Andrew Sullivan writes that Bush’s FMA endorsement contradicts the war
on terrorism. It divides us when we need unity. More important, he says
that what we are fighting for in the war is the separation of religion
and politics, the equality of citizens, freedom of conscience, freedom
generally, “the sanctity of the Constitution,” and a “way of life”
defined by those things. This amendment goes, he says, against all of
the above. Now if I thought that the FMA really was a violation of
freedom of conscience and the equality of citizens, I’d be against
it—and, more importantly, I’m sure the president would, too, if he believed that. It seems
to me that one of the things we are fighting for is the ability of
citizens to reach different conclusions about what “freedom of
conscience,” “equality,” and the like entail, rather than having them
dictated to us–for the right to have a substantial political debate. For
democracy, not rule by unelected clerical or judicial councils.
Sullivan writes, “I grew up in a country where there was no separation
of church and state and had to attend a public high school that was
anathema to my own religious faith. America has therefore always
signified religious and political freedom to me.” He grew up in Britain,
right? I like the way we handle religion and government better than
Britain’s, too. But Britain is a free society, and it is worth fighting
for against terrorists. Is there a “contradiction” in Blair’s being on
our side? If America had been attacked by Islamist extremists back when
we had school prayer (and banned abortion!), it would still have been
worth fighting the war on terrorism. There are people who think that we
have to get rid of “In God We Trust” if we are not to be “theocratic.” I
don’t think they’re right. But I’m even more sure it has nothing to do
with the war.