On freedom of expression, Holocaust denial and "don't turn" (column 6)
With God’s help
The day before yesterday (May 14, 2016), a demonstration by left-wing and Arab cells was held at Tel Aviv University as part of what the Arabs call "Nakba Day" (the mourning that occurs around Independence Day). The demonstrators called on the Israeli public to recognize the Palestinian tragedy and stop lying to themselves and others. Of course, they were confronted by the expected right-wing demonstration, and voices were heard calling for such demonstrations to be banned.
I do not wish to go into the details of the substantive issue here, what the nature of that "Nakba" is, and whether it is indeed justified to speak of the "Palestinian catastrophe." In short, I would say that in my opinion these perceptions are somewhere between (extreme) lack of intelligence and (mild) mental illness. But that is not my topic. The question I wish to discuss here is the question of freedom of speech and expression.
On freedom of expression
Whatever one may think of the eccentric ideas that this demonstration expresses, I do not see any reason that can be put forward to prohibit its existence. There is no prohibition in law against lying, and that is a good thing. There is also no prohibition against being an unintelligent person, and that is no less good. Furthermore, there is no prohibition against openly expressing false and unintelligent ideas, and that is also excellent. Why is all this good? Here we come to what is called freedom of expression.
Freedom of expression is important from two main aspects:
- First, it is a right reserved for each of us to express our opinion, whatever it may be. As long as it is not harmful, there is no justification for preventing it. This is catharsis.
- But it is not just about the right of the speaker, but no less and perhaps more about the right of the listener. Freedom of expression is not just about considering the plight of a citizen who wants to express an opinion and releasing pressure, but also about allowing others to be convinced by these opinions.
The fact that these opinions now seem foolish and/or evil to me does not mean that I am necessarily right. In my sins I have been wrong more than once in the past, and perhaps I will be wrong again this time (although I am quite sure that is not the case in this matter). In any case, I doubt I would be able to know about it if people who think differently from me were not allowed to express their opinions. Please express your opinions, and I will consider them thoroughly and form my own opinion.
Holocaust denial (Caution: This section is not for the faint of heart)
I want to go one step further. I have always wondered what the justification is for the ban on Holocaust denial that is common in many countries. In my opinion, this ban is an outrageous scandal. Someone assumes the right to be the guardian of what I hear or say, and tries to control my sources of information, that is, to filter facts or opinions in the name of (his) truth. I am not trying to claim that I doubt that there was a Holocaust. I do not doubt it for a moment. And yet it is very important to me that Holocaust deniers be able to express their opinions freely and put them on the table for discussion.
It is important to distinguish here between the two aspects I raised earlier. In terms of people’s right to express a position that denies the Holocaust (catharsis) – I am not entirely sure I would fight for that. But it is certainly worth fighting for our own right to hear all these opinions and weigh them in order to formulate a balanced position on our own, without the kind help of Big Brother who knows what is good and what is right for all of us.
Denying the Holocaust is silencing. What about someone who denies part of it (says that only two million Jews perished or that transgender people were not persecuted, only homosexuals)? Is it forbidden to discuss historical details about it for fear of being considered Holocaust deniers. Isn't Holocaust denial a slogan that allows us to silence discussions that are by all accounts legitimate?
I tend to imagine a situation where we are all "living in a movie," inside some big matrix, where we are told about the Holocaust, with testimonies and photographs and sources and teachers and classes and lectures and museums, and all of this is nothing but one big fiction. Wouldn't you like to hear opinions that try to point this out and wake us up from this dream? If we are really living in a fictional world, it is very important that there is always the possibility of escaping from it. Rather, let everyone say what they want and think, and then I will consider whether I am convinced or not and solidify my position.
Hiding information
Hiding information or an opinion, no matter how despicable, false, or eccentric, is a sick evil in my opinion. Beyond that, it is also tactically incorrect, because it expresses weakness and actually indirectly strengthens the silenced position. It seems as if we have no way to deal with Holocaust denial and therefore we prohibit the expression of such positions. If we have a way to deal with it, I would rather have all opinions expressed and all arguments presented, and then we can formulate an intelligent position.
And would it even occur to us that there are historical issues that are forbidden to be discussed freely? Tomorrow morning, it will be forbidden to examine what happened in the Six-Day War, or what happened at the Duke of Buckingham's court. How do we know that we are not living in a movie? So what if we are safe? Perhaps this safety itself stems from that concealment (within the concealment)? It is essential to hear all opinions and all facts (true and false), and to discuss them in their entirety. The moment we begin to hide opinions and facts and various statements, we have no way of knowing that someone is not taking over our consciousness. Big Brother, or the Minister of Ideas, will determine what is permitted and what is prohibited, thereby depriving us of the free thought that is the basis of our autonomy and our moral and ideological responsibility. While denying the Holocaust is probably historical folly, political or other control over the market of opinions can lead us to believe in utter nonsense with the same level of certainty as we believe in the Holocaust. How do we know that this is not happening? How do we know that what we were educated about about the War of Independence is indeed true?
By the way, where did the nonsense of the various Nakba protesters come from? From the same concealment, and actually from the same two phenomena that I pointed out: 1. They don't hear or are unwilling to hear other opinions and facts. Try saying in Umm al-Fahm (or in the newspaper "Haaretz") that there was no Nakba. You will immediately be crucified in the city square as Holocaust deniers (there are places where the phrase "crucified" should be interpreted literally). 2. Our denial and the taboo on these perceptions (which was quite sweeping until recent years) gives them added validity. People may think that if we go to such lengths to hide and forbid saying it, then maybe there's something to it?…
What we are trying to do here is a mirror image of what is happening there. The Palestinians are fed biased and distorted information, and thus a delusional and detached position is formed. Is this what we want to happen here? How can we know that their position is delusional and that ours is right if we don't hear the arguments? Even if we are convinced that we are right, the discourse must still be free. If only so that there are no issues where we are convinced that we are right but it will be by mistake. I am not willing to take even the smallest chance that because I could not hear any opinions or facts, I formed a detached and incorrect position.
Danger is imminent.
Of course, I do not deny the need for restrictions on freedom of expression in places where there is imminent and tangible danger. But as long as these do not exist, attempts at silencing of any kind must be fought to the bitter end. The well-remembered Justice Brandeis has already said that sunlight is the best cure for every illness and every corruption. It is also the best cure for every attempt to lie. If we silence it, it will only increase its power. On the contrary, everything should be said freely, and the free criticism that everyone exercises will handle the situation in the best way.
