Advertisement

The Model of State and Church Relations and Its Impact on the Protection of Freedom of Conscience and Religion: A Comparative Analysis and a Case Study of Israel

  • Shimon Shetreet
Part of the Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht book series (BEITRÄGE, volume 190)

Abstract

The prevailing view in comparative international law, including that of this author, used to be that the establishment of religion and its recognition by the state or the separation of religion from the state did not, as such, violate religious freedom or constitute unlawful discrimination for religious reasons or breed religious intolerance. However, in recent years this view has changed, as it has become clear that the secularist approach has often led to less openness and a reduced sensitivity to religious freedom. This can be seen in religious statutes regulating use of religious symbols in public space and government facilities.

Keywords

Religious Freedom Conscientious Objector Free Exercise Religious Norm Religious Liberty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    See B. Neuberger, Religion and Democracy in Israel, 1997, 16 [in Hebrew]. The freedom of religion will be limited only when the fulfillment of religious commandments would result in violence, in breach of the public order, or in deprivation of civil rights.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ibid., 17.Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    International Coalition for Religious Freedom, Religious Freedom World Report: Ukraine, updated 3 April 2004, available at http://www.religiousfreedom.com/.Google Scholar
  4. 6.
    For further Case law illustrating American law: Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439 (1988); Employment Div., Oregon Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990); Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993); McDaniel v. Paty 435 U.S. 622 (1978). See also The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.Google Scholar
  5. 9.
    Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1946). This case dealt with the question of governmental financial allowances for driving-expenses for a catholic school’s students. The court decided that these payments were not against the constitution.Google Scholar
  6. 10.
    Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961).Google Scholar
  7. 14.
    S. Theil, Tolerating Intolerance: Germany debates the headscarf and finds it un-German, available at http://www.aicgs.org.Google Scholar
  8. 15.
    International Coalition for Religious Freedom, Religious Freedom World Report: Latvia, updated 26 June 2004, available at http://www.religiousfreedom.com/.Google Scholar
  9. 17.
    For the differences between the Hungarian system and the German System, see Neuberger (note 1) supra, at page 15.Google Scholar
  10. 18.
    W. Brugger, On the Relationship between Structural Norms and Constitutional Rights in Church-State Relations, found in the current volume.Google Scholar
  11. 19.
    See A. Schwarz, “No Imposition of Religion: The Establishment Value”, Yale L.J. 77 (1968), 692; A. Schwarz, “The Non-establishment Principle: A Reply to Professor Gianella”, Harv. L. Rev 81 (1968), 1465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 20.
    Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).Google Scholar
  13. 21.
    Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).Google Scholar
  14. 22.
    Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992).Google Scholar
  15. 23.
    Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000). See also Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952) discussing the constitutionality of a law allowing students to be absent from public schools for the purpose of attending religious services and education.Google Scholar
  16. 24.
    Aguilar v. Felton, 473 US 402 (1985). See also: Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), dealing with providing financial support to religious institutions announcing the ‘Lemon Test’.Google Scholar
  17. 25.
    McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5211.Google Scholar
  18. 26.
    Van Orden v. Perry 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5215.Google Scholar
  19. 27.
    “Mayor orders removal of courthouse sculpture with Ten Commandments,” Newsday.com, July 2, 2005.Google Scholar
  20. 28.
    Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 US 97 (1968).Google Scholar
  21. 29.
    Capital Square Review Board v Pinette, 115 S. Ct. 2440 (1995).Google Scholar
  22. 30.
    Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 US 668 (1984).Google Scholar
  23. 31.
    Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh Chapter ACLU, 492 US 573 (1989).Google Scholar
  24. 32.
    See R. Gavizon, “Religion and State: Separation and Privatization,” Mishpat Umimshal 2 (1994), 55 (63) [in Hebrew] and especially footnote no. 15, which directs to the important judgment: Muller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983).Google Scholar
  25. 33.
    Since the value of freedom of religion is more important, according to this view, than the value of separation. For the comparison of these values see: W.G. Katz, “Freedom of Religion and State Neutrality,” U. Chi. L. Rev. 20 (1953), 426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 34.
    N.J. Demerath/ K.S. Straight, “Religion, Politics, and the State: Cross-Cultural Observations,” Cross Currents, available at http://www.crosscurrents.org/Demerath.htm.Google Scholar
  27. 35.
    BBC News, World Edition, Thursday, 11 December, 2003, available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3135600.stm.Google Scholar
  28. 36.
    T. Wilson, Handling the Headscarf Issue: The French Headscarf Ban in a European Context, available at http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/FileGet.cfm?ID=C79B0D70-0CC5-407E-87E2-C818F64E06A8.Google Scholar
  29. 37.
    D. Williams, “In France, Students Observe Scarf Ban: Hostage Takers in Iraq had called for Repeal,” Washington Post Foreign Service, Friday, September 3, 2004; A11.Google Scholar
  30. 38.
