The concept of separation between church and state emerged in the European world about one thousand years ago with the so called Investiture Wars (1075-1122), when both the emperors and the popes claimed the sole right to nominate bishops and archbishops. The popes objected then to the nobility’s custom to buy or bequeath bishop’s estates to their family members (even though some of the popes themselves purchased their position). The struggle was fierce and each side found a lot of judicial reasons to deny the right of the other for exclusive right to nominate the bishops who also held lands and estates beside their religious roles. The legal arguments were powerful and successful enough to illustrate the legal limits of each of the two great powers; enough to allow a slowly expanding class of people to enter and widen the split between the powers and to claim their freedom from the total dominance of each of those domains. Our current freedom was acquired by the controversy between the lay and the sacred powers. No such conflict had ever occurred within the domains of the Orthodox Church and Islam where the question of individual freedom is still an issue.

Because of this history it is most interesting that in America, where individuality and personal freedom are glorified, the churches are filling arenas, while in Europe, the birthplace of both Catholicism and Protestantism, religion is in decline. Bearing in mind the history of individual freedom, the surge of Americans streaming to fill the churches raises the question whether this may be a symptom of what Erich Fromm called “Escape from Freedom.” After all, if we follow historical precedents, with all the constraints that such a comparison entails, the Feudal Age started with people yielding their “freedoms” to churches and “sword nobility,” in exchange for protection. A case can be made to show that at least during the presidency of George Bush, and especially after 9/11, a similar motif played a role in the Americans response and their willingness to give up some basic rights, or “freedoms,” in exchange for assumed protection. Luckily, the freedom to vote and choose their new leader was not among the rights that the Americans yielded, although the Supreme Court almost set such a precedent during Bush’s first election. My personal opinion is that the failure in the Iraq war played a role in averting any tendency to declare emergency rule and cancel the election.

It is reasonable to assume that the social and cultural pendulum is now oscillating away from the material world towards a more spiritual quest. Arthur Koestler, who had something akin to a sixth sense for such changing trends, traveled in the fifties to India and Japan and summed up his impressions in the Lotus and the Robot (1960), and indeed, since then we have witnessed a growing interest in Buddhism, Yoga, meditation and different Eastern forms of teaching and exercise. This trend started in the West already at the midst of the 19^th century with the introduction of theosophy by H.P. Blavatsky and later by people like G. Gurdjieff, P.D. Ouspensky, and many others, but has been more conspicuous at the second half of the twentieth century. Also, following the First World War, and in addition to the effect of the global economic crisis, massive social and political upheavals took place, mainly in Europe. In the fringes of the European world we also witnessed the Russian Revolution and the creation of new state-like entities on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. In the period between the two World Wars Europe became both hotbed and hothouse for radical ideologies that strived to change the nature of humankind and ripened into extermination camps and gulags – sacred altars for blood offerings to Hubris. The quest for meaning, personal role and identity within a radically changing universe took shape in Europe, at least during the first half of the last century, mainly by yielding personal freedoms and following ideal images depicted by those ideologies. At the same time, in America the Depression led to a growing recognition that society at large is responsible for the condition of the individual and to welfare legislation.

After the Second World War Europe started constructing its new identity upon the outlines of historical memory, beginning with the inclination to reinstate and expand the boundaries of the ancient Roman Empire. What is more, long history and deeply rooted national cultures enabled individual people to identify and set up their identity on ideal figures from history or literature. America presented a very different case. Its inhabitants were immigrants that with the passage of time and with their wish to quickly acquire a new "American” identity were cut off from their original cultures, beside the fact that idols from those cultures did not fit into the so called “American Way” and serve as role models. Their history in America had been short and the “heroic age” consisted mainly of decimating the original inhabitants and taking over their land. Scraps of Calvinistic predilections could, to some extent, explain the association of economic success with the conviction that such individuals are God’s elect. However, this cannot explain why the American masses are now filling the churches. Historical aspects might perhaps explain the radical religiosity of the South by the fact that after its devastating defeat by the North its inhabitants, believing that their cause was the right one and deserved to win, found solace in the thought that they gained an honorable place, if not in the earthly reality, then at least in the heavenly kingdom.

