l. The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution
Many years ago, I wrote an essay, now lost, entitled, "The Folly of Our Times." In the article I presented the proposition that every age has at least one moral blind spot. Subsequent generations, having learned to see what a previous one didn't, are amazed--How on earth did they accept that? An example I gave was that of Thomas Jefferson, a great founding father of our country. He was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, including the phrase, "all men are created equal." The third president of the United States was certainly one of the best politicians this country has ever had. And yet...Jefferson owned slaves. How was he able to accept something so heinous? Truth is, he wasn't heinous. It was the folly of his times.
Jefferson, wittingly or unwittingly, undermined this folly with his own words, with which he began the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
It took a long period of slow moral progress for people to see what their predecessors hadn't. They interpreted what Jefferson wrote; they asserted that the text implied fuller equality than Jefferson had imagined. Thus, the deeper meaning of the text must contravene inequalities which were among the follies of previous epochs. The term "men" is now extended to include men and women of all races. Although a folly of our time still persists that believes it is correct to uphold the centuries-long abrogation of gay rights, the equality clause is increasingly interpreted to deem this assertion to be immoral. Judicial progress demands increasing inclusion.
All men are created equal! This "immortal declaration" trumps mortal ones based on follies of previous ages. It was an axiom for all the framers of the Constitution--Jefferson was among them--and is perhaps even more so for lawmakers today.
It is obvious that legal documents from the past must be interpreted according to the wisdom of the present, so that anachronistic follies can be cast aside. The spirit of the law must supersede the letter of the law. Of course, there are persons who deny this spirit and demand that judges simply carry out laws exactly as they were written. These literalists rage against so-called "activist judges" whom they believe subvert justice by judgments that have passed through the alembics of an "activist" conscience. In my opinion, an "activist judge" is one who makes a decision with which one disagrees. Judges must interpret.
Laws must also be respected. New interpretations must not go against the law; they should, however, reflect not only what a law says but also what it implies. (If a majority is convinced that a law is no longer tenable, it must be modified, or even eliminated, and replaced by a law closer to the highest standards of justice.) As one might expect, Jefferson said it best. The following is on panel four of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
Many years ago, I wrote an essay, now lost, entitled, "The Folly of Our Times." In the article I presented the proposition that every age has at least one moral blind spot. Subsequent generations, having learned to see what a previous one didn't, are amazed--How on earth did they accept that? An example I gave was that of Thomas Jefferson, a great founding father of our country. He was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, including the phrase, "all men are created equal." The third president of the United States was certainly one of the best politicians this country has ever had. And yet...Jefferson owned slaves. How was he able to accept something so heinous? Truth is, he wasn't heinous. It was the folly of his times.
Jefferson, wittingly or unwittingly, undermined this folly with his own words, with which he began the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
It took a long period of slow moral progress for people to see what their predecessors hadn't. They interpreted what Jefferson wrote; they asserted that the text implied fuller equality than Jefferson had imagined. Thus, the deeper meaning of the text must contravene inequalities which were among the follies of previous epochs. The term "men" is now extended to include men and women of all races. Although a folly of our time still persists that believes it is correct to uphold the centuries-long abrogation of gay rights, the equality clause is increasingly interpreted to deem this assertion to be immoral. Judicial progress demands increasing inclusion.
All men are created equal! This "immortal declaration" trumps mortal ones based on follies of previous ages. It was an axiom for all the framers of the Constitution--Jefferson was among them--and is perhaps even more so for lawmakers today.
It is obvious that legal documents from the past must be interpreted according to the wisdom of the present, so that anachronistic follies can be cast aside. The spirit of the law must supersede the letter of the law. Of course, there are persons who deny this spirit and demand that judges simply carry out laws exactly as they were written. These literalists rage against so-called "activist judges" whom they believe subvert justice by judgments that have passed through the alembics of an "activist" conscience. In my opinion, an "activist judge" is one who makes a decision with which one disagrees. Judges must interpret.
Laws must also be respected. New interpretations must not go against the law; they should, however, reflect not only what a law says but also what it implies. (If a majority is convinced that a law is no longer tenable, it must be modified, or even eliminated, and replaced by a law closer to the highest standards of justice.) As one might expect, Jefferson said it best. The following is on panel four of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC:
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
ll. The Torah and the Talmud
The same reasoning applies to the interpretation of the Bible.
(Please feel free to replace "Torah" with "Bible" or "Scripture" if you wish, and "Talmud" with "Commentary." Although I will be referring largely to Jewish sources, what I have to say is universal. ) Before we proceed, I would like to lay my cards on the table.
