The Jewish Community and the Environmental Movement

One of the strongest advocates for environmental protection in the United States Congress is Senator Joseph Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew. This may surprise some people, as we do not generally find observant Jews at the forefront of this issue. Yet it should really be a natural place for us to be, given the long tradition of environmental sensitivity in our halachic and rabbinic sources.

Adam, when placed in the Garden of Eden, is charged with the mission of l'avdah uleshumrah, to work the garden and to protect it so that man's very first task is the preservation of his environment. The Midrash actually suggests that G-d took Adam to tour the Garden and warned him not to harm the world because 'there will be none to fix it after you.'

With this as background it is not surprising that much halachic material dealing with the environment can be found in our literature. The classic Biblical source is the prohibition against cutting down fruit trees to use in besieging a city during wartime. Maimonides expands this restriction to include all wanton acts of destruction involving both natural and man-made objects whether in war or peace. Logic is on Maimonides? side in this expansion. If during wartime, when we are dealing with life and death issues, environmental destruction is prohibited, consider how much such prohibition is needed during peacetime. The Aramaic formulation of this prohibition, ba?al tashchit, has in fact, become the catch phrase for all wasteful or destructive behavior in the halachic vernacular. Not only prohibitions but also positive enactments are part of our halachic reality. Strict zoning regulations required maintenance of amenity zones (called migrashim) immediately outside the walls of Jewish cities to serve as areas to be enjoyed for their pristine beauty, in which neither human construction nor agriculture could be practiced. Similarly, industry that produced noxious fumes could only be built downwind from an inhabited area. So, too certain types of pollution, the production of certain types of smells or dust and the shaking of the earth could successfully be prevented by one's neighbors even if previously present for a long period of time (unless the rights had been purchased) on the theory that these nuisances are so deleterious that no on can ever be said to have accepted them.

Environmental concerns show up in many other areas as well. Briefly listing a few of that are of most interest:

1.One does not say shehchiyanu the first time one performs ritual slaughter because an animal is being put to death.
2.Certain types of wood could not be burnt on the altar in the temple service because thes types of wood produced too much smoke.
3.G-d sent Jonah to save Nineveh despite the sins of its inhabitants and their hatred of the Jewish people in part because the city contained beheima rabah (man animals).
4.Rabbi Judah Hanasi suffered many years of illness and pain because he showed callous indifference to the fear of a calf being led to slaughter.
5. The Bratslaver Rebbe called those who chop down trees for no good reason, murderers, claiming that the Torah equates human beings and trees in Deut. 20:20.

Many Jewish philosophers have offered rationales for the strong Jewish focus on the environment. Some worry about the cruelty that develops in one who wantonly and callously destroys. Others point to G-d?s promise after Noah leaves the ark at the conclusion of the flood, not to again destroy the world in this and to maintain the natural order of things. If G-d evidences such concern about nature, then we who must follow in his footsteps (as it were) must also evidence such concern. Still others are satisfied to simply quote the verse, 'the Earth is the Lord's.' This last approach is given dramatic underpinning by other mystical thinkers who claim that a spark of G-d exists in every object in the universe. Disrespect shown to even so much as a blade of grass is, therefore, in effect, disrespect shown to G-d.

Given all this and much more, it is, it would seem, natural for us to be supportive and even activist, in responding to environmental concerns. Why then are we not? Clearly, apathy is an important factor. It is hard to get Jews excited and involved in any area of concern much less on, which is not specifically 'Jewish' in scope. There are, however, philosophical differences with which we must deal. There first are the roots of today?s environmental movement that are found in the world of thinkers who call for abandonment of the Judeo-Christian ethic on the environment. They blame this ethic for all ecological problems, and call for the development of a new pagan environmental morality. This is predicated on paganism's belief that each tree or blade of grass had a god, a demigod, or a spirit watching over it. This belief, so the claim goes, provides greater respect for mature than presently exists. We have already seen a Jewish version of this approach in the thought of our mystics described above. Added to that is historic paganism's terrible environmental record (i.e. the Roman Empire and its conscious and purposeful destruction of the environment in places that it captures), and our general abhorrence of pagan beliefs, and it is no wonder that serious hesitation will arise among Jews before they sign on to this cause.

