Antisemitism has mutated over time and appears today in many different forms and among all parts of society.

With the recent rise in antisemitic attacks, the topic of the Religious Freedom & Business Foundation’s July 1st faith-and-belief ERG community call is a discussion on the new antisemitism with Prof. Asher Maoz and Google’s Nicole Rahimzadeh.

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. – working definition, International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)

Professor Asher Maoz is the Founding Dean of the Peres Academic Center Law School. He was for many years on the Faculty of Law at Tel-Aviv University, where he taught Constitutional Law, State and Religion, Freedom of Speech, Family Law, and Succession Law. Professor Maoz holds the degrees LLB and LLM, both summa cum laude (Hebrew University), M Comp L (University of Chicago), JSD (Tel-Aviv University) and Doctor Honoris Causa (Ovidius University, Romania).

See prepared comments by Prof. Asher Maoz, Founding Dean of the Peres Academic Center Law School.

Nicole Rahimzadeh is an Administrative Business Partner at Google and part of the leadership in the Jewglers (Jewish Googlers), part of Google’s Inter Belief Network.

Summary of recommendations by Nicole Rahimzadeh:

— Adopt a consistent approach to tackling and condemning all forms of hate against all minorities, including antisemitism.

— Make it clear what constitutes antisemitism and take a consistent clear stand against it when it shows up (e.g. adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism can help, and consult AJC or ADLfor advice).

— Include antisemitism in any ‘Diversity and Inclusion’ discussions and trainings for the HR team and employees. Education is key.

— Create an ERG (Employee Resource Group) for Jewish employees:

–– The ERG can support and be there for each other during the spikes of antisemitism attacks.

–– ERGs help to amplify and hear the voices of the Jewish employees – especially important when specific issues arise in the company affecting the group directly.

According to IHRA, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

• — Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• — Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• — Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• — Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• — Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• — Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• — Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• — Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• — Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• — Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• — Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

by Kent Johnson, J.D., Senior Corporate Advisor, Religious Freedom & Business Foundation

Part of the blog series, Authenticity & Connection

In these polarized times, admitting error is often seen as a sign of weakness. Many company cultures ascribe inordinate value to “being right.” Any correction is seen as a personal insult. We worry that if our mistakes were revealed, our reputation would be trashed. So, when challenged, we feel we must “double down.” Instead of humbly rethinking our conclusions in light of new information, we equivocate, interpret and concoct ways to justify them; and launch attacks on our “accuser.” But it’s worse than that. As Joseph Hallinan has noted, this defensive tendency gives rise to self-deception. We blind ourselves to our mistakes. We’re “all pretty sure we are way above average.”

Left unchallenged, this defensive mindset reinforces a corporate culture of blame-shifting, divisiveness, distrust, fear, shame, disloyalty and deception.

A company’s culture around “being wrong” really matters. Here’s a specific example. Suppose a customer expresses worry that there might be a defect in your product. This raises complex questions. The issue might arise from the way that customer uses the product. Testing may be off. Your prioritization of this question – and your internal communications and responses to this customer – will be shaped by your company culture around “being wrong.” Will you dodge the question? Will you disclose requested information? Will you dismiss this as an unwarranted “fishing expedition?”

Even if it turns out in the end that you were “right,” and there was no defect, your credibility will be strained if you seemed evasive. In some cases, even the appearance of a cover-up may lead to threats of litigation. When other customers hear of it, they may take their business elsewhere. Point is, you can be right … and “dead right.” And if you’re “wrong” and it turns out that the product presents serious risk to customers or users, the apparent cover-up might threaten your company’s very existence.

Step back and think how it feels to work for a company with a “no mistakes” culture. It’s stifling. Emotionally draining. Soul-sapping.

So, what can be done to reign in a toxic “no mistakes” culture? I submit that a concerted encouragement of grassroots discussion of employees’ faith and belief can help a lot.

