Replies

First, the reader's e-mail to the editor as it appears in The Jewish Press:

Re Rabbi Daniel Lapin's "Civilization and the Severed Flower" (op-ed, Sept. 24):

Rabbi Lapin writes that "as long as it [American culture] remained connected to its roots of Judeo-Christian values and biblical tradition, all was well." Is that so? To echo reader Zev Stern (Letters, Oct. 8), was all well when black people were ruthlessly enslaved? Was all well when women could not vote? Was all well when Jews were coerced into working Saturdays and holidays? During what period of American history did Rabbi Lapin discover evidence that "all was well"?

Equally bizarre is the assertion that marriage "has its roots in God's biblical blueprint" and that "without the first few chapters of Genesis, few would be getting married or staying married." In fact, the institution of marriage is found in most cultures and time periods. Evidently, the idea of a man and a woman building a family together is not as dramatically counterintuitive as it appears to Rabbi Lapin. Moreover, the polygamous marriages we find in Genesis are hardly the blueprint for today's institution.

Most insulting is Rabbi Lapin's effort to read the "prosperity gospel" into the pages of the Bible. He is entitled to his fantasies of unconstrained wealth generation and laissez-faire capitalism. But in thinking he has found the source for these innovations in the Bible - a system which, we must recall, mandates interest-free lending (Exodus 22:24), transfer of resources to the poor (Exodus 23:11, Leviticus 19:9), cancellation of debts (Deuteronomy 15.1), redistribution of property (Leviticus 25:8-23), welfare for the priestly class (Deuteronomy 14:29, 18, 26:12), and which inveighs mightily against the pursuit of wealth (Isaiah 5:8, Proverbs 11:4, Ecclesiastes 2:11) - Rabbi Lapin has somehow gotten the message entirely backward.

Now for my rebuttal:

It is true that Judaism is not the same as laissez faire capitalism. However, I note the irony of advocates of secularism invoking a Theocracy in order to justify their political positions. If G-d wants social justice, then advocates of social justice are by definition Theocrats, at least so far as that issue is concerned. The commandments of the Torah do not come from human reason or moral instincts but from G-d A-mighty. That is their justification. Is it not ironic to advocate Theocracy in economics while opposing it in social policy?

In fact there are polities in the world who mix socialism with "theocracy" (Libya is one example). I notice that the militantly secular Communist world never seemed to have any objections to such governments.

Mr. X mentions an issue that is often invoked by liberals, the enslavement of Blacks. This enslavement was wrong, but not because it offends liberal moral instincts. A thing is right or wrong depending on whether or not it is in line with G-d's Will as expressed in His Commandments. And the same Torah that mandates the social justice measures Mr. X mentions also permits and regulates slavery. There are two types of slaves: Jewish and non-Jewish. Non-Jewish slaves were property to be handed down in perpetuity. Debtors or thieves who could not recompense their creditors/victims were to be sold into slavery. And as I stated in a previous response to a previous letter, married Jewish slaves could be given non-Jewish spouses specifically to breed non-Jewish slaves. This is in Parashat Mishpatim.

All this is Torah. All this is just as much Divine Law as the laws of social justice Mr. X invokes.

Torah also permits and regulates polygyny, concubinage, "holy war" (including "wars of extermination"), and many other things which violate the consciences of modern man. The Torah is from Heaven in its entirety. While no one is perfect in observance, nevertheless the Torah must be acknowledged in its entirety because it is the direct, unmediated Word of G-d. Someone who picks and chooses, who invokes passages or laws he agrees with while rejecting those he does not plainly does not accept that the Torah is from Heaven and accepts those laws not on Divine authority but merely because they are in accord with his own opinions.

Need I go on? Finally, as to the grave injustice of women not having the right to vote . . . voting is not a basic human right. All governments make the rules as to who may or may not vote. And I notice that the absence of the franchise in Communist dictatorships never seems to bother them.

I am sorry if I seem harsh. But I hope that the Jewish Press web site will see fit to post this response of mine.

Now for my rebuttal

I see you choose to ignore centuries of sage advice not to engage in arguing with an idiot.

Proverbs provided man with the first advice in this regard.

Proverbs 14:7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.

Proverbs 26:4 is perhaps more appropriate to your situation.

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

This is just another way of saying that when you elect to argue with an idiot you run the risk at some point that the people listening will not be able to tell which of you is the idiot.

In today’s terms, the reason not to argue with an idiot is that the idiot will pull you down to his level and beat you with his vast experience at being the idiot.

All things considered, I feel you did a creditable job but I suggest you not pursue it further.