After generations of slavery and oppression, amidst miracles unprecedented and unrepeated, the Children of Israel marched forth out of Egypt and into the wilderness as a free people for the first time in their collective memory. Fifty days later they stood together at Sinai to receive the Torah — the code of 613 commandments that would define every aspect of their lives.
What happened to freedom? What happened to the promise of redemption when all that really happened was the trading of one master for another?
Much of the modern world has built its understanding of freedom upon Thomas Jefferson’s famous formulation of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” But what would life be like in a society of unrestricted freedom? How many of us would chose to live in with no rules at all, where everyone was free to drive on either side of the road, to take whatever they desired regardless of rightful ownership, to indulge every whim and impulse without a thought of accountability? The absolute “freedom” of pure anarchy would provide no protection for the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Consequently, it would provide no freedom at all.
Intuitively, we understand that some freedoms have to be sacrificed in order to preserve order and ensure the common welfare. If so, we are forced to refine our concept of freedom. In contrast to ancient Egypt, in which our ancestors were coerced by the rod and the whip to bow before Pharaoh’s will, the G-d of our redemption allows us the freedom from immediate retribution. By doing so, the Almighty empowers us with the freedom to make our own choices, to take responsibility of our own actions, and to transform ourselves from creatures of physical impulse into beings of spiritual refinement.
Ultimately, the freedom we possess is the freedom to choose our own master, to choose the leaders and system of laws that will best serve our collective interests in the long run.
Because we live in a society with others who also demand freedom, our choices will necessarily be limited by the conventions of society. More significantly, the values of the society in which we live will shape our own attitudes, influencing the ways we think that priorities we hold dear. From the moment we are born, our impressions are determined by others: our parents, our teachers, and our peers, as well as writers, celebrities, sports stars, and advertisers.
How often have we asked ourselves whether the ideas that govern our choices as spouses, as parents, and as community members are truly our own? How often do we stop to reflect whether we have acquired the values that guide us in our relationships and our careers through thoughtful contemplation or through cultural osmosis?
The illusion of freedom convinces us that our own gratification comes before our obligations to others, before even our obligations to ourselves. If we allow our desire for unrestricted freedom to steer our lives, we will find ourselves enslaved by our desires no less than a chain smoker is a slave to his cigarettes or an alcoholic is a slave to his gin. Convinced that freedom is a goal in itself, we will sacrifice everything of true value for the cruel master of self-indulgence. Deceived into believing that responsibility is the antithesis of freedom, we will invest ourselves, consciously or unconsciously, in philosophies like this one:
Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose, Nothing don’t mean nothing honey if it ain’t free, now now. And feeling good was easy, L-rd, when he sang the blues, You know feeling good was good enough for me, Good enough for me and my Bobby McGee.
These are the words that made Janice Joplin into a counterculture idol, before she died of a heroin overdose at the age of 27.
Less dramatic examples confront us every day. Politicians, movie icons, and athletes destroy their careers and their family lives for a few fleeting moments of pleasure. Parents allow their children to grow up without direction or discipline lest they quash their creativity or damage their egos by imposing structure and meaning upon their lives. A once-productive citizenry increasingly looks to receive support on the backs of others, whether through welfare, lawsuits, or pyramid schemes that leave countless victims footing the bill.
More than anything, Passover celebrates the freedom to think, to take stock of our lives and reassess our values, to take a fresh look at our own motivations and our own decisions, to acknowledge where we may have lost sight of truly meaningful goals and sincerely commit ourselves to striking out on a truer course.
Last year we were slaves to our inner masters; this year we have a chance to set ourselves free to seek the paths of truth and follow them toward the destination of enduring spiritual redemption.
Originally posted in April, 2009
As Dee Dee Sharp might have said, “Give me gravity on my mashed potatoes”.
Astronauts have shown themselves to be truly lofty; mundane careers pale in comparison to that of reaching ever higher, to defy gravity. In very insular (C)Haredi enclaves, the little children aspire to be astronauts instead of Tzaddikim.
