In Search of a Home -- 10/20/39

Rabbi Sidney Ballon, Tree of Life Congregation, Columbia SC, circa 1939

The following is among the first sermons Rabbi Sidney Ballon delivered at his first full-time pulpit, Tree of Life Congregation[i] in Columbia, South Carolina, where he served as spiritual leader from 1939 to 1948. 

In this sermon Ballon reveals his desire to remain optimistic about the fate of European Jewish refugees even as he expresses certain fears. He also expresses his admiration for President Roosevelt’s humanitarian stance, although many historians would argue that Roosevelt’s actions ultimately belie that conclusion. Remarkably Ballon makes about as strong a case for a new Jewish homeland in Alaska as he does for Palestine. Perhaps the most chilling aspect of this sermon is the mere fact that in 1939, without the hindsight that history provides us today, Ballon was left to contemplate how refugees would be handled regardless of which side would be victorious in the war. 

...and even if Hitler is victorious, there still will have to be some settlement of the problem....

Chilling indeed, to be living with the prospect of a Hitler victory!

====================================================

This week in Washington, President Roosevelt has furnished us with additional evidence, if such be necessary, of his broad humanitarian spirit. For at the call of the President there is now in session at the nation’s capitol the meeting of the intergovernmental committee on refugees. This meeting had been planned for some time and is indeed the outgrowth of another such gathering[ii], also initiated by the president, at Evian, France about fifteen months ago. But due to the war conditions now prevailing, it was considered possible that the great powers in their preoccupation with the tasks of war, would abandon their attempts to deal with the problems of the refugee and concentrate their energies solely on fighting the enemy, but Roosevelt persisted in his original purpose of holding such a meeting, and as a result, the committee, which is representative of thirty-two nations now in session and is searching for new homes for Europe’s afflicted wanderers.

The thought of such a gathering fills us at the same time both with hope and with despair. When we think of thirty-two nations consulting together at the call of the President of the United States, we feel that as last the conscience of the world is at work and something will be done. Out of such deliberations surely some plan will be evolved which will bring relief. But, on the one hand, when we think of the problem itself, when we think of how much more acute the situation becomes day by day, how little the last conference accomplished, we begin to fear that the task is an impossible one. It is no longer a problem of caring for a few political refugees who must be transported from one place of danger to another of safety; it is rather the problem of a whole world in upheaval, and can no longer be dealt with as if it were an isolated matter.

Just a few months ago the task was the comparatively simple one of resettling from two to three hundred thousand unfortunate people, who were for the most part young and healthy, who could go out to a new land and work, reestablish themselves and make a contribution to the welfare of the country which adopted them. But since the outbreak of the war, the number of the afflicted has been increased to millions, and the question of emigration has become a secondary aspect of the refugee problem and the situation is further complicated by the necessity of providing hundreds of thousands—old and young, strong and weak—with their daily bread. Ironically enough, in a certain sense the cruelties of the war have lessened rather than increased the immediate difficulties of the refugee committee.

Previously the major problem was emigration from German territories, how to evacuate as quickly as possible the thousands who found life under Nazi domination intolerable. As German aggression advanced the problem naturally became ever greater and the number to be helped increased. But now for the present at least the committee will find it impossible even to try to help most of those who are suffering under German rule as well as those Jews who are now in any other part of what was formerly Polish territory. For Hitler, now that the war is on, is unwilling to let Jews leave, while, of course Stalin never has permitted anyone, Jew or non-Jew to leave Russian soil. Hitler must conserve his manpower for the struggle which is coming, and Jewish labor, formerly despised, is now a welcome addition to his ranks, and so in Germany today, in the manner of Pharaoh of old Jews are enslaved by the government. The able bodied, condemned to work in the war industries plants, while the remainder given all manner of other shameful tasks to perform. Stalin will, of course, now subject his new people to the process of communist enlightenment, and God help those who fail to enlighten quickly enough in accordance with communist principle. And so that much of the committee’s problem is solved. There is no need at present for new homes for Polish and German Jews who are still in their native lands because it is now impossible for them to leave their old ones.

But in spite of these hundreds of thousands who are hopelessly trapped for the time being, and for whom nothing can be done, there are nevertheless many thousands who have escaped to Romania, Hungary, and the Baltic regions. There are still many thousands who are wandering about in Western countries both those in war countries and in neutral ones, who have only temporary visas and who have not yet found a permanent home. These people are in need of immediate relief and for them the governments of the world must act quickly.

But what can they do and to what lands can they look for help? Throughout the civilized world, in spite of expressions of sympathy, governments have, because of their own internal problems, raised their restrictions on immigration higher and higher, and as the problem grows greater, the world seems to grow smaller, and the prospects for immigration diminish. It is for this reason that so many wild and undeveloped lands have been suggested as cities of refuge, and we have been hearing of Ceylon, and Tanganyika, and Rhodesia, and Madagascar and other such places suggested as the solution to the problem, but before any large scale immigration to these places could be hoped for, millions of dollars would have to be spend and years of labor put in, until these wastelands were sufficiently developed. Unfortunately, most of those who need these places cannot wait so long. By the time all the necessary experiments were made and surveys conducted, the problem would solve itself in quite another way. There would not be many left to immigrate.

The situation, however, is not altogether hopeless, and there are at least two places to which the committee should give maximum attention. The first of these and most important of these is Palestine. During the last conference at Evian it was agreed beforehand that Palestine was by no means to be considered and was not in any way to enter into the discussion. A conference on refugees, however, that refuses to take Palestine into consideration is a vain conference, because at the present time the only land which seems to be ready and willing to absorb refugees in any great number is Palestine. The population of that land today is slightly over a million, but the possibility of Palestine supporting several millions of people has long ago been shown by experts.[iii] The only bar to immigration in Palestine has been the perfidious policy of the British and the supposedly insuperable difficulties with the Arabs. Today however, the war, unfortunate in so many respects, at least has the silver lining that the British need manpower in Palestine and are now in a mood to make concessions with regard to immigration. Only a short time ago the British White Paper[iv] limited drastically all further Jewish immigration and then because of the great amount of illegal immigration which resulted, it stopped immigration altogether for a period of six months from the first of this month to next March. But although the British attitude officially remains unchanged, unofficially, illegal immigration now is being ignored, boats are allowed to land their passengers in spite of their illegal status and the British consul in Trieste is reported even to have granted visas to over three thousand people. If the intergovernmental committee can persuade Great Britain to change its policy openly and officially so that full advantage may be taken of the possibilities which Palestine offers, it will have rendered a great service to the cause. As for the trouble between the Arabs and the Jews that, too, seems now to have completely disappeared. The past month has been one of almost complete peace...[illegible]...Arabs willing to sell land.... It would seem that with Great Britain distracted by the war, the Arabs could seize the opportunity to stir up a lot of trouble and win many concessions from Great Britain to keep them quiet.  But strangely enough, they have not done so and the reason may well be that all German diplomats have had to leave English territory and all other German citizens have been interned and so that there has no longer been any one around to spread German propaganda inciting the Arabs. And similarly the Italians due to their uncertain position in the war have had to temper their propaganda activities. The present peaceful attitude may be due to these facts, and if so, they point to the possibility of lasting Arab/Jewish peace to follow. A peace of which advantage must be taken.

The second great opportunity for the committee to be of service is in Alaska. This country is not immediately prepared to do as much as Palestine, but its development could be carried on much more quickly and is a much more certain project than any of the other distant places which have been mentioned. Secretary of the Interior, Ickes, has already mentioned the possibilities of Alaska as a refuge for the oppressed[v] but as yet no action has been taken on to open its doors. The territory is equal to about one fifth of the United States in area and yet its total population is only sixty thousand. The popular impression of Alaska is that it is a land of ice and snow and that especially in the wintertime its climate is rigorous and unfavorable for large-scale settlement, but according to reports this conception of the country does it a grave injustice. The southern parts of the land we are told are actually warmer than New York and Chicago, and only three percent of the country in the extreme north is perpetually covered with ice. It’s mineral resources and agricultural and industrial possibilities have been estimated to be sufficient to maintain not a population of thousands such as is found there now but rather a total of five million[vi], if the country were to be properly developed and all its resources put to good use. The only difficulty in colonizing the country thus far has been its lack of transportation facilities. Insufficient number of railroads and highways has kept prices high and made shipment of goods difficult, but while such a handicap would be too difficult for individual settlers to surmount, if the government would launch a huge settlement project, properly financed, this small handicap would be quickly overcome, and America would not only lived up to its good name as a home for the oppressed, but would have provided itself with a new outpost for defense and a market for its goods.

President Roosevelt in his welcoming message to the committee at a White House luncheon made the statement that because some of the nations are at war they can be asked to do little more than lend their sympathy at the present time in dealing with this problem. “Upon the neutral nations,” he said, “there lies and obligation to humanity to carry on the work.” It is to be hoped that Congress will take these words to heart[vii], and at its first opportunity will as a neutral power fulfill this obligation to humanity by making the vast areas of the north available. If such a project were contemplated American Jewry would be certain to cooperate, and the necessary funds would not be lacking.

There is one more great service that the intergovernmental committee can render, and this not with the immediate present in mind but looking forward to the future, to the time which must come when the war will be ended and the problem of the refugee will have to be taken up in earnest. President Roosevelt warned the committee that when the war is over there may be, to use his own words, “not one million, but ten million or twenty million men, women, and children belonging to many races and many religions living in many countries and possibly on several continents who will enter into the wide picture of the problem of the human refugee.”[viii] And this conference can now pave the way for that future. It must prepare itself to deal with whichever side is victorious and to insist that the problem of the refugee not be pushed aside in the eagerness to conclude a peace.  If the allies win, and it seems likely at least, the committee can exert a great influence and play a great role, if it is prepared with the proper suggestions, and even if Hitler is victorious, there still will have to be some settlement of the problem and the committee must be prepared to intervene and mitigate the severity of his actions.  

Thus the refugee situation is a dark one but there is much good that the committee can do. For one hope is that it will act and not merely talk. To quote the president once more, “it is not enough to indulge in horrified humanitarianism, empty resolution, golden rhetoric and pious words. We must face it actively if the democratic principle based on respect and human dignity is to survive--if world order which rests on the security of the individual is to be restored.” May god grant these men the wisdom and the will to act in accord with these words spoken to them by the President that they may truly bring a measure of comfort to a bereaved humanity.

Amen.

