When God goes bad

WHEN GOD GOES BAD

Robert Weissberg "It is impossible to rightly govern tlle world without God and tile Bible."

--George Washington

"Religion in America ...must ...be regarded as the tbremost of the political institutions in that country...." --Alexis de Tocqueville

~edrhaps the most singular feature of the 2004 presi- ential election was an obsession with "'religious ex-

tremism.'" Sectarian disputes are hardly novel (e.g., fed- eral aid to parochial schools, abortion or even the suitability of Catholics for the presidency) and clergy routinely meddle in campaigns (e.g., black ministers) but this contest was extraordinary in its near-hysteria. l)oomsday scenarios abounded--the titanic battle between good and evil, between rational secularists and the ignorant yahoos. President Bush's enemies often seemed genuinely terrified of his second coming. Maureen Dowd went so far as to say that religious voters were motivated by "a fear of scientific Progress." One book's very title aptly captured this anti-religious doom and gloom: With God on "l'heir Side: How Chris- tian Fundamentalists Trampled Science, Policy and Democracy hi George W. Bush k White House (Esther Kaplan, New Press, 20(14).

This alarrnist rhetoric grossly exaggerates. No Ameri- can president, even one recruited from the GOP's Taliban wing can impose a theocracy. Bush's first term scarcely hinted a Holy Crusade; even his nmch-heralded, faith- based initiative has quietly slid off the public agenda. Yet, though we may rightly downplay this hyperbole, it is undeniable that something about religious fervency is gnawing at us and, I will submit, properly so. The truth is that public outcroppings--Bush-thc-Bible-thumping- dolt portrayal--grossly mischaractcrize the apprehension: the angst is not what it seems. After all, strident secularism and deep faith have co-existed in the U.S. for two centuries, so why is it now that this conflict erupts? Surely George W. Bush is not unique in openly brandishing his faith (recall Jimmy Carter's conspicu- ous Baptist musings and the piety of early presidents) and, as noted, neither are eruptions over church/state policy. Is religion now on the agenda since we have

exhansted other disputes'? Is this some made-for-the- media event to excite a jaded public?

A better explanation is that we now live in a world where religious fanaticism of a type that supposedly went extinct eons ago has unexpectedly reappeared. To be politically impolite, the unspoken background subject is militant, radical Islam, and while we are not yet the Netherhmds, Russia, or the Middle East, the very existence of such aggressive fanaticism, lel alone its foreign origins, makes everyone very, very nervous. It is the specter of 9/11, not a sudden re-awakening of slumber- ing Holly Rollers that has injected "religious fanaticism" into civic life. In an odd sense, Christian fundalnental- ists, most of whom just seek refuge from government promoted secularism, are collateral damage in this battle against religious extremism (ironically, of course, lib- erals were silent when the same country bumpkins were staunch Democrats). The war on lshunic terror com- bined with a tear of being "judgmental" has in effect tainted all passionate religious convictions--if we are too timid to condemn fire-breathing anti-American hnams, we can at least take the easier path and ban prayers at high school football games. To go one step further, the specter of pernicious Islam zealotry is the perfect weapon for the ardent secularist--"sec what hap- pens when you take God seriously!"

The Problem and Its Impact Wrestling with radical Islam is not just a far distant

Justice Department responsibility; it is pervasive. Tat- get recently banned the Salvation Army from in-store soliciting on the grounds that if it permitted these bell ringers, tile same privilege would have to be extended universally (the Salvation Army collected 10 percent of all its Christmas donations in 2003 at Target). Unspeak- able, but undoubtedly true, tile great fear would be the

30 SOCIETY" * MAY/JUNE 2005

sudden arrival of Islamic charities and the awkward possibility of Target custolYlels illadverlenlly funding Islamic Jihad, 1 tezbollah and Jill the rest. The President's effort to get more faith-based charities involved in fed- eral programs has also probably stalled over the risk of it accidentally promoting terrorism. How do \re no'~. handle extending tax benefits to suspicious Mosques and charities? The widely accepted principle of treat- ing all religions respectfully now becomes a pedagogical nightmare. A well-meaning educator wanting to teach about "'religion" will surely invite contrt)vcrsy cover- ing lnodern Islam, so dropping the subject altogether is wiser. And what about allowing clergy to preach in pris- ons if" mullahs might also recruit suicide boml~ers? Or providing the U.S. military with Muslim chaphiins wholl these clerics might proselytize anti instruct COllVellS t(I spare fellow believers? An aggressive secularism thus becomes the painless solution to uilcomlortable distinctions between good and bad faiths.

