JJ'
In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, at the end of the famous speech
which we all once knew by heart, the speech that begins "Friends,
Romans. countrymen, lend me your ears"o Mark Antony says: "0 judgment!
thou art fled to brutish beasts, and men have lost their reasogé"
That's how we've all been feeling of lateo
gone mado
Gigi)
haver‘“'~
to
seems
The world
It seems to have lost its equilibrium, its ability to
determine its own destiny.
Under the remote control of sinisner
it seems to be
hurtling with accelerating speed towards a pre-ordained appointment
with doom.
What exactly has gone wrong?
can religion supply it, or has
it;
Is there a remedy, and
become total]; irrelevant?
The most immediately obvious fees is afi—ceuaae the economic crisis.
We
can no longer look forward to ever increasing prosperity.
have to make do with less than we have been accustomed to.
really so terrible?
We may even
But is that
of course it is if our sole values are material
But if there are otfier values; if we believe, 3: Judaigg
I
g:g)2'bhe;,
alone
bread
(Dégz.
live
not
man
does
that
by
qgac§§§_us,
values.
T7
”/
provided that we continue to have the necessities of life, we may even
see compensating advantages in the prospect that faces “Bo After all,
less industry means less pollution.
interference with the countryside.
Less road-building meang less
Slower traffic may reduce accidents.
Less motoring may persuade us to walk more.
may be good for our health.
Even lesé food and drink
Less television may induce us to use our
leisure more creatively; we may read more; we may even re-learn the.
art of conversation.
In shorto we may redaficover that happiness does
not, after all, depend chiefly on material prosperity, but on the
-2simple pleasures, on the enlargement of the mind, and on aauisfying
human relationships.
And in such a situation religion is not less
mkmfitMuMfimgnisygrum
Nevertheless we must go on to ask why the economic crisis has
Come upon us.
No doubt there aie many technical reasons of the kind
which readers of the Financial giggg may understand.> But there are
-also one or two fundamental causes which are straightforward enéugh
and which we ought to look at.
.
-
PM“
One e£—6hese is the simple fact that
.
.
the earth is finite, Ehat its resources are therefore limited. and that
the population explosion is causihg them to be used up too fast.
That
applies most obviously to the non—renewable commodities such as 011.
But it also applies to those whiéh are in principle renewable, such as
animal and vegetable products, if they aée‘not husbanded prudently.
In other words, we are beginning to learn that if this planet of ours
is to continue to sustain hfiman life, it must not be exploited with
unrestrained greed.
But that is a pfinciple which Judaism fiaught long
égg: The earth, is says, belongs to God. but He has leaged it to man.
“For the lahd is mine, and éou are strangers and sojofirners with Me"
(Lev. 25:23).
Therefore man is iesponsible for the wigs management of
its resources.
of Eéen, £9 311;
“The Lord God took the man and placed him in the garden
g Egg Egg $9"
(Gui. 2:15).
As the Psalmist; puts
1's,
"The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but the earth has He given
to the children of men" (115:16); and
Rashi comments that "man is God'é
9:}eward on earth, responsible for all that it contains."
Therefore
this renewed awarenesa of man's relafiionship with nature, and of the
Self-restraint which it demands, does not make religion less relevant;
in
makes it more reievant.
_ 3 Now it must be admitted that merely to restrain the exploitation
of nature is not enough; that it is also necéssary to concrol the
population explosion} and that in this respect some of the religionsD
such as Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism, with their opposition
to birth controlD are a hindrance rather than a help° But all the more
imporaant is it that other religions, such as Liberal JuQaism, should
be seen to fayodr birth control as a legitimate and necesséry extension
of the principle of stewardsbép.
Another cause of our economic difficukhies is not merely the growing
world shortage of certain commodities, and therefore their increasing
cost, but also their unequal distribution.
As we all know. the world
is sharply divided into two areas: the developed and the developing
countries, the haves and the have-note° the over-privileged and the
under-privileged.
