Avi Shafran on the Rotem bill

Avi Shafran, in his article Abuse of Power | Cross-Currents, writes in his usual articulate but pointedly demagogic way, about the recent flap over the Rotem bill. A few points worth responding to:

Shafran notes that:

The bill’s essential aim is to allow non-Jewish Israelis a greater choice of religious courts than presently. The bill, further, formalized the decades-old religious status quo placement of conversion in Israel under the auspices of the country’s official Chief Rabbinate

which may be the case, except for the problem that the Chief Rabbinate has been hijacked by reactionary Haredim who have increasingly abused their position to disenfranchise anyone who takes issue with their far-right version of Jewish law (which I have increasingly come to believe is not Jewish at all, but is a new religion that is based on Judaism but has fundamentally broken with central tenets of the Jewish Mesorah)

This leads to Shafran's next point:

On cue, the Jewish Federations of America, local Jewish Federations, Reform and Conservative leaders and an assortment of pundits all, as they say, went ballistic at the notion that halacha, or Jewish religious law, would determine conversion standards in Israel.

The issue is not whether halacha will govern conversions but whether a small, far-right, reactionary and hostile group of fanatic "rabbis" will hold sway over determining what is halacha. Judaism has not only tolerated but even encouraged a level of pluralism and diversity in halachic views. Real Judaism understands that the principle of Elu v'Elu is fundamental to a proper understanding of Halacha. But this ideal has no place in the Haredi community, which would ostracize anyone who disagrees with their narrow point of view. No wonder the vast majority of worldwide Jewry is appalled by the current climate in Israel, for which the Rotem bill was only symptomatic.

Shafran also disingenuously attacks the use of the political machinery to address this issue:

If it turns out that American Jewish communal leaders took upon themselves to pressure American elected officials to meddle in the domestic affairs of another country, particularly in a matter of no concern to the vast majority of those officials’ constituents (and in fact contrary to the concerns of a good portion of their Jewish ones), would that constitute a responsible wielding of communal clout, or an egregious, unprecedented abuse of the same?

Shafran's organization and the Haredi community in general thinks nothing of ramping up their own political machinery whenever they feel threatened. But when another community does the same, he cries "foul"

It is time that world-wide Jewry start to recognize that the goal of the Haredim is to change Judaism into a barely recognizable shell of itself, one that tolerates no diversity or dissent, one that acknowledges no value in secular education or pluralism, one that denigrates anyone, Jewish or otherwise, who believes differently from themselves. This is not Judaism. This is something wholly new and inconsistent with the Torah that G-d gave us at Sinai.

Avi Shafran gets it wrong (again)

In his article Coercion in the Name of Liberty | Cross-Currents Avi Shafran responds to David Ellenson's call for the Orthodox to demonstrate their commitment to religious liberty by joining a call for the government to allow same-sex marriages. Shafran argues:

Americans’ definition of marriage for secular legal purposes, however, is expressed through the body politic’s collective will. The resultant definition may seem constraining or disconcerting to some, and, for their own religious purposes, they are welcome to a more expansive take. But marriage in the eyes of secular law – constitutionally removed from the dictates of any individual faith – need not honor any religious group’s particular choice of definition.

As is so often the case, Shafran gets the message wrong. Shafran is correct that government policy reflects the popular will, which is not an endorsement of any specific religious view. Shafran is wrong in thinking that there is no impact on religious liberty when the public expresses its will. Religious liberty exists in tension with the public right to constrain it for the general good. The public, in declaring same-sex marriage illegitimate, does constrain the right of religious groups who support it to act according to their religious beliefs. There is no suggestion in the debate the religious groups that oppose same sex marriages would have to perform them or support them within the religious contexts.

Ellenson is not asking the Orthodox to agree with his position on same-sex marriage. But he is pointing out that the Orthodox stance to deny marriage rights to same-sex couples is not consistent with religious liberty. As American Jews, we have learned that religious liberty is among the greatest gifts that this country has given to us. To limit that gift because we don't always like the outcome is to lessen and possibly endanger it.

Shafran is simply wrong here. The Orthodox can have it both ways. They can express their personal discomfort and opposition to same-sex marriage, but still affirm that in the civil, legal, and non-religious realms, it deserves support because it increases religious liberty.

| Cross-Currents

Once again, Agudath Israel (the Haredi organization, not our shul) has taken a nonsensical position on the Emmanuel school issue. Zwiebel reports on a 1925 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that recognized the right of parents to choose their child's school, by upholding their right to send their children to private school instead of mandating that all children be educated in public schools.

Zwiebel argues that

"The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the lower court’s decision and thus enshrined in federal law the right of parents to choose the school setting most appropriate for their children."

The problem with Zwiebel's argument is two-fold:

First, the school in Emmanuel is state-supported. It is not a private school

Second, the issue of racism trumps private education. If, as the Israeli Supreme Court found, the school in Emmanuel was discriminatory, then, even if the school were private, it would be required to address this behavior.

| Note by R' Chaim Dovid Zwiebel