Can History Help Us Understand The Haredi View Of Religion And State?

Haredim, especially haredi politicians and top rabbis, generally do not recognize any separation between religion and state – unless such a separation directly benefits them. A new work on the history of religion likely explains why.

 

From Fields of Blood by Karen Armstrong via DelanceyPlace.com:

“Our modern Western conception of 'religion' is idiosyncratic and eccentric. No other cultural tradition has anything like it, and even premodern European Christians would have found it reductive and alien.…

"For about fifty years now it has been clear [in academia] that there is no universal way to define religion. In the West we see 'religion' as a coherent system of obligatory beliefs, institutions, and rituals, centering on a supernatural God, whose practice is essentially private and hermetically sealed off from all 'secular' activities. But words in other languages that we translate as 'religion' almost invariably refer to something larger, vaguer, and more encompassing. The Arabic din signifies an entire way of life. The Sanskrit dharma is also 'a "total"concept, untranslatable, which covers law, justice, morals, and social life.' The Oxford Classical Dictionary firmly states: 'No word in either Greek or Latin corresponds to the English "religion" or "religious." ' The idea of religion as an essentially personal and systematic pursuit was entirely absent from classical Greece, Japan, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Iran, China, and India. Nor does the Hebrew Bible have any abstract concept of religion; and the Talmudic rabbis would have found it impossible to express what they meant by faith in a single word or even in a formula, since the Talmud was expressly designed to bring the whole of human life into the ambit of the sacred.

"The origins of the Latin religio are obscure. It was not 'a great objective something' but had imprecise connotations of obligation and taboo; to say that a cultic observance, a family propriety, or keeping an oath was religio for you meant that it was incumbent on you to do it. The word acquired an important new meaning among early Christian theologians: an attitude of reverence toward God and the universe as a whole. For Saint Augustine (c. 354-430 CE), religio was neither a system of rituals and doctrines nor a historical institutionalized tradition but a personal encounter with the transcendence that we call God as well as the bond that unites us to the divine and to one another. In medieval Europe, religio came to refer to the monastic life and distinguished the monk from the 'secular' priest, someone who lived and worked in the world (saeculum).

"The only faith tradition that does fit the modern Western notion of religion as something codified and private is Protestant Christianity, which, like religion in this sense of the word, is also a product of the early modern period. At this time Europeans and Americans had begun to separate religion and politics, because they assumed, not altogether accurately, that the theological squabbles of the Reformation had been entirely responsible for the Thirty Years' War. The conviction that religion must be rigorously excluded from political life has been called the charter myth of the sovereign nation-state. The philosophers and statesmen who pioneered this dogma believed that they were returning to a more satisfactory state of affairs that had existed before ambitious Catholic clerics had confused two utterly distinct realms. But in fact their secular ideology was as radical an innovation as the modern market economy that the West was concurrently devising. To non-Westerners, who had not been through this particular modernizing process, both these innovations would seem unnatural and even incomprehensible. The habit of separating religion and politics is now so routine in the West that it is difficult for us to appreciate how thoroughly the two co-inhered in the past. It was never simply a question of the state 'using' religion; the two were indivisible. Dissociating them would have seemed like trying to extract the gin from a cocktail."

Comments

[raf]

All true and not new. But the Talmud actually does have a word for faith -- emunah - and even aggadically encapsulates all 613 commandments in it( Makkot,24a).

[Allan]

It’s true. Emunah is central in Judaism which brings it into conflict with secular education where doubt and skepticism - not faith - are virtues. The Western concept of religion as being a matter of private conscience is totally foreign to the Torah. Belief in God is obligatory (first of the 10 Commandments) and not just one item on a menu of options. Your status as a believer is simply assumed by virtue of being born a Jew.

As a Jew, you're obligated in all the mitzvot from Bar/Bat mitzvah age and no rabbi is going to ask whether you agree to take on this enormous obligation or if the Torah makes sense to you.

The choice is taken out of your hands. All the "agreeing" was already done by your ancestors at Sinai and your only remaining option is to get out there and do those mitzvot - or else...

[RWisler]

Who said that any of today's Jews stood a Sinai? The myth that any modern day "Jew's" ancestors was at Sinai is only a "faith" and "agreement" among the Jews of today. The Judaism that's practiced today is an invented religion that pays lip-service to the religion of the Temple days, but has no resemblance whatsoever to what was practiced in those days.

