William:

The first example you picked is not defamation at all. Some politicians do use change to promote their careers instead of being genuinely committed. It is up to the voter to decide which is the case in this race.

As for your second example, it is not disputed that Wm. Ayres was a terrorist and leader of a terrorist group who would have gone to prison if not for a technicality. He has never paid for his crimes. Sen. Obama has publicly denounced his actions. Now some who believe in redemption may say that Ayers can repent and can change, so its OK to accept his support now. But I've seen no evidence that Ayres has repented. In fact, didn't he say he wishes he had done more? Does the passage of time alone somehow purify him so that now he is socially acceptable? You might ask yourself if you would reach the same conclusion about a presidential candidate accepting help from a former communist or nazi who hasn't done anything wrong we know of in decades. One could conclude that Obama's contact with Ayres was minor, from what is known at this time. And even with his lengthy and recent association with Rev. Wright (who cursed our nation), there is no cause for concern about his friends and associates. Whichever way you come down, it is a legitimate question to raise. We are electing the president of United States, the leader of the free world in whom we will entrust enormous power and discretion.

Also, if you want to complain about defamation, why not just use that term, which we all understand rather than translating it to a term few recognize?

Only you, M.B., could take even this post and re-purpose it as part of your ongoing diatribe against ritual and the Hebrew language. Bravo for chutzpah on that front!

I think William's intent was to take a seemingly non-Jewish issue and show us that there is Jewish content there. That's the entire purpose of an sermon or d'var torah (if you'll excuse my arcane terminology) on current affairs!

Progressive Jews are opposed to neither Hebrew nor ritual, just their misuse.

M.B., to what misuse are you referring?

William, actually there is a well recognized concept in American law of permitted defamation. It is called privileged defamation and cannot be the basis of a legal action against the defamer, regardless of the falsity and detriment to reputation. There are also qualified privileged defamations which generally may be excused according to status and the state of mind of the person who uttered or published the defamatory statement.

American law has such a strong Judeo-Christian foundation in many areas, you can expect that from the time of our Founding Fathers (actually even earlier in our colonial history), there was wide familiarity with Biblical law by those who wrote the civil law. And yet they updated rules in a very rational, reform way.

I think that the times when you really can't describe something in our language are very few and far between.

So the commenter who has in the past claimed to be among the last true progressives, while calling the rest of us right-wing reactionaries, is now shilling for the McCain campaign? I must say I'm confused by this rapid turnabout.

David said: "I think William's intent was to take a seemingly non-Jewish issue and show us that there is Jewish content there."

Yes, and more broadly, Jewish ethics applies to every corner of life, and often has distinctive insights to guide us.

As to politics, the RAC is not afraid to take on controversial issues, and I don't think we should shy away from them if they are important and relevant to Jewish ethics.

But as David said, my purpose here is not to campaign for a party, but to show the importance and distinctive contribution of Jewish ethics. And here Governor Palin's "palls around with terrorists" a paradigm of lashon hara, a good example to discuss the whole issue.

MB, although I find your comments infuriatingly wrong-headed, I am grateful for your articulating here what I know a lot of other Reform Jews would also say: that American values and Jewish values are the same. But it is a fundamental mistake, and a very important one to correct.

The Rabbinic concept of lashon hara in fact does not exist in American culture. It is not American but distinctively Jewish. Following up on your comment I checked out the Wikipedia article on Defamation.

According to it, "defamation" in American law is an umbrella term covering both libel and slander. But, critically, it generally must be false to be defamation. Lashon hara may be true and still a general rule is not permitted in Jewish ethics. For example, expressing a negative opinion about another person is lashon hara, but in general is not legal defamation. So that is the fundamental difference between the American concept of defamation and the rabbinic one of lashon hara.

According to the wikipedia article there are in Western law some narrow circumstances which can constitute defamation, even if true, such as violation of privacy. But the concept of lashon hara is much broader, because it applies to all disparaging speech. Thus although defamation and lashon hara are related concepts, they are critically different. Lashon hara applies much more broadly in life, and this makes it a more central concept in Jewish ethics.

The concept of lashon hara is closely related to the positive Jewish value of judging others "l'chaf zechut", or "in a favorable light." (Avot 1:6). this means that you should look for an interpretation of the other person's actions that is favorable to the person's character, and as a rule act on the basis of that.

The principles of avoiding lashon hara and judging in a positive light (or "giving the benefit of the doubt) are precious guides to life. If all Reform Jews knew these wonderful Jewish concepts and tried to scrupulously follow them it would greatly strengthen Reform Judaism. For a start, synagogue life would be the warm and safe place we want it to be. In fact, when it is not so, the failing is usually because of lashon hara.

As to the issue of "privileged" defamation, it is according to the wikipedia article quite different from from permitted lashon hara. And this flows from the fundamental difference that lashon hara may be true. Defamation is privileged if it is testimony in court, a statement in a legislature, or just between husband and wife.

But lashon hara is permitted for example to prevent harm: "He's a con man, avoid him like the plague when it comes to money." That, if true, is permitted lashon hara. It isn't defamation at all in American law if it is true, if I get the legal concept right.

The importance of knowing the principles of avoiding lashon hara, and judging in a favorable light to me are frankly much more important to the future of Reform Judaism than whether to wear a tallit at services.

These and many others are precious Jewish concepts on how to live we should be teaching to youth and adults alike. They are the eitz chayim, the tree of life that Proverbs writes of. This distinctive Torah learning, creatively updated and applied, I think can greatly strengthen Reform Judaism.

In the interest of equal opportunity Lashon Hara, I am curious as to why (W. Berkson's) post isolates itself to comments by Governor Palin about Barak Obama's ties to William Ayres. There has been plenty of Lashon Hara to go around. Although not said by a member of the campaign, how about Naomi Wolf's September 22, 2008 article in the Huffington Post, that states "Reports confirmed my suspicions: Palin, not McCain, is the FrankenBarbie of the Rove-Cheney cabal"?

I wasn't aware that URJ had a horse in this race.(EDITOR'S NOTE: IT DOES NOT!)

If you're going to sermonize about Lashon Hara in the political arena, you need to represent examples on both sides, lest some of us wonder if the omission of examples on the part of the Obama campaign is a subtle attempt to suggest to us that only one side has engaged in evil speech. Frankly, the behavior on both sides of this campaign would fail any litmus test of Jewish values.

Editor's Note:
Please note that the opinions posted on this blog are those of the authors, not the Union. That is particularly true with regard to this issue, as the Union does not - and never has - advocate for any individual candidate.

This blog exists to give individual Reform Jews an opportunity to voice how Judaism impacts their daily lives.

Mr. Berskon's prior blogs, based on my cursory review, don't seem to be partisan. Therefore I assume he didn't mean for this post to be partisan - he probably chose the examples he did because they have been so predominant in the media (which may, or may not, say something about the media!).

However, in order to most constructively discuss Jewish ethics, and minimize political and partisan meanderings, I think it may be worthwhile for all of us to be extra careful to avoid appearances of partisanship. As Debbie says so well- there is plenty of Lashon Hara to go around this election.

While I agree the use of the "palling around" argument is Lashon Hara, I believe a good argument can be made that "McCain is the same as Bush" is equally Lashon Hara. There are many valid policy reason to oppose McCain and support Obama. However, in light of McCain's past and ongoing problems with the Republican base, his public opposition to a number of prominent Bush positions, and the history of the 2000 Republican primary, equating McCain with Bush is not accurate. In fact it seems like an attempt to use a false argument to arouse negative emotions by associating the candidate with someone who is very unpopular. In fact, it parallels the "palling around" argument.

Thank you so much for acknowledging my point of view. This might be the only forum for respectful discussion that I have found during this election. Frankly, at this point I am almost reluctant to leave my house becuase of the polarization, and all the lashon hara associated with it has become almost unbearable.

I had also heard the allegations of the deprecating shouts at the Republican rallies William mentioned. Just this afternoon I heard a news report that the Secret Service has investigated, and could not find anyone to corroborate these reports. The closest they came was to find evidence that there had been shouts of "tell him", not "kill him". I'm inclined to believe the Secret Service investigation to be credible, because they must investigate threats involving either candidate, as they have a mandate to ensure their safety. Again, it appears that we may have more Lashon Hara gone wild -- if the reports are oreported often enough, then they are ipso facto true. I guess the flip side of political passion bears the risk of doing, saying, or believing anything that supports our own personal view point. I believe both candidates are decent men. It's their surrogates, the media and all of us in the public that seem to have lost our ability to consider carefully what we say and hear, and to discern facts from dangerous misrepresentations. I can't wait until November 5 (or maybe January 21, if we have any repeat of the kind of post-election contention we have seen in the recent past).

SG, I wish I could avoid appearing partisan in this discussion of lashon hara and elections, but the reality is that the two sides are behaving very differently in relationship to lashon hara.

Obama's assertion that McCain is like Bush is not prohibited lashon hara, so far as I can see. Obama has repeatedly made clear that although McCain has differed with Bush, on the core issues of taxes, deregulation and desire to start and continue the Iraq war, he has been or is now in full agreement with Bush. And Obama's argument is that Bush's policies, those that McCain supports and has supported have failed. You can accept or reject the argument, but I can't see how it is deceptive or an attack on McCain's character.

Now the Obama campaign has indeed, from what I read, been grossly exaggerating the problems with McCain's health care plan. As an Obama supporter, I am very unhappy with with such deceit, and I condemn it.

But there is only one side here who is conducting a campaign of false and malicious personal vilification. Such campaigns, which used to be called 'calumny,' unfortunately have a long history in US elections, going back to Jefferson.

Admittedly, Obama campaign has said that McCain has been "erratic" in responding to the financial crisis. That is a personal attack, but it is based in recent facts that everybody is familiar with and and can judge for themselves; and it does not allege moral turpitude. To me it is "permitted lashon hara" in the context of a campaign.

By contrast the McCain campaign is now doing two 'robocalls' in close states. One, according to the Washington Post, says that "Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans." And according to ABC News, another says, "Barak Obama ...opposed a bill requiring doctors to care for babies born alive after surviving attempted abortions."

These don't simply accuse Obama of poor judgment, but they insinuate that he is treasonous and a baby killer.

The reality is, as Obama explained in the last debate, that a law was already on the Illinois books requiring doctors' treatment in such situations, and was not an issue in the bill Obama and others voted against. And I have already above explained the realities of Ayers and Obama's association, and it shows absolutely no indication of condoning or supporting terrorism.

Insinuating that Obama is a traitorous baby killer is not only reprehensible, but also incitement to violence against Obama. As I just heard a CNN commentator mention, the violent outbursts against Obama only started at Palin rallies after she started using her "palling around terrorists" line.

In the Torah it is a mitzvah to "surely rebuke your neighbor and not bear sin because of him" (Lev. 19:17] It doesn't mentions an exception for elections.

Here fair does not mean balanced because the truth is not balanced. The Obama campaign is guilty of deceitful exaggeration on issues, but not of a campaign of personal vilification against McCain's character.

Frankly, Obama has had the material in the break-up of McCains first marriage and in the Keating 5 scandal to launch a similar unfair and cruel campaign of personal attacks. But they haven't gone there. If they do, I'll be the first to call them on it. But as of now the character assassination campaign has been coming from the McCain campaign.

Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine has expressed her disapproval, according to the Washington Post, with "her spokesman telling a state political publication yesterday that she wants 'the McCain campaign to stop these calls immediately.'"

Perhaps the mitzvah says to surely rebuke your "re'ah" because this Hebrew term is taken to mean "your people." It is easy for me to rebuke the excesses of the McCain campaign campaign, but not so easy for Senator Collins. She is truly fulfilling the mitzvah. "Kol haKavod," as they say--all honors to Sen. Collins.

MB, you write as if Rabbinic ethics is walled off from Reform and limited to the Orthodox and Conservative. But this is just false both to Reform history and to current Reform Judaism. Reform has looked to Rabbinic ethics throughout its history, though of course being willing to critically assess it, just as it has critically assessed the Bible itself.

Even Kaufman Kohler, who wrote the Pittsburg platform and was in many ways hostile to the Talmud, was willing to quote the Talmud on ethical issues.

And many other Reform leaders, before and after, have fully acknowledged the inspiring leadership and ideas of Hillel, Akiva, and other Rabbinic sages. Abraham Geiger, the leading founder of Reform certainly appreciated the Rabbinic tradition, and felt he was part of it.

And one of the greatest great Reform Rabbis of the past century, Abba Hillel Silver writing in mid-century in his book "Where Judaism Differed" says (p. 286), "While the crown jewels of Judaism are found in the Bible, its spiritual treasures are not limited to it. ...The Apocrypha, the Talmud, the Midrash, and the individual works of scholars, poets, and philosophers ...have continued to this day. Their teachings constitute an integral part of the endlessly replenished religious literature of Judaism."

And recently Rabbi Borowitz, leading Reform theologian since Silver, has written "The Book of Jewish Values" which is full of quotations from Talmudic sources.

And the reality is that the synagogue and the prayer book and much of the ethics, theology and customs of Judaism, including Reform, are Rabbinic creations.

To cut ourselves off from that "treasure," as Silver rightly calls it, as you seem to be advocating, seems to me a perverse and self-defeating notion.

As to the applicability of the concept of lashon hara to non-Jews, I accept the Reform idea that ethics should be universal. But we Jews have our own traditions on what that best universal ethics is. And I think the world would be better off if everyone were influenced by Jewish ideas on this.

Mind you, I don't agree with all the views of rabbis on lashon hara. But that is another story. And by the way, I have also heard that there is a similar concept to lashon hara in Buddhist ethics--though not in mainstream American tradition!

The point is, we have a treasure in Rabbinic ethics, and we should learn from it and lift up lives through it.

In my study of history never has an extreme right wing government been a force for the good. The McCain ticket has run out of substance, if ever it was there in the first place; therefore it has resorted to half-truths. The party which has been captured by the right and has gloried in the tactics of Karl Rove ought to realize that he resembles Joseph Goebbels in terms of the use of "the big lie". Maybe those who are so disposed should purchase a small order of black shirts for their use. Since I think their numbers are diminishing it wouldn't be wise to order too many.

MB SAID:
Carol Jean, in saying that "Obama's associations are ...terroristic" you are not being factual.

CORRECTION BY CAROLJEAN: Obama has a relationship with an UNREPENTANT terrorist! By the fact that Ayers is UNREPENTANT makes him a terrorist NOW because he is not sorry and has not asked for forgiveness!

Also, is it lashon hara to say that Obama would not be able to acquire a security clearance because of his past associations? It is unfortunate for our country that one does not need a security clearance to be president. This is a fact in our Constitutional requirements to be President.