Prophets and Kings. - Review - book review

National Review, Oct 23, 2000 by Daniel P. Moloney

God's Name in Vain: The Wrongs and Rights of Religion in Politics, by Stephen L. Carter (Basic, 288 pp., $26)

Stephen Carter used to irritate conservatives. In the early 1990s, Carter, a black professor at Yale Law School, wrote Reflections of an Affirmative Action Baby, in which he admitted that his status as an affirmative-action hire meant that others would always doubt his abilities as a professional, that he would be the object of resentment by those who did not qualify for affirmative-action programs, and that he would always know that such doubts and resentment were, at least partly, justified. Since this case had been advanced and refined for decades by conservatives, Carter proved his colors as a liberal by criticizing (and often caricaturing) the conservatives who had blazed the trail for him. His second book, The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion, again addressed a controversial topic-the exclusion of religion from public life-with arguments developed by conservatives, but Carter was again at pains to distance himself from those on "the Christian Right": He took an entire chapter to accuse Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition of engaging in "Religious Fascism." This triangulation strategy avant la lettre worked perfectly-President Clinton, early in his first term, would often mention the book in speeches.

That was the old Stephen Carter. In his new book, a sequel to The Culture of Disbelief, Carter comes out as a feisty, almost libertarian opponent of the secular state in nearly all of its manifestations. Carter now proudly identifies himself as an evangelical Christian, and, somewhat less proudly, declines to identify himself as a liberal. He apologizes for the "Religious Fascism" crack, and even admits to "a sneaking admiration for the Christian racists of Bob Jones University" for their steadfastness in the face of government pressure. If one examines the trajectory of Carter's books, from the overcautious liberal of Reflections to the bold antistatism of God's Name in Vain, it is clear that he has moved to the right. His political journey, though, is but a reluctant consequence of his growing conviction that all human actions, public and political as well as private, derive their meaning from man's relation to God.

The timing of this book is flawless, coming as it does just after the spat regarding Sen. Joseph Lieberman's speeches on the importance of faith for public life. Carter's argument is that religious believers should engage in political debate, that they have every right to do so, and that if the state tries to prevent them it will meet with stiff resistance. "I write, not only as a Christian," Carter declares, "but as one who is far more devoted to the survival of my faith-and of religion generally-than to the survival of any state in particular, including the United States of America."

Carter wants believers to engage in-to quote one of his chapter headings- "politics, not elections." Religion is subversive, Carter insists, because it acknowledges a justice above human law. Thus, religious citizens have a vantage point from which to question the legitimacy of the regime, a vantage the regime does its best to compromise. Because believers passionately hold ideas about how all people should live, they are especially susceptible to the call of politics; they see how much good it can do, especially if the right sort of person is in charge.

If they want to preserve their distinctive perspective and contribution to public life, believers have to be on guard against this secular temptation, and, according to Carter, be especially careful about involvement in electoral politics. They should argue publicly for goals and principles inspired by their religious outlook, but they should "put not [their] faith in princes," as the psalm goes, by publicly supporting one side in partisan politics. Carter worries that the state will overawe and seduce believers, coopting religious language and symbols to dress up the bargaining with special interests and the spinning of the truth that is the stuff of political campaigns. Religion involves eternal truths, while politics involves prudential compromises; the impulse to win now can lead believers to betray their duty of eschatological witness.

Most observers point to the Christian Right when illustrating the perils of politicized religion, but Carter draws from examples of impeccably progressive religious activism, such as the civil-rights movement. For instance, he argues that black evangelical preachers have been corrupted by their involvement with the Democratic party, so that they persuade people who are basically pro-life, pro-vouchers, and pro-school prayer to vote for candidates who never take these views seriously. He reminds us that Martin Luther King Jr. presented a religious challenge to Americans-that they reform society based on the commandment to love one another-and that this subversive message was coopted and de-Christianized by the state in order to "invent affirmative action and buy people off."