My Way Or The Low Way

You're right, too.

It's an old joke, but it contains a lot of truth. In its briefest form it goes:

Two men are arguing. A third, who is walking by with his wife, listens, and says to the first, “You're right.” So that man leaves, happy. The second, offended, restates his case, and the listener tells him, “You're right.” He leaves, happy as well. Then the man's wife asks, “How can they both be right?”

I've already given the punch line, but some explanation is in order. One way of understanding the anecdote is to remember that there's more than one way to skin a cat – if skinning a cat is of any interest to you. Just because there are two (or more) sides to every story doesn't mean that only one is right and any deviation from that one is wrong.

There's a Talmudic dictum which states: “ … these and these [both] are the words of the living G-d … ”ⁱ It refers to a dispute between two sets of scholars and seems to place a greater emphasis on their intent than on their interpretations. Both groups were interested in observing religious law, though they had different understandings of what it was. So, despite a ruling from a heavenly voice that the law went in a particular direction, there was approval of the positions of both groups, because their ultimate aims were the same and were intended to be for the proper worship of G-d. And in Avotⁱⁱ we read, “Every dispute that is engaged in for the sake of Heaven will endure.”ⁱⁱⁱ Disagreements are encouraged if their end is worthy. And because the disputants have the same goal, they remain friends and treat each other with respect. It is our hope that we can distill the arguments down to basic rules and choose the proper ones, but we are confident that if what we do is “for the sake of Heaven,” if our intent is worthy, we are entitled to the reward for virtue.

Unfortunately, such an approach is not universal. In Beit Shemesh, Israel, there have been many incidents recently in which some “dagger men”^iv interpret laws of “modesty” in a way that casts those who hold other views in a very negative light. And they subject those “violators” to verbal and, at times, physical abuse. Their views of modesty – views that discourage interaction between men and women and which mandate particular dress restrictions – are certainly admirable and valid for them, but their philosophy does not recognize that those who hold other views may be just as focused as they on following religious law. They are unable to see that another point of view equally contains “the words of the living G-d.” They do not view the others as friends – and they certainly do not respect them. They will not tolerate disagreement, because, according to their outlook, any deviation from the law as they interpret it is wrong. There cannot be valid contrary opinions. There can only be violations of the law by those who would sin.

Fundamentalism^v of that sort is not unique to any one religion. Whether observant of Islam, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or any other religion, there are those who believe that they know the true way and anyone with a different perspective must be dealt with. They cannot agree to disagree. They can only correct the errors of others – even if that “correction” involves violence. They are the “extremists” we all condemn.

And their extremism may not be religious but may originate in political theory or economics, or some other field. Some of the greatest intolerance facing mankind arises from disagreements over political systems. And within individual countries the greatest name-calling is often reserved for political campaigns.

I can understand and even appreciate the views of those who interpret ideas differently from the way I do – unless they are intolerant of my ideas or those of others who may disagree with them. I applaud their confidence and their convictions, and certainly in our society they are entitled to them. But it is incumbent on those believers to recognize that they aren't the only ones. Whatever control they may have over their “faithful,” they are obliged to live and let live – to give others the benefit of the doubt.^vi Our Constitution guarantees us the right to believe and say whatever we view as the truth.^vii,viii But that makes it difficult for some cultures to relate to us. Similar guarantees do not exist in all countries. Some nations prefer one religion or one political system over another, and their governing legislation enforces those preferences. But even they do not permit small groups of hoodlums to make the rules for everyone else and, using vigilantes and other terrorists, to enforce their own laws.^ix

With or without sanction, however, extremists carry out their agendas. They may be small minorities, but they exercise intense power over others, and their actions have tragic consequences – both for those whom they oppose and over bystanders. And the media give them even greater influence, while often asking for increased tolerance by others of the larger groups from which the few come.^x While stirring up the waters, they claim to smooth them. It is up to those “larger groups” to disclaim the actions of their own extremists and to provide the necessary sanctions that will discourage similar future activity. All the rest of us can do is submit, wring our hands, or flee.

i     Eruvin, 13b.

ii     A Talmudic tractate.

iii    Avot, 5:20.

iv   That's not my designation but their own. They seem to take pride in “protecting” others from views contrary to their own.

v     There is no fun in fundamentalism. It's very serious business.

vi    Of course doubt is the one thing they don't have. They have truth.

vii    Indeed, the Constitution does not require truth or belief as justifications for our expressions.

viii   There are some restrictions on free speech, but they are primarily limited to speech that may result in harm to others.

ix     At least they deny the legitimacy of such groups even though they may ignore, or even support, their actions.

x     Such calls for tolerance are often disingenuous. The media know just what they have done but find it convenient to seek shelter under whatever protective cover they can manufacture.