This morning
on ABC Radio a man who identified himself as a friend of the Woolwich Killer justified
the brutal extra-judicial killing of a British soldier on the basis of the terrible
killings of so many people in Iraq and Afghanistan. What I found worrying was
how reasonable and British he sounded as he almost calmly justified killing a fellow
citizen-soldier away from the field of battle. Some people must be rubbing
their hands with glee that this view has been articulated as this would be seen
as evidence that ‘ordinary normal sounding Muslims’ are also dangerous. I don’t
think this friend of the killer represents the majority of Muslims. I think it
would have been better if this person could have been prevented by his own
community from talking to the media or by the media not giving him a platform.
(The former is not a practical suggestion, of course, violent zealots are unlikely to consult the mainstream elders of their faith community about their actions or their words). It will give listeners insights into the minds of one person and a few others
like him while creating a distorted view of an already besieged community of
generally decent good people.
Some
communal constraints of individual expression are useful and appropriate,
others not so. I explore this in light of this weeks’ Torah reading but first a
little story.
Under the
bridge sat a man, utterly still, an orange blanket covered his legs, a heavy
coat on his upper body, his face a picture of calmness framed by a scraggly
beard. He is a Buddhist. He is homeless. Professor Di Yerbury who lives in the
building nearby and I were walking together and stopped to talk with the man.
She mentioned that I am a Rabbi.
“In your
religion, does everyone follow the faith properly?” he asks me. He has been
quite upset about the Dalai Lama who he thinks follows a corrupted variation of
his faith. I told him that I used to get quite angry about other Jews,
particularly in my Chasidic community who failed to live up to the standards of
integrity and compassion that I thought they should, but when I met a Catholic
who was also worried about the same things in his faith it helped me realise
the universality of high aspirations and human frailty. I am much more
forgiving now. He found that comforting. He told me he would stop worrying
about other people and focus on his own worship. Di and I dropped some money in
his tin and I walked away with a story.
That
Buddhist had just kicked a mostly destructive habit: “Boundary riding!” I’m
using the words in a metaphoric sense to describe people who make it their
business to ensure that their peers don’t stray from community norms and
accepted opinions. The concept is based on an Australian term, “boundary rider”
that describes “a ranch hand who patrols the boundary of a sheep or cattle
station in order to watch the stock[i]”,
which is a great representation of a process of ensuring that none of the flock
dare cross the line into unacceptable opinions.
Jeremy, a
Christian friend, observed about my blog that some of it expresses insights
into matters of the spirit, but this is weighed down by concerns with getting
it right according to earlier religious texts. It is almost as if I am
self-censoring and employing my own internal “boundary rider”. I wonder about
that. This week I read an article by Mehdi Hasan, a
member of two communities, the journalist/writer/modern elite and an orthodox
Muslim community where he expresses his worries about how his peers, both co-religionists
and secular, will judge him for the nuanced stand he takes on homosexuals and
same-sex marriage[ii]. I am not sure what
I think about all this, I believe passionately in freedom of thought and
expression and I also think there is some value in considering new ideas in
light on the wisdom that came before.
Moses
himself comes across two variation of Boundary riding in our reading this week.
The first is when two new prophets Eldad and Meidad “prophesise in the camp[iii]”. According to the Talmud they dared speak an
unspeakable prediction, “Moses will die and Joshua will lead Israel into the
(promised) land[iv]”.
A lad, identified as Gershom the son of Moses[v],
runs to report this to his dad. Joshua, Moses’ faithful student at this point
cries out, “My master Moses, eliminate them[vi]”!
Moses rejects this approach. “"Are you zealous for my sake? If only all
the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would bestow His spirit upon
them![vii]"
Chalk one up for freedom of expression.
A few verses
later, Moses himself is suspected of straying by his own sister Miriam and
brother, Aaron. The nature of his offence is not clear. The words in the text
state “Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses
regarding the Cushite (Black?) woman he had married, for he had married a
Cushite woman. They said, "Has the Lord spoken only to Moses? Hasn't He
spoken to us too?"
A variety of
commentary is offered about the offence. Some suggest they were concerned because
they thought he divorced his wife because she was “black and not beautiful”[viii]. Alternatively they were unhappy that he
married a non-Israelite, “Could Moses not find a wife among the daughters of
Israel to marry, that he went to the uncircumcised Chushites? Is it because God
talks to him that he is being haughty, that he does not want to marry a woman
from among the daughters of Israel, instead seeking a woman from far away?[ix]”.
God himself
comes to the defence of Moses insisting that he deserved to be trusted. “..My servant Moses; he is trusted throughout my house. With him
I speak mouth to mouth; in a vision and not in riddles, and he beholds the
image of the Lord. So why were you not afraid to speak against my servant
Moses?[x]” There are some servants who are not completely trusted,
they will be given a message but some details will be withheld to protect
confidentiality. Such a servant would be told “Tell, so and so, that he should
do that which he spoke about” without disclosing the details so that the
messenger does not know what it is about[xi]. God is saying, cut
Moses some slack, he can be trusted and doesn’t need to be second guessed.
Conclusion
Censorship is often inappropriate, there are many people
who have earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt and trusted.
Generally the causes of truth, justice and mercy are better served with greater
freedom. There are cases where people do not have the right to be heard. If
they are heard anyway, such as the friend of the Woolwich killer, we
listeners have an obligation to bear in mind that he can only represent himself
and cannot speak for a community. May we soon see an end to violence everywhere
in the world, regardless of the religion or race of the victims.
[i] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/boundary+rider
[ii] http://www.newstatesman.com/mehdi-hasan/2013/05/muslim-i-struggle-idea-homosexuality-i-oppose-homophobia
[iii]
Numbers 11:26
[iv]
Talmud Sanhedrin 17a
[v]
Bamidbar Rabba 15:19
[vi]
Numbers 11:28
[vii]
Numbers 11:29
[viii]
Rabbi Yaakov Ben Asher, Pirush Hatur Haaruch, to Numbers 12:1 cited in http://rchaimqoton.blogspot.com/2007/07/moses-black-wife.html
[ix]
Bchor Shor
[x]
Numbers 12:7-8
[xi]
Bchor Shor