I assume that there will be readers who will say that Holocaust denial positions or "Nakba" concepts are indeed dangerous and therefore should be banned. I do not think so, and certainly not in the Israeli public. Perhaps within a neo-Nazi community it is dangerous because it may lead them to action (but even this prohibition is meaningless because these views will be expressed one way or another, and without sunlight they will not be able to deal with them), and the same applies to a Palestinian community. It seems to me that the distance from tangible and imminent danger is still great enough that freedom of expression in these contexts is not affected.
A look at religious prohibitions on freedom of expression and thought
But all of this is actually just a prelude to the real thing. In the halakhic tradition, a concept has developed according to which it is forbidden to express any positions (heresy), both opinions and facts. This can even be anchored in specific commandments such as "And do not turn aside after your heart and after your eyes," which forbid us from reading books that express heretical opinions or believing in such opinions (see, for example, Rambam 37:23, 53, and Sefer HaMitzvot 35:44, and many others). Nowadays, this has expanded into a collection of principles whose origins are not always clear, which have become tenets of faith, and the heretic must be exiled, silenced, and perhaps even more. The prohibition "Do not turn aside" and similar ones have become a tool for silencing. Any opinion that someone does not like, they can only declare as heresy, and it immediately becomes illegitimate. These are not apocalyptic visions, but things that are actually done all the time (see, for example, my article on "The Unreasonable").
Here too, the problem is not only that a person is not allowed to read various materials or express his opinion, but that because of these prohibitions, the way each of us formulates a position is based on partial information and not hearing arguments from certain directions. What is the value of a position that is formulated in this way? Can a person who has formulated his position in this way even be considered a believer?
One might think that such positions (=heresy) exert a certain spell on those who read them ("that I am a type of Damascus"), and therefore they should be forbidden so that they are not drawn to them without consideration. But what is the alternative? And can one seriously demand that a person remain in the perception into which he was born simply because that is how he was born? Should someone born into a pagan and cannibal tribe in Africa also remain as he was raised and where he was born? How do we explain that he actually needs to read external and foreign literature (which the sages of his tribe forbid him) in order to formulate a position? What is our claim against him if we do not recognize that a person needs to examine different positions and arguments in order to formulate a position? Simply because we got lucky and were born in the "right" place? Who told us that it is the right place if we cannot find out? The fact that we were born here means that there is something right here? Almost every one of us is inclined to think that the place where he was born is the right one. Such a perception does not seem moral, illogical, and in fact inconsistent at all to me.
It is interesting to note that this prohibition seems completely incomprehensible to people who are outside of religious commitment. They mock this closure and mock the desired assumption of the religious believer. But at the same time, for some reason, everyone is silent in a thousand languages about the prohibition of Holocaust denial, and some propose banning Nakba Day demonstrations and the like. Why is this ridiculed in the religious context, and understood and necessary in the civil and historical context? I think it is more correct to conclude that it is not justified, neither here nor there.
Interpretive proposal
It makes more sense to suggest that the prohibition of "do not turn" only applies to people who are looking for a way to escape, that is, looking for arguments not to truly examine them, but only to cling to them and find in them justification for their evil inclination. According to this proposal, the prohibition does not concern those who listen to arguments and read various materials in order to formulate a serious position.
I do not know whether the interpretation I proposed is consistent with the intention of the Maimonides or other poskim. It may be so (since the Maimonides himself read quite a few books of the type that he himself strictly forbids reading), but perhaps not. It may be possible to be precise in his words one way or another. The point I want to emphasize is that none of this is really important. Even if this is not the Maimonides' intention, it does not matter. The prohibition against examining positions and arguments is inconsistent and therefore null and void, and it does not matter who said it, the Maimonides, Moses our Lord, or even God Himself. He cannot command me to think that 3+7=18. It is stated in the Gemara (see Chulin 124a) that "God! Had not Joshua ben Nun told me from his name, we would not have obeyed him!"
In other words, even if such a prohibition had come down from Sinai, I would not have obeyed it, since it is a prohibition that forbids me from examining the framework that imposes this prohibition itself on me. This is a looping argument, and as such it is null and void on its face. It is worth noting that for this reason, of course, it is impossible for such a prohibition to have come down from Sinai. If it had come down from there, it would not have been Sinai. Such a God is not the God whom I am willing and feel obligated to worship.
given:
It is important to distinguish between freedom of expression and freedom of funding. Those seeking to legally prohibit the events of Nakba Day are not seeking to prohibit expressing the opinion that Israeli Arabs experienced a national disaster in 1948, but rather to prohibit institutions that receive financial funding from the state from allowing demonstrations on their premises that undermine the existence of the same state from which they receive funding.
——
Rabbi:
Nathan said hello.
I'm talking about banning the very thing, and the issue that interests me is the fundamental issue of freedom of expression. If there is an opinion that wants to ban it in a certain area, that's a more technical question and can be discussed as well. But as mentioned, that's a different issue.
Shua:
A loop prohibition can also have an effect. It increases the cost of the test, that is, the cost of the bet. Now the examiner will have to take into account that if he was wrong, then he will have to change the mouth of the one who is performing the mitzvah (and perhaps bear the punishment). And given the prohibition, then now a person who believes in the whole of approximately 90% and hears about a book that contains new arguments, and for some reason he attributes to the book from the beginning a 10% chance of changing his mind, it is very likely that he will refrain from reading. Because there is a high chance that he will not reach a new conclusion and will only suffer the offense and the punishment.
——
Rabbi:
I did not claim that it has no effect. Our eyes see that it does (many avoid investigating because of this). But the existence of an effect is a matter of fact. My claim deals with the normative level, it is not for us to give it effect. I also claim that because of the loopiness, it is impossible for there to be a prohibition in this, and in any case this also neutralizes the factual effect (because if there is no prohibition, there is no need to fear it). Of course, those who are not convinced will continue to be influenced, as with any argument.
——
Shua:
Is there a normative loop in such a prohibition? A built-in contradiction? I don't see one. What's the problem with a system forbidding us to find out whether it's true? The whole problem is that the listener is likely to disobey the meta-law just as he disobeys the law itself. A law to enforce laws is not a loop either, it simply burdens the party violating it (sort of like breaking five laws in one act, especially for someone who doesn't attribute essences to offenses). Now, if the prohibition makes sense, and has an effect, then it seems very clear to me that it would be commanded. It's only logical that a commandment that is certain of the truth of its commandments would command the believers not to examine other options (and influence them when they initially attribute a fairly high level of credibility to its commandment).
