April 17, 2009
An Ungenerous Epitaph
An otherwise useful article on the problems facing United Jewish Communities unfortunately misrepresents American Jewish communal organizational history (“UJC’s Future at Stake as Local Charities call for Dramatic Cuts,” April 10).
Your article characterizes UJC’s predecessor agency, the Council of Jewish Federations, as merely a “trade organization, convening the federations’ General Assembly and helping with personnel issues.” In doing so, your article misrepresents the old CJF, trivializes its history and severely understates its function and impact.
Over the years, the CJF developed as one of the significant voices of the Jewish community, and not only on issues strictly related to social-service planning and delivery. CJF’s power derived directly from that of the federations, from which the council drew its leadership, which was the top leadership in the community; tautologically therefore the CJF was much more than a trade association or service arm.
Additionally, and crucially, the annual forum, the General Assembly, was more than a convention of the federations. Over the years, the G.A. became the gathering place for individuals and groups at every level of decision-making — local, national and international — in the Jewish community. The G.A., and by extension the CJF, was the point, the nexus, at which not only the coordination system of the American Jewish community, but Jewish communal decision-making, came together.
Not a bad model.
Jerome A. Chanes
New York, N.Y.
Editorial Fallibility
Your March 27 editorial “Papal Fallibility” is ignorant and insulting. “Catholic doctrine deems popes infallible,” the editorial says. “The idea of a papal apology sounds almost like a contradiction.”
One would never know from this sweeping statement that Catholic doctrine only holds that the pope is infallible when teaching about faith and morals in an official capacity under very specific conditions. Only twice has any pope explicitly invoked this authority, and both times the subject was Jesus’ mother. In other words, almost everything a pope does is fallible. That’s why popes go to confession — to ask for forgiveness. So the snide remark about the apparent oxymoron is doubly infuriating.
The insulting tone of the editorial — “Benedict’s gaffes suggest that he’s having trouble absorbing [the] message” of Vatican II — just adds to the problem. Then, of course, he is blamed for troubling relations with Jews. It would be more accurate to say that editorials like this one create a troubled environment for Catholics and Jews to work together.
William A. Donohue
President
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
New York, N.Y.
‘Poppycock’ Is Right
I applaud your editorial concern over the “Israel Lobby” slur by Charles Freeman and his ilk (“Blaming the ‘Lobby,’” March 27). And kudos to columnist Leonard Fein’s characterization as “poppycock” Stephen Walt’s (of Walt-Mearsheimer infame) bemoaning the “chilling effect of the discourse in Washington” over the Freeman nomination. Fein’s observation — that Walt’s views are “rejected, by and large, yes. But ignored? Hardly” — cuts to the quick (“With Friends and Foes Like Freeman’s…” March 27).
On Israel policy issues Walt & Co. have such a certainty of opinion and lack of intellectual openness that legislation and policy decisions that run contrary to their views — even by the most important democratic institution in the world, the U.S. Congress — in their thinking must be due to an “Israel Lobby.” Members of this “lobby” are defined — in circular reasoning — as anyone who disagrees with them on an Israel-related issue.
This is conspiracy theory thinking focusing on the Jewish people, a secular intellectual Western kissing cousin of the “Protocols” conspiracy theory, which has resurfaced in Arab/Muslim antisemitism. As in the past, the singling out of Israel (Jews) for attack, is not only a danger to us, but a harbinger of danger to the entire free world. “Israel Lobby” conspiracy accusations should not be taken lightly. As your editorial states: “It ought to stop.”
Samuel H. Bahn
New York, N.Y.
Gay Rights Concerns Aren’t ‘Ridiculous’
In your March 27 article “Orthodox Look at Gay Nups Proposal,” University of Southern California law professor David Cruz is quoted as saying that it is “completely ridiculous” to be concerned that gay rights laws might imperil the tax-exempt status of religious institutions. Perhaps Cruz is unfamiliar with what has already occurred in New Jersey that gives credence to our concern.
In 2007, a New Jersey lesbian couple sought to hold their civil union ceremony in a hall owned by a Methodist church, which declined the couple’s request because of its objections to same-sex unions. As a result, the church’s property-tax exemption was revoked by New Jersey officials. The state’s gay rights activists cheered the revocation, which will cost the church hundreds of thousands of dollars.
There have only been more disputes and threats of this kind against traditionalist religious groups as same-sex unions have been adopted by more states. There are many in the religious community who would be open to a serious discussion about negotiating appropriate accommodations between religious liberty and nondiscrimination against gays. However, when we see gay rights activists cheering for churches being penalized for their views, the faithful feel that the expansion of gay rights is sought specifically at the expense of religious freedom.
Nathan Diament
Director of Public Policy
Orthodox Union
Washington, D.C.
Scholars Should Study University’s Record
Your March 20 article “Scholars Rally Around Embattled Professor” describes the positions taken by a group of leading academics regarding the University of Cincinnati’s Judaic studies department. The views of one other party should have been included in the article as well — those of the Jewish Foundation of Cincinnati, which is the philanthropy responsible for the creation of the department.
Our board takes issue with the contention of the Jewish academics cited in your article that the University of Cincinnati is hostile to the field of Jewish studies. After the department head and chair was removed from his position for monetary indiscretions, the University of Cincinnati moved swiftly to appoint someone to take the helm. Since Gila Safran Naveh’s appointment last spring, the number of students enrolled in Judaic studies courses has doubled. The university’s strong support for the department can be seen in its decision to maintain the number of tenured positions, despite these uncertain financial times. In addition to the tenured faculty working in this department, more than 12 adjunct faculty are available to teach.
Two years ago, the university decided to expand Hebrew language education to include one of its satellite campuses, Raymond Walters College. Our foundation agreed to seed this program, because the classes were especially designed to appeal to high school students interested in post-secondary dual Hebrew language credit. The university decided to continue these classes at its satellite after our funding ends at the end of this academic year.
Finally, the University of Cincinnati is overseen by a nine-member Board of Trustees. Two of the current trustees are prominent for their tireless advocacy on behalf of Jewish life. Had any question about the university’s commitment to Judaic studies arisen, these Jewish representatives would have quickly sprung into action.
Phyllis S. Sewell
Chairman
The Jewish Foundation of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio
Elections Expressed Will of Israeli People
In his postscript to a review of a book about the late Hebraic scholar Simon Rawidowicz, Shaul Magid writes, “we need to seriously rethink where we have come as a people” when some hawkish Jews applaud the attacks on Gaza and when Avigdor Lieberman and “his quasi-fascist party wins 15 seats in the Knesset” (“What You Must Think About Zionism,” March 20).
Where we have come is a more democratic Israel, in which the country’s residents (not intellectuals living safely in the Diaspora) express their true feelings and interests in genuine elections.
In those elections, which followed Israel’s self-defense against hundreds of mortars and missiles, parties that urge continual one-sided concessions to the Palestinian Arabs lost significantly, and the center-right won.
Lieberman has certainly made some unguarded and embarrassing remarks in the past, but he is a nationalist, not a racist nor a “quasi-fascist,” whatever that means. Given the unwillingness of both Hamas and Fatah to live in peace with a Jewish state, separation and adequate defense are reasonable alternatives.
Evidently, the kind of “high moral ground,” as Magid puts it, that Simon Rawidowicz recommended long ago is inconsistent with the neighbors among whom Israel hopes to survive and prosper. Personally, I see no other alternative offered by leftists who enjoy little support from Israeli voters, who must and should decide for themselves what risks to take for peace.
Martin C. Spechler
Professor of Economics
Indiana University
Indianapolis, Ind.
A message from our CEO & publisher Rachel Fishman Feddersen
I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.
At a time when other newsrooms are closing or cutting back, the Forward has removed its paywall and invested additional resources to report on the ground from Israel and around the U.S. on the impact of the war, rising antisemitism and polarized discourse.
Readers like you make it all possible. Support our work by becoming a Forward Member and connect with our journalism and your community.
— Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO
