Opinion & Commentary:
Should we blur the separation of shul and state?
By Seth Mandel
Jan. 4, 2008

It was a strange Tuesday of campaign contradictions.

The Web site Talking Points Memo was gleefully blaring a headline claiming that in 1997, then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee required his legislature to rewrite a bill that referred to natural disasters as "acts of God".

That same day, the Jerusalem Post ran a JTA story on how Sen. Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani -- each leading his or her own party in the polls -- were first and second, respectively, in their approval ratings among Jews.

All three, of course, are running for president. All three in some significant way deviate from their parties' base.

But only one of those three is causing Americans to throw fits and scream "Establishment Clause!"

The claim is that Huckabee has, by his campaign rhetoric thick with religious overtones, endangered the Constitution's first amendment clause prohibiting Congress from making a "law respecting an establishment of religion".

He called himself a "Christian leader". He asked if Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers. And the way the light hits the bookshelf behind him in his Christmas greeting to the country, it was obvious to any American with a fistful of cynicism and a cupful of eggnog that a glowing, ethereal cross floated right on by.

When confronted with that, Huckabee did what Huckabee does, and joked: "I will confess this: If you play the spot backwards it says: ‘Paul is dead. Paul is dead'" -- a witty reference to the famous Beatles' White Album legend.

Though many Americans, and almost assuredly most Iowans, are tired of the debate, this all raises a serious question to the Jewish community.

While fervent Christians and lapsed Christians, atheists and agnostics have their snowball fight over the Constitution, Jewish voters should be asking themselves: Must we leave religion out of it? Can we leave religion out of our decision on Election Day, even if we tried? Is it the responsible thing to do, or is it the assimilated thing to do?

A longtime AIPAC lobbyist and Beltway insider recently asked me a question that was rhetorical only to the extent that he already knew the answer. How did I, he wanted to know, think Jewish voters would react to Fred Thompson's plan to partially and gradually privatize social security?

He wasn't asking me how Jewish voters would respond to an Israel-related issue, so this clearly goes beyond Israel.

Thankfully there are many Zionists in our local Jewish communities, and so the initial reaction by many may be: You can't take religion out of how we feel about Israel, and you can't take Israel out of how we vote. So, by the transitive property (I haven't taken math since high school, but that sounds right), you can't take religion out of the election, at least for Jews.

But it's not so simple. There is a poll on the JTA Web site that asks visitors: "Are you comfortable or uncomfortable with the religious rhetoric of the presidential candidates?"

As I write this, the tally is as follows: 32.7 percent are comfortable, 67.3 percent are uncomfortable. So very many Jews are uncomfortable with the "religious rhetoric" of the candidates, yet those same Jews probably allow religion to influence their voting process.

In fact, take away Huckabee -- a reasonable subtraction, since his policies alienate both the Republican and Democratic party bases, making a successful general election campaign unlikely -- and Jews are probably suddenly much more comfortable with religion being a part of the equation.

That's because, minus Huckabee, we're left with Clinton and Giuliani. And their respective approval ratings from Jewish voters are not inconsequential -- Clinton is leading all Democrats in Jewish campaign contributions, and Giuliani is leading all Republicans in the same.

And it's not just those on the detached fringe; Giuliani is leading among Jewish Republican groups, which means that he's getting the most money from Jewish insiders, not just "Bush Jews".

Huckabee's God talk isn't exactly reminiscent of the Crusades, either; he recently said that he supports the establishment of a Palestinian state -- if it were inside Saudi Arabia or Egypt. While that comment makes almost no sense, at least it shows whose side he's on.

The point is, there was no talk of too much religion in this election when it was mostly Jews who were basing their support on religious issues. Giuliani has a strong pro-Israel, anti-Islamist record, and Clinton seems to have recovered just fine from that gaff where she kissed Suha Arafat after the latter explained to an audience that Jews were poisoning the Arabs' wells, or some such pig-headed, idiotic nonsense that makes Palestinian leadership so cuddly.

The uproar over whether American voters were being swindled into voting for Jesus began with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Romney is a member of the Church of Latter-Day Saints (LDS), which is sometimes referred to -- strangely and imprecisely -- as Mormonism.

Romney's record as an executive and governor made his candidacy almost inevitable -- there were only so many problems he could solve until it made sense to try to fix the runaway freight train of pork-laden inefficiency that is our government. Also, he is the only candidate to actually solve a health-care crisis, meaning he practically owns a central issue of this election.

But Romney's candidacy startled Huckabee's evangelical constituency; would President Romney sign an executive order baptizing the entire country? Would we all have to wear plain suits, white shirts, and neckties while refraining from alcohol?

This is what set off the American electorate and inspired about a thousand columns and editorials on the pages of the Washington Post. And this is presumably where Jews went from being comfortable to uncomfortable, and with good reason. The public's faux-innocent religious quibbling degenerated into obnoxiousness, and most people were turned off by it.

But it doesn't change the fact that Jews almost never leave religion out of politics in this country, and it may be time for us to walk a mile in another man's southern Baptist shoes before we start calling religion and government an unholy union.

After all, in June Democratic candidate Sen. Barack Obama admonished his fellow Democrats for not paying enough heed to "the power of faith in the lives of the American people." He was trying to convince Democratic Party operatives to start "reach[ing] out to evangelical Christians".

So where is the line? That's for the voters to decide -- and that's the good news. The situation is self-correcting. If voters decide someone's religious rhetoric is too much, they won't vote for that candidate, and we don't need to drop the Constitution on their heads to do so.

But on the other hand, if someone like that gets elected, it's what the people want, right?

Because in the end, the Jewish community and the American electorate at-large must be careful not to equate support for a religious candidate with the establishment of a religious test for office.

After all, demanding that a candidate not be too overtly religious is its own religious test for office.