Executive Summary 1999-2003

A project of the Center for Jewish Community Studies, initiated by the Pew Charitable Trusts as part of its project on Religious Communities and the Public Square What did the Jews and the American Public Square project do? Over a five year period (1999-2003), it brought together more than 40 prominent scholars from a variety of disciplines to study how American Jews and other Americans apply their religious commitments to their civic and political engagement It produced three state-of-the-art books on the main dimensions of American Jewish public affairs, including the history, sociology, politics, demographics, and theology of Jewish civic and political engagement It fielded two national surveys on Jewish and non-Jewish attitudes on religion in public life as well as one local survey It convened a dozen conferences around the U.S. to involve Jews and other Americans in thoughtful conversation about the role religion plays in our public life It maintains a website where the results of its research and links to useful information are available Why was the project launched? The American Jewish Community is overdue for an open and serious public discussion concerning how the energy and moral seriousness of religion can nourish what is best in America and help to ameliorate what is worst. Observers of religion in American society notice that: American attitudes toward religion and public life are changing and old ways of thinking may not be up to the challenge of understanding and responding to new situations. Religion is not only prominent in political campaigns (such as those of Senator Joseph Lieberman), it is at the heart of such issues as tuition vouchers, the faith-based initiative, and cloning and stem cell research. The American Jewish community plays a leading role in American political and civic life. Jews see a deep affinity between Jewish and American values, but, unlike most Americans, they tend to believe that religion is first and foremost a private matter. In the 20th century, Jews have been staunch advocates of a high “wall of separation between church and state.” This has served them well but also framed the way they understand—and misunderstand—the possibilities for religion in America. In the 21st century, the social and legal ground will continue to change. Waves of new immigration have made America more religiously diverse and also more religious. The presence of evangelical Christianity continues to grow, fueled by both religious revival and Latino immigration. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of numerous practices that American Jews would rather believe are unconstitutional. This project was undertaken in order to study the impact of these trends on American Jewry and to help inform Jewish responses to them. I. Increasing Awareness: The diversity of approaches that Americans–and American Jews–have taken to religion in the public square. Up until the last third of the 19th Century, American Jews believed–to a degree often surprising to their 20th and 21st century descendants–that religion should play a major role in American public life. For example, early American Jews fought to retain public funding for their religious schools and for the acceptance of Jewish chaplains in the military. They accepted the idea that America was a religious nation and wanted Judaism to have equal footing with Protestantism. Unlike many Protestants, however, they did not want America to be a Christian nation. Only after the Civil War, when there was a growing evangelical militancy in favor of formally declaring America a Christian nation, did Jews begin to swing against a public role for religion. Jewish attitudes changed when prominent Christian churchmen (perhaps feeling their world imperiled by mass immigration, industrialization and urbanization) began campaigning to have the United States explicitly declared a Christian nation. Jews reacted by allying themselves with nonreligious secularists in a struggle to make public schools and other government undertakings religiously neutral. Jonathan Sarna, Professor of American Jewish History at Brandeis University and project advisory board member (New York Times, August 2000) By the 20th century they adopted an approach wherein “strict separation” of religion and state had become their goal. It gained substantial realization in the years following World War II. In a series of epoch-making decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court declared historic religious observances, such as Bible reading and prayer in the public schools, unconstitutional. The state, it held, should remain aloof from religion altogether. By the late 20th century, however, the Court began to take a different approach. To treat religious institutions and communities equally with non-religious entities, the state must not discriminate against religion. Disregard of religion might constitute discrimination against it. When the state allows social service groups to bid for contracts, for example, barring religious groups from competition can be seen as a form of discrimination. Accordingly, the Court has moved from a “strict separation” to an “equal treatment” approach to religion. This shift has perplexed–and discomfited–many within the Jewish community as it upsets long held beliefs about the proper relationship between church and state. The Jewish community grounded its separationist approach on the premise that public religion would necessarily discriminate against Jews. If the state supports religion in any way, Jews reasoned, in a Christian society it would, perforce, wind up supporting Christianity to the detriment of Jews. It is questionable, however, whether in as pluralistic a society as 21st century America this view remains credible. American Jews have based their approach to church-state matters on the legacy of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom advocated for a near total separation of church and state. The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State. James Madison Madison and Jefferson saw state support, through taxation, for example, of churches as a bar to the liberty and an insult to the conscience of dissenters from those churches. Nonetheless, both Madison and Jefferson believed, in common with most thinkers at the time of the American founding, that religion must not be separated from society. Washington, in his Farewell Address, gave the most memorable formulation of this belief. Of the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness–these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it be simply asked, Where is the security for prosperity, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. George Washington It is difficult to know where “religion and society” ends and where “religion and state” begins, especially in our own period when the scope of the state has expanded exponentially. Even in Jefferson's time, church services, which he attended, were held in the Capitol building. The Northwest Ordinance mandated public funding for ministers in the new territories of the Midwest. American society and law have always struggled to achieve the proper balance between harnessing the beneficial effects of religion for public life while avoiding too tangled a relationship between them. By the 20th century, American Jews were so attuned to Madison and Jefferson's view that they scanted the wisdom resident in Washington's perspective. Madison's approach became, from the 1940s to the 1990s, accepted doctrine and largely the law of the land. Yet during this period American Jews, like many others, increasingly worried about the moral underpinnings of American society, about the loss of social trust and about the general decline in participation and civility. Religion, despite the unfortunate legacy of sectarian intolerance it has sometimes imparted to American life, also brought out, as Alexis de Tocqueville observed, what was best in Americans. Religion inspired abolitionism, the civil rights movement, and protest against the Vietnam War. Tocqueville's words bear repeating. Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society; but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions. Alexis de Tocqueville In the 21st century, although America still operates within a Madisonian framework, law and public policy increasingly have accents reminiscent of Washington. Public support for the community-serving ministries of religious congregations or for tuition vouchers that can be used at religious schools are policies more evocative of Washington's approach than of Madison's and Jefferson's. What are the implications of this shift for the long-held Jewish view on the proper relationship of religion to public policy, law, and social ethics? Exploring those implications was the key thrust of the public events sponsored by the project. II. Sparking a Conversation: The Jews and the American Public Square Symposia As part of its mission to stimulate conversation within the Jewish community about the proper role of religion in American public life, the project convened twelve symposia for Jewish professional and volunteer leaders, rabbinical and communal service students, Jewish media, Jewish studies professors, and the general public. Symposia took place in Boston (twice), Boca Raton, Chicago, Los Angeles (twice), Miami, Newport, Philadelphia (twice) and Washington, D.C (twice). Seminars for Jewish Professionals and Volunteer Leaders The seminars for Jewish agency professional staff and volunteer leaders drew participants from every region of the United States and every religious movement in Judaism. In all, 70 participants attended. After reading a hefty collection of papers, historical documents and books in advance, invited participants and project-associated scholars spent two days in serious discussion. In each seminar, most participants remarked on how rigorous and stimulating the experience was. Wide-ranging, often contentious and multi-branched discussions took place. The use of historical documents, drawn from Religion and State in the American Jewish Experience by project contributors Jonathan Sarna and David Dalin, gave the discussions range and depth, as well as an authentically Jewish, text-centered specificity. The seminars captured the mood of this influential segment of American Jewish communal leadership: perplexity. Most participants were still committed to separation of church and state but were aware that this doctrine is in trouble. While the seminars met, Joseph Lieberman was running for Vice President and was criticized by some Jewish leaders for his frequent invocations of the public relevance of his faith. Both presidential candidates in 2000 and, subsequently, President Bush endorsed federal funding for faith-based social service ministries (Charitable Choice). The participants were aware that times had changed. They also knew that the Jewish community had been changing its emphases. More attention had been paid over the previous decade to enriching Jewish identity, strengthening Jewish day schools and encouraging religious practices. People all over America are searching for ways to relate religion to public life, why should the Jewish community not do so as well? While the seminars did not resolve the new Jewish perplexity, they raised the issues and exposed participants to the best of current Jewish and general thought on the topic. Attending the Chicago meeting proved both intriguing and informative and definitely helpful for someone in the field of inter-group relations. First, to have representatives of a variety of views sharing those views in a civil manner was very special. It was unlike the acrimonious discussions I've attended previously. Second, I thought some of the practitioners in the community relations field helped make the discussions more concrete. I came from some of the discussions with a more finely tuned vocabulary with which to speak to the Jewish community on the issue of religion in public life. Third, I had a chance to meet some extraordinarily talented people whose work I had read, but whom I'd not met. Having time to discuss specific issues with them during our meal breaks was also a wonderful experience. Dr. Martin Plax, Director of the Cleveland Chapter of the American Jewish Committee (attended the Midwest Regional Seminar, Chicago 2000). Participants put contemporary issues of religion and public/political life into a broad, historical context. Instead of starting with “hot button” topics like charitable choice and school vouchers, participants made a determined effort to clarify basic principles in order properly to appraise the philosophical, cultural and legal gravity of the issues. Based on the work of the project's founding co-director, Daniel Elazar, participants explored the idea of covenant (a way of organizing society based on agreement between free persons who link themselves for common purposes) as the basis of both the Jewish and the American political traditions. Each seminar began with a consideration of the political traditions of ancient and medieval Judaism that Jews brought to America and of the covenantal theology of the Puritans. Participants discussed how the historic individualism and increasing pluralism of American society squares with lingering covenantal impulses toward the desirability of shared purposes, norms, and values. Participants explored American thought at the time of the Revolution–which drew from a Reformed Protestant reading of the Bible in which Jewish ideals continued to resonate–and considered whether the importance of biblical thought for the American Founding is abiding or merely historical. They discussed whether the Republic requires a moral and religious citizenry, as the Founders thought, or whether the morality requisite to our common life can rest on a secular basis. Participants examined how the Constitution dealt with problems of public religion. The considered the original setting of the religion clauses in the Bill of Rights and noted that, unlike the mid 20th Century paradigm of “strict separation of church and state,” the Founders' Constitution only proscribed a national established church. Participants came to understand that the contemporary diversity in the interpretation of the religion clauses has historic antecedents. The intersection between religious institutions, leaders, activism and rhetoric and the influence on American public life and culture was also examined, including the religious relation to debates over abolition of slavery, prohibition, and civil rights. Participants then took a detailed look at how American Jews historically dealt with the issue of religion in the public square: up until the late19th Century, American Jews believed, along with the majority of Protestants, that religion should play a major role in American public life. Only after the civil war, when there was a looming threat that America would be formally declared a Christian nation, did the Jews opt for “strict separationism.” Participants weighed the pros and cons of this transformation. Participants were challenged to assess whether Senator Lieberman's reversion to a traditional religious image was “good for the Jews.” Participants analyzed the significance of Jewish liberalism, drawing on the work of political scientists who study religious factors in voting behavior and on the project's two Jewish opinion surveys. They discussed whether the distinctively liberal majority Jewish attitude on religion, morality, policy and politics is cause for celebration or concern. Participants discussed whether American Jews are still assertive, proud liberals or whether a certain tentativeness or defensiveness has set in. Is modern liberalism's endorsement of self-fulfillment, privacy, and rights compatible with Judaism's historic emphasis on community, self-sacrifice, and duty? How can Judaism contribute to public thought? How should Jews define what are Jewish issues? How much of a role should traditional texts and Jewish law play in informing Jewish stances in the public square? Public Symposia The project had organized a major national conference for September 12-13, 2001 in Washington, D.C. Sixteen speakers and a national audience were set to convene at the Mayflower Hotel. This conference was cancelled amid the horror and the chaos of the morning of September 11. Rather than try to replicate the same conference at a later date, three regional public conferences were held, co-sponsored by local institutions. This multiplied the audience and increased the exposure of the project. Each public symposium dealt with the theme of Judaism and civic participation in American life and used project-related scholars as speakers. The public symposia were held at: Boston College, co-sponsored by The Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life and the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston (March 12, 2002) University of Southern California, co-sponsored by the Casden Institute for the Study of the Jewish Role in American Life and the Los Angeles Board of Rabbis (April 11, 2002) Brookings Institution, co-sponsored by the Ethics and Public Policy Center (May 9, 2002) Approximately two hundred persons attended these events. Earlier public symposia were also held in winter 2001, co-sponsored by the Museum of American Jewish History in Philadelphia and in the Boston area, co-sponsored by the Jewish Community Center of the North Shore in May 2000. Approximately 125 persons attended these events. Scholarly Forums Ten specialists in Jewish thought convened in Newport, RI in June 2002 for a two-day, intensive conversation on religion, Judaism, public policy and politics. The participants read one of the project's book length manuscripts (Religion as a Public Good: Jews and Other Americans on Religion in the Public Square, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003) as the basis of their discussion. I have always understood myself to be a Jew.  But the truth is that when thinking about religion and public life, I always thought only as an American deeply committed to our ambiguous national traditions. The most important thing that I took from our meeting and what thankfully remains with me is that I now think about the problem of religion and public life both as an American and a Jew.  For the first time, I am embarrassed to admit, I now am preoccupied with the problem of not only what does an American have to say about this crucial relation, but also what does a Jew, as a Jew, have to say about religion and public life. Prof. Steven Grosby, Clemson University Earlier, the project sponsored a session at the major annual scholarly conference for professors of Jewish Studies, the Association for Jewish Studies (Washington, D.C., December 2001). Project related scholars Alan Mittleman and Hillel Fradkin spoke on the current legal and cultural climate affecting the intersection between religious groups and public policy. Prof. Shelly Tenenbaum of Clark University served as a respondent. Media conference The release of the project's first survey in June 2000 was marked by a media conference at the annual meeting of the American Jewish Press Association in Washington, D.C. With dozens of Jewish journalists in attendance, Prof. Steven M. Cohen gave an executive summary of the survey, Religion and the Public Square: Attitudes of American Jews in Comparative Perspective. Alan Mittleman described the project as a whole. Student Forums In February 2001 the project sponsored a session on the Faith Based Initiative at the Spitzer Forum in Washington, D.C, the student conference that runs concurrently with the Jewish Council on Public Affairs annual meeting. The Forum is the largest public policy colloquium for American Jewish university students. The session was well attended and contentious. President Bush had recently inaugurated the White Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. Its first director, Prof. John DiIulio, was a plenary speaker at the Council's meeting and had mentioned the work of the project and of project director Alan Mittleman from the podium. In the project-sponsored student forum, Prof. Mittleman put the faith-based initiative into an historical and legal context, and participants debated the pros and cons of the plan. In January 2003 the project provided a rare opportunity for rabbinical students from all four streams of American Judaism (Conservative, Orthodox, Reconstructionist and Reform) to gather for a two-day seminar on the host campus of Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. Two students from Jewish communal service programs also participated. The participants read the project's two published books and discussed at length such questions as Is a common, civil religious value system any longer possible or desirable? Can appropriate moral values be nurtured without religious communities? Should a liberal state inculcate values and, if so, on what substantive basis? To what extent should religious values come into play in politics and public affairs? Should the liberal state engage with religious communities to help it discharge its responsibility to provide social services? If so, how do we weigh the good of service provision against the possibility of discrimination? Is the Jewish community's post-war consensus on church-state policy eroding? Should it? Who speaks for the Jews? What constitutes authority in a voluntary polity? How should the Jewish religious voice differ from the voice of American liberalism? How are “Jewish interests” defined? When do specifically Jewish interests diverge from the public interest? Under what circumstances and how should they be reconciled? If Judaism is not (or any longer) equivalent to liberalism, then what comes next? Is a more authentic, religiously grounded Jewish public philosophy possible or desirable? As in the other seminars and symposia, the group varied considerably in its views, reflecting the honest disagreements in the community. And, as in the other sessions, the participants profited from clear, focused discussion and informative readings. III. Published Research: A Library of Jewish Public Affairs The project engaged forty scholars to contribute essays on the relevant aspects of the Jewish encounter with American public life and the public presence of religion. The essays were edited into three books. Jewish Polity and American Civil Society: Communal Agencies and Religious Movements in the American Public Square, Edited by Alan Mittleman, Jonathan D. Sarna and Robert Licht (Rowman and Littlefield, 2002) is an encyclopedic treatment of public square activity conducted by both the civil and religious agencies of the organized Jewish community. Contributors: Allan Arkush, Joel M. Carp, Daniel J. Elazar, Gordon M. Freeman, Lawrence Grossman, Samuel C. Heilman, Michael C. Kotzin, Alan Mittleman, Martin J. Raffel, Lance Sussman, David Teutsch, Steven Windmueller. Reviewers Comments: This anthology is the most comprehensive treatment to date of the participation of the organized American Jewish community in the American public square. Covering both the major communal and religious groups, this collection of insightful articles by the leading experts in their fields is both well integrated and masterfully written. It is a must read for anyone concerned with organized American Jewry today–indeed, for anyone interested in the interaction of American religious and ethnic groups with the larger society. Prof. Steven M. Cohen, Hebrew University There is no better description of the organization and behavior of the American Jewish community in the public square. This is must reading for those interested in American Jews as well as those concerned with religion in the public life. The book is outstanding. Prof. Charles Liebman, Bar Ilan University Jewish Polity and American Civil Society is an extremely timely review of historic Jewish community agencies as well as of the social policies practiced by the major “denominations” of Jewish observance. The essays make evident how fully the Jewish people have adopted American ways while still insisting on distinctive goals and particular objectives. This volume is a signal contribution to the growing literature on religion and civil society, and a valuable resource concerning the several strands of Jewish tradition in U.S. history. Prof. John Wilson, Princeton University Overview Recent American social and political thought has been concerned with civil society, the hard-to-define realm situated between government and the marketplace. Civil society spans both the public and private. Ever since Alexis Tocqueville found a rich network of voluntary associations that animated American civil society, the health of associational life and the vitality of democracy have been paired. Presently, there are important reasons to worry about the health of American associational life. It seems that less and less people are joining organizations than they did in the first three quarters of the 20th century. Religious groups remain an exception to this pattern of “bowling alone,” that is, to the increasing privatization of American life. All observers agree that religious groups remain important, if not the most important, repository of social capital. Religious congregations are not only places to worship, they are places where citizens learn civic skills, such as working together to alleviate social problems through community serving ministries. Sacred places, as the journalist E.J. Dionne puts it, serve civic purposes. The establishment of the White House Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives offers a powerful recognition of this fact. Although Jews affiliate less with religious institutions than other Americans, religious congregations remain important for American Jews. Synagogues are relatively healthy institutions; more Jews join synagogues than other types of Jewish communal institutions–a worrisome “disconnect” for those concerned about the future of Jewish organizational life and its capacity to build social capital. In this book, both types of organizational actors–communal agencies and religious movements–are considered. The pairing makes sense insofar as the thorough intermingling of the sacred and the secular is the classic Jewish way. The book explores the history, policies, and current condition of the classic “defense agencies”–The American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, and the Anti-Defamation League. It studies the public affairs arm of the Federation system, the local community relations councils and their national body, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. One of the