Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks famously warned, "Don't mix religion and politics. You mix religion and politics, you get terrible politics and even worse religion."
I suppose that now there is a monopoly in ensuring kosher food is kosher according to the rabinut, the prices will take another leap upward. During the history of most European countries, the differences between religious and governmental needs eventually resulted (even after civil warfare), in a proper separation between them, with law-making being independent of the religious authorities. We have yet to reach this stage in our necessary and evolving process of becoming more civilized and democratic, hopefully without a civil war breaking out.
An argument is easier to make when it is isolated from its context. Many of the constraints disappear when there is no need to deal with the complexities of the issues.
Considering this law without the decades of background will lead to your conclusions. But this law has nothing to do with enshrining the current status quo. The symbolism of this law is not the issue, and focusing on it ignores some real issue.
Whether you agree or not, the Charedi position is not a convenient laziness on their part. They have, and will, pay a great price for this deeply felt attitude towards Torah learning, and base themselves on generations of tradition that they have been taught.
Any functioning democracy must appreciate that the deeply held beliefs of a large cross-section of their citizenry cannot be trampled on with impunity. The last few years have posed a serious threat to the state's future viability.
The source of this issue can be traced directly back to the Israeli Supreme Court's overreach and bullheaded belief in the single value of שוויון בנטל to the exclusion of virtually everything else. The gentlemen's agreement that prevented the Israeli Supreme Court from involving itself in issues that should be solved with the democratic process.
Right now, there is no solution on the table. Every time a compromise is suggested, the Supreme Court rejects it without offering a counter-offer. After all, they have no responsibility for the state, they will never face the voters, and they have lived in the ivory tower forever.
The only way to deal with them is step-by-step. This law is a step in the direction of a deal between the Charedi public and the rest of the country. Do you know of a better way to deal with an intractable foe such as the Israeli Bagatz? Pray tell, because nobody has shown one.
Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks famously warned, "Don't mix religion and politics. You mix religion and politics, you get terrible politics and even worse religion."
I suppose that now there is a monopoly in ensuring kosher food is kosher according to the rabinut, the prices will take another leap upward. During the history of most European countries, the differences between religious and governmental needs eventually resulted (even after civil warfare), in a proper separation between them, with law-making being independent of the religious authorities. We have yet to reach this stage in our necessary and evolving process of becoming more civilized and democratic, hopefully without a civil war breaking out.
An argument is easier to make when it is isolated from its context. Many of the constraints disappear when there is no need to deal with the complexities of the issues.
Considering this law without the decades of background will lead to your conclusions. But this law has nothing to do with enshrining the current status quo. The symbolism of this law is not the issue, and focusing on it ignores some real issue.
Whether you agree or not, the Charedi position is not a convenient laziness on their part. They have, and will, pay a great price for this deeply felt attitude towards Torah learning, and base themselves on generations of tradition that they have been taught.
Any functioning democracy must appreciate that the deeply held beliefs of a large cross-section of their citizenry cannot be trampled on with impunity. The last few years have posed a serious threat to the state's future viability.
The source of this issue can be traced directly back to the Israeli Supreme Court's overreach and bullheaded belief in the single value of שוויון בנטל to the exclusion of virtually everything else. The gentlemen's agreement that prevented the Israeli Supreme Court from involving itself in issues that should be solved with the democratic process.
Right now, there is no solution on the table. Every time a compromise is suggested, the Supreme Court rejects it without offering a counter-offer. After all, they have no responsibility for the state, they will never face the voters, and they have lived in the ivory tower forever.
The only way to deal with them is step-by-step. This law is a step in the direction of a deal between the Charedi public and the rest of the country. Do you know of a better way to deal with an intractable foe such as the Israeli Bagatz? Pray tell, because nobody has shown one.