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?