Secular Isn't Always Better

"The discernment, justice and ability of such people will always vary; these qualities are not to be found in many systems"

These qualities -- as sustainable characteristics -- are not to be found in ANY religious system. The problem with even the best religious systems is that they are only as good as the leaders driving them. Perhaps those leaders are, today, fair and judicious in their application of religious/community law. However, there are no guarantees that their successors will be of like mind, heart, and spirit.

It's said that power loves a vacuum. So do greed, ambition, and ideology. With no formal selection process and no system of checks and balances to restrain leaders bent on oppressing citizens, there can be no guarantees of justice.

"You will never get a reply. I have heard this talk about Islam and Shariah being "misinterpreted" for ever, yet there is no Islamic country where harmony, freedom, equality and civilized justice prevail. Dominance, violence and cruelty is what we see. So maybe this Islam just cannot produce a humane society?"

Frankly, who says it's about Islam, any more than any other religion of 'Abraham.'

As for being governed by 'God,' are there any among the Abrahamics in America who'd believe it if a politician said, 'God says, government should collect two brass farthings for the poor' ...but how readily you all leap to the excuse if someone says, 'God demands you go to war.'

That's why secular government is better for government, as well as every religion.

*Most* especially you claiming to represent the 'will of absolute power,'

...You can't handle it. Most certainly not running a modern nation, never mind any nation. All these 'holy wars' are like... I'm trying to think of a metaphor here.

So many theocrats and would be theocrats are like, ...very passionate rival mutineers aboard, say, a nuclear aircraft carrier. Quoting regs at each other and bashing heads with great gusto, perhaps, in hope of taking the bridge, all the while ignoring the fact that not a one among you has the foggiest idea how to run a nuclear aircraft carrier.

Whether or not anyone belongs on one of those is another matter, mind you.

No more room to mess around with such conceits.

Time for government to do what it's supposed to.

Societies that are governed with theocracies have inbred and innate biases and prejudices built into their system for that obvious reason that their religion is "based on the claim to be created by divine inspiration". Virtually all such religious belief systems, and particularly those of Abrahamic origins, are exclusive and elitist clubs that teach and defend the creed of having the true faith and lineage to the Creator. As such they are inherently bigoted. They are unfit for overseeing with equality and compassion the needs of citizens that are non-believers in that religious creed.

Perhaps theocracies would work, (and it is a very large perhaps), in a homogenized culture of like racial makeup. If all agree in a belief system then there is common ground for all. No problem. But where is that found in the world these days, or any historically recent days, for that matter? And more so, where will that be found in future days? Certainly it is not in Israel. And we can see the success that Israel is having treating all citizens with equality and compassion... Let us not even mention the viability of that governments ability to deal with it's own 'refugees'.

Each religion believes in it's own PR. What is new with that. The adherents to every governmental form believe in that form, justified by their own rationalizations. G W Bush and his neo-cons believed they had the doctrine for righteousness and truth and went about a course of destruction.

Theocracies have intolerance included into the government, and the government becomes the vehicle for the manifestation of those intolerances, as well as the imposition of it's religious myths.

Theocracies have existed in the past, and exist in the present. It is my hope that they cease to exist in the future. They should just exit.

walter-in-fallschurch:

You will never get a reply. I have heard this talk about Islam and Shariah being "misinterpreted" for ever, yet there is no Islamic country where harmony, freedom, equality and civilized justice prevail. Dominance, violence and cruelty is what we see. So maybe this Islam just cannot produce a humane society?

i believe individuals who happen to be muslim share the innate desires for peace, love and harmony, but,

HELP!!!!

i've been asking this question over and over (apologies to those who've seen it) on various threads, but still no answer:

are there verses you can quote from the koran (that were not later superseded by the ugly medina verses) and hadith that promote tolerance, fairness, equality, freedom of religion, self-determination etc...?
please, i would really like to know.

Rabbi,

Your desire, or course, is that your developing Sanhedrin will soon replace the current "democratic" government in Israel. Our New Testament also predicts this, in order for the Third Temple to be built to fulfill prophecies; ours and yours. You and I have conflicting reasons, but we both desire that it will will happen "speedily, in our days."

Shalom

I've tried to comment twice - unsuccessfully.

Is this thread moderated?

Men are violent and so are all religions made up for and by men - and if they are not from start, they pretty soon become violent.

Washington Post - why do you give voice to those bearded old men who do not believe in democracy and the secular society? It gives a strange medieval touch to a present time newspaper.

