Monday, July 7, 2014

Parashat Behar: God's Place in the Pursuit Liberty? Delivered Saturday, May 10, 2014


In 1751, the Pennsylvania Assembly ordered a bell to mark the 50th anniversary of Pennsylvania’s constitution.  This Charter of Privileges, penned by William Penn in 1701, outlined the rights and privileges of the people.   This “State House Bell” was apparently rung to gather Philadelphians together on July 8, 1776 to hear the first public reading of our nation’s Declaration of Independence,  a document that formally declared “certain unalienable Rights,” among them “life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” as it severed ties to Britain.   Thirty-six years later (1837), a picture of that State House Bell appeared on the front page of a New York anti-slavery periodical entitled, Liberty.  Another anti-slavery publication, The Liberator, reprinted a poem about this now famous bell, entitled, The Liberty Bell, thus providing the first documented use of this now universally known name of what is a beloved American icon.
The Liberty Bell, named by the abolitionists who adopted it as their emblem, became an iconic symbol of the abolitionist movement in large part due to the verse, and specifically the King James’ translation of the verse, from this Parashat Behar that was (and remains) engraved on the bell: 
U’kratem d’ror ba’aretz l’chol yosh-ve-ha, as translated by the Church of England’s official bible, “You shall proclaim liberty throughout the land, to all of its inhabitants.”  
We can imagine why the abolitionists of the 19th century were drawn to the bell as a potent symbol of freedom.  They viewed this verse as a declaration that even the bible, God no less, mandated the release of slaves.   Yes, God.  Religious sentiment was central to the mindset of both our founding fathers who used the religious notion of the yuval, the biblical Jubilee, to mark political independence,  and, a couple of generations later, of the abolitionists who seized on that notion of d’ror – release -  for their cause.   Who among us could possibly argue against the use of a religious text, a text attributed to God by religious groups, in their desire to eradicate the practice of slavery from our country?  I certainly can’t.       
At the same time, we must remember that in the years between the Declaration of Independence and the start of the abolitionist movement, our nation’s governmental leaders wrote a Constitution and immediately recognized the need to clarify a number of issues, number one:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…   The separation of Church and state.  How do we separate these two institutions when history has had them meshed so tightly together?  That is the dilemma our nation’s Supreme Court tried to address in Monday’s decision to allow prayer and specifically explicitly Christian prayers in the public sphere.  In the majority of the court’s view, a majority it must be noted that is entirely Christian, specifically Catholic, forbidding sectarian prayer falls under the “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion.    
I couldn’t disagree more.  The free exercise of individual freedoms, including the practice of religion, must often be tamed for the sake of community.   I think it is clear that what we have here is a Christian majority that has no sense of the potential that Christ-laden language has to alienate others.  To the court’s defense, there is little room for consensus of this issue.  For many Christians, any rejection of Jesus of Nazareth as God is a plain rejection of God.  For non-Christians, the equating of God with Jesus is viscerally unsettling and runs counter to our understanding of history.  And, for non-God believers (or others who feel God belongs outside of the governmental process), the sheer mention of God can be viewed as a derogatory commentary on personal religious practice. 
So which is it?  Do we model the abolitionists’ use of theology as a vehicle for forwarding issues of social justice, issues that ultimately must be taken up by our government?   Or, do we remove God entirely from all things having to do with the state and hope for the motivation remains?
The Torah’s Holiness Code, which comes to a conclusion in Behar, unapologetically does the former.  In the ancient mind-set, when no separation existed between civil and religious authority, it was necessary and appropriate to use theology to promote proper behavior.   Can we do the same while still demanding a separation of Church and state?  Those who advocate for prayer, particularly sectarian prayer, in the public sphere argue we can.  I’m not so sure.  
Justice Kagan, the spokesperson for the minority opinion, has it right.  As has been recorded in numerous news outlets this week, she stated, “When the citizens of this country approach their government, they do so only as Americans, not as members of one faith or another.  And that means… they should not confront government sponsored worship that divides [us] along religious lines.” 
Sectarian prayer, in particular, certainly has no place in government institutions.  I also question whether any God-language really belongs there as well.  Theology and religious practice must motivate us towards betterment, towards activating social justice in our world, towards welcoming those on the outskirts of society.   Placed in the hands and mouths of governmental leaders, God more often than not leads instead to dissent, isolation, and alienation.   That, I expect, was the last thing intended by the author who penned:  Ukratem dror ba’aretz l’chol yoshveha, or by our forefathers who chose this verse for what would be come our nation’s emblematic symbol of liberty.



        





No comments:

Post a Comment