I reject Gravity and am attracted instead to its opposite, Comedy.
Here’s a physical law that should suit you, DK:
http://www.yteach.co.uk/index.php/resources/decay_law_half-life_radioactive_probability_isotopes_page_1.html
While R. Goldon’s point about the destructive outgrowths of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is a good one, I would note that the real damage was started even early, with Newton’s Law of Gravity.
Before, most people understood that they should strive for higher and higher medregahs. But with the Law of Gravity, people had yiush on such a lofty idea, and accepted that they were bound for lower levels.
That’s why today, so many of us are merely trying to get out of the mud. We have lowered our goals by internally accepting this law on a spiritual level.
In the introduction to his history “Modern Times,” Paul Johnson offers the tantalizing observation that Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity unleashed a flood of social relativists. Clearly, Mr. Johnson was not indicting Einstein, but those who distorted his theory to their own agendas.
My reference to Thomas Jefferson served merely as a springboard to observe how the “pursuit of happiness” has become a mantra for justifying every type of unrestrained personal “freedom.”
Thomas Jefferson was undisputably a giant of a man, whatever his personal shortcomings may have been, and the world owes him an incaluclable debt of gratitude for his contribution to the political transformation of the modern world. Even his involvement with Sally Hemmings (?) can be viewed sympathetically in the context of his times and circumstances.
And yes, it is “Janis.” My spellchecker “corrected” it for me and I missed the change when I proofread.
And yes, Kristofferson wrote it. But Joplin made it famous, and her death makes the irony all the more poignant.
The article we’re all “commenting” on did make the valid point that freedom without restraint has bad consequences.
However, the author overreached a bit in fleshing out the article, as this now decayed discussion has brought to light again and again and again and…
More trivia:
Joplin’s first name was spelled Janis and her quoted song was by Kris Kristofferson.
Ron, the problem is beyond Jefferson. Just as Jefferson is not to blame for Joplin, so too it could just possibly be that the majority population is not to blame for the behavior of segments of a distinct population.
An institution Rabbi Goldson is connected to used a riot on Black Friday to lash out at the evils of materialism: http://www.aish.com/societyWork/society/Black_Friday_in_Wal-mart.asp
But a closer look at the pictures offered by Newsday revealed that in fact, the perpetrators were–go figure–not secular Jews, but rather, from a specific ethnic group not known for its eloquent defenses of secularism.
This was particularly annoying, as I had predicted that someone in the ultra-Orthodox community would do exactly that beforehand: http://kvetcher.net/2008/12/1997/ny-times-on-the-black-friday-black-stampede/
But let’s go back to another R. Goldson statement. As you wish, Ron. Let’s not lose the message.
A once-productive citizenry increasingly looks to receive support on the backs of others, whether through welfare
Do you know which municipality in the entire U.S. is the poorest? And consequently, has a very high ratio of government sponsored handouts?
That’s right. Keriyas Joel, NY. Keriyas Joel wins the prize.
Which secularist is responsible for that, gentlemen? Would that be Jefferson? Janice Joplin? Which secularist is to blame for that?
I don’t think I’m kidding anyone, DK. It’s just a stupid distraction. I would rather not go into the point that, yeah, the reference to Jefferson was probably a little undercooked, but there is a really important issue at stake here, so why not discuss that instead of “gotcha”s?
Heck, if I wanted to play “gotcha,” DK, I could comment on your blog all DAY!
“other than a quasi Charedi critique of Jefferson and Rousseau that is consistent with some POVs that view celebrating Thanksgiving in any manner as Chukos HaGoyim”
Steve,
Regarding the general discussion in the comments, I don’t see this as a Charedi(eg, insularity)issue at all; I see any possible Jefforsonian critique in terms of an oversimplification of opposite point of view, which is detrimental, as Bob pointed out, above, but which I don’t associate with any Charedi world view per se.
As far as the original post, I didn’t read so much into the Jefferson issue, and I liked the article.