    French Head Scarf Ban Underway, October 20, 2004, CBS News, available at http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml.Google Scholar
  31. 39.
    French Legislation for the Prevention and Repression of Cultic Groups: Legal Recourses before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), available at http://en.wikipedia.org.Google Scholar
  32. 42.
    Theil (note 14) supra. See also U.S case of Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986) where it was held that the Free Exercise Clause did not require the Air Force to exempt an Orthodox Jewish officer from uniform dress regulations. Consequently he was not allowed to wear a skullcap indoors.Google Scholar
  33. 43.
    Coronation Oath Act, 1688.Google Scholar
  34. 44.
    Factsheet L10 (Rev. Oct. 2003): Legislation Series House of Commons Information Office: Church of England Measures.Google Scholar
  35. 45.
    In 1588, 1662, 1872, 1990 and 1994 — see P. Cumper, Religious Human Rights in the United Kingdom, Emory Int.L.Rev. 10 (1996), 115. On the issue of religions in new Europe see P. Cumper/S. Wheatley, Minority Rights in New Europe, 1999.Google Scholar
  36. 46.
    See R. Post “Blasphemy, The First Amendment and the Concept of Intrinsic Harm,” Tel-Aviv U. L. Rev. 8 (1988), 293–324.Google Scholar
  37. 48.
    Fact-sheet L10 (Rev. Oct. 2003): Legislation Series House of Commons Information Office: Church of England Measures, 2–3.Google Scholar
  38. 49.
    Fact-sheet L10 (Rev. Oct. 2003): Legislation Series House of Commons Information Office: Church of England Measures, 5. The following are reports of Parliament’s Ecclesiastical Committee between March 1992 and 2003: 1992–93 Incumbents (Vacation of Benefices) (Amendment) Measure 202 515 64-II 1993 No.1; 1992–93 Priests (Ordination of Women) Measure; Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure 1993 No 2; 1993 No. 3; 1993–94 Pastoral (Amendment) Measure 205 18 3-II 1994 No.1; 1993–94 Care of Cathedrals (Supplementary Provisions) Measure 1994 No.2; 1993–94 Church of England (Legal Aid) Measure 207 457 64-II 1994 No.3; 1994–95 Team and Group Ministries Measure 208 149 21-II 1995 No.1; 1994–95 Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 209 645 79-II 1995 No.2; 1996–97 Pensions 210 383 65-II 1997 No.1; 1997–98 National Institutions Measure & Church of England (General Synod) Measure 211 772 111-II 1998 No.1; 1997-98 Cathedrals Measure 212 1026 147-II 1999 No.1; 1998–99 Care of Places of Worship Measure 213 488 68-II 1999 No.2; 1999–00 Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure 214 500 64-II 2000 No.1; 2000–01 Churchwardens Measure 215 306 41 2001 No.1; 2001–02 Synodical Government (Amendment) Measure 216 1136 157-II 2003 No.1; 2002–03 Church of England (Pensions) Measure 217 74 4-II 2003 No.2; 2002–03 Clergy Discipline Measure 218 613 87-II 2003 No.3.Google Scholar
  39. 50.
    Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437, 445 (1971).Google Scholar
  40. 51.
    Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, (1972).Google Scholar
  41. 52.
    Demerath/Straight K.S. Straight “Religion, Politics, and the State: Cross-Cultural Observations,” Cross Currents (note 34) supra.Google Scholar
  42. 53.
    Dhillon v. British Columbia (Ministry of Transportation and Highways, Motor Vehicle Branch), [1999] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 25 (QL).Google Scholar
  43. 54.
    Pannu v. Skeena Cellulose Inc., [2000] B.C.H.R.T.D. No. 56 (QL).Google Scholar
  44. 55.
    See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto) 145 (1878) where the Mormon defendant’s charge for bigamy was affirmed by the Supreme Court, after marrying a second wife at the same time that the first wife was still living.Google Scholar
  45. 56.
    Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).Google Scholar
  46. 57.
    B(R) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, [1995] 1 SCR 315, (1005) 26 CRR (2d) 202.Google Scholar
  47. 58.
    B.H. v. Alberta (Director of Child Welfare), 2002 ABCA 109, May 1, 2002. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada denied S.C. No. 29174, July 2, 2002.Google Scholar
  48. 62.
    Congrégation des témoins de Jéhovah de St-Jérôme-Lafontaine v. Lafontaine (Village), 2004 Supreme Court of Canada.Google Scholar
  49. 63.
    Selective Service Act of 1948, 50 U.S.CA. § 456(g) (1964). Divinity students are also entitled under this section to draft exemption.Google Scholar
  50. 65.
    Walz v. Tax Commissioner of the City of New York 397 U.S. 664 (1970).Google Scholar
  51. 66.
    Ibid. at 673.Google Scholar
  52. 67.
    Ibid. at 676.Google Scholar
  53. 68.
