Religion: Jesuits and Jews

Two of the five families involved in the suit that led to last June’s Supreme Court decision outlawing the Regents’ prayer in New York public schools were Jewish; such organizations as the American Jewish Committee and the New York Board of Rabbis enthusiastically endorsed the ruling. Last week, in an editorial addressed “To Our Jewish Friends,” the Jesuit editors of America impetuously warned that conspicuous Jewish opposition to religious practices in public schools might lead to “an outbreak of anti-Semitism.” The editorial contended that “certain spokesmen and leaders in the Jewish community . . . are now taking steps to consolidate the ‘gains’ which were made through the decision” to create a climate of opinion that would assist the Supreme Court in making similar decisions in the future on church-state separation, help stop legislation providing Government aid to church-affiliated schools. The time has come, America concluded, for Jewish leaders “to decide among themselves precisely what they conceive to be the final objective of the Jewish community—in a word, what bargain they are willing to strike as one of the minorities in a pluralistic society. When court victories produce only a harvest of fear and distrust, will it all have been worthwhile?” “Threatening & Patronizing.” Jewish leaders responded as if the Jesuits had suggested that this was a good time for a pogrom. “America performs a disservice in raising the spectre of anti-Semitism,” said Rabbi Elmer Berger of the American Council for Judaism. In a joint statement, the leaders of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations and the Central Conference of American Rabbis reacted “with chagrin and disappointment” to America’s “threatening and patronizing statement,” tossed back at the Jesuits a paraphrase of their own question: “What would be the Catholic reaction if a Jewish publication were to publish an editorial entitled ‘To Our Catholic Friends,’ warning Catholics to cease their campaign for public aid to parochial schools, lest a wave of anti-Catholic bigotry descend on the nation?”

Protestants and even other Catholics joined in chiding America. Dr. Truman Douglass of the United Church of Christ called the editorial “ill-advised.” The lay edited Catholic weekly Commonweal pointed out that “our whole system would become meaningless if the various minority groups were made to fear any resort to the courts to judge their claims.”

Anti-Semitism’s Pulse. From the American Jewish Committee came perhaps the strongest reply, which America agreed to print in this week’s issue. In it, the A.J.C. particularly attacks America’s suggestion of the “bargain” that Jews should strike, arguing that pluralism gives every minority the right to work for any political end it sincerely wants. “Have Catholics been deterred from pressing their views in the legislatures and courts by the worry that victory might produce ‘a harvest of fear and distrust’? Your editorial suggests that all necessary steps be taken to prevent increased antiSemitism. One necessary step, it would appear to us, would be for America to denounce the intrusion of religious bigotry into public debate, and warn its readers against it.” A more definitive answer came from the Anti-Defamation League, which keeps the pulse of anti-Semitism throughout the country. It reported that there had been no “overt incidents” since the decision that could be interpreted as the beginning of a wave of antiSemitism. ∙∙∙To get around the Supreme Court’s prayer ruling, the school board in Hicksville, L.I., recently proposed that classes begin with a reading of the fourth stanza of The Star-Spangled Banner, which has the line And this be our motto, “In God is our trust.” Last week New York State Education Commissioner James Allen Jr.

made a tortured decision that schools could read, recite or sing the stanza—but only if they did not mean it as a prescribed, official prayer.