Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site k.cs.cmu.edu
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim
From: tim@k.cs.cmu.edu (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: Israel a theocracy?
Message-ID: <695@k.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat, 7-Dec-85 11:35:40 EST
Article-I.D.: k.695
Posted: Sat Dec  7 11:35:40 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Dec-85 01:49:37 EST
References: <1461@ihlpg.UUCP>
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking
Lines: 19
Xref: lsuc net.politics:2350 net.religion.jewish:1678

Thank you, Bill Tannenbaum for a mostly reasonable response on a point of
disagreement.  I believe our difference is in the definition of theocracy.
I do consider both England and Israel to be theocracies, because they
contain laws which explicitly refer to precepts of specific religions, and
because to some extent they limit immigration based on the religious views
of the applicant.  (In case you didn't know, England will not allow any
Scientologists to enter the country, and I would guess that they treat some
other groups the same way, though I don't know for sure.)  It is not
necessary to have a complete correspondence between secular and religious
law to be a theocracy, only to impose religion on others to the extent of
having laws explicitly based in religious dogma.

By the way, when did the push to make pork illegal fail?  It was all over
the news in America earlier this year.  Though I don't like pork and have no
intention of visting Israel any time soon, I'm glad it failed.
-=-
Tim Maroney, Software Designer, CMU Center for Art and Technology
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu       | uucp: {seismo,decwrl,ucbvax,etc.}!k.cs.cmu.edu!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 | This is at least as funny as my other signatures.