Jews and the American Public Square is a three-year project of communal dialogue, research and publication devoted to exploring the relationship between the faith and culture of American Jews and their civic engagement. Initiated by a major grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts, the project seeks to foster greater public understanding among both Jews and non-Jews of the role of religion in America's ongoing public conversation. OBSERVATIONS, the project's occasional newsletter, offers insights and comments on religion and public life. In this first issue, project director Alan Mittleman delineates some of the issues central to the project. Guest contributor Murray Friedman looks at a current issue, "Charitable Choice." The issue also contains a review of relevant books and an update on project activities. For more information, visit the project's website at www.cjcs.net.

June 2000                                     Number 1 Church and State and Religion and the Public Square: Defining Our Terms Of all 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 simply be asked, Where is the security for property, 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 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 At first glance these quotations from two of our most famous Founders seem to work in opposite directions. How are we to reconcile them? The second, from James Madison, teaches a lesson familiar to and beloved by American Jews. Madison and his colleague Jefferson were staunch advocates of what has come to be called "separation of church and state." Madison believed that a "line" must be drawn between the two. Jefferson, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, spoke of a "wall." Precisely what these rhetorical symbols meant in the 18th century, let alone what they ought to mean today, has always been controversial. At the very least, Madison and Jefferson believed that there should not be an established national church. In their home state of Virginia they worked against a bill to establish a broadly inclusive Protestantism as the favored, state-supported religion. They opposed religious tests for public office and the use of public taxes to pay the salaries of clergy or to buy land to give to church bodies. In the 18th century, the constitutional "separation of church and state," of which Madison was the principal architect, was compatible with officially sponsored, established churches in several states, as well as with religious tests for public office under state constitutions. The scope of what "separation of church and state" meant at the Founding was considerably more restricted than what 20th and 21st century advocates for it mean. Indeed, the current understanding of separation of church and state is largely a post-World War II development. Nonetheless, contemporary advocates of separation can claim, to a certain extent, a line of descent from distinguished Founders. They claim to apply and fulfill, under modern conditions, the ideals of religious liberty and disestablishment initiated by the Founders. But what are we to make of Washington's quote? It envisions a more intimate relationship between religion and the public square than many modern advocates of separation of church and state find acceptable. Does Washington's view contradict Madison's or simply aim at a somewhat different target? Washington, in his Farewell Address to the nation, urged Americans to cultivate those moral habits essential to liberty. Washington believed that liberty, the sustained ability of free persons to rule themselves, cannot flourish in the absence of moral virtue and that virtue is nourished by religion. Although his public utterances were ambiguous enough to keep his contemporaries guessing as to whether he was an orthodox Christian or a Deist, he evidently believed that democracy could not be sustained without a religious citizenry. Accordingly, Washington supported the move to reintroduce an established church in Virginia. That move was defeated - the opposition was led by Madison - but Washington's larger concern for the inner connectedness of religion and the public life of the nation remains vital. This concern was also shared by Madison. Recall that in the quote from Madison above, the author praised the separation of church and state precisely because it enhanced the vitality of religion. That vitality, in turn, contributed to the "industry," "morality," and "devotion" of the people and their religious leaders. Let us then define our terms. "Church and State" refers to a set of highly structured legal arrangements ordering the relationship between governmental entities and religious institutions. "Religion and the Public Square" refers to the complex connections between the religious beliefs and practices of Americans and their lives as citizens. These two domains are not mutually exclusive. (One's belief about the place of religion in American democratic life surely influences one's approach to the religion clauses of the First Amendment.) Nonetheless, it is useful to separate them for many of the issues related to religion and the public square cannot be settled in a judicial way. We have to articulate our first principles. What should the relationship of religion to the public square be? Here are some basic questions: To what extent should legislators and other lawmakers let their views be shaped by their religious beliefs? Must religious citizens recast their religiously informed convictions into secular-sounding views before they utter them in public debate? Does religion help or hinder the search for common values and purposes in American life? Does religion give the democratic conversation moral tone and passion? Or does it demonize the opposition and hamper civility? What is the appropriate public (albeit non-governmental) role of religious leaders and religious bodies? What activities are inappropriate for them? How should Jews respond to the rising presence of evangelical Christianity in American life? Is Christianity, as a moral, social and political force, fundamentally threatening to Jewish life in America? Given the perceived crisis in American Jewish "continuity," would a general revival of Christianity in the US have positive consequences for Jews and Judaism? Or is the presence of "public religion" neutral or irrelevant to the lives of American Jews? Questions such as these require a shared "public philosophy": a thoughtful consideration of how the moral and religious character of society relates to the process of self-government. One of the aims of Jews and the American Public Square is to open up a wide-ranging discussion of public philosophy among American Jews. In the twentieth century, American Jews have arguably been better students of Madison and Jefferson than of Washington. They were successful beyond their fondest expectations in defending their rights and achieving equality with their Christian neighbors. Part of their successful strategy was to advance a jurisprudence of strict separation of church and state. This 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 confidence in government, about a general decline in 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. Is it possible for American Jews in the 21st century to give thoughtful consideration to how the energy and moral seriousness of religion can once again nourish what is best in us and help to curb what is worst in us? The American Jewish community is overdue for an open and serious public discussion on this perennial theme.

