Q&A: Jewish Exclusivity Nowadays
Jewish Exclusivity Nowadays
Question
Jewish exclusivity (giving the commandments specifically to Jews) can be explained conceptually if we are something like an engine of influence toward the nations of the world (a light unto the nations).
It is commonly argued that universal morality has its source in Judaism/Christianity. That would mean that today this mission has already been "completed," and today there is nothing specifically "Jewish" about being moral. Our uniqueness today is only in the halakhic category, which as you argue is a category orthogonal to morality, but non-Jews do not belong to it.
If so, what is the meaning of Jewish exclusivity today? Is there no longer any purpose in being a light unto the nations in some way?
Answer
1. Why do you think exclusivity is possible only on the assumption of outward influence? Might there not simply be a difference in roles?
2. In our world it suddenly seems that דווקא we do have a leading role. Go out and see that all the progressives gone mad, and the Western vacuum that is being defeated by Muslim fundamentalism, are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. We have, against our will, become the leading focal point in the struggle against this global madness.
3. Beyond that, I have written more than once that exclusivity may exist only for our own internal purpose and not as a real claim. Every religion structurally builds from the fact that it is exclusive, and the world is built on that.
Discussion on Answer
"Every religion structurally builds from the fact that it is exclusive, and the world is built on that." What does "structurally builds" mean? (Maybe "conveys a message"?)
1. Take the priests. They have different roles from the Israelites, but that is not necessarily because they influence us. So we are the priests of the world. What is the problem with that?
2. I think we are a locomotive, because there is no country that stands at the center of this struggle. There are groups that fight it (better than we do), and still, if you look for a criterion, I think you will find that support for or opposition to Israel is not a bad criterion for distinguishing between those groups (of course Islam itself does not identify with progressivism, but it is built on it and supported by it. Fundamentalist Christianity does, but that is not a state but a group). But this is really just an aside.
By the way, in terms of the morality of war in the Western world, there too in my opinion Israel is leading a line different from what is accepted, and there too in my opinion this is a struggle over a moral conception of fighting evil. Here too there is definitely leadership of a moral outlook.
3. I didn’t understand the comment. Christianity and Islam absolutely see themselves as the one and only exclusive truth on which the world is built. The fact that they want to bring all the inhabitants of the world into their fold is another matter, which perhaps even sharpens the fact that they are such.
Typing errors on the phone. It should read: "is built from this."
1. It may be possible, but it seems a bit unlikely to me that a separate group would be singled out without a special reason and not for the sake of any universal human influence.
2. I don’t think we are the locomotive in the struggle against this Western madness. There are countries far less Western than we are that fight it no less well. In any case, this is not a religious war against that madness. There is no divine plan here, or is there?
3. Christianity and Islam, for example, do not need explanations on this issue because they are inclusive. Here you need an extra-religious explanation (in the narrow sense) in order to make it fit.