Rabbi David J. Wolpe, the rabbi of Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a teacher of modern Jewish religious thought at UCLA. He has been named the #1 Pulpit Rabbi in America (as reported in Newsweek). Rabbi Wolpe writes for many publications, including The Jewish Week, Jerusalem Post, and Beliefnet.com. He has appeared as a commentator on CNN and CBS This Morning and has been featured on the History Channel's Mysteries of the Bible. He is the author of the national bestseller Making Loss Matter: Creating Meaning in Difficult Times. His new book is Why Faith Matters.



Bruce Chilton, the Bernard Iddings Bell Professor of Religion at Bard College in Annandale-on-Hudson and Rector at the Church of St. John in Barrytown, New York. He is the author of many scholarly articles and books, including the acclaimed Rabbi Jesus and Mary Magdalene. He is the author of the new book, Abraham's Curse: The Roots of Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Raheel Raza, a leading Muslim reformer, award winning writer, professional speaker, diversity consultant, documentary film maker and interfaith advocate. She is the author of Their Jihad . . . Not My Jihad. Visit her site at RaheelRaza.com.

Fr. Maurice Guimond, a Trappist monk at Our Lady of Calvary Abbey, in Rogersville, New Brunswick, Canada. He was superior of his community for ten years.

and

Michael Novak, an American Catholic philosopher, journalist, novelist, and diplomat. The author of more than twenty-five books on the philosophy and theology of culture, Novak is most widely known for his book, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism (1982). In 1994 he was awarded the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion, which included a million-dollar purse awarded at Buckingham Palace.

FP: Bruce Chilton, Rabbi David J. Wolpe, Raheel Raza, Fr. Maurice Guimond and Michael Novak, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

Rabbi Wolpe, could you start the discussion for us by touching on the "new atheism"?

Wolpe: The “new atheism” (new in quotes because you can read about it in Bertrand Russell) is based on two misapprehensions about human beings: one gives them too much credit, the other too little.

The excess of credit is the belief that we are capable of sustaining ourselves morally and philosophically without God. The justification for free will, the address for gratitude, the ultimate grounding for morality – all of these are bequeathed by a God greater than us. To believe we are the best thing going is a staggering hubris.

We belittle ourselves by thinking that because we are a tiny planet tucked away in a corner of the solar system, the Creator of all could not be in relationship to us. The universe is, as scientists frequently note, a compound of rare improbabilities; change one astronomical constant and we are dust. Yet consciousness has arisen, knows and celebrates itself and its world.

Atheism finds its ballast in materialism, the certainty that there is nothing other than stuff in this world. Because we have gotten so good at manipulating stuff through technology, there must be nothing else. Not so; not wise.

We are better than we think, and less good. Those are good mistakes with which to start.

Chilton: The best-selling atheists of our time -- Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins -- make out the case that religion equals violence and is in any case grounded in fantasy.

To make their argument work, they need to engage in logical sleight of hand. Religious wars have indeed been vicious, but the attempt to scapegoat religion for the ills of civilization turns a blind eye to secular tyranny, which since the Enlightenment has proved itself by far the most lethal, oppressive, and dehumanizing force on earth. And to dismiss whatever cannot be proven empirically as wishful thinking would rob humanity of the values they live by. Although all three writers are eloquent, they are philosophically shallow.

Yet in the political arena, this troika of atheists has probably done us some good. Their false certainty that God does not exist challenges the Fundamentalist confusion of statements of faith with statements of fact.

Voters are rightly interested, not in the false certainties of either religious or secular fundamentalism, but in how candidates ground their actions in the beliefs and philosophies that draw their commitments.

FP: Thank you Bruce Chilton.

Fr. Maurice?

In your contribution, can you touch a bit on the phenomenon of secular tyranny that Dr. Chilton has raised?

Fr. Maurice: In my monastic world, faith is something which is very little talked about, maybe because we are too busy living it, or trying to. Yet even in our "protected" environment, atheism is sometimes a temptation, while Fundamentalism can be sought as a safe haven for those days when we do not feel like questioning our beliefs. Sometimes we would like to shrink God and His works to the size of our capacity to comprehend, a favorite challenge for science. But then, there is no God and we are left to ourselves, in the dark and in the cold.

What we have seen of the use of religion in the world of politics often appears as nothing more but a shameless scheme to draw votes. The politician will be tempted to side with the most popular issues, whether it be abortion, stem cell search, gay rights, prayer in schools, or whatever else, according to what he/she may get out of it, But like what Dr Chilton rightly says: "Voters are rightly interested ... in how candidates ground their actions in the beliefs and philosophies that draw their commitments."

