Jonathan Sacks —
The Dignity of Difference

Krista Tippett sits down with Lord Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain. One of the world's great thinkers on the promise and perils of religion, they discuss how Jewish and other religious ideas can inform modern challenges. He says that the faithful can and must cultivate their own deepest truths — while finding God in the other.

Share Episode

Shortened URL

Guests

is Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Commonwealth. His books include The Great Partnership: Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning, and
The Dignity of Difference.

Pertinent Posts

A joyful lamentation over sealed spaces and the lessons Rosh Hashanah — and the High Holy Days — teaches when we have access to the gifts of our natural environment.

Video Interviews with Krista Tippett

In the Room with Lord Jonathan Sacks + Krista Tippett

From the beautiful campus of Emory University, a one-on-one interview with the chief rabbi during the Dalai Lama's conference in 2010. This is a wide-ranging conversation focusing on his wisdom in contemplating how all of us can better learn to honor the dignity of difference in a globalized world.

Selected Audio

Reith Lectures: "The Persistence of Faith"

In 1990, Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks delivered six Reith Lectures on the BBC. Listen to all six lectures as Lord Sacks examines religion and ethics in a secular society. He explores how objective standards influence people's ethics, discusses the religious institution of marriage in society, examines the language of religion and community, assesses the mix of religious revival and nationalism, and explains why faith survives.

SoundSeen (our multimedia stories)

Peace and Beyond in the Middle East at the Clinton Global Initiative

From the Clinton Global Initiative Meetings, we join the plenary session "Peace and Beyond in the Middle East."

About the Image

Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks delivers the inaugural Pope Benedict XVI Lecture at St. Mary’s University College, Twickenham. The lecture focused on the topic of interreligious dialogue.

Share a Reflection

24Reflections

Reflections

Among my Christian friends I am a Jew, but among Jews such as Rabbi Sacks, I would be excluded from my own religious life because I am a liberal Jewish woman. So, while I appreciate some of the words Rabbi Sacks had to say, his very soft, kind voice did not win me over nor change my opinion that his talk is cheap. Easy to be inclusive of those outside his religion, it never requires him to allow that not only can there be diverse paths to God in the world at large, there can also be diverse paths within the various religion; it never requires him to give up believing he and his alone are the ones 'living true to their faith'. IMO, all he has done is put on a pleasant public face to cover up the 'true believer' lurking beneath the surface.

In Torah we are taught first to love our neighbor, then we are taught to love the stranger and not until Deuteronomy are we taught to love God. Yet, it seems we religious people find it easier to do these in reverse. Many of us claim to love God, it's quite simple to say the words and really nothing is required from us to back them up. Many of us find it easy to reach out to the stranger. They're exotic, interesting, not one of us and don't require much of us. They're not going to intrude on our sacred spaces, their voices can easily be ignored, who are they to speak about our religion, after all. We can pat them on the head with a quick, "The righteous of all the nations have a place in Olam Haba, I've helped you with whatever it is you need help with, I've been gracious enough to support you having your own sacred spaces, now go away and leave me alone." We don't have to treat strangers as equals, we don't have to look them in the eye, and we can feel oh so much more righteous than those who would relegate to eternal damnation all who don't believe like them. Everyone has a place at the big table in the sky...except our neighbors.

Our neighbors, our co-religionists. That's the tough one. Why should I listen to a rabbi who speaks so eloquently of diverse paths to God on the one hand but doesn't back up his words with his own actions? I read how Rabbi Sacks refused to attend the funeral of Reform Rabbi Hugo Gryn(z"l), said Rabbi Gryn was "among those who destroy the faith", proclaimed himself an enemy to liberal Jewish denominations, did not allow Rabbi Louis Jacobs, a liberal rabbi, to be given an aliyah in honor of his, Rabbi Jacob's, granddaughter's wedding. What happened to that oh so soft, kindly voice on these occasions? Easy to be kind while speaking to a Krista, a woman who will never present a challenge to his own religious understanding because she makes no claims to it, much harder to be kind to those who would. Rabbi Sacks may be willing to talk with Krista, but he will not daven with me. So, of what value is his religious expansiveness to me, his neighbor?

