[Previous sermon: "Parashat Bo, MLK Jr. And 350 Years in America - January 14, 2005"] [Next sermon: "Shabbat Zachor - March 18th, 2005"]
Pekudei - March 11, 2005
When the news broke nearly 3 years ago that Kenneth Lay and the upper echelon at Enron grabbed golden parachutes as their company headed to bankruptcy, leaving thousands of others holding worthless stock and pensions, that book cookers at Arthur Andersen created and encouraged false accountings of their corporate clients, and we learned that Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom, a hard working self-made man continued to collect a shameless salary as his company was coming apart at the seams, we recalled together what the Rabbis of the Talmud (Shabbat 31a) imagined the first question a Jew will be asked when he dies and comes before heavenly court to account for his life. Its not a question of faith.
Its not a question of ritual punctiliousness or about the amount of tzedakah he gave. According to our tradition, the first question the heavenly court will ask is "Did you conduct your business affairs honestly?" As these Rabbis understood God's will, a decent life - even a God fearing life - is defined first and foremost by being honest in our dealings with others. And if one cannot answer affirmatively to this question, God is not going to be impressed with statements of faith, ritual observance or generosity. As the trial of Bernie Ebbers unfolded last week, we learned that the CEO has chosen ignorance as the substance of his defense.
According to his testimony, not only didn't he have knowledge of technology, he didn't know about matters of finance. For that, he unconditionally relied upon his CFO, Scott Sullivan, who has already pleaded guilty to charges of fraud. For me, the question of guilt and culpability for Worldcom's bankruptcy and loss of $180 billion in shareholder stock is less about determining how much Ebbers knew or didn't know, than it should be about holding him accountable as the head of the company for that which was transpiring under his leadership. His job was to be the person looking out for the welfare of his employees and to be responsible to the company's investors. It was his business to be apprised as to what the accountants were reporting their financial health to be. Not knowing those items as a CEO is simply unacceptable.
Regardless of how the Ebbers trial turns out, it is ironic to me that the American public is ever compelled by the ignorance defense in light of the fact that we live in times where people are more connected to one another and to information through satellite media, that we can access data virtually instantaneously by computer, by fax or by telephone. Why are we still tolerant of explanations that include some qualification of not knowing, despite how much we now CAN know? Think about it: According to the best intelligence reports prior to the war, the United States and other countries were certain there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Now that we know it was not the case, the State Department simply said and we have accepted that our people couldn't possibly know the limitations of their intelligence. Unfortunately, it is their job to know, especially when that information determines a preemptive action. Again, not knowing, in my opinion, is simply unacceptable. This week's Torah portion, Pekudei, is the last portion in the book of Exodus, which has spent chapters and chapters since the revelation at Sinai describing the plans and then the building of the Tabernacle and its furnishings. Pekudei begins with Moses inventorying and accounting for all the donations went that were collected from the community for the building of their worship space. The Midrash takes up the question of why.
After so much painstaking detail describing the Tabernacle, why does the Torah expend MORE ink having Moses account for how much gold, silver, copper was collected and to identify how it was used? One answer the Rabbis offered was that as soon as construction of the Tabernacle had been completed Moses himself started to wonder about certain expenditures and whether they were correctly appropriated. And it was HE who thought to himself, "If I can't even keep track of how everything was used, the people might think I took it for myself, so I'd better provide an accurate accounting." A companion Midrash portrays those same thoughts originating from the people, not Moses. That as the Tabernacle was being constructed, people started looking at Moses differently.
Perhaps his neck looked a little fatter, maybe he was gaining personal wealth from the their donations for their temple. In response to those allegations, Moses promised them a full accounting upon completion of the work, which explains why Pekudei begins the way it does. The most interesting Midrash which opens the section on Parashat Pekudei, cites a rule that the finances of a city or community must not be controlled by a single person, but by at least two or more individuals. In the case of the desert wanderings of our people, according the Midrash while Moses functioned as the sole treasurer, he provided the inventory in Pekudei in order to call others to audit the accounts WITH him. In other words, since he was the only one to appear in charge, he reached out to the community to share the responsibility with him.
The spirit of this Torah portion and the Midrashim that expand upon it is that in order for communities to function at their best, there must be an atmosphere of full disclosure. Worthy leaders intuit, like Moses did, that it is critical for certain information to be in the public's hand. That their leadership will only be strengthened by transparency instead of secrecy. The expectation of accountability means that leaders are responsible for knowing what goes on under their leadership. It means never presuming they are untouchable and above scrutiny, and seeing it as part of their job to meet needs of the people under their care, just as Moses was able to hear what people were muttering about him and then do something about it.
And even more than that, that honorable societies should place their trust in leaders but at the same time and in their own best interest, also take responsibility for demanding and perpetuating a culture of shared knowing. WE mustn't accept the ignorance defense from our leaders. WE should never let mistakes get brushed under the carpet. WE have a job to do to hold those who are entrusted with our rights and liberties accountable to us. You might say that we have an extraordinary media machine that keeps us in the know and keeps leaders on their toes. But what does it say when we know far more intimate details of the Michael Jackson trial and Martha Stewart's release from prison from our news sources than we do about what's really happening on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On one hand, what does it say about the reliability of the information coming from the press when White House daily press passes are extended on an ongoing basis to writers working for friendly party operatives. And on the other hand, that journalists are being put on trial for protecting their sources. For me, this raises serious questions about whether the press can fulfill its contract to the American public: to function as an objective aid in the transparency of our government. Tonight marks the 3 ½ year anniversary since the September 11th terrorist attacks, a time as good as any to take stock in the directions our nation has pursued to respond to the threats that endanger us so that we can lead safer, more secure lives. But are we really safer and more secure with these questions facing our freedom and objectivity of the press?
Are we more comfortable now that freedom of information laws that once allowed us to find out if companies in our backyards were storing or producing harmful toxins have been rescinded in the name of national security? Is it less important for us to know whether big businesses are dumping harmful chemicals into our watersheds than providing the possibility that a terrorist might misuse that information? Do we feel better that the Patriot Act provided to limit access to government information so our Vice President can keep secret the transcripts and even the list of attendees of meetings in which our country's current energy policy was developed, a critical policy which affects Americans both domestically and internationally? Was that information that truly affected national security or just the security of those who were crafting the policies therein?
Its been a number of months but Americans should still be morally outraged that the highest leaders who didn't know or may have even sanctioned the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib prison still have their jobs. And how did we allow a new Attorney General to be confirmed without forcing the White House to release sensitive memos regarding the use of torture methods including boarding and virtual suffocation, not to mention sexual degradation? And even now, while the CIA would like to keep it secrets buried in the name of national security, why haven't we put them more to task regarding the use of extraordinary rendition, the outsourcing of torture of terrorism suspects to other nations that our own State Department condemns for human rights abuses?
We will never be safer when we don't know what our government is doing supposedly on our behalf, for our own good. The framers of our government system had a similar concept as our rabbis of the Midrash - that power in the hands of too few is too dangerous. That everyone's liberty and freedom are compromised when those holding powerful positions cannot be checked and monitored. It is time for national security not to be an acceptable excuse for secrecy. And it is time for spin not to be an acceptable substitute for honesty. During the elections in 2000, this meant believing the spinmeisters about who would benefit most from the tax cuts. We now have crippling deficits, and no stronger of a middle class. In the election of 2004, it was the Swift Boat Veterans' account of Kerry's record. Today, it is that social security is in crisis and the only way to repair it is by moving it to the private sector.
The accuracy of ideas cannot be measured by how many times one hears them, but rather on their veracity. Freedom of information, freedom of the press, and transparency of government and our leaders are the only tools we have as a nation to access to a measure of that truth in order to make decisions that will keep us from harm. A society is only as good as it demands its leaders to be. Tonight, we might be well served to remind ourselves of our most sacred prize, our Torah. When we picture our Torah scrolls, what might come to mind is the way they look in the ark: beautifully robed, embroidered with colorful threads, bearing glowing breast plates made of silver: holy clothing, holy ornaments. Yet a sefer Torah is holiest not clothed, but naked, laid bare with only its letters showing, inviting us to read its words and understand its message.
We have access to that inner message only from removing all its protective garments to reveal the precious insides. Our country has pursued a course of closing the transparency, the nakedness of government which ultimately closes us off from the true message and spirit upon which our country was founded. But we can change all that.
Kein Yehi Razon.