——
Rabbi:
Such a command is null and void because it is a command that is not subject to obedience. Even if they obey it, it will be because of an error in thinking (at most, they will obey it because they have no real doubt, and then it is not because of the command). Therefore, I treat it as a logical fallacy. Even Winnie the Pooh's command "Criminals will be punished" (without defining who the criminal is) is empty of content, even though it has no formal meaning. So is a sign in some hall that says "No reading is allowed in this room." This is a paradox, although formally it may not be. The paradox is substantive, not formal.
But this chatter is meaningless. It is clear that such a command has no validity, whether you see it as a logical fallacy or not.
Alex:
I completely agree, but there are all sorts of reasons for prohibiting Holocaust denial that are not necessarily related to the reasons you bring up. The fact that they are not useful is another issue.
It is certainly possible that in a hundred years this ban in European countries will be weakened or disappear. This is an insult and abuse to Holocaust survivors, especially since there is no impartial "Holocaust research" that is not somehow tangential to anti-Semitism or justification of the Nazis. Maybe it will be in a while.
But this is certainly a very valid point: the more you ban discussion of something, the more attractive that something becomes, like sweetened stolen water.
——
Rabbi:
Indeed. I will just note that even research that pertains to anti-Semitism or the justification of the Nazis deserves publication in my opinion for the reasons I have listed.
Simple man:
Peace be upon Rabbi Michi.
A. Nice article but suffers from distortion of facts, as follows:
The Holocaust Denial Prohibition Law, 1986, states:
Whoever publishes, in writing or orally, things that deny the acts committed during the Nazi regime and that are crimes against the Jewish people or crimes against humanity, or that minimize their dimensions, with the intention of defending the perpetrators of these crimes or expressing sympathy or identification with them, is liable to imprisonment for five years.
And in section 4:
Publishing a true and fair account of publication prohibited under this law shall not be considered an offense under this law, provided that it is not done with the intention of expressing sympathy or identification with the perpetrators of crimes against the Jewish people or against humanity.
It is clear to everyone that the law prohibits publication for the purpose of identification, sympathy, etc. with damned criminals. There is no prohibition on intellectual discussion in any form, moreover, the meaning of the law explicitly instructs to permit such discussion, if its purpose is to clarify the truth and historical facts.
In addition, a correct argument that you briefly raised [without sufficient discussion in my opinion], that even if the ban were more sweeping and extreme than the law states, it still has a worthy purpose. Imagine what would happen in the anti-Semitic world if Holocaust denial celebrations began. First, the extreme anti-Semitic minority would celebrate, and spread 'facts' that the Holocaust - as it is portrayed - did not exist and was not created. Finally, even the 'moderate anti-Semitic majority' [i.e. most of the world, including the Western world, and the Holocaust will prove it], would adopt these views as a means of propaganda that contains hatred that will eventually influence the masses. Remember, without this propaganda, which operated even more vigorously under the direction of Goebbels, it is highly doubtful whether the enlightened European people would not have revolted in the face of inhuman crimes that they saw with their own eyes, despite being by definition 'not lovers of Jews'.
A world without 'come to terms' with the human process that occurred in the Holocaust will eventually lead to another Holocaust. The law is a proper mechanism to stop this process, which I believe has existed throughout history, exists today, and will exist in the future, albeit in a reduced dose.
I know you don't like psychology, but what can we do? This is how reality worked in the past. It is likely that if we don't rein in the extremists, it will work this way in the future.
B. Regarding your claim about the prohibition of reading books of the mind, I would like to raise an argument that was 'dropped' from the discussion. I assume from experience that most people in the world are not 'intelligent', there is no doubt that 'people of wisdom' are a minority, and therefore if everyone tries to formulate opinions for themselves, destruction will come to the world. This is what the wise are for, each field and its wise, this is how it is with security in the economy and law, this is how a sane society should behave. What would happen if a 'man from the market (the legislature)' began to express opinions on security matters, wouldn't every intelligent person be outraged by this. I estimate that every 'intelligent person' would rightly be outraged if a physicist, however talented he may be (even if he is a rabbi and philosopher), began to teach the State of Israel a chapter on security/economic/international relations laws.
It is the same law and the same reason in a fundamental matter like faith, not every rabbi or rabbi of the day will be able to express an opinion on these lofty matters. For that, one must be a philosopher [at least reasonably].
This idea is supported by the words of Maimonides (Hilchot 7:23), who presents the prohibition as follows:
"We are warned not to let any thought that causes a person to uproot the main principles of the Torah enter our hearts, and we will not be distracted by it and think and be drawn to the thoughts of the heart. Because a person's mind is short and not all opinions can reach the truth about his creation. And if every person follows the thoughts of his heart, he will be found destroying the world according to his short-sightedness."
In later halacha, Maimonides qualifies the prohibition:
"How: Sometimes he will abandon idolatry; and sometimes he will think exclusively about the Creator, whether He is or not, what is above or below, what is before or behind; and sometimes about prophecy, whether it is true or not; and sometimes about the Torah, whether it is from heaven or not. And he does not know the qualities to judge by until he knows the truth about his ancestors, and he finds himself coming to the aid of the gods."
I appreciate that the critical reader will pay attention to the sentence: "And he does not know the qualities he will discuss until he knows the truth about his enemies." It is clear that here the Maimonides left an opening for a person who knows the 'qualities of discussion' [for the purpose of logic in the Hebrew language, or 'the doctrine of logic' in the Holy Language], to come and 'open everything' and make a thorough investigation in any field.
It is worth adding that it is true that the Rambam studied a lot of external wisdom and books of philosophy and even books of idolatry, just as he testifies about himself in the MUN, "I did not leave a book of idolatry translated into Arabic that I did not read." However, when he was young [I think seventeen], he studied Aristotle's logic, and wrote a treatise on it, and this was his first treatise [called 'Explanation of the Words of Logic', see the introduction to the edition of Rabbi Kapach].
The claim you make: "It is more logical to suggest that the prohibition of "You shall not turn" speaks only of people who are looking for a way to escape, that is, who are looking for arguments not in order to examine them in reality, but only in order to cling to them and find in them justification for their evil inclination. According to this proposal, the prohibition does not concern those who listen to arguments and read various materials in order to formulate a serious position," is certainly a serious claim, and it is clearly true, but it is a prerequisite for the condition I presented, that a person whose entire tendency is to "escape from religious obligation" will not be able to reach the truth, he is biased. Only after a person reaches the state of "seeking and pursuing the truth" should he examine himself to see if he has the "tools" to find out whether his IQ level meets the criteria of a wise person, only then will he be able to approach the sacred and of course with a sense of sacredness.