[S M L]

Yes, and Haredism is a nasty perversion of more mainstream variations on Judaism in which amorality and a circle-the-wagons mentality feature prominently.

[John Nagle]

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." - Jefferson

Jefferson wrote that in 1813, and two centuries later, theocracy still has a consistent track record of failure.

[Uzi Weingarten]

Re: the comment by raf that we have the word emunah which means 'faith':

The word 'emunah' when used in the Talmud to 'stand all the commandments on one' (Makkot 24a) does not mean 'faith', but rather truthfulness (integrity). The Targum to that verse (Habakkuk 2:4), translates emunah as kushta (that is, truth).

This is the core meaning of emunah. One finds it also in the Talmudic teaching that the first question a person is asked after death is: "Did you conduct your business with emunah?" That is, "Did you act truthfully in business dealings?"

The root of the word emunah is AMN, from which we derive 'amen' and 'emet'. Emet is the feminine of amen, with the nun dropping.

Mistranslating emunah to mean 'faith' is the mistake Paul made, and as a result was able to interpret that verse (Habakkuk 2:4) to support his idea that through faith one is saved. The correct meaning of emunah, however, is truthfulness.

[Leslie Davis]

Discussing religion is intellectual exercise for very small intellects. The mormons think god is in the clouds but can't tell you where god is when it's not cloudy. That sort of crap. It applies to ALL religions. From the burning bush to the walking on water. It's all b.s. called allegories in order to explain something. Anything. Suckers.

[raf]

Uzi: It's true that "emunah" is sometimes synonymous with "emet" and "amen", but that is not how it's used in this verse or how the Talmud intends it in Makkot,24a (despite the Targum). How to translate it depends on the context. It can be translated as "faith" or "faithful" or "faithfully" or "steadfast" (Exod.17:12), because in the Bible and Talmud it refers to a quality or action or belief that is always true or truthful. In your quotation from the Talmud it should be translated as "faithfully", and it does indeed connote "with integrity". But on the same page (Shabbat,31a) the Talmud links the first Order of the Mishnah, "Seeds", to the word "emunah" used as "faith" in Isaiah 33:6, because, as the Jerusalem Talmud explains, it requires faith in God to sow in the expectation of the seed producing a crop.
In its verb forms, "emunah" must usually be translated as a form of "to believe", that is, to have faith in something or someone true, as in Genesis 15:6, Exodus 4:1,5,8,9,31, and Exodus 14: 11,31, and elsewhere.

[raf]

Leslie Davis: Your statement about the Mormons is false. The rest of your comment is equally ignorant and worthless.

[GN]

Who said that any of today's Jews stood a Sinai? The myth that any modern day "Jew's" ancestors was at Sinai is only a "faith" and "agreement" among the Jews of today. The Judaism that's practiced today is an invented religion that pays lip-service to the religion of the Temple days, but has no resemblance whatsoever to what was practiced in those days.

Posted by: RWisler | December 19, 2014 at 01:08 PM

Yes, and Haredism is a nasty perversion of more mainstream variations on Judaism in which amorality and a circle-the-wagons mentality feature prominently.

Posted by: S M L | December 19, 2014 at 01:14 PM

This. Thank you for speaking the truth. I would add that what is called Judaism today is nothing more than what one man wrote as an Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit.

[raf]

Uzi: It's worth adding that the Talmud describes the Jewish people as "believers, descendants of believers" (Shabbat,97a). Paul's exaggeration of the importance of faith does not diminish its actual importance in biblical and rabbinic religion.

[raf]

RWisler: The Judaism that is practiced today is rabbinic Judaism and was developed largely after the destruction of the Second Temple. We know relatively little about the Judaism of the Temple period.

