Friedmann opposes constitution that compromises on religious matters

into pol process early not as a coalition gesture (BG was unchallenged, but since the rise of Right-Left competition with Begin coalition politics ensures Shas a place at the table) but as an identity-reinforcing act. For better or worse (and the Who is a Jew controversy, and its impact on Ben-Sasson compromising the Law of Return, definitely bodes worse for anyone not Orthodox, for anyone threatened by Shoah II in the Diaspora)that decision both created Orthodoxy as a political party (although originally Zionist first, religious second)and enshrined an Orthodox involvement in Israeli politics. Again, for better or worse.

Peter- good points, EXCEPT- In Israel the religious have been forcing their laws on the seculars. Why should I not be able to live my lifestyle free of their religious laws? The secular politicians got into bed w/the religious in order to preserve their coalitions, and thus, many laws are religious based, thus forcing themselves on the seculars. I say- be religious, but only as long as you do not interfere w/my life style.

talk of having religion shoved down the throat, the separation of religion from state, liberty or death...all nice slogans but where does the morality and rationality come into play? At what point do we recognize that secularism is it's own religion. When do we admit that our "ways" and "morality" are based on religious law? We like the 10 commandments but want to follow them for "different" reasons. We believe in a "day off" but refuse to admit the the day....was designated the sabbath. I don't pretend to have the answer but secular and anti-religion feelings deny our heritage, deny the Jewish State of Israel. A Jew must be able to live like a Jew at home, does it not make sense for that to be a priority?

The man sounds like a voice of reason in a sea of religious/ethnic nonsense and bigotry.

The courts are there to enforce laws, not create them. Politicians are there to create laws, not enforce them. The two should keep their nose out of the other's jurisdiction. This is even more relevant when you consider the fact that politicians are voted into office whereas judges are nominated (by their own). Judges must either be voted into office directly by the people or stop trying to create laws. The people never gave them a mandate to do this.

In terms of the Law of Return I am not referring to the political struggle by the Rabbinate over Who is a Jew. In practice this issue simply represents a potential inconvenience to all but the Orthodox, an internal Israel political issue. It was never, and must remain separate from the instrument that governs sanctuary for the Diaspora. Europes destruction of the Jews was according to a simple rule: the offspring of a single Jewish grandparent defines Jew for murder. This precedent will remain the basis for any future Shoah. The Law of Return addresses precisely this definition. Should Israel adopt an amended version of the Law consistent with a constitutionally protected definition of Who is a Jew according to Halacha she will, for all intents and purposes, cut the bond between State and Diaspora. Think this through before a long overdue Constitution becomes the instrument of Israel losing its mission, and making concrete a divorce with Israel worldwide.

Is Israel losing all understanding of its existence? How can the state even consider changing the Law of Return and the Grandparent Clause as a compromise plum to a political constituency? The Law was written not for Israelis resident in the Jewish State, but for the Jewish People living in constant danger in the Diaspora. The Law was the reason Zionism created a Jewish state, the very mission it bequeaths to Israel, refuge and guardian of the Diaspora. It is not, should never be available as a political football, part of Israeli political games. Shas, the Rabbinate and Tora, etc have their understanding of what it is to be a Jew. But Israel is not the state of any one political/religious bloc. And certainly not a minority bloc at that. Israel is the state of all Jews, including those born of a Jewish mother who elect to be Reform, or Conservative or, for that matter Atheist. We are all Jews and Israel is responsible to us all.

Finally they are going to deal with this issue, but, my fear is that our whorish politicians with their need for coalitions w/the religious parasites, will not vote to have a constitution like all democracies are supposed to have. Enough of the taliban religious- we want Freedom FROM religion, not just Of religion.Those who want to believe in fairy tales (read: bible) can do so, but do not shove it down our throats with the religious laws...

Hi Rick, You really in Miami? Doesn't the Iraqi Constitution require the President to be a Muslim? I agree that the Olmert govt. is to corrupt to make a Constitution. But Friedmann seems to be pretty much independent of the Olmert gang, even fighting with Olmert's buddies on the Supreme Court. Either way, I approve of the Friedmann's stand on this issue.

A corrupt government cannot put forward a legitimate constitution. Israel needs to restore faith in its government and institutions before engaging in such a formidable task- unless they want to borrow the Iraqi Constitution.

If I read through some of the articles in Haaretz and jpost.com, I see that a lot of people are driven to terrible crimes, either because they feel they have more rights, a husband over his wife, or vice versa. So it is absolutely important that the Supreme Court be able to rectify what would be an inhumane, stict and rigid interpretation of religious law. This is the twenty-first century after all, we are no longer in the shtetl, or the Middle Ages. So I would support Mr. Friedmann's position. Why is it that a man could remarry and the woman that he "discards", may not?

"...This is no time for ceremony. The questing before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country...I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" - Patrick Henry, March 13, 1775

The kind of constitution advocated by the Knesset's Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, if adopted, is the kind that may spark a revolt. There must be no compromise on the matter of religion and state, and all freedom-loving Israelis will eventually understand that imprisonment or even death is better than a constitution that enshrines theocracy.

Will the the anti religious supreme court judge on religion? Is this rational?

The whole idea of a democratic constitution is the to codify basic rights, including equality of all of its citizens before the Law, minority protection, to protect the citizen from governmental institutions, or any other institutions, such as relgious ones from interfering in his or her life - all safeguarded by a watchful Constitutional Court. If the religious establishment desires a constitution "by consensus" to enshrine their antidemocratic privileges - they should go to Iran. Here, this won't pass.

The only national legislation with religious influence should be what days are national holidays for the Haggim, etc.... This will be better for Israeli society and better for religion as neither will get in the way of the other (as it should be.) For secular Israelis, it might even bring many of them closer to religious life if they didn't feel (as many now do) that their lives are being controlled by people who try to pressure them by regulating their lives. You catch more flies with honey.....

This is the first rational step taken by Friedmann, ever since assuming the post of Minister of Justice