‘Trouble Is Inherent for Religious States’

G.H. Jansen’s attempt to compare militant Islam with resurgent Orthodoxy in Israel (Opinion, July 6), “Trouble Is Inherent for Religious States,” is a travesty! In the service of a broad analogy, he neatly imposes his thesis on all the particulars and, in the process, abandons the analytic subtlety that is the hallmark of a well-reasoned argument.

Let me cite two noteworthy particulars:

1--Orthodox girls are not exempted from Israeli military service because “they are . . . sources of sin,” but rather to afford them protection, albeit paternalistic, from the loose sexual morals that are commonplace in the army, and to avoid the violation of religious norms that would result from such service.

2--Referring to the “Who is a Jew” controversy, Jansen writes, “The answer to that question given by the Orthodox would in effect de-Judaize much of world Jewry” (italics mine) . That will certainly not be the effect of the “Who is a Jew” legislation (which I vehemently oppose), whose proponents have recently gone to great lengths to publicly assure all born Jews that their Jewishness is not being challenged. In spite of the fact that “Who is a Jew” appears to be directed at the American Conservative and Reform movement, it really is part of the ongoing struggle of ultra-Orthodox, anti-Zionist Jews against the secular state of Israel. Rather than reflecting an intradenominational battle, “Who is a Jew” is a clash between two distinct world views: one modern and secular, the other medieval and fanatically religious.

This leads to a glaring omission in Jansen’s essay. Nowhere does he indicate that the fundamental difference between Israel and Iran and/or Pakistan is that the latter are defined as religious states while Israel is a secular state. That is not to say that religion is totally disestablished in Israel. However, it does mean that there is no justification for the classification of Israel as a religious state. Jansen’s assertion that “the violent incidents . . . in Israel are the product of contradictions inherent in the founding of any state on the basis of religion (italics mine) is thus baseless, resting on a false premise. In fact, the strenuous effort expended on behalf of “Who is a Jew” demonstrates that the Orthodox themselves thoroughly comprehend the inherent secularity of Israel.

One should not ignore the reality that, although there are many Muslims who are not Arabs, e.g. Iranians, and many Arabs who are not Muslims, e.g. Christian Arabs, the body of the Jewish people is identical with the community of Jewish believers, i.e. all Jews are Jewish and vice-versa. This, in no small way, complicates the basic interplay of the secular and religious components of Judaism.

If Jansen did have a point to make, it was the religious extremism seems to be threatening Israel as well as other states in the region. In building his case, however, he must view Judaism through a Jewish lens and refrain from defining it in terms of another dominant religion.

RABBI CHAIM

SEIDLER-FELLER

Los Angeles