On a related aspect of “freedom”, I’ve been thinking recently of R Dessler’s “nekudas habechirah”, point of free-will, in context of some of my secular readings. The following is a link to a Jewish Observer article by Dr. Benzion Sorotzkin, and another Mishpacha article by Jonathan Rosenblum based on R. Dessler.
http://www.drsorotzkin.com/pdf/bechira.pdf
http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/1054/free-will-and-its-deniers
Many great historical personsae, whether in Tanach or in American history, were absolutely great people, but also made mistakes on their own level . Great people take risks in their lives-that is one of the key factors that distinguishes them from their contemporaries who are satisfied with the status quo-regardless of whether they are such personae as the Avos and Imahos, Moshe Rabbeinu, R Akiva, R Yochanan Ben Zakkai or any of the Founding Fathers such as Jefferson or any great Presidents such as Lincoln. IMO, the belittling of Jefferson left me lost as to the intended point, other than a quasi Charedi critique of Jefferson and Rousseau that is consistent with some POVs that view celebrating Thanksgiving in any manner as Chukos HaGoyim-despite the fact that religious freedom and especially Torah Jewry has flourished in the US.
Jefferson, commiting adultery, is considered “imperfect”. What would it take for a gadol to be considered imperfect?
I’m really dubious that Jefferson, imperfect as he was, could have been an Ayn Rand me-first, me-only kind of guy.
DK (minus the snarkiness, etc.) is onto something here:
We can be so eager to show the superiority of the Torah system that we set up straw men to represent the alternative systems. Or else we don’t research the alternative systems enough, so that we misrepresent them out of ignorance. Either way, as soon as someone picks up on our errors, he dismisses our cherished argument out of hand and our effort at persuasion falls off a cliff. So we need to get our ducks in a row, do our homework,…(insert favorite cliche), to avoid embarrassment.
Not to mention the obvious, that it’s a mitzvah to tell the truth as best we can under all circumstances.
Furthermore, if a flawed comparison propagates through our circles and becomes a standard kiruv tool, the bad consequences propagate, too.
Example:
Suppose you read that all non-Jewish Americans were “X”, but the ones you actually meet are often “not-X”. That reading material could make you skeptical of the author (and his group)in general.
DK,
I think he was referencing how some, maybe many, such as Janis Joplin, take the idea of freedom to extremes.
David Linn wrote,
I would simply answer that no one else felt that R Goldson meant what you said he meant.
Oh, well please explain how you understood the Jefferson reference.
Ron wrote,
I just don’t think the “toras Jefferson†question is worth the energy when there are serious questions of hashkofa and political philosophy at stake.
Uh huh. Ron, if I had pulled something like this from the Left, you would be having a field day. Who are you kidding?
Huh?
Thomas Jefferson was a great man but not perfect. When he was 41 years old, he broke his hand, which never healed, and was useless until the day he died.
At the time he received that terrible injury, he was spending lots of time together alone with a married woman who was famous for her beauty and for the fact that her husband, who did not love her, was often visiting distant lands.
This true story is scary but instructive.
Jefferson is indeed a complex personality. And libertarians are indeed not to be trusted on this issue, but neither is canonization of Jefferson appropriate, nor illusion regarding his very real and unfortunate romantic notions about revolution.
I just don’t think the “toras Jefferson” question is worth the energy when there are serious questions of hashkofa and political philosophy at stake.
BTW,
I do agree that there are those that take Jefferson’s paradigm and pervert it to the end of complete anarchy.
I also wonder if it’s not uncommon to have disparate viewpoints of freedom concerning civil rights, duties and responsibilities
and religious obligations.
DK,
I would simply answer that no one else felt that R Goldson meant what you said he meant.
I would put my patriotism up with anyone elses, that doesn’t obligate me to knee jerk reactions based upon (previously exhibited) personal disdain for the author. That doesn’t make you a patriot or a free thinker. In fact, it makes you the opposite.
Ron, we both are well aware that the revisionist history of a Libertarian Jefferson is bunk.