I still shiver remembering a famous speech on 9/11 when we heard, in a same breath: "The Lord is my shepherd... This is WAR." Actually, the Psalms have accustomed us to that kind of speech. "Lord, be good to your people, ...and kill everyone else." Around that time, I was trying to imagine God leaning on his balcony and listening to the prayers of the great leaders, each piously kneeling by his bed and praying that his enemies be wiped out. The greatest religions have practically all had their holy wars, usually vicious and merciless. Isn't atheistic secularism just another religion which has its own saints, its own clergy and worshippers, its own creed and its own fundamentalism?

Raza: First, let me touch on the new atheism. I agree with Rabbi Wolpe that it’s not really new. In the Muslim world it was attempted by Kamal Ataturk when he did away with all religious leaders -- leading to the current backlash. In Pakistan, ex-President Pervaiz Musharraf made a bid for secularism and handed over hundreds of people (many innocent) to the USA and some of them landed in Guantanamo Bay without trial or justice.

In terms of the place of religion in political life, I find it ironic that even the most secular leaders invoke the name of God when it suits their purpose to get support from the religious masses. In some ways faith and politics are intertwined and based on a value system. They call it Judeo-Christian values in North America and in the Muslim world, these are called Islamic values.

However, there is a problem in the Muslim world in that it doesn’t have elected representatives or democracy but self-appointed kings or propped up dictators. Therefore in the religious institutions there is no organized clergy and accountability so the mosques are run independently and base their value system on outdated Sharia.

Currently, the Moulvi (the head of the mosque) has no master other than vaguely defined political organizations that he might adhere to. No license is necessary to set up a mosque. The ownership and management of mosques is not regulated. This creates a huge gap between theory and practice and the separation of church and state which is inherent to life in the West. Very often we see that instead of using the pulpit of the mosque to impart spiritual values and speak to the scripture and everyday life (as Islam is supposed to be a way of life), these self-appointed Moulvis take on harsh political tones and bring a combination of polemics and politics right into the mosque leading to the current Islamist agenda.

The only solution to this problem is that we must change the system of managing mosques and managing Moulvis to make them more responsive to the community if the objective of enlightened moderation is to be achieved. If the Moulvis were somehow bureaucratized into a hierarchy that could control their thinking, we would be closer to moderation.

Novak: In The Universal Hunger for Liberty I was concerned to report on my own experiences in studying the very high idea of the Divinity cherished by Islam – nothing human or non-divine could be said to be made in His image. His transcendence was too great for that. In desert cultures, particularly, where human life is so fragile, and can under harsh conditions suddenly wither and die like grass, the sense of God’s omnipotence (and the perishability of human beings) must be very acute. A second point I noted is the absence of an active principle of development – a method for showing, e.g., that certain practices, formulations of doctrine, and ways of looking at things are subject to new evaluations, as knowledge increases throughout history. One can change these things while adhering with loyalty to foundational inspirations and distinctions. There is progress within vital religions.

In the last two centuries, it seems that Christians and Jews, at least, have done a much better job in assimilating the lessons to be learned from modern science, secular cultures, and democratic polities, than secularists have done, in being able to learn from the religious dynamics that still move their civilization. The Enlightenment (an artful term of raw bigotry – “We are the Enlightened, you dwell in darkness”) developed a literature of contempt for religious realities and persons. It was a contempt in which such words as “illusion,” “delusion,” and “neurosis” figured quite heavily as descriptions of their religious neighbors by the Enlightened.

The balance has begun to right itself nowadays. Various groups on both sides of this divide have begun, warily, to speak more forthrightly and more respectfully than earlier. Certain important clarifications have also been made. For instance, Christopher Hitchens insisted in one recent debate that his opponent could not pin him into the position of defending science (invaluable and noble as it is) as the only form of human knowing. In another debate, Hitchens drew attention to his own awareness of the sacred, the numinous, and the transcendent in human experience – one should not deprive him of such perceptiveness, he suggested, simply by ruling him out as an ‘atheist.’ On a third occasion, he said he had no difficulty with an awareness of God as the irradiating intelligence that infuses all things and the empowering, thrusting energy that courses through all things, and that propels development and progress. He has little trouble with deists, he said. The God of Abraham and Jesus is another matter altogether.