major points where the Jewish polity interacts with the federal government is in advocacy for foreign aid and political support for Israel. This most visible area of American Jewish activity in the public sphere is given a lengthy treatment. A less visible but equally important sphere of Jewish activity is the agencies that serve as providers of health and welfare services. The study shows that the entire Jewish social welfare apparatus depends heavily on public funds amounting to over $3 billion per year. The institutional structures and policies that the religious movements have created to assert their moral presence in the public square are studied in detail. In addition to the four “mainline” religious movements, the two ends of the spectrum, ultra-orthodox Jews and Jewish renewal advocates are also addressed. Collectively, the articles in the book constitute a modest encyclopedia of the civic and political engagement of American Jews as mediated by their institutions. Jews and the American Public Square: Debating Religion and Republic, Edited by Alan Mittleman, Jonathan D. Sarna, and Robert Licht (Rowman & Littlefield, 2002) is a prismatic treatment of the civic and political engagement of American Jewry. The contributors include historians, political scientists, sociologists, philosophers, and theologians. Contributors: Marshall J. Breger, Naomi W. Cohen, David G. Dalin, Sylvia Barack Fishman, Hillel Fradkin, Sherry Israel, Ralph Lerner, Alan Mittleman, David Novak, Martin J. Plax, Jonathan D. Sarna, Harvey Sicherman, Marc D. Stern, Jack Wertheimer. Reviewers Comments: This thoughtful and timely set of essays is sure to provoke–and enrich–debate on the roles of Jews and Judaism in American public life. The discussion is on a high level throughout, the authors well attuned to recent controversies. An unusually worthwhile collection. Prof. Arnold Eisen, Stanford University A long-overdue look at the role played by American Jewry in our civic life. The essays in this expertly edited volume are informative, provocative and skillfully written. Highly recommended. Prof. Jean Bethke Elshtain, University of Chicago Overview: This book is a study of how Jews have grappled with the presence of religion, both their own and others', in American public life. It looks at historical Jewish approaches to church-state relations and analyzes Jewish responses to the religion clauses of the First Amendment. It also looks at how the contemporary sociological and political characteristics of American Jews bear on their understanding of the public dimensions of American religion. The book's contributors attack and defend prevailing views, raising crucial questions about the political and intellectual positions of American Jewry. The current mood of the Jewish community is captured in the book. It provides the necessary background for a reconsideration of the problem of religion in the public square. Since the Founding of the American republic, there has been concern for the proper ordering or religion and public life, including governmental and nongovernmental dimensions of the public sphere. The distinctively American approach to these matters is encoded in the First Amendment, however what the code meant in the 18th Century, let alone what it should mean today, is endlessly controversial. The Founders' Constitution did not build a “wall of separation” between church and state. Rather it built a complex federal system where linkages between religion and government (controversial then and now) were acceptable at various levels. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson had a completely different approach to the problem of ordering religion and government from George Washington and Patrick Henry. These controversies are far from being resolved. Americans have been arguing over the meaning ensconced in the language of the Constitution for over two centuries. Despite debate, our collective religious life continues to influence our public and private choices including how we vote and how we see our nation and ourselves. We must look at “religion and republic” in addition to “church and state” as the great context in which issues of the public relevance of religion are addressed. For much of recent history, American Jews have been content to adopt American liberalism as their attitude toward the ordering of religion in the public square. Liberalism has been appealing to Jews. Until recently liberal public policy and jurisprudence were chary of many forms of government support for religion. Majoritarian Christian customs, such as prayer and Bible reading in public schools, crèches on the courthouse lawn on Christmas and the posting of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, were curtailed. The project of dismantling these historic Christian and civil religious customs began in mid-century and American Jews were counted among its architects. The confidence in this liberal project has faltered of late, however. The 19th and 20th century faith in scientific and technological progress as being necessarily good and moral was rendered incredible (if not obscene) by Auschwitz. Many think religious morals and values do have a necessary place in public life. Liberal thinkers no longer dogmatically see religiously informed moral understandings as intruders in the public realm. Instead, they are more concerned with distinguishing between when public expression of religious perspectives is helpful versus when it is hurtful. A measure of this transformation can be seen in the differing attitudes of politicians: When John F. Kennedy ran for president, he had to convince the Protestant establishment that he didn't take his Catholicism too seriously. When Joseph Lieberman ran for Vice President, he constantly told the public how seriously he took his Judaism. This decline in secular liberalism is perplexing for many Jews. Their investment in the belief in strict separation of church and state is threatened. Even the Supreme Court now considers disregard for religious groups as a form of discrimination. The growing case law that embodies the “equal treatment” approach provided the basis for the provision in the 1996 welfare reform legislation known as “charitable choice,” the law that allows religious groups providing social services to compete with purely secular service providers for government funds. Because they have believed in the strict separation of church and state for so long, Jews are now left without a sure-footed way of thinking about the larger cultural questions of “religion and republic” now that those questions have emerged. The purpose of this book is to provide American Jews and others with some basic tools as they begin the necessary process of rethinking the place of religion and in the public life of the republic. The book presents: Analyses of historic Jewish historic activity in the public square Approaches to constitutional law Studies of modern Jewish political culture and activism Explorations of issues in Jewish organizational life Constructive models for how to think about Judaism and public affairs A representative diversity of viewpoints as well as intellectual styles Among the main findings of the book are: The traditional organizations that represent Jews in the public square face increasing competition from single-issue, non-membership groups There is a growing “disconnect” between American Jews and communal organizations other than synagogues While Jews remain overwhelmingly liberal in their politics and policy views there is more openness to other options if they appear to satisfy Jewish interests Determining what Jewish interests are and where they lie has become more complex and urgent Cultivating new allies, such as Evangelicals and Latinos, has become more important Religion as a Public Good: Jews and Other Americans on Religion and the Public Square, edited by Alan Mittleman (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003) is a set of reflections and debates by leading Jewish and Christian public intellectuals. Contributors: Jean Bethke Elshtain, Michael Broyde, Erwin Chemerinsky, Marc Dollinger, Elliot N. Dorff, Mickey Edwards, William A. Galston, Michael Gottsegen, Kevin Hasson, Gertrude Himmelfarb, Alan Mittleman, David Novak, Carl A. Raschke, Jonathan Sacks, Alan Wolfe. Overview: The idea that religion serves not only a private but the public good is deeply embedded in American thought. Even secular intellectuals such as John Dewey, who was not a friend of traditional religion, thought it necessary for the republic to have, as the title of his famous book put it, “a common faith.” The basic idea is that a distinctive set of shared moral beliefs, framed by a common narrative of national character and purpose, is required for a free society. In the absence of loyalty to a monarch or deference to an aristocracy, democracies need shared beliefs and values to bind free and potentially anarchic individuals together. Such was the typical republican theory widely shared in the 18th and 19th centuries. The need to pursue justice through a politics set on the right path is as real in a secular age as in a religious one. Just as politics cannot avoid the realities of power, it cannot be detached from the pursuit of justice and the paths or morality either. The collapse of a shared moral understanding inevitably leads to a collapse of the rules of the game. We are witness to just such a collapse in many of the polities in our time. It is the discovery of a proper moral base or foundation, and its pursuit in a way that recognizes the realities of power, that is essential for a good politics. Prof. Daniel J. Elazar, Founding President, Center for Jewish Community Studies and Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs For much of American history, this religion-like cohesiveness was provided by what has been called our “civil religion,” an amalgam of beliefs, values and rituals that gave coherence to American ideals. Sacred personages (Washington, Lincoln), civic festivals (Independence Day, Thanksgiving), and founding myths (Plymouth Rock) shaped our understanding of the past and of our national purposes. It is widely held that civil religion went into sharp decline by the 1960's and the Vietnam War, and that–in our much more pluralistic, post-Protestant, indeed, post Judeo-Christian America–the old civil religion is no longer possible or desirable. What, if anything, serves to replace it? Most observers find that the traditional religious communities, as well as the communities of new immigrant groups (for example, Muslims), serve this function. The beliefs, values and communal life of religious communities, although infinitely varied, serve, sometimes inadvertently, civic purposes. How then should Jews and others think about religion and the public good in an age of unprecedented American religious diversity? Fourteen distinguished Jewish and Christian public intellectuals, scholars, and activists contributed their reflections on this theme to this volume. An Afterword by a distinguished foreign observer, Dr. Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi of Britain, concludes the book. The close connection between political prosperity and religious principles has been widely understood and remarked upon throughout American History. Whether we label it a republican ethic or a civil religion, the belief has been that a civic culture nourished by deep religious-moral impulses is absolutely necessary to sustain the American experiment in ordered liberty. As we become ever more conscious of the fraying fabric of American public life, as manifested, for example, in a general lack of civility and social trust or in citizen disengagement from the institutions of government, perhaps it is time to re-examine the role religion might play in helping to rebuild a healthy public square. Dr. Luis Lugo, Director, Religion Program, The Pew Charitable Trusts IV. Surveys: Charting American Jewish Opinion The project conducted two national surveys on Jewish and non-Jewish attitudes toward issues of religion in the public square. Prof. Steven M. Cohen of The Hebrew University directed each study. I. Religion & the Public Square: Attitudes of American Jews in Comparative Perspective Since its beginnings, American society has struggled with defining the boundary, and setting the proper distance, between church and state. Steven M. Cohen The purpose of this survey was to provide a theoretical and practical evaluation of the phenomenon of American Jewish liberalism. It was sent to American Jews, to a group of non-Jews similar to Jews in terms of their education and region, and to a sample of Jewish leaders who participated in the Annual Plenum of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA). The survey was fielded between January 24 and February 28, 2000 by the Washington Office of Market Facts. The national sample of American Jews was composed of 1,002 Jewish respondents who completed the mail-back survey. Respondents belonged to Market Fact's Consumer Mail Panel, a group of 600,000 Americans who have agreed to be surveyed from time to time. About 14,000 households had at least one Jewish adult, making them eligible for the survey. Of these, 1,400 were sent questionnaires. About 70 percent of the households that received questionnaires returned them. The demographically adjusted national sample of American non-Jews was drawn from the same Consumer Mail Panel. The group was chosen based on region and education to in order to produce a distinctive sample of non-Jewish Americans. Nine hundred panel members received the survey, and 76 percent, equal to 684 non-Jews, completed it. The sample of 111 Jewish leaders was drawn from around the continent and consisted of participants in the JCPA's annual conference. The JCPA, formerly the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council (NJCRAC), is a highly respected and prominent Jewish communal defense agency that for decades has been active in promoting a separationist agenda, among other issues of concern to American Jewry. The JCPA probably constitutes the segment of Jewish communal leadership that most clearly represents and maintains organized Jewry's vigorous support for separationism. This survey allows us to glimpse those competing ideas that, at their most polarized, postulate wholly different visions of the place of religion in society. Riv-Ellen Prell Survey Questions: Survey questions on key attitudes were derived from three sources: national surveys on religion in the public square conducted by major national polling organizations; previous surveys of American Jews; and a review of legal cases under consideration by the Supreme Court, currently or in the recent past. Replicating questions previously asked of a similar sample by the same research company helped to discern whether Jewish attitudes have changed in the last decade or so. To better understand the results, five elite figures from the worlds of Jewish communal service, community relations, and academia were interviewed. Results show that Jewish opinions about religion and American public life are anything but off-the-cuff, momentary, or impulsive. Opinions of American Jews derive from a well-considered worldview. Despite some recent changes such as the growth in Jewish day school enrollment and the seeming decline in attachment to historic American liberalism, Jews remain far more separationist than other Americans, even more than those with similar regional and educational backgrounds. Moreover, Jewish leaders, specifically the activists at the JCPA conference, are even more strictly separationist than American Jews in general. On school-related items like prayer in school, posting the Ten Commandments, providing vouchers for private or religious school tuition, and sharing facilities with religious schools or student religious groups, non-Jews outscored Jews in support for accommodation, and Jews outscored Jewish leaders. For instance, 65 percent of the non-Jews, 38 percent of Jews, and only 5 percent of JCPA leaders supported the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools. The most hotly contested contemporary issue in the survey was probably school vouchers. Support for vouchers is almost twice as high among non-Jews as Jews, and about twice as high among the Jewish public as among the leaders. Major Findings: Jews remain far more separationist (and far less accommodationist) than other Americans of similar education and status Jewish leaders (specifically, activists at the JCPA conference) are even more strictly separationist than American Jews in general Non-Jews outscored the Jewish public in support for accommodation (in terms of prayer in schools, posting the Ten Commandments, providing vouchers for private or religious school tuition and allowing the use of public school premises by religious student clubs) The Jewish public outscored Jewish leaders in support for accommodation (same terms as above) Jews are politically and culturally more liberal than non-Jews, leaders even more so The Jewish public is more wary of anti-Semitism than are the leaders Specific findings: More Jews than non-Jews and more Jewish leaders than Jews support strict separation of church and state in public schools. For example, sixty-nine percent of non-Jews support allowing non-denominational prayers to be read in the classroom, while only 28 percent of Jews and 5 percent of Jewish leaders do. When it comes to making public school classrooms available to student religious groups to hold voluntary meetings when classes are not in session, 63 percent of non-Jews, 39 percent of Jews, and 7 percent of Jewish leaders approve. Seventy-seven percent of non-Jews think public schools should be allowed to teach Christmas carols as long as they also teach