I see that Andrew Sullivan has responded to me (and Ramesh). I don’t know if I’ll respond to the whole thing, but this passage from his response bugs me:

Jonah’s first and final point is that, given moral decline, we need “at least a few rocks in the river.” He cites his Jewish father’s approval of Benedict XVI. I have to say I’m not too enamored of outsiders backing fundamentalism in faiths they do not share for political purposes. But, hey, that’s been the neocon position on religion for a long time: we don’t believe it, but it’s good for the masses. I’m not quite up to those levels of cynicism yet. My first concern with any religious argument is: is it true? Not: is it useful?

Me: Sullivan has tossed around this accusation about neocons several times. And, as much as I hate to admit it, he’s got some good reason to. Some neocons have dabbled in this argument, most notably Irving Kristol. But Andrew carries the ball farther than the rules allow and it amounts to a more-sinister-than-necessary depiction of neocons and inaccurate depiction of me.

Let me see if I can explain. Sullivan assumes – or at least strongly suggests – that my first impulse is to ask whether a religion is “useful” rather than if it is true. Why? What evidence is there that this is the first question I ask?

Truth be told, it is, in fact, the second or third question I ask (the first is, “Do they allow open bars at their celebrations?”). But I do ask it. As a Jew, what’s wrong with me asking whether Catholicism – or Christianity in general – is good for the world? What is wrong with a Catholic asking the same question about Judaism? Or Hinduism, or Islam? And as a conservative, it seems almost mandatory to ask whether a given faith – and how it is currently practiced – has a positive or negative effect on the social fabric. This is entirely in keeping with the American tradition of being more concerned with morality more than theology (as I’ve written about several times, including here). Americans opposed Utah’s entry into the United States so long as Mormon’s advocated polygamy. Once they dropped that, Americans said come on in. No one cared about the theological bells and whistles. They merely cared about behavior.

Second, in a fairly classic display of his capacity for moralizing righteousness, Andrew strikes a pose of mild disdain of my “cynicism” for suggesting that maybe religion is good for “the masses.” I fail to see why this is cynical. Frankly, I think it is factual. The data is certainly there to support the contention, as Andrew certainly knows. Moreover, while neocons have made this argument one needn’t be a neocon to make it. I know that it feeds into the anti-neocon phantasmagoria of clever secular intellectuals manipulating the society for their own ends, but there’s nothing sinister or dishonest about it. In my own case I’ve written a blajillion columns and articles arguing that hypocrisy alone doesn’t make an argument wrong (“you’re consistently pro inconsistency!” – the Couch). I could be a baal-worshipper in my private life, or I could believe that nanobots and gene therapy are the only salvation for mankind, that wouldn’t mean that my public arguments about religion were wrong. Neither would it render my public argument that 2+2 =4 wrong if I privately believed 2+2 is a duck in short pants. I know Andrew has a tendency to believe his own personal political preferences should and must be in perfect accord with external reality, but I’ve never subscribed to such a view.

Also, Andrew says he doesn’t like it when outsiders back what he calls fundamentalism in faiths they don’t share for political reasons. The significant silences here are deafening. Would Andrew support outsiders backing “reform” in these faiths? Or is it only political support for “fundamentalism” which irks him? Does he like support from reformers? And if that’s the case, then his is the more political position. After all we know Andrew advocates reform for Islam.

Meanwhile, my position is to support allegedly similarly “fundamental” causes at lots of institutions and organizations. I was against women at VMI. I’m opposed to Cookie Monster eating carrots instead of cookies and I despise cartoons where Tom and Jerry are friends. I thought it was outrageous for the New York Times to endorse the Boston Red Sox in the World Series. And, I think it would be folly for the Catholic Church to support abortion. This doesn’t mean I’m opposed to all reform and innovation. I merely have a Lincolnian preference for the old and tried over the new and untried. I support the civil rights acts, the creation of the double-stuffed Oreo and the teaching of law in English rather than Latin and a non-violence movement within Islam. And, for the record, I think the Catholic Church would be smart to let more priests marry (it’s easier to do than allow women priests and there’s plenty of precedent for it).

I’m at a loss to see how that makes me a neocon, but if it does in his mind, okay. But the neoconservative view about religion isn’t nearly so sinister or inconsistent with its view about everything else or with the conservative view of everything else than he tries to suggest.