I’ve posted before about legal issues surrounding the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, which most Christians hold to be the site of Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, and resurrection. The building is shared among several Christian communions, all of whom accept, more or less, the so-called “Status Quo,” a compilation of rules and customs dating to Ottoman times that governs possession and use of the church. I hadn’t seen this anywhere in the scholarship, but it seems that the Status Quo may also cover payment of the church’s water bill. According to the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which has the greatest share of rights in the church and, apparently, responsibility for utilities, the Status Quo exempts the church from water bills. According to Hagihon, the Israeli utility that supplies the church with water, the Patriarchate is incorrect. Hagihon says Israeli law does not exempt religious organizations from water bills and that the church owes roughly $2 million. Last week, Hagihon obtained a court order freezing the Patriarchate’s bank account until payment is made. The Patriarchate says that, with its bank account frozen, it cannot fund day to day operations and that it will have to close the church. Cooler heads undoubtedly will prevail, but for the moment there’s an impasse. I don’t know whether any of the other communions have offered to chip in, but the Greek Patriarchate may not want them to do so. Under the Status Quo, paying to maintain any part of the property can be an assertion of the right of possession — and the Patriarchate surely does not want to create a precedent suggesting that other communions have greater rights in the church.
Stopler on Religious Establishment, Pluralism and Equality in Israel
Gila Stopler (NYU School of Law) has posted Religious Establishment, Pluralism and Equality in Israel—Can the Circle be Squared? The abstract follows.
Israel’s constitutional structure purports to combine strong establishment of the Orthodox Jewish religion in the state with respect for liberal values such as pluralism equality and liberty. Whereas the establishment of the Orthodox Jewish religion is achieved through laws regulations and administrative power, liberal values that are only partially enshrined in law, are mostly defended and articulated by the Israeli Supreme Court. Focusing on the internal conflicts within the Jewish majority the article will show how the power granted to the Orthodox Jewish religion by the state has been used to circumvent liberal values and will examine the role of the Israeli Supreme Court in ameliorating this problem. It will argue that although in countries in which religion and the state are separated a ‘hands-off’ approach to pluralism may be sufficient to protect liberal values, in a country such as Israel with a strong religious establishment a more activist approach, which will be termed ‘egalitarian pluralism’ is required. The article will argue that an egalitarian pluralist approach is needed in order to maintain Israel’s dual commitment to its nature as a ‘Jewish and Democratic’ state and will assess and critique the partial implementation of this approach by the Israeli Supreme Court.
Ben-Porat, “Between State and Synagogue”
This December, Cambridge University Press will publish Between State and Synagogue: The Secularization of Contemporary Israel by Guy Ben-Porat (Ben-Gurion University). The publisher’s description follows.
A thriving, yet small, liberal component in Israeli society has frequently taken issue with the constraints imposed by religious orthodoxy, largely with limited success. However, Guy Ben-Porat suggests, in recent years, in part because of demographic changes and in part because of the influence of an increasingly consumer-oriented society, dramatic changes have occurred in secularization of significant parts of public and private lives. Even though these fissures often have more to do with lifestyle choices and economics than with political or religious ideology, the demands and choices of a secular public and a burgeoning religious presence in the government are becoming ever more difficult to reconcile. The evidence, which the author has accrued from numerous interviews and a detailed survey, is nowhere more telling than in areas that demand religious sanction such as marriage, burial, the sale of pork, and the operation of businesses on the Sabbath.
Sisk, “Between Terror and Tolerance: Religious Leaders, Conflict, and Peacemaking”
This November, Georgetown University Press will publish Between Terror and Tolerance: Religious Leaders, Conflict, and Peacemaking edited by Timothy D. Sisk (University of Denver). The publisher’s description follows.
Civil war and conflict within countries is the most prevalent threat to peace and security in the opening decades of the twenty-first century. A pivotal factor in the escalation of tensions to open conflict is the role of elites in exacerbating tensions along identity lines by giving the ideological justification, moral reasoning, and call to violence. Between Terror and Tolerance examines the varied roles of religious leaders in societies deeply divided by ethnic, racial, or religious conflict. The chapters in this book explore cases when religious leaders have justified or catalyzed violence along identity lines, and other instances when religious elites have played a critical role in easing tensions or even laying the foundation for peace and reconciliation.
Catholic Representative Accuses Israel of Ignoring Attacks on Christians
Fr. Pierbattista Pizzaballa is the “Custodian of the Holy Land,” in charge of Catholic rights in Christian holy places in Israel and Palestine. Normally, Custodians are fairly circumspect. This week, however, Fr. Pizzaballa gave an interview to the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, in which he criticized Israeli law enforcement for failing to do enough to prevent attacks on Christians. Fr. Pizzaballa’s comments came in response to a recent arson attack by Jewish settlers on an 11th-Century Trappist monastery. The monastery’s door was set on fire and anti-Christian graffiti sprayed on the walls. Although the Israeli government condemned the attack, Pizzaballa alleges that police are not taking the crime seriously. In his view, Christians are convenient scapegoats in the struggle between Israelis and Palestinians. “Those who sprayed their hateful slogans expressed their anger at the dismantlement of the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank,” he says. “But why do they vent this anger against Christians and Christian places of worship?”The Haaretz interview requires a subscription, but you can read an account in the Telegraph, here.
