Religion And State In The American Jewish Experience

This text focuses on what it means to be Jewish in America and the different positions held within the Jewish community on past and present church-state issues - whether Orthodox Jews in the military should wear yarmulkes while in uniform - and if Jewish prisoners have a right to Kosher food.

Jews and the American Public Square is a study of how Jews have grappled with the presence of religion, both their own and others, in American public life. It surveys historical Jewish approaches to church-state relations and analyzes Jewish responses to the religion clauses of the First Amendment. The book also explores how the contemporary sociological and political characteristics of American Jews bear on their understanding of the public dimensions of American religion. In addition to a descriptive and analytic approach. the volume is also critical and polemical. Its contributors attack and defend prevailing views, raise critical questions about the political and intellectual positions favored by American Jews, and propose new syntheses. This book captures the current mood of the Jewish community: both committed to the separation of church and state and perplexed about its scope and application. It provides the necessary background for a principled reconsideration of the problem of religion in the public square.

During the past half century, most American Jews believed that religion should be rigorously separated from public life. Forty Jewish writers, professors, lawyers, rabbis, and policy analysts offer varying perspectives on what the role of religion in American publish life should be and describe how their opinions might have changed. Postponed from June.

A driving force in the history of American Jews has been the pursuit of religious equality under law. Jews reasoned that state and federal legislation or public practices which sanctioned religious, specifically Christian, usages blocked their path to full integration within society. Always a small minority and ever fearful of the outspoken proponents of the Christian state, nineteenth-century Jews became ardent defenders of church-state separation. In the twentieth century, Jewish defense organizations took a prominent role in landmark court cases on religion in the schools, Sunday laws, and public displays of Christian symbols. Over the last two centuries, Jews shifted from support of a neutral-to-all-religions government to a divorced-from-religion government, and from defense of their own interests to the defense of other religious minorities. Jews in Christian America traces in historical context the response of American Jews to the issues presented by a Christian-flavored public religion. Discussing the contributions of each major wave of Jewish immigrants to the reinforcement of a separationist stand, Cohen shows how Jewish communal priorities, pressures from the larger society, and Jewish-Christian relationships fashioned that response. She also makes clear that the Jewish community was never totally united on the goals and tactics of a separationist posture; despite the continued predominance of the strict separationists, others argued the adverse effects of that position on communal well-being and on the very survival of Judaism.

To Build a Wall represents the first extensive study of the effect of Jewish interest groups on church-state litigation. Ivers carefully traces the evolution of the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the ADL from benevolent social service agencies to powerful organized interest groups active on all fronts of American politics and public affairs. He draws extensively upon original sources and archival materials from each organization, personal interviews over a five-year period, as well as the personal files and papers of Leo Pfeffer, the lead counsel or amicus curiae in nearly every establishment clause case from the late 1940s through the early eighties. Ivers concludes that organized interests can and do have critical influence in the legal process, but that organizational needs and external demands result in a more ad hoc, less planned approach to law and litigation than much previous scholarship has suggested. Ivers also argues that the ethnic, economic, and religious differences that led to the formation of competing Jewish organizations eighty years ago continue to drive a dynamic pluralism within the Jewish community, manifest in part in divergent approaches to litigation and public affairs.