So far we have accepted this state of affairs as
an accident of history, fortunate for us and one—third of the world's
population, unfortunate for the other two—thirds; and in so far as the
matter has troubled us, we have aalved our Consciences by supporcing
_
the relevant. United Nations agencies, by approving of various gdavern-
mental overseas aid programmes, and by contributing every now.and then
to an emergency fund for the relief of some famine-stricken area far
away.
Bus the situation has never been morally accepnable.
There has
never been any moral principle which says that because we were born in
Britain rather than India we are as of right entitled to a-higher standard of living°
And now the underprivileged nations, realising this,
have begun to hit backo to demand their rights; and they will continue
to do so until either She world becomes engulfed in internecine warfare
or the principle of fair distribution is voluntarily conceded by fine
advanced nauions even at the cost of a diminution of the_prosperiuy no
.
g 4 -
‘iwhibh chey have been accustomed.
But where shall we find the moral
strength to accept such a sacrifice?
.Shall we not find it in religion,
and especially in Judaism, which has always demanded Justice, which has
always required the rich to share their wealth fiith the pbor, and which
has taught men to think globally, to régard mankind as a,ug;§g?
reiigion then less relevant than it was?
Is
No, it is £953 relevant]
And if we narrow our perspective to Britaih, she same applies.
Our
economic difficulties are due partly to world conditions, but they are
greatly aggravated by industrial strife at home; and that in turn is
due in part, though only in part, to inequality.
Now of course there
:has always been inequality in Britain as in every ofiher counfiry. and
withifi 11mins it is probably unavoidable and perhaps even justifiable.
Bu; géyond those limits it has always been morally indefensible.
Now
it is true that in récent times; with rising prosperity and increased
social services, the poorer sections of the nation have in fact been
cushioned against extreme poverty, and it may even be what the gap betwee
rich and poor has been narrowed, than there is more social justice in
Britain today than at any bins in the past.
Isay that
But to say that is not to
there is enough; and it seems to me entirely understandable that
the prpspecu of a contracting economy and ever accelerating inflation
should cause those hardest hit by these circumstances to demand a larger
share of the national cake.
And once again, unless these demands, in so
far as they are reasonable, are voluntarily conceded by those who are
beater off, even to their disadvantage, there will be conuinuing strife
and the threan 6f anarchy.
Here too religion can be relevant if it teach
uS that social justice 15 to be attained, not reluctantly, by surrender
to a power struggle, but as intrinsically desirable, thrpugh the good-wil
of all to all.
'
-}5 -
.
But genuine grievances are only one explanation of the industrfial
strife we have been witnessing.
There is also another: a spirit of
impatience, of ihtransigence, of militancy; an insistence upon the
immediate and total satisfaction of sectional rights, or sectional
interests, regardless of the consequences.
It is this impatiemce,
leading to anger, to civil dieobedienze and ultimately to violence
which has increasingly bedevilled human affairs in récent times; and
it is this, above all, which causes us to wonder whether the world has
gone mad.
It has manifested itsélf not only in industrial strife but
in the student revolt and other protest movements, in Northern Ireland,
.___——_______________
in the Middle East.and in other conflict areas of the worldo
—-——————————————fimr-
In all
——————
thése cases there has been, on Ghe one side, genuine grievance, and on
the other° reluctance to make the necessary concessions.
But all these
conflééts could have been resolved long before they became explosive if
only both sides had recognised the-need for compromiseo
Now it is true that in some aitfiations compromise is not desirable.
When faced with totally unreaéonable demands and threats, she righc thing
When Governments free convicted terrorists for
no other reason than the fear of reprisals; or when they modify their
to do is to stand firm.
foreign policies in response to economic blackmail, that is not compromise in any acceptable sense; than is moral bankruptcy.and is utterly
So be condemned, both in itself and in terms of its consequences, and
‘
not least the bad examplé which it sets.