A comparison with other countries may help. Canada comes first to mind as in makeup and history it is outwardly similar to the United States. However, nothing in Canada resembles the strange American phenomenon of mass, evangelical, TV religiosity and the wide expectation for the Second Coming and Rapture. However, something somewhat similar is happening in Israel and it may give us a clue. The motive of the pioneers to freely exercise their religion played an important role at the beginning of the American settlement. The motive of the Israeli Zionist pioneers, on the other hand, was to replace the traditional “loathsome” religion with secular and “healthy” nationalism. Their effort to build a state and defend it from the attempt by Arab countries to thwart the construction of a Jewish state was successful. Jewish State? The official language of the new country was not “Jewish” (Yiddish) but rather Hebrew, (and Arabic), the university built by the pioneers in Jerusalem was not called Jewish, but rather the Hebrew university. Tel Aviv, the city that was built at the turn of the last century, was called “The First Hebrew (not the First Jewish) City.” The workers union was called Hebrew, not Jewish organization; stamps were issued by the Hebrew, not by the “Jewish” Post Office, and so on and on. The ideological trend was to erase the two thousand years Diaspora culture and heritage and find direct links to the ancient Hebrew tribes that inhabited the land in antiquity. Like all Nineteenth Century ideologies, Zionism also had a romantic streak in it and there was a conspicuous trend among the first pioneers to emulate the Arabs, mainly the Bedouins, who seemingly resembled most the ancient Hebrews. And indeed, the Arab garb clearly resembles more what the ancient Jews probably wore rather than the black wear of the Orthodox and Hassidic Jews tailored in the style of East Europe in the seventeen and eighteen centuries. The holidays were given a new, non religious, meaning and content that could fit into the daily life in ancient times. In short, the Zionist movement strived to cut the links to recent (two thousand years old) history and culture, including the rich literature created in Yiddish. It strived to be modern par excellence, futuristic and new in all respects, including social institutes (i.e. the kibbutz). However, once the state was established in 1948 its new inhabitants were no longer Zionist pioneers but rather, refugees. Their expectations had nothing in common with all the ideals that sprouted out during the Palestinian era.

One of the common denominators between the pre-state settlers and the new comers was in the fact that both were cut off from their old traditions and had to remold their identity within the restraints of a new culture and different way of life. The difficulty was in the fact that the old Zionist ideals no longer had a hold on the new society, too new to develop a culture that could sustain a new identity. The Zionist movement, to a large extent, was a reaction to acute anti-Semitism in Central and East Europe. Israel itself largely served as a response to the Nazi Holocaust. The awareness and sensation in the Israeli mood has been that just by being a Jew one’s life is in danger. This was advanced even further by the fact that since its incipience Israel was under a threat from the Arab countries. The fact that each male and female (with the exception of the Arabs and Orthodox yeshiva students) had to do military service set the army as a central and the most prestigious institution in Israel. Soon enough retired army officers filled many if not most of the influential and esteemed positions, inflicting the civil service and the country at large with the same inefficiency and bureaucratic demeanor which came to characterize the army. People who as soldiers proved themselves in armed combats set a standard to adore; and until today, serving in a commando-like unit endowed a person with prestige, even though now they fight mainly civilians, not professional soldiers. However, since the seventies, and especially after the 1973 war in which, matter of fact, the soldiers saved the generals (and the country), army generals lost much of their prestige.

The two Lebanese wars that followed were a failure, mainly of leadership, both civil and military. The same period was also distinguished by the fact that radical Orthodoxy, mostly messianic and cult-like sects started settling the West Bank with the active backing of the government and the army. This was accompanied by extremely harsh and cruel treatment of the Palestinian inhabitants. Instead of helping them to find means to support themselves and have a purpose and reason for living, Israel drove them in the other direction, to a situation in which many preferred to blow themselves up and die together with Israeli citizens, over deprivation and abject existence. After sixty years of existence the life of the Israeli citizens is still precarious and insecure. The reasons for this are clear, as the accent in all those years was on conflict rather than on pursuing peace and building a healthy, civil, cultural and educated society. The reasons for that policy are less clear. It may be because the policy of the governments has been to drive the Palestinian population away from their land. It may be because of the aspiration of the army to remain the central and decisive power in Israel; it may be because of stupidity or because of all those reasons combined. It is clearly not because peace is unattainable. Gabi Ashkenazi, the current Chief of Staff explicated in a public lecture (1/20/08) that because of recent developments in the Middle East, the army should be ready to fight in a several fronts at once. He failed to mention that this could be averted. Peace could be achieved by adopting, for instance, the “Saudi Plan” that offered Israel total peace, with full economic and diplomatic relationships with almost all the Arab states in the area, for enabling the creation of a Palestinian state on the Palestinian land in the West Bank. Also, while the Hamas suggested long range (generations) armistice truce (i.e. Y. Zeevi ,YNET, 1/22/08) Israel preferred to continue the daily killing and the starvation of the civilian population in the Gaza Strip. Only, by the Palestinians breaking through the border wall to Egypt in order to buy vital commodities did it became clear that by its inhuman behavior, Israel shot itself in the groin and furnished the Palestinians with a momentous national symbol of freedom and self reliance.

