admin asked Staff ago The Jewish religion has a vast amount of literature about the path a person may take to be morally and ethically whole, how to be a better and more fulfilled person.
Torah literature includes dozens of books which explain and induce a person to respect his fellows, watch his tongue, and to never harm his fellow man.
I do not know of anything parallel in the secular world, but it seems to me that secularism does not yet have a sufficient body of literature through which a person can develop these aspects of himself.
If we judge religious society and the secular, we will find that in religious society there is an emphasis on personal moral development. For example, there are Torah lectures to which people go, in which it is again and again emphasized that better personal behavior is required (as it is a religious obligation).
If we take the secular society, we will find that as a society it does not deal, in a significant manner, with building man’s moral world. There is no constant and continual emphasis on the issue, and though there are individuals who deal with it, the society does not encourage it or set it as a goal.
In any case, my question is that though there are an unlimited number of contradictions in the Torah, that though there are Halachic arbiters and rabbis who did not see the truth as their goal and simply continued to dogmatically repeat the mistakes and lack of thought which characterized their predecessors, the general idea of the religious society is to continually push man to improve, and that this is a wonderful idea whose like is not found in the secular society.
If, to live in a society which aspires to make people better and deeper one has to swallow the frog called religion, maybe it’s worth it?
Is there a “secular teaching”? A complete system of instruction from which a person can learn how to be a better person? More moral, deeper?
How do you view secular society? To me, personally, it looks at this point like the most superficial of the three societies (I’m talking about the society as a whole, not about individuals), lacking all direction.
If you do indeed claim that this society has a direction, what is it? To what horizon is it marching, and what values are embroidered unto its flag? Does it have a sufficient answer to the moral values of religion?
(I’m speaking of current morality and modern literature, as well as of mainstream religion. Please don’t answer me that current religion has no validity simply because two thousand years ago it was written in the Torah “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” Since then Judaism has developed, and I know that it has further room to develop, both in its universalism and its enlightenment In short, I am asking why “secular: yes,” not why “religion: no.” [I know that on my own.])
Dov
jsadmin Staff answered 19 years ago
Dear Dov,
Religious people have managed (through lies and demagoguery) to convince the secular public of two opposites:
1. The religious public is “moral.”
2. The secular public lacks values.
From your question it seems that you, too, have fallen into this trap laid by the religious.
Religious society does not pretend to be moral in the humanistic sense (the human, aiming at a more correct society for the happiness of man); it only deals with obedience and the obligation to obey the commands levied against the believers (and in their ridiculousness they think that it is G-d who commanded them). When religious people say “morals” they actually mean “support of the Torah,” a continual repetition and internalization, from early childhood, of the need to obey. (It is one of the problems of language that the same word is given the opposite connotation when used by a different group which speaks the same language.) The Mussar (morality) movement, founded by Rabbi Yisrael Salant (in the 19th century) as a reaction to the Jewish Enlightenment, which was gathering force, does nothing but support the fear of G-d and fulfillment of commands; it should more properly have been called “the Torah support movement.” This appears in many articles and books of “morality.” But though something so well-known doesn’t need proving, we will quote from the Ramchal’s “Path of the Just,” thought by believers to be one of the best “morality” books. In the introduction he states “This is what Moses our teacher, may peace be upon him, teaches us in saying (Deuteronomy 10:12) ‘And now, Israel, what does the Lord your G-d ask of you, but that you fear the Lord your G-d to walk in all His ways, and to love Him and serve the Lord your G-d with all your heart and all your soul, to observe the commandments of G-d and His statutes…” Herein have been included all of the features of perfection of Divine service that are appropriate in relation to the holy One, blessed be He. They are: fear of G-d, walking in His ways, love [of G-d], whole-heartedness [in worshiping G-d], and observance of all of the commandments.”
Therefore, in any place you find their books urging “respect for others,” it means respecting others as part of G-d’s will and His worship, not because of the respect due others or for the sake of tolerance and pluralism (ethics). Don’t for a moment think that there is no difference between a person who respects others for humanistic reasons and one who respects others because of a “divine command.” The difference between them finds practical expression to this very day. A religious person is forbidden to return a lost item to a gentile because he must show that the return of lost items is motivated by obedience to the Lord and not because of his own human conscience. For more detail, see our essay Morality in Halacha.
For this reason it is no wonder that religious people wrote many books supporting Torah and the commandments, to instill obedience into their followers. (In fact, to gain power over their bodies and souls.)
Now to the main point of your question, which seems very odd to me (as an understatement): how can you ignore that which is common to everyone — man’s natural right to freedom, respect, equality, and security? Are these nothing to you?! Taking responsibility for your own life (and not leaving it to some unknown, hidden figure) is so little to you?! I don’t quite understand against what ethical background you grew up.
In plays and satires, drawings and sculpture, poetry and prose, movies, and television shows you will find many discussions and critique of the proper path man should take, how a society must improve…etc. All of this aims at having a proper society in which individuals are happier and safer.
Perhaps the dismal reality of the masses (whose way it is to satisfy their immediate desires) misleads you into thinking that the values of the enlightened world are just as dismal. But it is clear that the ways of the masses are perverse despite, and not because of, the modern aspiration to equality, creativity, and curiosity. From this you can learn, by way of analogy, about the religious masses (whom you may not know well) whose ways are foolish, following as a group, with closed eyes (with no criticism) after its leaders and rabbis. This should keep sleep from your eyes.
To sharpen my words I will ask you a question (I hope it’s rhetorical): If some country had a nuclear bomb in its arsenal, how would you sleep more calmly — if that country were ruled by religious people who obeyed a text they considered Divine, or if its citizens and leaders fully supported the values of the enlightened world?
Sincerely,
Daat Emet
jsadmin Staff answered 19 years ago
Dear Yosef,
The character trait of anger is a human characteristic which everyone (religious and secular alike) consider disgraceful and which leads to behavior that even the angry person regrets. There is no difference between rabbis who cannot control their anger and professors; both are human (and there are many examples in both the Charedi and the secular press).
But you have ignored the most important issue. You have forgotten to mention which morality you mean. Religious morality, which is basically support for the Torah, or secular morality, which aspires to equality and liberty for all?
If you man the former, the religious “morality” calls upon one to be angry and even violent when dealing with opposing viewpoints.
Thus, the Admor of Slonim, Rabbi Abraham Weinberg, supported and encouraged Chabad members who assaulted Daat Emet activists:
The Torah, in the section dealing with an instigator (Deuteronomy 13:9) said: “You shall not consent to him, nor listen to him. Your eye shall not pity him…Rashi wrote: “You shall not love him. Since it is stated, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’ [it states here] ‘this one you shall not love.’…There is no doubt that about this sort of instigator and agitator the sweet singer of Israel wrote in Psalms, “Behold, those who hate You I shall hate [according to the Charedim, the one who hate the Lord is the apostate and the heretic, and it is a commandment to hate him] and those who quarrel with You, with them I shall quarrel; I hate them, they are my enemies.” What shall a rational and honest man do when poisonous snakes penetrate his home and seeks to sink their poison into the hearts of his children or when murderers break into his house with drawn swords and threaten the members of his household? Must he accept it with equanimity or should he stand and fight for his soul and the souls of his household? Therefore those who responded as they did are not hot-heads and their actions are not violent nor rash. Their response is that of a healthy person whose most precious thing has been threatened, that which is holy and dear to him abused …
From the Kfar Chabad weekly magazine, issue 870
For more about permissible violence, see our essay Violence in the Charedi/Religious Sector.
Sincerely,
Daat Emet