This week’s parasha is “Korach”, from the book of Numbers. In the story Korach leads a revolt against Moses. He tells Moses: “You have gone too far! For all the community are holy, all of them, and the Lord is in their midst. Why then do you raise yourselves above the Lord’s congregation?”
Now, the first time I read this, I found myself feeling sympathetic to Korach. What Korach is specifically com-plaining about is the hierarchy of the Priesthood—something that Reform Jews have also had a problem with, by the way. However, Korach only pretends to be con-cerned about democracy. What he really wants is to be the High Priest himself.
Reading Korach got me thinking about some of the is-sues our country is facing today, especially where freedom and democracy are concerned. As one simple example, take the issue of gun control. People who support the 2nd Amendment feel that the “right to bear arms” is necessary for freedom. Those who support gun control would like the freedom to go about their daily lives without fear of attack. Which side is right? I believe that the answer to this question lies in how we define freedom. The point isn’t for me to tell you how to feel about gun control—the point is to realize that the definition of freedom means different things to different people.
In his book “Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America”, David Hackett Fischer describes four different concepts of liberty on which our country was founded. To the Puritans in New England, “liberty” meant collective rather than individual liberty. They thought in terms of the liberty of the entire community. So, for example, a Puritan might have talked about the “liberty of New England” or the “liberty of Boston” rather than about the liberty of an individual. They also believed in “freedom from fear” or “freedom from the tyranny of circumstances”. Centuries later Franklin Roosevelt, a descendent of the New England Puritans, alluded to this when he spoke of the four freedoms. In addition to freedom of speech and freedom of worship, he also spoke of “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear”. Like his Puritan forefathers, Franklin Roosevelt believed that rights of the weakest in society needed to be protected in order to preserve their freedoms.
Now, the Puritan colonies were not without their limi-tations. They weren’t always tolerant of people who didn’t believe as they did or couldn’t fit into the community for one reason or another. Religious minorities, such as the Quakers, were often persecuted. Not surprisingly, the latter emphasized freedom of religion in their colonies. In stark contrast to the Puritans, the Quakers believed in what they called “liberty of conscience”: the freedom to believe whatever one wanted – even if it was wrong!
In the Virginia colonies, liberty was not something that belonged to everyone, and it had nothing to do with equality. The wealthy plantation owners believed in the concept of “hegemonic liberty” in which freedom was seen as a zero-sum game. The only way I can become truly free is by taking away some of your liberties – and vice versa. You might say that they believed in the freedom to domi-nate others. In the Colonial back country, where people lived far away from centers of government, people spoke of “natural freedom”, in which individuals were free to do whatever they wanted. This concept of freedom seems to the one most dominant in our culture today.
Reading about the founding of the United States also got me thinking about the founding of Israel and wondering what the Jews believe about freedom. In modern Israel people are deeply conflicted between traditional, Orthodox Judaism and modern secular values. They are also conflicted about the rights of Jews versus the rights of other religious and ethnic minorities. The Bible emphasizes the concept of communal liberty, which is similar to what the Puritans believed – no surprises there. As we saw with the Puritans, however, the problem with communal liberty is that one must give up certain individual freedoms in order to be part of the community. The same could be said of Orthodox Judaism today. The opposite of communal liberty would be natural liberty – the idea that individual freedom takes precedence. That may sound like a good thing; however, natural liberty has its own issues. Not only is it anarchistic, but it can also lead to rampant individualism in which only the strongest can win and the winner takes all. “Survival of the fittest” is not what Judaism – even Reform Judaism – has in mind.
Our current society is very different from Biblical Israel or Colonial America or even modern Israel today. As we approach the fourth of July next month, American Jews might want to ask themselves: what type of liberty would work best for us today, as modern Jews, living in a pluralistic society such as the United States? We might also want to ask: what type of liberty would work best for Israel?
Perhaps what is needed is a balance between both communal and natural liberty. I would suggest that you be wary of any leader who claims to value individual freedom and yet doesn’t prioritize the good of the community. I would also be wary of any leader who talks about the good of the community and doesn’t value individual freedom. Any decent society respects the rights of individuals while being supportive of strong communities. Both are im-portant and necessary for freedom and democracy.
Shabbat Shalom