samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (03/09/85)
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?
jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (03/19/85)
>> ... 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... [Yosi Hoshen] >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. [Yitzchok Samet] At the time I got married, I was doing my military service, so I was not free to go elsewhere and get married. Even if I was free to go elsewhere, why should I? I was born in Israel, and served my country. Why should I be coerced to submit to a religious marriage ceremony, which humiliates me, just as you would be humiliated if you had to be married in a Christian ceremony. The problem is that unlike the US, Israel does not have a constitution to protect its citizens from religious coercion laws. You seem to belittle the problem of state-mandated religious coercion. Such an attitude could justify the historical expulsion of the Jews from Spain. These Jews did not obey the Law - convert to Christianity - therefore their expulsion was justified (They only had to go elsewhere). >As you point out, the people who set up the Jewish state were >mostly non-orthodox... 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", ... I agree that orthodox conversion is a rabbinate business. However, I vehemently oppose the law that gives the rabbinate jurisdiction over marriage and divorce when these may apply to people, like myself, who consider themselves non-religious. The reasons for imposing religious coercion laws governing marriage and divorce are not profound as you suggest. The are the outcome of the Israeli parliamentary system. This system, known as proportional representation, fragments the parliament into many parties (each party gets gets a share of MPs proportional to the popular vote). The religionist parties, which get approximately 15% of the vote, can gain influence that significantly exceeds their electoral power. Each of two major blocks in the Kneset usually gets about 40% of the vote. Either, therefore, needs partners to form a coalition government, and, obviously, they have to take in the religionists to form a majority. The two major blocks court the religionists by agreeing to sell out the personal rights of the secular Jews in the country. Since Israel is faced with extraordinary difficulties, which I need not enumerate here, these major parliamentary blocks are able to get away with the sell out. You suggest that marriage and divorce are not purely a personal matter. (The pope may suggest that not being a Christian is not just a personal matter ...... humanity can be only be saved if we all accept you know who....). The religionists in Israel are trying to scare all of us by claiming that civil marriage and divorce will split the nation. My answers to this is: What is the use of a nation that tries to impose religious laws on those who do not accept the religion? Did not Jews come to Israel to get away from religious coercion by Christians, Moslems, and Communists? Remember also, Israel is already split, polarized and deeply divided into religionist and secularist (chofshi'im) camps. The reason for this division is religious coercion. >PS - How do you feel about the history of anti-religious coercion >in Israel, which has been mentioned a few times on the net? There has been a significant case of anti-religious coercion in Israel. That was the autopsy law. The previous Israeli autopsy law can undoubtly be viewed as anti-religious coercion law against orthodox Jews. That law permitted indiscriminate autopsies by pathologists, disregarding the wishes of the family of the deceased. The law was a blatant violation of personal rights of religious Jews in Israel. There were those who claimed that the law benefits all of society, because more autopsies will increase our medical knowledge base, and, therefore, improve our ability to fight diseases. My view is that even if more autopsies are beneficial to mankind, they should be restricted, since they infringe on the the personal and religious rights of the individual. Let me note that the autopsy law was taken off the books several years ago. The autopsy law, though beneficial to society, was changed, because it infringed on the religious rights of orthodox Israelis. However, the marriage and divorce law, which violates the rights of secular Jews, is still on the books. It is quite clear that if a law violates the rights of orthodox Jews, it is removed. On the other hand, a similar action is not taken if a law infringes on the rights of secular Jews. -- Yosi Hoshen, Bell Laboratories Naperville, Illinois, (312)-979-7321, Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (03/20/85)
> >As you point out, the people who set up the Jewish state were > >mostly non-orthodox... 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", ... (Y. Samet) > ... The reasons for imposing > religious coercion laws governing marriage and divorce are not > profound as you suggest. The are the outcome of the Israeli > parliamentary system... The > religionist parties, which get approximately 15% of the vote, > can gain influence that significantly exceeds their electoral power.... > The two major blocks court the religionists by agreeing to sell out the > personal rights of the secular Jews in the country. Since > Israel is faced with extraordinary difficulties, which I > need not enumerate here, these major parliamentary blocks > are able to get away with the sell out. (Yosi Hoshen) I used the phrase "all things considered" specifically to anticipate the the point you are making, i.e., all things considered, the majority factions saw this concession as necessary for the good of the nation. In other cases, e.g., the latest "who is a Jew" vote, they did not yield. > ... The religionists in Israel are trying to scare all of us by > claiming that civil marriage and divorce will split the nation. You personal view may be that the nation would not be split. However, you don't seem to acknowledge that this is a matter of judgement, or that the concern about splitting the nation is anything more than a ploy. I can understand that someone with your views and experiences can be incensed by the status quo. Could it be that your irritation causes you to dismiss the "religionist" view out of hand? Your emphasis on "religionists" and "scare" tactics suggests that you may be pigeon-holing the issue rather than allowing yourself to deliberate both sides of the question. (As an aside, the Talmudic approach stresses analyzing all opinions rather than indulging in polemics. The gemara says that Beis Hillel's views eventually prevailed over Beis Shammai's because Beis Hillel was scrupulous to articulate (and thereby understand) the opposing view before advancing it's own. The Mirrer Rosh Yeshiva, Reb Chaim Shmulevitz, zichrono l'brocha, used to cite this as a model for arguing l'shaym shamayim, i.e., transcending personal interest and bias to arrive at truth.) > My answers to this is: What is the use of a nation > that tries to impose religious laws on those who do not accept > the religion? Did not Jews come to Israel to get away from > religious coercion by Christians, Moslems, and Communists? Is the Jewish religion incidental to the definition of the Jewish people? Did Jews come to Israel just to escape oppression? That's a narrow and forced view of our history in the diaspora, and a denial of the millenia of sacrifice for our religion. It's in our blood - ingrained in the soul of our nation. Remember Herzl? He suggested we start a nation in Uganda - but the Jews didn't buy it. They wanted Eretz Yisroel - the land we prayed to return to for 2000 years. Your ancesters did too. Jews may have drifted from religious observance in recent history, but the vast majority insisted on Jewish marriages and bris milah, they ate matzoh on Pesach, and fasted on Yom Kippur. The overwhelming majority of Sephardim in Israel and abroad, still have strongly ingrained religious ties. Many of those who drive on shabbos still observe family purity and eat kosher. They wouldn't dream of getting married in a secular fashion or intermarrying. Neither would most American Jews in 1948. Don't assume that the immigrants from oppressed lands grew up with shomair tzair values. My guess is that the authority given to the rabbinate reflects a strong grass roots consensus. It just might be that people who are offended at the thought of being married by a rabbi are a very small (albeit vocal) minority. Even fewer would go so far as to label rabbinic marriages as coercian. I doubt that you represent the masses of oppressed immigrants when you apply that term. > Remember also, Israel is already split, polarized and deeply divided > into religionist and secularist (chofshi'im) camps. Sorry to disagree, but living in Israel (and visiting frequently) has left me with a very different impression. The clamor over these issues seems to be more in the media and the Knesset than in the mood of the people. They are much more concerned over the next tosefet yoker and the price of leben. > The reason for this division is religious coercion. This may accurately describe your feeling, but it's probably innacurate to characterize the Jewish nation that way. Yitzchok Samet