האמריקאים - גדולי המאמינים

הדגם האמריקאי אינו יכול לעבוד כאן מהסבה הפשוטה שדת משה היא דת ציבורית שתובעת כפיה על אלו שאינם מקימים אותה ולא ועילו כל הכרכורים. לכן ההגדרות של יהודי חרדי וציוני חילוני הן חסרות משמעות.
ואכן, אוי לאזנים שכך שומעות, אני בעד חקיקה דתית.

אריק,

אם כך, כיצד שרדה (ויותר מכך - התפתחה!) הדת היהודית, דוקא באלפי השנים בהם לא היתה לה מסגרת מדינית?

אריק, האם זו חיבה בעלמא לחקיקה דתית, או שיש לנגד עיניך דגם מסוים? אם האפשרות השניה - האם תוכל לפרט בבקשה, או לפרסם לינק לטקסט שמתאר את היקף החקיקה הדתית, התעדוף של המצוות והאיסורים המעוגנים בחוק והמשטר שתוכו אלה אמורים להיות מוחלים?


===
Gilmour, Groening, Melixon - an eternal golden braid

אריק,

בדבריך יש טענה הדגם האמריקאי אינו יכול לעבוד כאן והנמקה דת משה היא דת ציבורית שתובעת כפיה. לא הסברת מדוע רצוי שהמדינה תכפה. ההסבר יכול להיות פורמלי (למדינה תפקיד הלכתי) או אמפירי (כשהמדינה כופה זה מצליח).

אריק, בפעם האחרונה שבדקתי מדינת ישראל לא היתה מדינת הלכה.

אבל אתה צודק, הדגם האמריקאי לא יכול לעבוד כאן מסיבה אחרת, מדינת ישראל היא מדינת לאום.
ישראל היא המדינה של הלאום היהודי שהגדרתו היא גם דתית.
(ואין נפקא מינה אם זו הגדרה דתית-אורתודוקסית או דתית-רפורמית איך שלא תסובב את זה שאלת מיהו יהודי היא שאלה של תפיסה דתית)

ברגע שתפריד בין הדת למדינה בישראל תפריד גם בין הלאום למדינה, במצב כזה המדינה תהפוך למדינת כל אזרחיה ולא למדינת העם היהודי.

במדינה כזו אין מקום לחוק השבות. אין שום הצדקה במדינת כל אזרחיה לתת יתרון בהגירה ליהודי מברוקלין על פני ערבי ממחנה פליטים בירדן.

לכן אני טוען שהפרדת הדת מהמדינה אינה מהווה איום על הדת היהודית אלא דוקא על הציונות ורעיון המדינה היהודית.

From Chapter 17 of Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, published in 1835- "...there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America...". And--"Despotism may govern without faith but liberty cannot. Religion is much more necessary in the republic than in the monarchy...How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie be not strengthened...as the political tie is relaxed? And what can be done with a people which is its own master if it be not submissive to the divinity---

-As long as a religion rests upon those sentiments which are the consolation of all affliction, it may attract the attentions of mankind. But if it be mixed up with the bitter passions of the world, it may be constrained to defend allies whom its interests... have given to it....The Church cannot share the power of the state without being the object of a portion of the animosity which the latter excites.------from Democracy in America , Tocqueville, Cap. 17 (first edition 1835---------------------------------

Tocqueville is making two points about the strength of religion in the U.S. One- Religion performs an important function in the U.S. by providing the discipline that a free people needs. In a democracy, where the government does not discipline its people but, rather, leaves them to their own devices,- religion takes on the role of the disciplining force, -giving people an inner motivation to behave properly. Two- one of the reasons for the strength of people's attachment to religion in the U.S. is the very fact that religion in that country is SEPARATE from the state and does not benefit from the power of the state. Tocqueville believed that the fact that religion was established in the European states of his time made its hold weaker upon the European population. Religion being intertwined with worldly power causes people to resent religion

Tocqueville's first point seems to be that religion is stronger in the U.S. because it is more needed there. The monarchical and authoritarian European governments of his time, were able to influence people to behave in a civilized fashion , in his view, by instilling the people with fear. In democratic America where that fear was absent, it had to be replaced by the fear of Heaven. It doesn't seem possible to think in this way in our time. Today, we see large populations in Western countries living with civilized restraint despite the weakness of religion in those countries. However, it still might be possible to make a point somewhat similar to Tocqueville's. One might say that , in most western democracies, there is a relatively homogenous population with a certain rootedness in its own traditions and folkways. This rootedness provides people with orientation and a sense of connectedness that is conducive to the maintenance of civilized conduct. America's population, on the other hand, is heterogenous, of immigrant stock, and living in a "new" country with little sense of rootedness in tradition. In America, therefore, there is a much greater potential for social alienation and even social breakdown. In this "scary" American situation, religion takes on greater importance as one of the things that encourages the maintenance of civilized restraints.--------------------------------------n

Tocqueville's second point is that religion is stronger in America because of the fact that religion is not established in America; it is not intertwined with the worldly power of the state. It has often been said that a differnce in historical background explains the difference in mentality between European liberals and American liberals. European liberals tend to be ardent secularists because they hark back to the European revolutionary tradition. That tradition traces itself back to the French Revolution and the revolutions of the 19th Century. The liberal revolutionaries of those times and places had to fight the power of an established Church which was allied to an authoritarian state. This historical experience influences European liberal intellectuals in the direction of anti- clericalism. In the case of American liberals, however, we are dealing with a national history in which the experience of an established, politically empowered Church is lacking. This difference in the respective histories of the U.S. and Europe might account for the widely divergent attitudes held toward religion in these two places, respectively. Americans tend not to see religion as the enemy of liberalism and democracy.-------------------- Of course, one might apply Tocqueville's reasoning to the situation in Eretz Yisroel. Tocqueville says that religion being wedded to the power of the state winds up creating resentment of religion and leads to a weakening of its hold on the people. By this logic, the present situation is bad for Yiddishkeit and the separation of religion and State in Israel would be a benefit for Yiddishkeit.----------------------------y.