A listing of Platform addresses can be found in the Platforms section of this site. These Platform addresses are copyrighted to their authors. Permission to reprint this and other Platform addresses (other than those granted in the Publications page) can be obtained by writing to the office of the Ethical Humnist Society of Long Island.

• Was Jesus Teaching Unique?
• Is Jesus an Adequate Ethical Guide?
• Jesus the Savior

Not all, however, respond to the figure of Jesus with the same positive regard. Many Jews, for example, have a viscerally negative reaction to Jesus. It is within the living memory of some that as children they were taught never to pronounce the name of Jesus Christ and when passing in front of a church to spit three times. This little lesson, taught in some Yeshivas, occurred before the holocaust. It indicated a deep suspicion towards things Christian, for Jews knew all too well the way in which Christian anti-Semitism plagued them for more than a thousand years. Nazi ideology plunged anti-Semitism to unspeakable depths but the linkage between that ideology and Christian doctrine is understandable to any child who was called a Christ killer by playmates.

Liberal Christian clergy refer to Jesus as the greatest of all moral teachers. That may be too much for some who see him rather as one of the greatest ethical teachers of all time. Many atheists and agnostics will grant this much. But if it were possible to remove as best we can the myth which surrounds Jesus' teaching and approach it without precon-ceived notions, where would an objective observer stand regarding the profundity of his ethical teaching? Is the com-mon view correct or is it a cliche uttered without solid foundation? In answering this question, I make the assumption that there was an historical Jesus. A minority of historians challenge even this much. The evidence for his actual exis-tence isn't strong. Rather it is inferential and circumstantial. When we take all that was written around the time of the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and the sub-sequent diaspora of Jews, enough people appear to be con-vinced of his existence that we can speak of him as thou,h he were an historical, not mythological, personage. In any case, we can examine his teachings, even if he never existed, in the same way that we can evaluate Shakespeare plays even if someone else actually penned them. The play's the thing and, with Jesus, his message is the thing.

I think the best way to understand Jesus' teaching and its significance is by placing it in its proper historical setting. First, Jesus was a Jew. This no one disputes. He was born to Jewish parents, in the Jewish homeland, and, in his short life, never bolted from the faith. He never claimed to be anything other than an observant Jew. But what did it mean to be a good Jew at that time? In fact, the answer is not at all clear because this was a period of great change in the political and religious life of the Jews. What had begun as a marginal desert religion, Judaism by Jesus' time had be-come a significant religion centered in the great city of Jerusalem. At its heart was the magnificent temple and the heart of the temple was the sanctum where the priests per-formed the necessary rituals. Jewish pilgrims from around the Roman Empire came to offer their sacrifices, for here was the holy center supervised by holy men. However, the priests and temple were not to last much longer. The temple priests-centered religion was crumbling under the forces of imperial Rome and, as significantly, by the numerous com-peting claims upon the religion made by Jewish factions.

A reason for this dramatic shift at the dawn of the Common Era was that one of the major underpinnings of the faith, the Jewish kingdom, had by this time lost much of its ability to rule. Over a period of about a century, Rome had turned the Jewish state from a constituent in a common-wealth into a colony. An independent Jewish state was a thing of the past. All that was left was a government with little autonomy. Political independence was crushed and the Jewish community fractured. There was no longer a monolithic Jewish community based in the temple and rest-ing upon the Jewish kingdom.

There were many views regarding the best response to the realities of the day. For example, some priests were willing to accommodate to the political facts and continue to function as priests. Other Jews, though, believed that Judaism rested upon political independence and therefore the restoration of an independent state was their prime objective. Another faction turned inward. They wanted a religion whose focus was upon god and things spiritual. Some of the zealots removed themselves from the squabbling by separating themselves in the countryside, away from the temptations of the city, while others eagerly awaited the arrival of the Messiah who would redeem the world and settle the swirl of confusion which led many astray. There were also secular Jews who stood outside religious reforms. They did not desire a purified religion, didn't believe a Messiah was at hand or would ever arrive, did not wish for a restored Jewish kingdom or support the continued privileges for the priests. These Jews were happy to be assimilated into Roman life, becoming citizens of the empire just as anyone else.

