But the very next day, as Lieberman uttered similar sentiments to clergy in Chicago, he received a response from the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. It wasn’t applause from the amen corner. The ADL objected to Lieberman’s insistence that “as a people, we need to reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God’s purpose.” This appeal to “belief in God,” the organization argued, is contrary to the First Amendment and to “the American ideal.” Nor did the organization agree with the senator’s belief that “morality cannot be maintained without religion.” American atheists, the ADL declared, “should not be made to feel inferior, or left out of the [political] process.”
In response, Lieberman agreed that an atheist could be a good president. But the irony was as evident as it was jarring. Here was a Jewish watchdog group criticizing one of its own for expressing his religious convictions–and exercising his freedom of speech. In the ADL’s view, “public profession of religious beliefs should not be an elemental part of this or any other campaign.” Translation: “Shut up already.”
Most Americans disagree. A NEWSWEEK Poll shows that 51 percent think religion should play a bigger role in public life and only 28 percent believe Lieberman talks too much about his faith. Obviously, both the Bush and the Gore campaigns have decided that God talk is something most citizens are ready to hear. But how much is too much? And where should candidates draw the line?
To a certain extent, the flap over Lieberman’s overtly religious rhetoric is an intra-Jewish affair. When it came into being in 1913, the ADL was designed to combat anti-Semitism on behalf of a wary immigrant minority still trying to find its place in the American public square. But with the political awakening of Christian fundamentalists who once shunned the world, the ADL has targeted the “religious right” as the Jews’ most dangerous domestic enemy. To be consistent the ADL cannot allow a Jew–even an observant one like Lieberman–to make the same appeal to religion that the organization finds objectionable in candidates of an openly evangelical persuasion.
But many Jews find the ADL’s position extreme and out of date. Orthodox groups immediately criticized the ADL for its attack on Lieberman. Others see the senator as proof that Jews in public life needn’t hide their faith. “Jews have been successful out of all proportion to their numbers in influencing public policy,” says Steven Bayme of the American Jewish Committee. “And now in Joe Lieberman there is a candidate for national office who integrates the wisdom of Judaic tradition with the best American values.”
Indeed, religious language and concerns have seldom been absent from American politics–especially in times of national challenge. Lyndon Johnson asked the nation to discern “God’s will” in appealing for passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act–and for support of the war in Vietnam. Baptist Jimmy Carter brought “born again” convictions to the White House–and to Camp David for the 1978 peace accords between Israel and the Palestinians. African-American politics begins and ends in church. In politicians like Jesse Jackson, who welcomed donations from the collection plate during his presidential bid in 1984, the rhetoric of the pulpit is indistinguishable from that of the political platform. “Those who are shocked by the open discussion of religion by this year’s four national candidates have short memories,” observes Martin Marty, dean of American church historians.
History offers other important lessons as well. The separation of church and state prohibits the establishment of a state religion. But it does not demand that religion be limited to the private side of life. In the space between the state and the individual, which we call civil society, religion has always played an important public role. Not only churches and synagogues and mosques, but hospitals, schools and other voluntary religious associations have proved indispensable in sustaining civic life and virtue. How government relates to such public expressions of faith–through vouchers or funding faith-based charities, for example–is a serious political issue. More important, when religion is denied a voice in public debate–as some strict church-state separations would have it–democracy itself suffers. The United States is the most religious of Western democracies, and believers who feel excluded from the political process either withdraw or find a way to polarize the parties. That, in fact, is what has happened: over the past two decades, polls show, highly secularized and nonreligious Americans are more apt to vote Democrat and the highly religious Republican. Thus, Lieberman’s overt religiosity in the present campaign may actually help redress this disparity.
Nonetheless, politicians risk as much as they might gain in declaring their personal religious convictions. Those who talk too much are apt to sound sanctimonious. Those who use religious code words to signal the like-minded risk alienating the majority outside a particular fold. Jews are the most secularized group in America, and as Senator Lieberman’s rhetoric has proved, not all Jews want to listen to his religious bona fides. But Christianity is hardly a monolith. When George W. Bush says he has “Jesus in my heart,” he is talking Methodist language that is foreign to Roman Catholics and Orthodox. “Religious people are all members of a minority religion,” says Yale Law School professor Stephen Carter, whose new book, “God’s Name in Vain,” is a guide to religion in politics. “To think otherwise is like black folks looking at white and thinking they are all the same.”
Ultimately, politics is about public policy. What the public has a right to know is how a candidate’s religious convictions relate to the issues that affect us all. Some voters may find assurance in a candidate who claims a personal commitment to the high standards of behavior that every religion demands. The danger for any such candidate is obvious, as born-again Bill Clinton discovered. Those who invoke God must be prepared to be judged by their own words.