For if threats pay, than
why should not the miners, or the railwaymen; resort to threats; and
if it is right for the vernmenn to put national self-interest above
moral considerations, why is it wrong for a Trade Uhion'to put its
self-interest above the good of the naaion? So there are situations
in which compromise is wrong. It is always wrong to compromise between
- 6 goqand ebilo 9ng/ic must be in r3§erence to this that an anciggp/ggggiy
'
'
qugggg 1n Eye Tose ta},said: "W ¢aver compromises 15 a alnner, and wégever
’
1/
I
I
I. g/ /
I /
/ I
132)a/’
despigeglgod"
(Sgh.
g5:;3;§;;:E32Promiser
Jr/
7
othgg’gitflations
n
a
comprofiiee
is
posioively
desirable, namely if
B
they involve a conflict, not between righa and wrong, but between
.
'lf/l/l/
l/
.
Ill,
'
rights.
///.
.
.
‘
q
right that the miners should receive a better deal, but it
is also right that the Government should operate an incomes policy to con»
It is
trél inflation.
It is
right that students should have more say in univer-
sity life, but it is also right that the teaching staff should continue to
determine the academic programme.
It is right that the
Roman Catholic
population of Northern Ireland should not be diSadvahtaged, but it iaaleo
right that Ulster should rehamn its aeparateness and its link with Britain
as long as that is the wish of the majority of its citizens. In is right
thac the state of Israel should have secure frontiers, but is is also right
he
thgéiéfie displaced Palestinian Arabs should be enabled to recurn to their
‘
{§g§:§§_§iggg. In all these cases compromise is required. eihher becauée
thefie are conflicting righcs, so that it is logically impossible totally
to satisfy both sides, or at least because the political or economic
realities are such that Shay cannot be satisfied in their entirety
immediately.
_
EEG compromise is possible only if the parties to the conflict are
willing to make concesd.ons, on}y if they are prepareé, at least for the
M
time being, to accept less thafijaould ideally like or feel themselves to
be entitled to.
Compromise requires sacrifice: sacrifice
of
self-inneiesc,
eveh rightful self-interest, for the sake of the greater good of shalom,
of peace, of the stability hf society and'bhe welfare of the larger
community, ultimately the community éf mankind as a whole.
It is this spirit of compromise, this willingness to make concessions,
- 7 'fihig readiness to subordinate the narrower to the broader interest,
.
which has been so Badly lacking in recent times.
We have heard only
strident demands for all or nw hing and the threat "or else".
Andlin
the process far greater values that the objects of the disputes have
come into jeopardy: democracy, peace, even the survival of civilisation.
That is my we are inclined to echo Mark Antony's words: "0 judgment!
thou art fled to brutish beasts,
mfl men
have lost their reason."
At such a time, does relxion,have a role to play?
Surely it has.
Surely its role is to be a force for reqaon, for moderation, for com—
.
promise. for the resolution of conflicts by mutual concession, mutual
cpurtesy and mutual charity.
@EELBassage fggm the Tosefua which I queued
earlier cqgginges g;tb 9.remariégig;g%ézggégt 5? Raggi Jgghua ben gbrpha.
.IIt is," Eé eggs, g; gitzvgéf a méiiuorfgus gcéy to es; omiée." [And the
word he uses is livtzo§,wbicb migbc be more liter 11y translated "to split
the difference."
And what is she proof-text?
It is the verse
from
Zechariah which we heard ealier: Emeb u-mishpat shalom shi£tu
b'sha—grezchem, "Execute the judgment of truth and peace in.your gates"
(8116). Which Rabbi Joshua hen Korcha expounde as follows:
"Is it not
a fact that a strict judgment, based only on truth, does not always make
-for peace. and that a judgment making for peace is often one that is not
based rigidly on truth?"
impossible?
In other words, does not Zechariah demand the
No, says Joshua ben Kbrcha.
.pays regard both to truth and to peace?
It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.
"For what is a judgment that
You must say: It is compromise."
But there are in it also fprces that
make for sanity; that emphasise Spiritual and not only material values;
that teach us to find happiness eveq in times of economic stress; that
demahd the granting of equality before these who suffer from the lack of
it resort to violence; that exhorb moral courage in the face of evil bug
-8'-
,
,
coansel conciliation when legisimate interests canflict.
forces is Judaism.