    Ibid. at 674. See also United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982) where the court found the need to uniformity paramount in a case requiring an Amish employer to pay Social Security taxes for Amish employees. See also Corporation of Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987) (ruling that dismissal of employees on religious grounds is unconstitutional).Google Scholar
  54. 69.
    Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 299 (1963) (Brennan, J., concurring). See also W. Katz, Religion and American Constitutions, 1964, 21; D. A. Gianella (Part II), Religious Liberty, Non-Establishment and Doctrinal Development, Harvard L. Rev. 80 (1967), 525; Katz (note 33) supra at 429–33.Google Scholar
  55. 70.
    Schempp Case (note 69) supra.Google Scholar
  56. 71.
    Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, n.19 (1943).Google Scholar
  57. 72.
    Schempp Case (note 69) supra. As to the conflict between the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause, see Schwartz (note 19) supra.Google Scholar
  58. 73.
    See e.g., Gillette Case (note 50) supra. In other cases, though theoretically a claim for exemption on religious grounds involves an establishment of religion, the court has focused, and presumably will continue to focus, on the Free Exercise Clause. See e.g., In Re Jenison, 375 If.S. 14 (1963); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963); Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 399 (1961); Barnette Case, Note 71 supra.Google Scholar
  59. 74.
    Big M Drug Mart v. The Queen, (1985) 1 S.C.R.295, 18 D.L.R. (4th) 321, 58 N.R. 81, (1985) 3 W.W.R. 481, 37 Alta L.R. (2d) 97, 60 A.R. 161, 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023, 13 C.R.R. 64, 18 C.C.C. 3d) 385.Google Scholar
  60. 75.
    Edwards Books and Art v. The Queen, (1986) 2 S.C.R. 713, 30 C.C.C. (Ed) 385, 87 C.L.L.C. 14,001, 28 C.R.R. 1, 55 C.R. (3d) 193, 19 O.A.C. 239, 71, N.R. 161, 35 D.L.R. (4th) 1, 58 O.R. (2d) 442n.Google Scholar
  61. 76.
    McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961). See also: Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 U.S. 703 (1985), where the court struck down a Connecticut statute prohibiting an employer from requiring an employee to work on a day designated by the employee as his Sabbath.Google Scholar
  62. 77.
    Demerath/Straight K.S. Straight “Religion, Politics, and the State: Cross-Cultural Observations,” Cross Currents (note 34) supra.Google Scholar
  63. 78.
    Gillette Case (note 50) supra.Google Scholar
  64. 79.
    United States v. Maclntosh, 283 U.S. 605, 623 (1931) (dissenting opinion). Courts and commentators frequently speak about the value of religion and conscience to society which justifies granting exemptions. See United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 170–72 (1965); Lord Denning, “The Influence of Religion on Law,” in 33rd Earl Grey Memorial Lecture (1953).Google Scholar
  65. 80.
    Walz Case (note 65) supra.Google Scholar
  66. 81.
    Ibid. at 673. See also D. Robertson, Should Churches Be Taxed?, 1968, 191.Google Scholar
  67. 82.
    Schempp Case (note 69) supra.Google Scholar
  68. 83.
    Note, The Ministerial Draft Exemption and the Establishment Clause, Cornell L. Rev. 55 (1970), 992 (996).Google Scholar
  69. 84.
    Chamberlain v. Surrey School Board, 2002 SCC 86.Google Scholar
  70. 85.
    Note, Defining Religion: Of God, The Constitution and the D.A.R., U. Cm. L. Rev. 32 (1965), 533 (550).Google Scholar
  71. 86.
    Braunfeld Case (note 73) supra. See also McGowan Case (note 76) supra: “It seems plain that the problems involved in enforcing such a provision would be exceedingly more difficult than those in enforcing a common day-of-rest provision.”Google Scholar
  72. 87.
    See Gillette Case (note 50) supra; Braunfeld Case (note 73) supra at 609 (1961). As to the distinction between the question of “truth” of the belief which is beyond the power of the court and the question whether the belief is “truly held,” see Seeger Case (note 79) supra; United States v. Ballard. 322 I-T.S. 78 (1944).Google Scholar
  73. 88.
    Gillette Case (note 50) supra. See also ibid at 456.Google Scholar
  74. 89.
  75. 90.
    Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 369 (1970). See also Gillette Case (note 50) supra.Google Scholar
  76. 91.
    The Court pointed out that of 150 or more Adventists in the place where petitioner lived only she and another one had not found an employment which did not require Saturday work, Verner Case (note 73) supra.Google Scholar
  77. 92.
    Braunfeld Case (note 73) supra.Google Scholar
  78. 93.
    Verner Case (note 73) supra.Google Scholar
  79. 94.
    Re Jenison (note 73) supra (on remand from the Supreme Court).Google Scholar
  80. 95.
    Verner Case (note 73) supra.Google Scholar
  81. 96.