Much has been written about the desirability of humility in the C-Suite. We read that when leaders invite contrary views, and recognize their error, and embrace change that they didn’t devise, “regular workers” feel validated and valued, and better decisions are made. Trust, authenticity and collegiality can then grow deep in the organization.

Far less has been written about how a “no mistakes” culture can be cured by encouraging people at the grassroots to speak openly about their core values and beliefs. My point is that humility in the C-Suite is helpful, but it’s not enough. I’ve blogged before about the profound influence that “regular workers” can have on corporate culture. A company’s culture is shaped through relationships up, down and across the reporting chain, person to person; not simply by executive pronouncements.

Challenges and questions that confront your employees regularly bring their character into sharp relief. In her book Being Wrong; Adventures in the Margins of Error, Kathryn Schulz says, “However disorienting, difficult, or humbling our mistakes might be, it is ultimately wrongness, not rightness, that can teach us who we are.” In a related vein, Jasmine Wu, associate professor of management at the Fisher College of Business at Ohio State University has observed that, “[When] we’ve put honesty over our own self, it’s a very courageous action.” (See also Abby Perry’s incisive piece “The Quiet Art of Being Wrong” in Issue 5 of the print journal Common Good).

It’s people’s core values and beliefs – often their faith – that informs how they react to being wrong. Their values and beliefs spur them on to pursue truth above personal accolades. Whether we’re “religious” people or non-theists, open discussion of our core beliefs and those of our coworkers reminds us both of our fallibility, and of our calling to live and work in a manner consistent with the values we profess.

Over 39 years of corporate legal practice, I’ve witnessed the positive impact of such open discussion of core beliefs and values, among diverse employees. We in the Religious Freedom and Business Foundation hear of positive cultural transformation occurring at scores of companies through such openness. It’s part of the reason we launched this blog series on “Authenticity and Connection.”

“I was wrong” is a phrase that flows freely from courageous, trustworthy character. It teaches. It ennobles. It connects us with our core values and beliefs. Especially when employees feel free to openly discuss how “I was wrong” connects with their core values and beliefs, the culture is enriched. Indeed, the world is enriched.

SPEAKERS (see all)

The Religious Freedom & Business Foundation (RFBF) invites you to the first major in-person event to be held in Washington DC since the pandemic, the IRF Summit (register here – $ fee), July 13-15, and the IRF Roundtable Virtual Summit follow-up on July 16 (register here – FREE).

RFBF is a convening sponsor for the IRF Summit, which is also sponsored by the Templeton Religion Trust and the IRF Secretariat, among others. And, at a time when partisanship seems to dominate discussions, the summit has Republican and Democratic co-chairs, and honorary Senate and house co-chairs from both parties.

The IRF Summit 2021 will bring together a broad coalition that passionately supports religious freedom around the globe for a three-day in-person event in Washington D.C., July 13th – July 15th, at the Omni Shoreham Hotel (book room here).

The IRF Roundtable Virtual Summit, July 16th, will make selected presentations from the in-person conference available on-demand as well have have new content focused on action steps. The virtual summit will also present in-depth findings from the to-be-released global survey of advocates for freedom of religion or belief.

The global challenge of living together peacefully and constructively in the context of deep religious/worldview differences will not be met through bumper-sticker slogans about “tolerance.”

An essay by Religious Freedom & Business Foundation board member, Chris Seiple and coauthors Chris Stewart (Templeton Religion Trust) and Dennis Hoover (Institute for Global Engagement), provides an introductory overview of a richer approach called Covenantal Pluralism, which has been developed over the last few years at the Templeton Religion Trust. The philosophy of covenantal pluralism is a robust, relational, and non-relativistic paradigm of citizenship that emphasizes both legal equality and neighborly solidarity. It calls not only for a constitutional order characterized by equal rights and responsibilities but also a culture of engagement characterized by relationships of mutual respect and protection.

