“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

Thus begins the first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10th, 1948.

Liberty, equality, and fraternity are presented as the principles that make possible and regulate an ideal of society whereby we recognize each other as brothers and reconcile with one another by transcending our differences.

This civic and social tradition of respect and interaction is firmly rooted in the revolutionary heroics of modernity, echoing the French Revolution of 1789 or the North-American Declaration of Independence of 1776. It is our responsibility, we being the children and heirs of these traditions, to uphold these principles in our life’s work.

But as long as we affirm our affiliation with human rights, we are under obligation to ask ourselves in which way these texts—written in the main under the paradigm of secular enlightenment—might be enriched by the voice of religion. It is in this sense that I wonder: Can religion contribute to the edification of a pluralist, democratic, and fraternal society? Or, are we bound to accept that the religions were born to compete, to disunite, and for their adepts to behave violently towards those whose communion does not involve the same ideas and religious practices? Undeniably, history has shown us on innumerable occasions the ways in which religions have been used to exacerbate positions and sow hatred and discord. All of us men of faith who are committed to working towards a better world must, above all else, recognize the harm we have often inflicted upon ourselves in the name of G_d. Only with the recognition of such as a starting point, will we be able to restore the lost equilibria; only by departing from these reflections, can we take up the initiative to go further afield.

Here, my intention is to share with you some ideas concerning the value of respect within the framework of the Tradition of Israel.

Judaism, just to start with what is already written in the Book of Genesis, proposes the fraternal recognition of all men on this earth, based on the idea that each of us was created in the image and likeness of G_d (Bereshit 1:27). This means that aggression towards or humiliation of one’s neighbor has a correlative in aggression or humiliation of G_d Himself. In this sense, our sources remind us that anyone who attains elevated position by despising their fellow men shall not be blessed with being a part of the world to come (Bereshit Rabba 1:5; Baba Metzia 58b), thus establishing the principle that only in shared and mutual growth do human beings truly attain the peak and fundament of their existence (1).

Respect, in this sense, is only borne of recognizing ourselves—as the Judeo-French Emanuel Levinas would say—in the face of the other. Respect, in this sense, goes hand-in-hand with the idea of responsibility, the latter being understood as the capacity in every one of us to make the necessary sacrifices in order to respond to our neighbor. Or, in words of the Levinas himself:

“The “discovery” of the other—no longer as a datum precisely, but as a face!— subverts the approximation of the transcendental I, yet preserves the egological primacy of that I, which remains unique and chosen for its ineluctable responsibility” (2).

The ability to respond, or responsibility, articulates itself as a basis for respect and acceptance of the other by means of a genuine dialogue, and not by means of the imposition of one’s personal ideas while turning a deaf ear on the ideas of others. Consequently, we read in the Pirkei Avot, a fundamental text in our tradition: “Who deserves to be honored? Only he who honors the people” (Avot 4:1).
The object of dialogue, respect and fraternal interaction is not to have us all thinking the same. The equality envisioned is not the equality of ideas; the desired equality is the equality of possibilities, based on a shared encounter in which we allow ourselves the possibility of learning from difference. For all significant learning necessitates at least two people, who, upon encountering one another face-to-face, build up a shared understanding. We learn in as much as, and as soon as we open up to sincere and honest dialogue, since, as the pedagogue Paulo Freire used to say, those who seek to have the last and only word, will sooner or later end up with nothing further to say, and deaf on account of the possibility of only listening to themselves (3).

In this sense, it strikes me that the religious expressions are vitally important when attempting to inspire the whole of humanity with constant invitation to dialogue. For religions are structured precisely around a profound dialogue that seeks to bring man closer to the other par excellence, a dialogue that seeks to tie man to G_d. And it is with this relationship, this transcendental covenant as a basis that values like respect, recognition, and reconciliation with regard to our fellows can come about, grow, and develop.