Most critically, we are unsure of how to handle this religious impulse gone astray, and more than a few Pollyanna types would deny reality altogether. Save aiYlong indecorous evangelical Christians such as Pat Robertson, there is a reluctance to name names, perhaps out of a fear of being provocative or alienating potential voters. A parallel with dreaded racial profiling is apt. l)iscussions vacuously invoke "'hateful zeal- ots" without specifying the guilty. The naive might stir- raise that Unitarians, Quakers and Reforlncd Jews all have their secret Hamas-like militias. Chalk up another "'victory" for those who believe that frankly castigating anybody commits the cardinal sin of insensitivity.

Abstract theology is irrele\'ant in unraveling this dis- quiet. Any religious dognla is opel1 to ol~poriunistic re- interpretation via selective quotations. I']very creed el L ters its "good" and "'bad" historical eXalllples. Nor is doctrinal nuttiness relewmt. A full inventory of home- grown secls would uncover denonlinalions far. far beyond mainstream sensibilities, none thai inspire thead. These range from Christian primilives fond of snake handling or talking in tongues io vot)dolJ churches with a ponchanl for aninlal sacrifices. Per good ineasuie add assorted pagans, witchcraft and salanic culls too nu- nitrous to catalogue.

Coillpounding our dilenlnla is Ihe security afforded to any religious belief by the First Anlendnlont plus venerated "high wall" Iradilions. l']ven (7omnlunisls enjoyed the sanctity of beliefs qua beliefs ;.il the heigh! of the Cold War, and court rulings here are unambigu- ous. To criminalize inner thoughts is uildoubtedly a cure worse than the disease. "'Inciting hale'" is tricky to pros- ecute unless another crime is involved. Thc ACI,U would have a field day with an updated Spanish Inquisition.

Forceful state intervention regarding dangerous religious exirenlisnl can only punish behavior no mailer how abhorrent the private thoughts, alld even then the protection afforded "behavior" has expanded. The Fhst Anlendnioni similarly safeguards proselytizing, so ihe battle cannot be about sowing wicked views. Rounding out this piciure is the pernleability of U.S. education to religious instruction, even vehenlenI anli-Aiilericanisll l, provided no public funds are spent, li is inconceivable ttml authorities would shutter a madrasa (rel igious school), regardless of teachings, short of hands-on train- ing for suicide missions.

Ser iousness What makes conflict unavoidable is that our basic

political and social identity is under attack, l,et us be frank: Stated bhmtly, militant Islam, of the type fre- quently associated with the Wahhabi branch, is not.lust about pushing a few religious policies in stale legisla- lures (e.g., abortion or vouchers to religious academies, etc.), it is tin all-encompassing, totalitarian violence- tinged tissuuh and, critically, it originates Irom abroad. As Daniel Pipes htls docunlented, transfornling Anlerica into a devout Islamic Republic is paramounl, and this aim is instittltioFialized and well funded. A long lint of "'respectable" mtlslinls, nlany university or institute- based, and organizations such as the Muslim Studcnt Association, the (7ouncil on American-lslanlic Rela- tions, alld the Muslim Arab Youth Association anlong others routinely endorse this anti-US, l'undanlenialisi view to eac]l other. II is ubiquitous on Muslim Arable websitcs. One estinlate, cited by Pipes, is that these extremists have gained control of over b~(){7< of U.S. inosqucs. This inovement is also politically clever and fully understaildn Ilow to insert its Message into icxi- books and public cerelllonies under the guise of "'ac- comnlodating diversity." And like the devious Marxists of yesteryear, many Islamic radicals skillfully exploit high-souridirig calchpl'uases such as "'illulticulturalism'" while wrappJn~ themselves in victinlhood to ,,lilt) re- spectability. Is affirmalive action and support for porous ilatiollal boardcrs are exploited It) advance Is- [an/aeainst the infidels.

