Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sfmag.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!samet From: samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Why is the state involved in religion? Message-ID: <519@sfmag.UUCP> Date: Fri, 8-Mar-85 16:01:10 EST Article-I.D.: sfmag.519 Posted: Fri Mar 8 16:01:10 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Mar-85 05:01:25 EST References: <146@pyuxww.UUCP> <979@ihuxn.UUCP> <515@sfmag.UUCP> <988@ihuxn.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit, NJ Lines: 57 Response to Yosi Hoshen: > ... Now lets get back to the issue of state legislated religious coercion... > ... a new form of religious coercion imposed on them by the Jewish State... > ... The issue is not the rabinate, but the state that follows > the rabinnate. I will restate my point again. The state should not > be in the religion business, trying to impose religious laws on those > who do not practice the religion... Thank you for arguing logically and avoiding the mindless, hostile stereotyping of orthodoxy that is so prevalent on this net. I agree with your focus on the state for imposition of religious laws. All I was trying to say was that it's unfair to label the rabbinate, or orthodoxy as coercive as long as they are playing by the rules of Israeli democracy. > I guess personal matters such as marriage and divorce can be compared > to taxes. I accept your distinction between tax legislation and marriage legislation. The latter touches on personal beliefs. I meant only to point out that many laws are (in some sense) coercive, and could be so labeled. We generally don't apply that label because we recognize that the laws are for the good of society. > ... Since Jews comprise <3% of the American population, > I assume you would not complain If the US would require that all > marriages should be performed by Christian clergy... I would complain if the US required me to go to a christian clergyman because that is unconstitutional in America. If it weren't, I might either break the rules (as Russian Jews do to practice certain mitzvas), lobby for change (as you do), or go elsewhere to marry or live. But I couldn't make a case that the rules set up by the society are being violated unless there is a law separating religion and state. As you point out, the people who set up the Jewish state were mostly non-orthodox. They did not pass laws requiring you to keep shabbos, believe in anything, or eat kosher. Nevertheless they gave the rabbinate jurisdiction over things like marriages. We should ask ourselves why they did this. Perhaps they judged that, all things considered, it was better for the Jewish society to have the state "in the religion business", at least as far as issues affecting Jewish identity are concerned. A case can be made for involvement in that limited area, even from a nonreligious perspective. Marriage, divorce, and conversion are not purely private matters. They impact the entire Jewish people. Whatever their reason, the legal authority they gave to the orthodox rabbinate in Israel, while upsetting to some, reflects that society's judgement about its own best interests. Yitzchok Samet PS - How do you feel about the history of anti-religious coercion in Israel, which has been mentioned a few times on the net?