Edith Rapp tried to sue her stepson, a member of Jews for Jesus, for defamation, over an article he wrote which claimed that she was a bad Jew who had denounced her faith. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that her claim of being portrayed in a "false light" was not sufficient cause for her suit. And I couldn't agree more.
It's not that I believe that her stepson is correct. I get nervous when anyone starts with the "good Jew" stuff, especially when earning the title is synonymous with being a Jew who upholds the divinity of Jesus! But I also get worried when civil courts see it as their place to adjudicate competing theological claims made by the members of different religious organizations. A ruling in mom's favor would hinge on the courts being empowered to rule on a matter of theology i.e. what constitutes "real Judaism" -- somethings our courts should not be deciding.
How can a statement about one's religious beliefs be anything other than a theological statement? That she interpreted it as a slur, is because of her theology. That he did not is a function of his. Even for someone like me, who is comfortable with a relationship between faith and politics, this seems like more than a breach in the wall between church and state. It seems like representatives of the state becoming state theologians. Welcome to the middle ages!
As much as some might like to see Ms. Rapp vindicated, doing so would endanger religious freedom for all of us.
One attorney with whom I consulted about this thought that perhaps there was room to rule because of the harm the article could cause Ms. Rapp within the Jewish community e.g. find a job in a Jewish setting. But for that argument to hold, the ones withholding that potential job would have to take the claims of her stepson seriously. If they don't share his beliefs, which presumably they do not, then no harm will be done. So again there were no grounds for the suit.
This was about a mom and a son and the hurt that they caused each other in the name of God. It's sad, but it's not a matter for the courts. It is however a matter for the members of each of their communities. And I wonder how it is that the rage of Jews against Jews for Jesus, or the need of Jews for Jesus to convert everybody to their faith, can be allowed to trump the importance of the relationship between a mom and her son.
Who is advising these people? Where are the real spiritual guides that would keep them out of court? Where is the love which should always trump the need to win a court battle? When any of us, who claim any faith, are more interested in those questions, then the court will not need to do our business for us. Oh yeah, and we will be known for bringing families together in the name of religion, instead of driving them apart over our various interpretations of who is religious.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
MISTAKE-reread the article and am glad the courts did the right thing
hugs
Laura
I'm waiting to see "Methodists for Mohammad".
Belinda,
In Judaism, one of the worst things a child can do to a parent, for a person to do to themselves, is become a Xian, which we consider idolatry for Jews. Such an action can destroy a parent-child relationship. In fact, many of us believe it can destroy a soul.
So yes, a conversion can destroy a bond between a mother and a son. If a child embraces that faith, many of us feel we must draw back and put that person out of the family, as they are a threat to the cohesion of the Jewish people.
It was done to me when I went astray (I returned, Baruch Hashem), and I would be forced to do the same if my child embraced Xianity.
OMG (no pun intended), I also burst out laughing at "Shikses for Moses". So clever!
Rabbi Brad -
It is a shame that people need to start throwing accusations and mistatements around without researching the ground they stand on. Shame on those who would call a man a liar or spreader of lies without knowing his intent. And shame on those who would attribute a statement to someone and build a case against him without determining his actual words and intent. It seems to me that both positions here are very similar and I am waiting to see whether Rabbi Brad or Richard and Matt are the first to humble themselves and apologize to the other.
After researching this I can find nothing in this court case that indicates the court was meddling with religious theories - it was simply dealing with cases where true reports or statements in news media unfortunately cause difficulty and harm to another. It ruled correctly that allowing suppression of free speech rights under the first amendment creates a greater harm than allowing them and that no such doctrine as "false-light" exists in Florida law.
How this got turned into an issue of purposeful defamation between a mother and son indicates the propensity of many to eagerly use "religion" to create a soap box for their personal beliefs. I do not believe - given his record - that Rabbi Brad had any intent to do this, however it was in poor form to invoke the "bad jew" controversy promulgated by others without printing the original article and letting it speak for itself.
Who will be the one to post the original article from "Jews for Jesus" so that we can all lay this to rest and know the facts?
Jeremiah
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.