Contact The Editor
Articles By This Author
In recent weeks, renewed controversy surrounding Kars4Kids has reignited old accusations, not merely against a charity organization, but against broader ideas tied to Jewish communal life, multiculturalism, and the role of religious communities in America.
Much of the discussion has gone far beyond legitimate criticism of nonprofit transparency, legal disclosure, and the vexing notes of an all too familiar ditty. Instead, it has drifted into something deeper and far more dangerous: the suggestion that strong ethnic or religious communities are somehow incompatible with American ideals.
That claim deserves a response.
This article is not a legal analysis of truth in advertising laws, or an expose on the ethics of, shall we say, grey marketing techniques. Rather, this is a response to the broader narrative that has emerged around the controversy. This narrative paints Jewish communal organization, religious particularism, or multiculturalism itself as somehow foreign to the American experiment.
Yet, it is precisely the opposite.
The United States was never envisioned as a nation built upon enforced cultural sameness. All available evidence indicates that the Founding Fathers did not create America as a melting pot in which every distinction would disappear. Rather, they established a constitutional framework that would allow vastly different communities, beliefs, and traditions to coexist peacefully under shared laws and shared civic values.
The American experiment is an attempt to create a whole that is greater than the sum total of its components, and thus, implicitly assumes disparate ethnic and religious groups coming together under the banner of shared values and mutual respect. As eloquently expressed on the almighty dollar bill (inflation to the shekel notwithstanding), E pluribus unum – out of many, one.
In fact, our founding document, the Constitution itself, reflects this reality. The First Amendment protects religious liberty not because the Founders expected religion to fade away, but because they understood that vibrant religious communities were essential to a free society. America’s success has always depended upon people bringing the moral strength, discipline, charity, and traditions of their communities into the public square, to enhance the broader constitutional order.
While certainly not the only example, Jewish communities illustrate this balance particularly well, maintaining a distinct religious and cultural identity while simultaneously fully participating and deeply contributing to the broader American civic framework. For generations, Jewish Americans built schools, charities, synagogues, mutual aid networks, and philanthropic organizations that served both their own communities and society at large. They maintained strong identities while participating fully in American civic life. That is not a betrayal of Americanism. It is Americanism.
Critics of multiculturalism often argue that emphasizing group identity weakens national unity. There is a legitimate concern buried within that argument: a nation cannot survive if people lose all sense of shared moral obligation or common civic identity. But too often, that concern evolves into the false assertion that strong and close-knit minority communities themselves are the problem. They are not.
Assuming, arguendo, that these critics are truth-seekers of the highest order rather than individuals motivated by anti-Semitic bias, there is indeed a legitimate concern that multiculturalism, when divorced from shared moral and civic foundations, can ultimately implode upon itself under the weight of its own misapplication. Even critical social values can be misappropriated to the detriment of society. For example, by all accounts, justice is a critical value and ought to be adopted by any society that wishes to prosper. And yet, the biblical city of Sodom, serves as a stark reminder that even strict justice can be abused. The Sodom episode highlights the extreme absurdity that can result when a value is taken too far and ultimately becomes the very cause of its own demise.
The Sodom episode, pursuant to the Medrash that no child ever forgets, also provides a great measuring stick by which to determine if a “good” value has been taken to its absurd extreme.
Case in point, when you find yourself chopping off the feet of a visitor in the name of “justice” you can be fairly certain that it is time to dial back the emphasis on strict justice and moderate its application.
On the other hand, when a value produces a society that successfully enables minority ethnic and religious groups to balance internal focus with enhancing, contributing, and benefiting the broader community, the value should be celebrated. This is not to say, that there aren’t bad actors, or instances of abuse, but taken in its totality, we can comfortably conclude that the value is a net positive.
Setting political theory aside however, I believe there is a more subtle but dangerous issue at the core of the anti-multiculturalism argument, particularly as it relates to the Jewish community. The claim that multiculturalism is inherently corrosive reflects a deep-seated moral confusion, in that it fails to distinguish between communities that seek to live peacefully within a constitutional order and groups or ideologies that fundamentally undermine the moral and civic foundations upon which that order depends.
At its core, the argument falsely conflates communities that are openly hostile to the moral and civic foundations upon which this country was built with communities that deeply respect those foundations and openly express gratitude for the privilege of living as citizens of this nation. Failure to distinguish between different communities and their societal contributions, or lack thereof, is a lapse in moral judgment of the highest order. The existence of harmful minority movements does not invalidate multiculturalism any more than the existence of criminal individuals invalidates liberty itself. This confusion is so egregious, that it almost seems intentional, but who is to judge, ignorance, malice, and stupidity are often interchangeable.
Noticeably, the same cast of characters that are opposed to multiculturalism in the current instance, are also guilty of exercising poor moral judgment with respect to most current events. It is the same crowd, the woke left and horseshoe right, that don’t understand why the Trump administration is concerned with Iran having a nuclear weapon and not concerned about Israel having nuclear capabilities. They are equally puzzled as to why we should support attacking Hezbollah, and they are empathically convinced that the justified and legitimate operations in Gaza are a genocide. The best I can offer, is at least they are consistent!
Indeed, the most egregious societal sin, is the intentional obfuscation of morality. A society that treats up as down, and good as evil, is a society that cannot prosper. It is a binyan shel sheker structure of pure falsehood, that will inevitably collapse due to its lack of foundation.
America’s strength has never come from forcing everyone into cultural uniformity. Its strength comes from creating a constitutional order governed by Judeo- Christian values in which diverse communities can contribute their unique contributions while remaining united by shared civic principles. For those still unable to grasp why regimes such as Iran should not possess nuclear weapons, the distinction between healthy pluralism and genuinely dangerous ideologies may prove equally elusive.
Rabbi Binyamin Silver is spiritual leader of Young Israel of Long Beach, New York. He received ordination (Semicha) from Rabbi Moshe Shternbuch, executive director of the rabbinical court of Jerusalem and Rabbi Nathan (Rav Nota) Greenblatt, Av Beis Din of Memphis, Tennessee. Prior to receiving ordination, Rabbi Silver spent many years studying in Yeshivas in both Israel and the US. In addition to Semicha, Rabbi Silver holds a Masters in Education, a J.D., an LL.M. in taxation, and is admitted to the NY and DC bars.
(COMMENT, BELOW)