From: lazer@intacc.uucp (Lazer Danzinger)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: A Religious Agnostic
Summary: Innocent until proven guilty
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:56:16 GMT
Organization: Inter/Access' Matrix BBS

A Religious Agnostic

As far as Judaism is concerned, we can't be fence-sitters. We either 
observe G-d's commands or we don't. When we obey G-d's 
directives, we affirm His existence; when disobey them, we deny it. 
We might like to view ourselves as passive spectators, but we make 
our choices regardless. Simply put, Judaism demands our 
participaction. 

Fifty years ago, the world chose to ignore the wholesale slaughter of 
the Jews during the Holocaust. In turning a deaf ear to the cries of the 
martyrs, the world assumed partial responsibility for the horrific 
outcome.... We can't simply sit life out. This is as true on a national 
level as it is on an individual one. Either way, we are forced to choose, 
forced to judge. We don't have the luxury of suspending judgment, the 
presumed prerogative of the agnostic.

In Judaism, then, it would seem that the approach of the agnostic has 
no place. Or has it? True, we can't suspend judgment about G-d's 
existence-either we accept the challenge of harmonizing our lifestyle 
to the Almighty's Will or we don't-but we can suspend judgment 
about other matters. 

Indeed, until we have stood in the other person's shoes, our Sages 
advise us to suspend judgment about our fellow Jew. In other words, 
unless we know all the facts, and are intimately familiar with the 
other's circumstances, we cannot possibly assess the propriety of 
someone else's conduct. But aside from this, we have to consider our 
objective in making such judgment. If, per chance, we were to deem 
another person's behavior as wanting in some respect, what would we 
intend to do? To tactfully, gently and lovingly guide him to more 
virtuous conduct? The Baal Shem Tov teaches that if this is not our 
game plan, then the shortcoming we see in the other fellow is merely a 
reflection of our own. Modern psychology calls this phenomenon 
"projection." We project on to others our own failings. Moreover, 
experience shows that our tolerance for an other's shortcoming is 
often directly proportionate to our own propensity to that very same 
trait. 

Of course, the reverse is also true. The more inclined we are to 
kindness, for example, the more we appreciate kindness in another. 
Occasionally, though, someone else's virtue ignites our jealousy. 
When this happens, we tend to poke fun at the poor fellow. If we were 
to feel envy instead of jealousy, our response might be different. Envy 
can motivate us to improve ourselves. Accordingly, our Sages point 
out that envy among Torah scholars increases wisdom. Seeing the 
accomplishments of his colleague, a true scholar is prompted to study 
even more assiduously. So how we react to our friend's behavior is a 
remarkably effective barometer of our own strengths and weaknesses. 
And since there is not usually much we can do to rectify the character 
flaws of another, we can use our tendency to judge more productively 
by scrutinizing ourselves instead.

I recall clearly a phone conversation I had, late one night, with a nurse. 
My son had woken without warning with a high fever. Having failed to 
replenish our supply of infant Tylenol, I called the emergency 
department of a local hospital. We still had an ample supply of adult 
Tylenol tablets. What would be the proper dosage for my son? To my 
chagrin, the nurse refused to answer! Not that she didn't know, mind 
you. But she explained that for her to suggest a "medical course of 
action" for my feverish son (i.e., answer my question!) was impossible. 
Impossible without bringing in my son for an examination. Naturally, I 
wasn't enthralled by her rebuff. Later, however, it occurred to me that 
the policy she had followed possessed some merit. By giving me the 
information I was seeking, the nurse might be unwittingly abetting 
improper treatment for a misdiagnosed ailment. It would be more 
prudent for her, and in the best interest of my son, to encourage me to 
bring him in for an examination. She had a moral responsibility to 
review all the data before advising or sanctioning treatment. 

Now, I am still inclined to think that the nurse had applied the 
hospital's regulation to an extreme. After all, I was merely asking for 
commonly available information. Even so, this incident made a strong 
imprint on me. As parents we know that when one child comes to us 
with a serious complaint about his sibling, fairness demands that 
before dispensing judgment, we listen to both sides. What do we do, 
however, when a friend asks us for advice, for example, on treatment 
for a meddling mother-in-law? Are we qualified to answer? Often we 
best advised to leave the diagnosis to someone who knows both 
parties, and who can explore the possibility of meeting with both of 
them to help them untangle their misunderstanding. (Few people are 
really innately bad, so most conflicts are really the result of an 
unfortunate failure to communicate-a misunderstanding of sorts no 
doubt.) 

Yet human nature being what it is, most of us rush to write a 
prescription. Assumptions are made about the mother-in-law; she is 
cast into the appropriate stereotype. Counsel is then freely dispensed, 
and judgment, summarily rendered. Ironically, not only do we do our 
proverbial mother-in-law an injustice, but we do our best friend one as 
well. For when advice, judgment, doesn't match to reality, inevitably, 
problems are only exasperated. And how can judgment possibly 
correspond to reality if we satisfy ourselves with a partial picture at 
best?

If we must judge in a vacuum for some reason, then we are counseled 
by our Sages to do so giving the benefit of the doubt to the 
unrepresented party. Indeed, even secular law has enshrined the 
principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

From everything that we hear and see, the Baal Shem Tov taught, we 
must extract something positive, an insight to nourish our spiritual 
growth. The agnostic teaches us, then, that though Judaism 
underscores the supremacy of action, and the moral imperative of 
choice and judgment, there are still circumstances when we ought to 
suspend judgment. If we are to judge, then we must give our fellow 
Jew the benefit of the doubt, and judge him in a favorable light.

----
Rabbi Lazer Danzinger
Mashiach -- Be a Part of It!
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish