The Pluralism Diaries by Rav Goni

With the horrible situation facing Israel and with all the blood and suffering in the area it has been hard to continue writing about matters such as pluralism that seem far from having a life and death impact.

But after a few depressing days I feel that there are some points relevant to the idea and practice of pluralism to be made in light of this war.

One thought is that this is a grim conflict between a camp - Israel - that, however imperfectly, struggles wth pluralistic ideals and policies, and a camp that totally rejects these ideals and the possibility of their realization - the Islamic terrorists - Hezbollah, Hamas and their individual and state supporters. It is ironic that the rhetoric of opposition to Israel utilizes terms such as "occupation" and "imperialism" that actually portray the goals and categories of the Islamist agenda and inadvertantly betray the limits of that group's horizon of thought. Since it dreams of domination and totalitarian control over other groups, it cannot imagine that anyone else may not dream of the same thing. The totalitarian mindset is, thus, self-validating and justifies any means for its effectuation.

But this bitter perspective should not be used by those who support Israel for the purpose of weakening or even destroying pluralism, for pluralism, as just mentioned, is one of Israel's defining (though still incompletely realized) ideals. Thus, just as it is legitimate to demand that people of good-will must acknowledge the clear truth that Hezbollah and Hamas have absolutley no right to attack Israel, and that these attacks reveal a fundamental hatred at the base of their ideologies, it must also be acknowledged, as a simple truism, that Israel, like every human society, is capable of error and worse. Voices of criticism have their place within the broad spectrum of persons and groups who support Israel fundamentally. It should still be possible to question strategies and policies, to raise up values and standards of justice, wisdom and realpolitik against which israel's actions must be measured. Some criticisms, questions and protests may be rejected by others as "incorrect" or "counterproductive" or, even, as "naive" or "stupid." And, indeed, the enemies of Israel revel in criticizing her every act.

But let it never be said that criticism expressed by supporters of Israel is, in itself, inappropriate, forbidden or traitorous. If we lose the ability to welcome controversy and critique, even in times of crisis, then Hezbollah and Hamas will have won.

Friday was a sad day for the cause of freedom and equal rights for all and for rational discourse. The NY State Court of Appeals ruled that same-sex couples can be reasonably excluded from the legal institution of civil marriage. This is not the place to go into an analysis of the majority opinion. You can read the two sides at this link.

I can't help pointing out one bizarre feature in its argument, though. Justice Robert S. Smith seems to think that heterosexuals' relationships are so tenuous that they need the state to exclude gays from marriage so as to feel an incentive to marry rather than live sexually promiscuous lives. This sets the old attack against gays - for being too promiscuous - on its head!

I am proud to point out that The Academy for Jewish Religion had signed on as a friend of the court for the plaintiffs, supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples. Unfortunately, , as far as I can tell from the court papers, AJR was the only Jewish seminary to do so.

The need for religious voices to be heard on this issue has now become acute. Many religious leaders, while uncomfortable with the idea of sanctioning religious marriages for same-sex couples, have comforted themselves by thinking that the issue could be handled by civil laws. But one lesson to be learned from this defeat in the courts is that it is not possible to keep these areas separate. If religion - Judaism, specifically - is to be a force educating toward justice and pluralism, it must step up and speak clearly in support of the possibilty for same-sex couples to live in responsibility, commitment, dignity and sanctity.

The alternative is being played out before our eyes in Jerusalem. The International Gay Pride Parade is scheduled to take place in Jerusalem on August 10th. The prospect of this event has united religious leaders who would normally hate to have any contact with each other. I recall a photo in the Times from a previous year. At first sight it was really inspirational - a long table at which Christian, Muslim and Jewish clerics sat together for a common goal. Unfortunately, reading the caption revealed that the goal was not world peace, or eradicating poverty or slavery, or opposing political totalitarianism. The goal was opposition to the Gay Pride Parade.

Let us be clear. Everyone knows that these clerics are against any acceptance of homosexuality. And everyone knows that homosexuals - those who have not internalized traditional teachings of condemnation - reject the traditional religious stance and insist on their right to live openly, with full rights to fullfill their legitimate dreams, just like any other person created in God's Image. The disagreement is firm. The question is - what practical conclusions flow from this irreconcilable disagreement?

Pluralism does not mean that one has to like what the other party thinks or does. It does mean that, as long as one's own spheres of thought and life are respected, the other party, however obnoxious its position, may go about expressing its views and living accordingly. With respect to holding a Gay Pride Parade, the issue is not whether the feelings of religious traditionalists will be offended. Of course they will be. But we live in a world in which we are constantly offended by other people's actions and ideas. That is not enough of a reason to mobilize all one's energies in order to repress the expression of the other side. This is not a question about disagreeing respectfully. The opposition to the parade is expressed in the crudest language of contempt and hatred. Religious leaders must take responsibility for this "teaching of contempt," which is no less unacceptable than when it was fostered by Catholic teachings with regard to Jews.

