Posted February 13 2008
What a Wonderful World It Could Be, or, My Way or the Highway
For several years, I have been involved in a radio show, going back to my days as YU radio station manager, called Dead Air. We discuss politics, religion, satire, movies, current events, and whatever else strikes our fancy. Despite our advancing age, the members of the Dead Air crew have consistently discussed and often predicted the cutting edge issues of that day – and the next.
One of our recurring themes is religion and its role. The topics on Jewneric seem to have been addressing this theme for a while now, so it seems appropriate to consider the major differences – what is it about our religion (Judaism, for those new to the site) that sets it apart?
In seeing articles like this, this, and this, I have come to wonder: as the extremes of Judaism’s right and left wings take them farther and farther from the ideals I consider most Jewish, what exactly separates Us from Them anymore?
I think the answer lies in the ideas that seem the most prolific – the ones that get the most attention. What scared the author of the Mike Huckabee article mentioned earlier was that Huckabee stated that we should change the Constitution so that it is more in line with Christian values – or, at least, the stated Christian values of the group he was talking to. I have no way of knowing how sincere Huckabee is when he makes statements like this; it is altogether possible that, in presenting himself as the conservative hope for the Republican Party (as opposed to McCain’s more liberal sense of inclusiveness, scaring base conservatives away), he feels he has to make statements like this. The crowd’s reaction certainly seemed to justify that impression. However, he may also really believe everything he says.
What does that mean? Simply put, it means that Christians (at least this particular stripe) believe that the entire world should function in a Christian utopia. They believe that the best of all possible worlds is one in which Christian ideals and Christian values are the only ones that run the table. All other abstracts – the Bill of Rights, separation of powers, the Constitution – would only exist in a form that conforms as closely as possible to the Christian ideal.
This is not necessarily a devious or nefarious goal. These people truly believe that this would produce a perfect world, or, at least, a world more capable of achieving perfection. They are not necessarily out to get anyone; they simply want the entire population of the Earth to behave and believe in accordance with their understanding of the Supreme Being’s wishes. It would be better for everyone, they would tell you. Other values have no value – they are not Christian, and are therefore not as good as ours.
Though I make it sound creepy, I don’t think these are bad people – just misguided. They have no appreciation for the abstracts that have made this country as free as it is. More on that in a minute.
Judaism has its own version of this problem. The wig article mentioned earlier reflects a similar issue – rabbis or communal leaders enforcing their own level of morality on the entire population because they sincerely believe that doing anything less would result in damage to the souls of that population. Granted, none of them seem interested in taking over the country, but I have a reasonable explanation for that.
Judaism (if you would forgive this short aside) has a long and ingrained social history, backed up by legal precedent, of minding no one else’s business but our own. As a rule, we do not proselytize, do not seek to create Jewish morality as a social rule outside of Jewish communities, and do not attempt to enforce Jewish law on non-Jewish citizenry. We even have a law that enjoins someone running a conversion to attempt to discourage a potential convert, telling him or her that they can be perfectly righteous and worthy of God’s love and reward by simply being a well-behaved gentile – Judaism’s extensive rules and regulations are not integral to the achievement of eternal bliss.
However, some of that fanaticism is creeping in, and I hope only at the fringes. The “chumrah” problem, which I will address in a future article, is a symbol both of people attempting to give themselves a better sense of accomplishment, religiously speaking, and create a more extreme religious environment for others – both not particularly healthy things, in my experience. But I digress.
It was an old episode of Dead Air that reminded me of an important conversation. Zechariah Mehler, another of Jewneric’s founding fathers, once posed a fascinating query: How can we, as religious people, stand being in the same corner with fanatics and hate-mongers like the late, departed Jerry Falwell and the elderly, demented Pat Robertson?
My response was that we are not in their corner, despite our similar zeal for religious action and involvement. Compared to 90% of Americans, Modern Orthodox Jews are fanatics in their observance, in their actions, in their study, and in their participation. We are far more similar to the rest of the population, however, in our politics. While you may still find the occasional Jew who declares that Israel is their only concern when it comes to voting in an American election, those mental yentls are few and far between. American Jews are as concerned with domestic policy as foreign policy, and often have surprising reactions to pressing social issues. One rabbi told me that he believed that a woman’s right to choose should be as uninfringed as possible (with the exception of partial-birth, as it was simply way too late). When asked how he could condone acts the Torah would consider murder, he responded that uninfringed rights allow Jews to practice as they believe appropriate – without any concern that the government will interfere. We are happy to restrict ourselves, thank you very much – no one else needs to participate. Get your rosaries out of my ovaries, indeed.
