Feiglin states:
But it doesn't end here. Official spokespersons for the protests turned the latest struggle from a civil issue to a religious struggle; they portrayed the protests as a defensive battle fought by Torah adherents against the State that is "attempting to control it." Not only is this claim unfounded, but it forces the average Israeli - his natural support for the settlers and disgust with the High Court regime notwithstanding – to stand behind Deputy AG Shai Nitzan.
Let us imagine what would happen if a young rabbi would write an article in which he would prove that according to Jewish law, we must slaughter homosexuals. Is there not even the slightest doubt that a confused youngster might take his words seriously, sharpen his knife and run to slaughter people in the street? Is the state supposed to ignore the danger only because it is wrapped in halachic garb? Let us imagine that the AG office is fair and also investigates the incitement from the Left. Let us further imagine that when rabbis are investigated, it is done with the honor they deserve. Isn't there still room for the claim that the state must protect its citizens? Does the religious system have enough will and ability to exchange the existing regime for its own system?
When the protestors' claim becomes religious, it is untenable at both ends. The state cannot conquer the Torah because it is the religious who have surrendered it. There is no national Torah to conquer. The only Sanhedrin that actually exists and makes its opinions heard in an authoritative manner is the "Sanhedrin" of the High Court.
On the other side of the divide, the Torah for which the protestors took to the streets is a contracted Torah; a Torah of exile that that does not deviate from the realm of the individual, his family and community.
When I said Feiglin leaves the door open to justifying future government persecution of the Rabbis when the conditions are right, I didn't necessarily mean these Rabbis but Rabbis in general.
In addition, even regarding these 2 particular rabbis, he does not respect their willingness to educate the public on what they believe is the Truthful Torah opinion. He only is supportive of them because of a civil rights issue of equality before the law. But if, the government behaved differently he would support suppressing those that are sympathetic to the various "Pinchas zealots" of Israel .
If I take Feiglin's position to the ultimate extreme, he should theoretically favor censoring the Bible, for the Bible does clearly teach in various places that he who violates the sabbath or if men practice homosexulaity , they have done in theory a death penalty crime. Although I should add that even when we had the Sanhedrin it was very rare for the court to actually execute the punishment, because of the extremely high standards of proof needed that the act was indeed done and in the proper state of mind of intentional rebellion against G-d.
But even if the actual punishment by the courts was rare , the mere fact that it was recorded as a death penalty crime educated the public, that the sin was indeed very serious.
Topic: Another Reminder that Moshe Feiglin Does Not Have a Kahanist Ideology (Read 754 times)