One of these
And therefore to gather here in these days of crisis
to learn about Judaism, to let its influence flow into us, and to
rededicahe ourselves to its ideals, is not as irrelevant an activity
as it may seem.
we can do.
I
It is. on the contrary, about the most useful thing
THE RELEVANCE OF JUDAESM IN'A
MADtAD,
5'67
MAD‘ MAD WORLD
In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, at the end of the famous speech
which we all once knew by heart, the speech that beging "Friends,
Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears", Mark Antony says: "0 judgment!
thou art fled to brmiish beasts, and men have lost their reason."
That's how we've all been feeling of late.
gone mad.
The world seems to have
It seems to have lost its equilibrium, its ability to
determine its own destiny.
Under the remote control of sinister
forces <_nnn-bumaa7—aea-:atéonal_aLé—fien-mora;—- it seems to be
hurtling with accelerating speed towards a pre—ordained appointment
with doom.
What exactly has gone wrong?
can religion supply it, or has
it
Is there a remedy, and
become totally irrelevant?
The most immediately obvious fact is of course the economic crisis.
It has only
begun
to hit us, but
already we are becaming aware that we
can no longer look forward to ever increaaing prosperity, 1%; may even
have to make do with less than we have been accustomed to. But is that
really so terrible?
values.
9; course
it is if our sole values are material
But if there are otfier valués; if we believe, as Judaism
teaches us, that man does not live by bread alone (Dent. 8:3); then,
provided that we continue to have the necessities of life, we may even
see compensating advantages in the prospect that faces us. After all,
less industry means less polluuiqn. Less road—building means less
interference with the countryside.‘ Slower traffic may reduce
accidents.
Less motoring may persuade us to walk more.
Even—Lea;4kKé—eaé—ériuk
aay~be—geed—£9§Lcu£—bea;&b.
Léss television may induce us to use our
leisure more creatively; we may read more; we
may even re—learn the
art of conversation. In short, we may red§300ver
that happiness does
not, after all, depend chiefly on material
prosperity, but on the
-2simple pleasures, on the enlargement of the mind, and on satisfying
human relationships.
And in such a situation religion is not less
relevant than beforq; it is Eggs relevant/
Nevertheless we must go on to ask why the economic crisis has
come upon us.
No doubt there are many technical reasons of the kind
which readers of the Financial giggg may understand. But there are
also one or two fundamental causes which are straightforward enough
and which we ought to look at.
One of these is the simple fact that
the earth is finite, that its resources are therefore limited, and that
the population explosion is causing them to be used up too fast.
That
applies most obviously to the non—renewable commodities such as oil.
But it also applies to those which are in principle renewable, such as
animal and vegetable products, if they are not husbanded prudently.
In other words, we are beginning to learn that if this planet of ours
is to continue to sustain human life, it must not be exploited with
unrestrained greed.
ago.
But that is a pfinciple which Judaism taught long
The earth, it says, belongs to God, but He has leased at to man.
~
(sw—2§+2§}r- Therefore man
its resources.
0
is responsible for the wise management of
As the Psalmist puts it,
"The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, but
the earth has He given
to the children of men" (115:16); and Rashi
comments that "man is God‘s
s:teward on earth, responsible for all that it contains."
Theréfore
this renewed awareness of man's relationship
with nature, and of the
self-restraint which it demands, does not make
religion less relevant;
in makes it more relevant.
-
b
~ ~
rather than a hel
M “May;
.
~
But all the mo
~~
Another cause of our economic difficumties is not merely the growing
H~¢ rad/n1
‘uf
'
werid shortageLof certain commodities, aafi—%beie£ere—eheir—éncreasing
cost, but also their unequal distribution.
As we all know, the world
is sharply divided into two areas: the developed and the
fieveloping
countries, the haves and the have~nots, the over-privileged and the
under—privileged.
So far we have accepted this state of affairs as
an accident of history, fortunate for us and one-third of the world's
population, unfortunate for the other two—thirds; and in so far as the
matter has troubled us, we have salved our consciences by supporting
the relevant United Nations agencies, by approving of varibus givern—
mental overseas aid programmes, and by contributing every now and then
to an emergency fund for the relief of some famine—stricken
area far
away. But the situation has never been morally acceptable. There has
never been any moral principle which Gays that because we were
born in
Britain rather than India we are as of right entitled to a
higher stand—
ard of living. And now tfie underprivileged nations,
realising this,
have begun to hit back, to demand their rights; and
they will continue
to do so until either the world becomes
engulfed in internecine warfare
or the principle of fair distribution is
voluntarily conceded by the
advanced naoions even at the cost of a diminution of the
prosperity to
h
_ 4 _
which they have been accustomed. But where shall we find the moral
.
strength to accept such a sacrifice?
Shall We not find it in religion,
and especially in Judaism, which has always demanded justice, which has
always required the rich to share their wealth with the poor, and which
has taught men to think globally, to regifiicmankind as a unity? Is
religion then less relevant than it was? R3, it is 393; relevant}
And if we narrow our perspective'to Britain, the same applies.
Our
economic difficulties are due partly to world conditions, but they are
greatly aggravated by industrial strife at home; and that in turn i9
due in part, though only in part, to inequality.
Now of course there
has always been inequality in Britain as in every other country, and
within limits it is probably unavoidable and perhaps even justifiable.
But beyond those limits it has always been morally indefensible. Now
it is true that in recent times, with rising prosperity and increased
social services, the poorer sections of the natidn have in fact been
cushioned against extreme poverty, and it may even be that the gap between
rich and poor has been narrowed, that there is more social justice in
Britain today than at any time in the past. But to say that is not to
say that there is enough; and it seems to me entiqely
understandable that
the prospect of a contracting economy and
egggggggggerafiéag inflation
should cause those hardest hit by these circumstances
to demand a larger
share of the national cake. And once again,
unless these demands, in so
far as
are reasonable, are voluntarily conceded
by those who are
better off, even to their disadvantage,
there will be continuing scrife
and the threat of anarchy. Here too
religion can be relevant if it teaches
us that social justice is to be
attained, not reluctantly, g;—earggég:£1
#0 a power struggle, but as intrinsically
desirable, through the good—will
of all to all.
tq
_ 5 _
But genuine grievances are only one explanation of the industrial
strife we have been witnessing.
There is also another: a spirit of
impatience, of intransigence, of militancy; an.insistence upon the
immediate and total satisfaction of sectional rights, or sectional
interests, regardless of the consequences.
It is this impatience,
leading to anger, to civil disobediense and ultimately to violence
which has increasingly bedevilled human affairs in recent times; and
it is this, above all, which causes us to wonder whether the world has
gone mad.
manifested itself not only in industrial strife but
in the student revolt and other protest movements, in Northern Ireland,
It has
in the Middle East and in other conflict areas of the world.
I5 all
these cases there has been, on the one side, genuine grievance, and on
the other, reluctance to make the necessary concessions.
But all these
conflééts could have been resolved long before they became
explosive if
only both sides had recognised the need for compromise.
Now it is true that in some aibfiations compromise is not
desirable.
When faced with totally ufireasonable demands and
threats, the right thin
to do is to stand firm. When
Governments free convicted terrorists for
‘no other reason than the
fear of reprisals, or when they modify
their
foreign policies in response to economic
blackmail, that is not comPromise in any acceptable sense; tbac
is moral bankruptcy and is
unnerly
to be condemned, both in
itself and in terms of its
consequences, and
not least the bad example
which it sets. For if threats
pay, then
why should not the miners, or
the railwaymen, resort to
threats; and
if it is right for the
vernment.to put national self-interest
above
moral considerations, why
is it wrong for a Trade
union to put its
self-interest above the good of
the nanion? So there are
situations
1n wblch compromise is
wrong. It is always wrong to
compromise between
.
good and ebil.
_ 6 _
And it must be in reference to this that an ancient rabbi,
quoted in the Tosefta, said: "Whéever compromises is a sinner, and whoever
praises a compromise: despises God" (San. 1:2).