In addition, 'a person who seeks arguments to find justification for his evil inclination' is unlikely to be deterred by a religious prohibition, he is not within the system and does not obey its instructions, so it is unlikely that this is the intention of the law, the law does not apply to such a person at all, they simply do not speak the same language. [In my opinion, there is a logical fallacy in this claim, but I will leave that to you…].
And finally, I will end with a sentence that seems outrageous on the surface, but after a little observation, one will see that this is how our lives are run, and this is how every person [even the fool, who does not imagine that he is wise] would prefer them to be run.
"The world belongs to the wise."
——
Rabbi:
A. I did not get to understand what facts were distorted in my words. What does all this have to do with them? In my opinion, expressing sympathy is also permissible, as long as there is no imminent danger. If you claim that there is a danger – I disagree with you (as I wrote).
B. I disagree, and not because I disagree with the facts (that most of the world is not philosophers), but because such a prohibition has no place even for fools. You suggest that everyone should be obliged to follow the wise. Who is wise? Those in the environment in which I was born? Why them in particular? You did not address my arguments.
If such a sill doesn't deter, then there's no point in this ban at all. According to you, it only comes out relevant to those who really want to find out. So what's the point of it? It's completely absurd, of course.
To my intellectual regret and moral joy, "the world belongs to all its inhabitants" (and not to the wise).
——
Simple man:
A. The distorted facts are: The article undoubtedly implies that it is forbidden to express any opinion, and not just an opinion of 'sympathy and support' is prohibited - meaning, the intellectual integrity of the human race is not going to be harmed in the next millennium, at least because of the aforementioned law. As for sympathy that is likely to lead to support, this has happened in the past and will probably happen in the future, [I would be happy for you to explain why you disagree]
B. You touch on another problem, that a person has a tendency to agree in the future with what he agreed to in the past, for which I think there is no solution. At least not something that I know of. An easy example: You too [a man I admire] went through upheavals but in the end returned to the original. And again, in my opinion, many of the motives are psychological.
A person should not follow the wise men of his city, but after a person understands that he is mature and reasonably wise, he must ascertain the truth for himself and with his own intellect alone. A person feels when he is ripe for philosophical inquiry. [Hint: at an age when physical and hormonal desires no longer constitute excessive weight in decisions. In my opinion, at least].
——
Rabbi:
A. I don't know how you understood this from the article. I searched the DK again and didn't find the things you said. I spoke in principle about the prohibition of expressing an opinion, and I didn't write that it is forbidden to express any opinion. In general, I didn't describe any facts except that in many places there is a prohibition on Holocaust denial. I described more extreme situations that can be reached (such as denying some of the facts, etc.) as a possible consequence. So how did my words, which didn't touch on the facts at all, seriously distort them? Your secret is kept with you.
B. I will summarize what you said. In your opinion, a person must do what his birthplace tells him (for example, work hard and eat people) until he matures and makes up his mind (that is, until he becomes a human eater who is versed in Kant and free of hormones), and only then can he examine himself and change his menu (focus on eating grass instead of people). At the age of 50 and above (when the hormones calm down), and only if he is a special individual who has reached sublime philosophical achievements, can he change his path. Are you sure this is not a humoresque?
The Maimonides in the Laws of Idolatry indeed describes that our forefather Abraham grew up among idolaters, until he began to ask questions, and all the people of his place were idolaters. He does not explain at what point Abraham stopped worshipping idols, but it was a process – he asked questions but did not stop worshipping idols, until he reached the age of forty, and then he began to discuss with others.
As soon as Ethan was weaned from this, he began to wander in his knowledge, and he was small, and to think day and night, and he was amazed: Is it possible that this wheel should be constantly moving, and there should be no one to guide it; and who should turn it around, according to Shai, is it possible that it should turn itself around? And there was no one to teach or to explain a word, except for those who were immersed in the light of the Chaldeans among the foreign laborers, the fools.
And his father and his mother and all the people were slaves to foreign labor, and he was a slave to them. And his heart wandered and understood, until he attained the way of truth, and understood what righteousness was, from his true knowledge; and he knew that there was one God there, and He was the guide of the world, and He created all things, and there was no God found in all things outside of Him.
And he knew that all the people were wrong, and that the thing that caused them to err was that they worshiped the stars and the images, until the truth was lost from their knowledge; and at the age of forty years, Abraham recognized his Creator.
And the way that he knew and understood, he began to bring reproaches upon the children of Ur of the Chaldeans and to enter into judgment with them, and to say, This is not the way of truth, which ye walk in. And he broke the images, and began to make known to the people, that there is none visible to serve but the God of the world.
See here an interesting discussion by Oren Nahari about rewriting history in the name of political correctness (even in a positive sense):
http://mag.walla.co.il/item/3092884?page=2
Peace to the rabbi
1. I think there's a distinction to be made between reading books about countries and Holocaust denial. Here it causes people a certain emotional discomfort, which is one of the motivations that led to the law being enacted, and here, well, it doesn't.
2. You mentioned in the BDA that people who hold views regarding the Palestinian disaster are somewhere between a lack of intelligence and mental illness. I would appreciate it if you could expand a bit here :).
Thank you very much.
peace.
1. With all due respect to the differences, harming people cannot prohibit the expression of opinions and the offering of reasons. May they prevail.
2. What needs to be expanded? It's not obvious? The Arabs did not accept the UN's partition decision and started a war with the declared goal of eliminating us all, and they lost. They cooked and ate what they cooked. Poetic justice about which I have not the slightest qualm (Kishon wrote the epitaphs that became books about this, Sorry We Won and Woe to the Victors). The mistake was that they didn't throw everyone out of here, but only some. That's all.
Here, now a new storm: Only we are allowed to silence (wrong) opinions in public discourse, when someone else tries to do the same thing, they are condemned from wall to wall: https://news.walla.co.il/item/3130611
All the retards who are now passionately arguing about the law passed by the Polish parliament that prohibits mentioning the phrase "Polish death camps" and that prohibits accusing the Polish government of aiding the Nazis. Both of these are clear historical truths: there were no Polish death camps and there was no government aid to the Nazis. Now a ban has been passed on anyone who denies them. How is this different from the law that prohibits Holocaust denial? In my opinion, nothing.
I liked it very much, honestly.
Hello and greetings, sorry to respond to this old article, but I printed out some of your initial articles and read them on Saturday.
Your article suggests that you are not actually advocating silencing opinions that differ from ours, but rather that everything should be brought up and discussed and everyone should be allowed to decide. In principle, I think everyone would agree with you, but on the other hand, you (I believe) would also agree that a small child cannot decide what to choose from the various proposals that are put before him, he is not intelligent enough to make the right decision, and therefore you (again, I believe) would not want to expose him to problematic opinions that could tempt him to opinions that could lead him to suicide, drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.
Now I'm copying and pasting to us: Among those who know how to decide and those who don't want to decide, there are many who don't know how to decide and understand the information that is made available to them. Such people don't know how to choose between the different opinions and are likely to follow the more popular opinion, the one that sounds good and is well-received, etc. Therefore, I would not make heretical statements accessible to people who are not intelligent enough, I would not raise any topic for discussion with people who are not intelligent enough, etc. The question is who is not intelligent enough. Those who prohibit by law talk about Holocaust denial, etc., do so because there is an audience that does not know how to deal with such information and may accept it easily and does not have sufficient mechanisms for criticism.
The question is whether you agree with me that there are people who cannot decide and hear these opinions and therefore it is appropriate to block and not always make the information freely accessible to them and there should be a "big brother" who will filter the information for them. This is, I think, the way that conservative societies operate in the context of exposing information and other offensive content to the general public. I see this as something very intuitive and obvious and not as something outrageous as you presented.
I would love to hear your opinion.
Hello.
My decision was principled. I am against silencing opinions, and certainly reasoned opinions.
It's true that with children it's best to do this gradually. Expose them slowly to different opinions while providing them with tools for criticism so they can form a position. But this is just a tactic. In the end, everyone needs to be exposed to everything.
If there are adults who don't know how to formulate a position, and there are many of them, that doesn't justify silence. That's their problem. You can't make decisions for them and decide for them what's right and what's wrong. If they formulated a position incorrectly, they will be held accountable for it and bear the consequences. The paternalism by which you want to formulate a position for others is very problematic, because many others will say that you're not the best either, and they won't present your full opinions and arguments.
Offensive content is something else entirely. Opinions are not offensive content. Opinions should be addressed, agreed to, or rejected in a reasoned manner. Being offended by opinions is not a relevant consideration.
"Because many others will say" – is this (in general) a pragmatic consideration that will lose its paternalism in the face of fools?
No. This is an argument against paternalism.
And what is it? Maybe I'm not interested in free paternalism as a general rule. Or the fact that many will make mistakes in exercising paternalism raises the suspicion that I'm wrong too. Or maybe it's a thought experiment to feel the importance of autonomy in decisions and the sovereignty to make mistakes. Or what. Can you explain?
All three. 🙂
Hello again and thank you for the quick response. I have a few comments on your words:
A. Just as you agree that with children, one should filter and reveal things slowly, so should adults who are not able to decide. Of course, one can always rebel and say, "Who are you to decide?", but the same argument can be made even towards children. However, with children, we all understand that we have a slightly broader understanding and perspective than they do, and therefore we allow them to be blocked from excessive exposure to information that we consider problematic. The same is true with adults like those in our society. I agree that anyone can make the claim, "Who are you to decide?", but on the other hand, it is impossible to ignore that in reality there are people who are not mature enough to be exposed to all types of information and make decisions about it. They are not mature enough to deal with such information. Therefore, your words about the claim "who are you to decide" are correct, and on the other hand, in my opinion, the reality is that most people do not know how to make the right decisions regarding all types of information that is fed to them and form a correct opinion about it, and therefore there needs to be a system of some kind of filtering, perhaps with representatives of the public deciding what is appropriate and what is not, and so on, but certainly not in a sweeping and simplistic way as you suggest.
B. You claimed that if there are those who don't know how to decide, it's their problem. The problem is the general public, and the moment information is broadcast that is exposed to the general public, it can harm them if they don't know how to form an opinion on the issue.
C. You claimed that there should be a distinction between opinions and offensive content. I don't understand, after all, if I want to expose your little son to drugs – why do you claim that it is offensive? I claim that it is a kind of afterlife. Let him try and he will decide for himself. And here we return to section A. Therefore, it is clear that some kind of filtering is needed.
I have nothing to say. Think for yourself about the difference between extreme examples and normal situations.
I'll put it another way so that things are more specific and clear: As a parent who has formed a certain opinion and certain truths, and you consider yourself a wise and intelligent person who knows how to form an opinion, would you want your children to be exposed to foolish opinions, if you know that they are not as intelligent as you are and that these opinions could cause them to deviate and stray into other paths? You might say yes, but what if I told you that these are paths that could lead them to destruction?
(This is also true regarding heresy: the sages of Halacha forbade what they considered to be deviant from the path of truth so that their disciples would not err and miss the purpose of their lives – “to inherit Gehenna.”)
definitely.
I get it. If you consider yourself a smart person (more so than many people, such as your children), why do you advocate exposing your children and others to opinions that you consider to be nonsense and could lead them astray? What value is there in that?
Because there is value in human autonomy, and not just in truth. The value of truth is primarily if you choose it autonomously. See my article on authority and autonomy in halakhic rulings.
Thank you. I read your words about autonomous ruling. You cited sources. But there is no suggestion that there is value in autonomous ruling if it leads to error. Why do you see value in that?
This is a simple assumption. If God wanted the result in itself (fulfillment of the commandments), He would have had to create us without choice and without passions. If these were created, this shows that His will for us is existence out of choice and not existence itself.
I'll offer you a thought experiment. Would you agree to the offer to undergo hypnosis that would ensure that you would always keep all the commandments and avoid transgressions? Do you think it's appropriate to do so?
What would be your position on a situation in which freedom of speech and expression of opinions without any censorship would be exploited to distribute to children (7 years old, 15 years old, or 60 years old) texts that would convince them to close their eyes and permanently close their ears from reading and hearing any material that opposes their beliefs, that is, texts against everything you are fighting for in this article.
This, as you know, is not a theoretical or imaginary situation at all, but rather one that exists in almost every religious group (including, of course, the religion of the Haaretz newspaper, the religion of Channel 14, the LGBT religion, the religion in favor of legal reform, the religion against legal reform, the religion of only Bibi, the religion of only not Bibi, the religion of returning the kidnapped at any cost, the religion of eliminating Hamas at any cost, etc., etc., and so on). But that's not the point, and let's assume that this is just a hypothetical situation.
To refine the question, I add and note that empirical research proves to us with absolute certainty that this is a text written with such perfect and fantastic literary and rhetorical talent that after reading it, the reader fully embraces its contents and is indeed convinced to remain forever enclosed in the bubble and shell into which he was born, without ever peering out into the world.
Even in such a case, would you fight for the "freedom of speech and expression of opinions without any censorship" of the distributors of these texts?
If, as I am convinced, you were actually a staunch fighter *against* the dissemination of these texts (which is exactly what you are doing in this article), that is, you would be revealed as an accomplice and a loyal soldier of the system of silencing and censorship, at least in this case (again, as you are revealed in this article), then the logical conclusion that necessarily follows from this is that in your opinion there is only one and only serious danger in the world of beliefs and opinions, and that is the limitation of their free framework and infrastructure, while any specific content of any belief or opinion, whatever it may be, is not considered dangerous to such an extent in your eyes.
Reality, of course, slaps this conclusion in the face, and each and every article out of your hundreds of articles in this Responsa (and no less so most of the responses and talkbacks...) proves again and again and again how much you believe that our world is filled to the point of bursting with countless erroneous, foolish, dangerous, and harmful beliefs and opinions, that the average level of criticism of the average person fails at all to identify them and choose in their place the refined and refined beliefs and opinions, when all of these are marching the world into the abyss (and with these you try with all your intellectual power to fight with all your might, but how much do you actually succeed in changing society despite your very strong arguments in the face of the logical fallacies that you expose?).
As someone who has been engaged for decades in clarifying beliefs and opinions, is your impression that the average person is endowed with the tools that enable him to successfully deal with manipulative and demagogic rhetoric that endlessly sells him nonsense and nonsense in the guise of reasoned and "logical" arguments (to the point where you think it's so justified to fight for the right to expose the average person to all this garbage and trust him to do the job of clarifying correctly)?
In other words: Is there even one person on earth who you would let write columns here in your place and in your name?
I debated whether to censor this demagogic text, but since I oppose censorship, I did not do so. I am also in favor of free and substantive debate, and therefore I will even bother to address this demagogy, since among the clouds of demagogy there are also some substantive arguments (which are of course wrong).
1. My position on freedom of expression has been expressed here and in other places well, so I wondered what you thought when I asked me about it. I am in favor of spreading any opinion of any kind, any opinions that oppose freedom of expression (like your uncensored text). Your reference to the question of children is demagogy, of course, since there is certainly a place not to expose children to any content (pornography or violence, for example). But even with children, it is mainly the parents' role, not the state. From the state's perspective, maximum freedom is needed.
2. If there is a text written with such strong literary talent, it deserves to have an impact. And if there is someone who disagrees, let them write a text with maximum literary talent to oppose. I am not opposed to spreading ultra-Orthodox opinions. I am definitely in favor of debating and condemning them. It is really not the same thing.
3. Your conviction about what I owe and what I will do is not an argument and it doesn't really interest me. I suggest that in the future you ask me questions about my positions and don't decide on them for me. Otherwise, I suggest you open a blog yourself and talk to yourself in it.
4. The world is indeed full of false and foolish beliefs (and such texts) and people who find it difficult to deal with them, but that is no reason to keep quiet. My success in persuasion is not a relevant factor. Everyone will express their opinion and the voter will choose. Keeping quiet is certainly not the solution to this, and certainly not in my opinion. The fact is that I let you write your words here.
5. The average person is endowed with the tools to cope, but unfortunately does not use them. It is appropriate to try to improve the situation, but this is no reason to shut up and think for oneself.
6. I wouldn't let a single person in the world write columns here in my place and in my name. But what does that have to do with discussion and freedom of expression? You want to express your opinions, do it on your own blog and in your own name. Don't worry, I won't close it for you.
In short, it's worth thinking a little before writing so decisively and making unfounded assumptions and drawing conclusions from them. Still, a text that deals with incompetence and demagogy deserves to be guarded against both of these.
Let's simplify and focus the discussion with a simple thought exercise:
1. Let's imagine three people: Reuben, Shimon, and Levi.
2. There is some information that needs to be clarified (for example, whether or not the Nazis burned bodies in the ovens at Auschwitz 80 years ago).
3. Assuming that:
A. None of them are directly aware of the information.
B. All three are decent people, free from any vested interests or biases, who set out to investigate honestly and in good faith with the pure goal of discovering the truth.
C. All three are equipped with good thinking tools (some less and some more) at a level sufficient to reach the truth (if these tools are indeed activated and exhausted).
4. In such a situation, there is no debate that complete freedom of expression is the best framework to assist in the investigation of the truth (the more each of the three is completely free to express to the other two any argument, reasoning, supposition, concern, criticism, idea, view, proof, refutation, question, difficulty, objection, etc., etc., without any restriction or censorship, the better it will be for everyone, the greater the chances of reaching the common goal with joint efforts: the investigation of the truth).
5. So far I agree with your position 100 percent. The debate between us therefore takes place regarding the following situation:
6. Assuming that Reuven is directly aware of the information (he himself was a prisoner in Auschwitz whose job was to transport the bodies from the gas chambers to the ovens), but there is no unequivocal forensic evidence on the ground that could prove to others what he himself knows for sure, on the other hand: the ground is full of false "evidence" that supposedly "proves" the opposite (for example, that the stories about gassing and cremation of bodies are vicious lies spread by the Allies to justify the war in enlightened Germany, in addition to the fruit of Zionist propaganda to justify the criminal establishment of the State of Israel. This "evidence" includes documents (forged, of course) that present, in black and white, minutes of secret discussions in which Churchill, Stalin, and Chaim Weizmann plan in detail the spread of these "lies").
Shimon was exposed to this "evidence" and was convinced by it (at least as millions all over the world still believe today, for over a century and despite all the clear refutations, in the horrific forgery of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", see the book by retired judge Hadassah Ben-Ato, "The Lie Refuses to Die"), simply because Reuven's testimony, despite its factual truth, sounds less convincing than the "evidence" planted by the Nazis. Shimon, a writer with divine grace, wrote a book in which he described the entire story of his arrival at "investigating the truth" following this line of "evidence", and then he passed away.
