In our day, the word “tolerance” has become very popular, as have words such as “pluralism,” “democracy,” and “unity.” These terms are used so often that one would hope most people have a proper understanding of their meanings. This is, however, far from true. In fact, it seems that the more these words appear in our papers, books, and conversations, the less they are comprehended. They are often used in ways that oppose the very values they stand for.
We can clearly see this when, for example, we focus on the word “tolerance.” People feel proud when they’re able to claim how tolerant they are. They see themselves as broad-minded and have little objection to any thoughts or views of others, since all attitudes and outlooks on life should be permitted in a free society. These views are then linked with values such as pluralism and democracy.
The shallowness of such thinking, however, is abundantly clear. If society were indeed prepared to be tolerant on all fronts, it would become hell and self-destructive. Little effort is needed to explain that we cannot condone anti-Semitism, racism, public nudity, crime, or sexual harassment of women and children.
Suddenly, we realize that there are moral principles that cannot be violated, and we should stand by these principles come what may.
Most people get confused when speaking about tolerance. They often use this word when in fact they are apathetic.
Alexander Chase once wrote:
“The peak of tolerance is most readily achieved by those who are not burdened with convictions.”
Ogden Nash put it as follows:
“Sometimes with secret pride I sigh,
To think how tolerant am I;
Then wonder what is really mine:
Tolerance, or a rubber spine?”
Indeed, most of the time it is indifference that makes people believe they are tolerant. It is easy to be indulgent when one doesn’t care about values and principles, or about the moral needs of society and one’s fellow humans.
Tolerance has become the hideout in which many people turn their egocentricity into a virtue.
Looking at today’s Jewish scene, we see a similar phenomenon. This time it is tolerance and, above all, “unity” that have become a popular words used by the various factions within the Jewish world. All of them speak of tolerance and unity, and each one accuses the others of a lack of commitment to these values.
Nobody doubts that unity of the Jewish people is of crucial importance. If the Jews would split—even more than they have until now—in such a way that unity could no longer be maintained, we would indeed have an irreversible problem, which could quite well be detrimental to the future of Israel and the Jewish people. Still, we have to ask ourselves if in all cases unity is really the highest value to strive for.
To many, refusal by a major part of the Orthodox leadership to recognize the Conservative and Reform movements as legitimate representatives of Judaism is a sign of intolerance. The same is true about the Conservative and Reform movements. Recognizing Orthodoxy as the authentic representation of Judaism is seen as taboo and a misrepresentation of genuine Judaism.
While it is fully understandable why many are disturbed by these attitudes, it would be entirely wrong to consider this denial of the absolute need for unity within the Jewish people as a mistake. To claim that all need to surrender to it is a fundamental misunderstanding of what human beings are all about.
Sure, there is a lot to say for cooperation and mutual recognition among all these movements. Indeed, agreeing to some sort of compromise shows strength and flexibility. Moreover, refusal by these movements to bend causes much damage. There is no attempt at mutual understanding and reconciliation. Instead, accusations fly back and forth on an emotional level, and any previous efforts to find solutions are completely undermined.
In the case of Orthodoxy, one could even argue that through some compromise Orthodox Judaism would be well served. It would benefit by no longer being identified as an extreme religious movement and, consequently, would be more readily accepted by the non-Orthodox, and even the anti-Orthodox. Some earlier opponents would perhaps even join its ranks.
There is, however, one “but.” All of the above would be true if religion belonged in the same category as politics, economics, science, and other such matters. But it does not. However important unity may be when referring to religious issues, it is not the absolute priority.
What is a priority is personal conscience.
Let us take a look at and understand the history of Judaism. Should Avraham have compromised with the world in which he lived, for the sake of unity? Wouldn’t this strong-minded man have been more influential had he not taken the stand he took? Clearly, Avraham created a great amount of emotional upheaval. He and so many prophets after him, like Shmuel, Yeshayahu and Yirmiyahu, were violent protestors and refused to go along with the values of their day. No doubt many saw them as inflexible extremists who shattered the tranquility of their societies.
Moreover, we can be sure that many “modern-minded” people in those days condemned them for their outdated ideologies and refusal to go along with the “up-to-date” values of the day.
It may be worthwhile to take notice of a major controversy that plagued the Christian world for a long time. One of the most famous Anglican theologians in the 19th century was John Henry Newman. After holding a most prominent position in the Anglican Church, he decided to join the Catholic Church and later became one of its most eminent cardinals. At the time, this move became a topic of intense debate throughout the Christian world. Many admirers of Newman felt he should have stayed in the Anglican Church. They correctly believed that from the point of view of reconciliation he would have succeeded in making a major contribution toward bringing both churches closer. He would have been seen as an authoritative Anglican with a strong leaning toward Rome. The Anglican Church would have been unable to ignore his position, and he could have brought both sides closer. But the moment he became a Catholic, the Anglican Church wrote him off.