Whether in New York, Jerusalem, or anywhere this issue arises, a strange phenomenon has emerged: Many people are convinced that the best way to strengthen traditional values such as marriage, child welfare or moral responsibilty is by attacking gays and lesbians who wish to uphold those same traditional values. When practiced quietly and locally, this kind of exclusionism is characteristic of private clubs. When practiced vehemently and politically such exclusionism is characteristic of mobs and their demagogic leaders. The religious community must choose - shall it continue to abet the teaching of contempt or shall it work toward the teaching of courageous pluralism?

A few weeks ago Rabbi Dalia Sara Marx, a Reform rabbi, wrote a stinging appeal to the kibbutz community of Degania, famous in Israel as "Em Ha-Qevutzot" - the Mother of all Collectives. The secular kibbutz had voted to establish - for the very first time in its history - a synagogue on its grounds. It decided that the synagogue should follow the Orthodox approach in layout and liturgy. (See the Opinions web page of Yediot Achronot, June 13, 2006)

Rabbi Marx asked the kibbutz members to reconsider. Among other things she wrote:

How could you, people who understand that cooperation and equality are more than mere slogans, but rather demands that must be repeated at every opportunity - how could you treat Judaism as some sort of singular, simplistic, one-faced beast? Are you really willing to declare yourselves guests in your own house and to accept religious philosophies that are not yours? Why would you agree to bring that empty
truck of Orthodoxy into your community?

Some readers took her remarks as derogatory of Orthodoxy. One Orthodox blogger, Rabbi Yaakov Menken, in a posting entitled "The Meaning of Pluralism," noted with great satisfaction that this put the lie to Reform Judaism's claim to being pluralistic. He writes that:

The Reform claim not only that they are pluralists, but that the Orthodox are not; thus they define their own form as taking a "pluralistic" view of Judaism. If they reject Orthodoxy, then they are no more pluralistic than the Orthodox themselves, who accept Sephardic, Yemenite, Ashkenazic, Chassidic, and countless sub-variants of the above as legitimate forms. [...]

The statements of Dr. Marx run counter to the professed dedication to pluralism and
tolerance of the Reform movement. As I and others said, this is nothing new, but it
is worth remembering the next time the Reform claim to be pluralistic-while we,
the arcane and unenlightened Orthodox, are not.

This is an interesting statement for a couple of reasons. It sounds like an attempt to embrace pluralism as a positive value, rather than rejecting it as antithetical to Orthodoxy. Thus, the claim is made that Orthodoxy is the truly pluralistic movement, while Reform is not pluralistic at all, and is, in fact, hypocritical.

I tried to respond to Rabbi Menken's statement and sent in a comment. I pointed out that, while Rabbi Marx' article was a bit harsh, it was not a blanket statement denigrating Orthodoxy or rejecting the option of choosing Orthodoxy as a belief system and way of life. What was being expressed - quite bitterly - was frustration that a secular community, committed to sexual equality and creative freedom, could opt for a synagogue that did not really reflect those values. Rabbi Marx was not attacking a ba`al teshuvah who had decided to become Orthodox. She was attacking a community - that has every intention of remaining non-Orthodox - for choosing to establish a religious institution to which it will not be faithful. (See my previous posting about the rejection of Reform by secular Israelis.)

But a close reading of Rabbi Menken's posting shows it to be even more problematic. The only kind of pluralism worth considering for Rabbi Menken is realistic pluralism - the recognition that there are a lot of different groups in the community and the acknowledgement that this variety is good for the community. It is this kind of pluralism that he finds missing in Reform. However, by this definition, he cannot claim such a position for Orthodoxy, either. He simply claims that Orthodoxy welcomes variety within itself. It certainly does not admit that it is good that there are other streams of Judaism.

While his attack on the lack of pluralism by Reform makes it sound as if he values pluralism, in actuality he rejects it. Furthermore, his rejection of pluralism is fundamental. He quotes a dictionary definition of pluralism as understood philosophically:

4. Philosophy.
a. The doctrine that reality is composed of many ultimate substances.
b. The belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life.

About this he writes:

The first point to be made is that a definition from the world of philosophy is irrelevant here. Definition (4)(b) is a modern philosophy (which runs counter to Judaism); it has nothing to do with Jewish religious pluralism.

Thus this idea is considered "irrelevant" and "counter to Judaism." I challenged this statement by noting (as shown by Moshe Sokol in a couple a studies) that there have been important thinkers, accepted in the Orthodox world, who have held such a position, such as the MaHaRaL (16th century), Rav Tzadoq Ha-Kohen (19th century), and Rav Kook (20th century). (Interestingly, they have mostly had some connection to the kabbalistic traditions of Judaism, but that is for another time.)

My comment was not posted.