Religious centrality in your country

Hello
A. The closing words of your response: “I also don't say what is more important to me” impress me with your honesty and courage. In them you imply that there is no need to decide what is more important. In other words, in the sentence “Religiosity is not the most fundamental identity for me” you see it as possible to replace ‘fundamental’ with ’important’ without falling off the chair. Such a possibility is, in my opinion, an oxymoron because if the existence of the entire world and of us humans is contingent, and ’sucked’ from the reality of the Creator, reality is bound, and there is no purpose, hope, or meaning to our lives that is not related to God, then religiosity is necessarily the most important identity in the consciousness of a person who believes in these truths.
I am not claiming that one should be preoccupied with G-d all day and consciously connect every action and thought to religious values, but the word “identity” that you used indicates a basic internal existential stance toward the value, direction, and boundaries of your/our life and everything in it. Perhaps I did not understand what you meant by the word “identity.”

I wondered to myself whether your perception of belief in G-d as a high probability rather than a mystical certainty is what prevents you from fully investing your identity in the “religious aspect” of life. Similarly, I wondered whether the cracks in the value of petitionary prayers, a matter that you often write about, are also tied to your probabilistic perception of the reality of G-d – which does not allow for a full prayer experience.

.B. And according to the Ramban in the Ten Commandments, assuming you brought them as evidence and not as an illustration. It seems to me that he does not mean a relative concept but that when a person makes a mistake, there is no transgression in crossing over, since this is the halakha, and thus the conflict is nullified. This is how Maseh Hochma explains Devarim 12:12.

With blessings. Yaakov

Indeed, it is impossible to decide which is more important. Either way, there is no oxymoron here. Suppose I created a robot to help me in the carpentry shop. Is it more important that it does its work in the carpentry shop well or is it more important that it does not kill passersby on the sidewalk?
Here we come back to the Ramban and the distinction between basic and fundamental. Regarding a person, is it more important that he not kill or that he observe Shabbat? In my opinion, it is more basic that he not kill and more important that he observe Shabbat. This is how the Shadach explained the Ramban's words there. What you brought from the Mishnah seems to me to be unfounded as an explanation of the Ramban (because this element does not stem from his words) and also from his own side (because the question is why this is the halakha, and therefore you cannot rely on the fact that this is the halakha), and so on.
Regarding your questions, they all concern the psychological level and therefore, in my opinion, are not important. When I make a claim, I usually justify it, and a substantive discussion is supposed to examine the reasons and arguments, not the motives and effects. Even if all of this is true, it is not relevant to the substantive discussion but to the psychologist's couch.

A. Your position is still not clear to me, so I will use a parable of mine. In your opinion, is the person (also the Jew) in his world similar to a soldier during his years of compulsory military service, in which his main role is in the patriotic military field, while at the same time he is busy with other duties (both as a citizen towards his country, and as a private person with a moral compass towards others, and more), and is also immersed, as much as possible, in interesting or enjoyable goals and hobbies. In this example, the personal and inner life of the soldier, both on the side of duty and on the side of authority, is not exclusively subordinated to the state order, although it constitutes a large part of his being. Well, the state has no right or validity or pretension to exhaust to the full, the human existence of its citizens.
In your opinion, is this how a person's relationship to God and His commandments should be? And perhaps the example I gave is exaggerated in your opinion, and the ordinary life combined with reserve service is what you like more like the example, in which military duties take an even less significant part.

However, in both versions, the military plane is not a total existential matter, in the being of the soldier/
citizen – except for a soldier who has chosen such an individual approach.
According to my position, and it is the accepted one, that the laws of God are not like the laws of a human state, and therefore
a site free from it in the broad sense of the expression – religious identity (especially Jewish) is
total.
.B. It is precisely your view (which I share), that in your lessons and writings you often point out that the recognition of the moral debt between man and his fellow man by definition necessitates the recognition of the existence of a commandment, namely, G-d. What do you have to say between observing Shabbat without murder, and between the robot's assistance in the carpentry shop by being careful with the lives of passersby? After all, they are both within the scope of G-d's work. In this discussion, we are not dealing with intra-religious priorities, but rather with the setting of human parts against religious parts.
.C. In my psychological comments, my intention was indeed on the substantive level. A person who is convinced, with mystical certainty, of the reality of G-d, although it is not necessary that as a result, will disagree with you on the two issues above, but – .1. This certainty will add significant weight to the position that ’religiousness is supposed to be the most fundamental/important identity’. .2. On the issue of prayers of request, it is really difficult from the emotional-technical side to pray for the help of a God whose very existence is accompanied by hidden doubts of consciousness, because then the hope for the fulfillment of the request becomes an amorphous doubt, a doubt, a doubt.
May I ask you; if you (or some other person) held faith out of mystical certainty, would your conclusions on the above issues not be different? This is a personal question from a completely matter-of-fact perspective.
Thank you for your patience.

It is difficult for me to discuss such intervals. I will answer briefly.

A. The soldier's example is not bad, but it must be remembered that the law is not the whole will of God. Morality is also a part of His will. However, all people in the world, not just Jews, are bound by this part. Therefore, the identity of an observant Gentile includes the moral will of God (on the part of the Gentile) and the law (on the part of the Jew).
Even if your position is such, and this is of course your right, I do not see it as an argument (but rather a declaration). And I certainly fail to see how my words are an oxymoron, as you wrote at the beginning.
B. There is no difference between Shabbat and no murder, both are not related to morality but to law (see column 15). The shedding of human blood is the moral commandment and it is universal.
C. I do not know what mystical certainty is. If he is convinced, then he is convinced. But this has nothing to do with the question being discussed here. As mentioned, the degree of persuasion is in no way related to the question of whether Jewish identity is the most fundamental and whether it encompasses everything.

This discussion has reached a dead end. An interesting phenomenon caught my eye. In your articles and columns, you organize and shed light on various issues. You successfully unravel complications and ambiguities. And you contribute greatly to public mental hygiene. (I emphasize. This praise is directed at the form, not at the content itself.) But on the other hand, in your responses to various commentators, you appear to be practicing the opposite: you break down the concepts, move from point to point, and thus divert the discussion. You bring up side aspects and new parallel terms, to the point that the relatively simple issue becomes complex and confusing, and the commentator's mind also becomes tired and his patience wears out. In honor of our chapter on the Constitution, I would liken your columns and the polemics that follow them to a red heifer that purifies the impure and defiles the pure.
I am afraid that in principle, your answers elude standing in front of the wall, in the sense of what is said and my uncle has slipped past.. [And I do not ignore the fact that some of your expansions here and there and in all directions, are inevitably necessary in light of the superficiality and narrowness that are revealed in a large part of the comments].
The main concern of your columns is in the thought that comes to correcting the world, to correcting attitudes and approaches in practical life. This is unlike Torah and scholarly entertainment, which can be walked around in for a long time without reaching a conclusion and decision. And if so, how will these wise and cute, witty and piquant dialogues bring me to awe and to love?
A person like you, who fulfills the commandment to rebuke many every day and with such great elegance, will surely be happy to examine this comment/illumination, if indeed there is truth in it, a little or even a lot. The intention is a reflective examination of your intuition or feeling, and who would dare to say.
And truth and peace loved.