THE ADMISSION OF THE AJHL TO THE C.R.I.F.

Report by Mme Nicole GOLDMANN, Chair of the “Approval and Mandates” Commission (excerpts)

We publish below extensive excerpts from the debate that took place during the General Assembly of the CRIF (Conseil Représentatif des Institutions juives de France — the umbrella body representing French Jewish institutions) on 28 November 1993, concerning the admission of our association. This debate, an interesting one, shows how much both the very concept of the secular Jew (Juif laïque) and the recognition of such a current of thought still meet, among some, with violent opposition in certain sectors of organized Jewish life.

Within the Community one observes a desire on the part of numerous associations of every persuasion to belong to the CRIF. This is a phenomenon significant of the CRIF’s federative communal base, which stands opposed to the temptation of other institutions to supplant it in its political dimension.

…..

The Commission, faithful to the will of the CRIF’s founders to remain open to every tendency within the Community, has worked in strict respect of the Statutes and the Internal Regulations, and has retained two applications which it submits to the General Assembly:

This is an important relay of the Community. Its approval is secured by a show-of-hands vote (1 abstention).

created in 1989, it brings together a number of intellectuals and members of great quality. It is an active and interesting current of thought. It is chaired by M. Albert MEMMI and has as Vice-President Mme Violette ATTAL-LEFF and as Secretary General M. ROSENMAN.

It too is approved (6 votes in favor, 3 abstentions).

Various interventions seem nonetheless to wish to call this last vote into question, though it stands.

Mme GOLDMANN, in reply, stresses the national character of the Association (all necessary investigations were carried out to verify this criterion), which corresponds to one of the a-religious components of the Community, just as others correspond to religious currents.

Debate

While most of the speakers wish that the institution’s evolution take place in fidelity to the spirit of the founders, they are keen to promote a

Community that is united, as broad and representative as possible, fully playing its role within the national Community.

– The conditions for the eventual reintegration of the Central Consistory.

OPERATION OF THE “APPROVAL AND MANDATES” COMMISSION

This point, arising from the admission to the CRIF of a “secular” association, turns into a “religious–non-religious” polemic. It is also accompanied by a discussion bearing on the origins and the future of the CRIF.

From the outset, M. WORMSER deplores the contestation that greeted the entry of a secular Jewish group.

But M. CORCOS expresses surprise that, if M. MEMMI’s organization is approved (he abstained in the vote), no concern is shown for a community of ultra-Orthodox religious Jews, highly ramified and dynamic: they are Jews, but not among us, on the margins of the CRIF and, at the limit, indifferent to us. Why do they not join us?

…

M. PARIENTE is in agreement regarding the Association of Jewish Schools, but fears serious problems with the Association of Secular Jews.

M. SULMAN does not understand the distinction between “humanistic” Jews and the others. Every Jew is a humanist. The difference is whether one is observant or not.

What Judaism can one transmit when one is secular? What he wishes is that he not be forbidden to be observant, and that tolerance be exercised in both directions.

M. BUNAN considers that religious representativeness at the CRIF is insufficient. The admission of an association chaired by M. MEMMI may accentuate the imbalance.

But M. MINCZELES confesses to being exasperated by the “religious–non-religious” polemic. What is fundamental is diversity: from the “Lubavitch” to the most thoroughgoing atheists. What also counts for him is the affirmation of “our Jewish identity,” of “our active solidarity,” and of the common struggle against antisemitism.

For M. AMAR, religious or not, we are all Jews. But making a banner of anti-religion shocks him.

Mme GOLDMANN sets the record straight. The spirit of openness must not be steered in any direction. The spirit of the CRIF’s founders, who wished to integrate the various components of the Community, must remain one of our permanent values.

The Commission examined the Charter of the contested Association and found nothing in it that could offend a religious conscience.

Judaism is the people, the land, the Torah; and if, in the name of one of these concepts, an organization wishes to join the CRIF, nothing in our Statutes or our Internal Regulations can reject it.

Mme DAYAN-ROSENMAN, for her part, also raises the problem of transmitting Jewish identity to our children. Through which channels? There are those of History, of culture, of belonging to a people, of religion. These channels are not contradictory. Their diversity alone can ensure the diffusion and the radiance of Judaism.

The word “secular” (laïc) is poorly understood. M. MEMMI has perhaps at times been excessive in his remarks, but the concepts he has brought to the fore — distinguishing judaïsme (Judaism), judéité (Jewishness) and judaïcité (Jewry) — are in no way the negation of religion.

Secular Judaism does not stand opposed to religious Judaism. While it accepts that the texts serve religious faith, it wishes to use them as a basis of its culture, to be transmitted even without faith.

Mme Gilberte DJIAN is indignant at seeing the legitimacy of the Mandates Commission, of which she is a member, called into question by a minority that does not approve of its choices.

She pays tribute to the energy and the spirit of tolerance of Mme GOLDMANN, Chair of the Commission, whose fairness cannot be doubted.

As French citizens, secularism (laïcité) is for us an absolute value, says Mme ATTIAN. Why not accept it when it comes to the Community? It is a current of thought held by the majority.

Mme ATTAL-LEFI, representative of the Association pour un Judaïsme Humaniste et Laïque, thanks the General Assembly for its approval.

She is surprised by the “demonization” of her organization, which does work of gathering within a Community that is in its majority secular.

There is no antagonism between the religious and the secular, and Mme ATTAL-LEFI is ready to send, to any who would wish it, a document on transmission, on the work of memory and of History that Jews are eager to know, produced by her friends.

M. SPIRO expresses surprise at a certain number of people and at the “navel-gazing” that manifests itself through “timid” reactions.

The majority of the Jewish Community does not attend any communal body whatsoever, whether religious or secular. To revitalize the CRIF, it must be opened to this unorganized population through bridging associations leading from one form of Judaism, religious, to another Judaism.

Me Théo KLEIN personally welcomes the admission of M. MEMMI’s organization. It makes it possible to channel and to gather people who, otherwise, would remain outside the Community.

Secularism (laïcité), says M. ISRAEL, is a French specialty, a formidable value to which one must cleave body and soul. It is the absence of a dominant religion (after the centuries-long preeminence of Christianity) and the neutrality of the State in matters of religion.

To be Jewish or secular is to be convinced of the fundamental values of the Republic, of Human Rights, of the compatibility of all religions, and not, on that account, to renounce a particular faith. As for the word “humanistic,” one would have to enter into the deep meaning of Judaism: what is man in Judaism? It is for each to reflect upon it…

According to M. BENSEMHOUN, who once again contests the legitimacy of the “Approval and Mandates” Commission, a reform of the CRIF’s Statutes ought to permit individual memberships. He would then be ready to welcome figures such as M. MEMMI. □

(Published by kind permission of the CRIF)

Lucas Cranach: Adam and Eve in Paradise

← Previous article · Next article → Back to issue 4