Handling Conflict between Jewish and Civil Law

Question

This question is an offshoot from the one titled "Questions about Polygamy in Jewish Law and Culture"

Taking under the knowledge that the previous question was well answered with an observation:

It's a lot like eating grasshoppers. Yes, the Bible allowed it, though never said it was a good thing. Nobody does it today except for a few Yemenites.

I am curious where Judaism stands as a whole and as a religion when facing opposition from civil law. In the adjoining questions some parts of Judaism took the ban of the Rabbi and others acknowledged it but merely fell into step with the civil laws of state.

However there is an acknowledgement of the fact that there are a few that still practice a piece of behavior as supported by fair interpretation of religious texts that go against common Western law.

In a country such as the US where legislation is not supposed to interfere in the practice of religious belief; the question I have is:

Does Judaism have a stance (in modern day) on pushing back against civil law where applicable or simply accepting and adapting to the civil decree.

Note: I've tried to ask this in as generic and unpolitically biased way as I can. The specifics are based on a friend who asked me why he couldn't challenge polygamy rules based on his Jewish faith.

Answer 1

Basically:

If Jewish law says "permitted", and civil law says "forbidden", we will stop doing that thing to get along well with the civil authorities. (Sefardi Jews, who have no rabbinic ban on polygamy, sticking to monogamous marriages in America, is a good example of this.)

However:

If Jewish law says "REQUIRED", and civil law says "forbidden" - and the civil authorities are like those in the USA, who allow citizens and groups to peacefully disagree, debate, and lobby against government policy - we will certainly do so.

The Orthodox Union* has a political action wing, which lobbies government entities whenever a threat to Orthodox Jewish life and practice is perceived.

Here are a few recent examples of this:

http://www.ou.org/general_article/ou_objects_to_president_obamas_budget_on_charities

http://www.ou.org/general_article/ou_statement_on_new_jersey_same_sex_marriage_bill

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/02/17/jews-defend-catholics-birth-control/#more-784290

With regard to the same-sex marriage debate - at first glance, it seems like a case of Jewish law saying "forbidden" and civil law saying "permitted". In that case, we typically don't get involved. However - the interest in that political issue is to ensure that rabbis are never "REQUIRED" to perform a same-sex marriage, or possibly face a discrimination lawsuit if they are asked to do so, and refuse.

(You will note in that OU press release, they still say that the OU is against same-sex marriage on religious principle, but that they acknowledge that their most urgent concern, the political coercion of clergy, was addressed in that bill).

*The Orthodox Union does not represent every Torah-observant Jew in America, nor does it claim to do so, but I use it as an example because it is the biggest and best organized institution which lobbies on behalf of Torah observance.

Answer 2

On one hand it's interesting to note that most Western countries don't make this question a pressing matter. They leave us alone when it comes to ritual law and accomodate us when it comes to civil (eg allowing 2 Jews to go to Beis Din instead of civil court in a money matter) law.
However, events in the last few years might increase the relevance of this issue. Imagine, for example, a ban on circumcision except for when deemed essential by a specialist. There is no question that Jews would have to defy the law despite a general commitment towards being good citizens wherever we live. Another issue would be shechita and proposed bans on it in parts of Europe. It therefore remains essential that Jews stay involved in the political process to ensure conflicts like this do not arise.