The New York Times  
May 24, 1981

Abroad at Home; Cotton Mather Politics

By Anthony Lewis

One of the important elements in Ronald Reagan's election was right-wing fervor on social and religious issues. The Moral Majority and other groups roused a lot of voters with their calls to end abortion, put prayer back in the schools and resist the women's movement as a threat to the family.

Since Jan. 20 the Reagan Administration has done its best to keep those questions on the back burner in Congress. It did not want its economic program obstructed by an emotional fight over social issues.

But now the fight is on. And we can already see that it represents a danger to the President - not to his economic package, which is on its way, but more deeply to the political climate in the country.

Abortion, that most divisive of issues, has led the way. Senator Jesse Helms and others have been pressing for action on a bill to get around the Supreme Court's decision that it is unconstitutional to make early abortions a crime, by a ''simple'' declaration that human life begins at conception.

Then last week the Senate, by a vote of 52 to 43, attached to an appropriation bill the strictest anti-abortion rider it has ever approved. The language forbids the use of Federal funds to pay for a poor woman's abortion unless the pregnancy threatens her life. It rules out abortions under Medicaid even in cases of rape or incest.

In the debate on the rider, the issues were ones not of party but of faith -really of religious belief. The chief debaters were all Republicans: on one side Senator Helms, on the other Senators Bob Packwood and Lowell Weicker.

Senator Helms specifically rejected appeals for the approximately 15,000 women who become pregnant as the result of rape each year. Under existing law they are eligible for Medicaid abortions if they are poor and have reported the rape within 72 hours. But Senator Helms spoke of ''a red herring whereby people come up four months later and say, 'Oh, by the way, I was raped four months ago.' ''

Senator Packwood said: ''There is growing in this country a Cotton Mather mentality ..., narrow, unforgiving.'' He spoke of ''a feeling that 'God speaks to me. I will tell you what He says. Tough luck if you're not on the same wavelength.' ''

Senator Helms answered: ''We're talking about the deliberate termination of human life. If that's a Cotton Mather mentality, so be it. There is a set of instructions that came down from Mount Sinai about that.''

That drew from Senator Weicker: ''We're not running this country from divine commandments or instructions from Mount Sinai.'' My guess is that most Americans do not want this country run by divine commandments - or, rather, by politicians who claim exclusive knowledge of those commandments. the intolerance that motivated Cotton Mather in the Salem witch trials is not the basis of the American political system.

Fundamentalist religion is gaining strength in the United States. But I do not believe it follows that religious Americans want a theocracy as their form of government. Many, even of the strongest personal beliefs, would hold to the country's tradition of diversity in faith and separation of religion from government.

It happens also that a guarantee of diversity - a prohibition on the mixing of church and state - is written into the Constitution. And most Americans, when they think about it, are not likely to favor radical change in that aspect of our fundamental law.

Then there is the place of the Supreme Court in our system. Americans rallied in 1937 to protect a Court whose decisions they did not like against the court-packing plan of a highly popular President. I think the feeling for the Court as an institution, as a safeguard, is just as strong today. Most Americans will feel uneasy about changing the Court's reading of the Constitution by ''simple'' legislation.

The public, then, may come to see those who raise the social issues not as ''conservatives'' but as radical zealots. And the mood of friendly tolerance for conservative experiment in Washington could turn sour.

In the same week that the anti-abortionists were pushing to the extreme in Washington, Italians by a 2-to-1 margin rejected a tightening of their moderate abortion law - and did so despite the emotional circumstance of the attack on the Pope. It would be ironic if a country with a First Amendment were to let religion command politics more than it does in Rome.

Another irony is that some of the same men who talk about translating the word of God into American legislation show little concern for the godless cruelties of other governments. Senator Helms indicates no desire to have the United States speak out against torture in Uruguay or official anti-Semitism in Argentina.