And what, precisely, are the objects t)l" this attack7 The answer is America itself. Thou,,h= we may quibble with the details, Samuel lluntington's 14qm We An, of_ fers a useful sumnlary of "'America." These are our political foundations, and to assail them is treason, not an honesl policy dispute. And note well, an infatuaiion w.'ith violence per see is not decisive here. Thc nlilitia nlovcmcnt does occasionally lurn belligerent thom, h critically, it is ideologically hyper-American, not all assauh of our core values. The early civil righls nlovc-

WItEN Gel) G()I,:S I}AI) 31

ment similarly instigated mayhem, even deadly riot- ing, but recall that this was in pursuit of a quintessen- tial American dream, and disorder often resulted from equally aggressive white resistance. Always remember that violence is as American as cherry pie.

Absolutely central to being "'American- is the pri- macy of a national, geographically defined identity. This must trump race, ethnicity, religion, social class, or any other riwtl---one is an American first and fore- most thou,,h~, , of course, one may also (secondarily) be black, a Baptist, a New Yorker, and so on. Second, government must be representative, democratic and, most resolutely, secular--though, to be sure, it will rest on faith-based morality and may occasionally openly ac- commodate organized religion. Third, and consistent with secular rule, law is to be impersonal ("not of men") and, within reason, universally applied. Religious edicts (e.g., Rabbinical rules defining Jewish marriage) can co-exit with secular law, but they are not to be state- enti)rced and applied to non-believers. Fourth, rights and obligations are individual, not communal, but as affirmative action quarrels will attest, this can e,,et fuzzy around the edges. Finally, America is a capitalist nation, committed to accumulating wealth even though we may permit the state to reign in marketplace com- petition. To repeat, these are not "policies" to be con- tested via elections; these are non-negotiable founda- tional principles whose denial also means rejections froln "'being an American."

This is not what militant Ishun demands, and con- trasted with even the most zealous Christian evangelical evidences a huge chasm; to suggest that militant Islam is "just another" non-mainstream item in our national cabinet of holy curiosities commits a grievous error. Cheryl Benard in her Rand-sponsored study put it succinctly: "...fundanlentalism as a whole is incom- patible with the values of civil society and the Western vision of civilization, political order and society." The militant Muslim's core identity is that of a Muslim and the highest commitment is to the Ummah. the community of believers. Similarly, his (or her) attachment to a denlocralic, representative secular government is non- existent, at most it is a matter of convenience and exploited to advance the faith. The sharia (Ishunic law) must follow the Quran and accompany scholarly con> mentary so a local mullah, regardless of learning or t'omml position, can impose life and death edicts. As a political movement, militant Islam emphasizes personal loyalty and charisma, not forlnal due process. The very idea of the Constitution as the supreme law of the hmd is an abomination, an affront to God and a rival to Allah. One can only imagine, for example, a fundamentalist Christian swearing fealty to Jerry Falwell and

insisting that his sporadic, make-it-up-as-you-go-along fatwas against secular humanists outrank civil law. The denial of individuality at the expense of an almost feu- dal or tribe-like worldview is equally clear, while the aversion to market capitalism virtually defines those Middle Eastern nations embracing Islamic fundamen- talism. To be fuir, many exceptions exist; one must keep in mind that this description only applies to militant Islamicists, not all Muslims. Still, in the final reckon- ing, it does a grave disservice to religiously obse,vant Americans to intimate that they share something in common with those obsessed by Islamic faith.

The problem now becomes, how do we concretely treat a violence-prone, anti-American sect cloaking itself in religion in a nation cherishing and legally protecting religious pluralism? Moreover, this impulse sees itself as obligated to defeat Western values, so reaching some practical acconlmodation (e.g., an Amish-like separatism e r a few legal exemptions) hardly suffices. It is equally foolish to hope that these fanatics can be domesticated to "'work through the system," i.e., lobby a city council to legally mandate the hijab (Islamic dress code). Further, this is a difficult-to-uncover movement whose real intention is easily disguised. And, as events both at home and now in Europe make absolutely clear, this is an urgent question. Even if not a single honae- grown mini-9/ll comes to pass, this threat's mere existence is hugely expensive and will only ,get worse if new recruits enlist and treasuries grow futter. It is this concrete challenge, not some scholarly exegesis of the First Amendment's "'High Wall" or a scholarly inquiry into Ishunic theology thai often defines today's debate over religious extremism. It is also an especially rel- evant battle for non-Muslim people of deep faith. If Islamic fanaticism vanished lonlorrow, we would not only feel much safer, but the anti-fundamentalist pas- sions in general would cool dranmtically and we would revert to the "'good old days" when the quarrels over nativity scenes and the like were mere sideshows, at best.

