Linker concludes that Neuhaus wants an America “in which moral and theological absolutists demonize the country’s political institutions and make nonnegotiable public demands under the threat of sacralized revolutionary violence.” You would think this would be bad enough, but that passage is actually part of a list of terrible things that Neuhaus allegedly wants. Linker continues, “All of which should serve as a potent reminder–as if, in an age marked by the bloody rise of theologically inspired politics in the Islamic world, we needed a reminder–that the strict separation of politics and religion is a rare, precious, and fragile achievement, one of America’s most sublime achievements, and we should do everything in our power to preserve it.” Right: Our alternatives are “strict separation of politics and religion” and bin Ladenism.

People who see themselves as defending the separation of church and state against “theocons” often seem to suffer from this poverty of imagination. Perhaps that’s why, when they come across someone who criticizes liberal understandings of that separation, they always see bin Laden. They never see, say, a moderate social conservative. I’m well to Neuhaus’s left on social issues, and I’ve been portrayed as a fanatic who wants to criminalize masturbation. Is this the only arrow social liberals have left in their quiver?