Rabbi - there is no God, hence no laws can emerge from him. It is your prerogative to believe there is one, but your beliefs are your own and can not apply to, say, me or a Hindu. Therefore, what you think are divinely inspired laws can not rule us all.

You provide good food for thought, Rabbi. A rabid adherence to legalism, whether scripture based or law based can result in injustice. At least secular rules have the advantage of flexibility over time, while those based on something attributed directly to God are much more fixed. This is the inherent problem of Islam since it has so many inflexible rules.

A completely secular world has problems as well. Self governance by each person is important for an efficient, happy society, not one in which the individual only obeys rules based on fear of discovery and punishment by the cumbersome rules of the legal system. A society in which its members have faith that transgressions always result in punishment on a transcendent scale works better than one that only thinks all results are discernible in the present lifetime.

I wonder what “particular religion” Mr. Steinsaltz is referring to, broad enough, flexible enough to meet the needs of an unstable, fluid world.

Religion is a club and if you are not member, you will be at a disadvantage and discriminated against to varying degrees according to the religion in command. I don’t see how secular can be worse.

Democracy is the art of compromise, I think I'm paraphrasing something there.

In any society we have competing interests, particularly in a well-mixed society such as our in the US. Sometimes what you want and what I want are incompatible. You give up something, I give up something, we move on peacefully.

There is no compromise in religion. They claim absolute truths which nobody is allowed to question. Certainly nobody who is outside the particular religion is permitted to question it, in fact you may not be allowed to be outside the religion. Blind faith is blind.

Religion may promote its ideas and ideals as being the best, but give it control of the government and it inevitably begins coercing its "truths" onto the entire population.

Religion claims absolute truths. Give it control of the government it claims absolute power. Absolutism does not work in a democracy, period.

"There is no cogent reason -- neither rational nor historical -- to assume that a state must be governed by a secular system."

Experience? It doesn't say 'must,' but it sure makes it look like a good idea to me.

(Yes, I know there are counterexamples, but those, in general, are actually about state *as* religion, not true secularism. Some just try to redefine 'secular' as meaning, 'Not of a religion I recognize as a religion,' or some such.

" Why should laws devised by politicians and lawyers be intrinsically superior to those that claim to be created by divine inspiration?"

Cause there's an honesty about the former?

Because the former cannot be claimed to be unassailable and taken to the same excesses as theocracies inevitably lead to?

Because laws made by people are laws made by people, and any inspiration involved speaks for itself, rather than being enforced at the point of potential fanaticism, or cultivated terror for people's very 'souls?'

That's just off the top of my head.

Secular laws are 'superior' because they are more fit to the purpose and lack the baggage and vulnerability to tyrrany which is inherent to religious power given material force.

" History demonstrates that secular governments -- even democracies -- do not necessarily lead to better societies."

You can't *command,* "Hey, this society, become better!" (Trust me, I've kind of tried.) But we can *live together,* and with Liberty... get plenty of chances.

Rabbi Steinsaltz states, "Why should laws devised by politicians and lawyers be intrinsically superior to those that claim to be created by divine inspiration?"

So what is divine inspiration? It can only be the result of thoughts flowing to a human being based on his/her experiences up to a present moment. All government is created from the minds of individuals who have existed on earth.

There is no "God." No external, higher level being, or lower level being for that matter, has ever done anything or ever had any impact on anything that has ever happened on this planet. Secular governments may not have always been better, but because they have the opportunity to rule to the exception of "infallible truths" of ancient religious texts and can draw on universal truths inclusive of all, they will always be preferrable.

Maybe you're not a historical or constitution expert but as a Jewish person (who historically have been mistreated & discriminated against & killed by governments in Europe closely aligned with the Catholic Church, i.e. the Inquisition) I'm truly shocked you would not recognize the historical & ongoing value of the U.S. Constitutional seperation of church & state along w/ freedom religion & no religious test for office...
Our historical rejection of theocratic governments has enabled people to worship or not worship God as they choose w/out officially supported coercion or intimidation...which has often happened in nations w/ state religions

WMARKW:
"1. Government is the only entity with a legitimate claim to regulate a person's behavior without their permission"
No... The government governs a people by thier consent.

Bevjims1:
The interests of a state are the interests of those in control.

Anyway, it seems none of the comments relate to the matter. Why should laws devised by politicians and lawyers be intrinsically superior to those that claim to be created by divine inspiration?

They are not. In both cases, they are still derived from people who hold thier own interests, or represent the interests of a group. In a specific case (Pakistan, Turkey, America, etc) one can argue that a group of individuals are better equipped or can produce results inline with thier society. Which is what Steinsaltz said, "However, each case needs to be examined on its merits."

For my own 2cents, I don't like any religion.

Secular IS better than religious, in government and everything else.

Why?

Because secular reasons to try to reach the best outcome or solution.

Religious starts with a conclusion generated`by God knows what.

The previous commentators render any point I need to make irrelevant. It's good to know this isn't particularly controversial.

My two cents:
Even if a god/gods existed, I'd think real hard about subordinating myself to his/her/their authority. From what I hear, gods don't take well to democracy. If I won't accept a human dictator, I won't accept a divine dictator. You give me a god I can vote for (or against), and we can talk. A constitutional theocracy?

"History demonstrates that secular governments -- even democracies -- do not necessarily lead to better societies." No, but we can be sure that religious governments are better for clergy of all stripes and their sycophants, even if they are worse for the citizens in general.

History also demonstrates that theocracies based on fanciful, irrational guy-in-the-sky notions lead to people being burned at the stake, stoned to death, or drowned by the religious for non-compliance. Or cute Islamic custom where they murder their own sisters and mothers for "honor." In some cultures, the "godly" ideas even led to placing people on altars and ripping their hearts out with stone knives.

Yet I know what Steinsalz has left unsaid, which is that *Jews* don't do those things because their religious nonsense is better than others' religious nonsense. I have no count of the times that I have raised the issues of stoning and "illegitimacy" (mamzerut) with religious Jews, only to be inundated with a barrage of denials and assertions that stoning was only on the books but never actually used because Jews are compassionate.

But why all this? Because religious insanity has a way of sticking around so that the notions of primitive Asian desert wanderers can grace our contemporary discourse. Their blathering about "god wants this and god wants that" is offensive, but if the religious had their way it would be ILLEGAL to treat religion with the contempt it deserves. I despise religion from the bottom of my heart.

Dear Rabbi. Thank you. Now why don't you just go on back to your Talmud and, yeah, keep workin' on that, yeah...

What happens when you are a minority religion running afoul of the state religion? Persecution, that's what. Name a time in history when this hasn't happened.

Also the wish to impose a state religion takes away people's rights to be free FROM religion.

Just because somebody is religious does not make them automatically moral. In fact, it often turns out exactly the opposite.

I have yet to see a patriarchal religion that was all that kind to women.

What a load of horse manure, Steinsaltz.

"There is no cogent reason -- neither rational nor historical -- to assume that a state must be governed by a secular system."

Oh really? Ever hear of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution? It's been around 220+ years now and when it's allowed to work it works pretty well. Let me quote you the first clause:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Get it? Or is something that simple too hard for you to understand? But hey, if you don't like it, go move to Saudi Arabia. They'll treat you real nice there. They're quite religious, I hear.

A religious government is biased in matters of religion, above all, and is therefore detrimental to the freedom of religion that is vital to true freedom. in practice, the bias of such a government extends well beyond matters of religion to all corners of government and society. The basic freedoms we treasure here in the U.S. simply cannot survive a religion-based government.

The interests of the state should never trump the interests of the individual. Once you have a religion running a state, the state's interests trump the individuals. This is why religions that run states tend to be authoritarian and resistant to change. The only way you can have a free society is to remove religion from government, not from society, from government.

"Why should laws devised by politicians and lawyers be intrinsically superior to those that claim to be created by divine inspiration?"
Ans: 'You shall have no other gods before me.'
In any theocracy that one commandment must be the primary law. Without it all other laws lack authority. If god is not the only god, then laws become relative to culture/belief do they not? If that god is not THE god, then his laws are less than absolute. If that god is not believed in by any of the citizens, then how are they beholden to it?
A secular government flawed as it may be at least does not require a single, absolute faith. It is of, by and for the people. The people choosing amongst themselves. It does not require any faith whatsoever in any spirit god.

Governments do need to be secular for this reason:

1. Government is the only entity with a legitimate claim to regulate a person's behavior without their permission

2. Secular beliefs (i.e. those not involving the supernatural) are the only ones we are all capable of sharing with one another

No one has the right to kill, fine, banish or imprison a person solely because Jesus, Moses or Mohammed said it was OK in an analogous situation. You can fine me because speeding is secularly wrong; you can't fine be for blaspheming the Prophet.