Editorial, July 9, 2010

Get The AJN Newsletter by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

Bar mitzvahs in the dock

IN June 2009, an appeal court ruling in the UK sent shock waves through the British Jewish community and, indeed, much of the Jewish world. According to the judgement, the Jews’ Free School in London, which operated under the auspices of the Orthodox United Synagogue, was in breach of race relations laws by refusing to admit a child who was not considered halachically Jewish. His mother had converted to Judaism, but with a Progressive shul. Despite protestations from senior members of the community, the ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court, in effect removing the authority of the Orthodox community to determine for themselves the answer to the question “Who is a Jew?” To all intents and purposes, secular judges were replacing rabbis in interpreting and implementing religious law.

This week, a court in Melbourne has also stepped into the fray, passing judgment on the religious upbringing of children. But in a strange twist on the British case, whereas youngsters in the UK were being granted the Jewish upbringing their parents wanted, in Australia the children in question are to be denied a traditional Jewish upbringing. They are still allowed to attend a youth movement, go to synagogue and take part in festivals, but following a request from their Catholic father, they are not allowed to have bar or bat mitzvah ceremonies without his express consent. He contends that they should be free to choose their own religious persuasion and preference voluntarily, when they are mature enough to do so.

The court agreed and granted the injunction, stating “These children are fortunate in that they have the opportunity to directly experience the culture and traditions of the religions practised by each of the parents.” Taking part in bar or bat mitzvahs, the judge implied, would be committing them to Judaism. Again, a fundamental issue of halachah is being questioned. According to Jewish law, if the children’s mother is halachically Jewish, then so too are the children — whether they have a bar or bar mitzvah ceremony is inconsequential. Indeed, one becomes a bar or bat mitzvah automatically, whether or not one has a ceremony.

Under the circumstances, the judge delivered a verdict that balanced the wishes of the mother and the father, but it is a sad state of affairs when the Jewish future of a child comes before our secular courts.

Crossing the line

TWO weeks ago, if someone had mentioned how controversial the wire was, chances are they would have been referring to the American crime drama The Wire, which delves into the murky world of drug trafficking in the US state of Baltimore. Today, however, thanks to a proliferation of newspaper and television reports, the controversial wire on most people’s lips is the proposed North Shore eruv in Sydney.

Not that there should be any real reason for controversy. Yes, some St Ives residents may object to a handful of poles being erected around the neighbourhood, deeming them unsightly. But amid all the other electricity pylons and lampposts that fill our streets, one wonders whether a few extra poles would even be noticeable. As for the actual wire that constitutes the religious boundary, much of it is already in place and, furthermore, as is the case with existing eruvs, it will be so high up, that the only people who will know it’s there will be those religious Jews who will benefit from it.

And yet, from the level of media coverage, as well as the tone of some reports, you’d be forgiven for thinking that proposals had been submitted to the Knesset calling for a West Bank-style settlement to be built in the disputed territory of St Ives. Indeed, one half expects Barack Obama and Ban Ki-moon to step into the fray, issuing statements condemning the plans and demanding an immediate eruv freeze.

In short, as anyone — Jew or non-Jew — who already lives in an area bounded by an eruv will testify, the whole affair has been blown out of proportion. More alarming though than the magnification of the issue under the media microscope, are the comments that the coverage has engendered on news websites. “If people want an eruv, why not go to the South Australian desert and build one there? Oh, I forgot — you people like to impose yourselves on lands that are already inhabited,” read one. “Quick, hide your babies. The Jews are going to drain their blood to bake bread!”, read another. “The bosh didn’t finish the job,” claimed a third. And when those operating websites agreed to remove such offensive postings, a fresh crop of comments appeared: “It’s a definite proof Australia if not the world is under Jewish control”. ¬†And so it went on.

The debate has gone from the sublime to the racist. And, tragically, the only boundary anyone need be concerned about in discussions of the eruv has already been crossed.