But in other situations cbmpromise is posicively desirable, namely if
they involve a conflict, not between right and wrong, buc between ywo
rights.
It is right that the miners should receive a better deal, but it
is also right that the Government should operate an incomes policy to con—
trbl inflation.
It is right that
students should have more say in univer—
sity life, but it is also right that the teaching staff should continue to
determine the academic programme.
It is right that the
Roman Catholic
population of Northern Ireland should not be disadvantaged, but it kaalso
right that Ulster should retain its separateness and its link with Britain
as long as that is the wish of the majority of its citizens. It is right
that the State of Israel should have secure frontiers, but in is also right
that the displaced Palestinian Arabs should be enabled to return to their
land of birth. In all these cases compromise is required, einher because
there are conflicting rights, so that it is logically impossible
totally
to satisfy both sides, or at least because the
political or economic
realities gre such that they cannot be satisfied in their
entirety
immediately.
.
But compromise is possible only if the parties to the
conflict are
willing to make conces§.ons, only if they are
prepared, at least for the
time being, to accept less tbagtwould
ideally like or
feel themselves to
be entinled to.
Compromise requires sacrifice: sacrifice 0f
self—interést,
eveh rightful self-interest, for the sake
of the greater good of shalom,
of peace, of the stability hf society
and the welfare of the larger
community,
'
It is this spirit of compromise,
this willingness to make concessions,
_ 7 _
this readiness to subordinate the narrower to the broader interest,
which has been so sadly lacking in recent times.
We have heard only
strident demands for all or ndihing and the threat "or else".
Andiin
the process far greater values that the objects of the disputes have
come into jeopardy: democracy, peace, even the survival of civilisation.
At such a time, does relxfion have a role to play?
Surely it has.
Surgly its role is to be a force for reqson, for moderation, for com—
promise, for the resolution of cnnflicts by mutual concession, mutual
cpurtesy and mutual charity.
The passage from the Tosefta which I quoted
earlier continues with a remarkable statement by Rabbi Joshua ben Korcba.
IIt is," be says,'"a mitzvab, a meritorious act, to compromise."
And the
word he uses is livtzoa,which might be more literally translated "to split
the difference."
And what is the proof-text?
It is the verse
from
Zechariah which we heard eaiier: Emet u—misbpat shalom shiftu
b'sba-arezchem, "EXecute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates"
(8:16), which Rabbi Joshua ben Korcha expounds as follows: "Is it not
a fact that a strict judgment, based only on truth, does not always make
for peace, and that a judgment making for peace is often one that is not
based rigidly on truth?“ In_atheJ—w9Eé97-é6e3—flOG-5eehafiah—Gemafid_fihe
iLNWw—mmmqem
pays regard both to truth and to peace?
It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.
What‘tbi‘s
a judgment that:
You must say: It is compromise."
But there are ih it also fprces that
make for sanity; that em basise s plrltual and not onl
materlal va 1 ues,
HE:
rcmxnl M
had
n‘a/‘ural MVI’YDMW two-MR“ [Myra prawn;
t bat teach us to flnd happiness even
in times of economi stress;ztbat
demand the granting 9f equality before those who suffer
from the lack of
it resort to violence; that exhort
moral courage in the face of evil but
'
.
J.“
'
'
'
-8-
'
counsel conciliation when legitimate interests conflict.
forces is Judaism.
One of these
And therefore to gather here in these days of crisis
to learn about: Judaism, to let its influence flow into us, and to
rededicate ourselves to its ideals, is not as irrelevant an activity
as it may seem.
It is,
on the contrary, about: the most useful thing
we can do.
:33.
Iq
to:
SEQ
|H~1+
Let us draw snrenguh from the teachings of our pasy to face the
challenges of the present.
Let us be KKEEKKXKKXKX champions of
justice and advocates of peace.
Let us be among those who maintain
the stability of society but also strive to improve it, that it may
mwi MPMHM
develop slowly, gradually, paaee£u443 late the Klngdom of God.
For
so it has been said: Hevey mi-calmidav Shel aharon...(SOH, p. 14)
,
_