Bob,

To make the case for consistency, I would also emphasize “fair and accurate” as a requirement for the “internal, more focused” publications. One can be internally focused, but still be fair in discussing opposition. Certainly, for example, to criticize a person or an institution, without allowing them to respond in the same pages(I’m not disagreeing that there is in such cases what to strongly critique) is not “fair”, according to accepted journalistic protocol.

For the record, I think that the major American charedi publications make efforts to be fair, accurate, and not alienate other Jews, although one can take issue with how specific issues have been handled over the years.

Ori: Depends on how you define community. In practical terms, it depends on what Jewish activities you do.

People going to the average Heterodox synagogue are a lot more likely to encounter intermarried Jews than they are to encounter Charedim. Not because we are more involved, but because we are involved where they are. At the basic everyday level (religious services and education), Orthodox Jews have to have separate institutions.

This probably means that the average Jewish Week reader encounters intermarried Jews (the kind that wants to stay involved with the Jewish community, not the kind whose Judaism is a technicality) a lot more often than Charedim. Therefore, the concerns of intermarried Jews are more likely to interest such a reader than those of Charedim.

BTW, why are people concerned about others respecting their decisions? All that we truly need is for others to respect the fact that they are our decisions to make. Modern Jewish communities aren’t Shtetls, where moving would be a major hassle. They’re voluntary associations. If the people of a certain community don’t like how I choose to live my life, I am free to leave and find (or found if there is none available) something else.

Comment by Chaim Wolfson — August 7, 2008 @ 2:40 pm

R E S P O N S E:

I made two points in my post. First that as a far as the Jewish week is concerned, Chareidism should be treated the same as the intermarrieds. If the Jewish week gives spce on a regular basis to a representative of the intermarried segment of the community, ir does so because they are part of the Jewiish community, or should be integreated as such. Chareidim, who are part of the community deserve no less. My second point was a bit of editorialising on my part that intermarried people are not a positive force in the Jewish community. I suppose that could be considered disrespectful. But I’m not the Jewish Week.

Daniel: That may very well be the reason for chareidi ambivalence or antipathy for heterodoxy. But the reason does not derogate from the phenomenon

Ori: Any sincerely held belief about what people should do implies a rejection of other points of view. I believe that slavery is wrong, therefore I have to believe that slave owners act immorally. I can have respect for individuals who owned slaves, such as George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. I cannot have respect for Virginian society in the late 1700s.

Similarly, Charedim believe that it is morally wrong for a Jew to violate Halacha, for example by being intermarried (as I am). They can respect me individually, and as far as I can tell, I am respected here. They cannot respect the beliefs that led me to intermarry, or that allow me to stay with my wonderful wife without requiring her to convert according to Halacha.

It would be unreasonable of me to expect anything beyond a begrudging recognition of my right to hold non-Halachic views.

One way to look at the issue is that since, bdi’eved, anything that happens is ratzon Hashem, therefore any* hatred is chinam, or ’senseless’. Just like anger, hatred is a manifestation of rebellion against Hashem, since we are rejecting Hashems hashgafa (pratis and klallis) for the world.

On the other hand, I suppose that one can hate evil and doers of evil. Just because ratzon Hashem is done doesn’t mean the purpetrators aren’t culpable.

Perhaps the standard should be effectiveness. When does our hatred cause any positive outcome or result? Somehow I don’t think our sages would say the ends justify the means.

I am reading the new biography of Rav Shlomo Friefeld ztz’l, the Rosh Yeshiva of Shor Yoshuv. He was a beacon of love and was able to affect much positive change in individuals because of his love. Shouldn’t he be our role model?

*virtually any

If I talk about the drunk yeshiva boy stealing, driving, and crashing on Shabbos, and the British baal-tzedaka on cocaine, and or the several indicted talmidei chachomim with their Ponzi-schemes and mortgage fraud, I’m an anti-charedi, because I should have only written about the wonderful work of the bikur cholim.

Wake up, fellow charedim! Despite the kol koreh of the gedolim, the greatest danger facing the Orthodox world is NOT cell phones with SMS, it’s the substituting of glatt, cholov Yisroel, and the like for the 10 commandments! Let’s return to good old-fashioned values, and stop the nonsense, like censorship of what we don’t want to hear.

