On April 25 of this year, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals struck
down the State of Ohio’s motto “With God All Things Are Possible.” The
court judged that it was an “improper promotion of the Christian Faith.”
The passage is, of course, from St. Mark 10:27. It reads: “And Jesus
looking upon them saith, ‘With men it is impossible, but not with God: for
with God all things are possible.'” Believe it or not, Ohio Gov. Bob Taft,
who opposes the ruling, argued that “the motto does not promote any single
set of beliefs.” And the man who suggested the motto 41 years ago, Jimmy
Masteronardo, said that he was thinking of a supreme being, “not my God or
your God. It could be Buddha.”
So much for the courage of Christians to defend their faith. The passage
in the Bible was spoken by Jesus Christ. So why deny it? After all, this
is an overwhelmingly Christian nation. Simply count the churches, the
Christian schools, bookstores, radio stations, the Christian organizations,
the Christian holidays celebrated throughout the year: Christmas, Easter,
Lent, Mardi Gras. Yes, Moslems, Buddhists, Jews and atheists live in
America. But that does not mean that an inspiring passage from the Bible
can’t be used as a state motto. Our coins and bills state “In God We
Trust.” The president takes his oath of office with his hand on the Bible.
Our heritage is a deeply Christian heritage. In fact, this nation’s form of
government is a direct result of those biblical teachings.
The separation of church and state doctrine means that the federal
government is prohibited from establishing a government church, like the
Anglican Church in England. It also means that government ought not to
interfere with the religious practices of our citizens. Thus, in America,
people are free to worship in whatever way they wish.
The suit against the state of Ohio was filed in 1995 by liberal
Presbyterian minister Rev. Matthew Peterson of Cleveland Heights with the
aggressive help of the American Civil Liberties Union. Rev. Jeffrey
Ziegler, president of the National Reform Association, took issue with Gov.
Taft over his non-biblical stand against the ruling. He argued in The
Christian Statesman of June 2000:
- The ACLU worldview is far more formidable than the one brandished
thus far by the hapless defenders of the state motto. How is it that
Masteronardo thinks that a direct quote from the Gospel could be interpreted
as a promotion of Buddha? The ACLU unashamedly promotes atheism, yet, Gov.
Taft, a professing Christian, is reduced to a practical atheism by the
public denial of the very Faith the state motto proclaims. …
The National Reform Association calls for explicit confessions of the
Lordship of Christ in the civil sphere. We challenge the ACLU on this
ground. We will not retreat from the vision of our founding fathers, that
we are one nation under God, a Christian Republic.
Thus, the battle is joined. Which brings us to Al Gore’s choice of
Joe Lieberman, a practicing Jew, as his running mate. If the state of Ohio
can’t use a biblical quote for its motto, how can an Orthodox Jew be vice
president? An Orthodox Jew experiences the presence of God in everything he
does. He keeps a kosher home. Will Lieberman, if elected, have a kosher
cook in the vice president’s mansion? Will his wife Hadassah light the
Sabbath candles on government property, which is what the vice-president’s
residence is? Will not the ACLU protest? The Liebermans may have to move
into a private apartment in order to conform to the ACLU’s efforts to remove
any suggestion of religion from government property.
Then there is the matter of Christmas. The Liebermans will not have a
Christmas tree in the vice-presidential residence. Will they have Hanukkah
lights? All of these problems should have made Sen. Lieberman hesitate
before accepting the nomination for vice president. He should have said,
“Thanks but no thanks. My devotion to my religion precludes my accepting a
government position that would make it difficult for me to carry out my
duties as vice president, for, God forbid, should I become president, it
would be impossible for me to create a kosher kitchen in the White House,
have kosher state dinners, and have no Christmas tree at Christmas.”
Believe it or not, some Jews are expressing concern over Lieberman’s
religious fervor. In an article on this very subject, the Aug. 13 Boston
Globe reported,
- In his Nashville speech, Lieberman mentioned God at least 13 times.
He continued to quote from the Scriptures as the week progressed. All of
which creates a strange conflict for Abner and Nancy Friedlander, (Jewish
residents of Brookline). As they sat in a coffee shop last week, organizing
a parent-teacher group, both said they are excited about breaking
boundaries. But as parents attuned to religious diversity — they feel
comfortable that their children’s public school has a “winter festival”
instead of a Christmas or Hanukkah pageant — they say they are concerned
about God’s encroachment on public life. “I feel like we shouldn’t be mixing
politics with religion,” said Friedlander, who said she fears religious
doctrine will color Lieberman’s decisions.
Theologians the Friedlanders are not! They are more worried about
God’s encroachment on public life than the encroachment of the godless. One
could write a very humorous sitcom about the reactions of secular Jews to an
Orthodox Jewish president. But humor aside, a Jewish president would have
real problems. Only a secular Jew who works and drives on Saturdays and
enjoys having bacon for breakfast and lobster for dinner should consider the
presidency as a realistic goal.
So why did Al Gore choose an Orthodox, practicing Jew as his running
mate? To add moral “gravitas” to his campaign. But by doing so he’s
alienated the Moslem and some of the black vote. He’s also made it easier
for many leftists to vote for Nader. The Democrats already have most of the
Jewish vote. Was the need to separate himself from Clinton so crucial for
his campaign? Did he create new problems by choosing an Orthodox Jew as his
running mate?
For conservative Jews who intend to vote for Bush, Lieberman changes
nothing in the political equation. Conservative Jews are used to voting
against liberal Jewish politicians. As for Lieberman, he’s a pro-abortion,
pro-gun control, big-government liberal. He criticized Clinton for his
immorality but lacked the courage to oust him from office. Had Clinton been
ousted, Gore would have become president and therefore would have had a very
good chance of being reelected. Of course, Clinton could have resigned,
thereby helping his vice president maintain the White House for the
Democrats. But the reality is that Clinton is for Clinton as his appearance
at the Democratic National Convention indicated. He will hold on to power
to the very end, and there’s no telling what he might do between now and the
inauguration of the next president.
Meanwhile, many voters seem to be impressed with Lieberman’s devotion to
his religion. They haven’t really seen anything like this before in
national politics. A Christian candidate and certainly a Catholic candidate
could never get away with such open religious fervor. But a Jew can. Why?
Because it’s something novel and something about which many people are
curious. It should also be noted that Dr. Laura is also Jewish and quite
outspoken about it. Yet, she has a huge Christian following that loves her
Old Testament morality. Indeed, many Christians may vote for Gore just to
get a Jew into the vice presidency. As the Bible says, with God, all things
are possible!
Samuel L. Blumenfeld is the author of eight books on education, including: “Is Public Education Necessary?” “NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education,” “The Whole Language/OBE Fraud,” and “Homeschooling: A Parents Guide to Teaching Children.” His books are available on Amazon.com.
