is flat. Otherwise we'd slide off of it like ants from a basketball.

I'm done with ya.

Get back to me when you graduate.

[Overload]

Yeah, sure. The Earth is flat. Otherwise we'd slide off of it like ants from a basketball.

I'm done with ya.

Get back to me when you graduate.

I just need a simple yes or a no

Did the Council of Four Lands exist? Yes or No

Did the Khazar Khanate exist? Yes or No

By your answers to these questions I will know if it is fruitful to have any discussion with you on any subject in the future.

[Cyrus the Great]

This is a an article to discuss the future of Israel. I support the creation of a constitutional theocracy. This is a large subject, and I am not one to preach, but I am one to answer any questions or objections one might have about this idea. Remember there are no stupid questions, there are only stupid answers. I only ask that you approach the subject with maturity, keep personal insults to a minimum and stay on topic; I will ignore flamebait and trolling. In return, I promise to answer whatever questions anyone has in the most satisfactory manner possible. I am most interested in what people who have objections have to say about this. I think that if we keep these general guidelines in mind, we can learn from each other.

So I will start with the basics.

A constitutional theocracy is a form of government in which within the context of a modern democracy, a particular religion is granted a central role in the legal and political system. In contrast to a pure theocracy, power resides in political figures operating within the bounds of a constitution, rather than religious leadership. I am not talking about Iran here. People will still be elected from whatever political party, but it will finally define the "Jewish State" with Jewish values. The Torah is inherently democratic. Both the United States and Switzerland were inspired by the political system of the "Old Testament."

I will eleborate as questions are asked.



I have a very hard time believing anyone would actually want a theocracy for their country. I tried all my life to escape theocracy . You don't know what theocracy is like, I have lived under a theocratic government for about 23 years and I was finally able to get out of there and come to the United States. With theocracy comes oppression of minorities and women. Almost all religions with the exception of few like Zoroastrianism promote discrimination against women one way or another. Remember, after the Iranian revolution, the people voted for an Islamic Republic beacause of exactly the same reasons as you mentioned. They thought that they could have a democratic government with Islamic values. This was true for only one year, after the first year more and more power was taken away from the elected body and given to the Guardian Council and the Expediency Council. What makes you think that won't happen to Israel ?

[nuttie]

I have a very hard time believing anyone would actually want a theocracy for their country. I tried all my life to escape theocracy . You don't know what theocracy is like, I have lived under a theocratic government for about 23 years and I was finally able to get out of there and come to the United States. With theocracy comes oppression of minorities and women. Almost all religions with the exception of few like Zoroastrianism promote discrimination against women one way or another. Remember, after the Iranian revolution, the people voted for an Islamic Republic beacause of exactly the same reasons as you mentioned. They thought that they could have a democratic government with Islamic values. This was true for only one year, after the first year more and more power was taken away from the elected body and given to the Guardian Council and the Expediency Council. What makes you think that won't happen to Israel ?Cyrus, I entirely agree with you. The trouble is that some people never believe that what happened to others will happen to them, and will immediately argue that Judaism/Christianity/Marxism/whatever/take your pick is different. It is not. Belief in absolute truth necessarily leads to the pursuit of absolute power, and the rest is known.

[Reffo]

Overhead

We could go on discussing this topic forever and at the end of it you will still "stick to your guns" and likewise I will to mine. So, rather than address each of your points individually, let me sum up my understanding of our respective positions:

You are prescriptive, you feel that religion (in particular, Judaism) is the answer to everything. I on the other hand feel that it's a total answer for some Jews, to others it's a partial answer and to some others it's just their heritage and culture. I respect ALL these views and I think that they can all live side by side blissfully as long as everyone is prepared to tolerate differences and does not try to force it's view on others.
You would like to institute a religious theocracy in Israel irrespective of whether the secular Jews (who are a majority) want this or not. I am against such coercion and prefer a democracy which permits all Jews to live their lives as they please, as long as they respect others rights and keep the civil law of the land.
You feel that Israel will not survive as a Jewish state unless they adopt a more religious existence. I say that they can become a uniquely Jewish nation just like Poles are uniquely Polish, Greeks are uniquely Greek, Italians are uniquely Italian etc..I agree with your claim that Israel and all other nations have common elements (we are all human) yet they are all different and unique (even if Israel will not become a theocracy).
I value all the elements of Jewish culture and identity irrespective of whether it's religious orthodox, secular or the various shades in between. You seem to de-value the secular components and prefer to view them as imitations of other cultures.
You feel that because "Greece has national church and Italy has the Vatican" Israel should become a theocracy but I don't see how that follows. A better comparison is that all three states are democracies, separating religion from state, yet they are each unique.