Three Solutions Perhaps the most idealistic approach to combating

Islamic extremism is to re-energize our commitment to "'tolerance." This solution--foregoing animosity toward Islam despite the destructiveness--sees the conflict rooted in America itself. That is, we must have done something terribly wrong to inspire such animosity. Thus, if we alter our own thinking, become less hateful, perhaps be a little more flexible in our foreign policy, we will build a better and safer society. This is an alluring pathway, certainly drawing less apprehension than, say, illegally deporting thousands of Mus-

32 SOCIETY" �9 MAY/JUNE 2005

liras, while satisfying today's obsession with diversity. Self-imposed thought relorm is also much cheaper than beefed-up security and scarcely demands fresh controversial legislation. Toleration as a tactic to quell religious strife also enjoys a superb intellectual pedigree+ writers such its Milton, I+ocke, and Voltaire famously invoked tolerance in their battles with repressive religious orthodoxy, and judged by the eventual outcomes, their admonitions tnay have triuniphed. At a nainillltltll it would seem that in a worh.t perpetually on the verge of internecine disorder, every bit of tolerance helps.

The underlying theory of this appl'oach seems to be that outside-the nminstream-fanaticism is conquerable via theological graciousness or. it that fails, at least it will entice fewer recruits to wage jihad aeainst the infidels. R. Scott Appleby, director of Notre Dame's Joan B. Kroc Institute, speakino~, at a UN sponsored confer- ence on tolenmce toward lslatn, explicitly expressed this vis ion when he c la imed that Amer ican Islamophobia, in the wake of terrorism, is exactly what the terrorist want. Patriotism, Appleby added, should require a willingness to recognize differences. In effect, this is nothing more than the old adage of leading by example and swaying them with unexpected kind- ness. Like the Dutch, America will lay out the wel- come mat, teach our children the beauty of Ishim. ve- hemently punish anti-Muslim hate crimes, and the misguided fanatics will eventually see the error of their ways.

Tolerance-as-the-solution has become cxcee(lin,,l\, popuhir, and hardly unexpected given tile ease of ver- bally displaying appreciation. President George W. Bush seems infatuated with this strategy. A little more than a

week after 9/11, the President declared. "'there are millions of good Americans who practice the Musliin faith who love their country as nlucta its I love tile country, who salute the llag as strongly its I salute the l]ag.'" ()n another occasion he depicted Ishnn its a religion based upon love, not hate. One 2()l)4 survey 01" the While House website found that "'tolenmce'" appeared some 300 t i lnes--no stnail irony given the president's ()tit- spoken anti-terror campaign. A recently adopted educational initiative funded by the Sores iuld Whiting foundations, created at Northwestern University, and directed at the FBI together w'ith local authorities is entitled "Prolnoting Practices Guide: Developing Part- nerships Between I,aw Enforcement and American Muslim, Arab and Sikh Conmlunities'" that makes tolerance central to lessening terror. The guide's authors write, "The most dangerous threats in this war are rooted in the successful propagation of anger and fear directed at unfamiliar cultures and people." Indeed, the program annotmces that law enforcement attentiveness to reli-

glen or Islam charities should be avoided since this "'...cre- ates an impression of unjust religious, and/or national- origin based targeting. ̀+

