This is in response to Dan Rothfarb's March 1 column, "One Nation Under God," in which Rothfarb criticizes the Republican administration for making this "a nation guided by faith." Citing President George W. Bush's response to the Sept. 11 attacks and various other examples of "Christian moralist dogma in politics," Rothfarb laments the fact that we are no longer a nation guided by the principle of "separation of church and state." Unfortunately, Rothfarb's thinking is severely flawed.
Citing as evidence that "we are becoming a Christian nation," Rothfarb says that "you cannot attack publicly the American claim to moral superiority without being called a Taliban sympathizer." But this is simply not the case. Calling Rothfarb a Taliban sympathizer does not mean that America is a Christian nation. However. Rothfarb's attack of America's "claim" to moral superiority is indicative of a very different problem. I will not call Rothfarb a Taliban sympathizer, but I will call him a moral relativist. As evidence, I cite his statement that "I don't believe in 'evil.'" By not believing in the concept of "evil," Rothfarb clearly tells his readers that he believes that we are no better than they are. To this end, Rothfarb says that we have our own "irrational masses" who are easily swayed by arguments with a religious tone, much like Taliban sympathizers. Cultural relativists hold that we should not take such a harsh line with the Taliban members because we are just as bad. The problem here is quite clearly that we are not as bad. The perpetrators of Sept. 11 are evil and we do have the moral high ground.
Our moral high ground comes not from the belief that the Christianity is superior to Islam, but from the truth that we value the rights and freedoms of individuals more than regimes like the Taliban. We are willing to give critics of our government like Rothfarb a platform from which they can air their views. We are willing to discuss the apparent problem of the "Christianization" of our nation. However, it is impossible for people in Iraq or North Korea to do the same. It is impossible for a student in Iran to say that his government's actions is steeped in Islamic "moralist dogma." Clearly, we are not as bad as they are.
Rothfarb then does something that, quite frankly, I find disgusting. Saying that "Senator McCarthy and his cohorts" played on the fear of the American people, "with startling similarities to Stalin's own fear-driven regime," tells me that Rothfarb has very little idea what life in Stalin's Soviet Union was like. While people like Senator McCarthy went after those they saw as security threats to the country, Uncle Joe Stalin was in the habit of sending dissenters and critics of his regime to the wonderful resort of Siberia. While this is clearly not a vindication of McCarthyism, the point is that I would much rather have been a Communist sympathizer in McCarthy's United States than I would a Democratic sympathizer in Stalin's Russia. The two were in no way morally equivalent.
Rothfarb also seems to take issue with the president's classification of the regimes of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as "evil." He says that by doing so, we are being "ineffective," since now, "a Muslim-ruled state has only better reason to hate us at this point." That may be fine, but here's a question I would like to pose to Rothfarb: is Bush's characterization of these three regimes as "evil" wrong? Are Iran, Iraq and North Korea in fact angelic havens of peace and virtue? Would you like to live there?
Another point Rothfarb makes is that he thinks it was "not clever and not befitting of the open mind expected of the leader of the free world" to say to a group of Chinese children that one of America's strengths is that most of its people believe in God.
Showing off the religious freedoms afforded to citizens of "the free world" by its leader is not clever? Not befitting his position? To highlight our freedoms in a nation that suppresses them doesn't show stupidity, but courage of conviction.
In a clever aside, Rothfarb then says that "stroking our own national ego" is not only bad (although why that is the case is uncertain), but the sole beneficiaries of such an action are terrible, right-wing (shudder) politicians. For example, the state senators of Colorado, who wish to add an inculcation of respect for our nation and its heritage in the publicly funded educational system are clearly out to help themselves by espousing Christian dogma.
But now comes the crux of Rothfarb's argument: "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." This, unfortunately, is a rather flawed reading of the Constitution's first amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Nowhere does it say that the government cannot fund faith-based initiatives. What the establishment clause does say is that the government cannot establish one religion over another. So, contrary to what Rothfarb says, "popular belief" is correct. The First Amendment does mean "treating all religions the same." The government cannot establish an official religion tomorrow. Some argue that the government cannot establish secularism either, because establishing anti-religion is the same as establishing religion. But that's a discussion for another day.