Hanukkah songs, while 56 percent of Jews and 13 percent of Jewish leaders agree. Regarding government aid in the form of vouchers to families for tuition in private, non-religious schools, 40 percent of non-Jews approve, while 24 percent of Jews and 14 percent of Jewish leaders do. For private, religious schools, 43 percent of non-Jews, 22 percent of Jews, and 11 percent of Jewish leaders approve of vouchers. Behind these numbers, the long-standing Jewish fear of Christian religious indoctrination in schools is evident. The Jewish public is especially reticent to endorse prayer in schools or school vouchers, but almost half (48 percent) supports a moment of silence for voluntary prayer and 56 percent support the teaching of Christmas carols as long as Hanukkah songs are also taught. The long-standing support for separationism on the part of non-Orthodox American Jews may be linked to three related larger sentiments or identities: minority status insecurity; liberalism; and secularity Steven M. Cohen Fewer Jews than non-Jews support the expression of religion in public life, while the Jewish public and leaders diverge on the issue. On the majority of questions (six out of nine), the pattern of responses is similar to that of the questions on schools. Non-Jewish support for religious influence exceeds that of the Jewish public, which exceeds that of Jewish leaders. For example, there was support for the public display of religious symbols such as Christmas mangers and Hanukkah candles by non-Jews, a large minority of the Jewish public, and hardly any of the Jewish leaders. There were issues on which Jewish leaders were more supportive than other Jews but still less supportive than non-Jews. These included the belief that democracy works better if Americans are religious, that belonging to a church or synagogue makes one a more aware and engaged citizen, and that religion should play an important role in shaping American values. Considering the views on separationism reported above, these findings are surprising. With the leaders so much more strictly separationist than the public, one would have expected them substantially to trail the public in their support for religious influence in society. Another area where the JCPA leaders endorsed religion's political involvement far more than Jews in general (or even, in these cases, than non-Jews) was the use of religion in the abortion debate by the right to life movement (42 percent of non-Jews, 15 percent of Jews, and 50 percent of Jewish leaders approve) and the discussion of political candidates or issues from the pulpit by clergymen (30 percent of non-Jews, 35 percent of Jews, and 73 percent of Jewish leaders approve). Cohen's survey revealed that Jewish communal activists are the most committed to a neutral public square at the same time they are committed to Jewish practice. They saw no contradiction between a strong commitment to democracy and pride in Judaism. Riv-Ellen Prell ATTITUDES TOWARD CANDIDATES' EXPRESSIONS OF FAITH   Jews who approve Jews who disapprove Non-Jews who approve Non-Jews who disapprove Politicians speaking out against sex and violence in movies and on TV 66% 19% 74% 14% Politicians speaking about their faith in God and quoting the Bible in public 16% 62% 52% 31% George Bush's proclamation of "Jesus Day" in Texas 3% 90% 24% 45% Al Gore's comment that he never makes a major decision without asking himself what Jesus would do 10% 67% 42% 30% Joseph Lieberman's references to God and quoting from the Bible in his speech in Tennessee after being selected by Gore 21% 52% 45% 29% Richard Cheney's sponsorship of a constitutional amendment to permit prayer in schools 16% 69% 59% 23% Religion in the campaign disturbs me 53% 25% 30% 45% Jews are liberal on social issues, leaders more so. While leaders associated with other religious communities often take a conservative approach to issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and the availability of pornography, Jewish leaders are quite liberal on these issues, more so than the Jewish and the non-Jewish publics. For example, almost half of non-Jews feel homosexuality is wrong, while only 23 percent of Jews and a mere 7 percent of Jewish leaders do. A huge 96 percent of Jewish leaders feel abortion should be “generally available,” followed by 88 percent of Jews and 58 percent of non-Jews. Jewish leaders are more politically liberal than Jews and especially, non-Jews. Only 19 percent of the non-Jewish public identifies itself as liberal, whereas 32 percent of the Jewish public and 74 percent of Jewish leaders do. This distribution is similar with respect to identification with the Democratic Party: 31 percent of non-Jews, 59 percent of Jews, and 81 percent of Jewish leaders. When it comes to their political background, 10 percent of non-Jews say their fathers were liberal, and 15 percent claim their mothers were liberal. Twenty-five percent of the Jewish public had or has a liberal father, and 26 percent a liberal mother. Of JCPA leaders, 35 percent claim a liberal father and 55 percent a liberal mother. Further evidence for the Jewish identification with the liberal camp lies in its support for liberal activist groups. Ninety-three percent of Jewish leaders support the NAACP, followed by 77 percent of the Jewish public and 59 percent of non-Jews. The American Civil Liberties Union had a 92 percent approval from Jewish leaders, 61 percent from the Jewish public, and 34 percent from non-Jews. On the flip side, far more non-Jews than Jews support politically conservative groups. For example, 42 percent of non-Jews look favorably on the National Rifle Association as opposed to 19 percent of the Jewish public and 18 percent of Jewish leaders. The Jewish Public is more wary of anti-Semitism than are its leaders. There is a stark contrast between members of the Jewish public and Jewish leaders when it comes to the perception of anti-Semitism in American society. Just 9 percent of the Jewish public believes that anti-Semitism is not currently a serious problem for American Jews, as contrasted with 45 percent of Jewish leaders. And just 31 percent of the Jewish public agreed that virtually all positions of influence are open to Jews, in contrast to 70 percent of leaders. Sadly, there is confirmation of the regular finding in Jewish opinion research that America's Jews continue to regard anti-Semitism as a live threat. It was Samuel Johnson who, remarking on a gentleman who had been very unhappy in marriage yet married immediately after his wife died, said that this was 'the triumph of hope over experience.' As well one might say of America's Jews that their view of anti-Semitism is an instance of the triumph of fear over experience. Leonard Fein Among Jews, the scant comparative data suggest a slight retreat from separationism, i.e. slightly less opposition to religious influence in society. Throughout the survey, comparisons between Jewish opinion in 1988 and current Jewish opinion show a slight lean toward accommodation. For example, in 1988 51 percent of the Jewish public agreed with making public school classrooms available to student religious groups to hold voluntary meetings when classes weren't in session. By 2000, this number had risen to 53 percent. In 1988, 19 percent of Jews supported providing government aid (vouchers) to families for tuition in private schools, including religious schools. By 2000, support had risen to 22 percent. On the issue of expression of religion in public life, 36 percent of Jews said it was okay for a city government to put up a manger scene on government property at Christmas in 1988, while 43 percent gave approval their in 2000. In 1988, 61 percent of Jews considered themselves Democrats, but this number dropped to 59 percent in 2000. In terms of their affinity for activist groups, Jews have become increasingly more supportive of, for example, the National Organization for Women, with 51 percent supporting NOW in 1988 and 77 percent supporting it in 2000. Jews have also become more sensitive to anti-Semitism. In 1988, 14 percent of the Jewish public did not think anti-Semitism was a problem; in 2000, only nine percent thought so. Cohen's data show the complexity of American Jewish opinion. He notes that there is a “slight movement” or “a scant of a shift” toward accommodationism or away from liberalism, a significant minority who are more religious and more accommodationist, and a “shrinking of the middle” that is most committed to separationism. Future surveys must thus be awaited with great interest Elliot Abrams II. Religion and the Public Square: Attitudes of American Jews in Comparative Perspective–A Follow-Up Study In August of 2000, Peter Steinfels wrote about the initial “Religion and the Public Square” survey in the New York Times. In light of Senator Joseph Lieberman's recent nomination, Steinfels suggested a second survey to gauge the impact of the nomination on Jewish opinion. The project was glad to comply. The first survey showed how suspicious American Jews were of letting religion play too great a role in American public life. How would Jews react to Senator Lieberman's religious moralist rhetoric? Would his dramatic use of religious and traditional moral themes make Jews even more uncomfortable with public religion? To answer these questions, a second survey was fielded between September and October 2000 by Professor Steven M. Cohen. The same 1300 people who had responded to the first survey responded to the second one. The participants included 837 American Jews, a sample of 501 non-Jews, demographically adjusted (white only, fewer Southerners, and more highly educated than the American population in general) to closely match the Jewish sample. The response was 84% for Jews and 73% for non-Jews. ATTITUDES TOWARD JOSEPH LIEBERMAN   Jews Non-Jews Many potential voters for Gore were turned off by his choice of Lieberman as his running mate. 20% 16% Gore's choice of Lieberman improved his chances of victory in November. 52% 36% I might have voted for Gore, but I won't now because I don't like his running mate. 1% 5% The Lieberman nomination has brought a large amount of financial donations to the Democratic campaign from Jewish supporters. 24% 21% Lieberman's religious commitment enhances his moral stature. 64% 53% Lieberman is too conservative. 13% 7% Lieberman is too liberal. 6% 11% I was happy that a Jew was nominated for high office. 84% 45% I was especially happy that a religious Jew was nominated for high office. 55% 39% Major Findings: Jews more enthusiastically welcomed the Lieberman nomination than non-Jews, but they remain insecure about their acceptance into American society, perceiving anti-Semitism substantially more frequently than non-Jews More Jews than non-Jews oppose candidates expressing their fervent religious commitment in public, even when expressed by a candidate as admired as Lieberman Questions on religious accommodation/separation in public schools: Slightly fewer respondents (both Jews and non-Jews) support tuition vouchers More respondents support allowing students to say non-sectarian prayers at sporting events Non-Jews remain far more accomodationist than Jews. For example, 85% of non-Jews as compared with 49% Jews favor a moment of silence for public school students to pray if they want to Questions about religion in public life: Both Jewish and Gentile respondents hold essentially the same views as they did in the previous survey on the need for more laws governing moral behavior, the availability of abortion, and the desirability of Congress opening its sessions with a prayer More non-Jews than Jews expressed conservative views on all these matters. For example, 75% of non-Jews approve of Congress opening with a prayer versus 31% of Jews Both Jews and non-Jews express somewhat less support for religious institutional involvement in politics than they did in survey one, although the differences are small. For example, the proportions supporting the view that churches and synagogues should keep out of political matters grew from 36% to 42% among non-Jews and from 44% to 49% among Jews. Questions about the national election campaign: More Jews than non-Jews said the outcome is very important to them (64% versus 52%) Jews leaned heavily toward the Democrats while non-Jews were divided between Bush and Gore but leaned slightly more toward Gore Jews had strong favorable impressions of Gore and Lieberman and largely unfavorable impressions of Bush and Cheney while non-Jews, on balance, reported favorable impressions of all four candidates For both Jews and non-Jews, Lieberman garnered the largest ratio of favorable to unfavorable impressions Questions on the candidates' expressions of faith: Jews are far more disturbed than non-Jews by the high profile of religion in the presidential campaign, both globally and with respect to the four American candidates. For example, almost four times as many non-Jews as Jews approve of Richard Cheney's support for prayer in schools (59% versus 16%) and a similar ratio among non-Jews and Jews support politicians speaking about their faith in public (52% versus 16%) Twice as many non-Jews as Jews approved of Lieberman's references to God and quoting from the Bible Questions on attitudes toward Joseph Lieberman: Few Jews or non-Jews criticized Lieberman for being too liberal or too conservative but Jews, by a small margin, thought he was too conservative and more non-Jews thought he was too liberal Both groups saw Lieberman as more of an asset than a liability to the Gore campaign, and more Jews than non-Jews held that view Both groups are happy that a Jew was nominated for a high office (84% Jews, 45% non-Jews) and especially a religious Jew (55% and 39% respectively) but the differences between Jews and non-Jews are instructive Among non-Jews, the positive reactions to a “religious Jew” as a candidate are almost as frequent as those to “a Jew” being nominated (39% versus 45%). Among Jews, however, there is a limited enthusiasm (55% versus 84%). The results show Jews were happy a Jew was nominated, but they were not particularly happy that he was a religious Jew. Questions on anti-Semitism Jews retain the same levels of concern for anti-Semitism in America as they did in survey one (although presumably, such concerns have risen since the outbreak of violence in Israel). The only noticeable change in their views is an increased assessment of anti-Semitism among Southern Baptists and a decreased assessment of anti-Semitism among Fundamentalist Protestants Fewer non-Jews than Jews perceive anti-Semitism, or express concern about the issue Twice as many non-Jews as Jews (40% versus 22%) believe Jews have been fully accepted in America Following the Lieberman nomination, twice as many Jews as non-Jews worried about anti-Semitism (64% versus 32%) Significantly, very small numbers of Jews or non-Jews endorse statements seemingly critical of Jews, even those that may have some empirical plausibility. Hardly anyone (Jewish or non-Jewish) would agree that Jews dominate an entertainment industry that promotes freedom from all sexual restraint (6% and 9%) Majorities of both groups think that Jews need not abandon their practices or observance to succeed in American society (60% Jews, 66% non-Jews). At the same time, about half (more among Jews, fewer among non-Jews) are unsure whether Jewish politicians are hurt by their being Jewish In sum, the results point to ongoing and relatively stable attitudes among Jews and non-Jews since the earlier survey in February 2000. More than non-Jews (then and now), Jews are liberal, Democratic, and separationist on matters of church and state. Moreover, more Jews were positively moved by the Lieberman nomination. In addition, more Jews than non-Jews are concerned with anti-Semitism in American society. The power of their abiding concern over anti-Semitism has a radical and pervasive influence on their views about religion in American public life. III. Attitudes on Religion and Public Life in the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania: a Comparative Study Since 2000, when the first two surveys were conducted, much has changed. The horrific events of 9/11 have shown us that we ignore the impact of religion on the contemporary world at our peril, indeed, that some versions of religion are our peril. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of a tuition voucher program in Cleveland that allows for public monies to be spent at parochial schools. The Bush administration has implemented an ambitious faith-based initiative wherein religious organizations that deliver social services can compete with secular agencies for grants. At the same time, public discussion of new biotechnologies, such as stem cell research and therapeutic cloning, evokes a host of religious issues. Seeking more information on Jewish reaction to these latest developments, Jews and the American Public Square approached the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion, Prof. Mittleman's home institution, to conduct a survey of Jewish and non-Jewish attitudes in the Lehigh Valley region of eastern Pennsylvania. The Lehigh Valley, which embraces the cities of Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton, as well as the suburban and rural communities in between, is thought by demographers to be representative in key ways of the nation as a whole. The portrait of American Jewish opinion that emerges here is, we believe, also typical of Jewish views across the United States. The survey data of the sample of Jews in the Lehigh Valley derived from a mailback questionnaire completed by 525 Jewish respondents. The survey was fielded between September 15 and November 1, 2002, by the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion. The principal research