Today's Jewish Musing's post on Liberalism can't be left unanswered.
Dear Burry,
Your post today reveals a fundemental misunderstanding of the nature of Liberalism. When you announced, for example, that "most liberal shittahs are against the Torah's way of thinking" you are setting up a straw man: if the shittas (doctrines) are false than Liberalism is false. But this is an act of obfuscation. It hides and denies what Liberalism really is.
So let's begin at the beginning. Liberalism is not a collection of doctrines. Rather, it is an attitude or philosophy that has as its basic concern the development of personal freedom and social progress. You and I may disagree about the details. We may define "progress" and "freedom" differently. But I am sure that that, however we define the words, we can agree that progress and freedom are important to the continued health of a society, and I am sure we can agree that neither are, necessarily, antagonistic to the Torah.
Among the gifts of Liberalism to the world are suffrage, parliamentary rule, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, and the idea of a state that serves its citizens and guarantees their life, liberty, and property under a constitution. Were it not for Liberalism, we could not live, fully, as Jews. Were it not for Liberalism, we wouldn't have the freedom to learn, to think, to argue and to disagree. Were it not for Liberalism, we'd have no protection from the excess of despots, and if you examine history you'll see that most despots used religion to justify themselves.
When you challenge Liberalism, you are, to my ears, challenging freedom.
Burry, I don't want to spend a lot of time arguing about the details you adduce in your post to support your argument that Liberalism contradicts the Torah Does the torah approve of abortion? Of taxes? Maybe. I don't know and neither do you. All we can do is make our best guess. When Eliyahu comes he'll tells us for sure. Until that great day, however, religion can't be allowed into the public sphere, because when religion is allowed into the public sphere (absent the guidance of a universally accepted prophet) disaster always, always follows - especially for the Jews, because when religion enters the public sphere freedom is imperiled. It is in out interest, therefore, as Jews, to resist the urge to use religious proclamations to set public policy.
Furthermore, moral law (be it Jewish, Christian or whatever) can't be used to set public policy because not one of us can agree on what it is. Evangelicals have their version, Hasidim have theirs, I have mine, and you have yours. So who gets to be top dog? Does everyone have to do what I think is right? Or should we all do what Jerry Fallwell thinks is right? Who gets society's reigns? And how do we keep him from leading us down the fun-house slide to autocracy?
Also, one of the great moral systems of the past 2000 years (ie Christianity) cultivated the soil for the greatest moral failing of our time (ie: the holocaust.) So I don't have a whole lot of faith in people who say they know, for sure, what's right and what's wrong. It's arrogant. It's assuming. And its a half-step towards autocracy.
Burry, by all means live as a committed Jew (as you understand it) in private. That's what I do. But our religious certainties must not be imposed on others, and we must not allow others to impose their religious certainties on us. It's a half-step from denying freedom to homosexuals to denying freedom to Jews.
The God of the red states hates us both.
Yours in good faith,
DovBear
No comments:
Post a Comment