Cross Burning Demeans the Divine Image and Threatens Evil: In Opposition to the Virginia Supreme Court

Rabbi Gary S. Creditor
May 31, 2002

 

The first amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Added to the Constitution in 1791, this amendment encapsulated the greatness of the American experiment. Contrary to all European countries and virtually every other place in the world, here, there would be no state religion. All citizens could practice freely the religion of their choice. The citizenry would be able to speak freely and publish freely. They could assemble freely and the government would have to listen to its citizens. This was a political, sociological and religious revolution. I believe that this rests upon a fundamental Jewish principal learned in the very beginning of Genesis: all human beings, men and women, young and old, rich and poor, homosexual and heterosexual, all nationalities and ethnicities are created in God's image. Holiness, stemming from God, adheres to every person. Therefore no one and no government can remove it. It is part of each of us like our own DNA. It is indelibly ours.

In the opening chapters of Genesis God is in for a rude shock from the creatures that He made in His image. They disobey. Adam and Eve eat the forbidden fruit. Cain kills Abel. In the Torah God acknowledges that human beings have ayetzer ha-rah, the inclination to do evil. For Judaism existence will be the perpetual struggle between the yetzer ha-rah and the yezter ha-tov, the inclination to do good. We are creatures endowed with choice. Yet Judaism recognizes that the impact, the consequences of the choices we make are not restricted to us. Others are affected.Others can be harmed. Judaism sees law is the vehicle wherein parameters are constructed no only to enable us to be personally fulfilled, but also to be protected.

Before following that thought let me point out that the Rabbis debate which verse in the Torah is the most important. They focus on two. While being different, they are the same. The first choice is the one that ultimately received the nod:Love thy neighbor as thyself. The second choice was: These are the generations of man. Both verses indicate the interdependence of humanity. The first verse is a commandment that we should extend to the next person the same love and concern that we have for ourselves. The second verse comes from the creation story that indicates that if we go far enough back on the genealogical tree, we are all related. In the Rabbinic phrase, "Don't we all have the same father (and mother)?" The problem is that too many too often don't believe this and don't behave reflecting this.

For that reason Judaism believes in the establishment of law that protects us from harm, besides enabling us to fulfill our dreams. We can be harmed physically, at our bodies, with physical instruments, by deeds – commission and omission. We can be harmed with words that crush our spirits, make us feel terrible, can give a false impression and false information. And we can be harmed by words and deeds, which threaten us with evil. Here rests the issue of the constitutionality of cross-burning and its parallel, which occurred in Skokie, Illinois some years ago, marching down the street with Nazi banners emblazoned with swastikas. Should these be protected under the law of free speech or not?

I would like to point to clear cut Biblical verses or Talmudic law but I can't because neither anticipated this question. Judaism does not accept the premise that we can do whatever we want and say whatever we please. There is no real concept of "free speech."Words are powerful. Deeds speak. They don't exist in a vacuum. There are times when words and deeds threaten another's welfare, well-being and very existence. When the Nazis held their vast marches and assemblies in the huge stadiums of Germany the words articulated their plan to exterminate the Jewish people and subjugate the rest of the world. The ancient swastika was resurrected as the symbol of their agenda. Were the Jews of Europe not harmed before they were murdered? Most certainly. Their demise did not begin in the camps and crematoria. The words and the symbols were portents of their ultimate fate and were the power that galvanized their minions to action. Marching in Skokie years ago did not lessen the intention, did not diminish the message, and did not reduce the harm, psychologically, spiritually and even physically. Would we not feel threatened in the marrow of our bones if the Neo-Nazis that are in Virginia used the slogan of "free speech" to march down Broad Street? Would we sleep comfortably in our beds? Where is our protection to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Judaism demands that that be protected in law.

And it is the same understanding that informs my opinion about cross-burning with the hope that the Supreme Court will uphold the fifty-year-old statute of this Commonwealth that prohibits burning a cross "with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons." As far as I can see, the burning of the cross is no less threatening, no less menacing for African Americans that the swastika is for us. The burning cross represented enslavement, whippings, and murder. How does a black child feel when they see it? Do they sleep soundly at night? Are they not entitled too? In rejecting the law in the city of St. Paul, the Supreme Court said that "fighting words" should be protected by the first amendment, and even if they were prohibited, that couldn't be based on content, on what was being said. Does not the burning of the cross, which means the rejection of the Christian symbol of love and atonement of sin, declare evil intent directly upon African Americans whose ancestors knew slavery and affliction more recently than ours knew Egypt? For them cross-burning is no less evil that the swastika is for us. Those who march with one and those who burn the other mean the same harm and the same evil. We are entitled to protection from both. Neither should be protected as free speech.

With chutzpah I would suggest to the justices of the Supreme Court of the land that they consult a very ancient document for their guideline in these cases. The ultimate purpose and highest goal, the true protection under the law fulfills the words of the Prophet Micah:

Thus He will arbitrate for the multitude of nations,
However distant;
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
And their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation shall not take up
Sword against nation;
They shall never again know war;
But every man shall sit
Under his grapevine or fig tree
And none shall make them afraid,
For the Lord Himself has spoken it.

May this come true.

Amen.