was Prof. Christopher Borick, Director of the Institute. The respondents were drawn from a sample of approximately 2500 households in the Lehigh Valley who had at least one adult who was Jewish. The list of households with Jewish members was gathered from the Jewish Federation of the Lehigh Valley (JFLV). The JFLV maintains a database of Jewish households within the Lehigh Valley which is drawn from various organizations serving Jewish populations, including regional synagogues. Of the approximately 2500 questionnaires that were sent out, about 21% returned questionnaires. It is important to ascertain the extent to which the sample of Lehigh Valley Jews compares to the broader Jewish population in America. To accomplish this we compared the sample with the results of the 1990 National Jewish Population Study (NJPS) and with the first survey of Jewish Americans conducted by Jews and the American Public Square. Our sample is somewhat more involved religiously and somewhat less likely to be from the Reform denomination than American Jews at large. More specifically, while 42% of our sample reported that they attended synagogue monthly or more frequently, only 27% of NJPS respondents in 1990 and 24% of Jews and the American Public Square respondents in 2000 reported similar behavior. While the percent of Conservative, Orthodox and Reconstructionist Jews is very similar to the results of the NJPS study, the percentage of individuals identifying themselves as Reform (27%) is significantly less than the 41% identified nationally. This discrepancy may be an indicator of a regional deviation from national averages, and/or the product of our inclusion of a category of “just Jewish” as an option on the questionnaire. The sample of Lehigh Valley non-Jews (N=343) was drawn from a random sampling of households within Lehigh and Northampton counties. The selection of those counties generally mirrors the geographic range of the JFLV's sample of Jews in the Lehigh Valley. In order to assure that each household within the Lehigh Valley had an equal chance of being selected for receiving a questionnaire, Genesys Sampling Systems of Fort Washington, PA was contracted to generate a random sample of 2500 households within the Lehigh Valley. A questionnaire containing identical questions to the one used in the Jewish sample (excluding questions related to Jewish identity) was sent to each household selected by Genesys. The respondents constituted 14% percent of the households who received the survey. All individuals identifying themselves as Jewish in the random sample were removed from the sample to ensure clean comparison with the Jewish sample. Major Findings While a plurality of both Jews (51%) and non-Jews (36%) opposed the recent Supreme Court decision allowing tuition vouchers to be used at religiously affiliated schools, Jews are more likely than non-Jews to oppose the inclusion of religious schools within voucher programs. While Jews are more likely than non-Jews to indicate that tuition vouchers would hurt the quality of public schools, there is agreement between Jews and non-Jews on the conditions necessary for a tuition voucher program to be put into effect. (See Table One below) A majority of Jews and non-Jews oppose recent lower court decisions removing “God” from the Pledge of Allegiance (57% Jews, 80% non-Jews) and forbidding the display of the Ten Commandments in government buildings (58% Jews, 83% non-Jews), yet Jews are significantly more likely to approve of these verdicts. Jews are three times as likely as non-Jews (37% Jews, 12% non-Jews) to indicate a belief that there is too much religion in public life. Support for policies such as same sex marriage, euthanasia and scientific research related to cloning is significantly greater among Jews than among non-Jews (see Table Two below). There is a high degree of uniformity between Jews and non-Jews regarding a proposal to allow faith-based organizations to apply for government funding to provide social services, with a majority of respondents from each group supporting this policy (50% Jews, 56% non-Jews). Table One Support for Selected Tuition Voucher Alternatives Policy Proposal Jews Non-Jews (Overall) Non-Jews (College Educated) Pennsylvania should create a tuition voucher plan for poor families to use in private schools, including religious schools. 27% 43% 40% Pennsylvania should create a tuition voucher plan for families of any income level to use in private schools, including religious schools. 28% 48% 50% In order to receive vouchers paid for by tax dollars a private school should have to meet certain standards established by the state. 77% 77% 79% In order to receive vouchers paid for by tax dollars a private school must admit students no matter what religious beliefs they hold. 70% 74% 77% School vouchers should only be provided to students when the voucher will cover the full cost of tuition at a private school. 18% 17% 15% Table Two Support For Selected Policy Positions In favor of: Jews Non-Jews (Overall) Non-Jews (College Educated) Protestant Catholics Allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally 63% 29% 39% 26% 24% Allowing scientific research related to human cloning 57% 29% 39% 29% 23% Allowing scientific research using stem cells 92% 63% 78% 68% 55% Making it legal for doctors to give terminally ill patients the means to end their lives 84% 62% 69% 67% 53% Halting the use of the death penalty 32% 21% 25% 12% 32% V. Conclusion Debate, reflection and controversy over the appropriate public role for religion in American society go back to our founding and will continue as long as America remains both democratic and religious. The Jewish share in this has been complex. Jews have shifted ground over the course of two centuries. Despite an earlier stance of accommodationism and endorsement of inclusive public religion, a consensus in favor of strict separationism emerged in the 20th century. That consensus, as with much else in American Jewish life, is open to renegotiation today. A changed legal, social, and policy climate have opened the inherited views up to vigorous debate. Jews and the American Public Square has contributed to this debate through its books, forums, and surveys. We hope that the materials assembled by the project will continue to serve as a ready resource as the debate proceeds. The project wishes to thank The Pew Charitable Trusts for the generous support that enabled it to do its work. The opinions expressed in this report are those of its principal author, Alan Mittleman, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Trusts. Jews and the American Public Square Prof. Alan L. Mittleman, Director Executive Committee: Prof. Daniel J. Elazar (deceased), Prof. Jonathan D. Sarna, Dr. Robert Licht (1999-2001) Affiliated Scholars: Hon. Elliot Abrams, Washington, D.C. Prof. Allan Arkush, Binghamton University Prof. Sylvia Barack Fishman, Brandeis University Prof. Marshall Breger, Catholic University of America Prof. Michael Broyde, Emory University Joel Carp, Jewish Federation of Chicago Prof. Erwin Chemerinsky, University of Southern California Prof. Naomi Cohen, Jerusalem Prof. Steven Cohen, Hebrew University Dr. David Dalin, James Madison Program, Princeton University Prof. Mark Dollinger, San Francisco State University Prof. Elliot N. Dorff, University of Judaism Hon. Mickey Edwards, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University Prof. Jean Bethke Elshtain, University of Chicago Divinity School Prof. Leonard Fein, Boston, MA Dr. Hillel Fradkin, Ethics and Public Policy Center Dr. Gordon Freeman, Rabbi, Congregation B'nai Shalom, Walnut Creek, California Prof. William Galston, University of Maryland Dr. Michael Gottsegen, Center for Jewish Learning and Leadership Dr. Lawrence Grossman, The American Jewish Committee Kevin Seamus Hasson, The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Prof. Samuel Heilman, Queens College, CUNY Prof. Gertrude Himmelfarb, Washington, D.C. Prof. Sherry Israel, Brandeis University Prof. Barry Kosmin, Jewish Policy Research Institute, London Dr. Michael Kotzin, Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago Prof. Ralph Lerner, University of Chicago Prof. David Novak, University of Toronto Prof. Martin Plax, Cleveland State University Prof. Riv-Ellen Prell, University of Minnesota Martin Raffel, Jewish Council for Public Affairs Prof. Carl Raschke, University of Denver Prof. Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi, United Kingdom Dr. Harvey Sicherman, Foreign Policy Research Institute Marc Stern, American Jewish Congress Dr. Lance Sussman, Rabbi, Kenesseth Israel, Philadelphia Dr. David Teutsch, The Reconstructionist Rabbinical College Prof. Kenneth Wald, University of Florida Prof. Jack Wertheimer, Jewish Theological Seminary Prof. Steven Windmueller, Hebrew Union College, Los Angeles Prof. Alan Wolfe, Boston College Back to Home Page