[Ophra]

Overhead

We could go on discussing this topic forever and at the end of it you will still "stick to your guns" and likewise I will to mine. So, rather than address each of your points individually, let me sum up my understanding of our respective positions:

You are prescriptive, you feel that religion (in particular, Judaism) is the answer to everything. I on the other hand feel that it's a total answer for some Jews, to others it's a partial answer and to some others it's just their heritage and culture. I respect ALL these views and I think that they can all live side by side blissfully as long as everyone is prepared to tolerate differences and does not try to force it's view on others.
You would like to institute a religious theocracy in Israel irrespective of whether the secular Jews (who are a majority) want this or not. I am against such coercion and prefer a democracy which permits all Jews to live their lives as they please, as long as they respect others rights and keep the civil law of the land.
You feel that Israel will not survive as a Jewish state unless they adopt a more religious existence. I say that they can become a uniquely Jewish nation just like Poles are uniquely Polish, Greeks are uniquely Greek, Italians are uniquely Italian etc..I agree with your claim that Israel and all other nations have common elements (we are all human) yet they are all different and unique (even if Israel will not become a theocracy).
I value all the elements of Jewish culture and identity irrespective of whether it's religious orthodox, secular or the various shades in between. You seem to de-value the secular components and prefer to view them as imitations of other cultures.
You feel that because "Greece has national church and Italy has the Vatican" Israel should become a theocracy but I don't see how that follows. A better comparison is that all three states are democracies, separating religion from state, yet they are each unique.


Beautifully said Reffo. Completely agree with you. Dern it I wish I could put stuff together and get the point across like you do :(

[Overload]

I have a very hard time believing anyone would actually want a theocracy for their country.

You have misunderstood what I wrote. I did not say a theocracy, I said a constitutional theocracy no different than any other country but with the addition of a national belief system being enshrined in the constitution. I am talking of a democratic country with free elections and a leadership by those elected, with an added branch in the judicial branch being composed of religious jurists who have a limited scope in where they can rule. Anyone who understands basic constitutional law knows that this is possible.



I tried all my life to escape theocracy . You don't know what theocracy is like, I have lived under a theocratic government for about 23 years and I was finally able to get out of there and come to the United States.

You are talking about a different government system with Supreme Leaders and democratic window dressing to mask a dictatorship. I talk of no such thing.



With theocracy comes oppression of minorities and women.

That is conjecture, and I am not talking about a pure theocracy.


Almost all religions with the exception of few like Zoroastrianism promote discrimination against women one way or another. Remember, after the Iranian revolution, the people voted for an Islamic Republic beacause of exactly the same reasons as you mentioned.

They didn't vote for an Islamic Republic. The history is much more complex than that. Finally, they didn't get the system that they voted for. They got a dictatorship under a Supreme Guide. There is no such system of governance in Judaism. In modern times, even when we were in Europe, Israel had a constitutional government based on a democratic system and seperation of powers. This was partly because they lived in a country which developed the 2nd democratic constitution in the world, Poland, and partly because certain democratic systems are rooted in the Torah.



They thought that they could have a democratic government with Islamic values. This was true for only one year, after the first year more and more power was taken away from the elected body and given to the Guardian Council and the Expediency Council. What makes you think that won't happen to Israel ?

Because they will not have a government based on Iran. Judaism has it's own inherent democratic systems. The system I am talking about has very little to do with Iran and more to do with Ireland, Germany, and France.

[Overload]

Cyrus, I entirely agree with you. The trouble is that some people never believe that what happened to others will happen to them, and will immediately argue that Judaism/Christianity/Marxism/whatever/take your pick is different. It is not. Belief in absolute truth necessarily leads to the pursuit of absolute power, and the rest is known.

That's ridiculous. Germany, France, and other European countries are social democratic, a democratic version of socialism. Germany has Christian democracy parties which are democratic, Japan has the Clean Government Party, which wishes to have Japan govern on Bhuddist principles. Turkey has an Islamic Party in the Justice and Development Party. Why can't Israel have a government based on values rooted in its heritage? You say this because you have an irrational fear.

You've been indoctrinated by a foreign culture, your own version of "absolute values." This indoctrination takes the wishy washy concept of liberal democracy. When someone proposes a hybrid system, a Jewish democracy, suddenly it's wrong. The problem is that Jews have lived in Exile for so long that when they hear "seperation of church and state" they think Yes, this is good. And in Europe it was good. That is why some Jews became liberal, because it meant that they would not be persecuted by a hostile Christian majority into converting. They liked secularism because it meant freedom to worship Judaism.


Somehow this love of seperation of church from state has turned into an irrational fear of religion and state, when Judaism and state always went hand in hand for the Jews.

