Doing the right thing

Editorial

Do the right thing. In the simplest construction, this is the overarching Jewish value expressed, famously on one foot, by Rabbi Hillel: “Do not unto your neighbor what you would not have him do unto you; this is the whole Law; the rest is commentary.” Yet, often, identifying the right thing from among two or more options is not quite as simple as Hillel makes it sound.

The complexity of doing the right thing was illustrated by a Jewish newspaper in New Jersey recently, which published a same-sex wedding announcement, then apologized for publishing it, then sort of apologized for apologizing and said they’d continue to think about their policy.

In a thoughtful editorial in New York’s Jewish Week, Gary Rosenblatt reflected on the implications of the wedding announcement controversy. Continuing to think about it is essentially the only conclusion Rosenblatt comes to, but he clearly identifies the crux of the issue:

“When it comes to the role of a Jewish newspaper,” Rosenblatt writes, “in addition to practising quality journalism, there are two principles here. One is to be as inclusive as possible, building community and seeking out and appealing to all types of Jews, strengthening bonds between them. The other principle is to uphold and transmit Jewish values and traditions.

“But what happens when those two admirable goals clash? Is it the primary duty of the paper to reflect the community as it is, or to set standards for it?”

The ferocity of this discussion made national news when the Republican candidate for governor of New York in the Nov. 2 election read a speech handed to him by a fringe rabbi last week. Carl Paladino, the candidate, told Rabbi Yehuda Levin’s congregation (in words evidently penned by Levin) that he opposes children being “brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option” and “That’s not how God created us, and that’s not the example that we should be showing our children.”

An old adage says politicians rarely see the light until they feel the heat and Paladino immediately felt the heat from America’s largest gay community and their allies. He recanted and his campaign pointed out that, aside from acknowledging a close gay relative, among Paladino’s extensive real estate holdings are two leases to gay bars, evidence, the campaign said, that their candidate has no animosity for gay people.

Whatever his reasons, Paladino’s about-face gained a bristly reproach from the rabbi spurned. Paladino, the rabbi said, “has been completely co-opted by homosexual militants. He has genuflected in an alarming and comprehensive way.”

The rabbi evidently views being co-opted by homosexual “militants” as a bad thing. For many candidates in New York, or at least for their campaign managers, the same co-opting might be seen as a good thing. But, coming back to the role of a Jewish newspaper, this incident is an opportunity to reflect on our own community and how far we have come to accepting a wide range of opinion, news and event coverage.

There was a time, for example, when interfaith and same-sex marriage announcements were not published in our community paper, and when discussion on Israeli government policy was more limited. While there no doubt are readers who long for those days, a vastly larger number have embraced the diversity within the community that the Jewish Independent attempts to reflect. And, while there are those who think that the paper doesn’t tackle any tough subjects – i.e. isn’t “progressive” enough – because such practices as inclusion are accepted by everyone in our era, they should think again, especially in light of the recent events south of the border.

One of the hardest things for human beings to do, apparently, is to accept ideas and people who are different. When the Jewish Independent first started to become more inclusive, there was a backlash; it was not an easy change to implement. To this day, most of the feedback the paper receives can be divided into two camps: a small number of people on both extremes of the political or religious spectrum who would like us to ignore the views of the other, and the vast majority who appreciate having their worldview broadened or challenged.

Ultimately, we all pick and choose what values and traditions we uphold and transmit. What Rosenblatt sees as potentially divergent paths, the Independent sees as one and the same. For us at the newspaper, there is rarely, if ever, a decision to be made between reflecting the community as it is and setting standards for it. For us, civil debate, respect for each other, being welcoming, asking questions and learning new things are just some of the communal values that we seek to uphold and transmit, and the standards by which we act.

^TOP