HOLY ROLLER II

Worthwhile piece by Michael Novak in National Review Online about Pentecostalism and the Church-State divide. Novak points out, intelligently, that John Ashcroft’s dissenting forefathers were among the most adamant of those who wanted government to have no role in religious life. The speaking-in-tongues holy rollers of Ashcroft’s faith had the most to fear from more mainline Protestants using the state to enforce orthodoxy. Novak’s point is well-taken. But the fear about Ashcroft is not that he will use his office to mandate ritual anointings with the Holy Spirit, but that he will use his religious faith to make unyielding political decisions which brook little dissent or pluralistic opposition. The problem is not that he will impose religion, but that he will impose a sectarian and often incoherent morality upon a pluralist country. Novak says these fears are unfounded, and I hope he’s right. At the least, I think Ashcroft and Bush should be given the benefit of the doubt, especially since the role of the attorney-general is not to legislate but to enforce existing laws. But that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t worry.