A fear that first developed because of persecution by Christians in the Middle Ages who wished to impose their religion on Jews, has turned into fear of their own heritage. Why are Jews today having this kneejerk reaction when no one is trying to impose foreign beliefs on them, but bring them closer to their national beliefs in a democratic manner? Instead of promoting to raise foreign Hebrew speaking gentiles in Israel, why not make it the Jewish homeland and make it a priority to promote Jewish religion, history, values and language. I am not talking of a Haredi state here. I am talking of promoting an environemnt where it is easy and natural to be Jews, but no one wants to listen about a new concept, a concept used by and interwoven with the Jewish people since its inception. Stiff necked people indeed.

[Overload]

Overhead

We could go on discussing this topic forever and at the end of it you will still "stick to your guns" and likewise I will to mine.

I think we should keep discussing this topic, as you understand very little of what I am proposing, but I know your position very well. It is in your favour that you listen to something fresh. It's up to you of course. You can continue to champion secular democracy, but I urge you to listen to a different conception of democracy.


You are prescriptive, you feel that religion (in particular, Judaism) is the answer to everything.

No, I do not. You have misunderstood. I said that a Jewish state should value its national heritage and culture, and use the state to forge a fractious population into a national people once more. This has not happened. Unless you want Israel to be solely bound by the memory of the Holocaust and mutual hatred of Arabs for the rest of it's existance, the only way to build a cohesive Jewish state would be to promote Jewish culture and religion. Something that is not being done sufficiently at all. When the dust settles and Jews and Arabs have peace, what will seperate us from them will be our national heritage. Unless you want a Jewish nation state to last longer than the conflict, and have something in common to fall on when this is over instead of collapsing into a Balkan style civil war, this is the only solution. Cultural Pluralism in such a young state with a weak social identity but strong cultural identity will only lead to chaos.
If men and women try to create a society in which there is no fundamental agreement about good and evil they will fail; if, having based it on common agreement, the agreement goes, the society will disintegrate. For society is not something that is kept together physically; it is held by the invisible bonds of common thought. If the bonds were too far relaxed the members would drift apart. A common morality is part of the bondage. The bondage is part of the price of society; and mankind, which needs society, must pay its price. Judaism is the price Israel must pay to survive. And at such a price, it's a steal.



I on the other hand feel that it's a total answer for some Jews, to others it's a partial answer and to some others it's just their heritage and culture.

What does this mean in reality? Both concepts allow for promotion of a national culture in a society in which, if we use a secular looking glass, the only thing that it has in common is their ethnicity. Israel is still a young state and young states needs values, vision and culture to get through the hard time of establishment. For a young nation, and for a nation like the Jews, religion and nationalism go hand in hand.


I respect ALL these views and I think that they can all live side by side blissfully as long as everyone is prepared to tolerate differences and does not try to force it's view on others.

That's foolish utopianism. A young state like Israel, without a defined character and history, will either define itself through a constitution or through a civil war. You cannot forge a state on cultural relativism unless you want it to fail spectacularly.


You would like to institute a religious theocracy in Israel irrespective of whether the secular Jews (who are a majority) want this or not.

You have not been listening at all. This is what is the most frustrating, that you have not been listening, but going about in an autopilot about the horrors of dictatorship. You are swimming in the wrong boat. This is not a discussion about imposing anything on anyone, this is a discussion about the benefits of a religious democracy. A democracy based on Jewish principles. Once you understand that I am talking about a democratic system, we can continue this conversation.



I am against such coercion and prefer a democracy which permits all Jews to live their lives as they please, as long as they respect others rights and keep the civil law of the land.

Ah yes, the quaint system of liberal democracy. I've already explained that there will be little difference between a religious democracy and a secular democracy that everyone seems to cheer.



You feel that Israel will not survive as a Jewish state unless they adopt a more religious existence. I say that they can become a uniquely Jewish nation just like Poles are uniquely Polish, Greeks are uniquely Greek, Italians are uniquely Italian etc..

I vehemently disagree. Israel is a state with individuals from 120 different countries and 120 different languages. It doesn't have a strong culture, but Jews have a strong culture, and unless this culture is promoted, you can say bye, bye to Israel.



I agree with your claim that Israel and all other nations have common elements (we are all human) yet they are all different and unique (even if Israel will not become a theocracy).

Globalization is making sure that we will all become the same. The Jewish people finally have their own state and we are making it into an America junior.



I value all the elements of Jewish culture and identity irrespective of whether it's religious orthodox, secular or the various shades in between. You seem to de-value the secular components and prefer to view them as imitations of other cultures.