Yet another faction, the one which ultimately deter-mined the fate of Judaism for the next two thousand years, was composed of those who shifted the religion away from the temple, put political aspirations on hold and down-played spirituality and emphasized practice. Thcy replaced the tem-ple with the synagogue and elevated the family as a place of sacred rituals. This developed into the tradition known as rabbinic Judaism, the religion led by those whose author-ity rested upon a thorough knowledge of the teachings and it was this strain of Judaism that has largely dominated the religion since.

We can see that at Jesus' time Judaism was splintered into religious zealots, political revolutionaries, secularists, those intent on maintaining the status quo, and so forth. Clearly, some positions could be tolerated by Rome while others posed a threat. Generally Rome was tolerant of a variety of religious practices within the empire, but it had little patience for those who challenged imperial rule.

Jesus, some historians believe, belonged to that group within Judaism which de-emphasized religious observances in favor of a posture of a more immediate experience of God. The preparation for the restored kingdom of God on earth necessitated a purity of spirit. The world, as it was known, was coming to an end. The new world was dawning and it required a fervent faith to make way for it. There was an intensity to Jesus' preaching that is found in those who think that the future truly depends upon their efforts, that the rapture is near at hand.

This position posed little threat to Rome. It did not call for the restoration of a political kingdom and therefore did not advocate the removal of the imperial yoke. The thrust of his activity was aimed at the already besieged priesthood. His mission was towards the inner lives of Jews, not the actions of colonial administrators. This is a likely explanation as to why there is no record by major Roman historians regarding the life of Jesus. He was simply one amongst many religious zealots, an insignificant actor as far as they were concerned. On the other hand, his actions in the temple could only be viewed as an assault upon waning control of the priests over an increasingly fractious Jewish community. He was an irritant and one better gotten rid of.

The life, work, trial and execution of Jesus probably would have remained an incident of little note except for Paul's missionary activities on behalf of the newly forming religion. Paul, a Hellenized Jew, believed that Jesus was in fact the Messiah himself and he organized groups throughout the area based upon this belief. Even here there were two schools which accepted Jesus as the fulfillment of God's promise to the Jews. One saw Jesus within the confines of Judaism and made little ettort to bring others into the fold or, perhaps more precisely, would accept others only if they first converted to Judaism. Paul's tact was different, as we can see in his letters which appear in the New Testament. He decided that faith in Jesus as the Messiah was all one needed, thereby dispensing with the painful circumcision of an adult gentile male. Paul's argument proved the most persuasive, as he convinced a number of groups throughout the Mediterranean of the validity of his position.

Paul's theology, making the death and resurrection of Jesus central combined with the acceptance of non-circum-cised males into the group, led to this burgeoning Jewish sect into a distinctive religion. Mainstream Jews rejected it, just as they had the many other claims of other would-be messiahs. What would soon become known as Christianity numerically far surpassed its parent religion. The new reli-gion accepted Jesus as the authentic Messiah and placed all hopes for an eternal life in him. The great appeal of this new religion lay not in its ethical teachings but in its theology and promise.

WAS JESUS' TEACHING UNIQUE?

Leaving aside Jesus as Messiah and savior but instead concentrating upon the sayings, stories and parables of Jesus, we find that little of Jesus' ethical teaching was unique. Indeed, he was prefigured by Hillel, a person well-known in Jewish history, someone who left a large written record and around whom there are also many legends, although none elevate him to the status of Messiah. Hillel was one of the pre-eminent figures in Judaism, helping to establish Judaism as it is known today. It is Hillel's approach to the Talmud which has become the accepted interpretation of Jewish law. He was responsible for establishing the correct method by which to interpret the meaning, prescriptions and law of the Jewish bible. Leo Rosten describes Hillel as "a peerless scholar, teacher, judge, legalist, unsurpassed in intellect and influence, renowned for the saintliness of his character and conduct. He stressed humility, charity, love, fear of God and-above all else-love of one's fellowmen and a passion for peace."'

