Читать книгу The Essential Agus - Steven T. Katz - Страница 37

The role of the historical religions in the pluralistic society of our day cannot be delimited by a hard-and-fast rule—such as by the separation of religion and government. The beginning of wisdom is to recognize the interpénétration of all elements of culture and the restless dynamism of society. As there is a democracy of people, so there is a corresponding democracy of ideas, a certain range of freedom for ideas within an existing context. At any one time, the prevailing pattern is a patchwork of compromises, the product of historic contingencies. As situations change, the compromises of the past need to be reviewed.

The Jewish attitude to the relations between the government and religion consists of two antithetical principles—the one deriving from the Bible and Talmud, the other emerging out of the recent centuries of Jewish history. In the ancient tradition of Judaism, there was no division between religion and public life whatever. As we have seen, Moses Mendelssohn, living at the dawn of the Emancipation, contended that the Mosaic unity of religion and state referred to a unique period; hence it was not normative for the future. In the reconstituted State of Israel in our day, there is still a firm integration of the Synagogue and the state. But, many of the non-Orthodox groups would like to separate the Synagogue and the rabbinate from the agencies of government.

In the past two centuries, Jewish people were impelled to associate themselves with the Liberal thesis that government on all levels must be free from any entanglement with religious bodies. The Jews drifted into the various Liberal camps, since their rights and their rootedness in the lands of the Diaspora depended entirely on the acceptance of the Liberal thesis. The Conservative parties and the clerical lobbies could not but resist the breakdown of the walls of the ghettos.

Armed with two mutually contradictory axioms, Jewish leaders cannot be unanimous on the issues of religion and government. The Orthodox groups, deriving their guidance from the sacred tradition rather than from the configurations of modern history, will be prone to build parochial schools and to seek government support for them. The non-Orthodox, particularly the secularists, may go so far as to demand a doctrinaire, total separation of all the institutions of faith from all the agencies of government. A synthesis of the opposing theses of Jewish faith and Jewish history is still a desideratum.

In our analysis, Judaism is a pattern of institutions and symbols plus an outreaching of ideals, sentiments, and hopes. A similar situation obtains not only in the other faiths of America, but in secular society as well. For the term “secular” does not necessarily imply a total divorce from the ideal content of religion. American society is secular in an institutional, not in an ideal sense. It still assumes that a certain philosophy of life, containing the ideals and values of the Judeo-Christian tradition, will be conveyed to its citizens, directly or indirectly. Every society must provide for the moral and psychological undergirding of its social-legal texture. A communist society has its commissars, a fascist its uniformed squads. In a democratic society, people are not “told,” or “trained,” but they must still be taught, guided, stimulated, and motivated.

It is in the ideal dimension of secular society that we have to find room for the ethical core of the religions of the Judeo-Christian tradition. This does not mean that we assume the existence of a unitary, easily defined and identified core of ethical principles. In each tradition, there is likely to be a spectrum of interpretations of its ethical substance. But every religious community possesses an obligation to contribute to the moral-spiritual elan of the nation as a whole, as well as to mold the character of its citizens.

The attempt of the New York Board of Regents to formulate a prayer, expressing the common core of American religions, was declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. It is not for the agencies of government to fix the outlines of the common core. Its meaning may be conveyed only indirectly, by teaching about the religions of the community, for instance. There is need in this area for experimentation and for the spirit of accommodation, since the alternative of a total “wall of separation” is unthinkable. It would drive both the Church and the Synagogue to the catacombs.

The religions of the Judeo-Christian tradition nurture a common vision of perfection for the individual and for society, but they articulate this vision in diverse ways. Within the context of a democratic society, they have a twofold obligation: to maintain the distinctiveness of their own heritage and to sensitize their people to the appreciation of other traditions. The first obligation has been generally recognized in our contemporary society. It is axiomatic for every religious community to seek to perpetuate its heritage in its own way. But the second duty is equally important. We have to teach our young to understand and to revere the religious ideas and the symbolic panoply of the faiths of our neighbors. In the past, we have acted as if diverse religions were antagonistic to each other as a matter of course. The differences are of course real, and they must not be blurred. But, there is also the common heritage of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the Holy Scriptures, and the grand evolution of the culture of the West. There is also the common task to combat the universal evils of “extremism” in spiritual life-fanaticism at one end, nihilism at the other.

Through our instruments of religious education we have now begun to guard against the building up of “negative stereotypes” of other faiths. A sincere effort is being made to refrain from identifying Jews as “deicides,” to keep from stigmatizing Catholics as idolators, to guard against the misrepresentation of diverse Protestant groups. While this effort is only in its initial stages, we should look ahead to the positive task of teaching our followers to appreciate the depth and grandeur of other faiths. Does one religious group have the right, or even the duty, to seek converts from other groups? From the standpoint of Judaism, every religious community can find salvation by nurturing the core of religious idealism, “the Seven Commands of Noah.” There is no need for conversion, except in the case of intermarriage. We recall the words of Micah, “Let each people walk in the name of its God, and we shall walk in the Name of the Lord, our God.”³⁰

Missionary propaganda can be offensive, even though it be motivated by a self-sacrificing idealism. We must revere the people of other faiths and admit the finitude of our own knowledge about the Infinite. In a democratic society, all religious groups should maintain an attitude of openness to each other. They can only profit by learning from one another and by laboring together for the needs of the community. It is only the “men of little faith” who can have any reason to fear any untoward consequences resulting from the interreligious dialogues that are becoming a permanent fixture in our society.