Last week the Ledger ran an advertisement paid for with union dollars by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. The ad was a statement by a group of Connecticut clergy regarding Senator Joe Lieberman’s position on the health care reform legislation now being debated in the Senate, and more. Not only did this statement challenge the Senator’s judgment on this issue, it also attacked him for his deep-seated beliefs and feelings about what he calls a matter of conscience.

Unlike the signatories of this ad, we would take him at his word – as we do these clergy – when he says that his opinion is based on a matter of conscience. Dealing with the issues in an informed manner is arguably okay, but questioning elected officials ‘ personal motivations goes over a line that ought not be crossed. “We ask you Senator Lieberman, what is it that your conscience tells you?” oversteps that boundary.
“Everyone knows the basic rules,” said Rabbi David Saperstein in an article in the Forward last year. The director and counsel of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism also said, “You can talk about issues, but you can’t endorse candidates and parties.” Rabbi Yitz Greenberg, in a discussion in Moment Magazine offers the following: “Democracy” he says, “depends on negotiations and compromises amid constantly changing conditions. Religious approaches tend to wrap issues in the mantle of absolute values and eternal, unchanging divine commandments, which block compromise. ”
We have another level of disagreement with the Fellowship’s statement, and here we limit our remarks to the rabbis in the group. When the title “Rabbi” is used it carries with it the weighty identification of the Jewish people. Thus, what is said is no longer a mere personal opinion; Rather, it is a rabbinic one that is in no way the bedrock belief of the Jewish people, although, in this case, that is what is inferred. The Torah says much about many things, but says nothing about the details of the debates that are now ongoing in the public arena.
Congregational identification carries the same liability. While the original list of clergy was published elsewhere with congregational affiliations, space considerations forced the consolidation in the ad to just names and titles. Without using the title ‘Rabbi’ in front of names in the ad, or the names of the congregations the rabbis are affiliated with after them, the opinions proffered might carry little weight. It is precisely because of the involvement of rabbis and congregations that the statement has impact. “The synagogue, the church, should be a place where there is refuge from politics and the focus on the spiritual,” said Rabbi Jeffrey Wohlberg, the recently retired senior rabbi at Adas Israel in Washington, D.C.
One more related point that is little discussed is this: Not every Jew votes the way his or her rabbi does. In real numbers, that means that probably one out of every four Jews may not vote Democrat or perceive themselves as liberal. Those with differing opinions who belong to synagogues and/or Jewish organizations are often made to feel uncomfortable when the bimah is the font of political ideas they don’t share. Many of them feel so marginalized that they and their families often drift away entirely. That is a terrible communal loss.
Under the banner of ‘tikkun olam’ more and more rabbis take up causes about which they feel strongly but often know no more than their congregants. Sometimes less. One person’s “tikkun” can very easily be another’s political opinion. When rabbis claim expertise on minimum wage (which limits employment opportunities for inner city youth), climate change (based on information now being questioned for its accuracy) and health care (this ad cites the AMA and AARP as authorities when it is common knowledge that they’re both tainted by self-interest and are significant beneficiaries of parts of this bill), they stray from their traditional responsibilities and ignore some of the real consequences of their community activism. Rabbis’ words have merit and weight when they teach, give comfort and provide spiritual guidance according to the principles of Torah and the commandments; but they lose much when thrown into the cauldron of an ongoing political debate. Compassion is a strong emotion, but beneficial outcomes are far more important to mankind’s betterment.
Senator Lieberman may or may not vote for some of the aspects of this bill on the Senate floor this week, and the Ledger may or may not agree with him on his vote and his interpretation of the issues. But just as we would not think of questioning his integrity, neither would we come even close to challenging his deep-seated beliefs to which his conscience must look for answers. If rabbis feel they have to become involved at this level – and for all the reasons listed above we don’t think they should – then they ought to, at the very least, do the same.

nrg

Comments are closed.