Similarly, one finds some environmentalists battling against what they call 'speciesism,' the prejudiced? belief that humans are somehow superior to animals. According to these thinkers, humans are in no way superior to animals. For this reason, people who hold this belief oppose use of animal organs in transplants to save human lives. A human is not to be considered superior to an animal, according to these folks, which would not allow the sacrifice of the animal to save a person?s life. Rather, entities, the human being and the monkey, pig, or dog, should be considered of equal value and treated in that way. Judaism?s absolute assumption that nothing but G0d stands above or equal to the human being makes such a position untenable for us. Clearly many environmentalists reject 'speciesism,' but their existence within the movement does turn some away.

Finally, a more universal concern: the unfortunate politicization of science in the environmental arena. Certainly many real ecological concerns exist that need significant attention. Unfortunately, however, confusion reigns about many issues. Is global warming really happening? Read a left leaning publication and this theoretical phenomenon is incontrovertible fact. Read a corresponding right wing journal and we are more likely to be suffering global cooling. Similarly, the ozone hole, acid rain and DDT either are or are not of concern depending on whom you read and believe. These issues are too important and the cost of a wrong decision so huge that people should be able to look at these questions with the necessary objectivity.

This politicization of science is not endemic solely to the problems of the environment. Issues as diverse as the effects of secondary tobacco smoke, the danger of AIDS contracted through homosexual contact, a woman's average aptitude for doing advanced mathematics, and the inheritability of criminal tendencies, all of which have been subject to scientific measurement, yield contradictory results depending on who and where reported.

Part of the problem results from the funding of many of these studies by interest groups that advocate a particular point of view. Brave, indeed, (some might say 'foolhardy') is the researcher who will return with a conclusion that undermines his or her sponsor's agenda. Even when the government does the research, political pressure groups intrude (black activists protested against testing of whether criminal personality traits, are, at least partially, based on genetic factors, fearing that it would lead to ?racist? conclusions). Similar groups promoted testing of an 'African' anti AIDS drug at the same institution).

Even when the researcher is an independent individual, bias-especially personal bias-can intrude. A recent study showed that children raised by gays and lesbians were as psychologically well off as those raised in mainstream families. The considerable evidence of significantly larger stress indicators and psychological problems evidenced by these children was explained away without proof or substantiation, as resulting from society?s basic homophobia.

The root of this degratdation of science?s traditional ?objective search for truth? is the ?political correctness? movement. As detailed in such books as Dinesh D'souza's Illiberal Education and Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind, academia has, on many campuses, substituted the goal of developing proper attitude and mindsets for the goals of free intellectual exploration and academic excellence. It is no wonder that students trained in such an environment go on to be researchers who willingly submit the conclusion of their 'objective' research to the tyranny of particular political agendas.

Jews should find such developments particularly appalling. Falsifying science for political agendas was an important prop on which Auschwitz and the Gulag supported their indecent existences. Further, Jewish accomplishments in appropriate scientific endeavors are demeaned when science is put to such a sue.

Speaking against the backdrop of Torah values, we see the natural worlds as a window to G-d. Study the artwork and you know the artist. The blessings that introduce kriat shema, our deepest profession of our faith, are thought to represent the two paths to G-d's revelation. The second deals with Torah, G-d's specific revelation to the Jews, while the first deals with creation, G-d?s universal revelation. 'Histakel be?oraita ulvara alma' (G-d looked into the Torah and created the world), the rabbis tell us. Against that background, any conscious perversion of scientific inquiry is tantamount to a base form of heresy.

Finally, there is the issue of truth. Worn by G-d, as it were, on His signet ring for use as His royal seal, it is no wonder that the Torah tells us, 'midvar sheker tirchak' (keep away from any lie). All lies are odious. Obviously, those lies that have a profound effect on the economy and our quality of life, such as those in the environmental arena, must be even more assiduously avoided.

Perhaps if we can get the science in line and overcome the other obstacles, we can all eventually join senator Lieberman at the forefront of the effort to preserve the natural beauty and order of our world.