There are some who speculate that because of parallels found in the teachings and legends surrounding the two men, Hillel may have, indeed, been Jesus' teacher. Be that as it may, some referred to Hillel as the King of the Jews. He expressed a concern for the poor and common person, em-phasizing doing good as central to the religious life. He attacked the corrupting influences of wealth and he opposed the temple establishment. Like Jesus he relied upon maxims and parables. His most famous pronouncement is "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor." That is the whole Law; all the rest is commentary. This is, of course, the Golden Rule, although stated in its negative form.

Many other examples could be cited demonstrating that much of Jesus' ethical teaching reflects the rabbinical ethics of his time. While Jesus' parables and beatitudes may be poetic and memorable, they do not constitute new ethical ground nor are they more penetrating than the teachings of others of that time. Jesus' originality came from another direction, namely by extending the commandments to an inner intensity not found within traditional Judaism and by setting aside for the need to follow the various ritual obser-vances demanded by Judaism. For Jesus, the measure was not the behavior of a person but his intentions. Judaism stressed conduct, while Jesus preached purity of heart. The sixth of the ten commandments, for example, counsels against murder. Jesus takes this injunction and extends it to include anger and insult. The 7th commandment speaks against adultery. Jesus goes further by equating lustful inten-tions with actual adulterous behavior. This is why Jimmy Carter, as a good Christian, confessed to having lust in his heart. He meant to convey the seriousness of this feeling, as it is no different than having committed adultery.

This emphasis takes ethics into new territory. It no longer was a matter of what one does but, at least as impor-tant, the motive behind the action. This led to the next step in interior ethics: the requirement to forgive and to engage in self-sacrifice. Both are core concerns because they are manifestations of love for one's neighbor. It is no longer merely refraining from doing what is hateful; it has become the necessity to love one's neighbor. Humility, surrender and gentleness become hallmarks of religious sincerity, re-placing proper behavior and a concern for justice.

Although Jesus encourages a community of believers to purify themselves, there is little mention of on-going, everyday concerns for living. Jesus does not emphasize re-lations amongst groups nor does he have a strong sense of peoplehood. Given the part of spectrum of beliefs which Jesus represented during his time, it is not surprising that he has little to say about marriage, family life or politics, for there was no need for guidance in these areas when the world was soon to end. Wordily concerns became unneces-sary in the kingdom of God on earth. The only important thing was to be prepared spiritually. A clean heart and pure motives was all that was necessary.

IS JESUS AN ADEQUATE ETHICAL GUIDE?

Let us take several of Jesus' sayings which were not typical of other rabbis and approach them as we would any guide for living. Do we find them inspirational and helpful?

A humanist approach to ethics understands human responsibility as resting upon empathy and reason, not rules and authority. Jesus, it would seem, creates not a humanist ethic but a command ethic. He encourages his disciples to become as "servants" and "slaves," subjugating one's self to God's will. He asks them to teach everyone "to observe all I have commanded you." No such approach can be found in the Talmud, for example. Disputes between contending positions, as between Hillel and Shammai, are settled as to who presents the better case. The argumentation is preserved for all to learn from. There is no "Do as I say because I say."

This is not a morality of reason and conscience. In-stead, Jesus' approach is an ethics based upon obedience. This is not a teaching which respects the student. True teachers cajole, support, encourage and challenge their pupils. They don't command or demand obedience.

Lovingkindness is as a central human virtue, one found in nearly every moral and religious philosophy. While Jesus is frequently portrayed as a model for such virtue, there is also a contradictory picture of him as a representative of intolerance. For example, he is quoted as saying, "Woe unto you... you hypocrites." "You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" "He who is not for me is against me." Here Jesus is engaged in name calling and displays a temper that is less than tolerant. He leaves no middle ground for discussion. He isn't interested in dialogue (a necessary part of a humanist ethic) but instead condemns all who disagree with him as evil. Jesus appears to be selective in his displays of lovingkindness.

