Human Rights Shabbat – Religious Freedom and Religious Refusal
As many of you know, I grew up in Skokie, IL. You may, of course, be familiar with Skokie due to its unfortunate celebrity as “the place where the Nazis wanted to march.” In 1977, the Nationalist Socialist Party of America vs. the Village of Skokie case reached the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the Nazis had the right to march in Skokie, despite the fact that 1 in 6 residents at the time was either a Holocaust survivor or related to a survivor. The First Amendment right which guaranteed Freedom of Assembly was invoked, and the swastika that the group wanted to fly was determined to be protected under Freedom of Speech.
Growing up in the shadow of this event introduced me very early on to the complexities of Civil Rights, especially when it comes to their intersection with religious freedoms. In Judaism, we likewise have a complex relationship with the requirements of our faith, and how they are impacted by the laws of the land in which we live.
On the one hand, a very important Halachic law is “dina d’malchuta dina,” meaning the law of the land is the law. The 16th century seminal Jewish legal text, Shulchan Aruch, makes this statement at least 25 times. It recognizes that the civil law is binding on the Jewish community if it is at odds with Jewish law. The concept comes from the Book of Jeremiah, where the prophet says, “seek the peace of the city to which I have exiled you and pray to the Eternal on its behalf; for in the peace thereof you shall have peace.” (Jeremiah 29:7) The first to use Jeremiah’s message as a basis for laws concerning Jews in foreign lands was the Mar Samuel (ca. 177–257), a Talmudic scholar from Babylonia.
On the other hand, we have the concept of Kiddush HaShem, the sanctification of God’s name, which is a fancy way of referring to Jewish martyrdom. Though it can also be used in less serious cases where an action by a Jew brings honor, respect, and glory to God, it is used in the Talmud to refer to martyrdom, which was viewed as the ultimate sanctification of God’s name. There were three situations which were deemed valid times for a Jew to sacrifice his own life: if he were forced to worship foreign gods, if he were forced to commit some of the forbidden sexual acts, or if he was forced to commit murder. So we have “the law of the land is the law” on one side,” and we have cause for martyrdom on the other. Unfortunately, life is never black and white, and it is in the grey area between these two extremes that we find need for guidance.
There are a few key Jewish values used when making these determinations: 1)We are all created b’tzelem elohim, in the image of God. (Gen 1:26) We are all equal. 2) Do not place a stumbling block before the blind, i.e. do not cause more harm to someone already at risk or vulnerable. (Lev. 19:14) 3) We must not stand idly by the blood of our neighbors – meaning we act when we see suffering. (Lev 19:16) As progressive Jews, these texts have led us to strongly support civil rights throughout our history, while affirming the role that religion plays in our concept of morality.
In 1920, the Central Conference of American Rabbis stated, “We urge all citizens to protest against abuses of power and the denial of constitutional rights. No interference in freedom of speech and freedom of assemblage shall be used by private police.” In 1946, they reaffirmed the duty of rabbis teaching and preaching Judaism to speak out on all the challenges of contemporary life in which moral principles are involved. We reassert that the principles of our religion offer guidance for the conduct of industry, commerce, politics, government and international relations. In 1959, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism is founded in Washington, DC.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act were drafted in the RAC’s Conference Room by Jewish, African-American, and other Civil Rights leaders. In 1991, the CCAR supported the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which, at the time, was meant to re-affirm the separation of church and state while allowing individuals to practice their religions without governmental interference. We now know, of course, how this law would later be used in cases like Hobby Lobby, where for-profit corporations, hospitals, and other institutions have claimed religious exemptions from federal laws.
In May, 2015, the CCAR passed a new resolution against this usage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The resolution stated: Most recently, legislators in some states have proposed state RFRA’s that would allow businesses and individuals to claim religious exemptions to discriminate. When RFRAs are used in this fashion, they not only sanction harm to vulnerable communities but they also undermine the fundamental, bedrock American value of religious freedom.
As Jews, we know intimately the importance of religious freedom protections, which have allowed us – and many other communities of faith – to live freely according to our religious beliefs, practices and observances. Coming from our history as victims of discrimination and oppression, it is our duty to speak out and to fight for the rights and protections of all vulnerable communities when they are put at risk. These laws and proposals are intended to allow people to discriminate against the LGBT community. The original RFRA, by contrast, was crafted to ensure that people were protected from government overreach in their religious free exercise. In more recent years, we’ve seen conflicts between religion and federal or state law when it comes to reproductive rights, immunizations, and we’ve continued to see religious exemptions claimed with regards to the treatment of LGBTQ individuals.
The CCAR has re-affirmed, again and again, its belief that any laws that aim to impinge on or imperil an individual’s fundamental dignity and humanity must be rejected. The “First Amendment Defense Act,” first introduced in January of this year, was adamantly opposed by Reform Jewish leadership. The proposal was thought to advance no First Amendment freedom, by would grant a license to discriminate to individuals, organizations, and corporations. The primary victims would be lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.
We’ve seen the way that religion can be misused in American life, just as it was used to justify slavery and the Jim Crow laws. Modern Jews have reached out to the African American community over our shared history of slavery and we’ve sought to repair the brokenness in our people’s stories. We’ve seen how religion is used to restrict or eliminate a woman’s right to make decisions with her own body – though Judaism has a long history of allowing abortion, especially when the mother’s health is at risk. We’ve seen the way that some religions are anti-vaccination for a variety of reasons, whereas progressive Judaism views immunizations as a form of pikuach nefesh – saving lives.
As I am sure many of you would ultimately say, it is one thing for an individual to make a decision based on religious practices. It is another for a government to impose law based on only one particular religious belief. We Jews have suffered at the hands of others all too often, and we know what it feels like to not have control over our lives or our own futures. I’m proud to be part of a religious tradition that supports human rights, civil rights, and equal rights for all.
Amen.