They Really Should Check Their Mailing Lists
Israeli parliamentarian Michael Ben-Ari, a member of the religious National Union Party, has caused a stir by publicly shredding a copy of the New Testament sent to him and all other Knesset members by a Messianic Jewish group, the Bible Society in Israel. Although the Knesset Speaker, Reuven Rivlin, condemned the shredding, Ben-Ari defended it, stating that the New Testament had caused the massacre of millions of Jews over the centuries. Another Knesset member from the religious Shas Party stated that the books should be burned instead, as they had been prepared by a “heretical” Jewish group. Here is a report from the Jerusalem Post.
Triger on Civil Marriage and Non-Marital Cohabitation in Israeli Rabbinical Courts
Zvi H. Triger (U. of Alabama School of Law) has posted Freedom from Religion in Israel: Civil Marriage and Non-Marital Cohabitation of Israeli Jews Go to the Rabbinical Court. The abstract follows.
The only form of marriage that is recognized under Israeli law is religious marriage. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark 1963 Funk Schlesinger case, Israeli authorities must register couples who got married abroad as married. Many couples who wish to avoid the religious monopoly on marriage and divorce choose this rout. However, they are utterly wrong in thinking that they achieve freedom from religion by doing so.
In a 2006 landmark decision the Supreme Court held that the rabbinical court system has jurisdiction over the divorce of couples who got married in civil marriages abroad. While they do not need to have a full religious get procedure, the rabbinical court has exclusive jurisdiction over the dissolution of civil marriages of Jews. The Court’s decision was based on halachic principles, and was pre-approved by a panel of the rabbinical court.
However, rabbinical courts have been ignoring the Supreme Court’s injunction concerning the application of a speedier, more liberal divorce procedure in the dissolution of civil marriages, and they insist on performing a full Jewish get procedure. This article presents this trend, analyzes this phenomenon and offers tentative and preliminary speculations as to the reasons for and the direction of these developments.
UNESCO Declares Bethlehem Church a World Heritage Site
Last week, UNESCO accepted Palestinians’ application to have Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity (left), the traditional site of Jesus’ birth, declared a “World Heritage Site” under the Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage. The list of roughly 1000 such sites worldwide, nominated by states that have signed the Convention, is essentially an honor roll, though named properties can qualify for UN restoration funds and for protection under the laws of war. Adding the Church of the Nativity was more controversial than usual. The US and Israel objected because of the implications for Palestinian statehood. Additionally, the three Christian communions that share the shrine under the 19th-Century Status Quo, which CLR Forum has discussed before, worry that designation as a World Heritage Site will lead to interference from civil authorities. In fact, the threat of outside interference typically gets the communions to settle differences among themselves, which may explain last fall’s agreement on repairs to the church’s roof. This is not the first time the church has been the subject of world diplomacy. In the 19th Century, rival claims to the church caused an international crisis that contributed to the Crimean War.
Merin on Religious Marriage in Israel
Yuval Merin (COMAS) has posted a new article on SSRN, Recognizing Foreign Marriages of Couples Ineligible for Religious Marriage in Israel–A New Perspective of Choice of Law and Public Policy (in Hebrew). The abstract follows.
The Israeli laws of marriage and divorce are governed exclusively by religious law. Several groups of the Israeli population are completely excluded from the institution of marriage due to a long list of religious restrictions and impediments. Couples ineligible for religious marriage include persons “disqualified for religious marriage”; interfaith couples; persons without a recognized religion; and same-sex couples.
Such couples can only marry abroad. Upon their return to Israel, they may register as “married” in the Population Registry and may enjoy a few of the rights associated with the institution, but their marriages are unrecognized for most other purposes. Since the field of marriage recognition is not regulated under Israeli positive law, the courts will have to decide whether to apply the English personal law system or the American principle of lex loci celebrationis. A critical comparison between the two competing systems reveals that the American rule is preferable since it best promotes the policy objectives which choice of law rules in the field of marriage recognition should seek to achieve. It is also preferable since it best corresponds to the unique social and legal conditions prevalent in the State of Israel. Foreign marriages performed by Israeli couples ineligible for religious marriage (valid in the place of celebration) should thus be recognized, subject to the public policy exception. Religious norms, which are exclusively applied in matters of marriage and divorce within Israel, should not be considered in the framing of the public policy exception, which should be interpreted narrowly, as protecting only democratic, secular, rational and liberal values. Thus, the foreign marriages of couples who are single, adult, and unrelated to one another, and whose marriage in Israel is prohibited due to purely religious restrictions, should be fully recognized under Israeli private international law.
Israel to Recognize and Fund Non-Orthodox Rabbis; Religious Services Minister Threatens to Resign
For the first time, Haaretz reports, Israel will recognize leaders of Conservative and Reform communities as “rabbis” and fund their salaries. Up till now, the state has recognized and funded only Orthodox rabbis. Unlike Orthodox rabbis, non-Orthodox rabbis will not have authority over questions of Jewish law, or Halakhah, and will receive funding from the Culture and Sports Ministry rather than the Religious Services Ministry. Nonetheless, Conservative and Reform leaders have welcomed the new policy, arguing that it will help equalize resources among different streams of Judaism in Israel and strengthen ties with the Jewish diaspora. Orthodox leaders are not so enthusiastic. For example, Religious Services Minster Yaakov Margi reacted to the announcement by threatening to resign if the government ever asked him to pay the salaries of non-Orthodox rabbis.