15 minute read
Voices
from October 9, 2020
by Jewish Press
The Jewish Press (Founded in 1920)
Abby Kutler
President
Annette van de Kamp-Wright
Editor
Richard Busse
Creative Director
Susan Bernard
Advertising Executive
Lori Kooper-Schwarz
Assistant Editor
Gabby Blair
Staff Writer
Michael Ivey
Accounting
Jewish Press Board
Abby Kutler, President; Eric Dunning, Ex-Officio; Danni Christensen, David Finkelstein, Candice Friedman, Bracha Goldsweig, Margie Gutnik, Natasha Kraft, Chuck Lucoff, Eric Shapiro, Andy Shefsky, Shoshy Susman and Amy Tipp. The mission of the Jewish Federation of Omaha is to build and sustain a strong and vibrant Omaha Jewish Community and to support Jews in Israel and around the world. Agencies of the Federation are: Community Relations Committee, Jewish Community Center, Center for Jewish Life, Jewish Social Services, and the Jewish Press. Guidelines and highlights of the Jewish Press, including front page stories and announcements, can be found online at: wwwjewishomaha. org; click on ‘Jewish Press.’ Editorials express the view of the writer and are not necessarily representative of the views of the Jewish Press Board of Directors, the Jewish Federation of Omaha Board of Directors, or the Omaha Jewish community as a whole. The Jewish Press reserves the right to edit signed letters and articles for space and content. The Jewish Press is not responsible for the Kashrut of any product or establishment.
Editorial
The Jewish Press is an agency of the Jewish Federation of Omaha. Deadline for copy, ads and photos is: Thursday, 9 a.m., eight days prior to publication. E-mail editorial material and photos to: avandekamp@jewishomaha.org; send ads (in TIF or PDF format) to: rbusse@jewishomaha.org.
Letters to the Editor Guidelines
The Jewish Press welcomes Letters to the Editor. They may be sent via regular mail to: The Jewish Press, 333 So. 132 St., Omaha, NE 68154; via fax: 1.402.334.5422 or via e-mail to the Editor at: avandekamp@jewishomaha. org. Letters should be no longer than 250 words and must be single-spaced typed, not hand-written. Published letters should be confined to opinions and comments on articles or events. News items should not be submitted and printed as a “Letter to the Editor.” The Editor may edit letters for content and space restrictions. Letters may be published without giving an opposing view. Information shall be verified before printing. All letters must be signed by the writer. The Jewish Press will not publish letters that appear to be part of an organized campaign, nor letters copied from the Internet. No letters should be published from candidates running for office, but others may write on their behalf. Letters of thanks should be confined to commending an institution for a program, project or event, rather than personally thanking paid staff, unless the writer chooses to turn the “Letter to the Editor” into a paid personal ad or a news article about the event, project or program which the professional staff supervised. For information, contact Annette van de KampWright, Jewish Press Editor, 402.334.6450.
Postal
The Jewish Press (USPS 275620) is published weekly (except for the first week of January and July) on Friday for $40 per calendar year U.S.; $80 foreign, by the Jewish Federation of Omaha. Phone: 402.334.6448; FAX: 402.334.5422. Periodical postage paid at Omaha, NE. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: The Jewish Press, 333 So. 132 St., Omaha, NE 68154-2198 or email to: jpress@jewishomaha.org.
A difference of opinion
ANNETTE VAN DE KAMP-WRIGHT speak your mind doesn’t hurt others.” times when we think we see evil, we are correct— Jewish Press Editor Let’s unpack that quote, because it holds an im- and then, we must speak out. But we MUST know It’s been another exciting few weeks. While the portant truth. “Freedom,” a word that we like to the difference. days already run together without the markers of throw around a lot, doesn’t mean what we think it How did we get here? “normal life,” and it has become a challenge to re- means. At least, it doesn’t in the current political More importantly, how do we get past it? member whether it’s Tuesday or Sunday, we have climate. Right now, it means we feel entitled not We have less than a month until the election and the additional stress of natural disasters and giant just to vote for our own candidate; it also means unless the polls are really off, roughly half the counfires. Meanwhile, a fight over who will and who will we feel that whatever choice we make gives us the try will end up disappointed, the other half elated. not take the COVID-19 vaccine —when With the stakes this high, what will we it becomes available— seems to be do? How will we act the next morning? brewing. Then, of course, the President It’s not a question that is easy to anand the First Lady tested positive for swer—but it is one we all have to anCOVID-19. swer for ourselves. And then, we have to Constantly in the background, we be able to live with that answer. We have the Presidential election, remind- have to know the difference between ing us that we’re bad at getting along. For moral bankruptcy and a simple differthose of you who have siblings, it’s like ence in worldview. when we were little and we could not When every political opinion is seen help fighting over that one specific toy. in a moral light, it becomes impossible If we were lucky, our parents didn’t no- to disagree in a civilized manner. In tice and we got away with it; most times making the political this personal and we were all sent to our rooms crying. ethical, we have created a very big prob Growing up means letting go of the childish wish to always get our way. We come to realize that we are different Joe Biden, left, and Donald Trump during the first presidential debate, Sept. 29, 2020. Credit: Jim Watson, Saul Loeb AFP via Getty Images lem. When we yell ‘Freedom,’ we don’t really mean it. When we say, ‘we can agree to disagree,’ we don’t really mean people with different needs, wants and loves, but right to denounce others who don’t make that it. When we claim to respect each other’s opinions, we can still respect each other. choice. Every choice, politically speaking, becomes we don’t really mean it. Once, there may have been How is it that, as a nation, we can’t learn that a moral choice. And what’s worse: we all act as if a time when we were able to have civilized dissimple lesson? our own moral choices are better than our neigh- course, but the gloves are most definitely off this “I completely understand and appreciate that we bor’s. Disagree with us? You must be a bad person. time around. live in a country where our freedom of speech is See it our way, or suffer the consequences. And if Remember when everyone wanted to make fun of protected and where we can vote for whomever we our “right to speak hurts others” as Henrique that debate on Sept. 29? The rest of the country really please,” Melissa Henrique wrote for Kveller. “These writes, we often feel that hurt is deserved. What is doesn’t act very differently. We just don’t have a camare freedoms many have given their lives for around wrong with us? era pointed at us at all times. Getting better, being the world. But that doesn’t mean your right to To make things even more complicated, some- better: we all have to start in our own backyard.