It is significant that similar aggressive and cruel policies in Algeria and other countries as well as in London and Berlin during the Second World War only strengthened the resolve of the population. However, to be aware of that one has at least to read books while the Israeli generals probably think that they know better than people who spend their time writing or reading. The outcome has been that constant stress, fear, worry, insecurity and inability to make sense of the situation play a significant role in the Israeli daily life. For the messianic sects this signifies the age of tribulation that presumably should occur before the advent of the new divine order. In others, the permanent threat of death drives them to seek the support of a higher power through the mediation of dead or alive “saints.” The first Zionist pioneers propped up their identity by returning to the time of the Bible as an ideal and by striving to create a new, “healthy” image of the future Jew. The Israeli Orthodoxy, on the other hand, does not look to history for guidance in shaping the present or the future. Like all other cults, they cast their identity through rituals, and like all other cult members, the more they are bound by the rituals and the directives of their gurus, the more free they feel. It indicates a common cultic trend to escape from the demands of freedom and to be born again into a state of childhood under the patronage and protection of a father image, to immerse into a state of permanent happiness by reaching a condition of “high,” in which all expressions of individual choice are relinquished. Here, in fear, insecurity, and inability to make sense of the situation and the conduct of their leaders, we may find a key to figuring out also the American case.

In America the continuous drive to achieve a better standard of living served for a relatively long time as a source for supporting the self image and self confidence of the immigrants and the population at large. However, in the last decades the road signs on the way to success started leading to dead end alleys, and the collapse of trustworthy and reliable structures pointed to the end of an era and aroused fear of the unknown and unpredictable future. At the same time a conglomerate of European countries formed a political and economically integrated unit while relying on local cultures and languages for sustaining individual identity. Europeans have no need for religion in order to sustain their self confidence. Canada, with population of thirty-two million people divided between twelve states and territories, each with more or less its own unique character, never succumbed to the American eschatological, Manichean tendencies and its fear of imminent Armageddon. However, the common denominator between America and Israel is in the inherent ambiance of fear, lack of common history and a “story” to rely upon and lack of culture as a unifying element. The Fathers of the Constitution set the basis for individual identity on the rights that are common to “all people.” For a relatively long time the American Constitution served as the basis for the rights of the American people. However, by the end of the last century global conditions changed to such an extent that the American Constitution became obsolete as a vehicle able to support a society of free people. This trend was advanced by the belief in Original Sin, still held by many American Catholics, and the continuous sermonizing of Protestant ministers on sin and divine punishment. Their sermons are reminiscent more of the religion in medieval, rather than contemporary, Europe. Playing upon the strings of the American almost innate Manichean fear of the Devil leads hordes of people to build their hopes on a presumed divinely inspired future, rather than on self effort and reliance. The fact is that in a world in which the old institutions, including State and a Constitution no longer hold the center, a world in which social, economical and political settings keep changing, the old religions could no longer furnish a support. Lacking other means to rely upon, people try to find solace in eschatological solutions, hence the spread of mega TV and other mega churches and a desertion from traditional, established religions.

The mega churches are much too big to form a cult and too large to take over the social functions that characterized the traditional churches. Yet, they answer a need and therefore manage to attract mega crowds. My personal feeling is that the main motive that drives people to join them is fear, and that in this sense they have something in common with Israel. There is security in numbers and scores of people form a mass that as such carries very distinctive attributes of its own, dissolving individual characteristics of each person in the crowd. To traditional churches people come as individuals. In mega churches a throng of people commonly behaves in unison as one, often frenzied, body that succumbs to the influence of whoever occupies the podium or the pulpit - ministers, pop musicians or political orators. Such churches answer a need that stems from insecurity and inability to rely on one’s own judgment and take responsibility on one’s own actions. Like the Israelis who join the religious cults, the masses that fill the mega churches in America may very well be driven by a compulsion to escape from freedom.