Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
From: jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen)
Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Coercion or Democracy?
Message-ID: <988@ihuxn.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 7-Mar-85 13:08:50 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxn.988
Posted: Thu Mar  7 13:08:50 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 8-Mar-85 04:59:40 EST
References: <146@pyuxww.UUCP> <979@ihuxn.UUCP> <515@sfmag.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 104

Yitzchok Samet writes (responding to my posting):
>An oft-cited, legitimate case of  coercion  in  Israel  would  be
>throwing  rocks  at  cars  on  Shabbos. This is an irresponsible,
>foolish, and forbidden act from the Torah viewpoint. 

This is sidetracking of the main issue.  In my posting I did not
even refer to throwing rocks at cars by religious thugs. The 
greater majority of religious people in Israel are not violent
and do not practice the biblical skill of 'skila' (stoning).  Such
behavior becomes a problem only if it is condoned by the
government, and this is not the case.  Now lets get back to the
issue of state legislated religious coercion.

>The  State  proclaims itself to be Jewish and thereby legitimizes
>things like the "law of return", which could be  easily  attacked
>as  racist  in  an American context........

Let me remind you that even if Israel is defined as a "Jewish
State" (I prefer the term a State for the Jews) it does not
imply a Jewish orthodox state according to halacha.  T. Herzel
who envisioned the modern "Jewish State" was not a religious 
person (possibly an atheist).  Most of the Zionist founders of
Israel were secular Jews who saw the state as a refuge from
religious and other forms of coercion applied against Jews in the
diaspora.  What do we have now?  Jews fleeing from oppression 
in other parts of the world (communist and Arab countries) find 
a new form of religious coercion imposed on them by the Jewish State.

>Similarly, the rabbinate in Israel is duly empowered  by  law  to
>rule  halachically  on  issues  such  as  marriage,  divorce, and
>conversion, and to advise individuals according to those rulings.
>That  is  the law, just like taxes. You may not like it, but it's
>sidestepping the issue to chant the  buzzword  "coercion"   every
>time the rabbinate makes a halachic decision which upsets you.

I guess personal matters such as marriage and divorce can be compared
to taxes.   Since Jews comprise <3% of the American population,
I assume you would not complain If the US would require that all
marriages should be performed by Christian clergy.  Since Christians
are the majority, they could democratically pass such a law.
Would you like to undergo a Christian marriage ceremony.  Obviously
you would consider it as state mandated 'avoda zara', humiliation 
and coercion .  This is what is happening in Israel.  When I got 
married, I had no choice,  but to be married by a Rabbi in a religious
marriage ceremony.  This was a deeply humiliating experience for
me, as from my point of view religion is a form of superstition,
just as Christianity is to you 'avoda zara'.  If civil marriage
was availble in Israel, I would not be faced with such a humiliating
experience.  So now, I hope you understand the difference between
marriage and taxation.

I am not concerned with the halachic decisions the rabbinate makes.  
I don't think anyone has the right to tell religious people how to 
interpret their religious laws.  Doing so would be also religious 
coercion.  The issue is not the rabinnate, but the state that follows
the rabinnate.  I will restate my point again.  The state should not 
be in the religion business, trying to impose religious laws on those 
who do not practice the religion.

In previous postings, I posted quotes from the former Israeli minister
of religious affairs, Dr. Zerach Varhaftig.  I think these quotes
reflect the attitude of the religionists in Israel.  I have not seen
any response from any orthodox Jew to these quotes.  Is this silence 
an agreement with Varhaftig's position?  In case it did not get to
you I will repost them again.  Varhaftig said:

"According the religious concept, every Jew is a religious Jew.
The fact of him being a Jew makes him religious....

We think that every Jew has a Jewish affinity (zika), however,
his negative desires* (itzro) destroy his mind.  If a law comes,
and restricts his (the Jew) susceptibility to his negative
desires, his positive passion (regesh tov) will be awakened.
And it will begin with coercion and end with desire (t'chilato
b'o'nes v'sofo b'ratzon)."  [Ha'aretz, February 1962]
____________________
* not accepting the Jewish law.

Let's hypothesize that the Pope makes a similar statement on 
Christianity. If you  replace in the above Jew -> person,
religious Jew -> Chrisitian, Varhaftig -> Pope, 
Hebrew -> Latin, you would get:

"According the religious concept, every person is a Christian.
The fact of him being a person makes him a Christian....

We think that every person has a Christian affinity (zika), however,
his negative desires* (itzro) destroy his mind.  If a law comes,
and restricts his (the person's) susceptibility to his negative
desires, his positive passion (regesh tov) will be awakened.
And it will begin with coercion and end with desire (t'chilato
b'o'nes v'sofo b'ratzon)." 
________________
* Not accepting Christ as your personal savior

How would you feel about such statement?  There is a Hebrew
saying (which the religionists seem to forget):
     "Al ta'ase l'chavercha mah sh'sanu aleicha"
     "Don't do to your friend what you detest"

-- 

Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho