I know that whatever a politician says during a campaign is not meant to be taken seriously and that the most inane comments can usually be dismissed as simple pandering. But it is hard for a Jew like myself to ignore the very non-Jewish remarks last week of vice-presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman when he proclaimed that there should be a greater role for religion in public life and made his ridiculous assertion that the Constitution guarantees only freedom "of" religion, but not freedom "from" religion. As Lieberman continues to erode the lines between the separation of church-and-state, I am forced to wonder just how Jewish is he, anyway?
All American Jews know what it is like to be a minority in this country. Every day, confronted by countless Christian images, messages, and cultural beliefs, we are reminded of our second-class status. The general view of the "inferiority" of our religion is especially rubbed in our noses by those proselytizing Christians who would convert us. Perhaps it is more for such practical defensive reasons, rather than principle, that nearly all Jews are strong advocates of the separation of church-and-state. So for Lieberman to make such claims, as well as his support of public prayers and school vouchers, feels almost like a betrayal. The Jewish Anti-Defamation League was right to openly criticize him; and there should be no place for religion in public life, as it is very exclusive in such a pluralistic society as ours. Jews should know that more than most.
Regular readers of "Content of Character" will recall that two weeks ago I attended a meeting of the Orlando City Council. That meeting was opened with a public prayer invoking Jesus. As a Jew, I felt unwelcome, that the city was not concerned with me or my views. I felt excluded from the group. I have learned to put up with such insults from a Christian majority, but how can I tolerate a fellow Jew like Lieberman arguing for more public religion rather than less?
Lieberman asserted that our nation needs to behave more morally, and that that moral foundation should come from religion. No doubt, he was referring to "moral lapses" such as Clinton's adultery and Hollywood's obsession with sex and violence, which he has vehemently criticized in the past. But is this really what's wrong with the American "moral fiber"? What about the morality of greedy corporations and corrupt government officials? Racial injustice and poverty? Aggressive wars and an eroding environment? And is religion the only way to solve such problems? Saying a prayer before a football game certainly doesn't seem to be the answer.
Morality can come from many places: leadership by example, philosophies, art, and even a simple belief in doing the right thing because it is right. One does not necessarily need the "fear of God" to behave in a moral manner, and Lieberman is terribly cynical if he believes that is the only way to motivate moral behavior.
No doubt it is important for a candidate to tell us what he believes so we can decide whether or not to elect him; but Judaism teaches that deeds are far more important than beliefs. And so when a Jew holds up his beliefs much higher than his record, one has to wonder just how faithful he is to his own religious teachings.
Lieberman also seems to have missed his secular teachings as well. Unless he is purposefully distorting for the sake of getting elected, he truly doesn't understand the US Constitution. To say that the First Amendment guarantees only freedom "of" and not "from" religion is to totally misread the clear secular intent of the wording: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Any historian can tell you that our Founding Fathers of the Eighteenth Century wanted to keep government divorced from religion partly as a reaction against the Seventeenth Century Puritans who burned witches in Salem.
And besides, Lieberman's ridiculous analysis is a contradiction. How can you have freedom OF religion without also freedom FROM religion? That would be like saying, yes, you have the right to be a Jew, but you do not have the right to refrain from praying to Jesus.
Clearly, with his campaign, Lieberman is showing that he is not interested in the Jewish vote, and therefore is pandering to the Christian Right. He should be careful because such a strategy could backfire. Although numerous Christian fundamentalists might appreciate his call for more religion in public life, polls show they still intend to vote Republican. And Jews, whom Lieberman seems to be taking for granted, may feel so betrayed that they will vote against him.
What is the content of Lieberman's character? Well, like all politicians, we cannot know what's really on the inside. But based on his public persona, it certainly doesn't look very Jewish.