2008 Woodie Awards
The Pulpit and Da'at Torah
Shaya Lerner
Issue date: 3/8/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
In a recent article of The New Republic, E.J. Dionne Jr. quotes evangelical preacher Jerry Falwell. "Preachers," Falwell declared in 1965, "are not called upon to be politicians but to be soul-winners." While this statement has today made Flawell seem hypocritical, it nevertheless has truth value. The pulpit, whether it be in a church, synagogue, or mosque, should not be abused for political purposes.
The Founding Fathers of this country fought hard to erect what Thomas Jefferson called "a wall of separation between church and state." The intended purpose of this was twofold: on the one hand, it was done to legally prevent America from becoming a religious country. Additionally, it was intended to prevent religious figures from exerting too much political influence over their supporters.
While the religious status of America's present government is quite debatable, the influence religious figures exert over their followers is significant. In particular, it is interesting to examine the political power Rabbinic figures have over their congregants. According to United States law, it is forbidden for Rabbis to use their positions in order to publicly endorse a particular political candidate. This law is often ignored especially during election season. This past summer, during a speech given by a high-ranking Rabbinic authority within the Orthodox Union (OU), a question was raised concerning which presidential candidate the Rabbi supported. Addressing the question, the Rabbi informed the audience that in his capacity as an official for the not-for-profit OU, he was legally barred from endorsing any particular candidate. However, he then proceeded to admit that he was particularly fond of a certain candidate's "faith based initiatives," and thus would support this individual who was not John Kerry. Needless to say, the Rabbi managed to turn the non-profit OU into a partisan organization.
On the same token, it is also disheartening to see Rabbinic figures, both in the US and in Israel, take a public stance on non-social political issues. One could and should make the argument, that it is important for Rabbis to voice concern over social issues and encourage their followers to act upon them. However, when Rabbis publicly question the authority of a government or its military, they loose credibility. While it is perfectly appropriate and even legal for Rabbis to privately express their politics, to use the pulpit as a political balcony is quite inappropriate.
The Founding Fathers of this country fought hard to erect what Thomas Jefferson called "a wall of separation between church and state." The intended purpose of this was twofold: on the one hand, it was done to legally prevent America from becoming a religious country. Additionally, it was intended to prevent religious figures from exerting too much political influence over their supporters.
While the religious status of America's present government is quite debatable, the influence religious figures exert over their followers is significant. In particular, it is interesting to examine the political power Rabbinic figures have over their congregants. According to United States law, it is forbidden for Rabbis to use their positions in order to publicly endorse a particular political candidate. This law is often ignored especially during election season. This past summer, during a speech given by a high-ranking Rabbinic authority within the Orthodox Union (OU), a question was raised concerning which presidential candidate the Rabbi supported. Addressing the question, the Rabbi informed the audience that in his capacity as an official for the not-for-profit OU, he was legally barred from endorsing any particular candidate. However, he then proceeded to admit that he was particularly fond of a certain candidate's "faith based initiatives," and thus would support this individual who was not John Kerry. Needless to say, the Rabbi managed to turn the non-profit OU into a partisan organization.
On the same token, it is also disheartening to see Rabbinic figures, both in the US and in Israel, take a public stance on non-social political issues. One could and should make the argument, that it is important for Rabbis to voice concern over social issues and encourage their followers to act upon them. However, when Rabbis publicly question the authority of a government or its military, they loose credibility. While it is perfectly appropriate and even legal for Rabbis to privately express their politics, to use the pulpit as a political balcony is quite inappropriate.