In your opinion, it is not appropriate, and even forbidden, for Reuven to throw the book into the fiery furnace and not allow it to serve as a mouthpiece and platform for the Nazis' lies. Reuven has a duty to allow Levi to read the book, despite the very high fear that, like Shimon, Levi will also "buy the lokash" (which are cooked and seasoned well, much more than Reuven's bland and lackluster dumplings, until the last evidence), will be convinced that the horrors of Auschwitz did not exist and were not created, and will pass this "information" on to future generations "who will not know Joseph" (after Reuven will also eventually pass on to a world that is all good).
In my opinion, it is permissible, and perhaps even obligatory, for Reuven to turn this false and despicable book into a beautiful and beautiful fire one hour earlier, even though in this case the sacred and sacred value of "freedom of expression" would be harmed. He should not adopt baseless optimism and take the risk that Levi too will be caught in the cycle of lies and that the truth will be buried forever (along with the bodies of those burned at Auschwitz).
7. Now let us return to section 3 and add subsections B and C to the exercise, namely:
Assuming that Reuven is a decent person, but Shimon is clearly self-interested and biased (in favor of the Nazis), or that Reuven's thinking tools are supremely developed and refined, and Shimon's tools are relatively weak and deficient to one degree or another, while on the other hand Shimon's rhetorical and manipulation abilities are higher than Reuven's (there is no symmetry or overlap between these abilities, there are truthful people who lack rhetorical ability and many liars whose expressiveness can mesmerize elephants and elephants), you, Michael Avraham, will continue to cling to the unchallenged banner of "freedom of expression" and abandon Levi's arena of persuasion in favor of the delusional optimism that confidently claims that even with such a combination of data (truth + weakness in the strength of testimony + lack of rhetorical ability, versus lies + self-interested and biased + (or weakness in the tools of thinking and cognition) + rhetorical ability) precisely the lack of Will restriction and censorship further advance the value of truth (or is freedom itself, in your opinion, a value equal to or even superior to the value of truth?), I, on the other hand, am 100% certain that the right thing to do in such a situation would be to sin a little ("a great offense in its own right") against the sanctity of "freedom of expression" and destroy every trace of the false "expressions" of Shimon the self-interested, the trend-setting, or the stupid, and allow Reuven's truth to be accepted without any interference in Levi's heart.
8. We will add to this a situation in which Levi, an honest and sincere man who truly seeks the truth, but whose thinking tools are weaker than the thinking tools, and expression, of Shimon the manipulator. (This is precisely what the Maimonides' words under discussion (on the "Do not be deceived") are aimed at: "Because a man's mind is short and not all opinions can attain the truth over his ignorance").
9. This is, without a doubt, the simplest justification for these words of the Maimonides (whose surprising attempt to find the interpretation you present in his words is unfortunately a prime example of "putting an elephant through the eye of a needle"), the Maimonides sees Moses our Lord (and even more so the Blessed One in His own right) as "Reuven" in our exercise, that is: someone whose certainty regarding the correctness of the information he conveys to "Levi" is at a level of absolute certainty (see his words in Moshe 3:24: "Whatever the prophet sees in the form of prophecy is a firm truth with the prophet, he will not be satisfied with anything from it at all," and this applies to every prophet, and even more so to Moses, see his words in Hilkot Yesodei HaTorah 7:6, and in Pihamash Sanhedrin 11:1 in "Yesodei HaShivaei"), and therefore it is his right and duty to instruct "Levi" to censor and even destroy the "expressions" of "Shimon" (as above: it is clear to him, (To "Reuven," this is a lie, and one that can easily convince when "Levi" will not always be able to successfully defend himself against it.)
10. How far do you think the situation in the world is from the situation I described?
Isn't the world full and overflowing with self-interested, biased, and stupid "Shimonim," and with "short-sighted" "Leviticus"?
Can the truth always win in debates, in television studios or in home circles? (And as I wrote in the previous response: You are one of the best proofs that the truth, which you do express many times in an extraordinarily brilliant and ingenious way, is very far from succeeding in attracting the intelligentsia among your readers and co., and even more so the masses of the people, despite the excellent or reasonable thinking tools of many of them. Who knows better than you).
11. The comparison you make between a statement that directly contradicts the principles of logic in a clear way (thinking that 3+7=18) and an order given by someone to whom the information is absolutely clear that "not to take the time" to collect and confront all the myriad "expressions" that challenge or deny that information - is extremely puzzling, especially when it comes from the keyboard of someone who undoubtedly knows (and constantly announces) the difference between the absolute validity of logic and the attitude we should have towards anything other than pure, refined logic and that alone.
12. The absolutely clear fact that any liar, biased self-interested manipulator and demagogue, as well as any fool, can also stand up and declare, or even be convinced with all his heart (due to megalomania or just plain psychopathy) that he is the "Reuven" and everyone else is the "Shimonim" and in any case block "Levi" from being exposed to all those "expressions" that are indeed very, very important and more important than anything else to be exposed to (certainly when the censorship of those false prophets, messiahs and priests brings to the fore the "expressions" of the true "Reuven" himself, as has happened thousands of years throughout history since Nimrod wanted to "censor" Abraham our father until the burning of the Talmud and the gagging of the left to the (points of truth of the) right and the right to the (points of truth of the) left...) - this fact, difficult and unfortunate and challenging as it is, should not throw us off and abandon us. At the mercy of the polar opposite extremism that you propose, namely "freedom of expression" in any situation and at any price! One of the reasons for this, besides the simple reason that one delusional extreme does not resolve with another delusional extreme (just as the solution to life at a boiling temperature of 100 degrees Celsius is no different than a freezing temperature of minus 100 degrees), is that, as you often write, very beautifully and very correctly in your way, regarding the exaggerated concerns about legal reform or lack thereof, "no one is really going to enact a law here to kill all the redheads"...
You are exhausting me. I have answered everything you asked here. In my opinion, there is no justification for burning opposing arguments even in such a situation. And I have never written, and I do not think so either, that the end of truth will necessarily win. Preserving all opinions is not a means to the victory of truth, but an opportunity to formulate independent positions for those who can and want to. That is all.
You are sure you are right, but you may be wrong. You think that if you have seen the crematoria you know everything, but you do not know everything. And the Haredim are also sure that they know everything.
That's it. I'm done.
Your answer, neither this nor the previous one, refers to my explanation of why it is indeed "fair" on the part of God to command "you shall not transgress" (because He is certain that with Him the truth is, so it is "permissible" for Him), and in any case, from what you are thinking: if God did not write the "you shall not transgress" (according to Maimonides' interpretation of this), but some human factor - then it does not obligate me, not because of any "problem" in such a command (as you claim at the end of the article), but simply because a human factor who pretends to be God and lies in His name does not obligate me in anything, not even tefillin and the prohibition of pork; and if God is the one who wrote this (and He did indeed, as you say, "come down from Sinai" for all that it implies), then God, for His part, who is certainly "sure that He is right," can certainly command such a command (as I explained in my previous message).
In short: "God! Did not Joshua the son of Nun tell me, we did not obey him!" - We heard, but where, may you be healthy, did you get the proverb: "Joshua the son of Nun! Did not God tell me, we did not obey him!" ???
So that's it, I'm not finished, because I'm an advocate of "freedom of expression" and not of "silencing" and ending discussions...
He did not command this. I have explained this several times on the site. This is at most an interpretation of the Talmud and the Poskim. Even if this is what they understood – they were wrong. And it is doubtful whether this is really what they understood. Search here on the site.
And the question about the rest of the commandments is added now. This is of course just a baseless expansion. When there is a difficulty or contradiction, I choose a different interpretation or claim that they were wrong. When there is no difficulty, then not. Just as the early ones wrote about certain verses that are a later addition, and that does not mean that it is necessarily so for all the other verses. And if I disagree with someone or do not accept their words on a certain matter, then have I deleted them completely?
I too am a supporter of freedom of expression, but if you repeat the same thing again I will not answer anymore. I am completely in favor of ending unnecessary discussions that simply repeat themselves. And especially when they do so at annoying and unnecessary length.
You interpreted my words as extending a sweeping front that claims "all or nothing" (if it's not true then everything is not true and vice versa), but that's completely not what I said.
What I'm saying is that you ignore the clear distinction between the attitude towards the requirement "You shall not transgress" (as understood by Maimonides) on the part of the *giver of the command*, God in this case (assuming that He exists and that He did indeed give the Torah to Israel) and the attitude towards this requirement itself on the part of the *receiver of the command*.
When you claim, towards the end of the article, that in your opinion this command "is inconsistent and therefore invalid, no matter who said it," you merge these two relationships into one, that is: since in your opinion, the *receiver of the command* should not limit his scope of investigation and it is better for him to "turn over every stone" on the way to investigating the truth, therefore, in your opinion it is also unfair for the *giver of the command* to limit it.
I argue that although the *receiver of the order* may still be skeptical of this order itself (and may even suspect it of reflecting weakness), assuming that the *giver of the order* does have: (a) both absolute certainty regarding the correctness of the content regarding which he is limiting the scope of the examination, and (b) also a very high level of probability concern that the recipient of the order may be influenced by sophisticated manipulations that will prevent him from agreeing to that correct content (with absolute certainty on the part of the giver of the order as above) – then there is nothing illegitimate in giving an order whose purpose is not to be exposed to manipulations that he may very well be unable to resist (and for this I brought up the parable of Reuven, focusing solely on the question of whether they were incendiary or not, and not, as you unjustly expanded my intention, regarding other things that Reuven may indeed not know (and regarding which I certainly agree that it is indeed requested to continue to allow unlimited investigation if the other conditions I listed are met). In section 3, we mean fairness and competence), by the way: this is also a point of difference between the parable and the simile, since God, blessed be He, assuming that He existed and gave the Torah and the commandments, etc., is considered omniscient.
In any case, it is clear that the Maimonides was completely convinced that the Mount Sinai situation occurred historically and that no trickery or deception could be employed there (see Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 8:1, and at great length in the Yemenite Letter), and in any case it is completely consistent and coherent, in his view at least, that in such a situation there is no problem in applying the "principle of finality of discussion" and determining that from now on there is no longer any point in continuing skepticism and investigation (at least for those who are stated in Hilchot 77: "He does not know the standards by which to judge until he knows the truth about his ignorance and finds himself in the hands of the wicked").
Besides these words of Maimonides, there are quite a few other verses and passages in the Torah in this spirit, for example the deadly (literally) attitude without any compromises towards the "inciter and reviler" (why not listen to him patiently and calmly discuss his arguments?) and more.
It is possible that you mean to say that God commands on the assumption that those who are wise enough will not obey him. This is possible in principle, and I remember that this suggestion appears in my work elsewhere. But this is of course very narrow because in my opinion there is no place for such a command at all (God is trying to lie and hopes that he will succeed). Either way, he does not obligate me.
I mean, of course, *some* of the recipients of the commandment who will be skeptical of this commandment itself (like you, for example, and many others), but it is clear that a very large portion throughout the generations did accept and accept the commandment without skepticism (therefore, there is no argument to be made that the commandment is in any case ineffective).
God commands on the assumption that those who are wise enough and understand that it is logical and right to trust Him will obey Him.
This commandment of "You shall not transgress" (according to the interpretation of Maimonides and others) does not appear in a vacuum. The Torah describes a long and complex process that led the "stiff-necked people" step by step to believe more and more in its existence, in its involvement in the world, and in its being a God of commandments (the Ten Plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, the standing of Mount Sinai, etc.), and in such a situation, wisdom actually supports relying on the commandment rather than shedding its burden.
Whoever believes in him can obey him. This is relevant to those who have the means.
Otherwise, how is "You shall not have any other gods before me" fundamentally different from "You shall not have any other gods before me" and all the other prohibitions of idolatry? How do I know that the God who commanded me this is the true God? Perhaps those very ones that he forbids me from accepting as my God are the truth (and perhaps they would forbid me from keeping the Torah of Moses and I should have obeyed them)? Why do you accept that and not "You shall not have any other gods"?
The prohibition of the tzaddik is on worship. There are no prohibitions on beliefs (except perhaps if they come from instinct).
Mishnah Sanhedrin 76: "The one who worships idols is one who worships, and one who sacrifices, and one who burns incense, and one who makes offerings, and one who bows down, *and one who accepts it as God*...",
Rambam, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:6: "*Anyone who assumes* that there is another god besides this one transgresses without doing what is said, You shall have no other gods before me, and especially an infidel, which is the great principle on which everything depends."
And what does it really matter anyway? If the belief in God that commands me not to worship other gods is not clear to me with certainty, then why should I obey Him? Why shouldn't I experience the experience of worship?
I don't know why everything has to be repeated several times. There is no meaning to such a prohibition. What use are these quotes? I know them too. Either they mean something else (such as someone who thinks this way only because of instinct) or they have no validity.