The tolerance solution's most ardent l'allS arc pr()- fesxional eclucators and activists. Educational journals now abound with essltys extolling the need to leach "'respect for differences" as the most effective remedy in burgeoning religious/ethnic/racial conflict. A Google "'tolerance" search reveals education-related sites , , a - m

lore, many offering entire for-purchase pedagogical programs all seemingly guaranteed to prevent America from slipping into sectarian turmoil. For example, www.mlerance.org showcases a ten-step phm (e.g., support your children if victimized by hatred) while help- ing those suspecting themselves of unconscious intolerance. F, ven PBS has entered this web-based "'tolerance industry" with comprehensive teaching materials, many exp l ic i t ly exhor t ing to le rance toward Islam (www.l~bs.org/anlericaresponds/ tolerance.html) . A Lexis-Nexis newspaper search on "tolenmce'" uncovers a stcacly stream of we-are-getting-with-the-i~rogram essltys with such titles as "'Principal launches anti-bias program,"-Teaching tolerance: Forum at Clarence High Celebrates l)ifferences,'" or "'Workshop offers ways to fight hate."

Can inculcating tolerance undermine Islamic fanaticism? Though we cannot say for sure, it will probably fail, and may even exacerbate our plight. Most phiinly, efforts are targeted tow'ard total innocents, not those likely to do the damage. Accounts of nonbelievers ven- erating Islam may provide some modest public rehi- tions value on the so-called Anib street, but it is difficult to imagine how this new-fourid respect by the infidels will cool anti-West hatreds. It is bizarre to sup- pose that Muslim Brotherhood fundraisers will mend their ways after being lectured on "'appreciating differences'" ()r seeing Christians enroll in these Ishun-friendly outreach programs. Even if fanatics were forced to at- tend, there is absolutely no way to gt.arantee success .... it is just too easy to fake it. Preaching the "'love-thy- neighbor" sermon is talking to the choir, and stronger indoctrination only invites totalitarian measures, and these will fail. too.

Invoking tolerance as a demonstrated remedy for quelling today's religious strife also misreads history. All classic tolerance adw)cates---Locke, Voltaire, Mill and so on-- implored the powerful (the King, the es- tablished Church. a social consenst, s) to suffer a small, ostracized minority. Their pleas were not abotlt trans- forlning an abhorrent sect nor did they insist that this contentious minority reciprocate by extending tolerance toward a forbearing majority. Tolerance was always about protecting .rome unpopuhtr minorities. Tolenmce

WIIEN GOt) GOFS BAD 33

was never, never a universal value automatically be- stowed on "'differences." And the admission bar could be substantial. Locke, for example, refused toleration to Unitarians since their rejection of the Trinity ren- dered them untrustworthy: Mill similarly would not tolerate those offending public decency. This wondrous history of toleration says zero about handling a small group of dangerous religious fanatics whose faith is generously welcomed by the majority.

Perhaps the strongest case against a iolerance-based solution is that it awards free pass to inflict greater harm without yielding any benefit: it softens tip the potential victim, so to speak. That is, the fear of offending Mus- liins by criticizing them, however fair the assessment, only grants greater freedonl for anti-Americanism. Avoiding litigation and damming publicity for "exces- sive" police scrutiny will likewise facilitate terrorist conspiracies. In this context, tipping our conmfitrnent to tolerance is nothing but self-paralysis in the face of immanent danger. Indeed, this "'love thy enemy" men- tality will inevitably, as Bernard I,ewis argues, be con- strued as a sign of weakness and retreat, not something noble and worthy of emulation, and may only deepen tile view that America is a frail, easy victim in waiting. Paradoxically, bhistering intolerance may be more effective in keeping the peace.

A second oft-mentioned solution zeroes in on defus- ing Islamic zealotry by encouraging a more moderate Islam. This avoids the Islamophobia label while (hope- fully) enlisting innumerable American Muslims who likewise abhor fanaticism. Its advocates correctly point out that moderate, non-violent, even tolerant Islam is quite common. The Ottoman Empire for centuries far outshone Christian Europe in its acceptance of Jews and other minorities. A similar graciousness occurred in Spain under Moorish rule, in lran under the Shah, and now exists in contemporary Morocco and Turkey. Innumerable reputable Islamic scholars offer a "mod- ern" and congenial interpretation of the Quran and such "'updating" is well accepted outside the most strident fundamentalist sects. Perhaps most appealing, this "inod- crate-the-fanatics" strategy fits well with the familiar pathway in which indigenous zealotry cooled with time--let us not forget, for example, that today's mild- mannered New England Congregationalists once vig- orously persecuted heretics, even hanging a few Quak- ers.