But they are imitations of other cultures. Have you never been to a reform synagogue? Lesbian "rabbis" that look like catholic priests. Going to a reform synagogue feels like going to a church without a cross, a kind of Hebrew version of unitarianism. The same thing can be said about Jewish secular culture in other countries. What is good about having a Jewish state is that a national culture, irrespective of religion, will defacto be Jewish culture. Not so in the Diaspora. If we are to have Jewish culture, we must start from where we left off and develop it from there.


You feel that because "Greece has national church and Italy has the Vatican" Israel should become a theocracy but I don't see how that follows.[/quote]

I dont see how you even deduced that from what I wrote. I merely meant that irrational deferment to secularism when other states value their culture is suicidal and self hating. Other cultures aren't ashamed of having them inscribed into their cherished national documents, the posters I am discussing this with seem to be. Why?


A better comparison is that all three states are democracies, separating religion from state, yet they are each unique.
[/list]

They are democracies, but they value their national culture, something I am proposing for Israel.

[Reffo]

No, I do not. You have misunderstood. I said that a Jewish state should value its national heritage and culture, and use the state to forge a fractious population into a national people once more. I have no problems with that in fact my observation is that it already has that. Even secular schools in Israel teach the Torah and the Tenach (although they have more of a historical rather than religious emphasis). The majority speak Hebrew and in time all olim learn it as well (unless they are too old). They also cover modern history which includes the Holocaust (as it should) and they try to live normal lives. I don't even have a problem if you don't think that's enough and you want all of them to become more religious (say your version of Jewish religion) as long as you propose to bring it about via persuasion rather than coercion. I would also hope that even if you are successful and you persuade the majority, you would still permit the seculars to live THEIR lives as they wish (as long as they are lawful and I don't mean religiously lawful). For instance, if they want to drive in Shabat, they should be allowed to do so....if they want to turn the light on in Shabat, they should be allowed this too......and secular women should be allowed to have the same dress code as they have now etc.....Last, but not least, the process should be reversible.....for example, if after a while, following a possible period of a religious majority (obviously this is not the case today), the seculars win the elections, they should be allowed to govern according to their agenda....If that's what you are proposing, that's OK with me.


If men and women try to create a society in which there is no fundamental agreement about good and evil they will fail; Can you be a bit more specific ? What do you actually propose ? What's you problem with their current concept of good and evil ?


That's foolish utopianism. A young state like Israel, without a defined character and history, will either define itself through a constitution or through a civil war. You cannot forge a state on cultural relativism unless you want it to fail spectacularly.Funny about that......Australia too has not had a civil war (thank goodness)......it too is a young country.....multi ethnic multi religious.... (although the majority group is from the British Isles and are Christian). They also have people with a variety of cultures and overall it has worked very well, people respect each other's differences and there is a general attitude of "live and let live". It works very well, most Aussies call Australia "The Lucky Country" and they are right!


You have not been listening at all. This is what is the most frustrating, that you have not been listening, but going about in an autopilot about the horrors of dictatorship. You are swimming in the wrong boat. This is not a discussion about imposing anything on anyone, this is a discussion about the benefits of a religious democracy. A democracy based on Jewish principles. Once you understand that I am talking about a democratic system, we can continue this conversation. I have no problem with anything that would be introduced via a democratic process and which would continue to operate democratically, in other words: If the newly introduced item can also be removed by a democratic process (if the majority gets tired of it) and if it will not infringe on human rights. So, how would you introduce your proposed system and how would you operate it ?


I vehemently disagree. Israel is a state with individuals from 120 different countries and 120 different languages. It doesn't have a strong culture, but Jews have a strong culture, and unless this culture is promoted, you can say bye, bye to Israel. As I mentioned above, Australia too has as many languages and cultures as well as just about all the religions of the world but it still works well and it's a great country.


But they are imitations of other cultures. Have you never been to a reform synagogue?Even if you are right, that's what they choose to do....presumably because they like it.....so how do you proposing to stop them ?


They are democracies, but they value their national culture, something I am proposing for Israel.So does Israel, what are you going to do that will be different......perhaps you may want to give me some more concrete steps and measures that you propose rather than just abstract high level statements about "consitutional theocracy".

