It surprises even me to see Walter Cronkite’s name and the words “authentic Judaism” in the same title, but you can thank Beliefnet’s Steven Waldman for that. He has a piece up about the newly deceased Cronkite and Sandra Nemser, who it turns out, is Steven’s mom. In the post, we learn that Cronkite was a witness at Waldman-Nemser wedding, and also about a little “game” the family used to play, a game in which we discover that Waldman and those he mocks are quite similar:

“We thought: what a fun test case we would make! Let’s take my parent’s Jewish wedding certificate to Israel and dare them to declare that it was invalid because the witness wasn’t Jewish — just go ahead and say that the Most Trusted Man in America wasn’t good enough for this marriage!”

Now I am no fan of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate. In fact, they have done more to damage the credibility of traditional Judaism than virtually any institution in the modern State of Israel. No matter how well intentioned they may be, and no matter that in specific matters of Jewish law I may agree with their rulings, state-sponsored and state-enforced religion is a toxic mess that mixes faith and coercion in ways that harm everybody, every time. But the irony is that the rabbis, whom both Waldman and I find troubling, think about Judaism precisely the way Steven thinks about journalism!

After taking a his shot at the rabbis, the post tells us:

“Mom, like Cronkite, practiced journalism in an era when commentators didn’t sniff at the notion of “objectivity.” My sense is that most old timers had no illusions that objectivity was achievable in the purest sense but they believed that they had a moral obligation to aspire toward objectivity and fairness. Thank you mom, and Walter, for teaching me what great, classic journalism is.”

“Objectivity”? “Moral obligation”? “Classic”? Those are the exact terms the rabbis who would not accept Cronkite as a valid witness on a Jewish marriage contract, would use in defense of their position! Waldman and the rabbis are peas in a pod, Each uses the same language to defend that which they love most – for one it’s a family tradition of journalism and for the others, a family tradition of marriage law, but each views those who differ from them as less than fully authentic. Funny, no?

Here’s a novel concept: let’s admit that while not all decisions are equally good, more often than not, when it comes to the things we love most, we confuse that which we love with that which is best, insisting that we love it because it is the best. Perhaps it’s the other way around; it’s the best because we love it.
I know this approach won’t provide us with the “fun” of endlessly sniping at each other about what’s “really Jewish” and what’s “real journalism”, but it would leave us more time to be Jewish, journalist, or anything else to which we aspire. Any other approach simply leaves us doing to others what they have done to us, hardly a circumstance to celebrate.