So, I am drawn to Judaism, I consider myself to be a religious Jew, I study constantly, am active within my community, yet many within Orthodoxy consider me a heretic, a woman trying to be a man rather than thanking God each day for creating me as I am. I have become quite cynical about it all. I could write a book on pluralism within religion as well, spinning tales of all the wonderful interfaith dialogs that take place between my non-Jewish friends and myself, but in the end I know that I will always struggle with trying to find a way to accept those within my own religion who cannot except me unless I become the kind of woman they just know God has decreed for me to be, out of sight and silent in shul.

I'm honest, but not angry; I don't try to hide behind a facade of gentleness and acceptance. I acknowledge my own struggles, my own hypocrisies, my own lack of acceptance towards some of my neighbors, my own sense of disappointment with God and many religious men. I listened to the whole of this interview, it was nice, pleasant, feel-good, but in the end all I could think was, the Rabbi spoke of the value of really talking to each other but talk is cheap. Incredibly cheap. Hurtfully cheap.

I am not clear on what is bothering Jeanine Lange. There is a system of thought and belief known as "Orthodox Judaism". She does not subscribe to that system of thought and belief. Is she asking them to cease being Orthodox Jews?

Let's take her issues one by one:

"He has done is put on a pleasant public face to cover up the 'true believer' lurking beneath the surface" - she is accusing Rabbi Sacks of duplicity. That is a serious charge. I don't think Rabbi Sacks is trying to portray himself as a non-true believer, and I don't think any listener takes him that way. He is, after all, an Orthodox rabbi.

"Why should I listen to a rabbi who speaks so eloquently of diverse paths to God on the one hand but doesn't back up his words with his own actions?" - Would Ms. Lange expect Rabbi Sacks to attend a church service? To give a non-Jew an honor in the synagogue? Perhaps she would, I don't know how liberal she is. But most liberal Jews would agree that drawing such lines is not inconsistent with being compassionate and tolerant. In other words, we all agree that there are red lines. We can love our neighbor while refusing to participate in our neighbor's activity that we deem outside our theological/spiritual comfort zone, or while declining to include our neighbor in some of our activities. One commenter below wonders how tolerant the rabbi would be of a Messianic Jew. IMHO he would be compassionate and tolerant, but would not honor him in the synagogue - a position taken by the way by most liberal rabbis as well!

"Many within Orthodoxy consider me a heretic, a woman trying to be a man rather than thanking God each day for creating me as I am.... I know that I will always struggle with trying to find a way to accept those within my own religion who cannot except me unless I become the kind of woman they just know God has decreed for me to be, out of sight and silent in shul." It saddens me to read this paragraph. It pains me for two reasons: first, because the underlying assumption is that what goes on in shul (synagogue) is the heart and soul of Judaism. For Ms. Lange and many liberal Jews, that may be true. But for an Orthodox Jew like Rabbi Sacks, the shul is secondary, or arguably tertiary. The primary locales for the expression of one's religiosity is at home and at work. This is not apologetics. This is Orthodoxy.

It saddens me for a second reason because it shows a lack of understanding of what Orthodox men are doing in shul. The best modern analogy I can think of is a men's group. This is a men's group, bonding time. It's been that way for 2,000 years. Men are going there 3x/day, 365 days/year. Women come along and say, "can we join" and men say, "please, don't intrude on our guy time". OK, we'll make you a space if you really want to come, to participate, but don't take away from our guy-time. You want to make your own women's group? Fine. But don't tread on our guy-time. Why is that offensive? Maybe because some communities invest so much money in the shul that its importance gets blown out of proportion. That's a distortion. No one is telling you what kind of woman to be, but the shul thing, that's guy-time, so let the guys have their guy-time.

"I could write a book on pluralism within religion as well". This is a hot potato. The problem with pluralism within a religion is that the more orthodox wings of the group are always by definition going to feel uncomfortable with the more liberal wings. Think of the Catholic Church v. Reformation. Within Judaism it is a complex problem because membership is not - even for the liberal - merely a matter of self-definition. Becoming Muslim merely requires making 2 declarations and bingo, you're a Muslim. Becoming Jewish requires something objective that is verifiable by the community. Comparable to becoming American or becoming French. Speaking fluent French, eating baguettes and drinking coffee from tiny cups isn't enough.

