Q&A: Democracy
Democracy
Question
Hello and blessings,
In the third book of your trilogy, you explain that Torah and morality are two different categories, and that there are times when morality overrides; therefore you conclude that since democracy is moral, you would be democratic and would not smash idols or burn down a mosque and so on.
Question: In the first book of the trilogy, at the end, you explain very convincingly that God gave the Torah to the people of Israel, and if the tradition is that clear-cut, why is it moral for me to give space to someone else’s beliefs? After all, we are talking here about facts, and if I believe there was Revelation at Sinai, then that fact is the truth.
Thank you.
Answer
I didn’t understand the question.
Discussion on Answer
It has nothing to do with certainty. You do not make decisions for other people, and certainly do not harm them, even if you are sure.
But if there is certainty that there is God and Revelation at Sinai, then all the decisions of others are just statements without any basis, so why should I take them into account? Let the Rabbi understand—I do not mean a time when the government is not in our hands; I mean if we [the religious] were in power, why should we give space in the state to views that are nonsense? And I do not mean killing them, but not giving them freedom of worship.
Because people have a right to be mistaken. Tolerance is not pluralism (a multiplicity of truths or doubt). It is a value in itself.
But such a discussion is unnecessary, because you cannot imagine such a situation. When we live in it, if ever, we will be able to know how it is proper to act.
But that is exactly the question: a right to be mistaken is agreed, but up to what point? At what point does the Rabbi consider it a mistake, and from what point is it just empty nonsense that one need not be tolerant toward? After all, the Rabbi too has things that he understands are just empty nonsense—would the Rabbi still be tolerant toward them?
I’m actually a person with a very great imagination, and that is probably the reason I am on this site—to moderate it. And based on the Rabbi’s explanations now, I am asking: even then, would you be tolerant?
There is no limit. As long as he does not harm others, let him act according to his understanding.
“Then our mouths will be filled with laughter.” I wrote that there is no point in such a discussion.
Is it moral to give another religion space because we do not have one-hundred-percent certainty in our faith? And if so, then when prophecy returns and there is certainty in our faith, would it no longer be moral to leave room for the other beliefs? Or perhaps it is always moral, even when we had one-hundred-percent certainty in our faith, to leave room for the other religions—and if so, why? Also, even if we do not have one-hundred-percent certainty but only 90 percent, still this is how we understand things, and we understand that the rest is nonsense, so why should we give them space?