Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ihuxn!jho From: jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Re: Why is the state involved in religion? Message-ID: <997@ihuxn.UUCP> Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 14:04:33 EST Article-I.D.: ihuxn.997 Posted: Tue Mar 19 14:04:33 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 20-Mar-85 06:14:16 EST References: <146@pyuxww.UUCP> <979@ihuxn.UUCP> <515@sfmag.UUCP> <988@ihuxn.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 95 >> ... 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