At what point do 2 factions within a religious group become two separate religions? For instance, it is well known that the first Christians were Jews. At what point did Christianity become a completely separate religion? It has been argued that the breaking point is when their children can no longer marry each other without a conversion. If a conversion is required, that is a good indicator that you have two separate religions. By Orthodox standards, Ms. Lange may be 100 percent Jewish and therefore not require a conversion to marry an Orthodox man. But ever since Reform Judaism changed the definition of who is a Jew, a large and growing percentage of liberal Jews do not meet this standard. How does she expect a rabbi like Rev. Sacks to deal with this?

It's as if a baseball team decided to change the rules, instead of 4 bases, let's play with 3. Are they allowed to do that? Of course! Should they expect the other teams to play against them? Of course not. To expect so would be a kind of chutzpa. So they form their own league. Let's call it Reform Baseball. It becomes more and more popular because it's easier, the games are shorter and expectations lower. Soon it boasts to be the largest baseball movement in America, and takes credit for saving the game of baseball. But to the chagrin of its participants, Major League Baseball refuses to relax its old-fashioned orthodox rules. They won't even let women play, for crying out loud. Wannabees like Ms. Lange hate to sit on the sidelines. But why is that a strike against MLB? Reform Baseball is the largest baseball movement in America, so go play with them. As long as the MLB players treat you with respect and dignity, I don't hear the gripe against them playing according to their rules.

"talk is cheap. Incredibly cheap. Hurtfully cheap" - I hear this. When someone talks about love and compassion, or about ethics, but doesn't walk the walk, that's hypocrisy. When I hear of a "religious" Jew who behaves unethically, that's hypocrisy. But fortunately, most "religious" Jews, whether of Rabbi Sacks's ilk or of Jeanine Lange's ilk, do tend to be more ethical, compassionate and connected than they might have been if they were less religious.

To sum up, the quote from Rabbi Sacks that resonates the most with me is "It's when you can feel your opponent's pain that you're beginning the path that leads to reconciliation." Within the Jewish people, we too often set each other up as opponents. Feeling each other's pain perhaps begins the path towards unity. But it's not enough, as Ms. Lange says. We also need to work together. As Jews, that has historically meant first and foremost to learn Torah together.

Alexander Seinfeld, author, The Art of Amazement

Together with Laurie Weisman I started an organization called "The Memory Project Productions" which uses art exhibitions, documentaries and outreach to schools to share my personal history as a daughter of Holocaust survivors and encourage others to explore and share their history through art, inquiry and sharing. Our website includes artwork and stories created by children in schools that we have worked with. Our exhibit is currently at the Holocaust Museum Houston, Texas. The exhibit "The Memory Project" is a combination of paintings of my uncle Kalman who disappeared as a child in Poland during the Holocaust and my mother's telling of their story while I search, through art and conversation with my mother to connect to a past that is there but hard to grasp. Our story is told across 9 video screens and 9 paintings of Kalman.

The Dignity of Difference 11/11/10 – Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, Lord Jonathan Sacks I enjoyed listening to Lord Jonathan Sacks in this interview and how he tells of how he came to know and love Judaism. What first piqued my interest was when he tells us of his limited mechanical abilities and that when all else fails, read the instructions, just as quantitative experimental science is doing now in reading the Bible to discover what the traditions and wisdom was saying three to four thousand year ago, which we all know is to do good for others. I was moved in his telling of his experience when standing with other religious leaders at ground zero, seeing the wreckage and the sheer harm that hate can do. It would be life altering to say the least. In another part of the interview what really struck a chord with me is when he said “By being what only I can be, I give humanity what only I can give. It is my uniqueness that allows me to contri bute something unique to the universal heritage of human kind.” Each of us is truly unique in our own way and we must remember that God put us on earth to make a difference, no matter how big or small our contribution to human kind may be. It was most intriguing to hear that conversation is considered to be the antidote to violence. We each know this in theory but there are often times when people are not willing to take the time to discuss a situation; rather, they walk away without making an attempt to understand the other person’s point of view at all, which results in the situation not getting resolved and the possibility of the situation to escalate into violence. As Lord Sacks also said, “It’s when you can feel your opponent’s pain that we’re led to the path of reconciliation.” Thank you for having these inspirational discussions available for your listeners.

The Rabbi has some very good things to say about seeing yourself in the other or for some people God in the other. However, is it always necessary to speak in these low, soft tones? It does sound a bit pretentious. Also why is it that Krista thinks that the passion of a true moral compass burns stronger in more conservative circles? I think it's the opposite. The loud, our way our the highway evangelical religious fanatics have done more to shove the United States in the most dangerous direction I've experienced in my 62 years. It would be refreshing if once in a while Krista would challenge the attitude of one of her more conservative speakers.

I would like to reiterate Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks' message that we are in a new century in which openness of dialogue will be a form of liberation. I would like to suggest an outreach between synagogues and mosques in NYC that would encompass only those issues dear to both of us -- theological issues that might bring us closer in understanding, not political issues that have no place in a dialogue between kindred religious spirits. Could we not have a panel in which learned, and less learned, representatives of our faiths might share our feelings about Abraham, Sarah, Ismael, Issac, and other figures whom we revere in our Holy Books? To learn about what we know from another's point of view is a step to learning more about ourselves. How can we take the first wee steps to turn an opening remark into a story? Robert S. April MD MA New York City Member, Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun

Upon listening to the program[me] with Chief Rabbi of Great Britain, Lord Jonathan Sacks, I thought of the idea that the more time the world spends in/on conversation, the less time we spend in/on confrontation. From the simplest fight between individuals, to wars between nations. It is my sincerest hope that we spend more time talking and less time fighting, but hopefully I'm not expecting too much. I enjoy the show and my sincerest best wishes to the thoughtful and attractive Ms. Tippett. Blessings to her and on her and her family. Thanks.

I heard the interview with Chief Rabbi Sacks on Sunday evening, 11.14.10 on my local radio station. I am frequently a visitor to your show, but usually turn it off anywhere between 1/3 to 1/2 of the way through, due to disgust and irritation with the guests. As a dyed in the wool atheist, I find most of your guests to be intolerable. To me, they appear to believe in nothing more than mythology. However, the conversation with Rabbi Sacks was very interesting and extremely rational. He offers some hope for stopping the evils of religion.
I hope you have more guests on who are rational human beings.

Sincerely,

Lloyd Shadley

Dear MS Tippett, I am a listener but I am not a spiritual person. As such I am repeatedly bothered by the attitude of you and your guests to the lives of secular people. Just yesterday I heard Jonathan Sacks describe our lives as "flat", "plastic" and "uncreative". It's really disheartening when the most sensitive people on the radio feel people like me are beyond the pale of sensitivity. Secular people are human beings. What's more, secular lives are a perfectly valid mode of being. We are not nihilists or hedonists or automatons or zombies or monsters. Some of us might even make interesting guests on your show if you would have us. Charles Edwards, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Hi Charles; I am a devout atheist, but I don't get the same impression listening to On Being (if I did, I'd just turn it off). I appreciate that the quote you cite above does support your view, but my overall take on this week's episode and most I've heard previously is that the perspective is not typically judgmental (listen to last week's interviewee, who is also an atheist, as an example).

Honestly, I wish everyone in America (and beyond) could hear this program; while most won't agree with every statement uttered, there are many thoughts/assertions of value in each program, I find.

Respectfully,

Ron

As another self-described atheist, I also listen and appreciate the premise of this show. However, insights I'll occasionally extract from extremely long interviews are usually parallel to and not directly from the discussion. My point is to clarify what Charles is saying. To put it in a word, the attitude of this show towards its subject is consummately "glib". It's a space for religion without the expectation that anything anyone's saying will have relevance to tangible action or change--which is mysticism.
People like Richard Dawkins would say that's the nature of any theological discussion, and for the most part he's right--the trick is being productive with our theoretical discussions in either churches or scientific conferences. Most of the work I've done in college as a religious studies scholar is to listen to people trying to articulate what it is that makes them feel obligated to defend or declare some sort of faith. It starts with making sense of my Catholic education. I've attended church seminars and interfaith panels, etc., on top of school research, and all I can say after nearly six years of sustained attention to the subject is that religion is primarily a one-sided conversation. It's implicitly judgmental in a society where atheists primarily get public recognition from the lawsuits they file, or long and thought-out books that few read beyond the cover. The change from "Speaking of Faith" to "On Being" politically acknowledges a wider range of listeners, but still doesn't broaden the discussion when all guests are speaking in the vocabulary of faith.