When asked why he had not taken that route, remaining with the Anglican Church, Newman made a most important observation. After admitting that he would have indeed been considerably more influential had he stayed in the Anglican Church and contributed to a much needed reconciliation, he added that this option was not available to him; that one cannot put reconciliation over one’s conscience. In matters of truth one makes a choice between what one considers to be true and what one considers to be false. Newman had come to the conclusion that the theology of the Anglican Church was erroneous and had to be rejected. To remain there would have been a compromise on truth and, as such, a sign of weakness and lack of courage.
This historic event should be important for Jews to keep in mind when debating the authenticity of the Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, and other movements. Neither Jewish identity nor the nature of Judaism can be decided simply on the basis of what will do less harm to Jewish unity. This is an instance where personal conscience—namely one’s perception of the truth—determines.
In mainstream Orthodox Judaism, the Torah and Oral Tradition are seen as rooted in the Sinai experience. The Torah is seen as a verbal revelation of God’s will, and no human being may reject anything stated therein. Likewise, the Oral Tradition is believed to be the authentic interpretation of the text and, while open to debate, may not be even partially rejected or ignored.
Obviously, anyone has the right to challenge this belief and reject it. But no one should impugn Orthodoxy for holding its ground and not compromising on these fundamental beliefs. To Orthodox Jews, this is a matter of truth or falsehood. Similarly, no one can ask the Conservative and Reform movements to change their beliefs just for the sake of unity, when they believe that these two fundamentals of Orthodox Judaism are (partially) faulty.
The only recourse for these denominations is to challenge the other points of view and possibly defeat them with strong arguments, in a dignified way.
That Orthodoxy does not want to recognize Reform and Conservative views as authentic Judaism is not the outcome of weakness, or rejection of the great value of unity. It is something entirely different. In matters of religious truth, personal conscience and principle are more important than unity. The same is true for Reform and Conservative Judaism. In some fundamental matters, no compromise is possible, however inconvenient and disturbing.
Cardinal Newman would have understood.
Paradoxically, the only way to create unity among these denominations is for all to recognize that they are fundamentally divided. We need to stop asking for compromise on the very beliefs that are matters of personal conscience and therefore categorical.
Once all the parties accept this fact, it will be possible for members of these denominations to sit together and see how they can cooperate while leaving their fundamental beliefs untouched. After all, once their fundamental beliefs are left in place, they will be able to discover how much they do have in common and work toward unity.
Anyone who has an extensive grasp of Judaism and Halacha, their flexibility, and their many opinions will not have much difficulty seeing the many options available that will help realize this goal.
If that happens, there is a real possibility that through discussion and gentle persuasion a new Judaism can arise. Old prejudices will disappear, dividing lines will shift, and slowly, a much greater and deeper authentic Judaism will emerge.
 Perspectives, 1966.
 In earlier generations, Reform was an attempt to reconcile itself with the non-Jewish world and ideas, and to turn Judaism into a “Sunday morning religion” involving little commitment and effort. But over the years, Reform thinkers became much more dedicated to the relevance of a serious Judaism in modern times, and on that point they clashed with Conservative and Orthodox thinkers.
Questions to Ponder from the David Cardozo Think Tank:
1) Rabbi Cardozo identifies anti-Semitism, racism, public nudity, crime, and sexual harassment of women and children as some examples of his red lines, beyond which tolerance should not apply. What are your red lines? Do you consider yourself a tolerant person? Why/why not?
2) The author suggests that tolerance, in practice, seems to have lost its meaning, having become identified with lack of conviction and spinelessness. Hence he opposes contemporary negative phenomena that go under the banner of “tolerance.” Should we try to discover a new kind of tolerance, one that might be healthier and more constructive? Or perhaps remove it from our lexicon, since it has become such an overused term—finding new vocabulary for ways to interact with the Other?
3) It feels as if today, for the most part, the Jewish people have broken into factions, each competing on its own terms for dominance, crushing any possibility for unity, except at times of existential threat. We intuit that this is wrong; but what is the underlying rationale for that intuition? That unity is a Jewish value seems clear—but is it mitzva, an obligation, or something else?
4) Rabbi Cardozo concludes that through loyalty to personal conscience, standing on principles, and recognizing fundamental differences, there is a possibility of creating a new, authentic Judaism. This process seems to run along the lines of Hegel’s dialectical idealism, yet the reality seems more like Marx’s dialectical materialism. Imagine yourself the prophet—which of these two is it for you, or do you envision a different future for Judaism?
5) The author desires the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform movements to work together while leaving their fundamental beliefs untouched. But deed is strongly connected to thought and belief. As such, can the movements truly find meaningful areas for cooperation (and if so, what might such areas be?)… or will their ideologies end up clashing at every turn, in fact?
6) Have you yourself ever collaborated with a person from a different denomination, and what was that experience like for you? Having read the essay, would you now do anything differently?