Having said that Jonathon Sacks books are very interesting here – Dignity of difference, Future Tense and A letter in the scroll. You should know he has philosophy degrees from Oxford and Cambridge so they are researched and intellectual.

Until we can represent Judaism on our terms, and find English words to accurately translate what we are, we are doomed to be misunderstood at these events. Yet, I agree, they are far better than fighting.

You say: “our frum community doesn’t seem to be interested in interfaith dialogue because they see it as a waste of time as a concilliation affair.”

I’m not sure what you mean by frum. If you just mean observant and Orthodox, I have come accross a number a observant Orthodox Jews (including at least one Orthodox rabbi) at interfaith events. If you mean something more specific than that, then you are probably right.

I’m also not sure that the aim of interfaith dialogue is conciliation, but rather greater understanding of other faiths, and I don’t think there’s ever an assumption that participants begin with “a problem with people of other faiths.”

Having said that, I understand that people might find these sorts of events to be artificial and prefer to talk to people of other faiths in more natural scenarios arising from their general participation in Australian society.

My own observations in life seem to be that people don’t take you seriously if you try to explain to them certain facets of your religion, but then announce that you don’t adhere to them and try to explain this paradox.

I would also say that our frum community doesn’t seem to be interested in interfaith dialogue because they see it as a waste of time as a concilliation affair. I’m inclined to agree because from my perspective, I have no problem with people of other faiths to begin with (as long as they don’t try to force their beliefs on me).

Having said that, I think it’s important that we understand what other religions believe and they understand us, if only to debunk stereotypes and misconceptions.

As I understand it, the program is about fostering relationships between future community leaders etc.

It certainly is not about program participants agreeing on religious/philosophical compromises in order to move toward a merged religion etc (which is another completely different type of interfaith dialogue that often occurs between different denominations of the same essential religion). Thus the frumness of the participants is not that important.

Furthermore, since many of the Jewish community leaders are not that frum (many would be traditional, rather than shomer-shabbos, it is not important for the Jewish participants in this program to be that frum).

A question remains to Ms Stone as to why she chose to phrase her description of Ms Tendler in one way and those of the other parties in another.

The problem I see with interfaith dialogue when one or more parties are not involved in their religion (I use this word in distinguishment from “culture” or “heritage”) is this:
If someone is secular, they can talk about the theory all they like, but what happens to their credibility when questioned as to why they don’t live by these beliefs.
I emphasise that I am speaking specifically about INTERFAITH dialogue and not MULTICULTURALISM.

There is no problem with two secular people from different cultures engaging when the issues are cuisine, music, etc.

I feel that if the discussion is about G-d, then the interlocutors should be practicing what they preach.

I did not see cynicism anywhere.. just questions.

I haven’t observed that at all, but y’know, everyone has a different perspective on these things.

Also: I’m assuming no-one commenting here is acquainted with Ms Tendler. So we have no idea what her personal convictions are.

Secondly, “Amelia Tendler is a Jewish student with a passion for interfaith” – this statement doesn’t imply that that she isn’t religious; or that if she isn’t religious, she isn’t well informed and educated about Jewish stuff. That’s a big assumption to make. The two are not mutually exclusive, you know. It’s like saying, “John is a person with a passion for science fiction novels”, and therefore inferring that John doesn’t read literary fiction.

Thirdly, you’re assuming that because someone “sits on the Islamic Council of Victoria” they are a frum Muslim. Again, though this is likely, they could be secular, no? Are there not secular or not-especially-frum Jews serving Jewish organisations all over the world?

And finally – WHY DOES SOMEONE NEED TO BE RELIGIOUS TO BE A GOOD OR BETTER REPRESENTATIVE OF JUDAISM?!

They don’t. There are plenty of secular Jews who are well informed about Judaism.

On another note, unrelated to my above rant: I’m really saddened by people’s cynicism about events like this.

I’ve often noticed with these youth activities that everybody there is frum – or at least religiously involved – except the Jewish representative.
This can be problematic especially since Judaism is so misunderstood by the rest of the world.
As an example, many people (including some uninformed Jews) have commented to me that “I can’t believe in such and such”. My response 99% of the time is “That’s a Christian idea. Jews don’t believe in that concept anyway.”
I hope Amelia is knowledgeable enough of her own heritage to give informed, passionate answers to any questions she will inevitably receive.

For the record, my idea of interfaith dialogue is Ashkenazim sharing a Pesach seder with Sephardim.

I suppose that initiatives like the one above serve their purpose.