Hi, all,
I think that the thread has been nearly sucked dry, but I do want to respond
once more to address something I said that was poorly stated. I said that
Israel is a functional theocracy. I was wrong in so describing it:
according to Merriam-Webster, a theocracy is "government of a state by
immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely
guided." As was pointed out, that is not right for Israel's government. I
do not have the appropriate term, however, so I borrowed that one. Perhaps
you all would be kind enough to give me the right one.
Israel is a land of around 5.9 million people, of whom approximately 4.7 are
Jews, with almost all the rest being Arab (this is all from the official Web
site of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs). In passing, I note that
Exodus and Deuteronomy, among others, are quoted on the site. I believe
that any time the dominant culture defines itself in a religious way, the
minorities in the country are excluded from the seat of power. After all,
those minorities are excluded from following the tenets of a religion that
"everyone" agrees is the source of correct belief. How can one be trusted
to be right if that one is starting out wrong?
This is the thumbnail description of Israel, from its own Culture page:
"Four thousand years of Jewish heritage, more than a century of Zionism,,
the 'ingathering of the exiles' and five decades of modern statehood have
contributed to a culture which has already created an identity of its own,
while preserving the uniqueness of 70 different communities."
No mention of the Arabs at all seems pretty much to sum up the government's
attitude -- apparently Arabs never had any culture to contribute.
The Knesset takes its name and its size from the Jewish council formed by
Ezra and Nehemiah. Judging by the names of the parties and the listed
representatives, there are about 7 Arab representatives in the legislature
out of 120, which works out to less than 6%. This is quite a bit less than
the roughly 20% of the population that is Arab. Could be that my figures
are wrong, based on the assumptions I've made, of course.
I remember hearing also that only Jews could own property in Israel. If
that is not so, please let me know. I haven't found any information one way
or the other as I have been looking around the Net. If it is, that is
another way in which minorities are subjugated. In a society where one must
own land at all, not having the right to do so is debilitating at best.
Lest this appear to be just an attack by someone brainwashed to support the
Palestinians, let me say that many other countries fit the pattern. The
United States is, in spite of all protests to the contrary and my fervent
desire, a country wallowing in Christianity. You cannot exist in the United
States without running into the religious domination of Christians. "No
beer on Sundays," "In God we trust." and so forth.
As an agnostic, I have a deep and abiding irritation with not having equal
rights for my beliefs. I am told that ethics, based on reason, are inferior
to morals, based on divine guidance. To qualify that a bit, most people
with whom I've discussed this can't conceive that it's possible to separate
ethics and morals as I've defined them. Merriam-Webster doesn't offer any
help since they more or less define the two terms circularly, but I haven't
found a better way to split things.
Therefore, I would like to know just what one calls a government where, even
though the government is not directly guided by the clerics, the nature of
the government is so shaped by the religion as to make religious and
philosophical minorities second-class citizens.
Thanks for your comments,
Darryl
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:10 BST