Within seconds after the U.S. election results became official, one mantra spread like the Asian flu from one TV pundit to another: The issue that the voters cared most about was moral values. According to exit polls, voters were more concerned with this than the economy, national security or Iraq. The commentators proceeded to roll this phrase, “moral values,” around their tongues as though it fully explained the victory of President Bush.
Certainly they were not suggesting that Kerry voters were more lacking in moral values than Bush voters. More than seven out of 10 Jews voted for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), and we practically invented personal moral values; at least, we codified them for future European generations.
Obviously, most of those TV pundits, especially those who were unhappy with the election results, were associating moral values with what they would call the religious right, which they in turn equate with fundamentalist Christians.
The idea that the religious right brought a lot of Christian zealots to the polls — enough to change the course of the election — has sent a chill down the spines of many Jews, and with some reason. Some fundamentalist leaders have proclaimed they would like to transport some of their doctrinal beliefs directly to civil law. Most Jews and most Americans think it is well and good for policymakers and advocates to be influenced by their religious and moral beliefs — but only if they submit those beliefs to the civic process, which includes accommodation to other religious and secular beliefs.
This understanding of the relationship between religion and public policy in a liberal democracy, generally known as separation of church and state, has become strongly established over the years not just because it is laid down in the Constitution, but also because it was made a practical necessity by the wild diversity of religious groups in America. In 1846, a Presbyterian minister successfully led the fight against a petition to the Virginia legislature that asked for aid to Christian sects. He pointed out how divisive such a law would be — with about 20 different Christian denominations in the state.
In this new century, there are well over a hundred mutually wary religious groups in the country. Catholics and Protestants even differ with each other, and with the Jews, on how the Ten Commandments should be worded.
Of course, there have been evolving interpretations of church-state separation. Jews used to overwhelmingly oppose any mention of religious holidays in the public schools or on public property. But with increased confidence, the rise of Israel and the renaissance of Jewish identity, many Jews became more open to the recognition of Jewish holidays.
The demand has begun to turn away from complete elimination of religious expression in those public places toward equal access for all religions. And the courts have supported the limits prescribed by those demands. But some Christian fundamentalist leaders have wanted to erode those limits. In the national arena, they have largely lost, but they still try.
Many Jews and other Americans are now frightened by the thought that the religious right was the chief engineer of the Bush victory by its apparent success in bringing so many “religious zealots” into the voting booths. However, that fear is highly exaggerated. According to the exit polls, Bush had, proportionately, no more voters who opposed abortion rights, or who attended church regularly, than he had in the 2000 elections.
Those who supplied the margin of Bush’s victory were indeed the “culturally conservative.” They are uneasy in the face of some of the cultural change they perceive, such as widespread drug use, licentiousness on TV and the Internet, loss of self-reliance and the like. These perceived changes are alien to them, and seem to threaten their way of life. But most of the cultural conservatives do not feel that way because the Bible or preachers of the religious right tell them to. And while the cultural conservatives would probably prefer to keep as many limits as possible on the practice of abortion, they are not intent on applying the Bible literally to our legislative process, unlike leaders of the political religious right.
For those who are concerned about that religious right, it would be politically foolish to give the phenomenon more credit than it deserves. And, as some Democratic Party leaders are now saying, it would be useful to argue, when necessary, with our culturally more conservative citizens without treating them all as possessed demons.
Earl Raab is executive director emeritus of the S.F.-based Jewish Community Relations Council. He is director emeritus of Brandeis University’s Nathan Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy.