Freedom vs. Security

Rabbi Melanie Aron

June 21, 2003

Jeffrey and Shaina have each challenged us this morning, to think about some interesting questions. Jeffrey has expressed concern about the defense of our liberties in the face of those who would limit them. Shaina, in speaking about loyalty to family, raises interesting questions about the balance of loyalties in our lives.

In Jewish tradition loyalty to family is an important obligation. It overrides our obligation to those outside our family, as for example in the case of giving tzedakah, where, given equal need, even a distant relative takes precedence over someone unrelated to us. Our obligations are concentric circles, first to family, then to community and then to the greater world.

Loyalty to family also overrides other demands on our time, so caring for an elderly relative, or helping a parent find a lost object, takes precedence over other personal projects. But there is also a limitation set on family loyalty, as in the case where a father tells his son to commit a crime. Here the mitzvah of honoring parents is set aside for the greater mitzvah of not violating God's law," thou shalt not steal". Balancing the different obligations, is an important part of each individual's struggle to live a good life.

Similarly with regard to infringements on our freedoms, we have different competing goods. One good is the saving of life, pikuach nefesh. In Jewish law it overrides most other concerns. However pikuach nefesh can be invoked only in cases of real and present danger. The knife must be unsheathed, the danger immediate.

On the other side, Judaism values an individual's right to privacy in their home, free of intrusions. The Torah insists that creditors not be allowed to barge into a home even to collect their security deposit. Eavesdropping is also explicitly condemned and later generations of commentators included reading private correspondence (though I am not sure they discussed email). While Jewish tradition acknowledged that preventing a crime may require the disclosure of confidential information, severe limitations were imposed, for example even in capital cases, it was prohibited to conceal a witness.

Since September 11th the United States has had to deal with balancing these two values, protecting life verses individual rights and freedoms and we anticipate that the struggle to find the correct balance will be with us for the foreseeable future.

These issues are not totally new. In l971 for example, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Reform movement, passed a resolution stating, " By employing wiretap techniques, the government may well have overstepped its constitutional power to stop foreign espionage." As Jews with first hand experience in Israel, we are sensitive to the threat of terrorism in a democratic society. But also, as a minority group, we are aware of the dangers that flow from the limitation of due process and right to counsel to any individual or stigmatized group.

At the recent board meeting of the UAHC, which I attended last weekend in Washington, we discussed a resolution on civil liberties and national security. We had speakers from organizations as diverse as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Heritage Foundation. The final resolution called upon the government to prosecute terrorism in ways that are consistent with the fundamental principles of our justice system and which preserve an open and free political climate. Our movement urged that the longstanding commitment to the right to Privacy of American citizens be maintained, particularly by opposing programs such as TIPS and Total Information Awareness. We urged that the principle of due process be maintained by opposing the use of secret evidence and closed hearings without notice to the accused and judicial review.