Postal plebiscite issues

September 8, 2017 by  
Read on for article

Yesterday, ARK Centre released a response condemning the deplorable statement by the RCV urging the Jewish community to vote ‘no’ in the upcoming postal plebiscite on Same Sex Marriage…writes Rabbi Schneur Reti-Waks.

Rabbi Shneur Reti-Waks

Given that such a response must necessarily be brief allow me to expand on what I believe are a few key issues that must be addressed more fully.

The argument that the Torah forbids homosexuality and as such we should vote ‘no’ is outrageous on many levels. By such reasoning we should be lobbying to revert to a time when homosexuality was considered a crime under state law – something that was, thank God, repealed in Victoria in 1980.  If we were to revert to an argument that state and religious law should be intertwined, then why not focus our attention to lobbying the government to make the sale of prawns and bacon illegal?

Which brings me to the fundamental point: the plebiscite is about secular law not religious law. Civil marriage is not about sanctity. It is about legal realities. Civil marriage means the parties are partners in the legal sense with major ramifications for instances of severe illness, divorce or death. Marriage means you can get your partner’s name on your Medicare card. And of course marriage means lots of signatures and old-school paperwork.

The argument that voting ‘yes’ will lead to loss of religious freedom, makes one’s insides churn violently. Fancy the idea that any religious group would try to impose their religious beliefs on millions of people who don’t share the view or religious beliefs, and then argue that it is in the name of religious freedoms?!

And then comes the clincher. ‘And we will continue to advocate for same-sex attracted individuals to be treated with compassion…’ The preceding statement lends one to believe that this is merely paying lip service to the concept of compassion.

Plenty more can be said about the minutiae of the RCV statement but then I’d miss the opportunity to address the most vexing issue facing the Jewish community today, one that threatens its very survival; the problem of assimilation.

We can only begin to address any challenge when we identify precisely what the problem is. I believe the issue is not assimilation per se but rather the lack of retaining interest. Once interest has been lost, assimilation is the consequence. So the question is not how can we stop assimilation but rather how can we combat disinterest and disaffection?

I’m not marketing expert but I take it as common sense that if there is a product that once-upon-a-time dominated the market but is now, and has been for some time, on a steep and accelerated downward spiral of consumer disinterest, then the solution to the problem is a change how the product is perceived.

To extend the adage of product, supply and demand – the supply of a certain brand of Orthodox Judaism is plentiful. The demand, however, has shifted toward a purveyor who can deliver the authentic product in a relevant and meaningful manner.

If ever there was tangible proof for this, this week the unfolding saga of the RCV statement brought this home crystal clear. The innumerable responses trending on social media, some of which have been forwarded to me, reflect a consistent sentiment: You can preach your religion to your club but I’m not interested and that’s why I left. Many have expressed hurt and outrage over the past 48 hours which is itself testimony to the need for rabbis, myself included, to stand up and demonstrate genuine compassion, relevance and inclusion to our community.

Those of you who know me know that I do try and look for the positives. This situation we find ourselves in has a silver lining in that it clearly highlights what needs to change if Jewish continuity is to be guaranteed. We need a religious leadership that is a light unto our communities.

The Torah says that if we keep the laws of the Torah all the nations of the world will proclaim ‘oh what a wise and great nation this is which has all these righteous laws’. According to the Rambam in More Nevuchim this is the basis for his belief that every law in the Torah can be rationally explained. If others are going to say how wise it is, obviously it is because they intellectually appreciate its value. For outsiders to be wowed by Torah’s righteousness, the laws must be truly righteous.

I believe in the universal message of Judaism, and in the beauty of Orthodox Judaism. My preoccupation is to promote an authentic, inspiring, enriching, and compassionate religion to our own Jewish community. The point of Judaism is not to act as the antagonist to progress. In fact, Judaism is all about progress. Before the Torah was given societies burnt their children to the gods, killed child rape victims, believed in witchcraft, and didn’t have laws protecting women. The Torah does not just denounce these states of affairs but provided a moral framework for us to live by. One that espouses that each and every person is made in God’s image.

This is the message that needs to be heard. The Torah is never and can never be at odds with things that we know to be true and right. If it appears to be, it is the result of bad interpretation.