    People v. Woody, 394 P.2d 813, 40 Cal. Rptr. 69 (1964).Google Scholar
  82. 97.
    The court also said that “to forbid the use of peyote is to remove the theological heart of peyotism.” Ibid. at 818, 40 Cal. Rptr. at 74 (1964).Google Scholar
  83. 98.
    Leary v. United States, 383 F.2d 851 (1967).Google Scholar
  84. 99.
    M. Konvitz, Religious Liberty and Conscience, 1968, 78–79.Google Scholar
  85. 100.
    Gillette Case (note 50) supra.Google Scholar
  86. 101.
    Walz Case (note 65) supra.Google Scholar
  87. 102.
    Leary Case (note 98) supra; State v. Big Ship, 243 P. 1067 (Mont. 1926); State v. Bullard, 148 S.E.2d 565 (N.C. 1965).Google Scholar
  88. 103.
    Compare Woody Case (note 96) supra, with Leary Case (note 98) supra; Bullard Case (note 102) supra.Google Scholar
  89. 104.
    Wisconsin Case (note 51) supra.Google Scholar
  90. 105.
    Ibid at 225.Google Scholar
  91. 106.
    For the vouchers cases see Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973); Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388 (1983); Witters v. Washington Dept. of Services for the Blind, 474 U.S. 481 (1986); Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, 509 U.S. 1 (1993); Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639. (2002); and see also flexible view on tax exemptions in Walz Case (note 65) supra.Google Scholar
  92. 108.
    HCJ 262/62, Perez v. Kfar Shmaryahu Local Council 16 P.D, 2101 (2116) (per Justice Summon).Google Scholar
  93. 109.
    Cr. App. 112/50, Yosifof v. Attorney General, 2 P.D 486 (598, 612) (per Justice Landau).Google Scholar
  94. 110.
    HCJ 301/63, Streit v. Chief Rabbi, 18(1) P.D 598 (612).Google Scholar
  95. 111.
    HCJ 103/67 American Orphan Beth El Mission v. Minister of Social Welfare, 21(2) P.D 325.Google Scholar
  96. 112.
    HCJ 132/66 Segev v. Safad Rabbinical Court, 21(2) P.D, 560.Google Scholar
  97. 113.
    See, e.g., Cr. App. 217/68, Isramax v. State of Israel, 22(2) P.D 343, where Justice Silberg resorted to American case law regarding the Sabbath to justify the prohibition of the opening of a petrol station under a by-law.Google Scholar
  98. 115.
    H. Somer, “Non-enumerated Rights: On the Scope of the Constitutional Revolution,” Heb. U. L. Rev. 28 (1997), 259 [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
  99. 116.
    A. Barak, Legal Interpretation, vol. 3 at 332 (on Constitutional Interpretation). [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
  100. 117.
    A. Barak, The State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, Tel-Aviv U. L. Rev. 24 (2000), 9 (11) [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
  101. 118.
    S. Shetreet, The Good Land: Between Power and Religion, 1998.Google Scholar
  102. 119.
    See A. Rubinstein, “State and Religion in Israel,” J. of Contem. History 2(4) (1969), 107 (108).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 120.
    D. Ben Gurion, Nezah Yisrael, 1962, 154–55 [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
  104. 121.
    See I. Englard, Religious Law in the Israeli Legal System, 1975.Google Scholar
  105. 122.
    HCJ 3269/95 Katz v. Jerusalem Regional Rabbinical Court, 60(4) P.D, 590. The case involved the issue of a writ of denial by the rabbinical court against an individual who refused to have his civil matter be adjudicated by the rabbinical court in accordance with the terms of a complaint filed according to Din Torah.Google Scholar
  106. 123.
    Such as the expression “Jewish and democratic state” in: Basic Law: The Dignity and Freedom of a Person (1992), s. 1A; Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation (1994), s. 2; these laws are relatively recent, but the principle of a Jewish state existed from the day of the establishment of the State, in the Declaration of Independence, and later in various judgments. See for example: Elections Appeal 1/65, Yardor v. The Chairman of the Election Committee, 19(3) P.D. 365. However, there is the claim that the expression “Jewish” refers to the cultural and historical belonging and has no direct connection to the Jewish religion. For this perspective, see R. Gavison (note 32) supra, at 57. About the term “Jewish,” see A. Maoz “The Rabbinate and the Courts: Between the hammer of law and the anvil of ‘Halakah’, Hebrew Law Yearbook 16–17 (1991), 289 (308) [in Hebrew]; Symposium, “The Role of Religion in Public Debate in a Liberal Society,” San Diego L. Rev. 30 (1993), 643. There is a common claim that the Jewish values (those that the Justice Foundations Law refers to) are broad enough to include all matters that seem related to our culture and heritage. In this context see H. Cohen, “The Law of Remnant,” Hebrew L. Yearbook 13 (1987), 285 (300); A. Barak, Commentary in Law, vol. I (1992), 528–529.Google Scholar
  107. 124.
    The Law of Return (1950).Google Scholar
  108. 125.
    A notable (and large) exception to this law is that individuals with a Jewish parent or a grandparent, or who are the spouse of an individual with a Jewish parent or grandparent, are eligible for the same rights of immigration as a Jew: Law of Return 5710–1950, s. 4A(a). The reasoning behind this exception is historical — because in Nazi Germany such individuals were liable to the same prosecution as were Jews, it was decided that in Zionist Israel, they would, on the contrary, benefit from such relationship.Google Scholar
  109. 126.
    The Rabbinical Courts Adjudication Law [Marriage and Divorce] (1953); see also P. Shifman, State Recognition of Religious Marriage: Symbols and Content, Isr. L. Rev. 21 (1986), 501.Google Scholar
  110. 127.
    State Education Law (1953); see S. Goldstein, The Teaching of Religion in Government Funded Schools in Israel, Isr. L. Rev. 20(1) (1992), 36.Google Scholar
  111. 128.
    HCJ 1031/93, Pissaro v. Minister of the Interior, 49(4) P.D. 661.Google Scholar
  112. 129.
    Further see The Religious Councils Act by the Jewish Religious Services Law.Google Scholar
  113. 130.
    Z. Sharf, 12, 13, 14 of May 1948 (1965), 214–226.Google Scholar
  114. 131.
    C.A. 546/78 Kupat Am Bank, Ltd. v. Handles, 34(3) P.D., 57.Google Scholar
  115. 133.
    See I. Englard, The Relationship between Religion and State in Israel, Scripta Hierosolymitana 16 (1969), 254 (274).Google Scholar
  116. 134.
    District court 708/69 Adi Kaplan v. the Prime Minister and the Broadcasting Authority, P.D. 23(2), 394.Google Scholar
  117. 135.
    Criminal Case (Jerusalem) State of Israel v. Kaplan, 265(2) P.D (1988) 5748.Google Scholar
  118. 136.
    HCJ 397/88 Menucha Nechona v. Minister of Religious Affairs (not published).Google Scholar
  119. 137.
    HCJ 143/62 Funk-Schlesinger v. Minister of Interior, 17(1) P.D. 225 (marriage). HCJ 230/86 Miller v. Minister of Interior, 40(4) P.D 436.Google Scholar
  120. 140.
    HCJ. 58/66, Shalit v. Minister of the Interior, 23(2) P.D. 477 (602).Google Scholar
  121. 141.
    HCJ 51/69, Rodnitzki v. Rabbinical Court of Appeal, 24(1) P.D, 704 (712).Google Scholar
  122. 143.
    Isramax Case (note 113) supra at 354 et seq.Google Scholar
  123. 144.
    Shalit Case (note 140) supra.Google Scholar
  124. 145.
    HCJ 3872/93, Mitrael v. Prime Minister and Minister of Religions, 47(5) P.D. 485.Google Scholar
  125. 146.
    Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, s. 8.Google Scholar
  126. 147.
    HCJ 953/01 Marina Solodkin v. Beit-Shemesh Municipality and others, 58(5) P.D. 595.Google Scholar
  127. 148.
    Even were the distinction adopted, it is not practical nor can it always help to justify the coercion of norms, due to the multicultural diversity of the population in Israeli cities. Justice Silberg himself faced difficulties in explaining the nature of the Sabbath commandment and found in it both “rational” and “creedal” elements intermingled. He also found it difficult to justify the closing of businesses on Jewish festivals and had to appeal to the fact of those festivals being national values. See Isramax Case (note 113) supra at 356-58.Google Scholar
  128. 149.
    Rodnitzki Case (note 141) supra at 712. There are further grounds for this view, but they lie outside the scope of the present study.Google Scholar
  129. 150.
    Kaplan Case (note 135) supra.Google Scholar
  130. 151.
    E. Don-Yehiya, The Politics of Accommodation: The Resolution of Religious Conflicts in Israel, 1997, 48–51 [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
  131. 152.
    Isramax Case (note 113) supra.Google Scholar
  132. 153.
    HCJ 174/62 League for Prevention of Religious Coercion v. Jerusalem City Council, 16(4) P.D, 2665; HCJ 531/77 Baruch v. Traffic Commissioner of Tel Aviv and Central Districts-Central Road Sign Authority, P.D. 32(2) 160.Google Scholar
  133. 154.
    HCJ 5016/96, 5025/96, 5090/96 Horev and others v. Minister of Transport and others, 51(4) P.D.1.Google Scholar
  134. 155.
    HCJ 3267/97, Rubenstein v. Minister of Defense, 52(5) P.D.481.Google Scholar
  135. 156.
    For a comparative view, see S. Shetreet, “Exemptions and Privileges on Grounds of Religion and Conscience,” Kentucky Law Journal 62 (1974), 377.Google Scholar
  136. 157.
    In Isramax Case (note 113) supra at 353, Justice Silberg sums up the secular primary-purpose test adopted in the United States.Google Scholar
  137. 158.
    Ibid., 362.Google Scholar
  138. 159.
    HCJ 231/63, Retef Ltd. v. Minister of Commerce and Industry, 17 P.D 2730.Google Scholar
  139. 160.
    HCJ 105/54, Lazarovitz v. Food Controller, 10 P.D 44, 55, per Justice Berinson. It may be contended, however, that prohibition of pig-breeding in respect of Jews is warranted, because the entire matter is rooted in Jewish national tradition.Google Scholar
  140. 161.
    League for Prevention of Religious Coercion Case (note 153) supra at 2668.Google Scholar
  141. 162.
    Isramax Case (note 113) supra at 362. Justice Berinson states: “As between one way of doing things in disregard of religious considerations and another way having regard for religious considerations, but without placing upon the public too heavy a burden, the second is certainly to be preferred.”Google Scholar
  142. 163.
    A similar reason serves in the United States to justify government acts supportive of religion. See P. Kurland in Law and Religion 18 (1962), 122.Google Scholar
  143. 164.
    See the Law of Return, 1950 and the Nationality Law, 1952.Google Scholar
  144. 165.
    Official Gazette, No. 1, 5 Iyar, 5708 (14 May 1948).Google Scholar
  145. 166.
    See Shalit Case (note 140) supra.Google Scholar
  146. 167.
    See HCJ 72/62 Ruffaizen v. Minister of Interior, 16 P.D. 2428.Google Scholar
  147. 168.
    See, e.g., Y. Leibowitz, Faith, History and Values 73 (1982) [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
  148. 171.
    See, e.g., A. Rosen-Zvi, Israeli Family Law: The Sacred and the Secular, 1990, 226 ff. [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
  149. 172.
    Cf., e.g., P. Lahav, “The Status of Women in Israel — Myth and Reality,” Am. J. Comp. L 22. (1974), 107 (119–124).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 173.
    Marriage and Divorce (Registration) Ordinance, 1919; section 2(6) of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel Law, 1980.Google Scholar
  151. 174.
    Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law, 1953; Dayanim Law, 5715–1955.Google Scholar
  152. 175.
    An account of the halachic controversy is brought by Elon, J. in HCJ 153/87 Shakdiel v. Minister of Religious Affairs, 42 P.D. (2) 241 (246–265). A major distinction was made between “passive suffrage,” i.e., the right to be elected to public office, as opposed to “active suffrage,” i.e., the right to vote. Elon, J. also referred to the halachic debate over women’s right to education, at 265–270. This pertains to the historical exclusion of women under the halacha from participation in what Leibovitz termed “the cultural heritage of Judaism and its spiritual contents.” See Y. Leibovitz, op. cit., at 72.Google Scholar
  153. 176.
    This chapter in the annals of Zionist history might have been lost, were it not for the fact that a tract composed by one of the women active in this campaign was reprinted and published by a contemporary feminist grass-roots organization. See S. Azaryahu, The Association of Hebrew Women for Equal Rights in Palestine, 1977 [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
  154. 177.
    Shakdiel Case (note 175) supra.Google Scholar
  155. 178.
    HCJ 1/88 Poraz v. Lahat, Tel Aviv-Yaffo Mayor, 42(2) P.D. 309.Google Scholar
  156. 179.
    HCJ465/89 Raskin v. Jerusalem Religious Council, 44(2) P.D. 673.Google Scholar
  157. 180.
    This was not, however, the end of the affair. The rabbis did not comply with the Court’s ruling and demanded that the hall owners deposit security checks with the religious council to guarantee they would not commission belly-dancing performances and display signs stating that “according to the Rabbinate’s instruction it is forbidden to hold an immodest performance in this hall”. The petitioner filed a second petition, and finally reached an out-of-court settlement, that security deposits would not be required, and that the sign should state “according to the halacha immodest performances should not be held” (Newsletter of the Association of Civil Rights in Israel, March 1991).Google Scholar
  158. 181.
    See the following cases: HCJ 257/89 Hoffman v. Supervisor of the Wall 48(2) P.D. 265; HCJ 3358/95 Hoffman v. The General Director of the Prime Minister Office 54(2) P.D. 345; Further Hearing 4128/00 The General Director of the Prime Minister Office v. Hoffman 57(3) P.D. 289.Google Scholar
  159. 183.
    HCJ 889/86 Cohen v. Minister of Labour 41(2) P.D. 540.Google Scholar
  160. 184.
    For a classic example, see HCJ 80/63 Gurfinkel-Chaklai v. Minister of the Interior, 17 P.D. 2048. As Professor Raday commented at the time, there is no doubt that women were allowed admission in order to perform cleaning and cooking tasks.Google Scholar
  161. 185.
    HCJ 1000/92 Bavli v. The Great Rabbinical Court, (1994) 48(2) P.D. 221.Google Scholar
  162. 186.
    Chief Rabbinate of Israel Law, 1980; Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction Law (Marriage and Divorce), 1953; Jewish Religious Service Law, 1971; Protection of Holy Sites Law, 1967.Google Scholar
  163. 187.
    F. Raday, “Religion, Multiculturalism and Equality: The Israeli Case,” Isr. Y.B. on Hum. Rts. 25 (1996), 193 (214).Google Scholar
  164. 188.
    HCJ 262/62 Perez Case (note 108) supra.Google Scholar
  165. 189.
    HCJ 230/86 Miller v. Minister of Interior 40(4) P.D. 436; HCJ 382/88 Shas v. the Census Officer 43(2) P.D. 727.Google Scholar
  166. 190.
    Ibid.; HCJ 384/88 Association of Sepharadic Orthodox Conregations v. the Census Officer 43(2) PD 727.Google Scholar
  167. 191.
    HCJ 47/82 Movement for Progressive Judaism Fund in Israel v. Minister for Religious Affairs 43(2) P.D. 661.Google Scholar
  168. 192.
    Ibid 691.Google Scholar
  169. 193.
    HCJ 699/89 Hoffman v. Municipal Council of Jerusalem 48(1) P.D. 678.Google Scholar
  170. 194.
    See also HCJ 3351/97 Dr. George Brenner v. Minister of Committee According to Religious Services Law, ed 51(5) 754, which held that a person cannot be disqualified from being a member of a religious counsel on account of not being Orthodox.Google Scholar
  171. 195.
    Progressive Judaism Fund Case (note 191) supra at 382.Google Scholar
  172. 196.
    Hoffman v. Supervisor of the Wall (note 181) supra. For U.S. Case law dealing with intra-Church disputes see Jones v. Wolf 443 U.S. 595 (1979); Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem. Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969); Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for U.S. of America and Canada v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696 (1976).Google Scholar
  173. 197.
    Ibid, 357.Google Scholar
  174. 198.
    HCJ 3358/95 Hoffman v. Director of the Prime Minister’s Ministry 54(2) P.D, 345.Google Scholar
  175. 199.
    Gavison (note 32) supra.Google Scholar
  176. 200.
    F. Raday (note 186) supra, at 219.Google Scholar
  177. 201.
    P. Shifman, Who’s afraid of Civil Marriages?, 1995 [in Hebrew]; S. Shetreet, Freedom of Conscious and Religion: the Freedom from Enforcement of Religious Norms, Heb. U. L. Rev. 3 (1972), 467 [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
  178. 202.
    HCJ 332/70 Zalzberg v. Ashkelon Municipality 24(2) PD 572; Baruch Case (note 153) supra.Google Scholar
  179. 203.
    Isramax Case (note 113) supra.Google Scholar
  180. 204.
    HCJ 5799, 5609, 5703/91 Israel Theatres Ltd. v. Netanya Municipality 47(3) PD 192.Google Scholar
  181. 205.
    Rabbinical Adjudication Law [Marriages and Divorces] (1953), at 2.Google Scholar
  182. 206.
    S. Shetreet, Between the Three Branches of Government: The Balance of Rights in Matters of Religion in Israel, 1998.Google Scholar
  183. 207.
    Funk-Schlesinger Case (note 137) supra.Google Scholar
  184. 208.
    C.A. 566/81 Shmuel v. Shmuel 39(4) PD 399.Google Scholar
  185. 209.
    HCJ 130/66 Segev Case (note 112) supra.Google Scholar
  186. 210.
    Dead Soldiers Act [Rehabilitation] (1950), s.172.Google Scholar
  187. 211.
    See the Inheritance Act (1965), s. 55.Google Scholar
  188. 212.
    C.A. 394/61 The State v. Fesler 16 PD 102.Google Scholar
  189. 213.
    C.A. 563/65 Jeger v. Flaviz 20(3) PD 224.Google Scholar
  190. 214.
    C.A. 52/80 Shahar v. Fridman 38(1) PD 443.Google Scholar
  191. 215.
    Statutes of Israel 5756 (1996), 249.Google Scholar
  192. 216.
    S. Shetreet (note 206) supra, at 14.Google Scholar
  193. 217.
    HCJ 397/88 Menuha Nechona Case (note 135) supra.Google Scholar
  194. 218.
    The Right for Alternative Civil Burial Act (1996).Google Scholar
  195. 219.
    Ibid at 1.Google Scholar
  196. 220.
    HCJ 195/64 The Southern Association v. Head Rabbinical Council 18(2) P.D. 324.Google Scholar
  197. 221.
    Deceit in Kashrut Prohibition Act (1983).Google Scholar
  198. 222.
    Raskin Case (note 179) supra.Google Scholar
  199. 223.
    HCJ 72,177/55 Fredy et al v. Tel-Aviv Municipality 10 PD 734.Google Scholar
  200. 224.
