Scholars' Corner
The Bernard Manekin
Faith and Democracy
Inaugural Lecture
in a Violent WorldOn September 18, 2006 six hundred people gathered in Kraushaar Auditorium at Goucher College to honor Bernard Manekin, an outstanding leader in the Baltimore Jewish community and one of the founding fathers of the Institute for Christian & Jewish Studies. Mr. Manekin has served on the ICJS Board of Trustees since the inception of the Institute.
The occasion was marked by the Inaugural Bernard Manekin Lecture -- "Faith and Democracy in a Violent World" -- delivered by Pulitzer Prize-winning author and ICJS board member Taylor Branch. Following the lecture, Rabbi Mark Loeb, Senior Rabbi at Beth El Congregation, and Dr. Douglas I. Miles, Bishop and Senior Pastor at Koinonia Baptist Church, responded to Mr. Branch's remarks.
The evening began with a welcome from Sanford J. Ungar, President of Goucher College and an ICJS board member. Mr. Ungar was followed at the podium by ICJS Executive Director Dr. Christopher Leighton. Dr. Leighton spoke of the work of the ICJS, which is celebrating its twentieth anniversary this year, and offered tributes to Mr. Manekin and to Mr. James Clark, who endowed the Manekin Lecture Series to honor his long-time friend.
Taylor Branch began his talk by reminding the assem-bled gathering that the connection between faith and violence is one of the most urgent issues facing our world today. Faith and violence form an often lethal combination that derives from the fact that politics and religion came into the world "in the vertical." That is, throughout most of the world's history, societies have organized themselves hierarchically. This top-down social organization went almost completely unopposed until the Hebrew prophets set virtue and power against one another and declared that even kings would be called to answer for their treatment of the poor. Yet the hierarchical arrangement is the only one that most people have ever known, and it has been maintained in large measure through the use of violence.
The introduction of democracy, a system in which citi-zens govern and each citizen has an equal vote, presented a significant challenge to the traditional hier-archical arrangement by creating a political world that was organized horizontally rather than vertically. As Benjamin Franklin pointed out, however, even those who live in a democracy have "an inclination to kingly govern-ment." This inclination must be guarded against if a democracy is to thrive -- a message that was conveyed to the American people in the twentieth century by Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who joined together in the work of the Civil Rights Movement. Rabbi Heschel took the same message to the Second Vatican Council, with the result that, while the Roman Catholic Church -- that most hier-archical of institutions -- had formerly stated that the day would come when Jews would become Christians and greet the Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, Vatican II published a document that declared that the time would come when Jews and Christians would stand "shoulder to shoulder" and worship the same God.
Unfortunately, the lessons of the not-so-distant past have been forgotten. The Civil Rights Movement in America used non-violence to advance its march toward equality, remaking the country in the process. But when people began to think that only blacks should be non-violent, non-violence was replaced by black power. The Civil Rights Movement made history when it used non-violence; it stopped making history when it abandoned non-violence.
Now the country faces the specter of terrorism and has become embroiled in two wars as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001. The neoconservatives in government, who were the liberals of the 60s, have convinced many Americans that government is bad except for its military extensions overseas. No one now is willing to stand up for non-violence publicly. There is no debate in the public square about the use of violence in attempts to bring democracy to the Middle East, but that violence has divided the citizenry: A part of the American people believes in the efficacy of violence in promoting democracy; the other part of the people spurns this notion and opposes war, or at least wishes to end the wars we have. But what is the trade-off between our strength and our values? This, Mr. Branch insists, has been the question since 9/11. We are giving up our democratic and religious values and becoming more autocratic, but we are not stronger.
Religion, like politics, is largely about what people do about fear. Fear drives people back to favoring vertical government, but the message of the Scriptures is "Fear not." This message seems to have been lost among many American Christians, who are afraid and so are against all wars except the one we are in. Yet violence does not advance religion any more than it advances democracy. One need only look at the history of the Inquisition to understand this.
Mr. Branch ended his remarks by saying that non-violence is the lesson of the democratic witness of the Civil Rights Movement, but we in America have aban-doned non-violence for "bromides, shibboleths, and fear."
Rabbi Mark Loeb was the first to respond to Mr. Branch's remarks, and he spoke of the use of violence by the Israelis, who need to protect both themselves and the State of Israel, which has been under constant attack since its formation in 1948. Rabbi Loeb explained that Israeli soldiers are trained to use the minimum amount of force necessary, and they are not permitted to use torture. Given the reality that confronts Israel every day, non-violence is not a religious desideratum in all circumstances. Non-violence is an ideal approach to life, and we have a responsibility to seek alternatives to violence; but non-violence is not easy to achieve.
Bishop Miles began his response to Mr. Branch with two bold statements: Ours is a nation that glorifies violence because violence sells, and all democracies are created through violence. Speaking as an African American, he declared that the Civil Rights Movement did not abandon non-violence; the country abandoned the Movement because it saw not only the power of non-violence but also its limitations. Bishop Miles then delivered a harsh critique of the "baby boomer" generation: Despite being the best fed, best educated, richest generation in the history of the nation, the baby boomers do not have much of a legacy, having produced less of anything meaningful than any previous generation. Bishop Miles then spoke of Dr. King, who preached inclusionism and economic justice as social policy. These ideals do not yet exist in America, and until they do we will continue as two unequal nations. Liberals have no message, and neocons have the wrong message. Bishop Miles con-cluded his remarks with a critique of America's emphasis on "rugged individualism," referring to a president who bullies other nations in the name of individualism and religious convictions. As long as the country stresses individualism at the expense of community, he said,
non-violence stands no chance.
After Rabbi Loeb and Bishop Miles finished speaking, Taylor Branch responded to their comments. He de-clared that Dr. King never abandoned non-violence, but he admitted that "it is easier to answer the frustrations of violence with more violence than it is to answer the frustrations of non-violence with more non-violence." Mr. Branch said that he was arguing for a central place for non-violence in any debate taking place in the public square.
Mr. Branch took issue with Bishop Miles' claim that "all democracies are created through violence." He said that the Revolutionary War in America was about who was going to govern the United States, and that construct-ing a new form of government that runs on votes was not violence. Responding to Bishop Miles' comment that the nation glorifies violence because it sells, Mr. Branch expressed the opinion that this country believes that violence is more powerful than it is and that non-violence is less powerful than it is. The impetus for change must come out of the religious community and out of religious values.
Bishop Miles agreed with Mr. Branch on this point, but he despaired of the fact that many in the religious commu-nity cheer this country's violence. He feels that a (non-violent) revolution is needed among people in the reli-gious community.
Rabbi Loeb had the evening's final word. He pointed out that we in this country have not been allowed to see the worst images that have come out of the wars being fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus we have romanti-cized violence because we have not seen it up close. He stated further that we live in an age of zealotry and fanaticism, that there is no moral governance over the causes of zealots and fanatics, and until there is some sense of control over religious impulses, achieving non-violence is impossible. We must speak out against the excesses of nationhood and faith in order to turn violence to non-violence. Religious traditions have the responsibility to exalt peace, but it is difficult to create that impulse. Each tradition needs to acknowledge the dignity of every human being; each tradition needs to look at people and see, not their otherness, but their common humanity.
Who We Are :: What We Do :: Events Calendar
Clergy and Educators :: Scholars' Corner :: Newsletter
Information Resources :: Get Involved :: Home
- The Institute for Christian & Jewish Studies
956 Dulaney Valley Road, Baltimore, MD 21204
410.494.7161 / fax: 410.494.7169
email: Info@icjs.org