---

[i] Photo from In Pursuit of the Tree of Life: A history of the early Jews of Columbia, South Carolina, and the Tree of Life Congregation, Belinda and Richard Gergel, 1996. Current information on the congregation may be found at http://www.tolsc.org/

[ii] The Évian Conference was convened at the initiative of US President Franklin D. Roosevelt in July 1938 to discuss the issue of increasing numbers of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi persecution. Representatives from 31 countries met at Évian-les-Bains, France. With both the United States and Britain refusing to take in substantial numbers of Jews, the conference was ultimately seen as a failure by Jews and their sympathizers, with the result being that the Jews had no escape and were ultimately subject to Hitler's genocide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89vian_Conference

[iii] Various sources provide differing data on the population of Israel in 1939. According to http://www.populstat.info/Asia/israelc.htm the population of Palestine in 1939 was 1.46 million. Regardless, history has borne out the hypothesis that the land could support multiple millions of people, inasmuch as the 2010 census has the population of Israel greater than 7.5 million according to the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics http://www1.cbs.gov.il

[iv] The White Paper of 1939 was a policy paper issued by the British government under Neville Chamberlain which proposed creating an independent Palestine governed by Palestinian Arabs and Jews in proportion to their numbers in the population by 1939. A limit of 75,000 Jewish immigrants was set for the five-year period 1940-1944, consisting of a regular yearly quota of 10,000, and a supplementary quota of 25,000, spread out over the same period, to cover refugee emergencies. After this cut-off date, further immigration would depend on the permission of the Arab majority. Restrictions were also placed on the rights of Jews to buy land from Arabs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939

[v] In November 1938, two weeks after Kristallnacht, US Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes proposed the use of Alaska as a "haven for Jewish refugees from Germany and other areas in Europe where the Jews are subjected to oppressive restrictions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slattery_Report

[vi] The population of Alaska was 710,231 according to the 2010 census http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02000.html

[vii] Although thousands of Jews had been admitted into the United States under the combined German-Austrian quota from 1938-1941, the U.S. did not pursue an organized and specific rescue policy for Jewish victims of Nazi Germany until early 1944. Once the United States entered World War II, the State Department practiced stricter immigration policies out of fear that refugees could be blackmailed into working as agents for Germany. It was not until January 1944 that President Franklin D. Roosevelt, under pressure from officials in his own government and an American Jewish community then fully aware of the extent of mass murder, took action to rescue European Jews. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007094

[viii] The United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration was set up in 1943, to provide humanitarian relief to the huge numbers of potential and existing refugees in areas facing Allied liberation. UNRRA provided billions of US dollars of rehabilitation aid, and helped about 8 million refugees. This followed years of expulsions, and exterminations affecting millions more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_evacuation_and_expulsion

Liberal Rabbis and Jewish Nationalism -- 3/5/37

Throughout its existence Israel has been subjected to significant criticism from within the Jewish community as well as from without. In this sermon, still from his days as a student-rabbi with the East Liverpool, Ohio congregation, Sidney Ballon takes to task those who equate the nationalist drive of Jews in pre-World War II Palestine with the nationalistic fervor of the totalitarian leaders of Europe at that time. In particular Ballon challenges the declarations of Rabbi Morris Samuel Lazaron[i] who was an outspoken and controversial anti-Zionist. Ballon asserts that all nationalism is not the same, and that enduring Jewish values help differentiate Zionist goals from those of the Nazis and Fascists. Even a cursory consideration of the facts will suffice to show that the Jewish concept of nationalism is not only different from the fascist doctrines of Europe, but is altogether in direct opposition to them. ====================================================

Just a few weeks ago the biennial meeting of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations was held in the city of New Orleans. According to all reports, one of the finest addresses of the convention was that delivered by Rabbi Morris Lazaron of Baltimore. Rabbi Lazaron in his usual masterful fashion presented to the delegates of the convention his conception of what Judaism’s message to the world should be in its present crisis. With the greatest part of this address there can be little difference of opinion. Rabbi Lazaron presented a brilliant exposition of the meaning of Judaism which was everywhere acclaimed. On one point, however, he has been challenged by many of his colleagues, and, as I believe, justly so. When he spoke of the work which has been going on in Palestine for the past few years, a very serious and misleading charge against it was made. “Behind the mask of Jewish sentiment,” said Rabbi Lazaron, “one can see the specter of the foul thing which moves Germany and Italy. Behind the camouflage of its unquestioned appeal to Jewish feeling, one can hear a chorus of ‘Hell.’ Judaism cannot accept as the instrument of its salvation the very philosophy of nationalism which is leading the world to destruction.” The inference of this statement is clear. Nazism, fascism, and Zionism are here all placed together in the same category and all condemned as being equally undesirable.

Not only Rabbi Lazaron, but several other prominent Reform rabbis also have in the past weeks been guilty of similar misrepresentation and misconstruction of the meaning of Jewish Nationalism. In New York City one man even has gone to the ridiculous extreme of asserting that the Nazi Horst Wessel Song[ii] and the Zionist Hatikvah[iii] rank together in the offensiveness of their nationalistic spirit. There is room for a difference of opinion as to the merits of Zionism and the place it should occupy in Jewish life, but such an identification of Zionism and the belligerent nationalist movements of Europe today is altogether unwarranted and belied by facts.

The mistake upon which such expressions of opinion are founded is a presupposition that all nationalism regardless of its nature is inherently bad. We have before us the repugnant examples of German Nazism, of Italian fascists and of Spanish rebels, and because we are so completely terrified by the path that nationalism has taken in these countries we immediately jump to the conclusion that all nationalism must by its very nature be evil, and some of us in the anxious effort at any cost to keep liberalism above suspicion, band all nationalism together without any discrimination, without any effort to make a distinction between them, and label them all reactionary and a hindrance to social progress. It is not true however, that all nationalism is necessarily opposed to social idealism and is a stumbling block on the road toward the universal brotherhood of man.

There is a nationalism that works itself up into a frenzy of war and hate, but likewise there can be a nationalism of peace and justice. There is a nationalism that preaches the theories of a Hitler, but likewise, there can be a nationalism that preaches the ideals of the prophets. “Nations are no more than collective individuals,” says Dubnow[iv], the Jewish historian. There are some individuals who are continually motivated by the desire to dominate over others and to get ahead of their neighbor, regardless of consequence and regardless of whether or not there be any provocation for such acts. There are some, however, who while they desire to assert and develop their own individuality, at the same time respect the personalities of others and seek to live together in harmony with them.