We said earlier that a fundamental portion of the prominent place that respect has in the Jewish tradition stems from the belief that G_d has created each man and each woman in His image and likeness. Now we may venture a step further by saying that this image and likeness turns from potential to fact in as much as, and as soon as man follows in G_d’s steps when he acts. This means—according to the Judaic outlook—that we humans become partners in G_d when we, like Him, manage to clothe the naked, take care of the poor and elderly, visit the sick, and attend to those who have less and need more (Sotah 14a). In sum, man becomes a partner in the work of creation when he commits himself to the creative work. We are the children of the covenant in as much as, and as soon as we uphold it in our actions. And this point illustrates the general concept that brings us together on this day: The religions can provide the inspiration for a mutual respect that transcends differences by inciting us to engage in acts of repair that are based on activism both spiritual and concrete towards dialogue and recognition among people. If we mange to summon ourselves to the design and creation of spaces that favor interaction between peers, we will then achieve a situation whereby the religious expressions can add a vibrant and significant voice to the plurality of voices of good-natured men and women who labor from day to day towards building the heavenly kingdom on these earthly lands.

The model under consideration here for a profound cohabitation based on openness towards sincere dialogue entails many derivations in the different aspects that make up our day-to-day lives.

When we give ourselves the time to engage in dialogue without imposing our ideas or points of view, we are able to grow as parents and children, settling generational differences that often lead to the deterioration of the familial nucleus. It is in this sense that we must understand the words of the prophet Malaqui who defined Elijah as him who turns the heart of the parents towards the children, and the heart of the children towards the parents (3:23-24). The prophet Elijah, for the Jewish people, is the symbol of the coming of the Messianic age, and it is thus that Malaqui tells us that in the moment parents and children know to find the space for their hearts to reencounter one another, we will be living in different and redeemed times, times of respect, comprehension, and acceptance; times of love and imperishable bonds.

The same occurs with regard to the natural environment and its care. The dialogical model of respect and responsibility commits us to care of the world in which we live. For in order to construct a better world, it is indispensable for us to start by repairing the world in which we live. This message was beautifully expressed by our sages, who, in speaking of the creation of man said: “In the moment G_d created man, He put him before all the trees in the Garden of Eden and said: Observe My creation; how beautiful and pleasing it is, and all this I did for your sake. Be mindful not to damage My world, for if you corrupt it, none shall be able to repair it” (Kohelet Rabba 7:28).

And just as dialogue bears fruit in familial relations and in the bonds we have to forge with nature and the world, the same occurs with inter-religious dialogue. For in accepting an invitation to share the table, to bless bread, and to consecrate the space around us, what we are doing is incarnating the words of the prophet who knew to ask rhetorically: “Do we not all have the same father? Was it not the same G_d that created us? Why, then, are we disloyal to one another, desecrating the covenant of our parents?” (Malaqui 3:10).

Religions can contribute much to the construction of a world in which the values of respect and recognition guide and orient us towards a horizon full of hope. But beware: During times in which fundamentalist exclusivist, and monological visions arise, we must understand that while religious expressions may inspire us, it will only be through the consequent, congruent, and continuous action of good men and women (and not by means of generalizations or abstractions) that we shall be able to set out towards a promising future. As long as the values upheld in sacred texts are restricted to the pages of those books, those values will not be ale to do a great deal. Until we ourselves incarnate the spirit found contained in the word, the Divine Voice continuously revealing itself and calling out to us will be silenced by the din of paradigms of hatred, apathy, and exclusion.

In this sense it is we who are responsible for answering the divine call; it is we who are responsible for accepting the commitment interrogating us, and it is we who are ultimately responsible for that which is to come in the world in which we live.

G_d grant that, in the spirit of the values our tradition proposes for us, we might continue in the design of spaces for reencounter and reconciliation, and that, taking inspiration in Abraham Avinu, we might always be able to say “Hineni”, to say always “Here we are.”

(1) On a tangent to our main subject, it is worth mentioning that the idea of man’s likeness to G_d also has legal implications within our tradition. For this reason, for example, all legislation concerning the death penalty—though it be theoretical—is based on the principle of not disfiguring the human body. Those interested in the subject might consult the Mishnah of the Tractate Sanhedrin from Chapter 7 onwards.
(2) E. Levinas, Ethics and Infinity: Conversations With Philippe Nemo, Duquesne University Press, 1985 (quotation translated from Spanish edition).
(3) Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of Freedom: Ethics, Democracy, and Civic Courage, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2001: “It is necessary for anyone who has anything to say to know, that, beyond a doubt, not listening to what the listener likewise has to say, ends with one’s exhausting one’s capacity to say it, no matter how much is said without listening to a thing, or barely listening.” (Quotation translated from Spanish edition.)