Their essay, Toward a Global Covenant of Peaceable Neighborhood: Introducing the Philosophy of Covenantal Pluralism, lists six characteristics of covenantal pluralism:

This directly relates to a big question that Sir John Templeton asked:

“What conditions contribute to progress in religion?”

In religions, as in science and the economy, progress is possible, but under what conditions? Tolerance is a great starting point, but it can easily become a vehicle for apathy or indifference.

Sir John Templeton thought we could do better. In fact, he believed that there’s vast, untapped potential beyond tolerance. But how do we get there? It starts with humility. If the sum total of what we know about spiritual reality is less than 1%, then should we not be eager to learn from other points of view?

Sir John Templeton believed that engagement across difference accelerates discovery and leads to progress, unleashing social dividends that flow [or: result] from religious faith and practice at its best, transforming religious diversity from a troublesome fact into a positive force. Religions are often seen as competing for people’s hearts and minds, and to some extent this is true.

But can religions (and non-theistic worldviews) engage one another cooperatively and constructively? How can we leverage religion-and-belief diversity to make the world a better place? What are the conditions under which this can happen, and what are the most effective ways of fostering cooperative engagement across deep differences?

That’s why we’re seeking to identify, understand, and promote the conditions that contribute to or enable the sort of open-minded, cooperative competition that Sir John envisioned would lead to progress in religions.

One of the key themes at this year’s Global Business & Interfaith Peace Awards is “Covenantal Pluralism.” Join us to see it in action. Also, you can learn more at Templeton Religion Trust and their video below.

by Prof. Dr. Javier Martínez-Torrón, published in Laws, an international, scholarly, peer-reviewed, open access journal of legal systems, theory, and institutions.

This week, Laws published a new article by Javier Martínez-Torrón in it’s Special Issue The Crisis of Religious Freedom in the Age of COVID-19 Pandemic. The following is from the conclusion of Martínez-Torrón’s article, COVID-19 and Religious Freedom: Some Comparative Perspectives. You can read the full article here.

“At the beginning of these pages, I mentioned that the COVID-19 pandemic has harshly revealed our vulnerability, both as individuals and as community, and has brought to light the best and the worst in us. Depending on whom we look at, we have witnessed incredible acts of altruism, generosity and dedication, in parallel with the desire of taking unfair advantage of the situation—with the latter I refer of course to criminal activities, but we may probably include also the enormous business made with the occasion of medical supplies, protection masks, disinfectants, lab tests, etc., with oscillations in prices that were not certainly moved by philanthropy.

“The foregoing is relevant when we ask ourselves what will remain in our societies after the pandemic passes. What will the world after COVID-19 be like?

“It has been pointed out that, on the positive side, the coronavirus crisis may lead hopefully “to a new sense of community”, considering the feeling of shared responsibility and the many expressions of solidarity generated in a large amount of people during the pandemic, especially in the first months. However, other people have started looking at fellow human beings as a danger, as far as they are potential carriers of the virus, which has led frequently to social distancing—not just physical distancing as a precaution—’as well as growing isolation and loneliness, especially among mentally unstable individuals’. (See Kortmann and Schulze 2021, p. 35).

“At the end of the day, the scientific challenges posed by COVID-19 may be new to a large extent, but when we look for solutions to the social problems it has caused, our best bet is likely on traditional means. From a legal perspective, we need a scrupulous respect for the requirements of the rule of law, with especial emphasis on the protection of fundamental rights, among which is freedom of religion or belief. Every limitation on a fundamental right must be precisely justified and must carefully follow the appropriate procedure, avoiding the temptation to trivialize the guarantee of what are actually the pillars of a democratic society. Allowing that an exceptional health crisis results in a lack of accountability of governments vis-à-vis the citizens would be one of the most undesirable outcomes of the pandemic. And, from a broader social perspective, in addition to the gigantic welfare machinery of the State, we must rely on the traditional resources of society—also its ethical resources, of which religious communities are an integral and essential part.

