Universalism and Particularism in Judaism
- From: jimbotuk2000 <jimbo.tyson@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:15:16 +0000 (UTC)
A couple of discussions recently set me thinking about the question of
how Judaism resolves the question of universalism versus
particularism. To try to make that less opaque, how does Judaism deal
with the existence of both Jews and non-Jews? What is the attitude of
Judaism towards each? What does Judaism say about the religious and
moral condition of non-Jews? What does Judaism teach the relations
between Jews and non-Jews should be?
I am not asking those questions just out of ignorance (I know the
traditional answers to some of them at least) but out of curiosity.
In some religions (most of Islam and most of Christianity are
examples) there is a very explicit commitment to universalism: it is
God's intention that all humankind should be believers/members of the
religion. This can be contrasted (at least on first examination) with
the attitude of traditional Judaism: Judaism is particular to the
Jewish people and it is not God's intention that all mankind should
become Jews, but rather that they should each find their particular
religious practice and subject themselves to the universal principles
of the revelation to Noach. So, there are two contrasting approaches,
one broadly unversalist the other a modified particularism. You could
go through other religions and try to work out which side of this
crude divide they fall on (Zoroastrianism seems at first glance to be
more like Judaism in this respect for example) but that isn't my
interest.
In some ways Judaism's resolution of the tension between the
revelation of ultimate truth by the unique creator deity and the
diverse experience of humankind seems more attractive than a
universalism that says, in effect, "there is only one way and any
deviation from it is defiance of God's will, heresy, immoral, etc".
Judaism says "our derech is not your derech", calls for the
establishment of some minimal religious and moral principles and
leaves each to go their own way. This is in contrast to religious
traditions at the other extreme, where revelation of religious truth
sometimes even justifies violent coercion of conformity.
So there's one difference on the surface. Judaism has found a
solution to this aspect of the problem that involves a kind of
minimalist universalism with a pretty strong particularism. Is that
right? Viewed in this way many people (Jews and non-Jews) find it an
attractive proposition.
There are however other questions where Judaism's particularism might
appear problematic to some people. There has been some discussion
about organ/cadaver donation, for example, in SCJM in the past. The
traditional halachic response is that except in particular
circumstances organ onation is forbidden. Broadly, iiuic, it is
forbidden to donate an organ from a Jewish body unless there is an
immediate, definite need (ie a particular beneficiary identified) and
the organ will save a life, and it is forbidden to leave a cadaver for
general scientific research or educational purposes - though it would
be permissible with a similar stricture as for organ donations. (I
hope that I'm not misrepresenting the traditional view here, but maybe
someone will correct me if it's seriously awry).
Now, these halachic strictures apply only to Jews.
There is nothing to prevent non-Jews from leaving bodies for research,
education, etc, nor from donating to organ banks for the "general
good". So, it's _particular_. So, for halachic reasons Jews are
unable to participate in what - religious commitments aside - many
people think of as a good thing. It is good that people are able to
train as doctors on donated cadavers; it is good that people allow
others to benefit after death from their harvested organs. Since Jews
don't say that others cannot donate nor that Jews may not benefit from
the donations it is at least possible that _this_ example of Judaism's
distinction of the universal and the particular would seem less
attractive. How does a Jew respond to questions and possibly
criticism about this? I don't want to prejudge any responses, I have
no idea how people feel. Is the response of traditional Judaism along
the lines of more singlemindedly universalist religions? That is, does
a Jew say "It doesn't matter if you think this is unfortunate/
hypocritical/whatever, these are the commands of God and they override
your fallible, human conceptions of morality"? If it were, the
question would be do we accept that particular response universally?
( It is after all just the tolerance that Judaism promotes from the
other side of the fence). Do we accept it when other religions in the
face of criticism say the same: "Sorry that you don't like it, but
this is what our God commands"? Now this isn't an idle question,
since some non-Jewish religious spokespeople have in the recent past
made just this kind of response to criticism of what outsiders have
percieved as harsh, pernicious, vicious or hypocritical practices or
religious rulings.
On the relations between Jews and non-Jews it's interesting that until
very recently (or since the very distant past) Jews have only dealt
with the question from one perspective: being the "outsider" from the
point of view of the majority or status-quo. Islam traditionally
dealt with relations between religions by a strict universalism (all
should convert) mitigated partially by the recognition of some groups
as ahl-al-kitab (people of the book, accorded the status of dhimmis).
I'm talking in theory here, I know that even the limited concession
that was dhimmitude was at best unevenly offered to Jews. Islam's
attitude to kufr and idolatory is pretty intransigent and while people
quote the maxim "no compulsion in religion" this didn't mean
generalised religious tolerance. The historical facts have been the
subject of intense debate of course but it seems clear that actual
Islam at one time afforded a limited tolerance to some other religious
communities (and at other times no tolerance at all). The same is
true of Christianity. At some times Christianity preached a relative
toleration while at others it practised violent coercion. It's not
for me to say which of any of these attitudes represents the genuine
divinely ordained response of either religion, but I am interested to
speculate how they might contrast (or not!) with the response of
Judaism. What would the attitude of Judaism be if Jews in fact had
temporal power in some state with religious minorities? (I obviously
don't mean Israel, I mean if there were a state governed according to
traditional Jewish halachic norms). What are the relevant halachic
considerations? Would non-Jews be treated equally? Would all
religious practices be tolerated?
I think I'll leave it there for now. I suppose that recent
discussions have made me wondered about this relationship between the
Jewish people as particular and special and unversal aspirations that
are commonly discussed both by some religious communities and some
secularists. How does Judaism in fact view the rest of the world and
how is this like or unlike the way other communities deal with "the
other"?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Universalism and Particularism in Judaism
- From: jgarbuz
- Re: Universalism and Particularism in Judaism
- Prev by Date: Re: Cadavers for Research and Halakhah
- Next by Date: Re: Signs of the times? (in Israel)
- Previous by thread: Palestinian chutzpa (Naomi Ragen)
- Next by thread: Re: Universalism and Particularism in Judaism
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
