The past couple of weeks saw observance of the Jewish High Holy Days of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, which are the new year and day of repentance, respectively. As the year 5775 begins, some Jews are also noting that this is a shmita year.

The ancient Jewish agricultural cycle followed a rotation of seven years. On the seventh, reminiscent of the Creation story, a rest is mandated. This is called shmita, or “release.” The primary purpose was to let the land regenerate after six years of intensive farming. Allowing the nutrients to return to the soil would provide for more productive harvests in the future. This tradition is indicative of an early awareness of the importance of environmental conservation, long before systematic use of fertilizers or any modern concepts of sustainability.

The ancient trading empire of Phoenicia, in what is today Lebanon, was noted for its purple dye. This was a major export product and source of revenue and wealth in the Phoenician economy. Numbers:15 in the Old Testament states

“38. Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue. 39. And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the Lord…”

Like Phoenician purple, this blue dye was drawn at the time from an uncommon mollusk. When tied into economic forces and trading opportunities, the mollusk became endangered and prices for the dye skyrocketed. Eventually, pressure eased in conjunction with more steadfast observance of shmita. Herein lies an early example of biodiversity conservation. The Biblical commandment is acknowledged in modernity by the colors and patterns of the Jewish prayer shawl, called a talit.

A talit and kippah, courtesy of James MacDonald via Flickr

There were social obligations associated with shmita as well. Since farmers did not actively grow crops at this time, any fruits or edible plants that grew on their own were deemed communal. This suggests a more cooperative economic and social system. Furthermore, outstanding debts were often forgiven and many indentured servants were released from their obligations.

Rabbi Ari Enkin suggests that the Talmud, another holy Jewish text, declares that the purpose of shmita is to remember that the land does not belong to people, but to God. This is further enforced, he argues, by the fact that God provides for people even when they do not work the land. In addition, some interpretations suggest that shmita enables hardworking farmers to take a break from their burdens and refocus their energies. Often this came in the form of more religious worship and, when in conjunction with the realization that the surrounding world belongs to God, reinforces faith in Him.

Extensive farmlands in the Golan Heights, courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

Especially considering that this very ancient practice referred to farming, and specifically in Israel, what modern, global applications and lessons besides direct environmental ones can we glean from it? Yom Kippur is the day of repentance; Jews seek forgiveness from God and from other people for the sins they have committed over the last year. This enables for a fresh start, or a clean slate as is commonly articulated. An important component of this custom is, as an individual, to be willing to grant forgiveness to those who seek it from you. This is as vital to a modern cooperative social system as was the ancient forgiveness of debts and release of servants. Incessant burdens, bitter memories, and grudges damage the individual just as incessant agriculture damages the soil and land. Shmita is an emotional “release” as well, vital for one’s health. It is important to step back, take a break, and start over fresh after a little while.

Though the esoteric Talmudic interpretation that the land belongs to God might not be as universally appealing in 2014, the general principle that the environment is a force that operates largely on its own terms is an important lesson. Perhaps a more suitable wording would be that the environment belongs to the Earth. Just as the ancient Jews recognized that they were part of a larger system that included things beyond their control, we too exist in such a dynamic. In addition, the Hebrews of old recognized that their actions could have consequences of an environmental nature, which in turn would affect their well being and livelihoods because they were deeply intertwined with their surrounding ecologies. This remains true today, and in our technological and globalized society the severity of the consequences of our actions are more alarming than ever. Finally, the very manners in which we think, identify, and behave are inspired in part by our very environments and their roles in our lives.

