Adam Lanza, who killed 27 people last week |
Australia
has it Right
A drash for
Friday, 21 December
Now that I’ve
been here in Australia for just over half a year, there are many things about
this wonderful land that I understand and appreciate. There are still, however, things that mystify
me completely. I’ll give you an
example. In America, as here, many cars
have electric windows. Typically, the
driver’s window has a feature called ‘One Touch.’ It means that, when lowering the window, one
need only touch the switch briefly, and it will automatically lower all the way
down. It’s a safety feature to prevent
the driver from being distracted over the period of several seconds that it
takes to completely lower the window.
But in America, ‘One Touch’ only works when lowering the
window. To have ‘One Touch’ available
for raising the window would, in contrast be a safety hazard. An electric window raising all the way
automatically might accidentally close on somebody’s fingers. So when raising the driver’s window on my
American cars, I had to hold the switch all the way up. It made sense.
In the Australian-specification
car I drive here, the ‘One Touch’ feature affects raising the window,
but not lowering it. Can someone
explain that to me? It makes no sense to
this American – no sense whatsoever!
That said, there are facets of
Australian society that make good sense.
Facets that make me wish that we had such good sense in America. One is the way that you cope with the
societal problem of mental illness.
In Australia, there is less
stigma attached to those who suffer from mental illness than in America. Because of this greater acceptance, those who
suffer from such disorders are far more likely to seek help. And the help that they need, in its entire
spectrum of forms up to, and including residential care, is readily
available: both in the public system and
the private.
Over the months that I’ve been
here, I’ve observed that we have a number of members in this congregation who
have mental illnesses. And while they
don’t advertise them freely, there also is not the same element of shame and
unwillingness to talk about it, that I observed in America. So here you have car windows that drive me
crazy – no pun intended! – but a mental health treatment system that makes me
envious. Not a bad trade-off, actually!
A week ago today, a 20-year-old
man named Adam Lanza went on a shooting rampage in a small town of
Connecticut. First he killed his mother
with one of her own guns. Then he drove
to a nearby primary school, where he killed six adult faculty and staff, and 20
young children. America – and the world –
are trying to understand why a young man suffering, by all accounts with some
deep mental illness, had access to guns.
To me as an American, my question is somewhat different. Why did a young man suffering, by all accounts
with some deep mental illness, not have access to the treatment he needed?
Not all the facts about Adam Lanza
or his mother, Nancy are known. But it is
known, and widely so, that Adam had manifested symptoms of serious mental
illness since years before his recent rampage and demise. There is also some talk, perhaps ultimately to
be confirmed, that Nancy was trying to obtain a court order to get Adam
committed against his will to residential treatment for his illness. If so, she was on a fool’s errand, because in
Connecticut of all states in the USA, this is next-to-impossible to achieve.
The American aversion to
providing residential treatment, and giving helpers the means to get the severely
ill the treatment they need, stems in large part from a terrible situation that
existed in the past. Decades ago, there
was widespread institutionalisation of the mentally ill in most US states. Most states have, since then shuttered their
facilities. They also turned off mechanisms
by which those who might be a danger to themselves and others, could be
committed against their will. This
process, this societal sea-change, did not just happen in a vacuum. After the 1960’s it became widely recognised
that many state-run mental institutions were merely warehousing the ill rather
than working positively to treat them.
In some institutions there was even abuse of patients. Obviously these conditions cried out for
reforms. But in my country, the solution
was by-and-large not reform. It
was turning the mentally ill loose on the streets without the kinds of help
they needed.
So now, instead of warehousing
the mentally ill in hospitals, in America we warehouse them in homeless shelters
and in encampments in city parks and under highway bridges. It is considered impolite to say that many –
perhaps a preponderance – of the long-term homeless suffer from mental
illness. It is easier – and makes better
press – to attribute homelessness to dire economic times in one of the world’s
richest countries. But the truth is that
most homelessness in America has nothing to do with economics. Having been involved in social services for
the mentally ill before I came here, I can state this with some authority.
This is the real shortcoming of
my country in this affair. Why do we
stigmatise the mentally ill so much? Why
do we make few resources available? And
why do we make it nearly impossible to protect those who pose a danger to
themselves and others by taking custodianship of their treatment?