These clarifications are very important. One feels as though this debate is getting somewhere, and is most worth contributing to. It may have very good fruits, too, not only enriching our public life and our respect for one another in our differences, but also uniting us to defend liberty against the powerful forces that hate it, and mean to destroy it. These warriors of destruction are avaricious for our conversion to their version of their own religion -- or our death. Even in their own religion, these haters and destroyers are a minority, who threaten to torture and kill those of their own co-religionists who openly despise them and resist them.

Wolpe: I would like to begin at the ending, with Michael Novak’s report of Christopher Hitchens. I recently completed a series of three debates with Mr. Hitchens (the first two available on the web) and it occurs to me that debates can work both ways – clarifying and polarizing. That is important because we cannot afford greater polarization.

So as religious people we have to think about approaches to this subject that give others a way out. The crucial, embattled position is that of the religious moderate. I’m not fond of the ‘moderate’ term, because it suggests a less ardent faith; reminiscent of Muir’s poem on Kafka “we the proximate damned, presumptive blessed” – not sooo religious, you know.

But the passionate center, if you will, must pull on both sides to recognize the worthiness inherent in the other. Showing the shades in each position is hardly a Talmudic, or Jesuitical, undertaking, in the dismissive sense of those words; the future of civilization rides on the ability to acknowledge the worthiness of the ‘other.’

Some time ago I proposed renaming my own movement in Judaism, Conservative Judaism; I wanted to rebrand it “covenantal Judaism.” My reasons for that aren’t germane now, but the larger focus is: only if we see all human beings tied together, by covenant if you will, by other notions if you wish, might we have a chance to establish the dialogue that can save us. As Reza Aslan notes, it is the separation of synagogue/church/mosque and state that gives the breathing room for such a dialogue to emerge -- as it has right here in Frontpage.

Chilton: Two conceptual confusions that are common and impede clarity have crept into our discussion.

"Atheist" and "secularist" are not synonyms. Mustafa Kemal Ataktürk wanted secular government, and he succeeded in bringing reform to Turkey, but his religious orientation remains a matter of dispute. Secular government – that is, a conception of law limited to this world, and not imposed with divine authority – permits religious liberty, and that is generally good for every religion.

The West takes pride today in its "democracy," but secular, democratic forms of government would not have emerged, except for the military stalemate among the religious factions of Europe during and after the Reformation. Secular democracies were and are often partial affairs, coexisting with claims of monarchy and religious establishment in Europe, and with frequent appeals to Christian values in America.

No single constitutional settlement is required for progress in democracy, and no constitution guarantees democracy. Who would have predicted that at the beginning of the 21rst century, China would encourage the teaching of theology, while America would give us Abu Ghraib? Allowing for the volatility of recent events, I see no reason to be pessimistic about the emergence of secular democracies in historically Muslim lands, provided it is understood that their identities will make for a unique expression of democratic governance. Progress is not certain, but its prospects would be improved by reducing the military intervention and confrontation that has characterized Western policy toward Muslim countries for two hundred years (quite aside from the Crusades).

The second confusion involves the appeal to moderation and balance. Although they seem to be virtues, their power is limited to where interests are being negotiated. Outside that realm, they only obscure matters. I am sure Christopher Hitchens is capable of uttering sensible reflections, but the title of his book, God is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, means what it says. Moderation is good, but only in moderation, where accommodation, rather than commitment, is at issue.

But religious faith involves commitment, and that is part of its irreducible strength. Replacing faith with appeals to moderating reason is as flawed as the program of putting belief in the place of policy. Faith and reason belong to our constitution as human beings, and for the sake of our health neither should be denied. Reason just as naturally refines faith as faith provides reason with its moral compass. The relation between the two is not adversarial, as the excessive positivism of some Enlightenment thinkers proposed. Trying to rely on only faith produces superstition, while the siren song of serving reason alone has, in the history of conflicts since the Englightenment, landed entire countries in tyrannical dystopias.

Our best future lies, not in trying to negotiate away the differences between faith and reason into some muddled middle, but in permitting full, civil clarity in regard to both categorical beliefs and the negotiable claims of self-interest.

Fr. Maurice: Last week, my brother emailed me a YouTube link to an exquisite interpretation of Ennio Morricone’s “The Mission,” directed by the author. The oboe is just superb. Listening to such heavenly music, I was musing on why God doesn’t bother with copyrights on his works. It is so much so that Man can claim as his own any masterpiece out of his mind and hands, but the inspiration of which is most mysterious.

As a matter of fact, my feeling is that God has been and is rather wreckless in the way he has entrusted the whole Creation to Man, letting him do his own thing with it. When Man stands and says to his face: “I don’t believe in you”, or “I hate you”, nothing happens. Man is not stomped on or demolished. Even when the Son was assassinated, nothing happened. And this appears to be a family trait: when Jesus on his way to Jerusalem planned a stop at a Samaritan village, the villagers let him know that he was not welcome. Two disciples, James and his brother John, suggested that they call for the fire from heaven to come down on these people to teach them a lesson. Jesus’ response was a blunt “No way!”

Discussing faith, we have noted that some religions (or at least a number of their members) are particularly touchy about what people believe or not, and the way they live their faith. Heretics have been burned at stakes, gentiles have been imprisoned, believers of other faiths have been persecuted. Isn’t this all God’s fault? Shouldn’t we blame him? After all, where are his writings? Didn’t he entrust his Word to Man just as he did his Creation? Moses destroyed one set of the stones on which God had written his law, and we don’t know what happened to the other. Later, Jesus spread his teachings like a sower his seed, never bothering to write even a single line. The only instance of any “writing” was in the dirt, not even words but traits, and nobody knows what they were, traits that were then trampled on by man and beast.

However, we haven’t wasted any time and have managed to write mountains of books about God, his law, about heaven and hell, theology, Christology, ecclesiology, telling others what to believe and how to live. Unfortunately, we don’t agree on everything. Wouldn’t it be more simple if we could have fitted God nicely in a box with lock and key, so that we could control what is to be known and believed about him? For many of us, church people, control is the big thing.

I believe that God has infinitely more respect for Man. He is not a puppeteer. Rather than imposing himself, he wants us to seek him, together, sharing our faith, rather than imposing it on each other, while remaining always eager to learn from each other. Chances are we will never “see the end of him”: the more we find, the more we thirst, the more we thirst, the more we search.

Raza: Here I am responding to all of you from the heart of the three Abrahamic faiths - Jerusalem. This is a place that oozes spirituality and peace - ironically one would not think so if one were to look at this place in terms of politics. But for people who have faith, there is so much here that is hard to absorb.

In simple words, obviously atheism and secular culture have not worked for everyone because there is a thirst for spirituality -- which we see manifest in how humanity (especially in the West) attaches itself to cults and programs that present some spiritual connection. So I believe that while dogma and religion can divide, it is the innate spirituality within us that guides us and keeps us rooted.

For me, this spirituality is manifest not in my faith alone (although I get a lot of guidance from Sufism) but in every tradition and every path. I believe in God, but I respect those who believe in some form of a Creator or a higher being. In essence, I connect immediately with those who radiate spirituality and have a hard time having dialogue with atheists and agnostics.

I want to thank Frontpage for giving us this chance for deep dialogue.

Novak: Each conversationalist made points worth carrying forward. Let me begin with Professor Chilton’s good distinction between “secular” and “atheist.” “Secular” is a word invented by Christians in the earliest centuries to distinguish “the City of God” from “the City of man.” So I completely agree that “secular” is a positive term.

However, in our age a quite anti-religious movement has arisen in the United States (and in Europe) among people who call themselves secular, as in “secular humanism.” The British Enlightenment was tutored by tradition and respect for the imagination and habits of the heart; the French by a very narrow form of “reason.” The second, French form chose to banish religion as much as possible from public life. The first, British form took care to show respect, and even to give protection to the tradition and the well-cherished religion of the people.

The U.S. Constitution is both secular and religious. It ­­barely alludes to Judaism and Christianity, but in the spirit of “Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” The Constitution defines Caesar’s limits and divides Caesar’s powers. Yet it also takes care to protect the conscious and the free exercise of public religion.

I agree with Rabbi Wolpe, Professor Chilton, Professor Raza, and Father Maurice in supporting diligent intelligent efforts to conduct public, civil arguments. It will take sympathetic understanding to get at many of the hidden issues that unnecessarily separate one faith from another, and people of faith from unbelievers. This painstaking understanding is to be done, not exactly by “moderation,” but by willingness to be patient during the sometimes exhausting task of drawing distinctions. This achievement will also require willingness to hear and to respond to the acute questions of others.

Heart does speak to heart, if we allow it.

FP: Bruce Chilton, Rabbi David J. Wolpe, Raheel Raza and Fr. Maurice Guimond and Michael Novak, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.

[To see Frontpage's symposium on the life and legacy of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, click here.]