The first type of man meets with our wholehearted condemnation, yet we do not for this reason condemn every individual person on the face of the earth. We rather cherish and respect the second type all the more because he knows how to live and let live. If it be true then that nations are no more than collective individuals, the same criterion of judgment must be applied to national life. We must distinguish between a national individualism which seeks to preserve and develop its own nationality and a national egotism which is aggressive and whose sole purpose is to suppress and annihilate all other peoples. Before we can jump to conclusions with regard to any particular brand of nationalism be it Jewish or any other kind, it is necessary to analyze completely its motif, to review its ideals and purposes, to note how these are being translated into action, and then to judge accordingly.

Even a cursory consideration of the facts will suffice to show that the Jewish concept of nationalism is not only different from the fascist doctrines of Europe, but is altogether in direct opposition to them. The nationalism of a Hitler is a concept which centers completely in the glorification of the state. All peoples are divided into political units, and to the political unit all of their loyalty must be attached. Their own individual wills and personalities must be suppressed as the state is deified and made supreme. The driving force which motivates such a nationalism is the lust for power and glory. It develops an inflated ego with a worldwide imperialism as its ideal goal. It feels itself superior to every other people and longs for the time when it can gain, if not political, then at least economic control over them all. The evils of such a view are too obvious to mention. But even if it wanted to, Jewish nationalism could not talk in such terms. Palestine is not even a state in its own right. It is still—and undoubtedly will continue for some time to be—under British supervision by authority of a mandate from the League of Nations. Zionists could not if they would give way to meaningless dreams of imperialist expansion, or any other similarly foolish political aspirations. The nationalism of the Jew is not political, but cultural. Not the exaltation of a Jewish state is its goal, but the creation of a center for the expression of the Jewish spirit, for the development of language and literature, the creation of its art, a refuge for the oppressed, the achievement of a social ideal. The nationalism of the Jew does not seek to dominate and to lord over other peoples. It is not of the type which divides the whole world into countless fighting units. It is rather of that type which can make for peace in the world and accords to all the right to live.

In the economic field especially is this difference very evident. Fascism is nothing but the attempt to prevent any change in the present economic system. It would retain it completely as it is and freeze the wealth of the few and maintain the poverty of the many. It has no social vision and seeks no improvement on the state of society. The building of Palestine on the other hand is significant for its social strivings and the economic experiments which are being carried on within its midst. From the very outset the program of official Zionism has sought to establish a society which would make for greater equality among its members. One of the first principles to be established was that of the public ownership of land. The moment the Jew was given the opportunity to create his own society he remembered the ancient law of the Bible, “The land shall not be sold, saith the Lord, for the land is mine.” Thus the Jewish National Fund was created to purchase land in Palestine in the name of the whole people of Israel and to hold it in perpetuity for them, their children, and children’s children. It is impossible for anyone to buy or sell this land. It can only be leased for a period of forty-nine years[v] with the privilege of renewal when the lease should expire. Of course individuals may still buy privately, land over which the National Fund has no control, but the Zionist movement in itself is based definitely on this principle of common ownership which was to be the first blow aimed at the monopolies of private greed.

A second social principle, which is entirely foreign to the nationalism of Europe, is the prohibition by the National Fund of all manner of human exploitation. No man is permitted to lease any national fund land except on condition that he work that land himself. Hired labor is forbidden on national fund property. No man may lease more soil than he can cultivate with his own hands and with those of his family. Not the absentee landlord who reaps the benefits of another man’s labors, but the laborer himself enjoys the fruits of his work. Here is another principle aiming at a blow at those very vested interests which fascism but seeks to protect.

Of even greater significance than either of these, however, is the rising power of the Jewish labor movement in Palestine. Over 85% of the laboring class are now members of the Histadrut, the federation of labor. Of this labor movement it may be said, without any fear of contradiction, that it is the only ethically motivated program of economic life which does not violate its own principles in attaining its goal, for it does not advocate violence to achieve peace nor dictatorship to establish democracy. In the fifteen years or so of its existence it has organized producers and “consumers” cooperatives, established its own banks, sick funds and insurance funds for laborers, hospitals, all types of educational institutions and sought to establish closer understanding and cooperation with the Arabs.

What this labor Zionism means to Jewish nationalism is best seen from a statement by A.D. Gordon[vi], the philosopher of the movement. “We must create the kind of life,” he says, “concerning which it will be said it is a national ego in the image of God, for without a national ego in the image of God, there is no personal ego in the image of God.”

This then is the nature of Jewish nationalism. What a far cry from the boastful arrogance of Germany and Italy! To these ideals in theory there are of course some exceptions in actual practice. The achievement of perfection in such a short space of time would be altogether too much to expect. We have our profiteers and land speculators who flood Palestine with their get-rich schemes and who have no regard for even a minimum of social ethics. We have our small group of Revisionists who seek in their amateurish way to imitate the methods of a Hitler and are deluded with visions of grandeur. With these tendencies we shall be forced to struggle for some time to come. But these are not the official ideals of Jewish nationalism, and no one condemns these tendencies more than do the Zionist leaders themselves. These exceptions are by no means sufficient reason for frightened liberals to condemn the whole of Zionism and throw it in the same class with the curses of Europe. The very fact that we look upon these things as undesirable exceptions instead of the accepted standard is in itself proof of how utterly different is the nationalism of the Jew. We have nothing to gain from sweeping condemnation of the Zionist movement. It’s our duty rather to ally ourselves with these aspects of the movement that seek to fulfill our social ideals that they may have added strength more easily to overcome the obstacles that lie before them. With us or without us Palestine will be rebuilt. If we have faith in the Jew we must have faith that the spirit of justice will eventually completely prevail. May it speedily and in our day.

