Jewish Law - Commentary/Opinion - What kind of First Amendment is this anyway?

What kind of First Amendment is this anyway?
Howie Beigelman

What kind of First Amendment is this anyway?

Howie Beigelman

I wrote elsewhere that Joe Lieberman's candidacy for vice president was the moon shot. If Jews can do this, they can do anything. Including apparently, publicly criticize this first Jewish candidate on a major national ticket for speaking of faith.

The junior Senator from Connecticut wasn't speaking about the Jewish faith per se. That didn't stop the Anti Defamation League from a very public written rebuke. Others have correctly noted the ADL is intellectually honest. They would have protested non-Jewish politicians making similar comments. Not to appear disingenuous, they protested here. Probably, the ADL is quite genuine in their alarm that faith, that five letter word that strikes fear in the hearts of men everywhere, was mentioned by any candidate for national office.

It's funny. America protects all speech, except hate speech that incites to violence, obscenity, and religious speech. Hate and obscenity receive at least limited protection. Demagogues, racists, bigots and pedophiles rant in the public square. Speakers at a rally charge listeners to take the policeman's gun. Music lyrics describe, graphically so, acts of sexual violence. Horrible, ludicrous and hurtful words can be spoken and written. False, wrong, hateful speech is constitutional. Anti-religious speech is allowed. Advocating there is no G-d is protected. To the ADL, only speaking positively, no matter how benignly, of G-d, in any setting smacking however slightly of government or politics, is unconstitutional.

The Massachusetts ACLU is defending the North American Man Boy Love Association in a lawsuit by a murdered boys parents who claim NAMBLA's website encourages rape and violence against children (NY Times, September 1, 2000). To the ACLU, NAMBLA is engaged in political advocacy. Advocacy, the ACLU preaches, however distasteful and immoral is protected by the first amendment. I have exercised my own first amendment right to not visit NAMBLA's site. I did, however search the ADL website and found no mention of the ADL's position on this issue.

The ADL's critique of Senator Lieberman but their mind-jarring silence on NAMBLA is reminiscent of that adage that generals fight the last war. Separation of church and state, one line in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote, has become a Maginot Line. But it's archaic. We're past hatred, intolerance, segregation, Jim Crow, "No Irish Need Apply" and "Dogs & Jews keep out". Undoubtably, below the surface there is still much anti-Semitism and racial hatred in this country. I believe that. I also believe that is not our battle today.

In fighting the bigotry we associated with certain religions we banished G-d from the public square. Nature and human nature stepped into that vacuum. Tip of the iceberg results include disintegration of the family and "self medication" with alcohol and drugs. Morals and ethics have fled to hide beneath G-d's coattails in whatever diaspora the American secularists have condemned Him.

If our Constitution protects a website advocating for what the NAMBLA desires, then logic dictates that mere expressions of faith in G-d are allowed as well. Furthermore, tolerance and respect is an American ideal. Tolerate what you find disagreeable and respect those different.

Making the ADL proud, the Supreme Court, in Lee v. Weissman disagreed and forbid a 90 second invocation at high school graduations if it mentioned G-d or faith, however generally. It's troubling if students can't sit through less than two minutes of a politely worded, respectful speech with which they disagree after twelve years in that bastion of American truth, the supreme melting pot and center of the values of inclusion, tolerance and respect that our public schools claim to be. At least, it troubles me. The ADL and the Court seem less concerned. They worry only of politicians mentioning faith.

Anyone may spew awful, vile and hate filled speech. Society legitimates it all with the cleansing power of the Bill of Rights. All, that is, except religious speech. Disingenuous? Absolutely; Senator Lieberman himself said, the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Americans who subscribe to the ADL's thinking don't truly believe in freedom of speech, expression and religion. Prostitutes, molesters, bigots and the maniacal roam the public square and hawk their wares. Only G-d, and the men and women who believe in Him, are spurned to the underground like thieves and beggars. Doesn't G-d and his flock deserve an equally prominent place in the public eye?

As of now the ADL would have us believe the answer to that question is no. As Joe Lieberman himself says of America, "What a country!". What a country indeed.

(Howie Beigelman is a lawyer and freelance writer in New York.)