While this is my lasting impression, I don't turn off the show because (A) it [intentionally or not] sets the tone of the national conversation about religion--it's National Public Radio, not some local community showcase. (B) In trying to defend my minority perspective (just as any biologist who may have to defend evolution or pro-choice politics in the Bible belt), On Being is actually a tool for me to exercise ways to change the conversation. That is, you can't change people's minds if you aren't familiar with the network of false associations they have about you. This goes both ways, but you (Ron) perpetuate some false associations just by calling yourself "devout". Atheism is a philosophical position, not a sense of identity and association. Alain De Botton is experimenting with the public as far as I see, he is not interested in fact checking, but places 90% of his focus on a kind of social mysticism. To be brief, the point here is that facts are dependent on reliable theories, and the point of conversation is to compare theories and resolve our contradicting relationships to certain facts. THAT would be constructive. Instead, the conversation is usually limited to stating the obvious facts that people experience something they call faith, that they also experience situations that cause doubt, and that people like me just don't get it. If Krista and her team were bold enough to sit down with someone like Neil Degrasse Tyson, Lawrence Krauss, or any other serious atheist for a 90 minute interview, they would have to acknowledge that those who "just don't get it" aren't simply ignorant of some great beyond but are actually very tangibly engaged with what it means to be alive...what "being" is.

Dear Ms. Tippet,

Your program this week consisted of an hour-long advertisement for Judaism and Israel, in the form of an interview with a Rabbi named Jonathan Sacks. Mr. Sacks spent the full hour weaving religious mythology into his political agenda, whitewashing Jewish history and making a number of disparaging innuendo about Islam along the way. You know, Fox News is, in a way, more honest than NPR, because they come right out and say that they hate Islam, and attack people they consider enemies in plain sight. NPR, and apparently 'Being', is much more insidious, because it prefers to inject an agenda promoting Israeli and Jewish interests in subtle and subliminal ways. I wrote a book about Israel and Judaism that looks into this issue, and I continue to hope an NPR program will one day allow my perspective, or others with smiliar dissenting views, to be heard. No luck so far. Christopher Egli, author, 'The Nicest People on Earth'

As hospice volunteers, our role is to set ego aside, open our hearts to "the stranger" and companion them in their last transformative days on the planet Earth. I always tell the volunteers that as the patients we serve are being transformed by their dying, so are we being transformed as we serve them. And if we aren't being transformed, we aren't really doing the work. That can be startling to someone who only thinks in terms of tasks to do instead of relationships to cultivate. And the cultivation of relationship is more likely to happen when we check our needs at the door, make an intention to be present, and open our heart with loving kindness to the other. I believe that every time you open the door of a home served by hospice, you are stepping into the sacred. Here is a person who is ill; here are the loved and loving ones; here are the ones who are merely tolerant; here are the ones who are enduringly patient. Take off your shoes. It’s holy ground. Apparently being barefoot is a spiritual practice!

The listening that is done in hospice care is essential to "the flourishing of common life". We are all going to die and many of us will suffer prior to that. These are the common threads and talking with and about these issues underlines the oneness we are.

Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks brings religious views back to those of the Deny’s. God is bigger than religion, God is bigger than human understanding, God may even be bigger than the word God itself. I enjoyed learning about his religious history and seeing how he, similar in some ways to Karen Armstrong, found religion when they weren’t looking for it. For some of us, hearing the struggles of even the most devout belies guilt we may feel within our own struggles.

Lord Sacks statement of “When all else fails, read the instructions.” should ring true in society regardless of religious affiliation. We, as a society, have proven to be one that struggles with equality, humanity and at times, a general level of respect for those both alike and different from us. We need to refer back to former “instructions” set forth for each of us and move forward with these in mind. We will never be able to determine who is “right” in the debate of Jesus being the Messiah vs. a Prophet vs. a Teacher, as this will always be based on one’s faith and belief. In order for societies to move progressively forward, society needs to understand the commonalities between religion (particularly Islam, Judaism and Christianity) while focusing on the respect, compassion and reverence within those commonalities.