[Reffo]

Overload

Actually, I looked back in this thread and I don't like what I read in your earlier posts which actually seem to answer some of the questions that I asked you in my previous post. I don't like it:

I personally envision a clause in the Constitution that states that laws passed by the government cannot contradict the Source ie Torah. For anything to be done, the Rabbinate will have to be reformed into a Senhadrin, with the most qualified community accepted Torah sages having a seat. It would act as an autonomous part of the government within the government, with its own fixed budget. This to decrease reliance on the state for its rulings and to decrease meddling in politics through shady deals. The idea is to have cooperation between synagugue and state, but independence of each organ from political interference, with each having delineated duties. The Sanhadrin would be a unified authority that would issue judgements of ethical areas (medical practice, marriage and other areas) as opinions to the government, the constitutional court and the Knesset. As an interperter of the Torah, it would be up to them to issue what law is against the spirit of Judaism. The president of the Sanhadrin would act as a religious head of state and preside over ceremonies.This would stack the system in favour of a narrow section of the religious community. Once in place, nothing could reverse it even if the majority population ends up disliking it. It's not democracy, it may even lead to corruption and tyranny. The Sanhedrin sounds like it would be more powerful than the elected politicians and the Sanhedrin would not be secular. IMO, what you propose is a recipee for coercion, strife, hatred and eventual mass emigration of secular Jews from Israel, it would become a disaster.


It would work with the Education ministry to help integrate Jewish values with other studies into the schools. Yea, so the new generation could be indoctrinated to perpetuate a system "Constitutional Theocracy", that may or may not be effective. I would rather have a system that encourages flexibility and adaptability to ensure that the country will be able to meet new challenges.

[Cyrus the Great]

Overload,

There is a difference between constitutional thoecracy and what countries like Germany have. Germany is not a consitutional theocracy. Any party in germany can come to power if enough people vote for it. There is nothing stopping a Jewish party to come in power in Germany other than the people. In a constitutional theocracy, only parties that support a certain religion can come to power.
By the way, many people might not know this but the Iranian people actually did vote for an Islamic Republic after the revolution. There were many groups involved in the revolution, there was the Islamists, the marxists, the people's mujahedeen (combination of marxism and islam), the kurdish nationalists , etc. After the revolution a referendum was held to decide which kind of government would come in power in Iran. The majority voted for an Islamic Republic (not me though, I was a Marxist) because they honestly thought that they would have a consititutional theocracy. The Mullahs were not suppose to interfer in politics at all. But things changed over time the deomcracy was killed and only a theocracy remained even though almost no one in Iran wanted that. All I am asking is what makes you think the same won't happen to Israel ?

[Overload]

Overload,

There is a difference between constitutional thoecracy and what countries like Germany have. Germany is not a consitutional theocracy.

I am talking about a hybrid system here. If you look at the German Constitutional court, it has it's own budget and it supports it's own version of democratic orthodoxy to stop the nazis from ever being represented. Every society has the right to enshrine what they value into their constitution.



Any party in germany can come to power if enough people vote for it. There is nothing stopping a Jewish party to come in power in Germany other than the people. In a constitutional theocracy, only parties that support a certain religion can come to power.

Think of it as the same thing with Germany. Racist parties cannot come to power because it is against the constitution, why would parties that wish to overturn a religious democracy be treated any differently?


By the way, many people might not know this but the Iranian people actually did vote for an Islamic Republic after the revolution. There were many groups involved in the revolution, there was the Islamists, the marxists, the people's mujahedeen (combination of marxism and islam), the kurdish nationalists , etc. After the revolution a referendum was held to decide which kind of government would come in power in Iran. The majority voted for an Islamic Republic (not me though, I was a Marxist) because they honestly thought that they would have a consititutional theocracy. The Mullahs were not suppose to interfer in politics at all. But things changed over time the deomcracy was killed and only a theocracy remained even though almost no one in Iran wanted that. All I am asking is what makes you think the same won't happen to Israel ?

The Iranian constitution was designed with absolute power in mind for the Ayatollah Khomeini. A modern constitution should never have such power invested in the chief executive. The Iranians should have known better before they voted in as bad constitution. Secondly, the economy is socialist in nature, that combined with a dictatorial government leads to severe corruption. If a system has proper seperation of powers, these problems do not occur.

I will return to this a little later.

[nuttie]

Reffo,
I entirely agree with you. Overload seems to either reject or misunderstand democracy. If I may refer to a minor point in one of his posts (the one you quote in your last post), he talks about "laws passed by the government". In democracies, governments don't pass laws. They may suggest them (and so can any member of parliament), but only parliament/Knesset passes laws, and the govenment is bound by them like everyone else.

And I would also like to expound on one of your own little points, your observation on the reversability of laws in a truly democratic system. Indeed, all laws are reversible in Israel, even though some fundamental (constitutional) ones require a two-third majority which is actually achieved only in extreme and self-evident cases (since you can't get a two-third majority without the support of different and often opposing political parties). This is the basic difference between true democracy, in which laws are man-made and human fallibility is acknowledged, and absolutist theocracies which ascribe man-made laws to infallible divinity.

I love seemingly minor points. They often reveal more than the main points.

[Reffo]

I entirely agree with you. Overload seems to either reject or misunderstand democracy.Although I am not religious, I don't mind religious people and I do believe in God, but I tend to be wary of any suggestion that religion should be mixed with with government. To me, religion is a personal thing that people should decide for themselves. The reason why I am against including religion with government is that ALL religions tend to be prescriptive, ALL laws are spelt out for us forever and a day, no changes are permitted to suit new conditions, to allow for new discoveries etc, religion is for keeps. Now, if I really did believe that ALL religious laws were given by God, then I WOULD be religious and I would not have a problem with that. However, I happen to believe that MANY (perhaps not all) religious laws are made up or are interpretations of human beings but they want us to keep these as absolute God's laws. Democracy just does not come into it for them......

[Overload]

Reffo,
I entirely agree with you. Overload seems to either reject or misunderstand democracy. If I may refer to a minor point in one of his posts (the one you quote in your last post), he talks about "laws passed by the government". In democracies, governments don't pass laws. They may suggest them (and so can any member of parliament), but only parliament/Knesset passes laws, and the govenment is bound by them like everyone else.

Actually, you have misunderstood me. I neither reject nor misunderstand democracy. I did not say that whatever Law the Cabinet passes, but the government, the government is composed of different branches, and the executive is made up of the cabinet. I never suggested that the cabinet would be the one passing the laws.


And I would also like to expound on one of your own little points, your observation on the reversability of laws in a truly democratic system. Indeed, all laws are reversible in Israel, even though some fundamental (constitutional) ones require a two-third majority which is actually achieved only in extreme and self-evident cases (since you can't get a two-third majority without the support of different and often opposing political parties).

You don't have constitution. You have a mishmash of nonsense that the High Court of Justice interperts as it wishes. The Israeli system of government is so dysfunctional that I predict within 10 years, the judicial branch will be the one making the laws... if it isn't already. No seperation of powers, the most activist and idealogically homogenous supreme court in the world, a politicised justice system with weak checks and balances against government corruption. I know everything about the Israeli government, everything that is good about it and everything that makes it sick.


This is the basic difference between true democracy, in which laws are man-made and human fallibility is acknowledged, and absolutist theocracies which ascribe man-made laws to infallible divinity.

We aren't talking about absolutist theocracies. Come back when you understand the subject.

[Overload]

Although I am not religious, I don't mind religious people and I do believe in God, but I tend to be wary of any suggestion that religion should be mixed with with government. To me, religion is a personal thing that people should decide for themselves.

Didn't Jews decide their religion when they stood at Mt. Sinai? Are you claiming that Jews can be Christians or Bhuddists or Muslims? When you understand that the Judaism, the Jewish way of life is intrinsically interwoven with Jewish identity, you will understand why important pillars of Jewish culture must be tied in with a Jewish state.


The reason why I am against including religion with government is that ALL religions tend to be prescriptive, ALL laws are spelt out for us forever and a day, no changes are permitted to suit new conditions, to allow for new discoveries etc, religion is for keeps.

Not true. The Torah is a constitution. The Sanhadrin is the keeper of tradition. Certain practice changes. That which is custom changes, that which is law does not. Jewish tradition has evolved for generations. It has never been static. Finally, if you are a Jew, your religion is for keeps.



Now, if I really did believe that ALL religious laws were given by God, then I WOULD be religious and I would not have a problem with that. However, I happen to believe that MANY (perhaps not all) religious laws are made up or are interpretations of human beings but they want us to keep these as absolute God's laws. Democracy just does not come into it for them......

Certain religious laws are customs, but customs change over time. What is written does not change.

[Overload]

I have no problems with that in fact my observation is that it already has that. Even secular schools in Israel teach the Torah and the Tenach (although they have more of a historical rather than religious emphasis).

So that should change. Israel is losing its grip on the patrimony because it is teaching its children self doubt and loathing. There must be more reason to live in Israel, where the Temple and the Tomb of the Patriarchs lie than just personal safety. That reason is to be Jewish.


The majority speak Hebrew and in time all olim learn it as well (unless they are too old). They also cover modern history which includes the Holocaust (as it should) and they try to live normal lives.

There is nothing wrong with that. But Israel is disregarding its own history. It shows no respect for its cultural traditions. Simple things such as not sending a national football team to Europe to play on Rosh Hashana, or having the Supreme Court decide that Israel can't ban the importation of Pork. These small inconsistancies make people doubt the reason they have an ideological state in the first place. Israel needs to define itself as Jewish and democratic, and so far it has barely fulfilled both.

I don't even have a problem if you don't think that's enough and you want all of them to become more religious (say your version of Jewish religion) as long as you propose to bring it about via persuasion rather than coercion. I would also hope that even if you are successful and you persuade the majority, you would still permit the seculars to live THEIR lives as they wish (as long as they are lawful and I don't mean religiously lawful).
For instance, if they want to drive in Shabat, they should be allowed to do so
Why? Why should some people be allowed to break a national value, something cherished for the ability to drive? They can wait a day. In anycase, there are compromises. Israel should have a 2 day weekend, with on Shabbat, and one a general day off.



