From: rivk@quads.uchicago.edu (nora gayle rivkis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: the conversion can of worms, again (was Re: Anti-Orthodoxy ...)
Date: 31 Jul 92 16:38:57 GMT
Reply-To: rivk@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <LERNER.92Jul31092626@division.cs.columbia.edu> lerner@cs.columbia.edu (Michah Lerner) writes:

>  Who are you calling a "minority demonstrating contempt for
>  democracy"?  We do not have mob rule either.  Are the Justices
>  in America a "majority"?  No, they are a minority of highly
>  trained discerning individuals who have been selected for special
>  qualities.  If their actions are not what the "majority" wants it 
>  does not mean the Justices are contemptuous of democracy.  Can an 
>  elected government overturn the laws of physics even if a majority
>  wants to?  So, it seems there are limits to what a majority vote
>  can do.  

There are limits on what it *can* do, set by nature; hence your laws
of physics question. There are no limits on what it *may* do except
those it sets itself. The Justices in America are there to determine
the meaning of laws that the people themselves passed.

>  If there is a government and state in Israel it should be for all
>  Jews.  Err, excuse me if this is a shocker, but that should include
>  the Orthodox Jews (and the "very Orthodox", "the "careful Orthodox",
>  the "practicing Orthodox" the "dedicated Orthodox" and the "loving
>  Orthodox").  

I agree; but this does not mean that the Orthodox get their way by law
in all cases and the rest of the population just has to deal with it. Keep
in mind your own line about *all* Jews. Not excluding the Orthodox; just
not *only* the Orthodox either; and that includes "only the Orthodox, but
since everyone else should become Orthodox anyway, it would really be for
everyone if they did what they were supposed to," which is what you seem
to be saying.

Don't misinterpret me; I rather like the way Israel is handling the problem
now; I think it's enough of a compromise that nobody is really happy with
it, but that is the way democracies tend to solve conflicts. And from what
I've observed, it constitutes a minor irritant on the Orthodox and a minor
nuisance on the secular population most of the time -- the real hardship
cases I've heard about are still fairly rare. I've seen enough people who
were perfectly well capable under present Israeli law of totally ignoring
halacha to believe that the current system is flexible enough to suit most
people.

>  The majority rule
>  must be within the bounds of Justice,  and to me this means it is
>  defined by the Halacha.   

Good. Then when you go buy a piece of land and start a country as dictator,
by all means, define it by halacha. For the rest of us, who have different
definitions of justice, leave us alone; your opinion on the matter should
not be relevant to our legislature, at least not unless you're a citizen
and then no more than anyone else's is.

>  The Halacha is totally in keeping with the needs and desires
>  of the majority and indeed of ALL Jews;  

Needs? Possibly, depending on your definition. Desires? Evidently not.
Please do people the courtesy of not telling them what they want.

>  the ways of the Torah
>  are pleasant, and if people would just follow the Torah we have 
>  been promised a land of Milk and Honey.    

Clue time: not all of us believe that Torah and halacha have a whole
lot to do with each other.

>/M

	-Nora
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish