Jewish World Review April 5, 2005 / 25 Adar II, 5765

The difference between Jews and Judaism

By Rabbi Avi Shafran

The Schiavo tragedy highlighted an unfortunately little known and often misunderstood aspect about Jewry

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The phone began ringing here at Agudath Israel of America mere hours after we released a statement asking Michael Schiavo to spare his wife's life.

We asked the late Terri Schiavo's husband to "recognize that what a court may consider legal can still constitute a grave violation of a higher law," and pointed out that "none of us can claim to know what constitutes a meaningful existence," and that "all of us have a responsibility to preserve even severely compromised life."

Our statement appeared in some media, primarily newspapers servicing the Orthodox Jewish community, like the weekly Yated Ne'eman and the daily Hamodia. But it also found its way onto the popular website JewishWorldReview.com as well as one maintained by supporters of Mrs. Schiavo's parents' struggle to save their daughter's life. Thence ensued the flood of calls.

Some were from observant Jews, gratified that we had articulated a straightforward Jewish take on the matter. But many — in fact, many more — came from non-Jewish Americans, clear across the country.

The callers' accents testified to their geographical diversity; the voices comprised a musical medley of northeastern enunciation, western drawl, mid-west mannerisms and southern comfort. And all were Christians, calling a Jewish organization just to say thank you.

More striking still, though, was something else, the single sentiment voiced, in different words, by a good number of the callers. As one succinctly put it: "You know, I never realized there were Jewish people who cared about 'life' issues."

What those callers meant, of course, was that their impression of Jews — likely culled from the media, as most had probably never met a member of the tribe in person — was of the stereotypical social liberal. And in fact, while most Jewish representatives quoted in the press expressed, properly, the Jewish view that even severely compromised lives may not be regarded as less worthy for their deficits, there were other voices.

Like that of Reconstructionist Rabbi Elizabeth Bolton, who cited Ecclesiastes that "there is a time to be born and a time to die"; her colleague Rabbi David Teutsch equated the food and water sought for Mrs. Schiavo with a respirator, about which, he contended, one can act on "what is in the patient's best interest." Conservative Rabbi Elliott Dorf also characterized a feeding tube as an "extraordinary measure."

And then there were displays of Jewish ambivalence on the issue like the one witnessed by writer David Klinghoffer, who recounted in National Review how, during a talk at a Conservative synagogue, he lauded Christian support for Mrs. Schiavo's continued nutrition and "the crowd reacted with a sharp intake of breath, shocked murmurs as if I'd said a kind word about the Spanish Inquisition."

Maybe my callers had such reactions in mind. But I think their assumption that Jews, G-d forbid, do not adequately value life owed less to any reaction to the Schiavo case than to many Jewish organizations' attitude toward the termination of fetal life as a "woman's right." And for that, unfortunately, there is ample evidence. Jewish clergy and organizations regularly fall over one another to see who might more loudly champion the preservation of Roe v. Wade, the hallowed "right" to an act that Jewish law forbids in no uncertain terms in all but rare circumstances.

All the same, I explained to the callers — as I did to a national talk-show host when he expressed a similar sentiment to theirs — that the Jewish community is more variegated than is often assumed, and that, in any event, more important than what any Jews may think about a particular "life" issue is what Judaism does.

There may still be perfectly sound reasons for some Jews to take liberal positions on social matters, even on end-of-life issues or abortion. But if they do, their reasons are personal, social, economic or political, not Jewish — not, that is, reflective of the Jewish religious heritage.

And that distinction is all the more vital in light of something that is occurring with increasing and disturbing frequency: the active misrepresentation, even by ostensible representatives of the Jewish community, of Judaism's teachings on vital issues. Whether through the portrayal of the Torah's attitude toward homosexual relations as flexible; or of its position on intermarriage as tentative; or of its stance on killing the unborn as benign, political correctness in Jewish clothing abounds, and it does violence to the integrity of all Jews' religious heritage.

Reflecting on my fleeting telephone acquaintances makes me want to plead with all the Jewish clergy, columnists, organizations and pundits who have strong feelings about social issues: Advocate to your hearts' content. Make whatever case you see fit for whatever you feel is the wisest public policy. But please don't mischaracterize our mutual religious tradition. Have the courage, whatever your personal convictions, to show respect for the timeless Torah to which all we Jews are heir.