- This topic has 7 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
Are you a patriot? How patriotic are you? How do you relate your patriotism to your Judaism?
I am a dual citizen (US and Israel). In the case of the former, I see it as being based on the sheva mitzvot (although the left is trying to replace them with a secular liberalism that is essentially pagan). The Anglo-American philosophers of the 17-19th centuries were lovers of Tanach who saw it as the blueprint for the ideal state. The English legal philosopher John Selden even learned with Rabbi Menashe ben Yisrael. In the case of the latter, it is the precursor to the complete geula. Moreover, we are enjoined to pray for the government as the protector from mob rule.
We are loyal to Ha-Shem. Centuries and millenia ago, before there were Americans or Zionists, we were Yidden and Ha-Shem was our king. Centuries and millenia from now, when only historians know what an American or a Zionist were, we will still be Yidden and Ha-SHem will still be our king.
In countries such as the United States, where the nation exists be virtue of a contract between the government and the governed, being adherents to such a contract poses no halachic issue, and if the government ever goes off the derekh, then the contract is batul. In other countries (most of them) where the government is based on a concept of loyalty based on birth or ancestry, it is more of a problem since such countries expect loyalty based soley on where you were born or your ancestry.
Joseph, then I guess Hashem was right when He sent my neshama down when he did.
“The Anglo-American philosophers of the 17-19th centuries were lovers of Tanach who saw it as the blueprint for the ideal state.”
That isn’t really true. Thomas Jefferson certainly did not believe that. Nor did Benjamin Franklin. Nor did Ralph Waldo Emerson. Nor did Adam Smith. Nor did David Hume. You could make a small case for John Locke, but he was more interested in Christian scriptures.
And if you believe that monarchy is mandated by the Torah (clearly the majority opinion), it is really hard to make a case for the Tanakh’s monarchy having been ideal. Every single monarch of the Northern Kingdom did evil in they eyes of HaShem, as did most of the monarchs of the Southern Kingdom. That contributed to the loss of our Temple and freedom.
And, here in the last day of Chanukah, we recall that that was true of every one of the Hasmoneans who declared themselves to be a monarch — with the singular exception of the one woman who reigned, Shelomitzion, who is praised effusively by the same sages who would also state that women can’t reign. (Baruch HaShem we hadn’t accepted that opinion, as she probably saved Rabbinic Judaism!!!)
Over 200 years later Rebbe and Antoninus would have an interesting discussion as to the virtues of an inherited monarchy. Rebbe insisted that it was a good thing. Up to that point, the position of Roman Emperor was not generally passed on from father to son (Vespasian to Titus was an exception) but Antoninus made sure that his son would succeed him. That son turned out to be a disaster, and the Roman Empire was never again the same, with a long list of Emperors who were every bit as bad as the Kings of Israel! Maybe Rebbe was the person who triggered the decline and fall of the Roman Emperor! Was he deliberately deceiving his friend the Emperor?
The best source on this is Abarbanel, who has a lot to say about monarchy. Of all our sages of the past two millenia he probably knew more about monarchies than any other. He lived through their horrors.
Charliehall: For Americans the political theory that is all important is the idea that government governs with the consent of the governed based on the concept of a social contract. Americans saw the conventions by which the independent states joined the United States as similar to Sinai. The founding fathers were all very religious (if non-denominational and wary of the concept of a government controlled official church – imagine if we had one in the US and the minister of religious affairs sent out notices to all clergy telling them to preach in favor of Obamacare, gun control, gay rights, and abortion – which is what a “state church” would do). Also the Roman “Imperators” were “republicans” who rejected the idea of a monarchy and if you called them a “rex” you would probably die in some horrible way.
Akuperma, I guess that free speech was abridged.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.