Interfaith or Intercitizen Dialogue? Redux

The week before last I was quite honoured to receive a comment on my post Interfaith or Intercitizen Dialogue by Daniel Septimus, the editor of the invaluable resource MyJewishLearning.com. For those of you who read my blog regularly, you will know that I am an enormous fan of this site. Daniel was recently interviewed in Haaretz newspaper. (Read it here).

To do credit to his comment I am going to place it here for those who may not get to the comments section.

First off, Rabbi Landsberg, thank you for reading Mixed Multitudes and contributing to this conversation.

But I'd like to clarify my view: Unfortunately, my position on interfaith (and interdenominational) relations derives from my encounter with the negative ramifications of triumphalist theologies.

That is, I've seen how the devaluation of other people's beliefs leads to the devaluation of them as people. Similarly, as I mentioned in my blog post, Yitz Greenberg's interfaith work arose out of his confrontation with the Holocaust and the ways in which Christian theology facilitated it.

My theology isn't so complicated. It's rooted in a desire to have people be nice to each other, respect each other, or at least not kill each other. I have such a problem with Soloveichik's approach because I think when we insist that we have a better truth, we eventually believe we are better people.

In times of crisis or stress, this can lead to scary things.

I gave  much thought to Daniel's words. Here is my response:

Dear Daniel,

First of all I want to thank you for your comment and to tell you how much I am enjoying your guest post on Rosner's blog over at Haaretz.

I understand your deep concerns about the ramifications of triumphal theologies.  However, I believe that the theological aspect is--almost counter-intuitively--not the essential element of the issues you raise as being of concern; a glance at modern history (even one account of the gulag) can attest to the ravages of secular triumphalism as well.  Nazism and fascism thrived for more than religious reasons.  There are those who have argued (quite compellingly, I think) that it was the lack of classical religious restraint--expressed even within a traditional Christian triumphalism--that was a necessary element in allowing the Shoah to occur.

You recommend a prescription to end the willful destruction of the physical and spiritual existence of others whose beliefs we either dispute or vehemently oppose:  that of "defanging" triumphal religious belief structures.  The mysteries of human beings, however, are such that a person's religious beliefs--no less the Hindu than the Evangelical--do not define his/her willingness to participate in the desecration of another.  It was often the Catholic who protected the Jew--not due to a recognition of an ultimate truth held only by the Jew--but out of a strong, internally coherent religious conviction that does not excuse murder.  I need not grant any validity whatsoever to unique truths claimed by others; my Jewish understanding is that I am not allowed to murder, even the idolater.

Therefore, I begin at a different starting place than you, though we are striving toward the same goal of a less destructive world.  I begin with the public square; it is here (rather than in the realm of theology) that triumphalism is the most fundamentally threatening.  A society with a strong liberal political culture (such as the U.S.) is the best safeguard against unrestrained excesses of dangerous religious beliefs.  I do not see a necessary correlation between political and religious liberalism, and thus my relationship with my fellow citizen is not defined by any particular religious belief they may hold (or by their professing no religious belief at all).

My interaction with another Jew, here or in Israel, is determined by a willing adherence to the tenets of liberal society (in a classic political sense, not in contradistinction to a political conservative).  I would be closer to Meir Soloveitchik if he would support a liberal democratic Israel over a theocratic one, than I would be to a secular Israeli who supported Avigdor Lieberman (read this if you are skeptical).

Hope this clarifies where I stand.  I appreciate any further comments you might wish to share.

Kol tuv,

Debra

Comments

[Tony Wallis]

I found your dialogue with Dan Septimus extremely interesting, mainly because it immediately reminded me of the furor that was raised in the UK a few years ago when the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, managed to cause a major crisis in the ranks of British Orthodoxy. (Incidentally, one should remember that technically speaking, he was and is, Chief Rabbi of the United Synagogue--the other Orthodox denominations, such as the Federation of Synagogues, inter alia, simply accept his authority out of respect and tradition)
I believe that it was in the Fall of 2002, he published a new book entitled “The Dignity of Difference”. I also believe the sub-title read “How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations”.
The London Beth Din, which wields tremendous power, issued a statement that the book contained passages that were inconsistent with basic Jewish beliefs, or words to that effect.
Bear in mind that the four members of the Beth Din (of which Rabbi Sacks was Chair) all carried the title “Dayan”, so you can see the precarious situation in which that placed Rabbi Sacks. To make the situation even more interesting, two of Britain’s leading Orthodox rabbis (whose names I do not recall) publicly urged Rabbi Sacks to repudiate the thesis of his book!!!
I am reminded of the fact that some 350 years ago, the good burghers of Amsterdam excommunicated Baruch Spinoza for a somewhat similar crime.
One of the key passages from his book which caused such controversy read as follows, and again, I have to trust my memory “God is universal, religions are particular. Religion is the translation of God into particular languages and thus into many communities of faith. God speaks to mankind in various languages;
Through Christianity to Christians, through Islam to Muslims and through Judaism to Jews.
According to his critics, this placed Christianity and Islam on a par with Judaism.
Unfortunately, wars have been fought and are still being fought in the name of religion, because religious communities consider that theirs is the true religion. Even within communities, internecine battles have been fought, and the Jewish community throughout history has not been immune from such happenings.
To return to Rabbi Sacks-he withdrew his book and issued a revised version. Even the Liberal and Reform movements did not come to his aid.
Bearing in mind that God is the God of all mankind, not just of the Jewish people, I would say that Rabbi Sacks was not wrong in his thesis. Perhaps he might have expressed his words differently. I wonder about that.
To sum up, I have no quarrel, Rabbi, either with your sentiments or those of Dan Septimus. Or to put it more positively, I agree with you both.

With My Best Wishes

Tony