Say No to Religious Coercion
Real Orthodox Jews Reject Religious Coercion
By Rabbi Alan Yuter
In
suburban
Community Center in Owings Mills is contemplating establishing Shabbat hours
with activities. The Orthodox community called a protest rally in
opposition to this policy change. The rally’s purpose was to celebrate
“the beauty and sanctity of Shabbat.” The rally was “officially” against “nobody,”
but seemed to be occasioned by the new Shabbat policy of the
of contemporary Orthodox life, spin is critical; one must sound “liberal” and
reasonable but act traditionally and with a countercultural, parochial agenda.
“’This
is going to be a very positive program for the support of Sabbath observance,’
said Eli Schlossberg, one of the rally’s organizers. “Just like the last one we
had, we’re not coming out against anything or anybody.” If this euphemistic
claim were indeed the case, that the rally and Orthodoxy is “positive” and not
against anyone, the rally would have occurred not in response to the
Shabbat, but as an unconditioned and unconditional invitation to experience
Shabbat.
The
Owings Mills facility is not located in an Orthodox neighborhood, and it serves
a largely non-Orthodox population. On the other hand, the Park Heights
mostly Orthodox population, will not open on Shabbat. A 3500 person protest
took place 12 years ago when the Owings Mills
opening on Shabbat. The social/religious meaning of the new rally and the
rhetoric that justifies the rally requires analysis.
My own position is that the
closed, but the Orthodox community should not squander its moral voice on these
kinds of communal conflicts. Orthodoxy must teach by gentle example and
not with coercion or protests.
We
have to examine and understand
[1]
The position of those who want the
Mills to remain closed,
[2]
The reasons supporting the opening of the
[3]
The position of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik regarding religious coercion,
and
[4]
What a responsible Orthodox response ought to be
__________________________________________________________________
[1]
The position of those who want the
Mills to remain closed
Those
who advocate forcing the
closed on Shabbat maintain that the word “Jewish” really means something
significant, dear, and sacred. Being Jewish means that Shabbat is
important, beautiful, divine, and yes, obligatory. It is a violation of
Judaism to desecrate the Sabbath, and “Judaism” and “Sabbath violation” are
as antithetical as are the terms “Jewish” and “non-Jewish.”
Opening
the
pious, and sincere Jews, the most Jewish of Jews, the Jews for whom Judaism is
too precious to be compromised. And violating the Sabbath in the name of
the community will disrupt and, heaven forefend, undermine the unity of the
community, whose existence is assured by the commitments and feelings of the
consistently, fervently and steadfastly Orthodox community who observe the
Shabbat and want all
Shabbat observance.
God
said: “remember and observe” the Sabbath and we dare not forget what God
commands in the Ten Commandments. How can we call ourselves Jewish if we
deny what God says, ignore what God
orders, and we without sensitivity to Jewish belief, practice, and
sensibilities?
[2]
The reasons supporting the opening the
Those
who wish to open the
reasons as well, which from the perspective of its segment of the Jewish
community, also make sense. And in order to feel their feelings and
respect their integrity, we, the Orthodox community, are morally and
religiously required to hear them as we wish to be heard by them.
Rightly
or wrongly, there are those who adhere to different Judaisms, who believe,
behave and belong as Jews without Orthodox commitments. In
open on Shabbat; in
allowed to observe Judaism any way that they choose; and in
Shabbat. Just as Orthodox Jews resent and resist pressure to abandon their
cherished beliefs and opinions, other Jews who identify as Jews also cherish
their autonomy, the right to define their personal expressions of spiritual
identity, and do not look to Orthodoxy for authenticity, be the issue rite
observance or right morality, and for whom Shabbat afternoon is leisure time to
be celebrated as a matter of personal choice. Why should the beliefs of others
impede, impinge, or impose themselves on those who believe differently?
Jews
have always defined themselves differently. Today we call this phenomenon
“pluralism.” We have a right to act in ways that others believe to be
wrong. Orthodoxy has its own issues. People with the wrong head
covering, the wrong color of clothes, with the contamination of secular studies
and ideas, and those unwilling to accept the Orthodox flow are not, for some,
“really Orthodox” either. So let’s live and let live, agree
agreeably to disagree, and to compete constructively with each other and not
contend cantankerously against each other.
[3]
The position of Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik regarding religious coercion
In
Thinking Aloud, p.41, edited by Rabbi David Holzer, a record of R.
Soloveitchik’s oral musings on current issues appear, teaching three
essential doctrines:
a.
thinking
is allowed
b.
we
are allowed to disagree with the consensus
c.
coercion
may never be used in modernity to enforce compliance.
