Ariel Center for
Policy Research

A JOURNAL OF POLITICS AND THE ARTS

 

NATIV    Volume Twelve    Number 6 (71)    November 1999    Ariel Center for Policy Research

 

SYNOPSIS

 


The Religious-Secular Conflict
with Particular Reference to Israel

Ervin Birnbaum

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.

ACPR Contact usNativ Index