During the last decade, three important books (two of which were written by contributors to this project) appeared on the subject of the American Jewish community and religion in the public square. Together, these three are required reading for anyone who seeks a detailed appreciation of how American Jews have approached the problem of "public religion."

Historian Naomi Cohen, author of the authoritative Jews in Christian America: The Pursuit of Religious Equality (Oxford University Press, 1992), has written the first comprehensive history of Jewish attitudes toward public religion from the 18th century through the 1960s. In the first part of her book, she shows how Jews negotiated the possibilities and limits of religious liberty in a colonial society where Protestant churches were either legally or de facto established. In the 19th century, Jews argued for their equality in a largely Christian America by stressing the religious dignity of Judaism and their own devotion to the Revolutionary cause. Their vision of America, like that of their neighbors, was of a religious society, but one that would be broadly inclusive. Government should be affirmative but neutral toward all religions. The idea that government should be neutral toward both religion and non-religion, that is, equally affirmative of both faith and atheism was not seriously considered. American Jews accepted the basic premise of their Christian fellow citizens - that religion is integral to the American experiment in democracy - but they rejected the premise that only Protestant Christianity could endow Americans with the requisite virtues and public morals necessary for self-governance.

Cohen shows how this broad bent toward "accomodationism" began to break down after the Civil War when the country went through a period of religious soul-searching. In response to increasingly aggressive pressure for a "Christian amendment" to the Constitution and other palpable symbols of Christian dominance, Jews began to advocate a stricter separation of religion and state. Jewish leaders at the end of the 19th century advocated an end to Bible reading in the public schools, Sunday closing laws, and laws to enforce Christian morality. For the first time, Jews made common cause with atheists and freethinkers, and propounded a secular vision of America. At the same time, however, Jewish leadership - largely drawn from the Reform movement - keenly sensed the tension between their own status as religious leaders and the secular ideal that they advocated.

In the 20th century, as lay-led "defense agencies" largely displaced rabbis as the voice of the organized community, inhibitions about the strategy of secularization declined. In the second half of her book, Prof. Cohen studies how the main defense organizations became involved in litigation and public education to eliminate long-standing practices such as government-sponsored school prayer, released and dismissed time for religious instruction, state aid to sectarian schools, Sunday laws, and the prevalence of religious symbols in the public square. Throughout the period, "strict separation of church and state" became the dominant ideology and strategy of the community. Nonetheless, leading American Jewish thinkers continued to dissent from this view.

In a related work, To Build a Wall: American Jews and the Separation of Church and State (University Press of Virginia, 1995), Gregg Ivers goes over much the same ground but from the perspective of a political scientist. Ivers shows that strict separationism was initially quite controversial even among the secular defense organizations. Both the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League were skeptical converts to the strategy of fighting for church-state separation in the courts. Committed as they were to public education and intergroup relations, their leaders worried about how Protestants and Catholics would perceive American Jews were they to appear at the forefront of efforts to dismantle the vestiges of public reli-gion. The community and its leading institutions were far from unanimous in their commitment to this strategy. Ivers' book details the role of Jewish defense organizations, both as friends of the court and as counsel for the plaintiffs, in the major church-state cases of the 20th century. On the basis of Ivers' research, it is fair to say that the Supreme Court decisions that shaped the fundamental law of church and state over the last four decades were influenced by the activism of the organized Jewish community.

Historians Jonathan Sarna and David Dalin edited Religion and State in the American Jewish Experience (University of Notre Dame Press, 1997). This work offers a fascinating compendium of primary source documents from American Jewish and other relevant sources on religion in the public square. Many of texts that Cohen and Ivers use, from the Colonial period up until recent times, may be found in this volume. Jewish letters, "memorials" to Congress, newspaper articles, friend of the court briefs, essays, pamphlets, and memoranda from all periods of American Jewish life present a picture of a community intensely engaged in the pursuit of both liberty and equality in a largely religious, often emphatically Christian, America. Prof. Sarna's authoritative introduction depicts the changing strategies that Jews have used, as well as the conflicting images of America that they have entertained.

Taken together, these books illustrate that the problem of religion and the public square was always of pressing concern for the Jewish community. Jews were never entirely of one mind and always aware of the costs and benefits of their various strategies and tactics. As American Jews pressed for their own rights, they were determined to care for the common good, presenting their opinions about public religion as the best policy for the nation as a whole.

As public attitudes toward public religion, both within the Jewish community and in the general society, continue to change, Jews would do well to acquaint themselves with their considerable history of involvement in these matters. The flexibility and adaptability they showed in the past may yet serve them well.

Naomi Cohen, David Dalin, and Jonathan Sarna are contributors to Jews and the American Public Square .

---

In Summer 2000, Jews and the American Public Square will release the findings of a major public opinion survey on Jewish and general opinion on religion in the public square. The survey, conducted by Prof. Steven Cohen of the Hebrew University, compares the views of American Jews and their leaders with a broad sample of non-Jewish opinion. For a free copy of the survey, write or call the Center for Jewish Community Studies.

