As Israel prepares to celebrate 60 years of ambiguity in this department, it’s been a big week for issues of religion and state. And here’s the latest news:
Israel’s Reform Jews dedicated the first non-Orthodox synagogue to receive state funding on Monday, after a long court battle that accented the rift among streams of Judaism in Israel.
The Reform Yozma congregation fought for the better part of a decade for state funding equivalent to what Orthodox congregations receive. After arguing their case twice before the Supreme Court, they got what they wanted: a prefabricated, two-room building on a plot of land in the center of Modiin, a new town between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
“This is a substantial step in recognizing different streams of Judaism in the state of Israel,” said Rabbi Kinneret Shiryon, who leads the 240-family congregation. The government has long funded Orthodox synagogues, even paying rabbi’s salaries.
The Reform movement is trumpeting this as a huge victory. And I can see why it would feel good to finally get a piece of the pie. But I’m not feeling so great about it. I want to see a thriving liberal Jewish culture in Israel, but I fear that this development, insofar as it sets a precedent, is dangerous for liberal Judaism in the long run. (And if it doesn’t set a precedent, then it’s an insignificant anomaly.)
Yes, there are some potential positive results, even for those of us who want to see separation of church and state in Israel. The Supreme Court ruling could set a legal precedent that leads to other rulings weakening the Orthodox monopoly over government functions (e.g. government recognition of non-Orthodox Jewish marriages, or even better, establishment of civil marriage), and could sow seeds of chaos among the Orthodox factions (e.g. if they can’t countenance being part of an apparatus that funds Reform Jewish institutions, and decide to take their ball and go home) leading also to the weakening of state-sponsored religion. But these outcomes seem indirect and unlikely.
Suppose this ruling isn’t a freak occurrence, but rather leads to further funding of liberal Jewish institutions. Then a more likely outcome is, at best, that the Reform movement will find itself in the role of propping up a corrupt system. Yes, the Reform movement might continue to pay lip service to separation of church and state, but deep down, it’s going to have a vested interest in the continued existence of the institution that gives it its funding, so the Reform movement will wake up one morning and find itself allied with the forces of antidisestablishmentarianism.
At worst, the Reform movement itself will become part of the corruption. As liberal Jews, we can read every day in the newspaper about the unethical activities of the Orthodox establishment, and pat ourselves on the back for being untainted by these transgressions. But the real reason that liberal Judaism has steered clear of this rampant corruption isn’t because liberal Jews are congenitally predisposed to be better human beings, but simply because we haven’t been in power. The purpose of laws and governments is to protect us from the darker side of our human nature, and likewise, one purpose of separation of church and state is to protect us from the perversion of religion that inevitably occurs when religious authority is entangled with political authority.
Our tradition is full of warnings about the dangers of mixing religion and state. In the ancient Israelite monarchy, the king was NOT the religious authority; the prophets (who transmitted the words of God) were independent from the king, and were free to criticize the king openly when he went off the right path. One reason the rabbis of the Talmud couldn’t stand the Hasmoneans was because they combined the priesthood with the monarchy, leading to corruption in both religion and government. And it is the prophets and rabbis who are our models today, not the kings.
And now in our time, the Israeli rabbanut has become a latter-day Hasmonean dynasty. If the Reform movement wants to maintain its moral authority, it has to steer clear of this system. A great and knowledgeable prophet (in another tradition) once warned that “all knowledge seeming innocent and pure becomes a deadly weapon in the hands of avarice and greed”. The motive of promoting liberal Judaism in Israel may seem innocent and pure today, but if it becomes entangled with the political authority that has thus far been under Orthodox monopoly, it will become just another deadly weapon.
Taking the high road and avoiding getting mixed up in the mess of established religion seems to me not only to be more moral, but also more convenient. Despite this groundbreaking ruling, the Reform movement’s quest to get government funding for more synagogues is going to be an uphill battle. Instead of starting this fight for funding, wouldn’t it have been a lot easier to just declare victory and go home, and score points with the public by saying “We don’t want any of your dirty money”?
It is no coincidence that liberal Judaism has prospered the most in the United States, where separation of church and state is enshrined in the Constitution. And it is no coincidence that the US is one of the most religious countries in the world, while European countries with established churches have populations that are apathetic to religion, and most Israelis are more interested in New-Age spirituality than in Judaism. Religion is most successful as a moral voice when it is decoupled from coercive governmental authority and patronage machines, and the liberal movements in Israel should be leading the fight to make that a reality, rather than simply trying to be admitted to the club.
As Israel celebrates 60 years, we can dream about what Israel can and should be. I want to see an Israel where Jewish culture is the majority culture (Jewish holidays are national holidays, Hebrew is spoken, etc.) and Jewish values are actualized (society doesn’t stand by while its members are living in poverty), but religion is not legislated or funded by the state, and people are equally free to pursue any religion (or no religion) and any religious stream without government interference.
THinking about it again, I still agree with your basic premise (that the rabbanut is corrupt) but not with your conclusions (that no public funding should be given to religions). It seems to me philanthropy poses a danger to organized religion just as much as political affiliation (e.g. Arnie Eisen's comment that his father could have been shul president, except he didn't have enough money). Especially in israel, where the public sector is (still, and thank god) much better, and the private sector doesn't give money without very very heavy cables attached, I think public funding for religious institutions is a good idea.
ReplyDeleteObviously - all should be entitled, and the money should not be distributed through legislative moves but be statutorily awarded, like it is to political parties. Should you want funding (for a building, or a rabbi), you should register as a religious institution, and you will be awarded money based on the number of members who pay a yearly fee. Or some such thing like that.
Well articulated. May I have permission to post this on my blog, rather than just linking it? Much better than I could have written - amen.
ReplyDeleteSure, no problem, as long as you also provide a link.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely - no problem. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI sent this post to my parents, and my stepfather brought it up during a Federation meeting when they were doing allocations, and the discussion ended up convincing the Board NOT to withdraw $8,000 in support for non-Orthodox Jewish religious movements in Israel. Your article enabled him to make the case that we as American Jews should care very much about religious pluralism in Israel. Kol haKavod.
ReplyDeleteThe problem I see with Israel having separation of church and state is that it was established to be a religious state. The main justification for Israel is biblical proclamation. Israeli politicians have made it clear they intend to take whatever actions necessary to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel and certainly Israeli Arabs do not enjoy the same rights as Israeli Jews, so Israel cannot truly be a pluralistic society in the same vein as the U.S. If Israel is to remain Jewish AND have equality for its citizens, if only for its Jewish citizens, then having the more progressive branches of Judaism represented in and funded by the government is the only way to have any reasonable semblance of a Jewishly pluralistic society.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to have true pluralism would be to establish Israel as an internationally-administered country where more powerful countries, the U.S. and some of Europe, say, were responsible for security for all citizens. While such a scenario might actually have a chance at bringing peace to the region, there is virtually no possibility the Jewish community would trust Europe and I don't see the U.S. wanting to take on a "51st state," tho I think it would be to their financial benefit to do so. So I don't see how religion can be separated from governance in Israel.
The problem I see with Israel having separation of church and state is that it was established to be a religious state.
ReplyDeleteIsrael was established to be a Jewish state (i.e. a state for the Jewish people), but this isn't the same thing as a religious state. The founders of the state of Israel were secular Jews.
The main justification for Israel is biblical proclamation.
Some people may see it that way, but that is not one of the justifications given in Israel's Declaration o Independence, which speaks of "the birthplace of the Jewish people", "the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe", and "the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State".
Israeli politicians have made it clear they intend to take whatever actions necessary to maintain a Jewish majority in Israel and certainly Israeli Arabs do not enjoy the same rights as Israeli Jews, so Israel cannot truly be a pluralistic society in the same vein as the U.S.
The aforementioned Declaration of Independence says that the State of Israel "will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex". So any discrimination against Israeli Arabs goes contrary to the founding principles of the state, and should not be accepted as a given.
"The only way to have true pluralism would be to establish Israel as an internationally-administered country where more powerful countries, the U.S. and some of Europe, say, were responsible for security for all citizens." I see no reason to assume that Israel is not capable of governing itself democratically. Israel's record on human rights can stand up favorably against any country in the Western world or anywhere else.
ReplyDeleteWell said BZ. I'm also struck by the effort and support that went into this from the reform movement in America in contrast to the lack of support for ending the occupation. I know social change is not a zero sum game, but I cannot but question the moral priorities of the Reform Movement.
ReplyDelete