Let us raise our voices...

The story is told of three old Jewish men who sat down at a table to have lunch. The first one says “Oy.” The second one says “Oy Vey.” To which the third one responds, “I thought we were not going to discuss politics today.” And on some level I suppose you could say that I am going to discuss political issues with you tonight. In reality though, what want to talk to about is really an atmosphere in our country that I believe is bringing about a frightening abridgment of our personal freedoms. I am truly not much of a conspiracy buff. It is hard enough for one person to keep a secret let alone all the members of a conspiracy. So I cannot in good conscience tell you that there is some kind of nefarious conspiracy gripping our country, but I can tell you about a few observations that I have made.

There is a battle now over the teaching of evolution in our schools. The buzz word is “Intelligent Design.” There is a demand that schools label evolution as an unproven theory; that the appearance of life was guided by a God-driven intelligent design. Frankly, the concept comes pretty close to my own theology, my efforts to harmonize my degree in Zoology, my study of Paleontology, and my view of the Genesis narrative. I should tell you that 900 years ago, Rashi (the Biblical Commentator) stated that the Genesis creation story was not meant to give us a literal, chronological description of creation. The days were not 24 hours long, and they did not follow each other with no breaks in between. The real problem is that it is not the job of our public schools to teach theology. It is my job to help our children come to terms with the seeming contradictions between science and religion. My job, not the job of public schools.

Writing in Newsweek several weeks ago, Anna Quindlen said that sometimes all you have to do is state the facts and a conclusion becomes obvious. She was specifically addressing the status of Roe vs. Wade in the state of Mississippi. The judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Roe vs. Wade, to my non-legal mind, could be said to have made abortion legal. It is still the law of land. Yet Mississippi has been able to apply every possible legal stricture to limit the availability of abortion to those women who might choose to end a pregnancy. I should point out that in traditional Jewish law a fetus has no rights.

In Mississippi, the number of clinics providing this legal procedure of abortion has dropped from seven or eight to one single clinic. What struck me most is a law that requires a minor to have signatures from both her parents in order to obtain an abortion. But listen to this exception: If her own father is the father of her child then she is only required to have the signature of her mother. Can you imagine a 17 year old young woman, or a 14 year old girl, having to ask for her mother's signature on a document which would implicate, in some way, her father in the commission of incest. What kind of courage would be required for a young person, or a person of any age, to make that kind of accusation of one parent to another. This strikes me ultimately as a most horrendous abridgment of personal rights through the use of disincentive.

Across the country, states are euphemistically taking away the rights of clergy to perform marriages as they see fit. Typically, these laws are labeled defense of marriage acts (DOMA). We have such a piece of legislation pending in our own state legislature. Gov. Richardson has announced that he will sign such legislation if it reaches his desk. The consequences of this legislation are far ranging. In its current form, it would fine me for doing what I have already done in this sanctuary, namely, a same sex marriage. This legislation may even out law same sex commitment or union ceremonies. Such ceremonies are purely religious or spiritual in nature and I do not believe the state has any right to regulate them. But my ability to do such ceremonies may be in jeopardy. Clearly my ability to determine for whom I can perform a life cycle ritual or ceremony is under attack. Last night the board of trustees of this synagogue passed a motion stating its opposition to such legislation. I have been quoted in the newspaper as to my opposition to this legislation. My statement in opposition to it has been circulated in the Round House. I sincerely question what the next regulation will bring.

In this current legislative session a bill has been introduced that would curtail the rights of cities in this state to pass minimum-wage legislation. My understanding is that it would also rescind the Santa Fe living wage legislation. Again to me this is an abridgement of personal rights, taking away the right of a city to insure wage protection for workers in her jurisdiction. Federal legislation in this arena is inadequate for workers living in an area where the median price for a house is upwards of $300,000.

Our Torah portion this week is taken from the Book of Exodus and I want to remind you how that book begins. Pharaoh in an unprompted exhibition of xenophobia says to his advisers let us deal craftily with the Jews. The Hebrew word is Chochma, which could be translated as wisdom. With such a seemingly simple decree, our ancestors, who had lived peacefully in Egypt for hundreds of years, found themselves being oppressed as slaves. And when that proved inadequate for Pharaoh's purposes, they found themselves to be the subjects of genocide: the slaughter of all newborn male children. One lesson to be learned from this is the fragility of freedom. It is easily taken away and seemingly always requires the price of human life to retrieve it.

In our day and age it is no different. That is one lesson to be taken from the Holocaust. We dare not remain silent. We must reclaim our voice in the religious arena and the political arena as well through the actions of a vital, representative and respectful social action committee. We cannot change the whole world all at once, neither can we remain silent in the face of the current climate in this country. I have faith in the people of intelligence and good will who populate our government. Two of them that I can think of immediately are members of this congregation. If we speak, they will listen.

There are many, many issues which require our attention, but there is one issue which will come before the legislature in this session in which I believe we have a chance this year to truly change our world. That issue is the repeal of the death penalty in New Mexico. And I want to spend a few minutes with you now looking at what Jewish tradition has to say about the death penalty.

