Retaining religious freedom

defending the First Amendment against the Christian right ...

... because if Jews don't speak out, they'll think we don't mind

Web JewsOnFirst

Optional Member Code

Please email us
(click here)
catcher@JewsOnFirst.org

And "bookmark" us at
JewsOnFirst.org

Jews on First
P.O. Box 33821
Washington DC 20033

310-910-9153

Retaining religious freedom

By Ed Corson, The Macon Telegraph (Macon, Georgia), April 07, 2006

"Keep the separation of church and state strong for the sake of America" is the way Rabbi David Saperstein ended his second lecture on the subject at Mercer University on Tuesday.

Saperstein is director and counsel of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in the nation's capitol. A leading religious lobbyist for 30 years, he has often been in coalitions with Christians in defense of religious liberty as well as social justice issues.

He has often worked with the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty; the BJC co-sponsored his appearance at Mercer, kicking off a new series of annual lectures named for Drs. Walter B. and Kay W. Shurden.

Why a rabbi/lawyer/lobbyist to inaugurate a series of Baptist-sponsored lectures? Saperstein began by reviewing what Jews and Baptists have historically had in common:

As groups that "challenged the assumptions" of religious authority, both suffered persecution where religion was linked to politics; both are run by congregations rather than a hierarchy, encouraging diversity within their ranks; as "a light to the nations" both seek to set standards of ethical behavior and social justice for all humanity.

Despite all the differences of theology and practice between the two groups, Saperstein said, they agree that "robust religion free of government control" is an essential component of American freedom and enjoyment of rights.

The Constitution, he noted, forbids religious tests for holding office and bans government interference with religion or the free expression of religion. Individual rights are not to be related to religious beliefs or practices.

But he also noted that parallel to this story, American Christians, like the ancient Jews, also have in their history a countercurrent.

Efforts to protect the role and rule of religion in a promised land or new world were made by creating "political structures based on God's laws," as in Puritan New England or ancient Israel. And both impulses are now on view in American life.

He noted that Justice Antonin Scalia and others on the Supreme Court have sought to weaken or abandon the "Lemon test" (named for Lemon vs. Kurtzman,) defined by former Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1971 and used by the court ever since: Government action concerning religion must have a secular legislative purpose, neither advance nor inhibit religion, and must not foster an "excessive entanglement" with religion.

Those who say separation of church and state is "anti-religion" are fostering a myth, the rabbi said. America has more worshipers, higher church attendance and more profession of belief in God than any other nation after 200 years of that separation. "Those who would tear down that wall for the sake of religion" would only weaken the role of religion in America.

In his second lecture (I had to miss the third), he defined what he thought were the appropriate and inappropriate roles of religion in the elections this year and in 2008.

OK: The religious views of candidates should be made known, and they should say how they view religious issues, and how their religious belief would affect their views on "non-religious" issues.

Not OK: Supporting or opposing policies on the basis of religious belief alone; suggesting a religion test for political candidates and policies; using too much religiously exclusive language having a divisive effect and leaving groups feeling left out.

It's OK to advise people on the morality of various policies, but not to force them to choose between religious authority and conscience by telling them how to vote or else.

He used posting of the Ten Commandments (a Jewish scripture) in public places as an example of the religious right's new strategy of pushing symbolic and pocketbook issues, gradually erasing the fine church-state line in an effort to correct our culture's moral corruption by bringing in government power.

"We owe the fundamentalists gratitude for getting the moral corruption on Americans' radar, but not with their answer of using government to establish the Christian religion at the center of American life."

Fair Use Statement: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.