Re: Universalism and Particularism in Judaism

On Jan 21, 7:15 am, jimbotuk2000 <jimbo.ty...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?<

It's dealt with the Laws of Noah, or Nohide laws, some 7 in number I
believe. The Laws of Moses apply to Jews ONLY. They are not applicable
to the rest of humanity, or else God would have assembled all of
humanity around Mt. Sinai.

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?<

Quite simple, actually. Any path that brings them to God is fine - for
them, not us. The Jewish tribal path is supposed to be tightly bound
to the Laws of Moses. Or the "narrow bridge" as some refer to it. Not
a wide path, but a narrow one.
As for everyone else, to the extent that their ways do not rub off on
us, we can socialize and befriend.
Not intermarry. Because, they are not required to live in accordance
to the Laws of Moses, whereas Jews are supposed to. Mixing it up too
much makes it difficult.

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. <

Not at all. Judaism is a strictly tribal religion, and not meant to be
universal, albeit some of the principles embodied therein may shed
some light on the general path that pleases the Creator.

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.<

Exactly.

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).<

You got it right, more or less.

Now, these halachic strictures apply only to Jews.<

Most of the practices derived from the Biblical Laws of Moses are
meant for Jews only. I think Jesus,or perhaps some of his earlier
followers, called it "the yoke of the law." But this yoke has kept the
Jews together even in dispersal, which ended the existence of most
other tribal people who found themselves uprooted from their homeland.

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?<

You raise some good points. Many of the Laws of Moses are what we call
"gzerot" or edicts, that we have no rational answer for, but have to
follow anyway. The laws of Kashrut, or our dietary restrictions, have
no rational answer, health-wise or whatever, are the perfect example
of that. Chinese are very healthy people eating pork for millenia,
thank you. This business of not permitting the harvesting of organs
may fall under that category. I don't know. But, as you intimate, the
Jewish people are few in number so their abstaining should not
radically upset the supply available. As I said, only the brief
handful of laws given to Noah are all the rest of the world have to
abide by to win God's favor.

( 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?<

There can be no Jewish state governed strictly by Halacha until the
Messiah returns. But if there was, the basic civil rights of the
alien are strictly protected in the Laws of Moses, provided that the
alien in their midst recognizes the right of the Jewish people to
their homeland. As for ALL religious practices being tolerated, I do
not think what falls under the rubric of "idolatry" would be. Salomon
and other Jewish kings were led astray by wives who brought their idol
worship to the land. In any case, it's all theoretical as the present
State of Israel is a secular state only influenced by Jewish law in a
relatively minor way. And Maimonides, a great scholar, ruled that
Christianity and Islam are not idolatrous.

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"?<

Isaiah gives the vision of a world where all would be equal and at
peace.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Universalism and Particularism in Judaism
    ... To try to make that less opaque, how does Judaism deal ... with the existence of both Jews and non-Jews? ... In some religions (most of Islam and most of Christianity are ... examples) there is a very explicit commitment to universalism: ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • I will not cease from mental fight Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
    ... seemingly insignificant news story about the Pope exonerating the Jews ... situation whereby two major religions exist – ... The struggle against Israel and Judaism is not just a political one. ... may be taking the globe back to religious wars: ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Article: Why there is no Jewish Narnia?
    ... the fantasy genre and asks why aren't Jews more prevalent in the ... Judaism divorces itself more from the mythological and the magical ... than Christianity and although not mentioned other religions are much ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: OT - For Christians
    ... Unlike many religions, Judaism is an ethnicity as well as a religion. ... There are many Jews who are atheists but still consider themselves, ethnically, to be Jews. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Richard Wagner: Some Explanations Concerning "Judaism in Music" (1869)
    ... In this fascinating letter to a friend, Wagner speaks of how ... abuse that came after the publishing of 'Judaism in Music'. ... Wagner writes that he could not allow his friends to respond on his ... Wagner says that Franz Liszt defended him and paid for it when Jews ...
    (rec.music.opera)