The environment is not an abstract set of ideas from which we are detached. It contributes substantially to who we are; acting in its benefit is mutually beneficial. May the new year bring release and a clean slate, and kindle hopes for our futures.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Feature image courtesy of [Alexander Smolianitski via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Shmita: The Jewish Calendar Year of Environmental Conservation appeared first on Law Street.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was caught in the middle of a tug-of-war between Christians and atheists this summer. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sued the IRS for allowing a church to preach about political issues during services. As religious organizations like churches can have tax-exempt status, they are forbidden from making recommendations about political candidates. While the atheists’ suit was settled, the debate remains far from over. The intersection of American religion and politics is complicated to say the least. From personal appeals to Supreme Court cases, it is hard to find more controversial issues than those involving both church and state. But we should not ignore the topic; rather, it should be tackled head on.

Anti-religious sentiment, or at least sentiment against religion in the public sphere, is alive and virulent. David Silverman, the President of the American Atheists, said that the American “political system is rife with religion and it depends too much on religion and not enough on substance. Religion is silly and religion has components that are inherently divisive. …There is no place for any of that in the political system.”

The American Atheists are at least 4,000 members strong; the FFRF has over 19,000 members who subscribe to the belief that “[t]he history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.” Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, Betty Friedan, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. may disagree. American slavery was countered by devout abolitionists like Sojourner Truth. The movement would not have been the same had it not been for those leaders who saw slavery as simply not Christian. The British colonies in America partially owe their origins to the religious movement of the day. People “free from religion” cannot be called superior in Western progressive movements.

Atheism itself is not the issue. But claiming a moral superiority over religious people based solely on their religiousness is a mistake. This extends to the political sphere. Not because any nation should necessarily adopt theocratic tendencies, but because we should treat religion as a social institution rather than a political taboo. Marriage, education, families, and the economy are each social institutions brought up frequently in political discussions. Beyond that, some of the most popular rhetoric connects different institutions to one another; the White House website says that “President Obama is committed to creating jobs and economic opportunities for families across America.” Republican Marco Rubio’s website claims that “Senator Rubio believes there are simple ideas that Washington should pursue in order to improve education in America and prepare our children for the jobs of tomorrow.” Families, jobs, children, and education are all important in American society. They can also be highly personal and emotional when included in our political discourse; what really makes them so different from religion as a social institution?

To the liberals, even if you don’t buy into the idea that religion is an equally important social institution to others, you cannot deny that it shapes America’s politics, and therefore it deserves discussion. Every American president has been Christian and male, but could any liberal be taken seriously while arguing that we can’t talk about gender discrimination in our politics? Barack Obama is the only Black president of America’s forty four, but what Democrat could claim that we can’t talk about race in our politics? In this way, there is a deep hypocrisy in the liberal canon. Further, if religion in politics is shunned by everyone except for Christian conservatives, then the conversation will be dominated by them alone.

To the conservatives, look at the statistics. The Pew Research center shows that people who fall under the group “Protestant/Other Christian” (distinguished by Pew from Catholics and Mormons) voted for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama at a rate of 57 percent to 42 percent. This disparity is actually wider than it was during the 2008 election in which John McCain received 54 percent of the same group to Obama’s 45 percent. Jews in 2012 voted for Obama over Romney at a rate of 69 percent to 30 percent. The widest gaps are those within the groups “Religiously unaffiliated” and “Other faiths” who voted for Obama-Romney at rates of 70 percent – 26 percent and 74 percent – 23 percent, respectively. Reaching out to Latinos and Blacks is proving to be difficult, but there are plenty of non-Christian groups that the Republican party has largely overlooked.

Religion isn’t entirely absent from the political conversation, but where it is present, its place is static and stale. MSNBC will face off right-wing Christians who lambaste abortion and gay marriage against level-headed leftists. FOX News will pit religious people claiming family values against out-of-touch academics. When liberals eschew religious political discussion and conservatives only make room for their Christian constituents, the discussion doesn’t move anywhere. There is not only a need to have bring religion into the rest of our political discussion — to have faith in politics –but to remove it from its stereotypical and often misrepresentative position. Freedom of speech and religious freedom should flourish together with a substantial discussion that allows America to have faith in our politics.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Having Faith in Politics appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/faith-politics/feed/ 4 23714