Rav Meidan and John Locke

In Rav Meidan's impassioned interview with Haaretz he had a remark which caused me to pause.

[H]ere there is a specific matter of many people, perhaps a quarter of the army, who are being asked to do something contrary to their belief. I do not think it is right to break their belief.

I have been (and still am) a bit confused regarding how the evacuation from Gaza (or "uprooting,"as R. Meidan calls it) is qualitatively different from Kelo. Eminent domain, kick people out of their homes, give them money, end of story. If you had to build a huge highway through Gaza, you would not see thousands of people complaining and burning tires in bright orange that they are losing their houses of n generations.

The issue here is Religious Zionism (RZ), as R. Meidan points out. RZ has created a myth for itself over the course of the last century--that Israel is the first step in redemption. And as crazy as many believe Chabad is for their eschetological rhetoric, RZ's do the exact same thing. Now that they are being forced to pull back they are undergoing a religious conundrum; their whole theology is being challenged. But who is to blame?

As John Locke points out so eloquently in his Letter on Toleration:

But, after all, the principal consideration, and which absolutely determines this controversy, is this: Although the magistrate's opinion in religion be sound, and the way that he appoints be truly Evangelical, yet, if I be not thoroughly persuaded thereof in my own mind, there will be no safety for me in following it. No way whatsoever that I shall walk in against the dictates of my conscience will ever bring me to the mansions of the blessed... Faith only and inward sincerity are the things that procure acceptance with God. The most likely and most approved remedy can have no effect upon the patient, if his stomach reject it as soon as taken; and you will in vain cram a medicine down a sick man's throat, which his particular constitution will be sure to turn into poison... How great soever, in fine, may be the pretence of good-will and charity, and concern for the salvation of men's souls, men cannot be forced to be saved whether they will or no. And therefore, when all is done, they must be left to their own consciences*.

In a similar vain, R. Meidan invokes this sacred notion of conscience to exonerate those soldiers who request not to be assigned to certain duties--because it is just against their conscience.

Violence, as R. Meidan articulates, is out of the question, but isn't it wrong to compell a man to do something which he fundimentally rejects (like a conscience objector)? Those RZ in Gaza are not to blame for refusing to move, nor is the government wrong to expel them. It is qualitatively different than Kelo because it is a matter of conscience. That being said, I am delighted that a wrecking-ball is being taken to that messianic-conquest element to RZ. You are not what you own, and the sanctity of the Jewish people is not no way relative to the size of their country. Happy Birthday Oren.

*This passage from Locke, as I understand it, stands as the foundation for the concept of toleration. While it is obvious from the passage that it refers directly to the state's ability to coerce a faith upon their subjects, it has subsequently been expanded to encompass tolerance as a whole. Spinoza spends much time on this idea in chpt 15 & 16 in his TPT too. Spinoza is really, really smart (much smarter than Locke). Also I just really like this quote from Locke.