Newspaper Page Text
The Southern Israelite
Page 7
Keep Religion Out of Polities
Why the Synagogue Should Steer Clear of the Legislative Field
By DR. SOLOMON B. FREEHOF
this article, written exclu-
11a' the Seven Arts Feature
syndicate and The Southern
Pr. Freehof, brilliant
and ow of the most
lutharitative scholars in the rab-
! field, discusses in clear,
ret ul language just what
! be the sphere of a rabbi’s
influence and what he should
severely alone.—Editor.
stmotion must be made between
■digjoii and the church. They cannot
entical, for it is possible for the
one to he weak while the other grows
strong. W e Jews, for example, have a
eligion and a weak church, in
ost no church at all. Religion
i> a group of ideas. It is the attitude
people maintain toward things
eternal. A church, however, is an or-
ganbation uniting all people of like
thought over a whole country or over
the world. It is a machinery for sys-
tnatizing and organizing the religious
sentiments of people. Religion is a
: a church is an institution. We
iave a religion and individual syna-
< which, to some extent, institu-
e this religion. But each syna-
; completely self-governing. We
have no organization which can dictate
Jewish congregation what it
> or how it must worship or
"Ctrine it must adhere to. We
i religion but no nation-wide
church.
derstanding this distinction be-
a religion and a church, we can
ret more correctly the mood of
influential journals and public
i America with regard to re-
i in politics. It is perhaps not re
nt all to which they are object-
1 hey may say that the trouble
; the American government lies
y in the fact that there is too
religion in public affairs and too
church. At all events it is not
weakness of religion that worries
s ° much. They are concerned
with the power of the church.
it is evident that when into the
law-making, which should be
1 experimental, the church en-
1 its conviction of infallibility
and
the be
and
°hurch
crusading fervor, it will, with
t of intentions, be a hindrance
a danger. How dangerous the
can be when it enters the field
ation has become evident in
recent
years.
For many years the question of pro
hibiting intoxicating liquors has been
debated in the United States. The
question could have been discussed as
all other government measures are dis
cussed; namely, on the basis of its
social value, from the medical or from
the political points of view. It could
have been advocated or opposed ob
jectively, calmly and rationally. But it
happened that the church seized upon
this proposal as its “pet" legislation
and entered the political field in order
to have it passed as law.
With the entrance of the church the
whole tone of the debate changed.
When politicians debate with each
other they say: “You are wrong; you
will lose votes.” When business men
disagree they say to each other: “You
are mistaken; you will lose money.”
But when religions debate they say:
“You are damned; you will burn in
hell.”
That is the mood which the church
interested in this particular bit of legis
lation brought into the American gov
ernment. It massed its forces for a
great crusade which was conducted
with the same fiery zeal which the
church employs when it fights to de
liver sinners from the clutches of evil.
After years of bitter invective and de
struction of property the battle was
won and the resulting prohibition laws
were added to the Constitution and to
the statute books.
The prohibition of intoxicating liq
uor achieved by the church has now
a status unlike that of any other en
actment of Congress. Every other law
is properly deemed human; but this
particular one, brought about by church
influence, is considered as divine. Any
other law may be amended without
apology or fear, but let anybody pre
sume to suggest changing this quasi
divine enactment and all the forces of
the church militant will be turned
against him. It would be sensible to
defend this law on the ground that it
is for the good of society or that it
has not yet received a fair test—but
to say that God Almighty is on the
side of the Volstead Act is to make
use of very confidential information.
This particular law exemplifies suffi
ciently how unfitted the church is for
the experimental work of law-making.
Twenty years ago no one would have
believed that any church could become
so powerful that it would be able to
force the Bible upon unwilling children
in the public schools in spite of the
protest of another religion; or succeed
in persuading state legislatures to de
fend a sectarian interpretation of the
Bible by prohibiting certain scientific
teachings. But today we have become
accustomed to reading of such things.
We seem to be at the beginning of
an era of increasing church dominance
in American governmental affairs. Pre
cisely which church dominates is merely
incidental. Any church which steps out
of its own community and, even in be
half of a good cause, brings its cru
sading fervor and its positiveness into
government affairs becomes a source of
danger to the American Republic.
The increasing sectarian influence
over American legislation must not be
borne quietly and patiently. We as
Jews should be the first to protest.
We have been the classical victims of
religious tyranny. But we do not pro
test as Jews. We protest as Ameri
cans who happen to be particularly
sensitive to the dangers of church in
fluence in governmental matters. We
join with those of our fellow citizens
who wish to revive the spirit of the
American Constitution, which sought to
respect all churches, great and small
alike, and which hoped to keep our
government free from sectarian control.
The task before all public-spirited
Americans today is a two-fold one;
first to persuade the great influential
churches of our country to keep within
their own sphere, and secondly to keep
our government impartial and secular.
When the colonial groups that were
religious minorities in the Old World
came together in America to form a
new republic they wrote into the law
of that republic that never as long as
their influence would last over their
posterity would Congress make any
law providing for the establishment of
any church or prohibiting the free ex
ercise of any religion. That was the
principle written into the Constitution;
and to the honor of the American re
public be it said the Government has
kept its word. As far as the law can
provide for it no one is barred from
any office or made subject to any dis
ability because he is a Jew or a Cath
olic or a Protestant. Prejudices of the
people themselves may prevent a man
of a certain religion from attaining a
certain office, but the law knows no
such distinction. The law never takes
sides in any religious dispute. It never
interferes between church and church.
I lie churches have therefore from
the beginning of our republic received
a special privilege. The government
interferes between labor and capital,
between farm and city dweller, but it
has never interfered between church
and church. This special privilege con
stituted an unspoken agreement. If
the government promised that it would
not interfere with the church, the
church has thereby tacitly agreed that
it would not meddle with legislative
matters, a meddling which has been
the curse of Europe. The government
has kept its word, but the churches
have broken their faith with the gov
ernment.
The church owes something to the
American government. This govern
ment has given the church more free
dom than to any other element in
American life. The church must pay
for that freedom by useful services to
the State. But the church cannot serve
usefully unless it first discovers its own
true function and then fulfills that
function to the best of its abilities.
The noblest quality in any church, Jew
ish and Christian alike, is its moral ele
ment, its dynamic love for righteous
ness. The American Republic today
urgently needs the propagation of such
a mood. The outstanding menace to
our government is political corruption,
but the people no longer protest against
the prevalent political dishonesty. They
would rather not interfere in matters
that arc too big for them; they are
willing to let things go. They even
find excuses for the situation. They
are corrupt and content.
Whose business is it to deal with
this moral degradation of the Ameri
can masses? Not the schools—they
deal only with children. Adult moral
education, as much of it as exists, is
conducted only by the Church. It is
the only agency which has specialized
in morality ami has developed a tech
nique for the revival of conscience.
Therein lies the duty of the church
of America. The church and the syna
gogue have the power of arousing a
tremendous sense of moral responsi
bility. America needs that mood as
much as it needs the sense of moral
indignation. The great enemy of dem
ocratic government everywhere is the
indifference of respectable people to
the elementary duties of citizenship.
The true function of the church can
be summed up in a sentence: Not to
influence legislation but to influence
character; to avoid control of the ma
chinery of government but to prepare
men and women for the duties of
democracy. This is the natural work
of the church. This it can do better
than any other agency.
(Copyright, 1930, by S.A.F.S.)