....if they want to turn the light on in Shabat, they should be allowed this too

What happens in the privacy of their own home is not my concern.


......and secular women should be allowed to have the same dress code as they have now etc.....

I will answer this when you tell me why this is important. Why have defined democracy as the ability to flaut cherished insititutions and wear provacative clothes?


Last, but not least, the process should be reversible.....for example, if after a while, following a possible period of a religious majority (obviously this is not the case today), the seculars win the elections, they should be allowed to govern according to their agenda....If that's what you are proposing, that's OK with me.

Whoever wins an election must govern according to the principles of the constitution.


Can you be a bit more specific?

If society cannot agree on basic things such as what is right and wrong, society falls apart. Societal values make a society. If I have nothing in common with my neighbor, then the bonds that hold society together weaken.



What do you actually propose ? What's you problem with their current concept of good and evil ?

I propose replacing a nonexistant value system with the principles of Judaism.


Funny about that......Australia too has not had a civil war (thank goodness)......it too is a young country.....multi ethnic multi religious.... (although the majority group is from the British Isles and are Christian). They also have people with a variety of cultures and overall it has worked very well, people respect each other's differences and there is a general attitude of "live and let live". It works very well, most Aussies call Australia "The Lucky Country" and they are right!

Until the 70s Australia did not allow anyone that wasn't of European origin to immigrate to Australia. Also, Australia is not in the Middle East.


I have no problem with anything that would be introduced via a democratic process and which would continue to operate democratically, in other words: If the newly introduced item can also be removed by a democratic process (if the majority gets tired of it) and if it will not infringe on human rights.

The constitution would be introduce via a democratic process, and then the democratic process will continue. Just as Turkey has ingrained secularism in its system, so will Israel ingrain Judaism in its system, and it will protect it from any danger.



So, how would you introduce your proposed system and how would you operate it ?

A constituent assembly needs to made up, submit different constitutions, find a compromise and have the people pass it through a referendum. I will explain certain general principles a little later.


As I mentioned above, Australia too has as many languages and cultures as well as just about all the religions of the world but it still works well and it's a great country.

But it isn't a Jewish state. If Israel was just a democratic state like secular democracies, then we would have no justification for refusing Arabs from overrunning the country. But Israel is Jewish and democratic. Australia is just democratic. A perfect balance between the two is a constitutional theocracy.


Even if you are right, that's what they choose to do....presumably because they like it.....so how do you proposing to stop them ?

How does Turkey stop from having its constitution overturned by Islamism? How does Germany or Brussels disqualify neo nazi and nationalist parties? Israel already has a law that stipulates that no party that denies Israel as Jewish and democratic should be allowed to run. All of this is perfectly in balance with the democratic order.


So does Israel, what are you going to do that will be different......perhaps you may want to give me some more concrete steps and measures that you propose rather than just abstract high level statements about "consitutional theocracy".

Sure, I think we have discussed the general theory, now its time for the specific parts. For this I will need a little time. I have written it all down, but I will not have access to the information until a little later.

[Reffo]

So that should change. Israel is losing its grip on the patrimony because it is teaching its children self doubt and loathing. There must be more reason to live in Israel, where the Temple and the Tomb of the Patriarchs lie than just personal safety. That reason is to be Jewish. Self doubt and loathing ? I think you are being a bit over dramatic. To be sure, there are a minority of Israelis (and for that matter in most countries) who think like that. Some of this is actually healthy because we challenge ourselves and it hopefully leads to improvements. Some of it, when it's overdone is sick and destructive but hopefully the majority, mature, sensible section of the population can distinguish between what is good for society and what is bad.

But Israel is disregarding its own history. It shows no respect for its cultural traditions. Simple things such as not sending a national football team to Europe to play on Rosh Hashana, or having the Supreme Court decide that Israel can't ban the importation of Pork. These small inconsistancies make people doubt the reason they have an ideological state in the first place. Israel needs to define itself as Jewish and democratic, and so far it has barely fulfilled both. There is always room for improvement in any society but this need not come about through a drastic step like the introduction of a theocracy. The NON banning of pork importation may be bad in your opinion and according to religious law. In ancient times there were probably practical reasons for the banning of pork but times have changed and in modern societies there is probably nothing wrong with pork products. It's a personal choice, I for instance still don't eat pork but it's my choice, other people are entitled to their choice, don't you recognize that ?

