I’m always stirred by the seemingly primitive features of Jewish religious observance. On Yom Kippur, celebrated this Shabbat, we read from the book of Leviticus about the sending away of a sacrificial goat to the Judean wilderness, bearing to its death the combined sins of the people. Judaism’s insistence on animal sacrifice must strike many Jews today as embarrassing.
But the truth is, far from being primitive, the logic of sacrifice is widely acknowledged in our modern world, if implicitly. That fact even helps explains what, at bottom, separates the two dominant political philosophies in American public life.
Just ask Senator Hillary Clinton. This past June, she participated in a Democratic presidential candidates’ forum with a focus on religious angles on political issues. It took place at George Washington University and was televised on CNN. The transcript is fascinating.
At one point, Clinton forthrightly said, with reference to herself and her fellow Democratic candidates, “I think you can sense how we are attempting to try to inject faith into policy.” That line alone, spoken by a Republican candidate, would have been trumpeted on the front page of a 1,000 newspapers and Web sites as proof that the speaker harbors secret plots to turn America into a theocracy along the lines of Iran or Saudi Arabia.
Clinton went on to note the fact that 45 million Americans don’t have health insurance, a “moral wrong,” as she sees it. She said that this wrong would have to be fixed, “And that means something has to be taken away from some people.”
Americans will be compelled to sacrifice. But sacrifice what, exactly?
Our money? The current quality of American medical care? The New York senator didn’t elaborate, but she would gladly tax me to finance health care for thee.
Disagreements between rival worldviews always seem to come down to the dilemma of what must be sacrificed, and by whom. When Judaism and Christianity split in the 1st century, it was over that question.
The Temple in Jerusalem had been burned by the Romans in 70 C.E., so an alternative to its sacrificial system had to be found. Jews pointed to Scriptural passages, such as Hosea 14:3, suggesting that synagogue worship and Torah study could substitute for animal sacrifice. Christians said only the sacrifice of a God-man would be sufficient — an equally audacious proposal for which, however, Jews could find no indication in the Bible.
Today, liberalism has its scheme of proposed sacrifices. The secular moral framework — a religious faith in its own right though lacking a deity — emphasizes physical health above all else. So not surprisingly, liberal presidential candidates agree on prioritizing universal medical coverage.
They are also passionate about addressing climate change. To do so, as Al Gore advocates, would cripple the economy of many Western countries, including our own. But, as we are invited to reflect while bicycling to work from now on, the sacrifice is worth it.
By the same token, there are sacrifices that Republicans feel morally at ease approving. The conflict in Iraq, for example, has cost American lives, though far fewer than any comparable war in our history. Every single time an American serviceman is killed by a roadside bomb, it’s reported on National Public Radio in the same tones of muted shock and horror in which we would normally discuss a tragic death. But in the traditional understanding, a soldier’s death in wartime is not tragic. The word “tragedy” implies a loss suffered for no good reason — for example, a child who drowns in the swimming pool, God forbid. As Republicans who support the war would argue, a combat death is a sacrifice, a payment toward a future good — in this case, a free Iraq.
Conservatives ask gay couples to sacrifice any passionate desire they may feel to have their sexuality applauded by society in the form of a state-issued same-sex marriage license. Pro-life Republicans would ask a pregnant woman to sacrifice her comfort for nine months to give life to her baby. Proponents of abortion rights would give the same woman permission to sacrifice the baby.
Today, no less than two millennia ago, when the last scapegoat was led into the wilderness to be pushed off a cliff by a representative of the Temple priesthood, the logic of sacrifice is ironclad. It may be summarized in three words: No free lunch. Every good under the sun must be paid for.
Complementing this fact of life is a feature of human nature. There seems to be, hardwired into us, a need for sacrifice — whether to give up our own goods or to make other people give up theirs. This is why religious groups that ask little of their believers usually dwindle while groups that demand sacrifice prosper, as the historians Roger Finke and Rodney Stark show in their book “The Churching of America.”
A secular culture like ours invents its own sacrifices — cigarette bans, enforced recycling, carbon offsetting, peanut-free schools and the rest. Of course, you’ll meet people who insist that lunch is free after all, and the greatest good may be purchased for nothing. You might call them optimists, naïve or, less charitably, fools.
David Klinghoffer is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and the author of “Shattered Tablets: Why We Ignore the Ten Commandments at Our Peril” (Doubleday).
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
It seems David is continuing his opposition to health care reform from June, where he argued that people don't really need insurance or access to quality affordable health care because sickness is really a moral wake-up call from God that we should embrace rather than fight. His bizarre suggestion this time that promoting physical health above all things is a bad thing seems contrary to a religious tradition that commands its followers to choose life in all things -- to even desecrate Shabbat or Yom Kippur if physical health is in danger. He is correct that "sacrifice" means giving up something to gain a greater good. What greater good, however, would be gained by gay couples giving up their desire for the same rights and protections married straight couples receive? What greater good is being achieved by unending string of deaths in Iraq? And why should those who have been blessed with greater wealth not sacrifice just a fraction of their surplus for the benefit of the health and education of society as a whole?
Sephardiman, I am from Canada. So, if you think that people if given a choice would wait in line for medical treatment and eschew that to go to the U.S. for medical treatment - you would be mistaken. Medical Science is too important to let the bean counters dictate when treatment is to take place. Don't take my word for it, you can check with Dr. David Gratzer who wrote "Code Blue" which shows the sorry state of publicly delivered health care.
Gee, David Klinghoffer's most compelling argument in this column seems to be that both liberals and conservatives both conform to "a feature of human nature." Just think, you read it here first, folks. Like the great religious philosopher James Brown, z"l, once put it, Klinghoffer is "just talkin' loud and sayin' nothing"....
Gee, David Klinghoffer's most compelling argument in this column seems to be that both liberals and conservatives both conform to "a feature of human nature." Just think, you read it here first, folks. Like the great religious philosopher James Brown, z"l, once put it, Klinghoffer is "just talkin' loud and sayin' nothing"....
Averroes, who was a Muslim, wrote commentaries on Plato. So, I am wondering if any commentaries were written by Jews on the essay "The Way" by C.S. Lewis. There is objective truth which has the final word as to what is in-bounds and what is out-of-bounds. Different cultures referred to this final word by different things. Whether it is the Torah for the Jew, the philosophy of the Logos for the Greek, or the Ma'at for the Egyptian, or the Tao for those in the far East, or the Rta for the Hindi. For like it or not, but a person's actions will catch up to them. Lest you think this is only for people on a one by one basis, this is true for any size group.
Yes, I too am troubled why so many young, under 40 somethings, neo-conservative intellectuals like Mr. Klinghoffer, seem to be threatened by any reform of our nation's collapsing healthcare system. Forty-five years ago actor Kiefer Sutherland's grandfather, T.C. Douglas, in his capacity as Premier of Saskatchewan, pioneered Canada's single payer healthcare system. Guess what? The wheat still grows on the Canadian prairies Douglas adored, the sun continues to rise over Toronto's lakefront each morning, and they are still selling freshly fried fish and chips in Vancouver's Stanley Park. I reckon the same will happen here once we make the right choice and move on to something better than what passes for healthcare in the US. Frankly, if Klinghoffer really subscribed to the Torah values he claims to he'd be in the forefront of the fight for healthcare reform. Perhaps as a chozer b'teshuva he still has much to learn about Jewish tradition. He might check into the writings of the medieval Spanish Jewish Talmudic commentator Rabbenu Yonah of Gerona who argued that a society would utlimately be measured by how it treated its less fortunate elements.