Election 2004: God’s Name -- But Our Responsibility

by Rabbi Jerome M. Epstein

August 2004

As we approach the 2004 presidential election, I note with some concern that both parties continue to invoke God’s name on a regular basis. Clearly, religious organizations do that all the time. It is part and parcel of our mission and our belief system. But even here, we don’t call upon God to carry out actions we should undertake ourselves. What, then, are the two parties trying to accomplish?

It is well-known to those who have studied the Bible that one book -- the Book of Esther -- contains no mention of God. Jewish tradition does not interpret this to mean that the heroine, Esther, or the hero, Mordechai, were people of little faith. Quite the contrary. The story is used to suggest that people must accept some responsibility for solving their own problems. Thus, even as the Jews in ancient Persia faced annihilation, they not only prayed but undertook a program of self-help, or positive action, to ensure their own survival.

We should use the same approach to evaluate and interpret the positions of the parties contesting the upcoming presidential election. Do they set out the challenges that face us as a nation? What plan of action do the candidates intend to follow if elected?

It is not the voter’s job simply to reward a candidate’s religiosity. Rather, it is our responsibility to choose among specific policy initiatives that may (or may not) derive from a public servant’s personal religious orientation. For a candidate to speak of God’s love, for example, while skirting issues such as stem cell research, poverty, homelessness, and health care, would be disingenuous and unfair to the voter.

When all is said and done, referring -- or not referring -- to God is beside the point, though, as a nation, we have long wrestled with the notion of including explicit references to God in public documents. Interestingly, other countries have faced the same problem. In drawing up the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel, the drafters, as a compromise, made mention in the final paragraph of the "Rock" of Israel. According to Israel’s founding father and first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, such wording enabled each person to understand the phrase in his or her own way.

God -- and religion in general -- have been, and remain, a rich source of moral values and ethical guidance. Nevertheless, these concepts also provide fertile grounds for divisiveness. The First Amendment to our own Constitution clearly recognizes the need for a clear separation between Church and State. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, writing in 1968, noted that the Amendment "mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and non-religion."

This neutrality has brought our nation great benefits. In ensuring that those who choose to observe a religious lifestyle are afforded the freedom to do so, the Amendment has encouraged high levels of synagogue and church affiliation and attendance. Further, by guaranteeing freedom of speech -- ensuring that all people, including candidates, are free to speak about religion -- we are blessed with a relative lack of friction between ethnic and religious groups. One has only to look at the rivalries that exist in Sudan to appreciate how fortunate we are.

The prophet Isaiah declared emphatically that God desires substance over form, action over rhetoric. This Fall, I hope voters will bring all of their sensibilities -- including religious sentiments, if they choose -- to bear in examining the substance of the candidates’ positions and will choose the party whose vision reflects their own values and their own interpretation of what constitutes God's will.