The faithful can and must cultivate their own deepest truth while finding God in the other”. “Don’t think God is as simple as you are and think we can confine God into our categories, God is bigger than religion”. These were two great quotes I got from the beginning from this broadcast and it really made me think what to follow. The idea that a religion is true does not define us as a person but what define us is the fact that every living thing came from the same source. Jonathan Sacks says we should have the dignity of difference because of the world we live in today. On thing that according Rabi Sacks is the fear of the “stranger” because in human history human beings have lived with people that share the same views but in modern times as we see in Europe and in America there are people from different cultures and backgrounds that live together.

The two great commandment in the New Testament states “we should love our neighbor as ourselves and love God”. But he says in the Mosaic book it says “love the stranger because you were once a stranger in the land of Egypt”. This is true in the world we live in today as we come across different people who are not of the same faith but at the same either you have to do a business with that person or have to sit in the same classroom. "When we seek the welfare of others we know that doing good to others is a determinant of happiness". We can do this by fellowship among the different religions of faiths. As a Christian listening to this broadcast was very interesting because all along I have viewed people with different religious beliefs as the same human beings and we were all created by one God.

Recently, Rabbi Sacks was roundly condemned by diverse Jewish leaders in the U.K. for his unnecessary condemnation of civil marriage for gays and lesbians. I listened with sadness to Rabbi Sack's wise reminders that the bible tells us 36 times to 'love the stranger' and that change occurs 'only when we can feel the pain of the other' (his insight). Despite his verbal eloquence, Rabbi Sacks seems unable to walk his talk and demonstrate true, deep and meaningful dignity towards difference.

Does love+compassion require me to agree with you? To support changes in civil society that I disagree with? To remain silent in the face of what I consider immoral? I'm not defending Rabbi Sacks's position on civil marriage, I'm defending his right to oppose it without being accused of lacking compassion.

Regarding the Rabbi's observation that many of the most peace activistic people on both sides have been people who have lost children and family members I am reminded of a quote from Golda Meir: 'Peace will come when we love our children more than we hate each other'.

First off, I want to express my appreciation for Krista Tippett. Last week a commenter unfairly, I thought, disparaged Ms. Tippett's interview style. I admit that I felt that last week, Ms. Tippett seemed a little bit "smitten" (platonically or otherwise) with her guest who was certainly appealing in thought and manner, and interjected perhaps a little more than in other installments.

I say this thinking about the most recent episode with Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (to be both "Rabbi" and "Lord" seems, I don't know, ironic?). In any case, speaking of appreciating the diversity of difference, I recently reflected on a first encounter with a theretofore stranger, in which I appreciated the gist of her comment but thought the manner was a little more stern than necessary. Walking away, I thought, "Okay, that's not the way I would have approached the situation, but I think it was an appropriate way for someone else to approach it (meaning, while different from my manner, it wasn't what I would suggest was offensive or egregious). Working, working, working towards tolerance and understanding that we're all different and finding our way!

I'm a staunch NPR devotee, and as On Being is now in a time slot that falls during my commute, I feel most blessed (says the atheist) for the show. I'm sure that Krista Tippett has great input in selecting her guests and formulating the interview questions, and I applaud her and the show!

Was quite taken with Rabi Saks, I consider myself neither Christian or Jew, nor any specific "religion". Was somewhat surprised by some of the more virulant "attacks" on him. His quoteing statement: "we must love one another, or die". still rings in my head. To which I would add: The world is a scary place; go in peace". Thanks again for a most consoling program.

Jeanine Lange’s response Rabbi Sack’s conversation with Krista Tippet was written almost two years ago. It is at the top of this collection of comments. I listened to Rabbi Sasks’ conversation with Krista Tippet for the first time a few weeks ago. The ‘conversation’ and Jeanine Lange’s response need each other. They represent the Ying and the Yang of our lives. ON BEING places them on the same table for a few moments. There is no solution to this paradox. There is no acceptance of this unless it is an acceptance unrelated to acceptability. It is an acceptance of reality. It is an acceptance on the edge of a precipice because we are not yet ready to go over the edge together.

I enjoy all your shows and listening to your interview with Rabbi Sacks (aired September 2012) was no exception. However, one important group seemed to be conveniently missing: Messianic Jews. It would have been fascinating indeed to hear about his dignified dialogues of differences with them.

