What matters most, say many Jews,
is how those beliefs translate into policy.
Rabbi David Saperstein, the direc-
tor of the Religious Action Center of
Reform Judaism, said political candi-
dates, like all Americans, have the
right to talk about their faith.
But he warned that as such discus-
sion becomes a "part of the generic
public discourse," then people will
increasingly ask the candidates how
they are going to act on those beliefs
in terms of legislative initiatives.
Legislation on such issues, said
Saperstein, will ultimately lead to
dividing Americans along "sectarian
lines" when questions arise as to
whose prayers can be said, whose sym-
bols can be posted or which religious
groups will get federal funding.
When it comes to public policy on
issues such as charitable choice and
vouchers, the Jewish community is
engaged in its own
debate. Once widely
viewed as opposed to
any programs that pen-
etrated the strict con-
stitutional barrier
between religion and
state, the community is
no longer so monolith-
ic.
The issue of school
vouchers, for instance,
long opposed by most
Jewish organizations
on the grounds that it
violates church-state
separation, has
emerged as a hot-but-
ton issue as the Jewish
community wrestles
with assimilation and
how to help Jewish
families afford day
schools.
Jewish groups are also split over
charitable choice, which was included
in legislation for the first time in the
welfare reform legislation of 1996.
The United Jewish Communities,
the umbrella fund-raising and social
service organization of the Jewish
community, decided in the fall of
1998 to oppose all current charitable
choice programs and any attempts. to
expand them from the welfare bill to
other social services.
Orthodox groups, such as Agudath
Israel of America, support the expan-
sion of charitable choice, saying the
program "protects both the religious
character of faith-based social service
providers and the religious liberty of
service recipients."
The Jewish Council of Public
Affairs, an umbrella body of national
Jewish organizations and community
relations councils, however, has taken a
more nuanced approach. In its 1999 -
policy statement, the group said it
would support legislation on charitable
choice only when there are provisions
protecting the religious freedom of
those receiving the services and of the
employees working for the providers.
The stance of the JCPA reflects the
positions being advocated by both
Gore and Bradley, who have said that
safeguards need to be put in place to
prohibit proselytizing and maintain a
strict separation of church and state,
according to the 55-page NJDC report.
Under Gore's proposal, religious
institutions could receive federal funds
for drug treatment programs, services
for the homeless and initiatives to com-
bat youth violence "without having to
alter the religious character that is so
INNON"'‘
often the key to their effectiveness."
But he has said that secular alternatives
should always be available and that
people in need must not be required to
participate in religious observances.
Despite his call for safeguards, Gore,
in announcing his "New Partnership"
plan last year, said, "Freedom of religion
need not mean freedom from religion."
For his part, Bush has pledged to
funnel $8 billion in public funds into
faith-based organizations and set up
an office at the White House to deal
with the issue.
John McCain (R-Ariz.) also backs
expanding charitable choice and has •
said he supports Bush's approach.
Bush has not spoken about maintain-
ing safeguards in the manner of Gore
and Bradley, saying religion is funda-
mental to the success of the programs.
"
1
/1
1/28
2000
21