The position of Reform Judaism in America is encapsulated by the Religious Action Center in Washington DC as follows: Since 1959, the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) and the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ) have formally opposed the death penalty. The CCAR has resolved that capital punishment "does not act as an effective deterrent to crime," while the URJ notes that: "We believe that there is no crime for which the taking of human life by society is justified, and that it is the obligation of society to evolve other methods in dealing with crime. We appeal to our congregants and to our co-religionists and to all who cherish God's mercy and love to join in efforts to eliminate this practice [of capital punishment] which lies as a stain upon civilization and our religious conscience."

The RAC web site also quotes from the Talmud and the Bible: Biblical law mandates the death penalty for 36 offenses. These range from murder to kidnapping, from adultery and incest to certain forms of rape, idolatrous worship and public incitement to apostasy, from disrespecting parents to desecrating the Sabbath. (By the way, please raise your hands if you would like to see stoning for adulterers reinstated.) The Reform Movement, however, has followed rabbinic interpretations that effectively abolished the death penalty centuries ago. The Mishnah in Sanhedrin 4:5 stresses the importance of presenting completely accurate testimony in capital cases, for any mistakes or falsehoods could result in the shedding of innocent blood. If any perjury were to cause an execution "the blood of the accused and his unborn offspring stain the perjurer forever." The passage goes on to liken wrongful executions to Cain killing Abel, concluding (in a oft quoted passage), that “it is for this reason that God created only one human in the beginning; a token that he who destroys one life, it is as though he had destroyed all humankind, whereas he who preserves one life, it is as though he preserved all humanity."

In another passage, the rabbis show their distaste for executions. "Said one: The Sanhedrin (supreme court) that puts to death one person in seven years is termed tyrannical (or murderous). Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says, One person in seventy years (... being executed is enough to condemn the Sanhedrin to such an appellation). Rabbi Tarffon and Rabbi Akiba say, if we had been in the Sanhedrin, no one would have ever been put to death. Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel says, they would have thereby increased the shedders of blood in Israel (Mishnah Makkot 1:10)." While the last line indicates a belief that the death penalty, if carried out judiciously, can be a deterring factor, prevailing Jewish thought in every movement has followed the previous opinions, which either oppose the death penalty outright, or allow for it only in the most extreme -- once in seventy years -- of circumstances. Following this line of thinking, the major Jewish movements in the United States all have specific policy supporting either abolition of the death penalty, or a moratorium on its use.

Think of the impossible requirements the rabbis put into place before a person could be executed. Again in the Talmud - (Mas. Sanhedrin 37b GEMARA) Our Rabbis taught: What is meant by BASED ON CONJECTURE? — “He [the judge] says to them: Perhaps ye saw him running after his fellow into a ruin, ye pursued him, and found him sword in hand with blood dripping from it, whilst the murdered man was writhing [in agony]: If this is what ye saw, ye saw nothing.” In other words, there must be two eyewitnesses to the crime, or there is no valid evidence of murder requiring the death sentence. The Talmud continues: “R. Simeon b. Shatah said: May I never see comfort if I did not see a man pursuing his fellow into a ruin, and when I ran after him and saw him, sword in hand with blood dripping from it, and the murdered man writhing. I exclaimed to him: Wicked man, who slew this man? It is either you or I! But what can I do, since your life does not rest in my hands, for it is written in the Torah, on the testimony of two witnesses (...etc.), shall he that is to die be put to death? May God who knows one's thoughts exact vengeance from him who slew his fellow! It is related that before they moved from the place a serpent came and bit the murderer so that he died.”

But should this man [have died] by a serpent’s bite? ...the law of the four modes of execution was not abolished: He who is worthy of stoning either falls from the roof, or is trampled to death by a wild beast; he who merits burning either falls into the fire or is bitten by a serpent; he who is worthy of decapitation, brigands attack him; he who is worthy of strangulation is either drowned in a river or dies of suffocation? It seems that after the destruction of the Temple, execution was left in the hands of God.

One of the most telling rabbinic pronouncements in the Talmud states that we (the rabbis) would prefer to transgress that law, rather than be responsible for the death of the accused. In other words, it is better not to execute a murderer than to risk shedding innocent blood.

Finally, in Sanhedrin 46a, R. MEIR SAID: WHEN (a guilty) MAN SUFFERS (is executed), WHAT EXPRESSION DOES THE SHECHINAH USE? — MY HEAD IS TOO HEAVY FOR ME, MY ARM IS TOO HEAVY FOR ME. AND IF GOD IS SO GRIEVED OVER THE BLOOD OF THE WICKED THAT IS SHED, HOW MUCH MORE SO OVER THE BLOOD OF THE RIGHTEOUS! So let us not risk killing an innocent human being. What more eloquent statement about the death penalty could we have than the fact the when the State of Israel was created, her founders chose not to have a death penalty. (Targeted military assassinations aside) to this day, Israel still has no death penalty.

There is a New Mexico Coalition to Repeal the Death Penalty Advocacy Day on Tuesday, February 15. Let us join our voices to theirs. Let us raise our voices through our social action committee currently chaired by Charlotte Talberth. We dare not remain silent, for in our silence there is implicit agreement with whatever goes on. If we give our tacit approval through silence to legislation we do not believe in, we will deserve the society in which we will find ourselves. May we instead raise our voices help to bring justice to the oppressed, and maintain freedom for all of us.

Amen