Confusion Masquerading as Clarity
As a psychologist, you should recognize the confusion interfaith dialogue and blurred religious boundaries create. To clarify my points: We discourage proselytization, such dialogue increases the risk of conversion and confusion, our global responsibility is distinct from theological exchange, questions should be answered individually, and true clarity comes from studying our own sources. Anyone concerned with the spiritual and mental wellbeing of our youth should firmly oppose such dialogues.
By the Grace of G-d
26th of Adar 2, 5725
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Prof. . . .
The University of Chicago
Chicago, Ill.
Greeting and Blessing:
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter, in which you refer to my statement on the question of “interfaith dialogue.”
Inasmuch as I do not know whether you saw the statement in its entirety, I am enclosing a copy of it herewith.
In reply to your letter, I will begin with a point which surprised me most. For I anticipated that a Jewish psychologist would be of the first not only to welcome the views expressed in my letter, but even to support this position. Who knows more than a psychologist of the confusion and perplexity prevailing among our youth and adults, especially in the realm of religion? As I pointed out in my letter, I believe that this business of interfaith and brotherhood has contributed no small measure to prevailing bewilderment and confusion. Fortunately, it is only because American youth is generally not so philosophically inclined as their counterparts in Europe, especially in Germany, that the damage has not been even greater. Even a cursory glance at the number of religious sects in America, and also on the number of agnostics — not by conviction but by confusion, as well as the prevalent switching from one religious denomination to another, reveals the spiritual instability of our contemporary American society. Contrary to the opinion of some, who believe that the existing fragmentation of religious denominations, as well as the prevalent transitions from one denomination to another is the result of profound thinking, the opposite is true. The best proof of this is the fact that we should have had a greater fragmentation in terms of religious denominations in former generations, when people were generally more deeply religious.
Now to reply to the various points which you made in your letter, in the order of their appearance:
1) Torah and Gerim
It is certainly true that the Torah was given to both Jews and gerim. Moreover, the Torah emphasizes “One statute shall be for you and the ger." It is also true that we had gerim in every generation, and many of them became most prominent even in the Jewish religious life. However, all this had no relevancy to my letter. For I do not suggest that we do not receive gerim. What I did indicate was that among all the 613 Mitzvot and their ramifications, there is not one which makes it a mitzvah to try to convert a non- Jew into becoming a Jew. Furthermore, if a Gentile comes to us to inquire whether he ought to become a Jew, we must tell him that he has no such mitzvah or obligation.
2) Dialogue and Conversion
You state that dialogue does not necessarily mean conversion, but even if it did, it would be a good thing.
Again I must repeat that I did not state that dialogue necessarily means conversion. All I said was that dialogue contributes to the already prevailing confusion, and therefore it is conducive to conversion. Hence it is inimical to the Jew insofar as any single Jew may be converted. On the other hand, we have no obligation or mitzvah to convert a Gentile to our faith, so that we have everything to lose, and nothing to gain from such dialogue.
The reference of Maimonides to Jesus, which you cite in your letter, was eliminated by censorship in Christian countries, and therefore it is not surprising that not everybody is quite familiar with the exact text of that comment. However, in recent editions it has been included again, and appears at the end of Hilchos Melochim.
