Abnormal Interests

Second, they refer to our political leaders as follows:

Some key American political leaders now conceive of their roles in moral terms. And they see themselves as stewards of the blessings of representative democracy, religious freedom, and human rights in a world where many nations are endangered by the forces of authoritarianism or radical secularism.

Again, this is true. At least in the public, Bush II and company articulate their roles in "moral terms." But so did Clinton, Bush I, Carter and every other president we have ever had. What the passage means by "moral terms" is "sectarian religious terms." Religions often equate the two. Which president did not see his role as a steward of democracy and religious freedom? Which modern president did not see himself as a steward of human rights? The whole quote is baffling at one level. At another level, it is an endorsement of the narrower sectarian position of some members of the current administration.

The real punch line comes at the end, ". . . many nations are endangered by the forces of authoritarianism or radical secularism." I know they use the disjunctive "or" but it sure reads like a conjunctive to me. Authoritarianism and radical secularism are listed as equal dangers in the current world. I'm not sure how radical secularism differs from old fashioned secularism but one possibility is that it means government without endorsement of religion. But that is exactly what is called for in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. And latter they support the Establishment Clause. On my reading of history, secularism has been, on balance, very good for the citizens of the countries that have enjoyed it. More secularism, not less, is likely better.