There again I doubt that the right-wing zealots speak for America. The more the extreme right sets the pace, the more danger there is that Ronald Reagan's Washington will lose its rapport with the country.
May 24, 1981

Abroad at Home; COTTON MATHER POLITICS

By Anthony Lewis

One of the important elements in Ronald Reagan's election was right-wing fervor on social and religious issues. The Moral Majority and other groups roused a lot of voters with their calls to end abortion, put prayer back in the schools and resist the women's movement as a threat to the family.

Since Jan. 20 the Reagan Administration has done its best to keep those questions on the back burner in Congress. It did not want its economic program obstructed by an emotional fight over social issues.

But now the fight is on. And we can already see that it represents a danger to the President - not to his economic package, which is on its way, but more deeply to the political climate in the country.

Abortion, that most divisive of issues, has led the way. Senator Jesse Helms and others have been pressing for action on a bill to get around the Supreme Court's decision that it is unconstitutional to make early abortions a crime, by a ''simple'' declaration that human life begins at conception.

Then last week the Senate, by a vote of 52 to 43, attached to an appropriation bill the strictest anti-abortion rider it has ever approved. The language forbids the use of Federal funds to pay for a poor woman's abortion unless the pregnancy threatens her life. It rules out abortions under Medicaid even in cases of rape or incest.

In the debate on the rider, the issues were ones not of party but of faith -really of religious belief. The chief debaters were all Republicans: on one side Senator Helms, on the other Senators Bob Packwood and Lowell Weicker.

Senator Helms specifically rejected appeals for the approximately 15,000 women who become pregnant as the result of rape each year. Under existing law they are eligible for Medicaid abortions if they are poor and have reported the rape within 72 hours. But Senator Helms spoke of ''a red herring whereby people come up four months later and say, 'Oh, by the way, I was raped four months ago.' ''

Senator Packwood said: ''There is growing in this country a Cotton Mather mentality ..., narrow, unforgiving.'' He spoke of ''a feeling that 'God speaks to me. I will tell you what He says. Tough luck if you're not on the same wavelength.' ''

Senator Helms answered: ''We're talking about the deliberate termination of human life. If that's a Cotton Mather mentality, so be it. There is a set of instructions that came down from Mount Sinai about that.''

That drew from Senator Weicker: ''We're not running this country from divine commandments or instructions from Mount Sinai.'' My guess is that most Americans do not want this country run by divine commandments - or, rather, by politicians who claim exclusive knowledge of those commandments. the intolerance that motivated Cotton Mather in the Salem witch trials is not the basis of the American political system.

Fundamentalist religion is gaining strength in the United States. But I do not believe it follows that religious Americans want a theocracy as their form of government. Many, even of the strongest personal beliefs, would hold to the country's tradition of diversity in faith and separation of religion from government.

It happens also that a guarantee of diversity - a prohibition on the mixing of church and state - is written into the Constitution. And most Americans, when they think about it, are not likely to favor radical change in that aspect of our fundamental law.

Then there is the place of the Supreme Court in our system. Americans rallied in 1937 to protect a Court whose decisions they did not like against the court-packing plan of a highly popular President. I think the feeling for the Court as an institution, as a safeguard, is just as strong today. Most Americans will feel uneasy about changing the Court's reading of the Constitution by ''simple'' legislation.

The public, then, may come to see those who raise the social issues not as ''conservatives'' but as radical zealots. And the mood of friendly tolerance for conservative experiment in Washington could turn sour.

In the same week that the anti-abortionists were pushing to the extreme in Washington, Italians by a 2-to-1 margin rejected a tightening of their moderate abortion law - and did so despite the emotional circumstance of the attack on the Pope. It would be ironic if a country with a First Amendment were to let religion command politics more than it does in Rome.

Another irony is that some of the same men who talk about translating the word of God into American legislation show little concern for the godless cruelties of other governments. Senator Helms indicates no desire to have the United States speak out against torture in Uruguay or official anti-Semitism in Argentina.

There again I doubt that the right-wing zealots speak for America. The more the extreme right sets the pace, the more danger there is that Ronald Reagan's Washington will lose its rapport with the country.