The ‘yes, but’ solution to religious conflict: Marmur 

Good column by Marmur:

It shouldn’t have needed a massacre in a Quebec Islamic cultural centre in January to rouse Canadians to show that they care for the safety of their Muslim neighbours. Mercifully, the initiative of Yael Splansky, the senior rabbi of Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto, did that by getting people of all faiths to form rings of peace around mosques.

It shouldn’t have needed the desecration of gravestones in Jewish cemeteries in American cities last month to move people to show solidarity with their Jewish neighbours. Mercifully, the impressive voluntary efforts by Muslims to restore the broken graves and their offers to guard Jewish burial places did that.

One of the explanations why Jewish-Muslim co-operation and mutual affirmation are so difficult in our time is because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the way, however futile it may be for Jews and Muslims in North America to fight the battles of the Middle East.

Muslims and Jews here would do much better had they been acting according to the “yes, but” formula suggested by Peter Berger, arguably the most influential sociologist of religion in our time.

In an essay in The American Interest he writes that it’s possible to be religiously committed and yet have reservations, e.g., “I am Catholic, but …” In our context it should be possible to say, “I’m committed to Muslim-Jewish co-operation but I disagree with, or even deplore, the others’ attitude to and treatment of my co-religionists in the Holy Land.”

As much as I’d like all Muslims to publicly affirm that Israel is a Jewish state, I don’t need such declarations in order to co-operate with Muslim neighbours in Toronto or even in Jerusalem. After all, Christians and Jews have learnt to work purposefully together for the good of the society in which they live despite very different views about, for example, Jesus.

Yet disagreement on this and other issues that adherents consider to be fundamental doesn’t prevent them from working together in celebration of what they do agree on, and in the service of the society in which they live. They know that the perfect is the enemy of the good.

That’s why Jewish-Muslim dialogue needs Christians to show how, despite countless centuries of prejudice and persecution, it has become possible to co-operate and help protect each other. Christians are needed as catalysts in the Muslim-Jewish dialogue.

 The apparent absence of statements on behalf of faith communities in Canada in support of the motion M-103, which calls on the government to fight racism and religious discrimination, may have contributed to the opposition to it.

The sponsor of the motion, Liberal backbencher Iqra Khalid, is said to have received ominous threats from fanatical opponents and apparently now has special security protection. Some politicians also appear to be using Khalid’s effort as an excuse to rouse reactionary elements in society in the guise of legitimate opposition.

It’s possible the “Islamophobia” that figures prominently in the motion is too ambiguous and controversial a term. “Anti-Muslim bigotry,” as suggested by former Attorney General Irwin Cotler, might have been better.

Perhaps other language could have been used to clarify the intention of the motion. However, all parties could nevertheless support it by following Peter Berger’s “yes, but” principle: Yes, I disagree with certain words, but I fully support this effort to curb anti-Muslim bigotry.

More vigorous responsible religious voices might have injected much needed sanity into the debate. Surely, every effort to prevent attacks of the kind we’ve seen in Quebec, in American cemeteries and elsewhere is a religious imperative. M-103 can become yet another wholesome tool in the struggle.

Source: The ‘yes, but’ solution to religious conflict: Marmur | Toronto Star

A leap forward in Catholic-Jewish relations: Marmur

Dov Murmur on both current developments and the historical context:

In order to explain and strengthen the relationship between Catholics and Jews the Vatican has followed up its historic document Nostra Aetate that initiated the dramatic shift half a century ago and about which I wrote last October. Over the years the Church has issued statements which amplify its stance. Five aspects are particularly significant.

  • The Church no longer sees itself as having superseded Judaism. It now speaks of Jews as elder brothers and sisters. It maintains that God’s covenant with the Jews has not been abrogated by Christianity.
  • The accusation that the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus has been revoked. The possibility that his contemporaries were involved in the crucifixion in no way puts the burden on their descendants.
  • Christian anti-Semitism that has been the cause of persecution and extermination of Jews to this day has been repudiated in the light of what had befallen the Jews by the hands of believing Christians and subsequent secular imitators.
  • Affirming incontrovertible historic facts about the roots of Judaism in the Land of Israel, the legitimacy of re-establishing a Jewish homeland there has been affirmed. The Vatican maintains diplomatic relations with the State of Israel. The fact that Christianity was born in that land is being celebrated by Christians without in any way denying Jewish rights.

