Nathan Diament, writing in Haaretz, addresses the tendency of American Jews to shun the open hand offered to them by President Bush. He notes that the President has institutionalized a Hanukkah party on the White House schedule, one attended by over 6000 guests, and made time to meet for an hour with a group of rabbis prior to the party this year, to discuss the role of religious values in public life. Diament correctly identifies the President as "religiously inclusive."

He goes on to describe the American Jewish community as divided into two streams of thought:

The secularists in this debate, who may practice Judaism in their private lives, believe neither Judaism nor any other faith—informed values system ought to be allowed into public debate. They demand that the religious believer "check those beliefs at the door" and only make arguments in the political arena that are grounded in secular reasoning and thought. Religion is, in other words, a purely private matter and public debate — especially when it is often about a vision of the "good" or "just" society — must be held on faith—neutral terms.

The integrationists, who may be politically liberal or conservative, believe, first, that it is impossible for a person deeply committed to Judaism (or any other faith) to isolate and suppress that aspect of one's personality. Second, to demand this only of religious believers, the integrationists hold, while allowing those just as deeply committed to any other set of beliefs, so long as they are deemed secular, to bring their values into the public square, is discriminatory against religion and demeaning to its adherents.

Of course, in the real world, each of these positions is rarely found in its pure form. Many secularists recognize that there are some venues in which a public role for religion is appropriate, and many integrationists realize that even religiously informed beliefs must often be translated into broadly accessible terms if they are to be considered seriously by a pluralistic polity. But recognition of this distinction is critical to this debate in the Jewish community, where it is easily obscured by the profile of the partisan—ideological divide.

Hat tip: Chris S.

Thomas Lifson  12 17 04