Although the Republican presidential debates last week displayed the most egregious examples of vituperative attacks on the character of one’s opponent and outright attempts at bullying the other, elsewhere recently we have also seen models of a more humane, productive interaction between those whose opinions differ. One example of the latter can be found in the relationship between Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Though the two disagreed in many of their opinions, they respected each other’s humanity in a way that attenuated conflict and promoted harmony. They balanced complaints and appreciations of the innate beauty of the world. They argued about the way they perceived data and the way they discerned implications of policies, but they found joy in the wonders of our universe and in the generosity of many of its inhabitants. They embodied the trait, although “we are different, we are one.”
Are we, as committed Jews, mandated to find a way to speak out humanely on political issues or must religion and politics remain separate?
There has been much discussion lately about whether religion and politics should interact or remain in separate domains without commenting on the spheres of each other. If one defines religion in a narrow sense, it would be accurate to define its major purpose as to influence its adherents to remain loyal to its doctrines and ignore the outer world. But if one defines religion as a force to elevate humanity with a vision of a future that is permeated with peace and justice, it is reasonable and correct to peer out into the world and chart its progress and regress toward this ideal. Judaism has always emphasized both particularism and universalism. Both energies are important; the former stems from a perception of awe and responsibility to carry out ancient traditions with caution and honesty and thus move slowly into the outer world. Preserving its values in the face of outer temptations and negative influences often leads to a withdrawal into a community that supports what it perceives to be its holy mandate. But a stronger impulse inherent in the tradition, expressed by prophets and sages of all generations, is the mandate to enter the world and imbue it with values of justice, forbearance and compassion as partners in the ongoing creation of this future of peace. It is acknowledged that while particularism promotes strengthening of identity and commitment to core values, it must not be at the expense of neglecting the universal mandate of creating a just world for all humanity.
Some contemplative and introverted God-intoxicated temperaments, impacted by the “awe” of serving God, are more comfortable to reach this goal through a withdrawal that leads to holiness, and some feel more comfortable to go out into the world and elevate society. Conflict arises when the boundaries of each position are strengthened and little communication exists between these two distinctive temperaments. There is a need to see the positives in each position, even while disagreeing with them. This can be achieved only through communication and knowledge of the uniqueness of the other, created in God’s image. Thus communication, exposure to a variety of communities, inner examination of fears that lead to prejudices must be a part of everyday religious life. Religion without self-consciousness, awareness, or the responsibility to continue to develop ethical sensibilities, with the goal of creating a more just and compassionate world, may erect a formidable barrier inhibiting the success of the very goal it is challenged to achieve.
The nature of all groups, be they political organizations or religious affiliations, can tend to create conformity to the group norm, rigidity that leads to judging outsiders negatively without taking responsibility for inner attitudinal examination, and that often leads to a state of entropy. Thus one must be open to outside corrective voices that may see behaviors and attitudes that the inner group may ignore, learn to bear the tension of encountering differences of those outside the group, face the fear of the potential change that might result from the encounter, and guide that change in a positive direction.
In addition to the two justices, another example of an individual who in recent weeks has embodied this positive trait, promoted by faith that “we are different, we are one,” is Pope Francis. The pope expressed his opinion toward “building walls” in the spirit of “dialogue and encounter” that is the requisite to healing adversarial relationships. Unless we speak out about our values and beliefs in a respectful manner, we cannot hope to overcome adversarial relationships. The alternative — remaining silent, avoiding dialogue or disrespectfully attacking the other — will not lead to healing and growth. Our ability to see the humanity in the other, cultivated by the highest values in our traditions, will lead to a respect of the other, even while differing with his or her opinion.
While it is true that during this heightened political season we witness political insults, the denigration of bipartisanship, undue influence of powerful self-interest groups, sensationalism in social media, and an uncompromising insularity promoting dogmatism and self-righteousness, there is a clear antidote in realizing that though our world is imperfect and the task of improvement is formidable, it is through respect, dialogue and learning to sacrifice our optimal desires for a shared common good that progress can be achieved. Indeed, it is a necessary commitment to begin the path of the “golden rule” if we are to survive and thrive in our short time on this mysterious journey on this blessed Earth.
Rabbi Mel Gottlieb is president emeritus of Academy for Jewish Religion, California, and co-founder of Claremont Lincoln University.
