I just want to say few things to Matan and Avraham about the religion and laws debate.
I am aware that the current laws are rooted in 2000 old tradition and laws, I didn't claim otherwise.
I think morality and laws were developed once the humanity became aware of itself, and I think that religion was the vessel to pass these laws to the people. After all it's much easier to have social order when you tell people there is a omnipotent "being" that watches you than to say "Well, it's the right thing to do".
We need to disconnect laws and morality from religion in this debate. Laws and morality exist for a way to have social order and its independent of any religious system.
The system of laws evolved gradually in the last 4000 years and I don't think that concepts that were true then are true now. And the reason I think we should be alarmed is that I don't want 2K old concepts to find their way into the current system.
In my mind there is a problem when somebody from the treasury office says he will consult with the Rabi about such and such laws. With all due respect to Rabbis, they are not lawyers or people who studied law. And missing 2000 years of gap in the law system is a pretty big thing. And from my perspective that is the problem with what Mr Neeman said.
I am aware that the current laws are rooted in 2000 old tradition and laws, I didn't claim otherwise.
I think morality and laws were developed once the humanity became aware of itself, and I think that religion was the vessel to pass these laws to the people. After all it's much easier to have social order when you tell people there is a omnipotent "being" that watches you than to say "Well, it's the right thing to do".
We need to disconnect laws and morality from religion in this debate. Laws and morality exist for a way to have social order and its independent of any religious system.
The system of laws evolved gradually in the last 4000 years and I don't think that concepts that were true then are true now. And the reason I think we should be alarmed is that I don't want 2K old concepts to find their way into the current system.
In my mind there is a problem when somebody from the treasury office says he will consult with the Rabi about such and such laws. With all due respect to Rabbis, they are not lawyers or people who studied law. And missing 2000 years of gap in the law system is a pretty big thing. And from my perspective that is the problem with what Mr Neeman said.
