The Movement for Reform Judaism

The Chief Rabbi kept a diplomatic silence, as the Jewish Chronicle forcefully pointed out. But Professor Sacks had only recently taken a diametrically opposed point of view. In his latest book “The Home We Build Together”, Sacks, writing in his outward-facing, modern orthodox mode, extols the virtues of the modern liberal democratic state. He identifies clearly the different roles that religion and the state have to play. Law falls within the domain of the state. Yes, religious courts may offer an alternative jurisdiction for civil disputes if both parties agree and yes, religions must regulate status matters but dina d’malchuta dina, the law of the land is the law and offers no scope for the incorporation of other legal systems.

For once, I am not sure that either man is quite right.

It is particularly easy for a liberal Jew like me to be enthusiastic about British law. It reflects modern secular values and, as a religious liberal, I see virtue in modernity and it has greatly influenced my Jewish thinking. Second, it is far from being alien to me since Judeo-Christian values have played a huge part in forming modern western values, embodied in the law of the land. So it isn’t readily apparent that there may be a need to allow religions their own space.

Take an apparently trivial example. The Hindu community was recently very disturbed. A group of Hindu monks, somewhere in the Home Counties, were caring for an ageing bull. They were persuaded to allow a vet to look at the animal. It is Hindu practice to allow ageing animals to die naturally. The vet, however, invoking his legal obligations under animal welfare legislation, consulted two other vets and put the animal down, against the will of the monks. I have a genuine question. Was this a case where the principle that ‘the law of the land is the law’ should have been applied – or is there scope for respecting Hindu sensibilities? 

Can there be space for allowing religions to differ from the secular norm? Suppose a new form of instantaneous animal slaughter were to emerge, irrefutably totally painless. Would that justify banning shekhitah?  What if the state decides that circumcision is an unnecessary medical risk or a form of child abuse?

Catholics are so opposed to abortion because they believe that the soul enters the body at the moment of conception. Jews don’t. We have a conservative tradition with regard to abortion – interestingly the only tradition with regard to abortion recorded by the late Lord Jakobovits in his seminal work on medical ethics. But, as the American scholar David Feldman notes, there is a much more liberal tradition which can be summed up in the phrase, “the pain of the mother comes first”.  What if the pro-life lobby democratically persuades the majority to change the law and make abortion illegal? How is a Jewish doctor to respond to a Jewish patient who reminds her that, in her tradition, the pain of the mother comes first?

And what if a ruling is confirmed by the House of Lords and the European Court that defining pupils or clients by parentage is a breach of race relations legislation – so that a Jewish school or welfare organisation may not receive government funding if, for admission purposes, it defines Jewishness in terms of parentage? This last example is proceeding through the British legal system right now.

As so often, I am largely with Jonathan Sacks’ modern orthodox outlook on public matters. But what if the state fails to play the game and the secular fundamentalists have their way?

Francesca and Oliver may admire the Archbishop of Canterbury for his taste in chocolate biscuits. But he may also have been on to something when he gave his unfortunate interview and less than clear lecture.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (2)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

The Law of the Land ....
written by paulnewgass , March 07, 2008

Government is now looking to all The Faiths through regional Faith Networks to participate in a national revival of the social/community fabric, vide: the Face-to-Face and Side-by-Side initiatives. This is seen as a means of integrating the Faiths into wider society and identifying with our estimable British values and British pride in them and ourselves.

Sounds great! BUT, first, Government has failed to define just what it means by our lamented British values. Second, after years of imposing left wing new-age values and social engineering - negative discrimination against traditional family values and positive discrimination for every alternative - it is hardly surprising that some Faiths may not feel like signing up to such a blank cheque. It is all too clear that state defined secular values are far removed from (all of our) long established traditional values and norms that have served us all well.

The Faiths have in fact - extremism apart - generally espoused the self-same traditional "British" values for which until yesterday this country was renowned. Now under the relentless onslaught of claimed universal human rights our long held values have become discriminatory and to promote them even is deemed reactionary and put one at risk of the law. There is today a prejudice against those who hold to long held ethical values.

It has been seemingly impossible to subscribe to aspirations and ideals - surely the very bedrock of all Faiths - and retain them along with tolerance to whatever mores the State declares to be tolerable; of course prejudices against all those alternatives is abhorrent that is not the same as defining and promoting them equally equivalent desirable. Instead the State recognises no such tolerance and has emphatically declared that our traditional values are themselves now intolerable.

Why should the Faiths rush to sign up to new-age state ethical codes and laws that betray their own deeply embedded values that until so recently co-oincided very much with now lamented British values. It appears that government wants the Faiths but not their values - and we have been too quick to throw them overboard too.

I can hear the accusations!

Faith & State
written by HaggaiSA , March 15, 2008

In a modern democracy a workable compromise between State and Religious law should be easily attainable. The blame for the failure to find such a compromise can, I believe, be laid at the door of the politicians that engage in social engineering at the expense of what the majority of citizens regard as “common sense”, and weak religious leadership.
As has oft been stated, there is more commonality between the major faiths than there are differences, and further that commonality is generally not out of sync with moderate secular values. However the few differences have become deliberately politicised. Thus, because the faiths and moderate secular citizens rarely speak with one voice they leave a void that the politicians with devious motives and religious extremists can exploit. This situation has been further compounded by the woolly and often contradictory views that have come from many moderate religious bodies esp. Canterbury.
We have allowed the boundaries between moderate and extreme behaviour to be blurred by the Social Engineers and we are paying the price. A platform of moderate religious and secular leaders needs to be formed that eclipses the extreme religious viewpoints and the social engineering.