Amen.

---

[i] Morris Samuel Lazaron (1888-1979) was ordained a rabbi by Hebrew Union College in 1914. Lazaron's efforts in the non-Zionist movement brought him into conflict with many pro-Zionist leaders, such as Stephen S. Wise, and led to his assisting in the founding of the American Council for Judaism, an organization dedicated to supporting the efforts and goals on the non-Zionist movement.

[ii] The Horst Wessel Song, written in 1929 by Horst Wessel, a Nazi stormtrooper, was the anthem of the Nazi Party from 1930 to 1945, and from 1933 to 1945 a co-national anthem of Germany, along with the first stanza of the Deutschlandlied.

[iii] Hatikvah, literally “The Hope” in Hebrew, is the national anthem of Israel, written by Naphtali Herz Imber, a secular Jew from the Ukraine who moved to the Land of Israel in the early 1880s. The anthem's theme revolves around the nearly 2000-year-old hope of the Jewish people to be a free and sovereign people in the Land of Israel.

[iv] Simon Dubnow, (1860-1941) Russian  Jewish historian, writer and activist.

[v] This parallels the biblical requirement that the Jubilee year was to be treated like a Sabbatical year, with the land lying fallow, but also required the compulsory return of all property to its original owners or their heirs.

[vi] Aaron David Gordon (1856-1922), Russian who emigrated to Palestine on 1904, more commonly known as A. D. Gordon, was a Zionist ideologue and the spiritual force behind practical Zionism and Labor Zionism. He founded Hapoel Hatzair, a movement that set the tone for the Zionist movement for many years to come. Influenced by Leo Tolstoy and others, it is said that in effect he made a religion of labor.

Shall We Fight Again? -- 11/13/36

In 1936, as a 24-year old rabbinical student at the Hebrew Union College (HUC) in Cincinnati, Sidney Ballon apparently had a part-time pulpit in East Liverpool, Ohio, a town of under 25,000 people at the time (half that size today). I don’t recall ever hearing him speak of his student pulpit experiences. My curiosity prompted me to do some research which led to a wonderful discovery. I reached 96-year old Dr. Herschel Rubin, a lifelong resident of East Liverpool who, after I briefly introduced myself, inquired, “Was your father’s name Sidney?” That was about all he remembered of him, but it was gratifying for both of us to make the connection. Rubin added, given that it was close to a 300-mile journey by train and streetcar from Cincinnati to East Liverpool, the rabbinical students from HUC would come and stay for the entire High Holy Day season.  

