“The State of Israel … will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex …”
— From the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel
Wait a minute… Suppose someone’s religion is in favor of killing innocent people? Does he or she still deserve complete equality of rights? Let’s not go that far: What if my religion strongly opposes equal rights? Will I still get the equal rights in order to promote it? What happens if I succeed?
You may say: There is a difference between the content of my “religion” and my actual deeds. So, what is a “religion” who’s any choice entitles me complete equality of rights? And if there is a difference between the religion’s contents and the actual deeds, so perhaps Israel’s railways *can* be fixed on the Sabbath?
The State of Israel does recognize certain limitations of equality when it comes to promoting contents called “incitement”, “revolt” etc. but… religions? Their contents, you know, don’t incite at all, and besides, they’re only “theoretical”. The Koran, you know, has no Surahs that instruct to kill the heretics, the Bible does not really discuss the stoning of those who desecrate the Sabbath, ‘Shulchan Aruch’ (“A Set Table”) does not seriously command abandoning a female gentile who delivers a baby on Saturday, and “The King’s Torah” does not deal with actual killing of gentiles, only with the theory. “Din Rodef” (the duty to kill a Jew who puts at risk the life and property of another Jew) and “Din Moser” (the duty to eliminate a Jew who intends to turn another Jew into non-Jewish authorities) – are merely religious debates. Forbidding work when the stars come out on Friday evening – is only a fiction. Tefillin, Jewish ritual mezuzah, Yom Kippur’s chickens – all those are just legends.
But hurting a religion is… racism, no? So why did they write “irrespective of religion, race or sex”? They couldn’t have been satisfied with “irrespective of race or sex”? What kind of a race is “ultra-Orthodox Jews”, such that any cartoon portraying them is considered “racism”? And is Islam a “race” common to Cat Stevens and Sheikh Raed Salah?
And what kind of a law is this, against “hurting religious feelings”? You know, the very existence of religion X – hurts the feelings of those who believe in religion Y. Does someone really think that by eating bacon on Yom Kippur at home – I’m not hurting minister Litzman’s feelings, and not necessarily because of the saturated fat? And what about my own feelings? Why are they worth less? Aren’t they hurt when my children are being taught that farmers should bless the gods in order for their crops to grow?
It’s just that the state couldn’t care less about my feelings, because it hasn’t defined them as a “religion”. The “enlightened” countries of the world has a unique view of what a religion is: A “religion” is one of a small collection of known beliefs, whose contents have two parts – the relatively-harmless part being practiced in reality, and the theoretical part – used for debating only.