In Jews and the American Public Square: Debating Religion and Republic, edited by Alan Mittleman, Robert Licht, & Jonathan D. Sarna, Sarna writes:
On the one hand, history teaches Jews to favor strict church-state separation as the only defense against a Christian dominated state. Those who emphasize this reading of history think that sooner or later, “so-called non-denominational religious exercises” inevitably acquire “sectarian additions and deviations,” and that “non-denominational” then becomes the majority’s term for what the minority views as decidedly partisan....
It’s undeniable that this is exactly what typically happens — not just in America, but elsewhere in the world as well. An important part of the problem, I think, is the fact that members of a religious majority tend to forget what is really “non-denominational” (if there is such a category) and what is special to their own religion or church. It’s easy for a person to assume that the way they do things is the way everyone does things — or at least should do things, if they only understood how to do them properly.
Even the very term “non-denominational” has a particularly Christian character in that it purports to merely rise above the differences between various Christian “denominations” — but what about other religions? A non-denominational religious perspective might have Christian hymns, Christian prayers to a Christian god (or at least a single generic god), and express Christian ways of looking at the world. All of this would exclude one or many other religious traditions.
When the state endorses and promotes such “non-denominational” religious exercises, it sends the message that Christian denominations are favored while non-Christian religions are, therefore, disfavored. When non-Christian religions are accorded a second-class status in the eyes of the state, then non-Christians necessarily assume a second-class status. The state is no longer neutral in its dealings with religion; instead, it becomes an advocate of particular religious perspectives — a partner of religion, but not one that any reasonable religion should need, much less want.
On the other hand, history also teaches Jews to oppose secularization as a force leading to assimilation, social decay, and sometimes to persecution of all religions, Judaism included. Those who emphasize this reading of history welcome appropriate manifestations of religion in American life, and they propose a less absolutist approach to church-state separation — freedom for religion rather than from it. They insist that “support for religion is basic to the American system,” and they fear that completely divorcing religion from national life will result in “a jungle where brute force, cunning, and unbridled passion rule supreme.”
Only the idea “that wrongdoing is an offense against the divine authority and order,” they argue, can protect society against delinquency and crime. They also point out that Jews, as a small and often persecuted minority, should be wary of setting themselves too far apart from the majority lest anti-Semitism result.
The perspective described here is one that is being increasingly adopted by conservative and Orthodox Jews; unfortunately, it’s incredibly misguided. There are numerous examples of secular societies where Jews are not persecuted. The real complaint is the one which conservative Christians have — and it’s not that a secular society “oppresses” religious believers. Instead, it’s that a secular society is one where religious believers are not privileged in any way and where there are many alternatives to religion which provide access to social services and things that make them happy without having to rely on religion.
In essence, the threat posed by secularization to religions like Judaism isn’t the threat of force, but the threat of competition. In traditional religious societies, religion is privileged in a way that makes it a more attractive option — or, sometimes, the only option. Religion provides the only access to schooling, the only access to health care, the only access to food for the hungry, etc. In a secular society, those public goods are provided by secular institutions where religion is not promoted or endorsed. In effect, people are shown that they don’t need religion anymore; over time, the message sinks in and increasing numbers of people abandon organized religion in favor of personalized spirituality or no religion whatsoever.
This is a threat to religious believers, especially adherents of minority religions which have few enough members to start with. It’s not unreasonable for conservative Jews to endorse the promotion of religion even at the risk that it will turn out to really be the promotion of Christianity because, in the long term, religious Jews may benefit from the privileging of religion even if their actual faith is excluded in many ways from official state endorsements.
The favoring of even a single religion may, over time, benefit all religions — especially those religions which are at least somewhat similar to the majority faith that is being favored most. Minority religions that are very different, like Santeria or Wicca, aren’t likely to take comfort in such possibilities though. I wonder if the Jews who endorse the above position ever think about that — or, if they do, much care.
Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.