Cheryl Benard offers a detailed blueprint on accom- plishing this aim. The key is always to support the modernists, even more traditional elements, at the expense of the extremist fringe. This would include uti- lizing Madison Avenue-like techniques (e.g., websites, popular music) to promote liberal Islam while also pub-

licizing more peaceful, contemporary inte,'pretations of Islam (e.g., the Hanafi school of Islamic law). Also on this agenda would be subsidizing more reasonable civic organizations (including youth and women's groups), Islamic schools and even promoting secularist ideolo- gies. Alliances would be encouraged between moderate and traditional groups to push both away from their fundamentalist brethren. Paralleling these positive steps would be a more forceful attack oil vociferous funda- mental ism-i ts close association with corruption, mis- rule, chronic poverty and perpetual killing. Benard ad- mils, of course, that this strategy is hardly guaranteed, and can easily go astray if too heavy handed, but, over- till, it is the most efficacious in a deeply troubled world.

This "'use-the-moderates" strategy is similar to what once proved successful in combating post-WW It do- mestic communism. Back then the CIA covertly funded various left-leaning but non-commuifists groups to both draw away potential recruits and establish credible fo- rums to challenge radical Marxism. A virtual parallel universe of Socialistic trade unions, newspapers and journals, student groups, and writers association owed its very existence to government subsidies, though most participants lacked any idea of their c{• to undermine communism. Streams of propagandistic books, mov- ies and TV dramas such as 1 lz, ad Three Lives and I Was a Communist,/br the FBI, till of which were quietly government assisted, further altered the cultural milieu.

Might this same approach be dusted off to fight radical Islam? Several factors suggest pessimism. The strategy obviously requires cooperation of the moderates, and even if there is some willingness on their part (stu'ely problematical), public exposure of this collaboration may be fatal. Funneling millions into these loosely ,'un organizations without being exposed is a Herculean tusk; recall what happened when tile secret government spon- soring of various left-wing student groups was uncov- ered in the 60s--nearly instant discrediting and col- lapse. Nor is funding "'the good guys" so easy even if till the rnoney could be governrnent monitored. Orga- nized Islam in the US is incredibly flagmented and deceit and double-dealing seems rife, and may even be theo- logically sanctioned. Tales of "'distinguished Muslim community leaders" attending White House galas only to be arrested soon after for illegal dealings has ahnost become a journalistic cliche, if this were insufficient, Muslim secularists, as the haqi Ba'athist regime, Yasser Ararat and similar despots so well demonstrate, are not necessarily friends of liberal democracy.

Nevertheless, even if these obstacles are surmount- able, the First Amendment remains. Covertly subsidizing the Americans for Democratic Action (a liberal anti- communist organization created during the Cold War)

34 SOCIETY" �9 MAY/JUNE 2(X)5

is constitutional: financially backirlg it liberal-leaning Mosque is not. Even if money is not involved, selec- tively granting privileges (e.g., permitting public dis- plays) it) favored IshuTlic factions invites hard-to-v,,in litigation, lderltical aims can be accomplished via business-funded foundations or just via private donations. but huge risks exist if per chance donations go to the "wrong" Islamic magazine or charity. Imagine the dev- astating publicity if, for example, Exxoll nlollcy inad- vertelltly WOUlld tip with al-Qaeda. [Z, ven worse \\'ould be if CIA money went there. Nor. for that malter, can tile W.S. encot l l ' aoe fol'eiv, n ~o\ ,e rnnlen ls (Ol o v e r s e a s

charities) to sponsor honle-<,rown= liberal ]slain ['or the sitnple reason that no foreign Muslim gtl \ 'er l l l l lent (O1" charity) endorses this neutered version land for good measure, American liberal Muslims often l'a,,or assimi- lation over challenging violence-prone terrorists). In short, goverrnnent meddling in Islamic organizations is a potential legal and practical nightmare best avoided.