If this is what R. Goldson is actually referencing, I would suggest he read these essays: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/revisionism.html
Suffice to say, the notion that the man who created and eventually ruled this state was a Libertarian is risible. And if someone else were to then use this revisionist nonsense to add heft to a straw man argument, that would be both risible and deplorable, and worth a retraction.
This is the man who codified our national narrative as the likes of Thomas Jefferson. Criticism of great ones, of our history, and of our is culture absolutely appropriate in our democratic society. But this was not criticism. It was not even unfair criticism.
This was slander.
And when you yourselves do not check such nonsense because it sounds sufficiently frum enough to your ears (the secular American world is bad, the Torah wold is great — close enough, right?), AND it wasn’t a frum Jew being targeted, you diminish both your blog, your movement, and reveal how light-weight this whole endeavor to improve the BT world and grapple with its challenges really is.
Sound harsh? Then explain:
If we agree that Thomas Jefferson, a suspiciously high-ranking person to choose for the father of American anarchy, was NOT, in fact, that, then:
1) Why did no one else challenge this notion? Why did it take someone outside to call this out?
2) Would everyone over here have been so quiet
if a comparably diminishing movement had been egregiously attached to an ultra-Orthodox rabbi considered the greatest of his era?
If not, then why not? Why doesn’t it matter to you when people are strangely and falsely targeted for smear in order to *prove* the debased foundation of the competing society?
There has been much too much bizarre trashing of great secular people recently emanating from certain fabrhenteneh quarters, and I would refer you to a recent editorial by Rabbi Weinreb for his klarkeit and perspective. Note what he says specifically in defense of Capt. Sully: http://jta.org/news/article/2009/04/06/1004276/op-ed-praising-madoff-isnt-kosher
Now forget about who I am, and what I said. Ask yourselves this:
What would Rabbi Weinreb say about this attempted linkage of Thomas Jefferson?
I’d rather focus on a more realistic argument — the one not for anarchy, which Rabbi Goldson cannot have meant, but the enormously more popular attraction to libertarianism, which I think is poisonous. I have written on this quite a few times, most recently here. This post was also fun, as was this. I think my online friend Glenn Reynolds, a/k/a Instapundit, whose blog is among the most influential in the country, is the most important mainstream voice of this trend, which is one reason you will see me refer to his blog frequently in these posts.
True, David, but this seems to present the “society of unrestricted freedom” as (at least) a likely consequence of Jefferson’s thought. If not, invoking Jefferson’s name has no obvious purpose.
It doesn’t seem to me that R. Goldson ever attributed these ideas to Jefferson. Note the “but” in the transition sentence “But what would life be like in a society of unrestricted freedom?”
It’s a long way from Jefferson to Joplin, with Rousseau a good deal closer to the former.
It’s part of the observant Jew’s mission, regardless of the society in which he or she resides, to conduct him or herself in accordance with Torah ethics while following the law of the land.
There seems to be confusion in this article as between the approaches of Rousseau (for example) and Jefferson. We can all see how the French Revolution differed enormously from the American at the time and in its consequences. The American system (until lately?) has been built on citizen responsibility and has carefully allocated certain powers to government at all levels to prevent tyranny, mob rule, anarchy, etc.
Much of the modern world has built its understanding of freedom upon Thomas Jefferson’s famous formulation of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.†But what would life be like in a society of unrestricted freedom?
Are you claiming that is what people believe Jefferson was advocating? “Unrestricted freedom”?
Are you saying Jefferson was mistaken or inappropriate in either his goal or his phrasing? How should he have done better?
How many of us would chose to live in with no rules at all, where everyone was free to drive on either side of the road, to take whatever they desired regardless of rightful ownership, to indulge every whim and impulse without a thought of accountability? The absolute “freedom†of pure anarchy would provide no protection for the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Consequently, it would provide no freedom at all
What on earth does such a society have to do with Jefferson? Who exactly are you arguing against?
I am trying to understand what any of this has to do with Jefferson meman af shach — from any possible way. And I am not getting it. Can some kind person explain what any of this has to do with Jefferson?