Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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.)