Concluding Essay by Rabbi David Saperstein

Rabbi Cliff Librach’s contribution to this exchange is, as usual, thoughtful and articulate. It appears that we agree on many of the things we want in America although we disagree strongly on how to achieve those goals.

So what do we want?  In his concluding essay, Rabbi Librach writes quite movingly about how he would like to see Jews able to proudly and publicly celebrate Shabbat, Simchat Torah, Pesach, Shavuot as a robust expression of Jewish life, both for its own sake and with the additional hope that these celebrations may be an inspiration to America.  Me too.  Of course that vision is fully realizable under the strictest interpretations of church-state separation.  I cannot imagine how the argument would go that suggests the only way to have robust Judaism is to tear down the wall of separation. 

The Establishment Cause does not restrict Judaism or any other religion – or the activities of their adherents.  It only bans government's endorsement, support or interference with religion.  Indeed,  just as importantly,  a wall separating church and state keeps government out of our religious life and allows for precisely the robust expression of our religious life that we seek by ensuring no government interference or control of our religious decisions or our communal religious life.  Ironically, Rabbi Librach’s effort to tear down the wall  would do significant damage to the very things he cherishes.

In the “back and forth” spirit of this exchange,  Rabbi Librach’s final posting focuses on my critique of his argument.  In that same spirit, let me note that he has erred on five counts.  

First, Rabbi Librach suggests that the fact that he is out of sync with the overwhelming majority of the views of Reform Jews, with their fears of the religious right and its agenda to transform America does not make him wrong.  Of course not.  No one suggested it does.  His arguments fall on their substance not their lack of popularity. But I am glad that he acknowledges that he is out of sync with the vast majority of the community.  In contrast, I am proud that the work of the Union for Reform Judaism, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, and the Religious Action Center in leading efforts to fight the religious right’s campaign efforts to Christianize America so captures the hopes, aspirations and concerns of American Jewry.
 
Second, Rabbi Librach suggests that he has been “Borked” in this exchange, i.e. accused of holding positions he does not, in fact, hold.  I will return to this, but permit me to address his digression regarding Judge Bork.  He cites the opposition to Robert Bork’s nomination to the U.S. States Supreme Court as one of the great smear campaigns of American history.   The Union was one of the leading organizations opposing Judge Bork precisely because we believed that his vision of the law was so radically different from the mainstream of the nation and of American Jewry that his  appointment endangered much of the expansion of freedom and opportunities for Jews and other minorities brought about by the Warren and Burger courts.  But for those who haven’t followed Judge Bork’s career since the nomination, he has proved to be as radical as we feared. He has explained that were he on the Court, he would have voted to overturn Roe v. Wade; has called for broader censorship in America;  forcefully criticized Supreme Court rulings that checked discrimination against gays and women,  and that restricted organized prayer in school settings (calling the Court “incredibly hostile to religion”);  and proposed undermining the doctrine of separation of powers by allowing any Supreme Court decision to be overturned by a 2/3rds vote of Congress.

We don’t oppose judicial nominations often, but when we do, we do it because it makes little sense to fight for justice, equality, opportunity and civil liberties in the legislative branch and then remain silent while nominees to the federal bench are appointed who are committed to reversing many of the great achievements our efforts helped bring about.

Third, Rabbi Librach gives only one example of having been accused of extreme positions he does not hold. He asks: what scintilla of evidence has he to justify his murmur that I favor, “government funding for parochial schools, clergy salaries, and missionary activity...?”  But (note the placement of the quotation marks), the criticism was entirely different.  It didn’t suggest he favored these things;  it points out that the logic of the argument he favors, i.e. that the Establishment Clause bans only a national or state religion, is exactly the same logic used by those who would tear down the wall separating church and state altogether.   It is precisely that he is legitimizing views that will go far beyond his intended consequences that make his policy prescriptions so alarming.

Fourth, the discussion of the intent of the establishment clause leads him to reassert a claim about the framers’ original intent and his assertion, as proof for his position, that “most states had established churches when the first amendment was ratified by them.”  Not so my friend.  As they say: you can look it up. Only a handful of the New England states, descendents of the Puritans, still had establishments: Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire.  Religious discriminatory provisions in other states without established churches were rapidly being phased out in the 1780s and 90s.  Yes there were hold-outs but the clear direction was away from established religion on all fronts and the First Amendment needs to be read in that historic context.  

Fifth, Rabbi Librach argues that because the government provides hundreds of millions of dollars to religiously affiliated charities (Jewish federations, Catholic charities) that we already have a Faith Based Initiative (FBI) and shouldn’t be concerned by President Bush’s FBI efforts.  But that is an argument against not for the FBI.  The High Court has never had a problem with such funding and neither do we.  In contrast, the Court has never approved direct government funding of pervasively sectarian institutions (i.e. houses of worship and parochial schools).  It is this limitation that the Bush Administration and the religious right want to demolish. As the phenomenal work of the affiliated charities testifies, we don’t need to endorse parochiaid and government financing of churches to have an effective partnership between the religious community and the government in providing social services to the poor and needy of our nation.

Finally,  Rabbi Librach asks: Why are the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jimmy Carter and Abraham Joshua Heschel to be praised but the efforts of James Dobson and Ralph Reed to be condemned and demonized?  Rabbi Librach confuses two values: free speech and moral correctness.  We should defend with equal vigor the right of these leaders to their free speech and free exercise of religion.  But just because one has a right to say something does not make what they say or do right.  King, Carter and Heschel stood with our prophets in proclaiming justice for all and the obligation to help the downtrodden, the minorities, the oppressed.  Dobson and Reed stand for the Christianizing of America that would radically change the nature of this nation.

Rabbi Librach reassures us: ‘I do not fear the Christian character [of this nation].”  But that, good rabbi, is exactly what divides you and me.  For I want a government that is neutral on religion and for the sake of my grandchildren  will oppose relentlessly policies aimed at stamping a Christian character on our nation, our government,  or our public institutions.