I do not know of any indication for a god that exists beyond human consciousness. Subsequently, I assert that there isn't a shred of objective evidence that supports belief in intervention in human affairs by an external, divine source. To some this means I'm an atheist, but I don't consider myself that--I am actually religious. I believe that there exists something transcendent within that may be called God or Nirvana or the Inner Light. I think that this inner light is more real than the will-o'-the wisp of a superficial self lost in a swamp of its own making.
It is obvious, therefore, that I don't interpret any scripture literally. However, I do think many things can be learned from scriptures; if read correctly, they can be guides for the perplexed. (I also believe that many things can be learned from Shakespeare, Goethe, etc.) For this reason, I am incensed when atheists trash the bible and other scriptures as if they were mere compendiums of barbarity from the past, as incensed as I would be if a critic should claim that a play by some schlepp from Vassar is superior to Hamlet. (Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, etc. you're wrong on this one, as I will soon make clear.)
Defending the bible, I feel like a lawyer from the Civil Liberties Union trying to free someone who admittedly has caused a lot of trouble, yet has a good heart. This is especially true of the Torah, which was written by humans so long ago; many behaviors that seemed right then seem wrong now--sometimes very wrong. I will name just a few, injunctions that people who think the bible is a farrago of cruelty and nonsense, love to quote--This list is by no means exclusive!
Ten Quotes from the Torah That No Longer Apply
(All quotes are from "The Jewish Bible, Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures, The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia--Please recall that the Torah is composed of the first five books of the bible. and form the heart of the Christian Old Testament.)
1. Deuteronomy 17: If there is found among you...a man or woman who has affronted the Lord and transgressed His covenant--turning to the worship of other gods and bowing down to them, to the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, something I never commanded..you shall take the man or the woman..out to the public place, and you shall stone them, man or woman, to death.
2, Exodus 22: 17 You shall not tolerate a sorceress. (That is, you should not let a sorceress live.)
3. Leviticus 20:13--If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death.
4. Leviticus 20:12--If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death.
5. Leviticus 20:27--A man or a woman who has a ghost or a familiar spirit shall be put to death. (This law refers to fortune tellers and mediums.)
6. Leviticus 20:9--If anyone insults his father or mother, he shall be put to death.
7. Leviticus 20:10--If man commits adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
8.Leviticus 34:13--Take the blasphemer outside the camp, ..and let the entire community stone him.
9. Deuteronomy 22-(If a woman is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night) the men of her town shall stone her to death.
10. Exodus 32:14--Whoever does work on the Sabbath shall be put to death.
Every civilized twenty-first century person would consider all of these injunctions to be barbaric. But are detractors justified in their opinion that the bible is basically inhumane, an atavistic nightmare from which we all must wake? I will present three arguments against this view.
1. Scriptures were written a long time ago by human beings, and thus never completely transcend the mores of the historical context in which they were written. It is not surprising that they contain difficult passages, like the ones quoted above. Injustices and harsh punishments were ubiquitous in the ancient world. These cultures took slavery, for instance, for granted. The list of injustices I quoted remind one of the intolerance of many aspects of Sharia law, codified about a thousand years later. The ancient code of Hindu law, written by Manu perhaps as long ago as the fifth century B.C.E. turns Jefferson's "immortal declaration" on its head--for the ancient Hindus, all men were decidedly not created equal. An example: if a Brahman abused a member of a lower caste, he was to be punished very lightly; if a lower caste abused a Brahman, however, he was to be killed. Torture and mutilation of criminals, widely practiced in most ancient cultures, were not advocated by the Torah.
I repeat, no scripture completely transcends the world in which it was written. They are replete with unacknowledged follies of their times. However, if an entire scripture didn't at least partially transcend its time and indicate a path for further development, it can no longer serve as a guide and is best discarded. Is this the case for the Torah? We have come to the second point of my argument.
2. "I have a home in Glory Land that outshines the sun"--such are the lovely words of a spiritual. Well, I know a verse from the Torah that outshines all others. Leviticus 19:17, arguably the most important religious advice in any scripture: "Love your fellow as yourself." (It is often translated as, "Love your neighbor as yourself.") This command is as holy as it is secular; it applies to peoples of all faith as well as to atheists and agnostics. It is very psychologically astute: if you don't love yourself, you're not going to love your neighbor. It implies that both loves are to be learned and practiced simultaneously. It is the basis of all moral life.
The importance of this statement is obvious and needs no elaboration. I will therefore go to the third point of my argument, which answers the question, "The Torah might have a diamond, but what about all the coal?"
