Following President George W. Bush's State of the Union address and his "axis of evil" comment, many political commentators have criticized his insensitivity in grouping Iran, Iraq and North Korea together. In the midst of this controversy, critics have occasionally touched on the larger issue of "evil" in general. Dan Rothfarb's recent March 1 column, "One Nation Under God," discussed this issue but also took advantage of the opportunity to denounce people of faith as intolerant and dangerous to democracy and world peace.
He portrays a comical situation where the Western world and the Arab world childishly engage in name-calling, where each claims the other to be "evil." Were this actually the case, it would be simplistic. The point, though, is that the concept of "evil" is a reality. Of course everyone has slightly different values, but the idea rests on the assumption that the human conscience finds certain behaviors such as genocide and rape naturally repulsive. The word "evil" describes a lack of basic human values, as is evident from the behavior of the Iraqi, Iranian and North Korean governments.
When Bush declares countries to be "evil," he is using the word comparatively and is not suggesting that America is perfect. (In the same way, when we say someone is "fat" we don't mean that they are "pure fat" or that we have "no fat" at all.) Intellectual discourse should not attempt to deny evil's existence, but should debate the claim's merits based on some universally understood values and factual evidence.
Moral clarity gives leaders the ability to face reality and deal with problems, as is being done in the war on terror. Sept. 11 gave us a moment of moral clarity, and it is no surprise that people all over the country flocked to religious institutions for answers.
After comparing President Bush's spirituality to that of a child, Rothfarb discusses the supposed dangers of having public officials with religious values: "Separation of church and state, contrary to popular belief, does not mean treating all religions the same. It means excluding them from government affairs entirely since equality in this case is impossible [A] nation guided by faith leaves no voice for an agnostic, and a people deluded by black and white distinctions of moral superiority will simply fail to spread the values of democracy " In other words, out of fear that religious politicians might exclude the "voice" of agnostics from public life, Rothfarb decides all people of faith should be excluded! Should the vast majority of Americans have no right to be represented? The larger problem with his statement is that it demonstrates no understanding of the role religion has played in advancing human rights and in creating democracy.
Most of America's founding fathers were Christian or had some kind of similar religious value system. Certainly the electorate that ratified the U.S. Constitution was almost entirely Christian. George Washington wrote: "Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars ofhuman happiness, these firmestprops of the duties of Men and Citizens." I guess according to Rothbarb, George Washington was an enormous threat to democracy, not to mention Benjamin Franklin, James Madison or John Adams.
Isn't it ironic that the Constitution and the principle of separation of church and state, which Rothfarb holds so dear, came from the Judeo-Christian value system? This is not a coincidence. In fact, our democratic assumption on the equality of all human beings derives from the idea that people are created by God and thus possess inherent human dignity. This explains why The Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..." Human equality is much more difficult to justify on purely secular and rational grounds.
I do not mean to suggest that values of peace and human equality are limited to Judaism or Christianity. I only single out these traditions because they were the subject of Rothfarb's attack. Many proponents of secularism have claimed that enormous human suffering has been inflicted in the name of religion throughout history. Of course I agree, but it's important to emphasize that it was in the name of religion only.
It is unfair to judge a modern value system on historical misinterpretations or modern fringe beliefs. Often, fundamentalists misinterpret religious teachings to emphasize minor points at the expense of the core principles -- human dignity being one of the core principles. When I discuss religious values, I do not mean fundamentalism. If we are going to apply the criteria that the actions of one represent all, then we could determine the success of atheism based on the three greatest butchers in the history of the world: Stalin, Hitler and Mao.
While there were clear ethical problems with the American government when it was first created, the same moral principles of equality and freedom have led to every significant civil rights improvement in America. Most people are familiar with Martin Luther King Jr.'s heroic role in the civil rights movement, but less attention has been placed on the role of his faith. Rothfarb doesn't like it when people see issues in terms of "black and white" moral absolutes, but as King once said in a sermon, "If I can do my duty as a Christian then my living will not be in vain." Was King also a threat?
It is important to understand that the separation of church and state does not require public officials to hold entirely secular values. Rather, moral values -- particularly religious values -- have always been an integral part of the human rights movement, the American constitution and democracy. John Adams said it best: "It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."
