Jonathan D. Sarna is professor of American Jewish history at ~ Hebrew Union College--Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, and director of the Center for the Study of the American Jewish and Church·! Experience. His most recent books are The American Jewish Experience (1986) and JPS: The Americanization of Jewish Culture (1989). The Search j rofessor of American Jewish history at American Jews Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati, ~r for the Study of the American Jewish and Church-State Relations recent books are The American Jewish IPS: The Americanization of Jewish The Search for "Equal Footing" Jonathan D. Sarna ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOREWORD I am grateful to Professors David Dalin, Benny Kraut, and Lance Recent AJC surveys demonst Sussman, as well as to the national staff of the American Jewish attachment to the principle of separati Committee, for valuable comments on an earlier draft of this The absence of an official religion in paper. I, of course, remain responsible for all facts, interpre­ government neutrality toward all form~ tations, and errors. have enabled a variety of religions t religions, Judaism has thrived in this fre J.D.S. have become, in the words of LeOl American pluralism." Separation of church and state i~ among Western democracies. The S separate synagogue and state. It il official religion, albeit with provisions ~ freedoms of non-Jews. Great Britail government support for organized institutions, along with those of othe from such assistance. Nevertheless,. maintain that the intrusion of governmt purposes -- leads to standards and I weaken the sectarian content of relig. undermining the principle of religious p fear, government support of religion favoring of one faith over others, thr religions. American Jews feel that, religion fares best when government keeps Have American Jewish leaders alw. their approach to church-state issues~ itself knew no such separatism. As­ governments, they increasingly articulah law of the state is the law," respecting Copyright © 1989 Jonathan D. Sarna the surrounding society if such norms h :<NOWLEDGMENTS FOREWORD ;ors David Dalin, Benny Kraut, and Lance Recent AJC surveys demonstrate continued Jewish the national staff of the American Jewish attachment to the principle of separation of church and state. e comments on an earlier draft of this The absence of an official religion in the United States and "emain responsible for all facts, interpre- government neutrality toward all forms of religious expression have enabled a variety' of religions to flourish. Like other religions, Judaism has thrived in this free environment, and Jews J. D.S. have become, in the words of Leonard Fein, "mentors of American pluralism." Separation of church and state is by no means universal among Western democracies. The State of Israel does not separate synagogue and state. It identifies Judaism as its official religion, albeit with provisions safeguarding the religious freedoms of non-Jews. Great Britain and Canada maintain government support for organized religion, and Jewish institutions, along with those of other faiths, have benefited from such assistance. Nevertheless, American Jewish leaders maintain that the intrusion of government -- even for beneficial purposes -- leads to standards and regulations that tend to weaken the sectarian content of religious institutions, thereby undermining the principle of religious pluralism. Moreover, they fear, government support of religion can easily lead to the favoring of one faith over others, threatening the equality of religions. American Jews feel that, in pluralistic America, religion fares best when government keeps its hands off. Have American Jewish leaders always been separationists in their approach to church-state issues? Historically, Judaism itself knew no such separatism. As Jews lived under gentile governments, they increasingly articulated the principle of "the law of the state is the law," respecting and obeying the law of an D.Sarna the surrounding society if such norms had legal authority behind iii them. In turn, Jewish communities often received substantial originally commissioned in honor support and broad grants of power to regulate internal Jewish Bicentennial. It is our hope that Je life. will study it and discuss fully its in Emancipation significantly altered Jewish relationships with social action. the state. No longer could communal groups in the nation-state regulate their own affairs. In their relations with the state, citizens were individuals, not members of corporate groups. In Jewish Co the United States particularly, new models of church-state rela­ tionships developed. To explore changing Jewish attitudes to these developments, the AJC commissioned this paper by Jonathan Sarna, a distinguished historian of American Jewry. Sarna finds that Jews initially accepted the fact of a Christian America and tried to accommodate to it through an "equal footing" doctrine in which Judaism should receive the same recognition as other faiths. Thus, for instance, rather than fight Sunday "blue laws," Jews sought exemptions from them for Jewish Sabbath observers. By the end of the nineteenth century, however, Jewish leaders had shifted to a far more unequivocal stance supporting disengagement of government from organized religion. This stance, heavily indebted to Jefferson and Madison, required the refusal of government aid to religious institutions and the exclusion of religious instruction from the public schools. In recent decades the consensus within the Jewish community on church-state separation has generally held. A minority, however, has urged a return to the more accommodationist patterns of the nineteenth century. This debate is focused especially upon the issue of government aid to Jewish day schools. The AJC, like most other major Jewish organizations, opposes government aid as an unconstitutional and unwise intrusion of government into religious life. The same concern for religious liberty also informs AJC's advocacy of a broad interpretation of the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion. As Professor Sarna notes, the very first case in which AJC filed an amicus brief was Pierce v. Society of Sisters, which protected the right of parents to send their children to parochial schools. Our intention in publishing this paper is to provide historical background and to explain the range of positions which underlie the contemporary debate. This essay was iv 1 communities often received substantial originally commissioned in honor of the Constitutional :Its of power to regulate internal Jewish Bicentennial. It is our hope that Jewish groups and leaders will study it and discuss fully its implications for communal ificantly altered Jewish relationships with social action. :>Uld communal groups in the nation-state 3irs. In their relations with the state, Steven Bayme, Director ;, not members of corporate groups. In Jewish Communal Affairs Department eularly, new models of church-state rela­ ro explore changing Jewish attitudes to he AlC commissioned this paper by linguished historian of American Jewry. jnitially accepted the fact of a Christian accommodate to it through an "equal .hich Judaism should receive the same aiths. Thus, for instance, rather than ." Jews sought exemptions from them for "ers. By the end of the nineteenth sh leaders had shifted to a far more orting disengagement of government from lis stance, heavily indebted to Jefferson the refusal of government aid to religious elusion of religious instruction from the es the consensus within the Jewish state separation has generally held. A las urged a return to the more =rns of the nineteenth century. This ially upon the issue of government aid to rhe AlC, like most other major Jewish government aid as an unconstitutional 3f government into religious life. The ious liberty also informs AJe's advocacy n of the First Amendment's guarantee of n. As Professor Sarna notes, the very IC filed an amicus brief was Pierce v. l protected the right of parents to send .I schools. publishing this paper is to provide and to explain the range of positions ontemporary debate. This essay was v AMERICAN JEWS AND CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS: THE SEARCH FOR "EQUAL FOOTING" THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION meeting in Philadelphia in 1787 received exactly one petition on the subject of religious liberty. The petitioner was Jonas Phillips, a German Jewish immi­ grant merchant, and what he requested -- a change in the Pennsylvania state constitution to eliminate a Christological test oath -- was outside of the convention's purview. But the senti­ ments expressed in the petition contain one of the earliest known American Jewish statements on religious liberty. "The Israeletes," it declares, "will think them self happy to live under a government where all Relegious societies are on an Eaquel footing."l Eighteen days before Phillips penned his September 7th petition, the Constitutional Convention, meeting behind closed doors, had accepted the provisions of Article VI: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Two years later, under pressure from six different states,2 Congress passed a much more explicit guarantee of religious liberty as part of the First Amendment (ratified on December 15, 1791): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." For Jews, however, these constitutional provisions did not immediately translate into