The ‘yes, but’ solution to religious conflict
It shouldn’t have needed a massacre in a Quebec Islamic cultural centre in January to rouse Canadians to show that they care for the safety of their Muslim neighbours. Mercifully, the initiative of Yael Splansky, the senior rabbi of Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto, did that by getting people of all faiths to form rings of peace around mosques.
It shouldn’t have needed the desecration of gravestones in Jewish cemeteries in American cities last month to move people to show solidarity with their Jewish neighbours. Mercifully, the impressive voluntary efforts by Muslims to restore the broken graves and their offers to guard Jewish burial places did that.
One of the explanations why Jewish-Muslim cooperation and mutual affirmation are so difficult in our time is because the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the way, however futile it may be for Jews and Muslims in North America to fight the battles of the Middle East.
Muslims and Jews here would do much better had they been acting according to the “yes, but” formula suggested by Peter Berger, arguably the most influential sociologist of religion in our time.
In an essay in the American Interest, he writes that it’s possible to be religiously committed and yet have reservations, e.g., “I am Catholic, but . . .” In our context it should be possible to say, “I’m committed to Muslim-Jewish co-operation but I disagree with, or even deplore, the others’ attitude to and treatment of my co-religionists in the Holy Land.”
As much as I’d like all Muslims to publicly affirm that Israel is a Jewish state, I don’t need such declarations in order to co-operate with Muslim neighbours in Toronto or even in Jerusalem. After all, Christians and Jews have learnt to work purposefully together for the good of the society in which they live despite very different views about, for example, Jesus.
Yet disagreement on this and other issues that adherents consider to be fundamental doesn’t prevent them from working together in celebration of what they do agree on, and in the service of the society in which they live. They know that the perfect is the enemy of the good.
That’s why Jewish-Muslim dialogue needs Christians to show how, despite countless centuries of prejudice and persecution, it has become possible to co-operate and help protect each other. Christians are needed as catalysts in the Muslim-Jewish dialogue.
The apparent absence of statements on behalf of faith communities in Canada in support of the motion M-103, which calls on the government to fight racism and religious discrimination, may have contributed to the opposition to it.
The sponsor of the motion, Liberal backbencher Iqra Khalid, is said to have received ominous threats from fanatical opponents and apparently now has special security protection. Some politicians also appear to be using Khalid’s effort as an excuse to rouse reactionary elements in society in the guise of legitimate opposition.
It’s possible the “Islamophobia” that figures prominently in the motion is too ambiguous and controversial a term. “Anti-Muslim bigotry,” as suggested by former attorney general Irwin Cotler, might have been better. Perhaps other language could have been used to clarify the intention of the motion. However, all parties could nevertheless support it by following Peter Berger’s “yes, but” principle: Yes, I disagree with certain words, but I fully support this effort to curb anti-Muslim bigotry.
More vigorous responsible religious voices might have injected much needed sanity into the debate. Surely, every effort to prevent attacks of the kind we’ve seen in Quebec, in American cemeteries and elsewhere is a religious imperative. M-103 can become yet another wholesome tool in the struggle.