And to leave off with the prayer we sing every time we lift the Torah: Dracheha darkei noam, vechol netivoteha shalom – all the Torah’s ways are pleasant and peaceful. Genuinely adopting this is not only the greatest survival strategy, it also gives us the very reason why Jewish continuity is important in the first place. To promote peace and love in the world through wise, evolved, and compassionate laws and opinions.

Comments

4 Responses to “Postal plebiscite issues”
  1. Roy Sims says:

    Rabbi Schneur Reti-Waks has produced a most muddle headed argument to support his YES vote!
    He says:-
    “Fancy the idea that any religious group would try to impose their religious beliefs on millions of people who don’t share the view or religious beliefs, and then argue that it is in the name of religious freedoms?!”

    If you substitute “secular” for “religious” in the above statement, that is precisely what the Rabbi is arguing the NO voters should accept. There are millions of people in this nation who have a genuine concern for where this “marriage equality” push is leading.

    He goes on:-
    “If we were to revert to an argument that state and religious law should be intertwined, then why not focus our attention to lobbying the government to make the sale of prawns and bacon illegal?”

    What nonsense is this! IF he is trying to equate “marriage equality” with Torah commands,then the argument should be exactly the reverse of what he has proclaimed. It SHOULD be that the sale of prawns and bacon IS legal BUT NO-ONE is obligated to buy them. If “marriage equality” is legalised then unless there are stringent exemptions allowing religious freedom to opt out, or disassociate, then the religious communities are at risk of breaking the law by discrimination. And that is the experience of many ALREADY in this nation.

    Have another think Rabbi Schneur Reti-Waks. You have over simplified an extremely worrisome proposal.
    How would you react if the purchase of prawns and bacon became obligatory???

  2. Q langman says:

    The article fails to mention that by allowing so called same sex marriage, fails to protect children. I have read numerous unhappy articles by grown up children, robbed of adequate parental figures. One I saw recently in California a lesbian couple giving their 12 year old son a sex change.
    If people want to live like that. I’m not going to stop them. This isn’t Saudi Arabia…
    So essentially we already have gay marriage. But this is about protecting the most vulnerable,children.
    And if there’s something wrong with that. You need to rethink your value system.

    • Adrian Jackson says:

      Did you watch “Australian Story) last night (11 Sep 17) on ABC TV? It was about a male gay couple who foster teenage girls successfully for the last 20 years.

      The girls, now young adults, still keep in contact with this foster couple and have “family” reunions on special occasions, like birthdays.

      Dysfunctional parents are more likely in my opinion, with heterosexual couples; after all 50% of male/female marriages and defacto relationships end in divorce and unhappy children in many cases.

  3. Adrian Jackson says:

    I will be voting YES despite being a straight bachelor, and I like it that way, as well as mostly being conservative ex Army officer.

    I have written letters to the press supporting gay marriage along the lines why cant Gays experience the joy and misery of marriage like other Australians were 50% end in divorce and legally all a marriage is is a contract between the couple to cover both concerning money, property and inheritance. My most recent letter was published in the Melbourne Herald Sun on 28 Jun 17.

    Yesterday I rang the electorate office of the Melbourne Ports MHR Michael Danby and asked if Mr Danby will be voting Yes in Parliament if the Yes opinion poll vote is Yes and the staff said Yes he would and they had leafleted ready to distribute but were waiting to the outcome of the high court case trying to stop the poll.

    The poll will go ahead and postal ballot papers will be distributed to Australians starting on Tuesday 12 Sep 17.

    I also rang the electorate offices of Coalition Senators for Victoria and was advised that Sen Hume and Sen Paterson will be voting Yes. Sen Ryan has been ill for sometime and was unavailable for comment while Sen Fifield and Sen McKenzie’s staff were not saying anything.

    I did not ring Labor Senators for Victoria as I think that party has a Yes position and Sen Hinch is Yes voter too I understand.

Speak Your Mind

Comments received without a full name will not be considered
Email addresses are NEVER published! All comments are moderated. J-Wire will publish considered comments by people who provide a real name and email address. Comments that are abusive, rude, defamatory or which contain offensive language will not be published

    Rules on posting comments