Freedom of worship demands both physical safety and sanctuary autonomy - editorial

Two Jewish communities, separated by thousands of kilometers, were forced to think about their safety as they gathered to observe Yom Kippur this week.

In Jerusalem, vandals entered the Reform congregation Kol HaNeshama sometime overnight, after worshipers left following Sunday evening’s service and before they returned for morning prayers, and they removed a Pride flag from the sanctuary.

In Belleville, Ontario, a man armed with a shotgun opened fire on a police officer stationed outside the Sons of Jacob Synagogue while about two dozen worshipers were inside.

These were fundamentally different events. The Jerusalem break-in formed part of a documented series of incidents targeting the congregation. In Canada, authorities had not established by press time whether the synagogue or Jewish community was the gunman’s intended target.

Their connection begins and ends with their timing and setting: Both disrupted Jewish prayer on Yom Kippur. That narrow connection raises a basic question: whether freedom of worship protects not only the right to gather but also a congregation’s safety and its authority to determine what happens inside its own sanctuary.

Jews across countries, denominations, time zones gather on Yom Kippur

The holiday gives that setting particular meaning. On Yom Kippur, Jewish communities do something at once local and collective: Each congregation follows its own customs, but Jews across countries, denominations, and time zones gather to recite the same confessions and account for the year that has passed.

That shared observance does not require Jews to agree about how Judaism should be practiced. A Reform congregation in Jerusalem and a Conservative congregation in Ontario need not share the same liturgy, politics, or understanding of Jewish life to be participating in the same religious act. That plurality is precisely what freedom of worship protects.

The Pride flag hanging inside Kol HaNeshama’s sanctuary reflected the values the congregation had chosen for its own community. Anyone is entitled to reject what the flag represents or to disagree with Reform Judaism, but that disagreement does not confer authority over another congregation’s place of worship.

By entering the synagogue and removing the flag, those responsible turned disapproval into action. Through trespass and intimidation, they sought to determine which symbols the congregation would be permitted to place in its own sanctuary.

The overnight break-in was not an isolated incident. Vandals had previously smashed a window, damaged artwork, and removed Pride flags from the building. During Rosh Hashanah, a group of youths threw eggs at worshipers arriving for services. It has not been established that the same people were responsible for each episode, but the repeated targeting requires a response proportionate to the pattern, rather than the treatment of each incident as minor mischief.

Belleville presents a separate responsibility. Police said the gunman fired first at the officer securing the synagogue, prompting him and a second officer to return fire. The gunman and the first officer were seriously wounded, while none of the worshipers inside was physically harmed. The congregation subsequently canceled its remaining Yom Kippur services.

Jewish worship under threat even in Israel

The duty to protect Jewish worship does not end when it takes place in a Jewish state. In Jerusalem, Jewish authorities must protect a Jewish congregation whose religious choices some other Jews reject.

The identities of those responsible for the Yom Kippur break-in remain unknown. During Rosh Hashanah, however, the youths who threw eggs were described as Jewish and wore kippot, and the pattern has centered on a Reform synagogue, its worshipers, and its Pride flags. Authorities must treat those incidents as repeated targeting and identify those responsible.

Belleville and Jerusalem require different investigations, but the public obligation is the same. Canadian authorities must determine why the gunman opened fire and ensure that the synagogue can reopen safely, while Israeli authorities must prevent hostility within Jewish society from restricting how another Jewish community worships.

In both countries, protection should not depend on officials sharing the congregation’s beliefs.

Jewish sovereignty cannot mean protecting Jews only from religious hostility outside of Israel - it must also preserve disagreement within the Jewish community in Israel and ensure that no group can enforce its definition of legitimate Judaism through trespass or intimidation.

Yom Kippur does not make Jewish communities identical; rather, it shows why their different ways of praying must all be protected.