Temple B'nai Israel, East Liverpool, built in 1921, now named Temple Beth Shalom, after merger with Orthodox congregation Rubin did not remember student rabbis coming at other times of the year, but the Ballon archives provide ample evidence of his delivering sermons on numerous other occasions from 1936 through 1938 when he was ordained. A sermon from March 1937 marks the fifteenth anniversary of the congregation’s building. That was corroborated by Rubin who has a photo in which he is pictured as a small boy at the groundbreaking in 1921[i]. It’s hard to say what the significance of all this is other than a sweet connection to a distant era. Among the very earliest sermons from this period is the following, a passionate plea for peace in the face of the looming war in Europe. Ballon looks back at the government and industry deception that profited from the first world war and idealistically feels that with this hindsight we should not allow ourselves to be duped into engaging in future wars. He takes a strong stance for pacifism.[ii] The common voice today must take a stand not against war in general, but against one specific war--and that one is the next one. (Five years later we will discover that, after war is ultimately declared, the young rabbi will not lose his convictions nor his idealism, though he tempers them with the realistic acceptance of the need to defend the nation against Japan and Germany.) He begins this sermon below with a flashback to the innocence of his childhood memories of the first Armistice Day. ====================================================   Among the vague memories of childhood there are very few things that can be recalled with any great degree of clarity and certainty. Only the most unusual and impressive circumstances so fix themselves upon the mind, that in later years their picture may be vividly recaptured. Such an occasion was Armistice Day 1918. Young though I was as that time, there still remains with me a vivid recollection of the day. I can still hear the shrill sound of factory whistles in the morning, announcing to the anxious populace that at last the peace had come, the war was over, the boys would soon be back. I can still recall being taken to the center of the city where the mad celebration of victory took place in the evening. What a frenzied throng was there, shouting jubilantly and rejoicing. Everyone was drunk with excitement and reckless with joy. Flags were waving, streamers flowing, as through the streets swept the happy citizenry, singing their war songs and shouting their cheers, pausing only now and then in their wild march to hang the Kaiser[iii] in effigy, and burn his supposed corpse in the street. Underneath this hysterical joy there may have been many a tear. The agony and suffering of the preceding months could not be so quickly be erased. For some the Armistice meant the speedy return of dear ones, but for many also it brought the sad realization that there would be no return, that the happy homecoming planned from the very day of departure was never to be. But even those who suffered most, rejoiced. The sacrifice had been great, but the achievements were likewise great. Those who gave their lives and those who suffered did so for a holy cause. Liberty and freedom had been saved from the trampling feet of the barbarous Hun, and the world made safe for democracy. The war to end war had been fought and won, and in the dying flames that consumed the effigy of the luckless Kaiser perished also the last vestiges of the injustice and intolerance. Here we were at last at the dawn of a new era of peace and liberty such as the world had never known before. Armistice Day 1936, provided a shocking contrast.  Eighteen years after the war to end war all Europe  waits merely for the [bell to ring] to start all over again. The machinery of peace, so optimistically hailed upon its inception is completely broken down. The World Court has failed. The League is impotent. One false move on the continent of Europe, and the smoldering sparks of its suspicions will again burst into a flaming fire, and we wonder whether there is anything that can be done. Must we sit idly by and watch once more as the world takes a running jump over the precipice? This time the fall will be a longer and a deeper one, and perhaps it will be impossible to clamber back again up the side. Are we then doomed to silent, helpless waiting for the inevitable collapse? It is strange that we should find ourselves in such a predicament for we know now more than ever before what the last war really meant. The illusion of 1918 did not last very long. Time passed and the hysteria wore off. Like a drunkard who arouses himself from his stupor and surveys his stupidity with disgust and self-reproach, so we finally came to our senses and realized the cost of the war. With the sum that was spent on death it has been pointed out that we could have built a beautiful home, furnished it with costly furniture, place it on a spacious state and given this home to each and every family in every country that participated in the war. We could have given each city of more than 20,000 inhabitants in everyone of these countries a 5 million dollar library and a 10 million dollar university. And with the remainder we could have established a fund providing an adequate steady salary for an army of 250,000 teachers and nurses. And the cost in lives! If on some Armistice Day, instead of watching the healthy vigorous steps of youths in trim uniform with shiny buttons, as they march to the blaring of military music, we could review a parade of those who died in the trenches! Four months the procession would last, marching ten abreast, all through the day and all through the nights without a stop--two months and a half for the dead of the allies and over six weeks for those of their enemies. But even so we might have said, “Why count the cost when the fruits of victory were so great? A tremendous price, but are not liberty and democracy worth it?” But we learned still more, and we realized that liberty and democracy were merely blinds. We thought we were fighting for principles. The only purpose we now know was profits, and these were not for the men who fought. We had been completely taken in by an avalanche of propaganda. We had been sacrificed as a burnt offering upon the altar of greed.  Our American financiers had gambled on the defeat of Germany. One company had made a loan of 500 million dollars to England and France. Other bankers, and even the government followed suit. Unfortunately, Germany began to gain the upper hand. And so out came the news of atrocities committed upon poor defenseless children. Out came the slogan that the world must be made safe for democracy. And in we went to save the bankers’ millions. Our munitions makers, too, had to earn their daily bread, and so while bullets poured into the bodies of our soldiers, dollars poured into the treasuries of our corporations.  For every three Americans killed in battle an American millionaire was made. The profits realized from the sale of munitions sent Dupont stock up 5000% in value and United States Steel and Bethlehem Steel watched their income soar to astronomical figures. The price of the war was great to be sure, but it was worth it--to the merchants of death and the bankers. In the face of such disillusionment we might think the lesson would have been learned. We might think the realization of these facts would do more to end the war than was expected even of the war itself. But again we would be wrong, for the world today is ready to repeat. Facing things realistically one must admit that the chances of averting the war in Europe as matters stand now are very slim indeed. No one likes to be pessimistic about such things. We like to hope to the last moment that a way to peace will be found, but the greatest optimist today, if he be realistic at all about the question, can hope only to postpone but not avert another conflagration in Europe. Everywhere people want peace, yet the forces of economic and political circumstances brush aside all resistance and draw the masses after them. Europe appears to be doomed. The question is only one of time.  We in this country, however, are in a situation quite different from that of Europe. We have plenty of land for our people, plenty of resources to fall back upon. We are not beset by the troubles of difficult neighbors if we but set ourselves to the task. We can definitely escape the clutches of another war and thus preparing ourselves for peace. Who knows but that perhaps Europe, too, will learn to follow. Back in the 1790’s, President Dwight of Yale University said that “it is probable that whenever mankind shall cease to make war, this most desirable event will arise from the general opposition to war  by the common voice.” We in America today must raise this common voice. You may say that if this is all that is required then we are already prepared for peace, for truthfully no one in America today wants war. We all want peace. But the same was true in 1916. Then as now, the entire nation was opposed to sending our men to fight on foreign soil. Wilson was re-elected that year on the strength of his promise to keep us out of the war. And yet, when the showdown came, we went in, we clamored for battle, and unpopular was the man who in the face of overwhelming opposition dared to take a stand for peace. Then, as now, we were certainly opposed to war, yet the trouble was then, as it also is now, that what we were against was war in general. Wars in general we admitted were wrong, and even when we entered the fight this principle still prevailed. However, the particular battle upon which we were entering was excusable. Most war was needless, but this particular one was righteous, waged for a holy cause. The common voice today must take a stand not against war in general, but against one specific war--and that one is the next one. Braced firmly by the conviction that the next war is the one that is wrong, we will not be swept off our feet by any future flood of propaganda as we were in 1917. We will not be led into the false distinction between good wars and bad ones. It was easy to deceive us in those days. We were unprepared. But now we know what sort of propaganda to expect. We know who will reap the benefits of the conflict. Should the occasion again arise, we ought not to be tricked, for what ever they tell us, we must be convinced that it is this very next battle that we must not join. The militarists tell us that the best defense is an offense. Well and good! Let us turn their own strategy against them and wage an offensive for peace. It is too late to talk peace when the crisis is already at hand. The foundations of peace must be laid long in advance. If the common voice would make it clearly and explicitly known that the masses of this country would absolutely refuse to participate by any manner of service in any future war, there would be no future war. The churches could stop war, it its members would insist upon following the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” Labor could stop war if it refused to provide the instruments of death. No nation will venture to fight unless its people are in a suitable frame of mind. When there are large groups of its citizens, however, who refuse to yield to a war psychology, whose reason is strong enough to permit them to give in to artificial hysteria, war cannot be waged. The people cannot be used to fight against their will; and without the bodies of drafted men to feed its hungry mouth, the monster of war must starve and die. The road to peace is a hard one. The obstacles that stand in its path are many, the sacrifices to be made in its behalf are great. Yet we must not give way to a paralyzing sense of futility. Our name must be on the record of every organization working toward peace. A voice must lend its strength to that common voice which must shout for peace. Progress to be sure is slow, but man in his drive for perfection moves steadily onward. For the present, we pray that we may be endowed with the courage and strength to face the crisis with intelligence. We pray that we may learn and understand how to direct our energies and our spirits to the improvement of humanity rather than to its destruction. Let us but think and live in terms of peace and in terms of justice to mankind, and ultimately the day must come when “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, Neither shall they learn war any more.”[iv]