As a result, as David Berger put it in the online journal Tablet, “No longer could a loyal Catholic assert that Jewish dispossession from the land resulted from sin of the crucifixion and that unrepentant Jewry must remain in its exile.”

Berger also reminds readers that the Catholic Church has come to occupy the middle ground between most evangelicals’ unconditional support of Israel, including the policies of the current government, and at the other end of the wide spectrum, the stance of many Protestant denominations that tend to repudiate virtually everything Israel does, at times perhaps even questioning its right to exist.

  • The latest Vatican elucidation of Nostra Aetate came last month. It states that the Church “neither conducts nor supports” any institutional missionary initiative directed toward Jews. Not only has the legitimacy of Judaism been affirmed, the accusation of deicide withdrawn, the concomitant persecution of Jews repudiated, but now also attempts to make Jews “see the light” and embrace Christianity have been removed from the Church’s agenda.

Source: A leap forward in Catholic-Jewish relations: Marmur | Toronto Star

Jews can show Christians how to live as a minority: Marmur

Interesting reflections:

I thought of that encounter recently when I read an article in the American-Jewish online journal Mosaic by Bruce Abramson under the title, “How Jews can help Christians learn to succeed as a minority.” What the Canadian clergy group anticipated long ago has become commonplace today in the United States and in many other countries.

Though Abramson’s interest is in law and public policy, not theology, his insights will be helpful to all who wish to understand what’s happening to mainstream Christianity. In his words, Christians are now facing the reality of being “but one more of America’s many minority groups.” As a result, “the sudden need for an effective defence will take them into terrain that Jews have occupied most of American history.”

Abramson distinguishes between “the classical liberal preference for freedom and the rule of law” and “the progressive preference for equality and justice.” Though the two don’t seem to be mutually exclusive, he appears to opt for the traditional liberal American opposition to government infringing on individual rights over “the progressive preference for ‘positive’ rights like housing, food and health care that someone must provide.” Most Europeans and Canadians are likely to advocate the latter way because it cares for people least able to fend for themselves.

Though the “liberal” stress on individual rights is essential for their survival in the Diaspora, Jews are nowadays also seeking allies to champion “progressive” government programs that provide basic needs for citizens. Theological differences are often set aside in favour of social action advocacy that brings together different religious groups. These groups live their faith as interfaith despite their divergent theologies and join forces to be effective despite their minority status.

When I spoke to the Canadian clergy group I suggested that being a minority shouldn’t alarm them: it may be bad for wielding power but it’s good for practicing religion. Think of the havoc caused by the might of the Church for much of its history, say in persecuting minorities such as Jews, or the devastating effect today in countries where all-powerful Islamic clerics have the last word.

Ironically, contemporary Judaism in Israel is now also struggling with the quest for power by some of its exponents. Orthodoxy that mixes utopian Messianism with radical nationalism is endangering Judaism in the Jewish state. Faith is the foundation of Judaism, but fanaticism is its sworn enemy. Hence the laudable attempts by “liberal” and “progressive” minorities in Israel to champion the separation of religion and state for the sake of the integrity of both.

Seen in this light, the loss of power by religious bodies is the great opportunity for exponents of genuine faith to act as true witnesses to God’s redeeming power. The weakening of ephemeral institutional clout that to some seems so alarming is really religion’s great opportunity to advance the sovereignty of the Kingdom of God on Earth.

Respect each other’s religious differences: Marmur

Nice piece by Rabbi Dov Marmur on interfaith relations and diversity, and how it does not mean sameness. On the other hand, some discussion of the common elements of faith can be useful.

Respect each other’s religious differences: Marmur | Toronto Star.