3. One of my favorite quotes from the Talmud is, 'What is the Torah? It is the interpretation of the Torah." In other words, each generation must interpret and not blindly follow tradition. Recall what I wrote about the follies of past ages--as people become more morally astute, they must discard that which previous generations believed to be right, when one's conscience is certain that it is wrong. What is the criterion by which one judges? Leviticus 19:17, of course! I will give an example. A rabbi told me that over 85% of his congregation supports gay marriage. Why? Because opposition to it is in opposition to the Great Commandment. This would undoubtedly have surprised the Ancient Hebrews, but morality has progressed since then--thank G-d!
We have come to a deeper understanding of Leviticus 19:17. Simone Weil has been of help here: she wrote that the commandment implies that we are to love our neighbor's desire. In other words, to be worthy of love, neighbors don't have to look like us, or even act like us as long as their desire is in agreement with Leviticus 19:17. (This is obviously true regarding gay marriage: homosexuals are as capable of love as are heterosexuals.)
In addition to this big diamond, there are many little diamonds in the Torah. It succeeds on many levels--as history, as literature, as a repository of great insights. Sure, there are difficult passages. It makes as much sense to reject the Torah, however, as it is to reject a person for a few peccadilloes committed in his youth.
Is there room for interpretation? Always. But let our conscience be our guide: Anything that our deepest sense of justice believes cannot pass through the alembics of Leviticus 19:17 can never be purified or be considered as such--it's that simple, it's that complex.
Summary
All laws of the United States must be in accord with "all men are created equal"--interpreted in the broadest, most inclusive sense. But laws are the basis of how behavior is to be judged; they do not demand that we do our best. A bad politician and a good lawyer are both created equal; this does not imply, of course, that their actions are morally equivalent. It is Leviticus 19:17 that reveals what we should do and how to do it; it is therefore primary. Compared to the Great Commandment, "all men are created equal" is but a corollary, albeit a very beautiful one. Both are essential.
Everyone agrees that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are great documents. My advice to those who think the Bible is something less: take the coal out of your eyes and see.
The same reasoning applies to the interpretation of the Bible.
(Please feel free to replace "Torah" with "Bible" or "Scripture" if you wish, and "Talmud" with "Commentary." Although I will be referring largely to Jewish sources, what I have to say is universal. ) Before we proceed, I would like to lay my cards on the table.
I do not know of any indication for a god that exists beyond human consciousness. Subsequently, I assert that there isn't a shred of objective evidence that supports belief in intervention in human affairs by an external, divine source. To some this means I'm an atheist, but I don't consider myself that--I am actually religious. I believe that there exists something transcendent within that may be called God or Nirvana or the Inner Light. I think that this inner light is more real than the will-o'-the wisp of a superficial self lost in a swamp of its own making.
It is obvious, therefore, that I don't interpret any scripture literally. However, I do think many things can be learned from scriptures; if read correctly, they can be guides for the perplexed. (I also believe that many things can be learned from Shakespeare, Goethe, etc.) For this reason, I am incensed when atheists trash the bible and other scriptures as if they were mere compendiums of barbarity from the past, as incensed as I would be if a critic should claim that a play by some schlepp from Vassar is superior to Hamlet. (Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, etc. you're wrong on this one, as I will soon make clear.)
Defending the bible, I feel like a lawyer from the Civil Liberties Union trying to free someone who admittedly has caused a lot of trouble, yet has a good heart. This is especially true of the Torah, which was written by humans so long ago; many behaviors that seemed right then seem wrong now--sometimes very wrong. I will name just a few, injunctions that people who think the bible is a farrago of cruelty and nonsense, love to quote--This list is by no means exclusive!
Ten Quotes from the Torah That No Longer Apply
(All quotes are from "The Jewish Bible, Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures, The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia--Please recall that the Torah is composed of the first five books of the bible. and form the heart of the Christian Old Testament.)
1. Deuteronomy 17: If there is found among you...a man or woman who has affronted the Lord and transgressed His covenant--turning to the worship of other gods and bowing down to them, to the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, something I never commanded..you shall take the man or the woman..out to the public place, and you shall stone them, man or woman, to death.
2, Exodus 22: 17 You shall not tolerate a sorceress. (That is, you should not let a sorceress live.)
3. Leviticus 20:13--If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death.
4. Leviticus 20:12--If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall be put to death.
5. Leviticus 20:27--A man or a woman who has a ghost or a familiar spirit shall be put to death. (This law refers to fortune tellers and mediums.)
6. Leviticus 20:9--If anyone insults his father or mother, he shall be put to death.
7. Leviticus 20:10--If man commits adultery with another man's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
8.Leviticus 34:13--Take the blasphemer outside the camp, ..and let the entire community stone him.
9. Deuteronomy 22-(If a woman is found not to be a virgin on her wedding night) the men of her town shall stone her to death.
10. Exodus 32:14--Whoever does work on the Sabbath shall be put to death.
Every civilized twenty-first century person would consider all of these injunctions to be barbaric. But are detractors justified in their opinion that the bible is basically inhumane, an atavistic nightmare from which we all must wake? I will present three arguments against this view.
1. Scriptures were written a long time ago by human beings, and thus never completely transcend the mores of the historical context in which they were written. It is not surprising that they contain difficult passages, like the ones quoted above. Injustices and harsh punishments were ubiquitous in the ancient world. These cultures took slavery, for instance, for granted. The list of injustices I quoted remind one of the intolerance of many aspects of Sharia law, codified about a thousand years later. The ancient code of Hindu law, written by Manu perhaps as long ago as the fifth century B.C.E. turns Jefferson's "immortal declaration" on its head--for the ancient Hindus, all men were decidedly not created equal. An example: if a Brahman abused a member of a lower caste, he was to be punished very lightly; if a lower caste abused a Brahman, however, he was to be killed. Torture and mutilation of criminals, widely practiced in most ancient cultures, were not advocated by the Torah.
I repeat, no scripture completely transcends the world in which it was written. They are replete with unacknowledged follies of their times. However, if an entire scripture didn't at least partially transcend its time and indicate a path for further development, it can no longer serve as a guide and is best discarded. Is this the case for the Torah? We have come to the second point of my argument.
2. "I have a home in Glory Land that outshines the sun"--such are the lovely words of a spiritual. Well, I know a verse from the Torah that outshines all others. Leviticus 19:17, arguably the most important religious advice in any scripture: "Love your fellow as yourself." (It is often translated as, "Love your neighbor as yourself.") This command is as holy as it is secular; it applies to peoples of all faith as well as to atheists and agnostics. It is very psychologically astute: if you don't love yourself, you're not going to love your neighbor. It implies that both loves are to be learned and practiced simultaneously. It is the basis of all moral life.
The importance of this statement is obvious and needs no elaboration. I will therefore go to the third point of my argument, which answers the question, "The Torah might have a diamond, but what about all the coal?"
3. One of my favorite quotes from the Talmud is, 'What is the Torah? It is the interpretation of the Torah." In other words, each generation must interpret and not blindly follow tradition. Recall what I wrote about the follies of past ages--as people become more morally astute, they must discard that which previous generations believed to be right, when one's conscience is certain that it is wrong. What is the criterion by which one judges? Leviticus 19:17, of course! I will give an example. A rabbi told me that over 85% of his congregation supports gay marriage. Why? Because opposition to it is in opposition to the Great Commandment. This would undoubtedly have surprised the Ancient Hebrews, but morality has progressed since then--thank G-d!
We have come to a deeper understanding of Leviticus 19:17. Simone Weil has been of help here: she wrote that the commandment implies that we are to love our neighbor's desire. In other words, to be worthy of love, neighbors don't have to look like us, or even act like us as long as their desire is in agreement with Leviticus 19:17. (This is obviously true regarding gay marriage: homosexuals are as capable of love as are heterosexuals.)
In addition to this big diamond, there are many little diamonds in the Torah. It succeeds on many levels--as history, as literature, as a repository of great insights. Sure, there are difficult passages. It makes as much sense to reject the Torah, however, as it is to reject a person for a few peccadilloes committed in his youth.
Is there room for interpretation? Always. But let our conscience be our guide: Anything that our deepest sense of justice believes cannot pass through the alembics of Leviticus 19:17 can never be purified or be considered as such--it's that simple, it's that complex.
Summary
All laws of the United States must be in accord with "all men are created equal"--interpreted in the broadest, most inclusive sense. But laws are the basis of how behavior is to be judged; they do not demand that we do our best. A bad politician and a good lawyer are both created equal; this does not imply, of course, that their actions are morally equivalent. It is Leviticus 19:17 that reveals what we should do and how to do it; it is therefore primary. Compared to the Great Commandment, "all men are created equal" is but a corollary, albeit a very beautiful one. Both are essential.
Everyone agrees that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are great documents. My advice to those who think the Bible is something less: take the coal out of your eyes and see.
No comments:
Post a Comment