Back to Home Page
With the Supreme Court refusing to hear arguments on Eugene's public cross, the issue seems to be coming to a close. Yet while the cross may be moved from the butte, the larger issue of the role of religion in the public arena remains.
The constitutional protection of minority religions through non-favoritism of any religion is enshrined in the doctrine of the "wall of separation between church and state". This policy also attempts to keep government from trivializing religion by using religion to legitimize political policy. (Politicians on both sides of the aisle claim Gd as co-author of their platforms, but formal policy is free from such sanctimoniousness). This policy should have the effect of protecting religion in general from government intrusion, clearing the way for religious bodies to teach their values and morality to an unencumbered citizenry. What has happened, however, is that there has been created a confusion about the appropriate role of religion in public debate. In the effort to maintain the separation religion has been assigned second class status. Rather than understanding religion as the source of morality, religion is shunned as an illegitimate and non-rational partner for deciding and articulating policy. Those who reference religion as the source of their ethical decision-making are treated condecendingly at best, and berated as "zealots of the religious right" at worst. This, in turn, has the effect of stifling the voices of sincere and intelligent religious people who fear being labeled as extremists and thus marginalized.
The obvious fact is that all values come from somewhere. The ethics of the secularist stem from his own set of beliefs that are based on the same non-empirical type of evidence as are religious values. (Actually, that religion is faith-based and not rational is a description applied more accuratly to Christianity than to Judaism. The Torah commands not to believe in Gd but rather to understand that Gd exists as described in Tanach and the Talmud. We are to know that Gd exists based on the overwhelming natural, historical and logical evidence. Faith is not a substitue for but rather the end-product of the knowledge of Gd). Based on this secular set of assumptions the non-religious activist lobbies to form policy and works towards its implementation. This is seen as the natural political process. Yet when the set of assumptions is based on religious values they are seen as outside the pale which defines legitimate debate. Those who are moved to action based on religious ethics are condemned as "attempting to force their religious values on the rest of us." Secularists have been successful at promulgating the false claim that religious people as such should have more limited access to the democratic process than do they. This spurious and disingenuous notion has had a deliterious effect on the ability of those who are forming their thoughts and opinions on ethical issues. They are told by society's observers, critics and analysts that to base public policy on religion-sourced ethics is to violate the very underpinnings of our democracy.
Nothing could be further from the truth. America is in many respects a highly religious society. There is a higher church and synagogue attendance here than in Europe. The vast majority of Americans profess belief in Gd and declare a denominational preference. For very many Americans, their religion serves as the source of their values and indeed informs their political choices. There is no compelling reason to exclude religion from the conversation as policy is debated in government and in the media. This need not breach the wall of seperation as no particular religion or religious view be promoted above another, at least in the discussion stage. Naturally, once a policy has been formulated it will reflect some views and oppose others. That is not exclusive to religious thought and need not be held as a reason to exclude religious concepts from the debate. Acknowledging religion in general as the source of our most positive ethical guidlines and obligations is non-threatening to all. Turning to classic religious texts to gain greater understanding of the nature of humanity and society would be perfectly consistant with the beliefs of not only the majority of Americans today, but also with the thoughts and motivations of the founding fathers of this country. We will live in a healthier society when we settle not for our culture's minimal standards of values, but when we strive to live up to Gd's high expectations of us.
Rabbi Efraim Davidson
An anonymous letter was received recently which took issue with some of the points in my December message on Channukah. I would be interested to speak with the writer to discuss the matter further. Judaism does not claim for its clergy infallibility. I welcome openly your thoughts and the opportunity to learn from you. Please feel free to call me and arrange a time to get together.
Rabbi Efraim Davidson
