THE RABBI’S CORNER

Reflections on Aspects of Jewish Minority Status in a Majority Culture

With special attention paid to the
Miracle on 34^th Street controversy

Winchester, Massachusetts 2007

(Rabbi Rim Meirowitz — January, 2008)

Before Thanksgiving in 2007, the seventh graders at McCall Middle School in Winchester, Massachusetts were to have gone to the Stoneham Theatre production of Miracle on 34^th Street. Evander French, the principal of McCall Middle School, received letters from some parents objecting to the students attending Miracle on 34^th Street. After a discussion with his crisis committee he decided that the field trip ought to be cancelled because of, what was termed in his notice, “objectionable content.” The money for the trip was refunded.

In the wake of that decision, public discussions took place in the Winchester Star, various blogs, and talk radio. Many people objected to the trip being canceled, while others defended Evander French. Some of these discussions were insulting and difficult for the members of the Jewish community. It might be fair to say that none of these discussions enabled the various groups in town to learn more about each other and understand each other′s points of view.

This event brings to the surface three questions of Jewish existence that each Jewish person must answer, and which each Jewish person will answer in a different way. Two of these questions have been around for all of Jewish history and one is unique to the American experience. I hope that by looking at these questions we can come to a better understanding of situations such as these.

The questions are:

1. In the face of perceived pressure from the outside world, what is the preferred stance of the Jewish person towards the outside world: accommodation and adjustment or clear boundaries and resistance to defend those boundaries? This would be the case for external and overt pressure from without as well as more internalized, covert, value-shift pressures coming from within.


2. What is the nature of the threat or pressure coming from the non-Jewish community?


3. What is the nature of religion and religious language in America? This question is the new one, specific to our country.

These questions have to be answered because being a Jewish person means being a minority in a non-Jewish world. That has always been the case, and, as far as we can tell, it will continue to be the case. There has always had to be some philosophy for the Jewish community to relate to the outside world. Even when there has been a majority of Jews in one particular place (modern day Israel, for example, or the Biblical Kingdom of King David) those Jews have had to think about their relationship to the outside world. And while foreign policy between states with armies is different from individuals′ relationships with their neighbors, the first two questions still apply.

We can see the first question clearly in the rape of Dinah, related in the book of Genesis. Simon and Levi kill everyone in the city where the prince who raped Dinah lives. They are clear resisters and fighters. They maintain, “No one will treat our sister like a prostitute.” That is to say, we will stand up for Jewish rights and protection no matter what, even if it means killing the whole city. Jacob said, “Would you make me odious to the inhabitants of the land? They are many and I am few.” Which is to say we′re a minority. Let′s be good neighbors; don′t make a fuss. (There is also a point of view that Dinah loved the prince and it was not rape, but rather Dinah leaving the tribe and her brothers took her back with force.)

In this case, the pressure was overt pressure from the outside world. The choice of accommodation or resistance is starkly seen in Jacob, Simon, and Levi′s interchange.

Both Moses and Joseph both accommodated to the majority culture in modes of dress. And even appeared to be Egyptian. Joseph′s brothers didn′t recognize them when they went down to Egypt after Moses left Egypt and met his future wife, Tzepora. She thought he was an Egyptian. Here the pressure was not overt, but the individual internalized the ways of being part of the majority culture and acted accordingly.

This tension between accommodation and defense of boundaries continued throughout Jewish history. The Maccabees′ decision to fight on Shabbat rather than be killed as were other members of the resistance is just one later example.

Today in the modern world we have both voices strongly heard: the voices of accommodation—don′t make a fuss, be a good neighbor, take it easy; and the voices of standing up for your rights—no one should push us around, we should make sure that we have our fair share and so forth. But that is a dimension along which one makes a decision. Each person has to decide where he or she stands.

I believe that the post-decision discussions in Winchester involved differing opinions on this issue without being clear about it.

The second question is: what is the nature of the threat or pressure? In what way does the activity in question threaten Judaism, Jewish life, or Jewish lives?

When Isaac Meyer Weiss introduced “family seating” into his synagogue in Cincinnati in the 1800′s, he broke a taboo of thousands of years of separate prayer spaces for men and women. He was accommodating to the values and style of his time. Some people at the time thought it was a deep threat to Jewish life (as some people continue to think)

In this same way, the nature of Santa Claus question is crucial. Is Santa Claus a threat and in what way? In this case we need to recognize that religious symbols always take on their meaning from their specific context. Having children in kindergarten write letters to Santa Claus might be construed as a religious act regarding a faith belief. Watching a play in seventh grade about other people′s belief in Santa Claus might not be a religious act to the same degree or carry the same degree of threat.

I believe that a number of people in the post-event discussion disagreed about the nature of the Santa Claus symbol. Context is everything when it comes to symbols.

These first two questions interact. The more one is inclined to defend, the more threat might be perceived. The more one is inclined to accommodate, the fewer threats might be perceived.

The third question is new: What is the nature of religious language in America? How much do we want the public sphere to be free of religious language? Where is the public sphere?

The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This law is fraught with ambiguity, and only sets out few clear boundaries within which many arguments take place about appropriate behavior. It does not eliminate all religious expression from the public sphere nor protect us from feeling our minority status at various times.

The amendment is limited to governmental action. In other aspects of public life (the street for example) religious expression is protected. The public sphere where we live is larger than the sphere of life supported by governmental policies or money. So a lot of religious expression will surround us. And we will feel our minority status at times of various times of year.

Was Dr. French′s decision to cancel the trip to see Miracle on 34^th Street an establishment of religious expression or a stifling of religious expression? Is the seeing of the play an act of religious expression? (See question number 2.)

As you can see when you put the first two questions into the mix, you have a situation ripe for discussion without agreement.

As a Reform rabbi I am an accommodator. “Reform” means to reform Judaism— to get to its essence and make it live within the modern context (question 1). As a theologically sophisticated person, I do not see Miracle on 34^th Street as a religious symbol. It is a play about Macy′s, Santa Claus, cute children, and child-like naiveté (question 2). And as an American, I enjoy religious expression and am comfortable with it in the public arena so long as it is not forced upon people by government. If it is “forced upon people” by the demographic situation, that is something we have to live with as a minority (question 3). (Don′t forget, I′m an accommodator.)

So: if people concerned about the field trip had asked me after it had been planned, “Rabbi, should we complain?” I would have said: “No.” If the principal had asked me: “Rabbi, should I cancel the trip?” I would have said: “No.” But if the teacher planning the trip had asked me “Rabbi, should I organize this trip?” I would have said: “No.”

The whole event was a field trip into a complex area of three different dimensions of disagreement about crucial issues. It is no surprise that the ensuing discussion led to little, if any, clarification.

—Rabbi Rim Meirowitz