Temple B'nai Israel, East Liverpool OH - 11/13/36

---

[i] This photo and other documentation may be found in Jewish Communities on the Ohio River: A History, Amy Hill Shevitz, The University Press of Kentucky, 2007

[ii] It is likely that Ballon was influenced by Abraham Cronbach, an outspoken pacifist and professor of social studies at Hebrew Union College from 1922 until his death in 1965.

[iii] Friedrich Wilhelm Viktor Albrecht of (1859 - 1941) was the last German Emperor (Kaiser) and King of Prussia, ruling the German Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia from 1888 to 1918. An ineffective war leader, he lost the support of the army, abdicated, and fled to exile in the Netherlands.

[iv] Isaiah 2:4

This I Believe - 4/9/54

A more patient person than I might have read every last one of my father's sermons, completely categorized and prioritized them before making a selection of them available for public consumption. I have been reading these archives for almost nine months. That is pretty much as long as I am willing to have them gestate. As much as I yearn to pull together a precisely edited and comprehensive sampling of his thousands of pages of sermons, I am compelled to start, as we sometimes say at the office, "flying the plane while I am still building it!" The hazard here is that perhaps the selection and arrangement of these posts may not be optimal. I say that not as an apology, but as a bit of context to this first post which offers not his first sermon, nor his last, but one from the very middle of his career.

This is a compelling essay. What draws me to post it first, perhaps more than anything else, is one line that in a way summarizes the entire collection of sermons.

It might be good if all of us sat down and tried to write out

in a few hundred words just what it is that we believe.

The following sermon came in the midst of the hysterical period of anti-Communist accusations and investigations instigated by Senator Joseph McCarthy. It was a period when speaking one’s mind could result in severe consequences. Edward R. Murrow, the renown broadcast journalist distinguished himself, not only for confronting McCarthy and exposing his demagogic tactics, but also for celebrating free expression via a radio series and subsequent book, This I Believe. Rabbi Sidney Ballon was unafraid of stating his beliefs.

======================================================

The most important job a person has to do is to run his own life. Everyone of us is constantly making conscious or unconscious decisions as to what we are to do with our time and our talents, what shall be our relationship with our family and with other peoples, how much of our energies shall we devote to selfish pursuits or to the good of greater numbers. Some people make these decisions as the result of serious thinking and planning. Other people merely drift into what amounts to a decision as a rudderless boat is carried by the wind and tide. The decisions we make—or fail to make—depend entirely upon what the moral and spiritual standards are that we have set for ourselves, what are our aims in life, what are our beliefs, and by this we mean not the things we merely we pay lip service, but what we really feel deep down in our hearts.

I wonder how many of us know exactly what we believe? In the rush and struggle of our modern life very few of us take time to sit quietly and meditate about a philosophy of life for ourselves. We live in an age of fears. And added to the fears that were brought to our attention by our President[i] a few evenings ago—communism, the atom bomb, war, unemployment and so on—added to these is perhaps the fear of ourselves. We are constantly running away from ourselves as if we were afraid of the conclusions that we come to if we paused for any length of time to take stock. This is an age of pleasure seeking. We are a generation of escapists.  The majority of us do not care to look at our own lives or life in general from a long-range point of view. We grasp primarily at only what the moment will bring us. We drink unprecedented amounts of alcohol. We form great crowds to look at sports spectacles. Dollars go into pleasure seeking which we would not dream of using for substantial causes. It takes an immediate and acute crisis to sober us up and carry us above our selfish thoughts.

It is precisely because our times are so materialistic and life so confused and hectic that people ought to take inventory of themselves.  The happiness and moral strength of ourselves as individuals, of our families, and our nation depend on knowing what we believe and on our being able to believe in values that will lift us up and give us a sense of security and commitment to noble purposes.

It was to help people with this important need that Edward Murrow began his radio series, This I Believe. Murrow’s courageous indictment of Senator McCarthy[ii] is not the only noteworthy broadcasting achievement to his credit. This I Believe was also a contribution that had the public benefit in mind. A number of people who were known to be successful in their chosen profession and in their adjustment to the problems of life were invited by Murrow to appear on a five minute program and give their personal philosophy and to lay down the rules by which they direct their own lives. One hundred of these personal philosophies have also been gathered in book form, which some of you may have seen, and make interesting reading, and if we ponder over them can perhaps help us think through for ourselves the question of what we believe.

