What does a "religious principle in the public forum" sound like?Since we cannot know the mind of God, we cannot tell the good people from the bad people. We cannot know what somebody is thinking. We cannot know what tomorrow will bring. We cannot be sure that we know anything. All these follow from this limitation. So all our public actions, if religiously motivated, must be very guarded against presumptuousness. We have to be very careful. But what is the precise etymology of that most sought-after "modern" value, security? It means "without care".
Rabbi Gordis demonstrates both the promise and the effects of failing to live up to the promise of this approach, which I agree could be called "modern". He speaks warmly and the audience receives him warmly when he calls for more than tolerance, for humanism, for not letting religious authority corrupt the public forum with sectarian demands for fealty--but then he throws in, "but of course we have to defend Israel" as if he were saying, "but of course we have to rescue the child with the illness." But Israel is the most public offender of the very values he touts--and it does sound like touting after all is said and done. Judaism, he says, should be relevant and humane, flexible and dialectical, but then it should also apparently be ready to blitz Lebanon and burn Iran to the ground and starve five million Palestinians--whatever it takes to secure Israel. Surely not.