(Author: David Nossel, Vol. 72, #3, Chanukah 2017)
There are great challenges facing society in general. One of the greatest, if not thegreatest, is overcoming differences in religious affiliations and practices. This challenge has a long history – I will refrain from suggesting which event was the first religious argument, in case that itself sparks off a religious argument! Sadly, conf lict that has existed between different religions it is not only a historical phenomenon; it is still very much with us today. It appears that people with different religious persuasions often struggle to respect, show honour, or esteem each other. Worse, they find it difficult just to be tolerant. Even worse than that, followers of different religions commonly seem to be critical of and antagonistic towards each other. Religious tolerance seems to be a very difficult task to accomplish.
Is this how it is supposed to be? Are the various religious doctrines mutually exclusive? Is any one religion only as true as the others are false? When one religion criticises another, does the former religion grow in its veracity, and does the latter get its ‘just deserts’? These are important questions. Their answers will determine the ability of the members of one religion to get along with those of another.
Perhaps it might be correct to say that in theory differing religions could co-exist. Maybe it is the followers of the various religions that have misunderstood the message. They have not been able to grasp the real message of the religion they have become engaged in, and they have fallen into mistaken negativity and conf lict. Perhaps the problem is not in the principles of a religion, but in its principals. A lack of religious tolerance then may not be by design, but through a lack of clarity, an error of interpretation.
I myself am no expert in the study of comparative religions. Indeed, I am still struggling to keep my head above the water of my own Jewish pool of knowledge. It is therefore with due humility that I present here my own thoughts on this very difficult subject.
Groucho Marx once quipped, “I am a man of great principles, and if you don’t like them, well, I have others….” Although Marx was Jewish, he was no rabbi, nor was he a philosopher. He was a comedian. But as we know, many a true word is spoken in jest. What for Groucho was a joke, for me alludes to one of the greatest teachings of life, as I will explain.
Early on in the Biblical narrative there are two episodes of global significance. The first is that of the Flood and the second that of the Tower of Babel. The Rabbis, in their commentaries to the Bible, point out the most amazing thing. They alert us to the fact that the sin of the generation of the f lood was of people hurting other people, committing crimes that impacted on the welfare of their fellows. It was not a sin directed towards Heaven. There was no outright rebellion against God. The sin of the generation of the Tower of Babel was exactly the opposite. There the sin was directed against God. They were building a tower to reach the heavens and to deliver a message from mankind to God to ‘stay away!’ There was no antagonism between people. In fact, all came together to help one another in accomplishing their most unholy endeavour.
One generation against man, not against God, another against God and not against man. And what was the result? Mind-bogglingly – and soul-bogglingly too – the Divine response was to destroy the generation of the Flood that was against man, and preserve the generation of the Tower that was against God.
A few chapters later we read about God informing Abraham about the evil of Sodom. Abraham’s petition to God to save Sodom is no less surprising than God’s preference of the generation of the Tower over that of the Flood. Abraham was fully aware of the evils of the people of Sodom. God had informed him just how bad it was. And yet Abraham intercedes on their behalf to try and save them. Why?
To me the answer is clear: more than God wants us to be concerned about Him, he wants us to be concerned about His world, the world He created for us. The people of the generation of the Flood were against each other. That God found unacceptable. The people of the generation of the Tower of Babel were not okay with God, but they were okay with each other. That God tolerated. Abraham intercedes on behalf of his fellow people, despite the fact that they were against God. That God appreciates.
This is what I have interpreted Groucho’s quip to be saying: We may have principles, deep principles, principles and knowledge of the greatest heavenly and spiritual truths. But if those principles are not able to bring peace and harmony to the world, if they are not to the benefit of those around us, we need to be able to bring other principles instead.
I hasten to add that it is not because it is up to us to make up religious principles ourselves. Rather, if the first principles were not to the benefit to the world around us, they surely must somewhere be f lawed. Nor should the replacement principles be mere fabricated, fictitious substitutes. Quite the contrary, they must be the correct authentic principles that were intended from the outset.
This being the case, religious tolerance is not the goal. Tolerance means the ability to ‘put up’ with someone or something that one disagrees with. According to dictionary definitions, tolerance is: “1. The ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with” or “2. The capacity to endure continued subjection to something such as a drug or environmental conditions without adverse reaction”. Implicit in tolerance is the notion of an accompanying rejection. With tolerance comes an ideal and hope that ultimately someone or something that needs to be tolerated will go away. Religious tolerance thus means that although religions have deep and significant differences that clash with one another, we should nevertheless ‘tolerate’ those differences and agree to “live and let live”.