Vote NO on 429, 430, 431—Protect Nebraska from unlimited gambling losses
Once again, well-funded casino operators want to change Nebraska’s constitution to allow casino gambling. The change would allow all forms of gambling across the state, from slot machines to online sports betting. And such a constitutional change immedi- DEBBIE ately empowers Nebraska’s DENENBERG three tribes to offer all forms Guest Editorial of gambling with no state taxation or oversight. Here are compelling reasons to vote down these initiatives, and to tell your friends and neighbors to vote “no” as well. The initiative is deceptive. It discusses racetracks, but a “racetrack” could offer 24/7 casino gambling 365 days/year by holding just one race per year. Dozens of such “licensed-racetrack-enclosure” casinos could open across the state, approved and overseen by unelected officials with no legislative or public oversight. Who is for casino gambling? Casino operators are. They stand to make millions. Who is against casino gambling? A broad coalition of Nebraska’s leadership, both Democratic and Republican: Senator Bob Kerrey, CEO Warren Buffett, Ron Brown, Governors Pete Ricketts, Dave Heineman, Mike Johanns, Kay Orr, Congressmen Hal Daub and Tom Osborne, and more oppose casino expansion here. Trust them. Tom Osborne said, “Every single congressman that I’ve talked to, when they’ve had expanded gambling move in, has told me it’s the worst thing that has ever happened.” What about the money going over the bridge to border states? “Keep the Money in Nebraska” is a myth. Distributing casinos across communities here would be like throwing gasoline on the fire. Just one casino in Omaha would increase gambling losses in Omaha by 66% and add $132 million in so-
cial costs while Nebraskans will continue to gam- promising them a dream that will not come true. ble in Iowa, according to an Omaha Chamber of There is no way the citizens of Nebraska won’t beCommerce study. We’ve seen this scenario actually come losers...we don’t need it.” His partner Charlie play out. Detroit voters approved casinos to “stop” Monger adds, “Casinos wreak egregious harm.” $500 million going across the river to Windsor, Jewish tradition frowns on gambling. According Canada. More people got hooked on gambling, and to the Talmud, when a buyer and a seller make a the outflow to Canada increased to $700 million. transaction, both must give consent. The buyer Creighton Economist Ernie Goss recently must be happy parting with money to receive demonstrated that citizens pay higher tax rates in something of value from the seller. With gambling, casino states than in non-casino states. That sug- this exchange is dishonest, because the buyer does gests that if we try to balance property tax relief on the backs of addicted gamblers, who account for some two thirds of casino revenues, then other Nebraska taxes will go up (Google “Why Casinos Matter” for the research). The promised tax relief is a shell game. “Slots in Nebraska will just drain more money out of the state,” says John E. Anderson, University of Nebraska Department of Economics. More gambling will mean significantly more social costs. Gambling’s ABCs—Addiction, Bankruptcy, Crime, Divorce, Credit: Jeff Kubina. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons AttriEmbezzlement, and other bution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. side-effects—cost at least three times any benefits, not receive what he expects. The Jewish commuaccording to University of Illinois Economist Earl nity should reject this dishonesty. It’s not difficult Grinols. Casinos won’t pay; taxpayers will. The to see that gambling becomes a harmful, predatory, modern slot machine is not a game. It’s fast, com- regressive tax on those who can least afford it. puterized, and meticulously designed to capture Want to “Keep the Money in Nebraska”? Then keep players. That’s why modern slots are known as the slot machines and sports betting out. Keep unlimited “crack-cocaine of gambling.” tribal casinos out. Keep the heartache and destruc CEO Warren Buffett frequently sets the record tion of addiction out. Vote NO on 429, 430 and 431. straight on gambling. He says “I think that for a Editorials express the view of the writer and state to essentially prey upon its citizens, create are not necessarily representative of the views of more of these addictions…I just think it’s wrong. I the Jewish Press Board of Directors, the Jewish think it’s cynical on the part of the state to raise Federation of Omaha Board of Directors, or the money from people who basically can’t afford it by Omaha Jewish community as a whole.