I listened to the radio program with a Chief Rabbi named Jonathan Sacks. He resides in Great Britain and the interview was about modernization of the Jewish religion. I found myself more intrigued by what he was saying than I thought I would. He had good points that made me think about why and how things are done. He talks about how the Jewish religion has changed and evolved from century to century due to modern things such as technology. Some of the biggest ideas that he talked about that was not just in the Jewish faith but in the Christian faith as well was moral values, giving to others and being true to your religion and yourself. I found some of the comparisons interesting as to the connections he made.
When Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks talks about the Bible saying that it isn’t as simple as you think it is, I find this interesting. He talks about “I am that which I am” which means something different in Hebrew. He goes on to say how God is bigger than religion. He states, “To be true to your faith and blessing to others regardless of your faith”. I find this phrase interesting because even though this type of message reaches back centuries, it is still being portrayed. The difficulty of being modern or dated is hard because he is constantly judged by the people he leads in his religion and knows this. This Rabbi is intriguing because they talked about how he went to communities to act as though he was homeless to get a good view and to be able to reach out to these sorts of people. In thinking about this, it is interesting because if you think about back in biblical times, many of those people did not’t have shelter or anything that we have right now. They build a shack with leaves for a roof and do this for seven days. He thinks we need to feel what it’s like to be homeless because there are so many people in the present time that are homeless. He talks about how this is a specific thing that we should do within our religions. He thinks that people should also be able to share their stories and ideas to understand one another. For example, the Passover story is such a simplistic story but it means different things to different generations. These different generations take away different meanings because of different experiences and things that happen in their lives. For example, people now days don’t know how to interact or go about their daily life if they do not have email or their Blackberry. This is a much different view than the people many centuries ago. I assume that this is a way to tie himself to the Jewish community to know how these biblical leaders and followers would have gone about their business. The Jewish community tries to work together with other religious communities on certain things but some things are not able to be collaborated on. Many religious traditions have to do with moral views and observations. There is not’t a scientific basis to religion because it is mainly based on morals you were brought up with and that you choose to continue to believe. He continues to talk about how people relate to people such as the Dahli Lama because he is so different and compares it to a Jewish rapper. He talks about Martin Luther King Jr. and how he “had a dream” and compared it to 27 centuries ago and how they doubtfully thought about black civil rights.
To sum it up, we should love each other, be true to our religion and ourselves. We also need to give to others because all of these things will help us grow as people.

When Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks talks about the Bible saying that it isn’t as simple as you think it is, I find this interesting. He talks about “I am that which I am” which means something different in Hebrew. He goes on to say how God is bigger than religion. He states, “To be true to your faith and blessing to others regardless of your faith”. I find this phrase interesting because even though this type of message reaches back centuries, it is still being portrayed. The difficulty of being modern or dated is hard because he is constantly judged by the people he leads in his religion and knows this. This Rabbi is intriguing because they talked about how he went to communities to act as though he was homeless to get a good view and to be able to reach out to these sorts of people. In thinking about this, it is interesting because if you think about back in biblical times, many of those people didn’t have shelter or anything that we have right now. They build a shack with leaves for a roof and do this for seven days. He thinks we need to feel what it’s like to be homeless because there are so many people in the present time that are homeless. He talks about how this is a specific thing that we should do within our religions. He thinks that people should also be able to share their stories and ideas to understand one another. For example, the Passover story is such a simplistic story but it means different things to different generations. These different generations take away different meanings because of different experiences and things that happen in their lives. For example, people now days don’t know how to interact or go about their daily life if they do not have email or their Blackberry. This is a much different view than the people many centuries ago. I assume that this is a way to tie himself to the Jewish community to know how these biblical leaders and followers would have gone about their business. The Jewish community tries to work together with other religious communities on certain things but some things are not able to be collaborated on. Many religious traditions have to do with moral views and observations. There isn’t a scientific basis to religion because it is mainly based on morals you were brought up with and that you choose to continue to believe. He continues to talk about how people relate to people such as the Dahli Lama because he is so different and compares it to a Jewish rapper. He talks about Martin Luther King Jr. and how he “had a dream” and compared it to 27 centuries ago and how they doubtfully thought about black civil rights.

apples