This study is based on the
recognition that Israel has been increasingly turning into an arena of
conflict between those terming themselves “religious” and those referring
to themselves as “secular”. Since the religious-secular conflict in
Israel could be very dangerous to the very survival of the Jewish State,
it needs to be minimized. On the premise that the world is interactive it
can be assumed that:
a. Israel could not isolate
itself and escape the waves of similar conflicts in other parts of the
globe, and
b. Israel could possibly
benefit from the lessons of religious-secular conflicts in other countries
and apply them for a better understanding and amelioration of its own
situation.
The above premises set the
framework of this study. After a brief introduction about the role of
religion in Western society, we turn our attention to the practical impact
of religion in its conflict with the State, and an all too brief review of
the types of models of Church-State relationships that evolved from that
conflict, beginning with the French Revolution. The first three models -
France, Germany and Italy - are chronological. Then we turn out attention
to an efficient model of separation of Church and State, the United States
of America, followed by an efficient model of non-separation, England.
Brief remarks are added about a scattering of other interesting models.
All of them are of democratic countries. Hence, from the Middle East only
Turkey is touched upon.
The next part deals with
possible lessons Israel could derive from the models presented, in the
light of its own unique situation. Focus is placed on the value of the
“status quo”, the need of unconditional acceptance of the State, and on
the advantages of depoliticizing religion - a process for which four
channels are examined, though not necessarily recommended:
1. Possible dissolution of
religious political parties,
2. Stopping political
blackmail in the Knesset in return for religious support,
3. Changing attitudes and
expectations, and
4. Separation of religion and
state.
The final part deals with
perspectives of the “religious” vs. “secular” dispute.
The study of human thought
makes it abundantly clear that religions cover an extremely wide spectrum
- from the belief in One God to many gods, or from an intimately personal
and personalized God to an absolutely depersonalized abstract Power, or
from the acceptance of a strict doctrine that regulates every step in life
to subordination to certain principles intended to serve as a moral and
ethical guide in life. The author makes a valiant attempt not to sit in
judgment over any aspect of religion, be it fundamentalist or secular. If
he failed at any point, the reader can rest assured, it is purely
unintentional and will find it easier to forgive by remembering: the sole
intention is to enlighten, not to upset.