Susan Hattis Rolef, PhD, former Professor of International Relations at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, in an e-mail response to ProCon.org on June 19, 2006, wrote:
"Unlike
Catholicism, Judaism does not have a Pope - one supreme authority,
which can give the ruling that is binding on all Jews. Therefore, there
can be no one definitive answer regarding what 'Judaism' is or is not
compatible with. In so far as religions advocate an absolute truth,
which tends to breed intolerance, in their purest forms none of the
religions are compatible with democracy, which is based on the idea
that there is a plurality of positions, perceptions, beliefs, and, if
you will, truths.
Amongst the various Jewish streams the most
ultra Orthodox ones have the greatest problem with the principles of
democracy, and the most liberal Reform and Conservative ones have the
least problem. The problem that Orthodox Judaism has with democracy
manifests itself in Israel with the objection of the ultra Orthodox
parties in the Knesset to a secular Constitution as a supreme law,
which by definition would be considered superior to the Halacha - the
religious law. The ultra Orthodox parties also have a problem with
human rights legislation based on universal democratic principles, even
though Judaism, since the days of the bible, has had its own concept of
human rights.
Nevertheless, Judaism, as a way of life rather than a religion, has
learnt to live at peace with democracy in so far as Jews, including
ultra-Orthodox Jews, have, since the 19th Century lived as equal
citizens in democratic states, have accepted the basic rules and
requirements of democracy, and have enjoyed the benefits it has to
offer.
I presume that what I have said about Judaism applies
equally to Islam. A Jewish Halachic state - i.e. a state based on the
Halacha - would probably be little more democratic than a Muslim state
based on the Islamic Sharia."
Alfred Stepan, PhD, Wallace Sayre Professor of Government at Columbia University, in a 2000 Journal of Democracy article titled "Religion, Democracy, and the 'Twin Tolerations,'" stated the following:
"In
the first two decades of its independence after World War II, Israel
was under the political and ideological hegemony of secular political
leaders and parties. By the 1990s, however, both these secular
political traditions were challenged by opposition movements that drew
some of their support from forces seeking to redraw the boundaries of
the 'twin tolerations' to accomodate more fundamentalist and less
tolerant visions of the polity and democracy... In Israel, the state
was originally a nationalist state for the Jewish people, but there are
growing demands for it to be a religious state. There are also demands
to make citizenship for the Arab minority less inclusive, and even to
amend the Law of Return so as to give Orthodox rabbis the authority to
determine whom the state of Israel recognizes as a Jew."
Daniel J. Elazar, PhD, the late Professor of Political Science at Temple University, Philadelphia, in a 1986 essay titled "Judaism and Democracy: the Reality," posted on the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs website, wrote:
"Those on the right and those on the left who denigrate and deny the
relationship between Judaism and democracy not only do both a great
disservice but are simply wrong."
Lucian Lazare, Scientific Editor at the International Center for Holocaust Studies at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, in an essay titled "Judaism and Democracy: Incompatible or Complementary?" on the Oz veShalom -- Netivot Shalom website (accessed Apr. 2004), wrote:
"Not only is it impossible for there to be a contradiction between them
[Judaism and democracy], it is rather true to say that Judaism and an
undemocratic regime are absolutely incompatible."
Shlomo Sharan, PhD, Professor Emeritus in Educational and Organizational Psychology, at the School of Education, in Tel Aviv University, in a Nov. 1999 essay titled "State and Religion in Israel Why the Separation of State and Religion is Inappropriate for Israel" from Nativ, A Journal of Politics and the Arts website, wrote:
"Israel is only one of many
ethnic democracies (such as Finland, Norway, Korea, etc. etc),
that have one ethnic majority and one or several minorities that
do not share ownership of the national territory. Israel’s
identity as a Jewish nation is no less democratic than any other
of these countries. Almost all of the ethnic democracies also have
an official state religion, just as Judaism is the official
national religion of Israel. An official state religion, along
with a dominant ethnic majority, are fundamental features of many
democratic nations."
Meir Kahane, LLB, MA, the late American Orthodox Rabbi and former Member of the Israeli Knesset, in an interview entitled "G~d’s Law: an Interview with Rabbi Meir Kahane," published in a 1987 book titled Israel's Ayatollahs: Meir Kahane and the Far Right in Israel, stated:
"Let me say it again: democracy and Judaism are two opposite things.
One absolutely cannot confuse them. The objective of a democratic state
is to allow a person to do exactly as he wishes. The objective of
Judaism is to G~d and to make people better. These are two totally
opposite conceptions of life."
Israel Shahak, PhD, the late Professor Emeritus at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, in a 1994 book titled Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, stated the following:
"Judaism, especially in its
classical form, is totalitarian in nature. The behavior of supporters
of other totalitarian ideologies of our times was not different from
that of the organized Jews... Their support of democracy or of human
rights is therefore meaningless or even harmful and deceitful."
RSS
Share
Email
Print
