What to Do About Abhorrent Beliefs in Religions?

rabbifink — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 21:11:59 +0000

Every religion has abhorrent beliefs. An abhorrent belief is a part of one’s religion that would offend an outsider. All religions have these beliefs. Whether they concern non-members of the religion, women, slavery, genocide or the afterlife, many religious beliefs are upsetting to members of other religions.

Historically, these beliefs were kept within the bounds of the religious group and no one was the wiser. By and large, people didn’t have access to religious texts and codes of other religions. There was little interaction between people of various religions. Abhorrent beliefs were safe.

But things have changed. The international community has become like a small village. We all know each other’s business. Television and the Internet have made us all virtual neighbors. Enemies used to be neighbors or neighboring territories. Now enemies can be anywhere in the world.

Last week, one abhorrent belief of Mormonism was exposed (again). I don’t mean to pick on Mormonism, we will get to Judaism soon. And while on the topic of Mormons, let’s not forget the comment made by a presidential candidate aide dismissing all Mormons as non-Christians. Anyway, the Church of Latter Day Saints has a practice of baptizing all sorts of people who are dead. They don’t deny it. In fact you can read several fascinating article on the LDS website about the practice. They base it on sources in the Old and New (sic) Testament and in their eyes it is a beautiful honor to the deceased. When it was discovered (again) that they were posthumously baptizing Holocaust victims, outrage ensued. Elie Wiesel and the Wiesenthal Center demanded that they stop and that they apologize. Somehow Mitt Romney was being asked to apologize as well.

I found myself conflicted. On one hand I have always had a distaste for baptism for the dead. It is the reason I won’t use a site like Ancestry.com which is owned by the Mormon Church and the data is mined for baptism purposes. I find the practice abhorrent. It really is a little twisted to think about baptizing people who were killed simply because they were Jews! On the other hand I also find it silly and meaningless. Why should it bother me if they say some magic words that in my opinion accomplish absolutely nothing? It’s a tough call. It’s certainly not as bad as Elie Wiesel thinks.

Either way, the issue is really what should the Mormon Church do about its abhorrent belief that they should baptize dead non-Mormons? They think they are doing a good and moral act. To outsiders it is offensive. What to do?

Closer to home, Judaism has its fair share of abhorrent beliefs. Most of them no longer apply. Most of them have either been reinterpreted or require circumstances that are not currently at play. Some people want to accelerate those circumstances and create the environment that would allow and require those abhorrent beliefs be put into practice.

Sometimes religious people have abhorrent beliefs or ideas that are not essential to their religion. They may think that these are religious rules, but they are not. These are social conventions that are more likely the result of years of persecution, insularity, and fear as opposed to drawn from religious texts. But the lines are rarely so clear. More recent texts are likely to mix the two and then provide sources for new abhorrent beliefs that are not intrinsic to the religion.

What does the orthodox Jew do about these beliefs?

There are two approaches that I know. The first is based on a famous thought experiment called the Euthyphro Dilemma. In short, the idea is that if God commands something it is intrinsically moral. Thus, the social conventions that may make a belief seem abhorrent are really false and true morality only exists in God’s commandments. This has appeal but it is a tough pill to swallow. Are we really comfortable with Divinely commanded genocide? I’d rather not have to make that choice. It also seems incongruous that God would create humans who would develop over time into beings whose sense of morality is at odds with God’s word.

The second approach is to interpret abhorrent beliefs in a way that makes them less abhorrent. This doesn’t always work, and could rankle the feathers of the more traditionalist among us, but when it works, it works well. For example, there is a commandment to hate (and kill) Amalek. This seems at odds with human perception of fairness and compassion. Over on Hirhurim, R’ Norman Lamm is quoted and I direct your attention there (Hirhurim) as his answer is not relevant to this discussion.

Which all leads to the most fascinating question of all: When these abhorrent beliefs are exposed or shared with outsiders and they make us look bad or old-fashioned, or immoral, or bigoted in the eyes of those outsiders is that a desecration of God’s Name?

