Here’s something I didn’t know about Israel, via Failed Messiah:
Does Israel really have religious freedom?
Many observers believe it does not, and the country’s secular High Court of Justice showed again last week that those observers are correct when it ruled that official state rabbinical courts can blacklist women – but not men – they believe have committed adultery, putting their names on secret lists that prevent them from marrying ‘pure’ Jews of unblemished linage and effectively preventing them from marrying at all.
In response to a petition filed against that blacklisting, Ha’aretz reported the High Court ruled that Israel’s haredi-controlled state chief rabbinate had sufficiently fixed the problems with the blacklist and, based on that it tossed out the petition filed against it by a woman who divorced in 2002 and only afterward found out that her name had been placed on that blacklist by a state the Rabbinical Court without her knowledge and without the ability for her and her alleged lover to present evidence against the move. Her petition was supported by women’s rights groups who all noted that only women (and any children they may have with a man who is not their husband) are subject to this blacklisting – not men who cheat on their wives.
That’s rather tangled. The High Court ruled that official state rabbinical courts can put women – and women only – on blacklists for having “committed adultery.” It sounds like the end of Mansfield Park, where Maria is sent off to live in outcast isolation because she “committed adultery.” The man went on his way rejoicing.
Petitioners argued that this blacklisting invades women’s privacy and undermines gender equality. Blacklisting also prevents women from forming a new family – a right Israeli law should protect, the petitioners claimed. They also argued state rabbinical courts are not legally allowed to rule on adultery issues when the divorce is, as was in this specific case, consensual.
But Israel is far closer to a theocracy than a democracy, and the claims of the woman and her supporters fell on the High Court’s nearly deaf ears.
This god thing is such a nuisance. It’s what some people came up with a long time ago, and we’re still stuck with it – which is ridiculous. Everything else is allowed to change as we change, our views change, technology changes, but the religious nonsense that traps and constrains so many people is stuck in amber.
This god thing is such a nuisance. It’s what some people came up with a long time ago, and we’re still stuck with it – which is ridiculous.
That’s because the god thing was invented for political control. We’re still stuck with it because the world’s lords and masters still like “the divine right of kings.” Post-enlightenment knowledge has pushed it back, somewhat, but their fallback is always violence. In order for man to remove the pestilence of religion we must not only achieve unbelief, we must disempower the elites who find religion a useful tool. As you can see with Daesh, there are always political monsters who are willing to re-impose it by force.
Notice how we here in the USA allow businesses to be run as monarchies, even though we fought a Revolutionary War to not have to bend the knee to a tyrant. Just look at the sorry state of the regulations protecting workers’ rights and how these have been eroded over the past few decades – all so that the most powerful corporate masters may rule at their whim. And women’s rights in the workplace still lag far behind men’s rights – the plight of pregnant workers has been in the news recently, but it appears that redress is limited to a case-by-case basis, requiring long and expensive lawsuits and even then no guarantees, as we saw in the case of that Silicon Valley sexual harassment suit.
The decision is not indicative of a lack of religious freedom in Israel, the country’s High Court has upheld religious rights at the cost of human rights, that’s the problem.
@2 Blanche Quizno,
“..we fought a Revolutionary War to not have to bend the knee to a tyrant.”
Except for slaves, women, indigenous people and those without property, they all did a lot of knee-bending. I could also nominate a least half a dozen monarchies that might be more egalitarian and probably on some measures, more democratic than the USA.
@4 RJW
‘I could also nominate a least half a dozen monarchies that might be more egalitarian and probably on some measures, more democratic than the USA.’
Citation requested. I don’t doubt you, I’m just very interested.
The nonsense of the “get” prevents a woman (the “agunah”, or “chained wife”) from marrying another jewish man unless the ex-husband grants her a religious divorce, but does not preclude the man from marrying another jewish woman.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/agunot1.html
http://www.jewishjournal.com/bloggish/item/modern_orthodox_protest_against_agunah_wedding_in_vegas
Colour me unsurprised it’s even more hypocritical when mere accusations (without proof) of adultery are made against women. And not when men are the adulterers.
Cue the inevitable claims of “anti-semitism” hurled at people who discuss this issue….
I think I am right, though, that you have the option to go for a non-religious marriage in Israel. I don’t know if anyone can confirm. So you have to choose to be governed by these rules?
Bluntnose
Israel doesn’t have a civil marriage option. The control of religious courts over marriage goes back to the time of the Ottoman empire and was grandfathered, like many other laws, into the British mandate laws and then into Israeli law. When the state of Israel was established it was probably considered a fight not worth fighting and now it is going to be political suicide since the religious parties tend to be essential for any coalition.
On the other hand there are more and more people who refuse to go through with the religious establishment and either get married abroad or make a private contract without getting officially married, this is due to the fact that over the last couple of decade the state rabbinical system have been hijacked by the most extreme hardliners of the haredi cult so it became extremely unpleasant, rather then the mild nuisance it used to be, for non-religious people to interact with it.
Thanks Yoav! A fascinating example of how history can hog tie us.
Back in the days before I was blocked from posting on Why Evolution is True because I posted here that Jerry Coyne was too fawning toward the Israeli government, he had gone on yet another of his tirades about how western liberals were exhibiting anti-semitism by decrying Israel’s attacks on Gaza. I posted that I was opposed to any state organized to support one religion (or non-religion) over another. A commenter then replied to me that israel wasn’t really like that, and his “proof” was that there are several atheists living there. So, nothing to see here folks! Israel is a shining beacon of fairness and democracy, and anyone who disagrees is an anti-Semite.
Well, Israel is a beacon of democracy in that area, although it could shine more brightly (couldn’t we all). And I tend to agree with Coyne that a great deal of criticism of Isralei policy in Gaza is a stalking horse for smuggling antisemitism in.
@5 NYC atheist,
The Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, the UK , Canada, Australia and New Zealand. All are technically monarchies and I’d bet that they all would have lower Gini coefficients than the USA, i.e lower Income inequality. From the perspective of citizens of countries with parliamentary governments, the USA appears to be a quasi-monarchy, its government is rather unusual, in fact. The U.S. Constitution is admirable, however it’s not amended democratically, by popular vote, as in most democracies.
Of course, it’s essentially a matter of opinion, no country is the exemplar of democracy.
Monarchies are not intrinsically less democratic than republics, actually most of the world’s republics are either authoritarian or have rather short democratic histories.
Most of the West’s democratic traditions were not invented in the U.S. and despite what some citizens of the US have told me, Americans did not create a democratic Republic in the late 18th century, democracy was an evolutionary process. The French revolutionaries got closer to republican democracy until they lost the plot completely and started murdering each other.
@10 moarscienceplz
“Israel is a shining beacon of fairness and democracy, and anyone who disagrees is an anti-Semite.”
Yes, and it’s been very effective, particularly since 1967, it’s easy to see where the inspiration for accusations of “Islamophobia” came from.
I posted that I was opposed to any state organized to support one religion (or non-religion) over another.
All of the others get protested and unmade first, before Israel.
It’s fascinating to me that people like left0ver1under and moarscienceplz begin complaining about how they will be accused of antisemitism on a thread where nobody had even mentioned anything of the sort. Israel’s democracy and it’s problems with right-wing theocrats are not mutually exclusive. In fact, part of the problem is that the theocrats are working through democracy.
There are Israelis with more at stake and more knowledge of the situation than you actively fighting against the right-wing theocratic encroachment.
@12 RJW
All true, but the key word in your second sentence is technically. I’m not anywhere near familiar enough with the non Commonwealth nations you listed, but the UK et al are no where near functionally monarchies. Are there any examples of ‘actual’ monarchies that would be more egalitarian etc than the modern USA?
@ 16 NYC atheist
“the UK et al are no where near functionally monarchies.”
Yes, indeed, they are, they’re constitutional monarchies, not republics, the test is not the degree of democracy. If you’re thinking of monarchies on the Louis 14th model, you’re correct of course.
Most modern monarchies are de facto republics, however that doesn’t alter their constitutional arrangements. I’m not a monarchist BTW.
@15 nrdo
Israel’s ‘democracy’ is rather limited because it doesn’t include the Palestinians in the occupied territories i.e. the Palestinians are excluded from Israel’s ‘democracy’, but their land is included.
@17 RJW
I understand your position now, and we are working with different definitions.
The real test for me would be how much policy is set by the crown. It is my understanding that the monarch is a figurehead and the actual power is wielded by the Parliament.
@19 NYC atheist,
Agreed, that’s why I described most modern monarchies as de facto republics, however sovereignty is still legally, if not in practical terms, with the monarch and that’s a critical difference. I doubt that if King Charles III wanted homeopathy to be compulsory that anyone would take any notice.
@20 RJW
Thank you for clarifying. And for the record, every nation you listed has a lower (more equal) GINI coefficient than the States.
No, in the UK Parliament is sovereign. The monarch has a constitutional role subject to Parliament. Glorious Revolution and all that.
Once again the “only democracy in the Middle East”.
Always nice to see the utter violence that passes for justice among those concerned about sacred matters.
@22 Bluntnose,
Interesting.
We’re off-topic, so I’ll make this my final comment.
What form of government does the UK actually have, constitutional monarchy or parliamentary republic with a monarch somehow attached? Since, as far as I understand, Britain doesn’t have a written constitution, does anyone really know?
Britain is a constitutional monarchy. The monarch is subject to the constitution, subject to the sovereignty of parliament.