Debating the Divine in Public
The Center for American Progress released a new book, Debating the Divine
Religion in 21st Century American Democracy, arguing for some fresh approaches on religion in American public life.
David Hollinger, the Preston Hotchkis Professor of American History at the University of California, Berkeley, argues in his essay for a strong civic sphere in which democratic national solidarity and civic patriotism trump all religious loyalties. He asserts that religious ideas are too often given a pass and argues that they be critically scrutinized.Eboo Patel, a scholar and activist who founded the Interfaith Youth Core, calls in his essay for the vigorous participation of religion in public life, founded on principles of religious pluralism. He argues that religious voices, in all their particularity, have a legitimate and important role to play in public debate. And he spells out ways in which interfaith collaboration is strengthening civic and political institutions.
Melissa Rogers examines how the tradition of religious freedom can help define the role of religion in current civic debates. Melissa Rogers serves as visiting professor of religion and public policy at Wake Forest University Divinity School. She previously served as the executive director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life in Washington, D.C. Previous to her leadership at the Pew Forum, Rogers served as general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty based in Washington, D.C. In 2004, Rogers was recognized by National Journal as one of the church-state experts "politicians will call on when they get serious about addressing an important public policy issue."
The iconic public square where Americans of the past used to gather to debate the politics of the day is long gone from most cities and towns, but the spirited conversations that once defi ned these places—both in myth and fact—are alive and well today. The topics of our current political and cultural conversations range from the mundane to the profound, but a recurring theme has to do with religion and politics—in particular, whether religion should be a force shaping our public policies and our common civic life.Of course, this is not a new conversation. Contrasting views about the role of religion in public life predate our nation’s birth—from the Massachusett s Bay Colony, where officials collected taxes to support the Puritan church and compelled att endance at its services, to the Founders who disestablished religion from the state and drafted the Constitution without mention of God.
In recent years, these conversations have been heating up. Invectives fly back and forth as opponents stake out mutually exclusive claims on behalf of truth, fairness, and the American way. Listening to each side, one is hard-pressed to tell whether we are a God-saturated, intolerant, anti-intellectual theocracy—or a severely secular nation that punishes the practice of religion and banishes God altogether from our laws, policies, and public life.
Debating the Divine: Religion in 21st Century American Democracy aims to turn down the heat and turn up the light. Because the issue of religion in public life is complex, encompassing theory, history, and practice, we purposely did not set up a narrowly-focused debate in which each side shot at the other, and the side with the fiercest arguments and most adherents won. Instead, we have chosen to examine the many facets of the issue in a thoughtful way, in hopes of finding new insights and, perhaps, common ground.


Comments
http://www.examiner.com/a-1468813~Tyranny_of_the_minority.html
Editorial
Tyranny of the minority
The Baltimore Examiner Newspaper
2008-07-02
BALTIMORE -
L et’s get this straight.
A former Annapolis midshipman, someone we paid to attend the Naval Academy to learn to lead others into battle, is so cowed by peer pressure he couldn’t handle a lunchtime prayer? And his convictions are so strong he will only speak anonymously, through the American Civil Liberties Union, on the matter?
How did our Naval Academy admit him given the competition for the honor of an appointment?
Such cowardice has no place in a service academy. And it should strike fear into those who might and those who eventually must serve under this “leader.”
Second, since when did the Constitution protect an individual’s right not to be uncomfortable?
Who cares if “not participating makes you stand out, and peer pressure made me feel like I’m different or do not respect others as much.” Part of becoming an adult is learning how to handle yourself in those situations. Forcing others to live by your rules is not how the world works, nor how the military operates. Certainly dread enemies don’t give a hoot. If following orders is not something the recently graduated midshipman can abide, he should leave the military and repay taxpayers for his education before he puts those in his command in harm’s way.
Third, the prayer in no way violates the Constitution’s guarantee that the government will make “no law respecting the establishment of religion.” The prayer is non-sectarian and participation voluntary.
What the midshipman and the eight others the ACLU recently represented in writing say they want is to wipe expressed religion from the public square — for which there is no right. In fact, doing so makes private, personal faith or atheism the rule of the land. How fair is that?
The Anti-Defamation League challenged the prayer in 2005 and lost. The ACLU should drop its protest and all plans for a lawsuit and start focusing on real crimes instead of inventing injustice where none exists.
Where were the ACLU and its anonymous nine, for example, when midshipmen were put in real danger by abuse of religious and government authority at the academy by sexual predator and Catholic chaplain Lt. Cmdr. John Thomas Matthew Lee? The chaplain, HIV-positive, pleaded guilty last year to 11 charges, including forcing himself on a midshipman.
The Naval Academy should disregard the protest and maintain the voluntary prayer. Nine people must not be allowed to force others to make them comfortable at the expense of a long-standing, respected and voluntary tradition.
Posted by: Al Ortiz | July 2, 2008 12:02 PM