    Municipality Act [Special Authorization] (1956), s.1.Google Scholar
  201. 225.
    Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, s.7.Google Scholar
  202. 226.
    Mitrael Case (note 145) supra.Google Scholar
  203. 227.
    Ibid., at 501.Google Scholar
  204. 228.
    Miller Case (note 189) supra, HCJ 264/87 Association of Torah-Observant Sephardim Shas Movement v. Kahane, Director of the Interior Ministry Population Registry, 43(2) P.D. 723.Google Scholar
  205. 229.
    HCJ 5070/95 Na’amat v. The Minister of Interior, Takdin-Elyon 2002(1) 634. The Naamat case followed Pissaro (Goldstein) Case (note 128) supra. In that case the High Court was confronted with the legislative barrier of The Religious Community Ordinance (Conversion) upon the Population Registration Act. The petitioner asked to be registered as a Jew on the “Nationality” and “Religion” articles on the Population Registration following a reform conversion which was made in Israel. The problem raised was that the certain obliged procedure dictated by the ordinance was not fulfilled on that certain case. According to the procedure one must have, upon joining a religious community through a conversion in Israel, a formal certificate from the head of the religious community to prove being part of that community. The conversion registration shall be based upon the formal certificate and will be constitutive regarding the formal acknowledgement of the conversion. The Court only made a declaration that the non-Orthodox conversion in Israel was valid in principle, the Ordinance notwithstanding.Google Scholar
  206. 230.
    Funk-Schlesinger Case (note 137) supra.Google Scholar
  207. 231.
    Kahane Case (note 228) supra.Google Scholar
  208. 232.
    For U.S Case law related to Judicial Remedies in religious matters, see Avitzur v. Avitzur, 58 N.Y.2d 108, 459 N.Y.S. 2d 572 (1983) (allowing a remedy in state court to order a Jewish husband to give a divorce to his wife ); Dan Rav v. New Jersey Alliance 129 NJ Law R (1990), invalidating state regulations regarding kosher announcements by caterers. See also J. Sexton, The American Doctrine of Church and State as Illustrated in Two Cases Involving Human Rights, in: S. Shetreet, Women in Law, 1998, 319–334.Google Scholar
  209. 233.
    C.A. 105/92 Reem Engineers Contractors Ltd v. Municipality of Upper Nazereth 47(5) P.D. 189.Google Scholar
  210. 234.
    HCJ 1113/99 Adala v. Minister of Religious Affairs 54(2) P.D164.Google Scholar
  211. 235.
    HCJ 240 /98 Adala v. Minister of Religious Affairs 52(5) P.D. 167.Google Scholar
  212. 236.
    A similar result can be seen in the case HCJ 727/00 Committee of Arab Mayors v. Minister of Housing, 56(2) P.D. 79, which ordered the Ministry of Housing to apply equal criteria for the allocation of funds by the Ministry to Arab municipalities. See also the case HCJ 6698/95 Qadan v. Administration of the Lands of Israel, 54(1) PD 258, in which the administration was ordered to provide Arab citizens with housing in the community village. For critical comment on the Qadan judgment, see S. Shetreet, The judgement in the Qadan affair was not unavoidable, Land 56 (2003), 27. A further judgment following the same judicial trend of thought is HCJ 4112/99 Adalah v. Municipality of Tel Aviv 56(5) P.D. 393, in which the Court held that municipalities should add signs in the Arabic language in mixed population areas. However, see the dissenting opinion of Justice Cheshin.Google Scholar
  213. 237.
    HCJ 200/83 Watad v. Minister of Finance 38(3) PD 113.Google Scholar
  214. 238.
    HCJ 175/71 Music Festival v. Minister of Education and Culture 25(2) PD 821.Google Scholar
  215. 239.
    For comparative research on state funding of religious institutions, see Aguilar Case (note 24) supra, stating that Federal funds to public employees who taught in parochial schools was unconstitutional because the program was an excessive entanglement of church and state in the administration of benefits. In Rosenberger v. Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 115 S. Ct. 2510 (1995), refusal to pay a third party contractor for printing stating that the respondent’s costs of petitioner’s student publication based on its religious editorials was not supported by establishment clause concerns; S. Shetreet, State and Religion: Funding of Religious Institutions — The Case of Israel in Comparative Perspective, Notre Dame J. of Law, Ethics and Public Policy 13 (1999), 421.Google Scholar
  216. 240.
    For examples, see Lynch Case (note 30) supra, and Greater Pittsburgh Chapter Case (note 31) supra, discussed above.Google Scholar
  217. 241.
    For example, Dhillon Case (note 53) supra; Pannu Case (note 54) supra; and B.H. v. Alberta Case (note 58) supra.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften e.V., to be exercised by Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shimon Shetreet
    • 1
  1. 1.Sacher Institute of Legislative Research and Comparative Law at the Faculty of LawHebrew UniversityIsrael

Personalised recommendations