The manner of reaction of different people to the topic This I Believe will quite naturally be varied, but it is interesting to note how often similar thoughts are reflected in this collection. One such thought that many of us ought to ponder on is the comparative unimportance of material wealth in achieving peace of mind. Listen to what Alexander Bloch has to say. Bloch is a conductor of a symphony orchestra. His parents had not approved of a musical career for him. For that and economic reasons he was compelled to enter upon a business career and was quite successful. He might have been a well-to-do person had he stayed in business. But his love of music dominated him and he finally gave up his business position and embarked on a musical career. To his family and friends the thought of giving up a good position for a chance at music seemed a little short of insane, but if so he says,

Or read the thought of Elmer Bobst who was honorary chairman of the American Cancer society. He speaks of a number of his acquaintances who gather in a well-known golf club frequently and he says,

If material prosperity were the chief requisites for happiness, then each one should have been happy. Yet it seemed to me something important was missing else there would not have been the constant effort to escape the realities of life through Scotch and soda. They knew, each one of them, that their productivity had ceased. When a fruit tree ceases to bear fruit it is dying, and it is even so with man.

Another thought which some of these selected men share, is the feeling that we are not victims of chance and circumstances but that we ourselves share in the fashioning of our own destiny, in building our own happiness. “Nothing that can happen to you is half so important as the way in which you meet it” is the sentiment of a professor of anthropology.

Are you envious of other people’s talents? Then listen to Mauritz Melchior, who says that,

Talent in a person is indeed a touch of God’s finger, yet any artist must work hard and a human being can do a lot himself to shape his life.

Do physical handicaps disturb us? Then what of the quiet confidence of Helen Keller who feels that:

Fate has its master in the faith of those who surmount it, and limitation has its limits for those who, though disillusioned, live greatly. True faith is not a fruit of security. It is the ability to blend moral fragility with the inner strength of the spirit. It does not shift with the changing shades of ones thought.

And do the blows of life overwhelm us? Then hearken to Dr. Nelson Glueck’s[iii] discovery in a thunderstorm. Once on a bicycle trip when he so much wanted good weather a heavy rain fell. He was disturbed until he became aware that in the midst of the storm there were colors and contours of the landscape that appeared totally different from their appearance in the bright light, but out of which he also could draw beauty and inspiration. And he says it helped him realize that,

There is no sense in attempting to flee from circumstances and conditions which cannot be avoided, but which [one] might bravely meet and frequently mend and often turn to good account.

And yet another belief often mentioned is the faith in a power higher than ourselves which works through the world. This faith can come in many ways. Dr Robert McIver of Columbia University finds it in the wonder of all.

We learn more and more about things. We learn about the atom and about energy. But we do not learn about causes. We do not know about first things and we can only wonder about last things. The wonder is in me, and encompasses me, and lies forever beyond—and knowing no name for it, I call it God.

A physician, Dr. Edmund Brasset of Rhode Island, sees God in the mechanism of the human body.

It is the most ingeniously contrived mechanism on earth, a masterpiece of architectural design, a marvel of efficiency, but for all man’s knowledge of it today, he has just scratched the surface, and there is a non-mechanical and non-material element in it that we cannot see and cannot begin to understand, but it is there and raises man to dignity above the brute.

And Professor Harry Overstreet once stopped at a collector’s shop where stones and minerals of many kinds were on display. He was taken into a small room where there were some ordinary looking rocks, which he would not have given a second thought, but the man closed the door and that the room was in darkness and turned on an ultraviolet lamp. And suddenly brilliant colors of indescribable beauty were before his eyes. Similarly he feels that as he looks upon the universe and walks among his fellow human beings,

Hidden realities are all about us, and we simply do not see all that there is to be seen before our eyes whether in the physical or the human world. And when we become aware that there are glories of life still hidden from us, we walk humbly before the Great Unknown.

How to find the switch that will give us the hidden meanings of life is the major problem that confronts us all. How to cultivate the patience that we need to solve this problem, how to conquer the arrogance of human beings who feel that only what they can see immediately before them with their limited and finite senses is truth that can be relied upon and is worth having. Many of us pay lip service to the type of ideals which we have just described, but the tragedy of our times is that we do not really feel them or believe in them deeply enough so that our lives are influenced. It is not that we disbelieve. Our problem is that we neither disbelieve nor believe. We are drifting and are not being moved by moral compulsions.

It might be good if all of us sat down and tried to write out in a few hundred words just what it is that we believe. The very expression of our thoughts would do us good. And if we found the writing difficult I would suggest a few moments of heartfelt worship, a few glimpses of the majesty of nature, a few acts of kindness done for others, a few reflections of the good things of life we take for granted, a few moments of study of the resources that lie at our disposal in the Jewish heritage that has been given us.

The rabbis once said, “All is in the hands of God except the fear of God—that man must obtain for himself.”[iv] Believing is not something that will merely happen to us. Belief must be searched for and acquired. We must be willing to do the things which lead to belief, to make the effort on our own part. And if we would make such an effort we would be rewarded by the joy that comes when we can say with conviction, “This I believe!”

Nassau Community Temple

West Hempstead NY

4/9/54

---

[i] April 7, 1954 President Dwight D. Eisenhower coined one of the most famous Cold War phrases when he suggested the fall of French Indochina to the communists could create a "domino" effect in Southeast Asia. The so-called "domino theory" dominated U.S. thinking about Vietnam for the next decade.

[ii] Edward R. Murrow’s weekly television show, See It Now, focused on a number of controversial issues in the 1950s, but it is best remembered as the show that criticized McCarthyism and the Red Scare, contributing if not leading to the political downfall of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Murrow used excerpts from McCarthy's own speeches and proclamations to criticize the senator and point out episodes where he had contradicted himself.

[iii] Dr. Nelson Glueck, eminent Biblical archeologist and president of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion.

[iv] Rabbi Chanina explained: "Everything is in the hands of Heaven except the fear of Heaven." Babylonian Talmud, Niddah 1 6b 5.