Yaron Yadan
Mikhi, I didn’t understand your view on how the state should be run. You claimed that you believe that the state should not impose a religious lifestyle and that you are in favor of a secular state.
Okay, let’s say your reasoning was tactical, that forced religiosity is equivalent to secularism, but you rejected that and claimed that your view was from a moral perspective.
I’m really trying to understand your perspective, even though it surprises me so much – first of all, you yourself have claimed several times that morality has no validity if it weren’t for the Creator, therefore the same Creator who gives validity to the morality that guides you, believes otherwise, that Jewish society is supposed to lead a Torah-based lifestyle as a whole. In practical terms, coercion may be harmful and one should consider education, encouragement, connection, etc., but to say that the secular way is the moral way has no moral validity, because the one who gives validity to morality disputes that.
2. Come to your senses, brother, you also admit (I assume, and if not, there is no question 2) that it is indeed moral to force a person to wear a seat belt, and to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, and to force a person not to drive a truck at speed on a pedestrian street in Tel Aviv – so what do you say, that it is not similar because here it is harmful and here it is not? So the law here is the same, a Jew who violates Shabbat is considered an ignoramus in the public domain, there is a clear harm in this to the people of Israel – so what did you see the division of?
First, my brother’s name is Danny, not Alon. I don’t know of another brother.
1. God expects us to behave morally, and this is independent of the halakhic command. These are two independent categories and He expects us to observe both. Beyond that, there is no value in observing a secular commandment under coercion.
2. When it is required not to harm and the problem is consequential, there is room for coercion. When the problem is the action and not the result, there is no point, value, or justification for coercion. Beyond that, a helmet or speed are accepted norms for both the coerced and the enforced, according to Halacha.
Mikhi, I am your brother, I share your sorrow, but that's how it is in the Jewish people 😉
Sorry, but I don't see a solution to my questions. You did distinguish between harm in the act itself and harm in the result - but this is a distinction that does not divide, because if the moral justification for coercion is “prevention of harm”, I see no room to distinguish between immediate, tangible harm in the act and harm that hangs from the desecration of the Sabbath by the Jews of Tel Aviv.
Regarding the moral issue, of course, God expects us to behave morally, but what do we do when human morality conflicts with God's morality? So a shallow and superficial secularist will try to wriggle out of it, but what do we have to doubt at all? God Almighty is the one who validates morality. He is the one who is just by definition, and therefore there is certainly and even more room for halakhic coercion to prevent harm to the people of Israel [as mentioned, tactically, one should leave coercion as a last resort, and first take the means of encouragement, explanation, connection, etc.].
Besides, what about the Maimonides of forcing him until he says I want to?, and it doesn't seem to me to some that there is actually an agunah there who is currently suffering...
I don't know who you are, my brother, but I find the view you presented, a secular and liberal state, may God have mercy... very strange to me, in my opinion, this is the most immoral low, to create a society that engraves on its flag, the Creator of the world is not interested in us.
I had a hard time with your answer to Shiron when he asked what you would do if the government banned slaughtering, which is a direct conflict with religion. Your answer was that it was not direct because you can not eat meat.
First, I think your answer is evasive because you don't eat meat, but you could just as easily ask what if the government decided that circumcision is immoral?
Second, the very question indicates that Shiron wants a Halacha state and has no problem with religious coercion, what bothers him is that he wants to impose and not have it imposed on him.
Your answer sounds apologetic to my ears, but I would be happy for you to enlighten me
(For the avoidance of doubt, I am a libertarian and do not want a Halacha state of this or that kind)
What does this have to do with me not eating meat? My argument is that there is no obligation or necessity to eat meat. In fact, it is even forbidden (because of the stigma and aiding in the commission of a crime). I wish the government would prohibit it.
If they decided that circumcision is immoral, I would disagree with them. What is the question?
I did not understand the second question. Does Yaron want a Halacha state? Does he have a problem with religious coercion? I no longer remember the dialogue and if you are referring to something specific, quote it.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