JOSHUA SHANES
JTA In a recent interview with the JTA, former British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks offered a critique of contemporary political and religious culture in America. He attacked so-called “cancel culture” and the refusal to engage with people of different opinions, as well as rabbis who tell their congregants how to vote. “The division between politics and religion,” he said, “is absolutely fundamental. It’s one of the greatest things Judaism ever taught the world: Don’t mix religion and politics. You mix religion and politics, you get terrible politics and even worse religion. It’s an absolute and total outrage. … I have never, ever, ever taken a party political stand — and not one member of my family… knows how I vote. … So I’m afraid I have absolutely not the slightest shred of sympathy for anyone who, as a rabbi, tells people how to vote.” With all due respect, I found both claims surprising. First, Sacks’ self-portrayal as always respectful and opposed to “cancelation” is contradicted by his history of delegitimizing nonOrthodox forms of Judaism. He’s refused to attend the Limmud Conference, for example, one of the largest interdenominational Jewish gatherings in the world. He attacked the Masorti movement, as well as a beloved Reform rabbi and Holocaust survivor, as intellectual “thieves” who threaten the future of British Jewry. I found Sacks’ praise for political neutrality even more surprising. As many of our most powerful voices have argued, political neutrality does not really exist. Political neutrality is itself a form of political expression supporting those in power or those destined to remain in power without the voice of opposition. As Elie Wiesel taught us: “Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” Martin Luther King, Jr. similarly quoted Dante in defending the need to protest the Vietnam War: “The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality. I cannot be a silent onlooker while evil rages,” he declared. Despite Rabbi Sacks’ words to the contrary, our own tradition teaches this lesson. The overriding message of prophetic activity, for example, was political intervention in the name of ethical monotheism. From Elijah to Isaiah and countless others, the prophets intervened in contemporary politics when regimes or their people behaved immorally. It extends to rabbinic sources as well. In the dramatic story of the destruction of the Temple, the Talmud blames the rabbis who saw injustice — the humiliation of their fellow man — and said nothing. “Since the Rabbis were sitting there and did not stop him,” Bar Kamsa said of his tormenter, “this shows that they agreed with him.” Thus began his revenge that ended in the Temple’s destruction and our exile.
Justitia figure in a European flag. Credit: Getty Images In fact, it seems that Rabbi Sacks does not actually believe in remaining neutral, because he has himself openly supported various political causes, especially (but not only) if he believed it would benefit Israel or the Jewish community. For example, in 2002 Sacks openly supported an invasion of Iraq, assuming specific conditions were met. In 2011, he called for the British government to tax married people at a lower rate than single ones, a position then promoted by the Conservative Party but opposed by its Labour and Liberal Democratic opponents. He advocates for Israel’s rightwing perspective on its conflict with Palestinians and settlements, and he celebrated Trump’s decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem. He literally consulted on Vice President Mike Pence’s speech to the Knesset celebrating that moment. Most famously, he thundered against Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour party, during last year’s British elections. You might argue those examples — or at least some of them — are different because Corbyn was an anti-Semite, and the rest were in defense of Israel or Jews.
But those were, in fact, political actions that reflected his values. And his refusal to advocate for other issues — or for other threatened communities — is an equally political act. It’s particularly galling when Sacks seeks political allies against anti-Semitism by noting the interconnection between various forms of prejudice, and yet does not act to end those other injustices. Insisting that the Torah speaks neither for nor against a political cause or leader is itself defining one’s Jewish values in a specific way. It is perfectly legitimate, for example, to argue that a rabbi must rally Jews against Trump and his agenda, just as it is valid to argue that a rabbi must rally Jews behind him. Either position reflects that rabbi’s understanding of Torah values. Rabbi Sacks’ call to ignore the issue is itself a political act, separate from either camp to be sure, but no less a political — and thus moral — choice for it. It is true that Judaism does not speak to every political debate, but the key is to recognize those challenges in the moment, when one can actually make a difference. For example, today we praise rabbis who opposed slavery or Jim Crow, often at great personal sacrifice. But those views in their time were extremely controversial, and as a result many rabbis in both the North and South refused to address them based precisely on Rabbi Sacks’ logic of avoiding politics from the pulpit. On Yom Kippur, Jews around the world read from the Book of Isaiah. “This is the fast I desire,” says the prophet. “To unlock fetters of wickedness, and untie the cords of the yoke to let the oppressed go free; To break off every yoke.” This is a call to action. As Frederick Douglass thundered: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” Silence now means declaring ambivalence or apathy at a time of moral, political and (for many) existential crisis. It requires acceding to those in power and arguing that the Torah does not speak to their success or failure. And that is an exceedingly political act.