“Religious freedom is one of the vital freedoms that should not be easily dispensed with, not even in times of emergency, and religious communities—which represent the collective exercise of this fundamental right—are a unique and valuable resource that society has at its disposal to fight against critical threats. These are two lessons that the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us, and we should take a good note of them for possible future extraordinary crises. If we apply them also to ordinary situations, it would be even better.”

by Javier Martínez-Torrón; Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain; Professor of Law, Complutense University of Madrid; President of LIRCE (Instituto para el Análisis de la Libertad y la Identidad Religiosa, Cultural y Ética). Laws 2021, 10(2), 39; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10020039 Published: 18 May 2021 (This article belongs to the Special Issue The Crisis of Religious Freedom in the Age of COVID-19 Pandemic)

RNS article: May 17, 2021 By Adelle M. Banks

(RNS) — Representatives of atheist and secular groups held their first meeting with White House officials last week, marking a willingness by the Biden administration to work with the growing networks of religiously unaffiliated Americans.

The Secular Coalition for America set up the Friday (May 14) meeting with Melissa Rogers, executive director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Read full story here.

by Kent Johnson, J.D., Senior Corporate Advisor, Religious Freedom & Business Foundation

Part of the blog series, Authenticity & Connection

Why would people of faith engage with atheists, non-theists, humanists and freethinkers in discussion about one another’s’ beliefs? Many would presume they’d do it for a single purpose: to CONVERT them to their way of thinking. But it’s important to see that many other motives come into play.

Perhaps you feel uncomfortable when people talk about their faith; or when they talk about their disbelief. Perhaps it feels like they’re essentially saying, “You’re a bad person unless you change to believe exactly what I believe”? If so, we’d respectfully ask you to “suspend disbelief” on this particular topic for a few moments, as you read this.

I’d submit that we cannot begin to know the motives of coworkers if our company culture discourages openness about one’s core beliefs and values.

By way of example, suppose coworkers in a quality and reliability team hold a wide range of beliefs. One displays religious symbols on her desk. Another wears a hijab. Another has made clear that he “doesn’t buy that religious stuff.” But their corporate culture makes it uncomfortable to speak of religion or belief. These coworkers are often faced with issues that have ethical ramifications: Should they notify customers of a change in their internal quality processes? Is a potential issue big enough to bother customers with? There are often legitimate views on either side. The coworkers’ core beliefs and values come into play, day by day. Now suppose the “religious” person cites a bible proverb about the importance of earning trust, to support disclosure, and the non-theist feels disclosure isn’t needed. Does the non-theist interpret this as offensive proselytizing? Is the “believer” implying that the non-theist doesn’t value trustworthiness? Does the corporate culture constraining such discussions inadvertently contribute to these kinds of suspicions?

One can never know for certain all the motives behind a coworkers’ words or actions. But openness works better. This is corroborated by the experience of a growing number of companies that have embraced freedom of expression of religion and belief. At companies like Intel and Texas Instruments (tied for #1 in the 2021 Religious Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Index), non-theists and people of a very wide spectrum of religious beliefs are encouraged to talk about their core beliefs and values; and in so doing they’re getting to know one another better, they’re overcoming distrust and fear, and they’re forging warmer, more trusting relationships. Non-theists are welcomed and valued; as are people of faith. Their diverse perspectives are enriching corporate culture and improving the quality of business decisions.

Two videos from the Religious Freedom and Business Foundation’s 2021 Faith@Work ERG Conference provide particularly poignant illustrations on this topic: Our interview with Debbie Allen, Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America and a panel discussion among diverse people at Intel. We can cite many other examples.

My point is: Authenticity and Connection WORKS.

At our second annual national Faith@Work Employee Resource Group Conference in Feb. 2021, the Religious Freedom & Business Foundation’s Kent Johnson hosted a fascinating conversation with Debbie Allen, Executive Director of the Secular Coalition for America. They explored how and why interfaith diversity includes religious people as well as non-theists and humanists.