INTOLERANCE SWADDLED IN TOLERANCE

Intolerance Swaddled in Faith (Richard Cohen, May 1, 2003, Washington Post)

On Sept. 12, 1960, John F. Kennedy, in a tight presidential race with Richard Nixon, addressed the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. In an attempt to reassure those Americans who thought a Catholic president would take orders from the Vatican or somehow impose Catholic doctrine on a majority Protestant nation, Kennedy not only said he believed that "the separation of church and state is absolute" but added something else as well: "I believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair." For this, Sen. Rick Santorum has rhetorically excommunicated him.

Kennedy's position did "much harm in America," Santorum told the National Catholic Reporter last year. "All of us have heard people say, 'I privately am against abortion, homosexual marriage, stem cell research, cloning. But who am I to decide that it's not right for someone else?' It sounds good. But it is the corruption of freedom of conscience."

In contrast, Santorum named George W. Bush -- a Methodist -- as a president with the right approach. He dubbed him "the first Catholic president of the United States." Goodbye, JFK. [...]

He gave that speech in Houston because most Americans did not share his faith -- some of them to the point of ludicrous bigotry. Others, though, merely had some qualms. Therefore, he was assuring them all that he would not try to translate his faith into public policy. His Roman Catholicism would remain "his own private affair."

Santorum rejects that approach -- and, importantly, so do others of his bent, whatever their religion. In doing so, they sometimes advance beliefs about which there is no consensus. It is one thing to refer to the Judeo-Christian heritage to justify a ban on polygamy, which is often just another term for the exploitation of women, or on incest, where children are often victimized. But it is quite another thing to give the police the power to invade your home and arrest you for a consensual sex act with another adult -- which is what happened in Texas -- or read you your Miranda rights for committing adultery. Many Americans would be appalled by that.

Worse, in advancing religious arguments for public policy, Santorum and others foreclose both debate and compromise -- the basic ingredients of democracy. If you think, simply as a matter of faith, that homosexual sex ought to be a crime, then I cannot reason with you. We might as well argue over the parting of the Red Sea, the virgin birth or whether Muhammad really ascended to heaven on a winged horse. As history has shown, when these issues get into the public square, absolutes are declared and swords are drawn.

You hear a lot of talk nowadays about how godless this nation has become -- downright immoral, if you ask some. The prescription supposedly is to give religion some muscle, bring it back into the schools and into public life in general. George Bush, from everything he says, favors that approach -- and the White House, beholden to religious conservatives, waxed Orwellian about Santorum, pronouncing him "an inclusive man."

Rick Santorum serves as a warning. His zealousness, his intolerance swaddled in the tenderness of faith, is polarizing and downright frightening. He does not -- he cannot -- speak for those of us who do not share his faith, although we all must respect his right to practice it. John Kennedy had the right approach in these matters. He didn't run as a Catholic but as a Democrat. On account of that, he won as both.

There's an exquisite hypocrisy to all this. You'll recall that when Trent Lott got in his little dust-up it was made clear to all that some thoughts are so heinous that they are not to be spoken in the public square. Speech which appears intolerant of other races is not to be tolerated. That's all well and good, but note that this was a triumph not for the free exchange of ideas but for an intolerant political orthodoxy.

Comes now Senator Santorum to speak on an issue where no such orthodoxy exists, despite the best efforts of the Left, and so they find themselves unable to impose their intolerance on his intolerance. Both sides are defending that which they believe in and the sides are pretty evenly matched: Mr. Santorum and the public vs. Democratic leaders and the media. Both sides are zealous. Both are polarizing. Both have a faith and little respect for those who practice the opposite. Mr. Cohen is all of the things that he's accusing Mr. Santorum of being. So are we all. Posted by Orrin Judd at May 4, 2003 9:23 AM