Maimonides codifies several examples of kiddush and chillul Hashem in Chapter 5 of Yesodei HaTorah. None of them really concern the opinions of outsiders about our beliefs. They all concern how we act. There are times we must die for the sake of God’s commandments and there are other instances where our status as Jews or scholars requires us to act in a refined manner. Failure to do so is a chillul Hashem. The principle of chillul Hashem as it relates to how others think of our beliefs does not enter the conversation.

I think we can safely say that exposing what the Torah says cannot be considered a chillul Hashem.

However, this does not account for social conventions, prejudices, and anti-social ideas that emanate from insularity or superstition that are confused with religious fervor or beliefs. I think it is fair to say that exposing a non-essential abhorrent belief might be a chillul Hashem. That is unfortunately the inevitable result of the new global community. So what is the appropriate response when these secrets are revealed (as they were in Unorthodox)?

The solution is not to cry chillul Hashem and force the issue back into the dark hole from where it came. The solution is to eradicate non-essential abhorrent beliefs. There is little we can do about our essential beliefs that don’t jive with modern sensibilities. We have to hope that others recognize that every religion and even many non-religions have abhorrent beliefs and so long as they don’t cause any harm, they can be ignored. Much in the same way as I can ignore baptism of the dead. But if there are non-essential abhorrent beliefs in our community that can be changed or removed, I think it is wise and prudent to do all that we can to eliminate these items from our community.

Which Of These is the Nobel Peace Prize Winner?

rabbifink — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:21:28 +0000

Last week Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison. In the early days of my blog I wrote a couple of Madoff posts (check them out if you have not seen them).

His recent sentencing reminded me about something that I did not post in the fallout from the scandal. This post is not “news” but its message is timeless.

Shortly after Madoff confessed his crimes and the number of victims began to pile up, it was revealed that noted author and famous Holocaust survivor, Eli Wiesel was defrauded of $37 million. Another victim of note was actor Kevin Bacon, married to fellow actor Keyra Sedgwick, who was reportedly cleaned out by Madoff’s scheme.

Wiesel’s reaction was predictable. He called for Madoff’s head and publicly lobbied for Madoff to be severely punished. There was name-calling, as Wiesel called Madoff “evil, thief, a scoundrel” and Wiesel came off as a justifiably broken, bitter, and angry man.

Wiesel made headlines when he was asked the following question at a breakfast meeting:

Asked if he could forgive Madoff, Wiesel paused for a very long moment. “Could I ever forgive him?” he asked, almost to himself. Finally, he said firmly “No,” to a burst of applause.

Nobel Peace Prize winner, Elie Wiesel could not make peace with the man who defrauded him.

(Equally disturbing is the round of applause following an announcement that Madoff was unforgivable. None of those who applauded have ever been forgiven?)

What was interesting to me was the reaction by actors Kevin Bacon and Keyra Sedgwick when they commented on their losses to Madoff. Sedgwick spoke on their behalf:

“…the fact of the matter is that we did not lose everything, we lost hard-earned money that we worked very hard for that was what we thought in a safe place. It’s painful but a lot of people lost a lot more. And we have a lot of things to be grateful for in our life, and we never ever forget that.”

I sense a completely different tone from the Hollywood couple than that of Wiesel. They seem at peace with their prediciment and recognize that money is just money. There is so much more to be thankful and appreciative for in life that it seems silly to get angry and bitter over a tough financial situation.

Contrast that attitude with Wiesel and maybe we should give the Bacon / Sedgwick couple a Peace Prize too!

Believe me, I can understand Wiesel’s cantankerous mood after losing his personal fortune and his charity’s funds, especially after surviving the Holocaust. I may have had the same reaction. What is refreshing to me, is the reaction of the Hollywood couple. They realize that it is really just money and they have a lot of other things to be thankful for in their lives.

Many of us are going to financial hardship in these tough economic times. It is important for us to keep everything in perspective as remember it is just money and we do have so much else for we should be thankful.

Pacific Jewish Center | Rabbi » Elie Wiesel

What to Do About Abhorrent Beliefs in Religions?

Which Of These is the Nobel Peace Prize Winner?