samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (03/07/85)
I will try to be concise by responding to your final summary: >Perhaps this is the root of our disagreement; you are primarily >concerned with the claims of the anti-theocrats, and I am primarily >concerned with the acts of the theocrats. If you wish to claim that >the former were excessive, I will not dispute you. You are close. My "primary concern" is not anti-theocracts, because I don't regard Israel as a theocracy. Instead it is the anti-Orthodox smear campaign which has been going on in the media and is reflected on this net. I have been trying to debunk various charges via intelligent factual discussion. We seem to understand each other better now. There will inevitably be an anti-orthodox fanatic who will try to distort my views and pigeonhole me as fanatic. Purim is a good reminder of the fate of such people. Let's focus on theocracy, because alot hinges on that label. You argue that state intervention in religious affairs amounts to theocracy. To me, rhetoric about theocrats and religious coercian is misleading because it implies that democratic principles are being violated in Israel. This is an unfair charge because the Israeli Rabbinate is a state institution. (That is a contradiction in terms in the American mentality because we tend to associate separation of religion and state with democracy.) In my view, the political system in Israel is a basically a democracy, despite the fact of a state Rabbinate. The system sees the citizens, via their elected representatives, as the legitimate source of political power. By contrast, a theocratic system sees G*d (via people) as the only legitimate source of power, and the only arbiter of right and wrong. The term theocracy would legitimately apply to periods when the Jewish commonwealth was ruled by a King and a Sanhedrin of Rabbinical elders, who enforced the Torah, which was the only "constitution". Israel sees itself as a Jewish state and the Knesset legislates on Jewish issues such as the Law of Return, who is a Jew, the power of the Rabbinate etc. That approach arouses emotions in Americans who are accustomed to separation of Church and State. This is understandable, but the emotionalism should not prevent us from seeing the situation in its own context, i.e. Israel, not America. The rabbinate in Israel is empowered by law to rule halachically on issues such as marriage, divorce, and conversion, and to advise individuals according to those rulings. In fulfilling that charter they are not doing anything aggressive or underhanded, nor are they seizing power. They are just doing their job properly and legally. In advising people of the halacha and halachic consequences (as they honestly see them) there is no basis to assume that they are lying, acting out of impure motivates, twisting arms, or being unfair an any way. Such speculative allegations are nevertheless rampant. Many of the allegations presented on this net were debunked with hard facts. Your last sentence suggests to me that you see this. If so, why don't you join me in condemning the prejudices behind those charges? (Don't be afraid of being labeled right wing, fanatic, or otherwise. You can always sue!) A final aside: A thinking Jew owes it to himself to examine the sacred cows of American values from a Jewish perspective. The historical reasons for which led to church and (lehavdil??) state separation in America are not automatically relevent to Jews in Israel. (I made this the subject of an article some time ago.) A Freileche Purim Yitzchok Samet