From: dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll)
Subject: Re: the conversion can of worms, again (was Re: Anti-Orthodoxy ...)
Organization: Dept. of Electronics, Carleton University
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 14:01:10 GMT

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

>>In article <dfs.712520924@ro> dfs@doe.carleton.ca (David F. Skoll) writes:

>>Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
>>Path: cs.columbia.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!torn!cunews!dfs
>>
>>Well, Sam, there comes a point where we have to ask ourselves this
>>question: At what level does our duty for concern over others begin
>>interfering in our own lives to an undue level?  Now, I'm perfectly
>>willing to live without patrilineal descent, because I think that in
>>that instance, the concerns over divisiveness outweigh whatever
>>benefits we think patrilineal descent may bring.
>>
>>But when a minority of people tell an elected government what to do,
>>then I have to say no.  That minority is demonstrating contempt for
>>democracy.  Again, let me stress - I have no problems whatsoever with
>>the Halachic rules for determining who is Jewish.  But I do have
>>problems when the religious authorities force a secular government to
>>abide by those rules.  Because, much as some may dislike it, Israel
>>does not claim to be a theocracy.  It is supposedly a democracy.  And
>>in this instance, the religious establishment is undermining the
>>democracy, making the claim to be the "only democracy in the Middle
>>East" that much harder to support.

>  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.

That is, of course, a false analogy.  First of all, the Justices in America
are selected as part of the legal system.  They are ultimately answerable
to the American Constitution.  The Orthodox religious establishment is
answerable only to G-d, not the State of Israel.

Secondly, the Orthodox Jews in Israel are not "highly trained discerning
individuals who have been selected for special qualities."  They are just
ordinary people, the same as anyone else.  The majority of Israelis had
no say in selecting them.

>  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?

What IS your point??  Are you saying that two Ethiopians who want to marry
must first be "converted" and then married in a totally alien ceremony?
Is that as immutable as the laws of physics?

(Besides, Torah overturns the rules of physics by proclaiming that
 pi=3. :-))

>  So, it seems there are limits to what a majority vote
>  can do.  

I agree.  I said before: I have no problem with the O doing whatever
they want.  But why should they force it on others?  Why should a secular
government listen to 15% of its constituency and ignore the wishes of
85%?

Let me give you an example which will hit home: Suppose the American
government decided that only religious marriage ceremonies were
acceptable.  Suppose they did a survey, and found that most Jews liked
the Conservative movement best.  Suppose that they then made it
illegal for any rabbi other than a Conservative rabbi to perform
marriages.  How would you feel?

>  If there is a government and state in Israel it should be for all
>  Jews.

Exactly.  And currently, the government of Israel discriminates against
non-Orthodox or non-observant Jews.  This is manifestly anti-democratic.

>  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").  At this time in history, when so many Jews are ignorant
>  of their religion,  when  we have school children who know more about 
>  other religions than about Judaism,  and when these things have 
>  happened in the name of "majority rule" then one must take a good hard 
>  look at whether the majority is ruling "justly".   The majority rule 
>  must be within the bounds of Justice,  and to me this means it is
>  defined by the Halacha.   

Well, then, you'd rather have a theocracy.  But Israel is a democracy,
and democracy and Halacha are incompatible.  Why don't you be honest and
admit it:  You would applaud the collapse of democracy in Israel if a
religious Jewish state emerged as a result.

(And it's also easy to work against a democracy while sitting comfortably
 in the U.S. where you know your rights will be protected.)

But what makes you think a religious Jewish state would be any more
successful than a religious Islamic state?  We've seen time and time
again that in the modern world, religion and politics are explosive
when mixed.

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

I think you'll have a hard time convincing 85% of Israelis that.  If
Halacha is so pleasant, why do so many reject it?

--
                     |         | "Step up and shake the hand
David F. Skoll       | ||||||| |  Of someone you can't stand,
|_ _ _  __   __ _ __ |  \\V//  |  You can tolerate him if you try..."
 / |  | |_|   | |  | |  __|__  |  -- Tom Lehrer, "National Brotherhood Week"
_____|________________________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish