MK Moshe Feiglin, Potential PM?

Feiglin isn't going to become the Prime Minister. Israel's religious sector has been growing with haste for the last decades, and increases its velocity of growth every single year. By 2060, Israel will certainly (by 'certainly', I literally mean a prospect of occurrence of 100%) become a full-blown Iran-like theocracy. MKs Yair Lapid, and to some extent, Avigdor Liberman, may be able to prolong the subsistence of Israel a few more years, as they're position as regards Israel's religiosity is a demand for separation of Church and State (in the case of Liberman, he wouldn't openly declare it, as he contrives to garner votes from the Right, which is more religious-leaning than the Left), a separation which will shape the Israeli milieu towards that of a liberal, democratic society; though even such a remarkable development won't halt or invert the growth of the religious sector in Israel, which is a real demographic bomb.

As for the removal of the Mosque, it must be noted that, in contrast to the modern Islamic-Palestinian narrative in which the edifice and its surroundings are considered to be of utmost significance, up until the Israeli occupation of the Temple Mount in 1967, the Mosque had been in constant desolation, with zero to perhaps a dozen visitors a day, and not single voice in the Islamic world had been raised against the Mosque's state of affairs, indicating the Muslims only began taking notice of the area after it had come under Jewish sovereignty. Additionally, the removal of the Mosque doesn't necessarily imply their permanent destruction: a viable solution is to preserve the edifice with as less detriment possible, and transfer it to Jordan, as a gift from the Israeli Leadership to the Hashemite Monarch. Apologetic for Islam will claim that the land on which the edifice stands is the third most sacred to Islam. To counter that claim, we must first take notice that legally it is irrelevant: once the authority of the anti-Semitic Waqf is dismissed, and Israel retains complete sovereignty over the Mount, it can remove the Mosque, and with the justifications of both societal demand and contribution to society on the part of the state, which is, of course, legal. Secondly, if we are to engage in this religious debate, we may as well ask: "so what? Yes, it's the third most significant site in Islam, but it is the first most significant site in Judaism, and Israel hasn't (yet) separated Church and State".

As for the reconstruction of the Temple: while in and of itself irrelevant to the everyday life of the Israeli citizen, it is yet another step towards a Messianic Halachic State. Next, the Jews will declare the organizer of the Temple's construction as the Messiah (and here, let me briefly address Christian readers with the following statement: there is no chance on Earth that the Jews will ever 'recognize' Jesus as their Messiah. No calamity will ever cause the Jews to believe in Jesus – did the holocaust turn Jews into Christians? No, and likewise, nothing else will), and will then try to occupy the land which is mentioned in the Bible as "Promised". Such developments are positive if you're a religious Jew -- although, there's a debate among religious Jews as to whether the Temple should be reconstructed by humans, and if so, under which conditions --, but threaten the everyday life of secular Jews, who will observe how their almost-secular democracy turns into a theocracy, and a nuclear one at that. In case you're unacquainted with it, let me inform you that Theodor Herzl, in his book "Der Judenstaat" (German for "The Jewish State"), specifically noted that it is directly against the objectives of Zionism to allow Israel to deteriorate into a theocracy. And these are his words: "Shall we end up by having a theocracy? No, indeed… We shall prevent any theocratic tendencies from coming to the fore on part of our priesthood. We shall keep our priests within the confines of their temples…" The Jewish Temple is not just a place for national sacrifices: it is where the Jewish court of jurisprudence, the Sanhedrin, resides. The transformation of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel to the Sanhedrin is yet another step in the direction of having a theocracy, as the Sanhedrin will compose an immense religious authority, and will seek to subvert the authority of the secular elements of the state. It is crucial to apprehend that the (future) Temple is by far not the worst theocratic angle of the state of Israel, and that the worst is already behind: Israel discriminates against women (in Israel, a husband is literally demanded by law to 'buy' his wife with a Ketubah on their marriage day, thus rendering her as his property), allows circumcision (which is banned in Scandinavia, for instance), discriminates against homosexuals (who are not allowed to marry), finances religious authorities, etc. By all means, Israel is already somewhat theocratic, thus the addition of the Temple, while a negative development, is not pernicious. The theocratization process is already in full motion.

Moshe Feiglin will probably never become the Prime Minister. But I expect that in the following two decades, someone even worse may. Just keep your eyes open, people.

reply to post by dontreally

So because they speak of their religious beliefs in negative terms, it makes it 'non-religious'? Maybe you should recall what the word 'religio' - the source for the english religion, means: it means to hold something to be sacred. ANY AND ALL ideologies defended as a truth is religious - whether there is ritual or metaphysics doesn't change that fact.

So now you want to debate semantics? You know the conotation which religion carries, so don't act like an ignoramous. We are discussing religion, in reference to a belief system which places faith in some form of deity (i.e. Islam). Congratulations, you made an entirely irrelevant observation which does not benefit your argument one bit.

The 'condition' refers to the immense depression, hyper-inflation and the powerful influence of the Jews in the German economy.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


"You people" - I'm not a Muslim, nor am I an Arab.

So because some xenophobic zealot Muslims (i.e. the kind of Muslims which spread outwards from the Arabian peninsuala) committed terrible atrocities in the middle ages (and onwards), it suddently justifies Israel doing the same. Sorry, but the idiocy of one group dosen't justify the idiocy of another.

When did I say Islam was the religion of peace. Quite, the opposite infact, if you read a bit of the Quran, it openly advocates murder and war at times, as does the Bible. I have no such dilusion, and I think of Muhhamad as nothing more than a glorified war lord and a pedophile, sorry to say. I suggest you don't make assertions without knowing the facts.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant

So now you want to debate semantics?

Where do you get semantics from? Follow this syllogism: If morals should be made by society (as you say it should), and the success of Nazi indoctrination was accomplished through shifting public moral sentiment to the absurd, then that means your idea of morality is a natural catalyst to the corruption of morals. Make sense? As bad as religion can be - and it can - most human beings would prefer a morality anchored in a transcendent being (Plato begins his work on ethics with just this observation) than in human caprice.

So - my point was not semantic; if you were a little more abstract minded you would understand that.

Congratulations, you made an entirely irrelevant observation which does not benefit your argument one bit.

That's because you didn't understand it. In addition to my knowledge of western philosophy (political philosophy in particular) I'm an avid student of psychology, theology, comparative mythology, esotericism and anthropology.

Fact is, it makes no difference what the ontological object of worship is: whether it be purely utilitarian (in which case, you worship the power of utility - or the usefulness of something) or transcendent. Your problem, like so many other people, particularly the poorly educated halfwits who post here, is that you think of religion in purely exoteric (i.e. superficial) terms. This grants you the latitude to speak of religion (that is, belief in a 'deity', which in your mind is divorced from all philosophical or archetypal reasoning) in disparagement, imagining that philosophy and especially modern philosophy as leaps and bounds more rationalistic than religion, because the former speaks elliptically (that is, in allegory - the only proper medium for conveying spiritual archetypes) while the latter speaks discursively; In Nieztchean terminology, religion (with it's sacred texts, ritual/ceremony) would be "Dionysiac" which means it speaks at an experiential and emotive level - something clearly ossified in your being - which can only be intuited i.e. bypassing the logical function, while philosophy (or esotericism, the metaphysical-ontological discourse on the myth, which of course ALL myths convey) would be the Appoline (of Appolo, the greek god of reason and order) function. In historical terms, philosophical discourse began with Plato (or Socrates), but any truly understanding person knows philosophy antedates socrates/plato - since all the myths of the ancient near east were grounded in philosophical theory.

Read the works on comparative mythology by Sir James Frazier, Joseph Campbell, Mircea Eliade, Carl Jung, Erich Neumann, Marie Von Franz - get outside your comfort zone of marxist theory and try expanding your knowledge. It'll make you more interesting to talk to.

reply to post by dontreally

Where do you get semantics from? Follow this syllogism: If morals should be made by society (as you say it should), and the success of Nazi indoctrination was accomplished through shifting public moral sentiment to the absurd, then that means your idea of morality is a natural catalyst to the corruption of morals. Make sense? As bad as religion can be - and it can - most human beings would prefer a morality anchored in a transcendent being (Plato begins his work on ethics with just this observation) than in human caprice.

Not the point I was addressing. Read the quotation.