Ethics requires that we have some way to think about conflicting interests, a method by which to choose between right and wrong, good and bad. But Jesus offers no such way of thinking. Instead, he calls only upon faith. Further-more, the faith that he asks for is a faith in himself. Assuming that Jesus was an ethical teacher and not the Messiah, then he is an example of an arrogant and selfrighteous teacher. He said, "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me." This is not the attitude of a great teacher who encourages students to find answers for themselves. Rather, he resorts to grandiose claims with no attempt at rational justification. As a teacher, he is megalomaniacal. It is an understandable claim from someone who was truly con-vinced of the imminent end of the world. For some he might serve as an exemplar upon which to try to pattern one's own life. But this does not, however, make him a model teacher.

Jesus was correct in believing that motivation and intention are ethical considerations. But to claim that these are more important than actions and consequences is a dis-torted ethic. Lust is not the same as adultery and, therefore, is not deserving of the same condemnation. We know when adultery has been committed. But how and who is to judge what is in another's heart? When commandments apply to thoughts and feelings as well as practice, we know that Inquisitions, heresy trials and witch burnings are soon to follow .

What is it that Jesus wanted of people? It is summed this way: "Be perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." This, I believe, is not a standard to be held out to people. Perfection, even if theoretically possible, is not a desirable goal for human beings. To call upon people to be perfect is a perfect prescription for feelings of inadequacy, persistent self-doubt, low self-esteem and neurotic guilt. This is so because no one is perfect and no one can become perfect. Since Jesus was preparing for the other world which was soon to arrive, the perfection he called for made sense. For this world, though, calls for purity are, as Italian author Primo Levi pointed out, appeals to a fascist mentality. It isn't merely that we fall short but also that situations are frequently unclear and require interpretation; it is that there is no one correct answer or only one truth. Jesus simply did not believe this. He believed in Truth and the Way.

Jesus said, "Do not resist an evil person.' This is the most extreme form of pacifism, for it does not even allow for self-defense. Turning the other cheek may lead to death. Of course, this is not an important consideration if the life-after is more important than this one. But for those who want to make this life better, it can be argued that everyone has a right to defend him or herself against an aggressor and that the person who does nothing to resist evil is a co-conspirator in that evil.

Jesus also wanted people to "Take no thought for your life, what you shall eat or drink, nor for what you put upon your body." This advice makes no sense if we believe that one of the central activities of life is how we go about acquiring what we eat and what we wear. These considera-tions are what justice is all about, namely, the fair distribu-tion of the earth's resources. Such advice is reasonable if one is preparing for the next life; it is hardly useful for this life, however, for it is not life-centered. No one who chooses a life short of asceticism can live by such an ethic of indif-ference.

JESUS THE SAVIOR

No one can be faulted for not addressing that which they did not intend to address. Jesus, therefore, cannot be criticized for his faulty ethical guidlines, for he set out not to bring a message to live by but one to die by. He never claimed greatness as an ethical teacher, only as a religious leader. The importance of Jesus' message is that he holds out hope for life ever-lasting. Disciples followed Jesus- and thousands joined soon after-because Jesus was a miracle worker, a raiser of the dead, a healer of the lame, the provider for life after death, the dispenser of all physical and psychological benefits, the forgiver of all sins, the divine protector and one who dispels loneliness and doubt. All this was possible through faith in Jesus.

How wonderful to have someone to care for you, everywhere and always. But this is not the work of an ethical teacher. It is not ethics, really, because it tells us nothing about conflicting duties and obligations, nothing about our social lives and arrangements and offers no true guidance in how to live in a world of bullies, despots and murderers .

As a humanist, I place my faith differently. It is in the ability of human beings to achieve right understanding and practice through their own efforts in cooperating with others. The humanist religion is one of human responsibility, stressing the importance of this life, here and now and into the future. I understand why the story of Jesus captures much of the human spirit, seekers of solace as we are. But I personally choose to find comfort in the human community, finding human answers to human problems.

The promise of an eternal life has its appeal, to be sure. But I won't choose to follow that path at the expense of being in this world, valuing this life for its own sake and assuming responsibility in attempting to find answers to human problems. I choose to try to do the right thing not because it has been commanded but because my reason, emotions, experience and imagination tell me it is the right thing.

The essence of religious humanism is to love deeply, to do good and to think clearly. I am willing to live by it, even stake my life on it.