When
Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik was sent to
philosophy, pressure was put on his father, Rabbi Moshe, to disallow the study,
the exposure to heresy, the very bad social religious example of
non-conformity, and the frontal challenge to accepted, conventional religion.
Rabbi Joseph went to
father, R. Moshe, blackballed by fanatics, came to
The
Biblical Joshua and Caleb defied the consensus of 10 wrong-headed spies, Moses
ignored the consensus created by Pharaoh’s tyranny, the prophets rejected the
consensus of ancient
elites, and no Judaism that is authentically Orthodox regards the consensus of
a self-selecting clique to be a covenantal command. When told by a
student that his understanding of a Talmudic passage disagrees with the
“consensus of latter day sages,” i.e., aharonim, R. Soloveitchik
responded that he too is an aharon, a latter day sage. There is no
rule in Judaism that insists that a post-Talmudic rabbinic consensus, which is
not convincing, may be coercively applied.
Rabbi
Soloveitchik is modern and not ultra-Orthodox for a reason. Just as the
Biblical Joseph saw ancient
reality, requiring a different approach to a world that is different from that
of his ancestors, R. Joseph Soloveitchik saw the Holocaust and Israeli
statehood as new realities which Jewish law must address and confront. He
therefore contends:
I am at loggerheads [i.e., in disagreement] with
the entire [Orthodox] Jewish community. But I can’t help it. No
undue influence and no coercive circumstances must interfere with the behavior
of the person. If one is constrained by legislation which is
provided by effective sanctions, by public opinion, by ulterior considerations
to conform to certain codes of morality or ethical standards, then the sublime
sacrificial action is desecrated, vulgarized. [Think
Aloud, p. 41]
For R.
Soloveitchik, the individual conscience, both of others as well as his own, is
inviolate. Being coerced to observe the Sabbath makes for an angry Jew,
not an observant, believing or loyal Jew. Folkways and customs are
neither commandments nor are they inherently religious acts. R.
Soloveitchik regards the placing of phylacteries [tefilin] on the person
of one who has no cognition is a meaningless act, and not a religious deed. An
Orthodox Judaism that coerces conformity, that stifles individuality, i.e., the
very image of God, and applies social disapproval for actions and attitudes
that regnant elites regard to be socially disruptive, secularizes the sacred
and is not Orthodox at all.
[4]
What a responsible Orthodox response ought to be
If I am reading
Rabbi Soloveitchik correctly, Orthodox Judaism in modern times must understand mitsva
not as “good deed,” a secularizing of Torah, and not as a coercive “command,”
but as a “precept,” more enjoining than commanding, never denying the
possibility of dissent.
Those
who would ride to or swim at the
less Jewish environments, facilitating intermarriage. Orthodoxy must be a
loving, accepting moral model, not a coercive clique of clerics for whom
conformity to their righteous will is unreasonably reified into the rule
of God.
Orthodox
Jews have a right to require kosher food at the
of an inclusive, i.e., not excluding, Jewish community. No one forces
Orthodox Jews to violate their conscience; Orthodox leaders must take pains to
respect the feelings of non-Orthodox Jews who believe, behave, and belong
differently. Orthodoxy has a right to demand that it not be excluded from
the organized Jewish community; in return, Orthodoxy must serve as a model and
not a menace, as a conscience but not as an enforcer, as pious gentle examples
of goodness and not as a judgmental thought or behavioral police force.
More critically, Orthodoxy must walk humbly
before God and show dignity before humankind. All too often,
Orthodox Jewish leaders confuse respect for God with respect for human
leaders. God has a right to rule absolutely, human leaders do not have
this right. God gave the Torah as a book that we read, share, revere, and
reference, sanctifying our conversation. If Orthodox Judaism is to be
a Judaism for all times, seasons, and Jews, it must in modern times apply Rabbi
Joseph Soloveitchik’s strategy of sharing the Torah in respectful conversation.
Jews who do not like Orthodox Jews will not wish to live as Orthodox Jews.
Rather than coerce or manipulate others to conform
to Orthodox norms, subtly conceding that Orthodoxy is right and other Judaisms
are wrong, Orthodox Jews must become God’s goodwill ambassadors instead of
appearing as God’s political shock troopers. By respecting the integrity
of the other, the image of God that inheres in the other may shine; by speaking
as if our voice is God’s voice, it is God’s voice that is sadly
silenced. Rabbi Moshe ibn Hagiz taught that the Torah was given
without coercion; that
Torah had to be reported to God because a literal reading of what God said did
not indicate that a mountain was threateningly suspended over
Only people who are free to resist the Torah are able to accept the
Torah freely. Orthodoxy denies this existential choice to other Jews in
defiance of God’s Sinaitic example.