Why? Why should some people be allowed to break a national value, something cherished for the ability to drive? They can wait a day. In anycase, there are compromises. Israel should have a 2 day weekend, with on Shabbat, and one a general day off.Because it's NOT a national value. At the time the Torah was given, there were no cars. The idea that cars cannot be driven in Shabat is the interpretation of men, but to most people this does not make sense. Remember approximately 80% of Israelis are secular.

......and secular women should be allowed to have the same dress code as they have now etc.....

I will answer this when you tell me why this is important. Why have defined democracy as the ability to flaut cherished insititutions and wear provacative clothes? Because it's should be a personal choice within the norms of what a society as a whole finds acceptable. Dress code should not be determined by the narrow views of a small section made up by the religious community.

Whoever wins an election must govern according to the principles of the constitution.And if you manage to convince Israelis that their constitution should be based on a religious theocracy, then this theocracy will be entrenched and it would be very difficult to reverse even if people get disillusioned with it, no matter who wins government. That's why I don't like the idea.

If society cannot agree on basic things such as what is right and wrong, society falls apart. Societal values make a society. If I have nothing in common with my neighbor, then the bonds that hold society together weaken.But they can. There are laws in Israel which serve as a guide about "Rights" and "Wrongs". If you are saying that there is room for improvement, I would say that you are probably right. So, by all means, introduce incremental improvements but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater and introduce wholesale changes by talking about constitutional theocracy.

I propose replacing a nonexistant value system with the principles of Judaism.It is only a minority opinion (of some religious Jews) that there is a "non existent value system".

Until the 70s Australia did not allow anyone that wasn't of European origin to immigrate to Australia. Also, Australia is not in the Middle East.So ? You are proving my point, that Australia is dynamic and changing and things on the whole are working very well. I am not sure what you mean by saying that they are not in the Middle East. The fact is that Australia is a multicultural society probably as diverse as Israel and the society functions pretty well. Likewise, Israel's society functions pretty well. Sure, there are problems but these problems are related to the war rather than to any cultural diversity.

The constitution would be introduce via a democratic process, and then the democratic process will continue. Just as Turkey has ingrained secularism in its system, so will Israel ingrain Judaism in its system, and it will protect it from any danger. OK, you are entitled to your opinion, you don't mind copying Turkey's model but you were critical of Israel being "A little America". Personally, I would rather see Israel learn from the good aspects of Western democracies like the US.

But it isn't a Jewish state. If Israel was just a democratic state like secular democracies, then we would have no justification for refusing Arabs from overrunning the country. But Israel is Jewish and democratic. Australia is just democratic. A perfect balance between the two is a constitutional theocracy. I don't agree. Any country is entitled to determine it's emigration policies, especially if it's based on sound logic and reasoning. Israel would have many valid reasons for rejecting an influx of Arabs to the country. Here are just a few arguments for such a policy:

No country is obliged to accept immigrants or refugees from neighbouring countries who waged a war of annihilation against it for over 100 years.
The Arabs have 22 countries, in most of the Middle East and North Africa, to which they can migrate. Those countries are more suitable for them because of cultural, religious, ethnic and religious reasons.
Israel was created as a haven for Jews who were persecuted throughout the world, including the Arab countries, wherever they were minorities. Therefore it is appropriate to ensure that Jews remain a majority in their own country by favouring Jewish imigration to Israel.

I think there are additional arguments but these are sufficient for now. Oh and one more thing: If any of the Israel bashers don't like these arguments then they can just go and jump.......

[Reffo]

Didn't Jews decide their religion when they stood at Mt. Sinai? Are you claiming that Jews can be Christians or Bhuddists or Muslims? When you understand that the Judaism, the Jewish way of life is intrinsically interwoven with Jewish identity, you will understand why important pillars of Jewish culture must be tied in with a Jewish state. Where did I claim that Jews can be Christians or Budhists ? All I said was that I don't want to adhere to man made religious doctrine and if I don't want to do this with respect to my own traditional religion then I certainly would not want do do that with respect to any other religion which is also man made !

Not true. The Torah is a constitution. The Sanhadrin is the keeper of tradition. Certain practice changes. That which is custom changes, that which is law does not. Jewish tradition has evolved for generations. It has never been static. Finally, if you are a Jew, your religion is for keeps.No, my Jewish identity is for keeps, especially if I would live in Israel. You are right though that RELIGION was the major factor that helped Jews keep their culture and identity in the Diaspora, without it Jews would have assimilated and disappeared and that is still a long term probability for diaspora Jews, especially the non religious ones. However, in Israel, the Jewish country where people speak Hebrew, learn Jewish history, celebrate Jewish festivities and maintain an Israeli culture based on all of these factors, they have every chance of maintaining their own unique Jewish identity for all generations.