I believe that the goal should be much more than tolerance. Rather, it should be one of synergy, defined as “the interaction or cooperation of two or more organizations, substances, or other agents to produce a combined effect greater than the sum of their separate effects”. Synergy means that each person or entity has what to offer and contribute to the whole. When our goal is tolerance we get along despite our differences. When our goal is synergy we get along because of them. When religions are looking to synergize, the greater the number of religions, and the bigger their differences, the more beneficial their interaction and combination potentially becomes.
Surely every religion has something unique and precious to offer? Are we not all able to be richer and more fortunate because of the multiplicity and diversity of religious contribution? Are we not able to tap into the blessings that each and every set of religious principles brings to our world?
Let us take even a brief and somewhat simple look at the possible contributions that various religious groups can be making: some may convey the blessings of subservience – the willingness to serve the Creator; others might teach the virtues of embracing human beings – taking care of one’s fellow’s needs; others may alert us to the magnificence of the natural world, yet others might reveal the magnificence of self-mastery, and still others might strive to create peace between all the various different approaches.
What is it that determines whether someone looks at other religions as being a threat or being a blessing? I believe it is the same shift in the paradigm that happens when a person changes from being a child to a parent. I see it with my teenage sons. As soon as they start trying to discover themselves, who they are, the first definition they seem to come up with is really a definition by exclusion: ‘Although I don’t really know who I want to be yet, I do know who I don’t want to be like – my dad!’ Young people get their definition by rejecting others who they see they don’t want to be like. Much of the sporting world is like that. The greatest teams are those that have beaten the others the most times. When the others lose, we win.
But as we grow older we become more like parents. We see that when children compete against each other the parent loses. All lose. The success of a parent lies in his or her ability to teach the children to care for each other, for each one to use his or her strengths for the benefit of the whole, not for his or her personal one-upmanship and to the detriment of the others.
I would like to think that people of religion are looking to be like parents. Equipped with wisdom, knowledge and experience we have so much to offer the world. It is our calling and privilege to teach the world to be adults, to get along with each other, to care for each other, to synergize.
One of the greatest sages of Jewish history is Rebbi Yehudah HaNasi – Rabbi Judah the Prince. He is reverently accorded the title as simply ‘Rebbi’ – my teacher. It is as if he is everyone’s personal teacher and guide. Rebbi lived around the 2nd Century, at the time of the Roman Empire. Exactly two thousand years after the birth of Abraham he published an anthology of the teachings of the sages, which included his own teachings. In this work, called the Mishna, it says: Rebbi taught – “what is the straight path that a person should take? That which is beautiful from the one who does, and beautiful to him from what others do”. There is a deep reason why Rebbi first introduced the subject of ‘the straight path’ in life as a question, and only then proceeded to provide an answer. It is because we all start off unsure as to what the straight path in life really is. It is a question we all ask. Is it one’s adherence to one’s religion, one’s God, one’s personal growth? Says Rebbi, it is none of those. The straight path that a person should take is the one that finds favour in the eyes of others by the beautiful things that a person does, and that looks favourably at the beautiful things that others do.
It is surely no co-incidence that it was Rebbi who succeeded in forming a very close friendship and synergy with the Roman Caesar of the time – Antoninus (possibly referring to Antoninus Pius). Can we not learn from the special and unique insights and practices of other traditions and religious principles?
Is religion really supposed to be at the cost of mankind and the world instead of for its benefit? If we turn our focus away from what we have right and others have wrong, to what others have right and we have the opportunity to learn from, then we will have transformed our mind- heart- and soul-sets from those of tolerance to synergy.
To me, it seems clear that all religions have something that humankind can learn from. It is only our own lack of maturity that leads us to interpret religions as being mutually exclusive, competitive and antithetical to each other. With such a mind-set the best we can hope for is tolerance. But if we adopt a more admirable and mature approach we will be able to look for, and undoubtedly find, the goodness, positivity, uniqueness, contribution, value and virtue that each and every religion has to offer.
And we’ll discover Groucho Marx’s ‘other set of principles’ that were surely intended in the first place.
Rabbi Dr David Nossel is Rabbi of the Waverley Synagogue, Johannesburg. This article is adapted from his address given at a conference on “Religion in Dialogue”, hosted by the Faculty of Theology at the University of Pretoria in July 2017.
