05-08-2013, 09:27 AM
(This post was last modified: 05-08-2013, 06:05 PM by Director Michael.)
I did a search on the term "dina d'malchuta" and found that it refers to Jews living in foreign lands. When and where is it initially said to be part of the Noahide command of dinim? Is this a conclusion to a logical argument that if it applies to Jews therefore it applies to gentiles? Or is there an explicit statement is the earlier writings of the Sages or the Rishonim that outrightly says "d d'm d" is part and parcel of the Noahide Commandments?
Response to point "a": At least that confirms what I've been saying. Tyrannies are acceptable according to this view of the Torah Laws for Gentiles as long as it is either consistent or a government can dupe its peoples into accepting it.
Response to point "b": the key words are "if possible". "historical facts" are prone to interpretation and at best tell us what can happen, not what will happen.
Response to point "c": this is dependent on the amount of people who try to invade the rule for the proper reason. It is also dependent on the education and knowledge of those people. There are different forms of tyranny: the overt kind and the underhanded kind. It is like perfecting an art form. Today's government show a real skill at manipulation and control.
Response to point "e": this would be considered an overgeneralisation. You said:
"they have been keeping justice between people to a level that has kept peace in the society. Therefore their laws in those areas are dinim, since they are made for the upkeep of the society"
I have no clue which body of law you are referring to. No, I'm not saying that all the laws of the western governments are bad. But to say that the laws of western governments are made for the upkeep of the people betrays a naive understanding of such laws and the law makers. How can on one hand I be told - rightly I might add - that I should put no trust in government, and then, on the other hand, I would be told that the laws are for the upkeep of the people, as if to keep a people in check to a certain extent implies the purpose of a body of law that has been made so vast and confusing. I very much disagree with this point.
Response to point "a": At least that confirms what I've been saying. Tyrannies are acceptable according to this view of the Torah Laws for Gentiles as long as it is either consistent or a government can dupe its peoples into accepting it.
Response to point "b": the key words are "if possible". "historical facts" are prone to interpretation and at best tell us what can happen, not what will happen.
Response to point "c": this is dependent on the amount of people who try to invade the rule for the proper reason. It is also dependent on the education and knowledge of those people. There are different forms of tyranny: the overt kind and the underhanded kind. It is like perfecting an art form. Today's government show a real skill at manipulation and control.
Response to point "e": this would be considered an overgeneralisation. You said:
"they have been keeping justice between people to a level that has kept peace in the society. Therefore their laws in those areas are dinim, since they are made for the upkeep of the society"
I have no clue which body of law you are referring to. No, I'm not saying that all the laws of the western governments are bad. But to say that the laws of western governments are made for the upkeep of the people betrays a naive understanding of such laws and the law makers. How can on one hand I be told - rightly I might add - that I should put no trust in government, and then, on the other hand, I would be told that the laws are for the upkeep of the people, as if to keep a people in check to a certain extent implies the purpose of a body of law that has been made so vast and confusing. I very much disagree with this point.