In the end, those who wish to enforce their religious values, as well-meaning as they may be, lose me for a simple reason: I do not want to live in the world they want to build. I do not require that others hold to the standards I believe are true and good. Government keeps us safe, working, moving, and free to restrict ourselves in any way we choose. Do you want to wear a burkha? Go ahead. I am happy to give you that right just as I rejoice in my right to call you a moron for exercising it. I choose to keep kosher, and celebrate your right to tut-tut over my never having tasted shrimp (which, I am told, is fantastic). Gay marriage is on this same list of issues. Your right to marry whomever you choose, regardless of gender or orientation, does not infringe upon my desire to marry a woman. Jon Stewart said it best when he noted, “I would understand all the controversy over gay marriage if it were, you know, mandatory.” But people would marry their dogs, the opponents cry! We must have some standards! Why? Dogs look cute in tuxedos. (As do I.)
Religion is great. It brings meaning, stability, social assistance, fulfillment, and happiness. But if part of your religion requires you to force it upon others, then you may want to check again. Your world may not have room for anyone but you.
Add This Blog to Your Technorati Favorites
Jewish Blog, Jewish, Jewish Leadership, Jewish News, Jewish Values, Jewish Events
6 Comments currently posted. 
Zechariah Mehler says:
Tiffany Sameyah says:
Beautiful tuxedo picture!
Dave Weinberg says:
Very clear explanation. Thanks Moshe.
I feel more at home in a non-Jewish work environment than Jewish organizations where I have worked before for many of the reasons listed above. I was often forced to act a certain way. I was either too religious or not religious enough. I was seen as a fanatic and sometimes seen as a non-practicing heretic.
I work for you, I don’t need to subscribe to your way of life…we aren’t married. Do you want to eat a ham sandwich or marry Jon (if your name is Barry)…cool by me. Peace and love, live and let be.
I am happy in my practices and strive to be a better observing Jew in my own way, but I will by no means tell you how to do what you do.
Ezra Butler says:
Moshe,
I agree with your view of live and let live, but I do not understand two statements that you wrote.
You wrote: “Do you want to wear a burkha? Go ahead. I am happy to give you that right just as I rejoice in my right to call you a moron for exercising it.”
While you may have the freedom of speech, why must you choose to use your words to denounce for someone who decides to dress differently than you, for whatever reason it may be. The term “moron” seems a bit extreme.
Secondly, you wrote: “But people would marry their dogs, the opponents cry!”
You completely lost me here. Again, the actions of another person (or persons) has absolutely no effect on your life, and you agree with that, but you still feel that its your business to compare them to dogs.
On a website that I am launching now, called commongroundwithgod.org, which is meant to a be an omnifaith (or pan-religious) site, my only request of contributors is to not treat others how they themselves would not like to be treated.
Edward Bulwer-Lytton wrote “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Growing up on the views espoused by the Hafetz Hayyim, I have learned, as well, that words have great power.
If you have an aversion to burkhas or gay marriage, it is your right. You have the right to look sexy in a tuxedo, if that is the way you roll. But the simple act of putting down people who are not like yourself is contrary to everything else that you profess.
I think that my mother once told me (or at least should have): If you have nothing positive to say, its better to say nothing at all. (I am assuming that you are not trying to prevent someone else from doing something.)
Again, at least in the States, its not against the law. But like Hebrew National, I would assume that you hold yourself to a higher authority.
Cheers,
ez
Zechariah Mehler says:
I totally disagree Ez. It is our constitutional right to not only be outspoken in our beliefs but also to be hyper critical of others beliefs. Its the American way.
Moshe Glasser says:
Unfortunately, Ezra, your comments are with regard to morality, and have nothing to do with either freedom or law. Morality is the mandate of religion, and while we may base many laws on the principles of religious morality (the much touted “Judeo-Christian ethic,” which I personally enjoy, by the way), it should be a requirement for any law to show that it is necessary to enable the society to function. Simply making a law to force people to behave in a nicer fashion is unjust and, more importantly, un-American. The is the reason that while I oppose anti-flag burning legislation, I have some sympathy with those who support it. The right to engage in extreme forms of protest may cross the line when it involves desecrating the symbol that permits the protest (though that point can be argued, obviously).
More importantly, you have misread some of my comments. My statement about people marrying their dogs is based on something my father likes to say (you have met him, I think). It doesn’t refer to gay people or people of any other orientation as dogs, it’s a joke about people actually wanting to marry their canine companions. The joke is that without standards (defining marriage as a union between a man and woman), people will eventually sink to the level of marrying their own pets. My point is, have fun (though PETA would require the dog to produce a signed affidavit that it has been manumitted and enters into the union with full knowledge, free will, and tax benefits).
Lastly, your point about a higher standard demonstrates that you may have missed the point after all. Of course individuals should hold themselves to higher standards. My own rule is, “Never say anything behind anyone’s back that you wouldn’t say to their face.” This is a personal standard, and has no legal bearing on my ability to tell everyone you know of your profound love of deep-fried Snickers bars- and I bet you couldn’t even sue me for slander! However, your higher standard should not be enforced upon me, nor vice-versa.
On a more personal note, I am always glad to see your contributions to this site.
Freaking brilliant