- The evolution of the role of the British Parliament exemplifies the first basic distinction between Jewish morality and Western morality. Originally, the British Parliament functioned as a court of law. Its role was to establish law, through interpretation of already existing law, and not through actual legislation. This perception of Parliament stemmed from the prevailing religious view of the time according to which only God had the authority to ordain law. A king's authority was limited to interpretation of God's will via the agency of the Parliament. It was only with God's fall from power, that man, in other words - Parliament - was given the royal power to legislate. With this the Religious Age, the reign of God, ended, and the Secular Age - the reign of man - began. The divine source of religious morality not only creates a technical difference between religious morality and secular morality, but also a very fundamental distinction. Religious morality, because of the nature of the relationship between God and man, is predicated on obligations. Secular morality, in contrast, is based on rights. God doesn't need rights; only man does. In this lies the second distinction between religious and secular morality. The third underlying difference between religious and secular morality lay in the creation of government rights alongside individual rights. These rights promptly turned into democracy. Within the framework of divine morality, there are no rights, only obligations. These obligations, of course, benefit many others, but a benefit does not imply a right. This holds true in Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintu, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Thus, in contrast to secular systems, the Biblical injunction that a Hebrew slave goes free in the Sabbatical (seventh) year obligates the master to free his slave while granting the slave the right to go free only as a by product of the master's obligation. The Torah commands the Jews to love the foreigner, to judge him impartially. It instructs those who are more fortunate to act with charity towards those who are less fortunate; it does not turn to the recipients of this charity and inform them that they are entitled to this treatment. The same holds true regarding the orphan and widow. The Torah commands us to treat them with kindness, justice, and love. It imposes an obligation upon the stronger members of society; it does not confer a right upon the weaker members. In Confucianism, the master is commanded to be lenient and magnanimous to his servant. This behavior is incumbent upon the master, but the servant does not possess a right to this treatment. Similarly, though the servant is obligated to obey his master, his master does not have a right to he be obeyed. In Hinduism and of course Judaism these obligations are sometimes imposed upon the group - a communal responsibility or accountability. A legal system, in which man, not God, designs the rules, is a system in which rights play a central role Iis man who determines the law and it is man who implements the law. Man is supreme and there is no force greater than him. Since all men, by definition, are supreme, it follows that they are all equal. This brings us to the fourth premise of secular morality - the principle of equality. This right is derived from utilitarian ideology and the concept of 'it's coming to me.' It is a right that is non-executable and utterly hypocritical. There never has been equality and there never will be. The Jewish commandment 'to love one's neighbor as oneself,' on the other hand, may not be more executable, but it is more enlightening. It reflects less conceit than the principle of equality, and greater truth. It turns to the one who should be giving, not to the one who should be receiving. My love for my neighbor does not necessarily result in equality, and thus it is more likely to be realized. The Biblical injunction addresses a person's attitude and intentions rather than his technical superficial actions. The beauty of religious morality is that man does not see himself as supreme, but rather strives to elevate himself and to raise his moral stature. The inherent problem with Western secular morality, in contrast, is that man has no higher authority to emulate. The potential for improvement that religious morality holds for a religious person combined with the obligations it imposes upon its adherents, create the potential to rise above the level of utilitarianism (assuming the divine commandments are not designed to simply benefit those who fulfill them or someone else of their choosing). This potential is not realized in every religion, nor in every religious system, but it does exist to some extent in the world of religious Jewish thought. The spirituality of which Jewish sources speak, refers to the spirit of God that man seeks to emulate in order to draw closer to his Creator. This spirituality is not to be confused with the spirituality referred to by Western philosophers, such as John Stuart Mill. Mill refers to a matter that belongs to man, an inalienable right. It is a form of acquisitiveness, a spiritual utilitarianism. It is a spirit of man that seeks not to be crushed or suppressed, that wishes to grow and blossom. In Judaism, emulation of God's attributes through one's love of Him, is not man's inalienable right, but a goal a Jew is commanded to strive towards, an obligation - he seeks to fulfill through his love for God. This commandment is an obligation, not a right. It is a much higher, deeper, more elevated spirituality that is far closer to the truth. Even those who try to find the latent benefits within the reasons for the commandments, concede that this spirituality is not an asset that belongs to man by right, but one that he has an obligation to strive towards. Western man also exalts freedom of thought and expression, human dignity and freedom, free scientific inquiry. All these are Western man's possessions, though they are spiritual possessions. In Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, spirituality is a product of submission, humility, of a renouncement of greed and force - and thus it is a far more elevated spirituality. Western secular systems, in contrast, safeguard material and spiritual assets in similar ways. They establish laws for the benefit of the individual and for the benefit of the group, for the good of the physical and the good of the spiritual - but the common denominator - is fortification of man's property. Man fortifies himself, while in Judaism, the Jew fulfills his destiny by going out to meet his God. - As a result of Western-secular man's inability to rise above his acquisitiveness- in both material and spiritual matters, certain inclinations towards: hedonism, exhibitionism, sexuality, and aggression have colored his everyday behavior. Some of the products of these inclinations are: 1. Pornography. 2. Immodest dress that only promotes a view of women as sexual objects rather than subjects with the ability to influence their environment. 3. Latent hedonistic competition - who threw the most ostentatious party, invited the most distinguished guests, or owns the biggest car - without regard for their host's or owner's emotional connection to them. 4. Violent children's games often based on a struggle between the forces of good and evil where good is equated with powerful and is thus victorious over evil. 5. Gum chewing - perpetual eating. 6. Use of force also in the political arena. In summary, Western secular morality is based on the supremacy of man, on rights, democracy and equality. Religious morality (what is common to all religions) is based on the supremacy of God, obligations, hierarchy. It has educational advantages for it emphasizes self-improvement. It sets realistic goals based on love and kindness, in contrast to secular morality that possesses hollow slogans and less regard for the individual. Secular morality apparently is intent on scientific, economic, and technological achievement, on the discovery of new distant physical worlds, while religious morality is more concerned with purifying and elevating mankind. Western man is more closed and focused on his achievements while homo religiosus is more spiritually receptive. Religious man should not feel compelled to bow to Western man.