In America, there is a very
powerful tradition of an armed and autonomous citizenry. It is a difficult thing to explain here in
Australia where you have largely accepted that a citizen is not entitled to
possess a firearm. America is a much
more violent country – that cannot be denied.
But the existence of an armed criminal element – especially an armed
criminal gang element – here in Australia attests to the reality that outlawing
firearms only eliminates legal firearms…not the illegal ones.
My crazy, violent home country is
often difficult for those outside to understand. Of this there is no question. But in America right now, as here, the debate
engendered by last week’s terrible event is probably not the most helpful
one. The Obama Administration will try
to outlaw at least certain classes of guns for private ownership. They will probably try to make it more
difficult, through red tape, to purchase any firearms. They will try to achieve this in the
legislature. But if they find a
sufficient number of lawmakers unwilling to do their bidding, as will likely be
the case, they will surely turn to other means.
And if they do, perhaps it will be for the better of America. Or perhaps it will not, because the debate
that I think should be happening will have been largely ignored. But that’s public policy for you, and not
just in America. The really
difficult questions often – usually – get sidestepped. And that’s not good for America. And not good for other countries either. Such as Australia. But there are things that you get
right here. And for that, I’m proud to
be here with you. Shabbat shalom.
A Drash for
Saturday, 22 December
This week’s
Torah reading, the reading we have just read, is from Parashat Vayiggash. It is the climax of the saga of Joseph and
his brothers. In it, Joseph confronts
his brothers who sold him into slavery so many years back. After a time of toying with his brothers
wanting to inflict a little suffering on them, he relents. In this week’s reading, he identifies himself
to his brothers. Then he forgives
them. Lest they think themselves
unworthy of this pardon, he tells them explicitly. “Don’t flog yourselves over
having sold me. It was G-d Himself who
sent me here, to keep the entire family alive.”
So Joseph not only forgives his
brothers, he asks them not to think of themselves as guilty. I don’t know about you, but I think that’s pretty big of him. I’ve forgiven people for offences against me,
but never with such aplomb! Believe me: I wanted them to at least feel guilty!
Nobody in this room has suffered
to anything like the degree of suffering experienced by Joseph. I say this, not to minimise the pain that anybody
hearing me, may have felt at any time in life.
No, my point is only that, if Joseph can forgive the offences against
him, then we can certainly forgive any wrongs done to us by anybody close to
us. The message of the redemption of
Joseph’s brothers, is that we can offer similar redemption. Or receive it. Because if Joseph’s brothers’ transgression
is forgivable, anything done to you, or which you have done to someone else, is
also forgivable.
So Joseph missed out on the
thrill of revenge, and instead tasted the sweetness of reconciliation. It serves as a model of how to repair all the
strained relationships we may be carrying around as excess baggage, weighing us
down as we try to live our lives.
Reconciliation brings redemption.
Joseph could have chosen to hold a grudge against his brothers. Most likely, that grudge would have consumed
him for the rest of his life. But Joseph
chose reconciliation. And he thus chose
redemption – and happiness. Joseph,
freed from hatred for his brothers, went on to find happiness in his life. In that, his greatest gift was not to his
brothers – it was to himself.
As I did last week, let me close again by challenging everyone
listening, or reading this, to take the heart the lesson of Joseph. It isn’t an easy lesson. It isn’t easy to forgive those whom you
believe had wronged you. But it is far
easier than carrying a grudge for the rest of your life. And it results in a far happier rest of your life. The example of how Joseph achieved this, is
his gift to us.
Our annual recounting of the saga of Joseph and his brothers comes to
an end with this week’s reading. But
this important narrative – perhaps the most important narrative in the Torah –
can and should stick with us all year long.
When we feel consumed by the resentment, even the hatred that we feel
towards those who have wronged us, let’s remember Joseph and how he redeemed
his relationship with his brothers. Let’s
remember Joseph and how he redeemed the rest of his own life. Let’s remember Joseph and let his example influence
the way we approach our own conflicts.
Shabbat shalom!
No comments:
Post a Comment