Is there no hope other than to muddle ahmg? Fortu- nately, this situation is hatdly unique historically, und our repertory of possible solutions does supply one at- tractive possibility: bring back the Cold War. but with radical Islam replacing Marxism as the object of <+_,,o\- ernmenl repression. In fact, this pathway has already been seriously discussed in E'urope where respect for religious practices is less of it fetish. The U.S. Patriot Act, which offers the FBI limited access to fight Mosque-centered subversion, also acknowledges this new perspective. This parallel is, admittedly, imperfect but is does offer some valuablc advice. The first order of business is altering the conceptual contexl in which this battle transpires. The erlemy, as I)aniel Pipes and other "controversial" figures tell US, is radical MLlslin+l ]~eoph,, not sonle abstracl hateful ideology, and these must be apprehended and punished much like the FBI once hunted COlnmunist spies. If this quesl seems futile, given all lhe confusing doclrinal disputations ;tild chronic mendacity, just recall the problems faced in disentangling Trotskyilcs, Easttrianites, arid countless other tiny sects together with cleverly named front- groups galore who espoused Marxism without necessarily posing a direct threat to national security, qi)ugh work, but feasible.

This quest is futile as per thc First Amendinent if it is posed exclusively in religious terms. Fortunately, we are not defenseless against those who shield themseh/cs in religion. Just reach back to the nineteenth century when the battle pertained to the Mortnons. To condense a long story, conflicts between Mormons and socielv- at-large were often bloody and raised deep cnlotionatl apprehension over whether this peculiar faith was even compatible with Anlerican w.llues. Indeed, I)rolosl;+Ull

ministers occasionally offeretl lurid sermons about or- gies, saitainic rituals and similar bizarre behavior. Utah's statehood was even held tip pending resolution. Over several court cases (Davis v. Beasom. 189(1, (_?/mrc/l Q/l,l[',tl'll.~" ('hri,s'l o f Later Day Saint,s i'. United StOICs, 1890) the l)urely doctrinal element of Mornlonisln v,'as, however, separated from offending behavior. Sub- sCtlUlellt cou l l t ] e s s otller Supreme ( ' o u r t cases (e.g.. 7erminiel lo v. Chica<~,o, 1949)have similarly reaf- firmed our collective right to protection against odi- ous behavior. Even tile now infamous Smith Act that cr iminal ized organizing for violent rebell ion was judged constittLtional. Surely, as we have airgued, the right to beliefs, even it belief that a husband can beat Iris wife, is sacrosanct, but the First Amendlncnt. strictly interpreted, does not protect "'religious-like'" behavior--- wife beating. This may be obvious to constitutional scholars, yet it remains an intellectual sideshow in today's battle.

Our fitlal point about transforming the battle from one against "'religious extremistn" to one against radical .lihadi.+t.s concerns public endorsement for this switch. A recent 2004 national poll indicates encouraging public support for this wake-up call. For example. 47 percent O1' those interviewed endorse greater government power to rnonitor Internet activities, while 63 percent sit,,' that Washington should be able to detain suspected lerrorisls indefinitely. Slightly more than it fllird en- dorsed limiting "'un-American actions" even if consti- tutionally protected. Sizable numbers (usually it quar- ter) also agreed that Muslims should be required tO

register with the governrnent, that police surveillance of Mosques might be necessary, that racia[ profiling of Muslinls was acceptable and that law enforcenlent agents could infiltrate Muslim organizations. No doubt this "'repressive" instinct would increase if operlly de- fended ,rod terrorism strikes again. Naturally, strident First An]el-ldnlcnt det~cnders will be aghast at this "'hate- fulness." But, this harsh characterization acknowledged, this still may be sage war t ime advice and, we should further nolo, advice perfectly consistent with past provell, legal measures.

Though analysis has overwhehningly stressed the radical Islamic threat to Alnerica, far more germane is how to gt-asp "'religious extrentism'" nlore broadly. Unfortunately. today's donlinant liberal Z(,i/t+(,i++t lun+ips all deep faiths together, den]onizing them all, i.e.. the v,ild-eyed fire and brinlstone TV preacher is just as menacing to Ii beral delnocracy as the tie menied M tillah, while danlning "'gay inalriages'" is the functional equiva- lent of celebrating violent nlariyrdonl. This sloppiness is predictable: nlany puridits doing the lulnpirig scarcely kno,a observant believers of any stripe. Ilor are they

WIIEN Gel) GOt';S BAD 35

inclined to probe beyond superficial fulminations. As odd as it may seem, in September of 2004, A1 Gore (who should know better) characterized George Bush's faith as tantamount to what exists in Saudi Arabia and Kashmir. From Manhattan's Upper West Side every person who "really believes that stuff" might appear to be a nutcase.

