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!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: <525@sfmag.UUCP> Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 22:45:49 EST Article-I.D.: sfmag.525 Posted: Tue Mar 19 22:45:49 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 20-Mar-85 06:03:25 EST References: <146@pyuxww.UUCP> <979@ihuxn.UUCP> <515@sfmag.UUCP> <988@ihuxn.UUCP> <997@ihuxn.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Summit, NJ Lines: 95 > >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