I checked the link to YNET and:

It does not say that he was “not allowed to speak” but that his presentation was cancelled. Though it may be a logical assumption to equate “cancelled” with “not allowed” this assessment cannot be made until it is verified why it was cancelled. Thereupon all that YNET says is - “It became known to us that this was due to Chareidi pressure”. YNET offers no source for their assessment, nor do they quote any representative of the hospital, nor do they claim that they even attempted to contact any official of the conference for a statement or explanation.
The only thing that looks clear to me is that no chareidi was allowed to contribute to YNET’s report.

Yes, indeed, it does illustrate the problem quite well. It illustrates that people who consider themselves “openminded” get their input on Chareidi relations from the “reliable information” that comes from such bastions of objective reporting such as YNET and swallow it whole.

That said, I agree with Rabbi Shafran’s overall point that The Jewish Week is slanted to the left.

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3577085,00.html

“Some of that animus, sadly, seems hard-wired into some hearts, a tragedy of our time.”

If one digs deeper, animus towards charedi policies may come because of other reasons, such as fear. There may be no complete solution to the underlying issues, but it would be best for someone who sees something negative in any charedi policy to turn inward, contemplating why the specific issue personally affects him(and if so, dealing with it), rather than turning outward and projecting animus or engaging in mockery.

Eretz Yisroel is in a constant state of war, which requires the people to be ever viligant.

The Gemarah states that those who were not going to the battle field were required to maintain the roads and provide the food for the army. Today’s army also requires vehicles, planes, electronic instruments and the like.

I do not undersrand, al pi halacha, those learning should not be required to assist iin the time of war. Since it cannot be done without have appropriate skills, should we not be training our Bochurim and Avreichim with these skills?

Years ago I would of been inclined to believe that.But after years of seeing the bottomless (unreturned)hatred of chareidim on the blogworld, I no longer do.And there is just a limit as to how many social problems can be blamed exlusuvly on Kollel/insularity.

Uncomfortable as it to say, it seems like a lot of Charedei hatred is just stemming from an inferiorty complex, and in some cases classic ‘Sinas Am Ha’aratzim L’Talmidey Chachomom’.

“Some of that animus, sadly, seems hard-wired into some hearts, a tragedy of our time.”

If one digs deeper, animus towards charedi policies may come from fear(eg, any move away from personal autonomy may have a ripple effect), or from a perception of being illegitimatized. There may be no complete solution to the underlying issues, but it would be best for someone who sees something negative in any charedi policy to turn inward, contemplating why the specific issue personally affects him, rather than turning outward and projecting animus or engaging in mockery.

“A newspaper, to be sure, is entitled to an editorial stance. But a paper aiming to serve the entire Jewish community best fulfils its mission by offering a variety of perspectives”

It would be to the benefit of the Jewish Week and its readership to include the most traditional Jewish viewpoint in its paper. From a journalistic standpoint, the Jewish Week editorial policy should certainly include the charedi viewpoint in the spirit of the “power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market”, and “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death for your right to say it”(what the Jewish perspective on the limitations of free speech is a separate issue, not applicable here). Also, it might find that the letters to the editor section and other columns will become more interesting as a result of the additional thought stimulated by inclusion of the charedi perspective.

If one digs deeper, animus towards charedi policies may come from fear(eg, any move away from personal autonomy may have a ripple effect), or from a perception of being illegitimatized. There may be no complete solution to the underlying issues, but it would be best for someone who sees something negative in any charedi policy to turn inward, contemplating why the specific issue personally affects him, rather than turning outward and projecting animus or engaging in mockery.

“A newspaper, to be sure, is entitled to an editorial stance. But a paper aiming to serve the entire Jewish community best fulfils its mission by offering a variety of perspectives”

It would be to the benefit of the Jewish Week and its readership to include the most traditional Jewish viewpoint in its paper. From a journalistic standpoint, the editorial policy should embrace the “power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market”, and “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death for your right to say it”. Also, it might find that the letters to the editor section and other columns becoming more interesting as a result of the additional thought stimulated by inclusion of the charedi perspective.

However, such a journalist would, lulei demistafina, need to position himself (or herself) as a thoughtful instructor of Torah principles, and not a knee-jerk defender of Chareidi misbehavior (even, perhaps, when a defense is warranted).

So while this columnist could, for example, explain the ger revocation controversy, he would probably be wise to step away from the Postville controversy.