[ghost buster]

א - אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה. שֶׁהַבּוֹרֵא יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ הוּא בּוֹרֵא וּמַנְהִיג לְכָל הַבְּרוּאִים. וְהוּא לְבַדּוֹ עָשָׂה וְעוֹשֶׂה וְיַעֲשֶׂה לְכָל הַמַּעֲשִׂים: (מציאות ה')

ב - אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה. שֶׁהַבּוֹרֵא יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ הוּא יָחִיד וְאֵין יְחִידוּת כָּמוֹהוּ בְּשׁוּם פָּנִים. וְהוּא לְבַדּוֹ אֱלֹהֵינוּ. הָיָה הֹוֶה וְיִהְיֶה: (אחדותו)

ג - אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה. שֶׁהַבּוֹרֵא יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ אֵינוֹ גוּף. וְלֹא יַשִּׂיגוּהוּ מַשִּׂיגֵי הַגּוּף. וְאֵין לוֹ שׁוּם דִּמְיוֹן כְּלָל: (אינו גוף)

ד - אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה. שֶׁהַבּוֹרֵא יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ הוּא רִאשׁוֹן וְהוּא אַחֲרוֹן: (ראשון ואחרון)

ה - אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה. שֶׁהַבּוֹרֵא יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ לוֹ לְבַדּוֹ רָאוּי לְהִתְפַּלֵּל. וְאֵין רָאוּי לְהִתְפַּלֵּל לְזוּלָתוֹ: (ראוי לעבוד רק לו)

ו - אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה. שֶׁכָּל דִּבְרֵי נְבִיאִים אֱמֶת: (נבואה)

ז - אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה. שֶׁנְּבוּאַת מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם הָיְתָה אֲמִתִּית. וְשֶׁהוּא הָיָה אָב לַנְּבִיאִים. לַקּוֹדְמִים לְפָנָיו וְלַבָּאִים אַחֲרָיו: (נבואת משה)

ח - אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה. שֶׁכָּל הַתּוֹרָה הַמְּצוּיָה עַתָּה בְיָדֵינוּ הִיא הַנְּתוּנָה לְמֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם: (תורה משמים)

ט - אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה. שֶׁזֹּאת הַתּוֹרָה לֹא תְהֵא מֻחְלֶפֶת וְלֹא תְהֵא תוֹרָה אַחֶרֶת מֵאֵת הַבּוֹרֵא יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ: (לא תהא מוחלפת)

י - אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה. שֶׁהַבּוֹרֵא יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ יוֹדֵעַ כָּל מַעֲשֵׂה בְנֵי אָדָם וְכָל מַחְשְׁבוֹתָם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הַיֹּצֵר יַחַד לִבָּם הַמֵּבִין אֶל כָּל מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם: (השגחה)

יא - אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה. שֶׁהַבּוֹרֵא יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ גּוֹמֵל טוֹב לְשׁוֹמְרֵי מִצְוֹתָיו וּמַעֲנִישׁ לְעוֹבְרֵי מִצְוֹתָיו: (שכר ועונש)

יב - אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה. בְּבִיאַת הַמָּשִׁיחַ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיִּתְמַהְמֵהַּ. עִם כָּל זֶה אֲחַכֶּה לּוֹ בְּכָל יוֹם שֶׁיָּבוֹא: (משיח)

יג - אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה. שֶׁתִּהְיֶה תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים בְּעֵת שֶׁיַעֲלֶה רָצוֹן מֵאֵת הַבּוֹרֵא יִתְבָּרַךְ שְׁמוֹ וְיִתְעַלֶּה זִכְרוֹ לָעַד וּלְנֵצַח נְצָחִים: (תחיית המתים)

[raf]

ghost buster: The point in question here is whether, as Karen Armstrong says, the Talmud has no word or formula for religious faith. Armstrong is a fine scholar, and the truth is that it is indeed hard to find such a word or formula in the Talmud, even in its only extensive discussion on faith in the final chapter of Sanhedrin. The Mishnah refers to a heretic not has one who believes this or that but as one who says this or that. Maimonides, of course, uses the word often, though not as often as in this formulaic paraphrase of his thirteen principles, some of which is inaccurate. Maimonides does not, for example, write that one is obligated to believe that "all the words of the prophets are true" (number 6), nor does he write that one should daily await the Messiah's coming (number 12).

[mlerner]

Ghostbuster.

The overwhelming majority of today's Rabbonim do not believe Nos. 8 10 and 11.

They most certainly would not conduct themselves as they do if they did so believe.

Just one example, and there are many more.

Would they go to the secular courts to resolve their internal differences which is in direct contravention of Choshen Mishpat 26:1 and is indeed the greatest issur in the WHOLE of Shulchan Aruch.

מחרף ןמגדף ונקרא רשע ואילו הרים יד בתורת
משה

Look it up.