This absence of discrimination is a hon'endous mis- take: as Huntington so persuasively argues, America's very essence lies in it fitndamenmlist (and dissenting) Protestant roots. We are, and for the better, a child of the Protestant Retbrmation, a liberal, I,ockean polity, and one that still takes religion seriously. Following 9/11 the omnipresent bumper stickers were "God Bless America" not "Kill the Arabs." Even American Catholi- cism and Judaism, according to Huntington, have ac- ceded to Protestant spirit. In fact, one survey found that among those considering themselves agnostics or atheists, 20 percent pray daily! Those assuming public office totally without controversy affirm that they will uphold their responsibilities "'so help me God." The phrase "in God we Trust" appears on all of our cur- rency and opening prayers are commonplace in legisla- tures. The outrage over removing God from the Pledge was genuine. This web of belief is our strength, and was true from the time of settlement, and remains true centuries later. To kill this deeply rooted faith is, in effect, to slaughter the golden goose that so benefits and defines us.

Political elements of this religious legacy would include rule by law, limited, representative government, inalienable rights, a separation of church and state and, no small matter, a fierce spirit of liberty. And surround- ing this political heritage are key prized values: a commitment to individualism, legal equality, fleedom of religion and opinion, opposition to hierarchy, a sturdy sense of good and evil together with a belief in individual responsibility. The economic benefit would include a strong work effort, thrift and entrepreneurial vigor. Try finding a Muslim nation embracing these traits. This is the "fanaticism" that gave us the Aboli- tionists, the Civil Rights movement, and a thriving capitalist economy. It is no accident that George Bush's freedom and democracy rhetoric sounds so "old-fash- ioned"-- i t is antiquated, and this is what undoubtedly inspired millions (including most non-Protestants). To

repeat: destroy this underlying creedal foundation and America vanishes, or at least the America we cherish. To put it bluntly, if it weren' t for our "'fanaticism- tinged" origins, we probably would be a Third World despotism.

What is evidently lacking into today's religious extremism debate is nuanced discrimination--separating the good from evil extremist, knowing when to draw the line between subversive doctrines and resultant behavior. Such sectarian distinctions were once the hall- mark of extending to le rance- -Locke , for example, would permit dissenting Protestants but not Catho- lics since they were Papist agents, lie also insisted that while some dissenting sects were tolerable, ad- herents could nevertheless be denied public office. I,ocke knew that not every faith was suitable tk)r civil society, degrees of suitability did exist, and those that were beyond the pale were inadmissible. ]'his is light- years from "'accepting differences as our national strength."

Closer to the present, does John Ashcroft's penchant for hynms, firxn attachment to law and a personal puri- tanical streak really disqualify him as an American when these same traits infused our national founding? Can a president who proudly announces that Jesus is his fa- vorite philosopher subvert political arrangements created by people who read the Bible literally'? Would rid- ding the military of Christian chaplains boost morale? This is not to say that kicking the Salvation Army out of Target or banishing "'God" fi'om the Pledge signify that the end is near. Rather, the endless nibbling at our specific religious birthright, even ridiculing its very spirit (the "ignorant primitive Yahoos"), so as to shut the door to one fanatical faith (radical Islam) is but suicide on the instalhnent plan. And, the Mother of All Ironies, this aggressive secularism, our version of the French la'fcit~, will only further convince militant Mus- lims of our depravity. Absent this firm, special sectarian, defining core, we can scarcely resist whatever trendy toxic fads might arise, and judged by what transpires elsewhere (Marxism, fascism, ethnic strife), this will be a sorry day. As the old adage goes, you don't know what you have until it's gone.

Robert Weissberg is E'meritus Professor of Political Sci- ence at ttle Univetwitv of lllinois-Urbana.

36 SOCIETY' �9 MAY/JUNE 2005

Documents

When God goes bad