Religious Left vs. Religious Right

Dennis Prager has an op-ed in the LA times on the difference between the religious right and the religious left. (Notice how you never hear about the Religious Left? You'd almost think there was no such thing. But if there's a Right, how can there not be a Left?)

A number of years ago I discovered a root cause of America's culture war. It came to me as I debated professor Alan Dershowitz about issues of Jewish concern before a 1,000 Jews at the 92nd Street "Y" in New York City. With the exception of support for Israel, Dershowitz, a Harvard liberal, and I agreed on nothing, political or religious. Toward the end of the evening I came to understand why. "Ladies and gentlemen," I announced, "the major difference between Alan Dershowitz and me is this: When professor Dershowitz differs with the Torah, he assumes that he is right and the Torah is wrong. When I differ with the Torah, I assume that I am wrong and the Torah is right." Dershowitz responded that for the first time that evening he agreed with me.

...continued in full post...

In general, the difference between Right and Left comes down to the kind of authority religious Scripture has.

...as a religious (though non-Orthodox) Jew, I have many differences with Christians' theology. We differ on the Trinity; the divinity of Jesus; the identity of the messiah; the role of Torah, not to mention rabbinic law, on who is and who is not saved; and on such matters as faith versus works. Yet these theological differences cause almost no difference in our social and moral values, which are almost identical. Why? Because conservative Jews and Christians share the belief that God revealed a text (a text, moreover, that we share). At the same time, liberal Jews and liberal Christians share the belief that this text is man-made.

Needless to say, the article provoked letters.

A sampling of the thoughts expressed include:

So Dennis Prager believes that a literal interpretation of the Bible is a better guide to morality than an individual's "heart." But what does he do with the Book of Joshua, in which God orders the Hebrews to slaughter every man, woman and child living in the land of Canaan? Call me a "liberal," if you must, but personally, when it comes to genocide and the killing of innocent children, I'll stick with what my "heart" says over what the Bible says any day of the week.

Interestingly enough, Prager did not emphasize a "literal" reading, but rather acknowledgement that the authorship is not merely human. The other logical error the writer makes is taking a one-shot event as a general policy statement.

An associate professor writes:

Perhaps Prager should be more concerned with searching out God's will in the text and less obsessed with proclaiming his righteousness over the heathen liberals. Were he to do so, he may just stumble upon another principle in the Bible that he neglected to mention — humility before man and God.

And he writes with such humility, too!