In The Wake Of The Immanuel Affair: Would It Not Be Better For Religion To Detach Itself From The State?

תקציר

The relationship between religion and state in Israel makes for a series of never-ending dilemmas. Controversies follow each other in quick succession. It is quite obvious that these controversies do not enhance the status of religion, and thus it is not surprising that a substantial segment of the religious public is having second thoughts about the supposed advantages of the religion-state connection. They argue – and one has heard this argument frequently in recent years - that the ongoing strife between religion and state is harmful to religion, and that it might well be preferable for religion to completely detach itself from the state. The idea that the separation of state and religion would be beneficial to religion was a longstanding and strongly held opinion of Yeshayahu Leibowitz. The following excerpt illustrates his writings on the issue:<br><br>The State of Israel is a secular state, and yet it is perceived by the public as being religious in nature. The approval extended by the religious authorities to many of the institutions and laws of the state constitutes nothing more than the prostitution of religion and only serves to further the interests of the secular majority. The issue of Shabbat observance – the most important institution of the Jewish religion – is proof of this…The enforcement of Shabbat observance by governmental legislation is simply deceit deliberately aimed at desecrating the name of God, and it only demonstrates contempt for the Torah. The ruling polity in Israel has taken control over the Jewish religion, and has exploited it for its own needs. <br><br>It is understandable why this stream of thought has again emerged in the aftermath of the Immanuel affair. From the point of view of the religious public, the affair illustrates the price that the religious community has to pay for state financial support and for state supervision of its schools. This price entails intervention by the state in the affairs of the community as well as attempts by the state to impose its values on the ultra-Orthodox community, even to the extent of using legal coercion. As far as the state is concerned, the connection between state and religion is perhaps advantageous, but from a religious standpoint it could be potentially harmful. The object of this article is to contend with the perception that from the religious point of view separation between state and religion would indeed be the preferred arrangement. Our aim is to cast doubt on this perception.<br><br>The question raised in the title of the article as to what is preferable for "religion" is somewhat confusing, because one cannot speak of religion as possessing "interests" in the usual sense of the word. We are therefore concerned not with religion as an abstract concept but rather with the ability of actual religious groups to promote their agenda in the real world. <br>