In Fall 2000 the project will conduct four regional seminars for Jewish communal professionals and volunteer leaders. Invited participants will study the history of American Jewish thought and activism regarding religion in the public square, and converse about the place of religion in contemporary American public life. The seminars will be led by Prof. Alan Mittleman, director of Jews and the American Public Square , and by participating scholars.

NORTHEAST REGION
Philadelphia
September 17-18
Rittenhouse Sheraton Hotel

MIDWEST REGION
Chicago
October 29-30
Palmer House Hilton

SOUTHWEST REGION
Los Angeles
December 3-4
Summit Hotel Bel Air

SOUTHEAST REGION
Miami Beach
December 17-18
Eden Roc Resort and Spa

---

"Charitable Choice" and Jews

Since World War II, Jewish public policy postures have been shaped by two critical forces. The first has been the sense that Jews can find safety and prosper only in a society where church and state are sharply separated - in Thomas Jefferson's formulation where a wall exists between them. As a result, Jews worry about even minor chinks that might be created in that wall.

The second is that the Judaic faith and tradition requires Jews to stand on the side of the discriminated against and disadvantaged in society. Jews identify strongly with the underdog, having been there themselves. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that they have been often in the forefront of efforts to broaden civil rights and alleviate the plight of the poor.

These two guiding principles seem to collide now in the upcoming debate on "charitable choice." In 1996, Congress enacted legislation in the federal welfare reform law designed to change the conditions under which government may contract with religious organizations eligible to receive government contracts and grants - including houses of worship that some regard as unable to segregate the social service from the religious message - so long as there is strict accounting and no support for acts of worship or evangelizing. Additional legislation along these lines has been promised.

It is not hard to understand why this idea has come to prominence now. Americans are concerned about the decline in public morality. Traditional government welfare programs have not done the job and may have even fostered greater dependency. Religious institutions are seen as closer to people and may be able to add an additional dimension of support through what some have called faith-based activism. Moreover, the courts in recent years have been looking more kindly on partnering government and religious groups where the public welfare is concerned.

Many people who care deeply both about religious liberty and about the provision of effective social services particularly for the economically and socially disadvantaged may disagree about the constitutionality and advisability of charitable choice. Most Jewish religious and civic bodies, for example, have announced opposition to charitable choice. They see it as a violation of the separation principle and worry that it will lead to the "Christianization" of the society. They are concerned also about proselytization of those receiving services from pervasively sectarian bodies and the possibility of employment discrimination.

Curiously, some conservative religious bodies are worried about charitable choice, based on their historic apprehension about government intervention in their institutions. In contrast, liberal and black churches tend to be more approving. Thus, Jewish bodies, ironically, have aligned themselves more with evangelicals rather than traditional, liberal allies.

Charitable choice, nevertheless, has been gaining political support. During the recent presidential primaries, both Vice-President Al Gore and Texas Governor George W. Bush announced their support. It has also had bipartisan support in Congress.

While Jewish groups - the Orthodox excepted - are opposed to charitable choice, recent developments in Jewish life are creating a countervailing force. The growth of assimilation and intermarriage have caused many Jews to seek new ways to strengthen the community. While support for education is not yet part of charitable choice proposals, some are looking to government aid for their financially strapped day schools. Taken together with growing dissatisfaction within the community with poverty programs, some look at a new partnership with government as salutary.

Is there a way in which the two principles guiding Jewish public policy can be reconciled?

As the debate over charitable choice emerges, the American Jewish Committee and its Myer and Rosaline Feinstein Center for American Jewish History at Temple University are engaged in a project underwritten by The Pew Charitable Trusts to seek legal, common ground among various bodies that normally disagree about church-state issues. The model is a recent set of Department of Education guidelines released by President Clinton in 1995 based upon recommendations of these very same groups. The President outlined the legal and appropriate forms of religious expression in public schools and endorsed the 1984 Equal Access Act which requires equal treatment of student gatherings, including religious meetings that are student-initiated and student-led. It is felt by some that the strategies and assumptions undergirding these guidelines are applicable to broader areas of public service, including charitable choice. Where differences among the groups cannot be reconciled, it is hoped that at the very least those involved in the project can gain a clearer understanding of what divides them and help the public better understand the issues involved.

In the first years of the new century, the debate over charitable choice promises to be as divisive as aid to parochial schools, Bible reading, and prayer in the public schools were in the post-World War II years. It has been the genius of the American political system to work out the means by which seemingly intractable conflicts can be solved to the satisfaction of most people. As the volume of the debate over charitable choice escalates in and outside the Jewish community, it behooves all of us to watch with close care the latest front in this country's ongoing culture wars.

Murray Friedman is Director of the Middle Atlantic States region of the American Jewish Committee and Feinstein Center at Temple University, and principal investigator of the Pew project on charitable choice. He is author of The Utopian Dilemma: American Jews and Public Policy.

Back to Home Page

---