Catch Hold Of America’s Religious Wars: The Embattled Heart Of Our Public Life Composed By Kathleen M. Sands Ready In Copy

begin by quoting extensively from Professor Sands who is a theologian and a historian from her introduction to the book, After this, I will offer some brief observations of the books argument, its importance, and the many ideas it raised with me,
I welcome and deeply respect how beautifully Dr, Sands avoids some of all too familiar tropes of our time, such as valuing this side or argument more highly than that side, What she tries to do and, in my opinion, succeeds very well is to show how earnestly both or all sides are trying to both express their deepest values, hopes and fears as well as seeks to not harm others but rather to keep “others” whomever they might be from harming them.

This is a very rich book that speaks directly to our own times and, if truly heard, might help us address some of our thornier issues with greater sensitivity and success.



“If we listen carefullywe might notice that American religiontalk is threaded through with principles of social ethics, In this book, I will refer to six: freedom, equality, community, limited government, dignity, and distributive justice,
“the principles are tensive: each is precious, but they pull in different directions, Reconciling them is an endless balancing act,

“From the beginning, every American conflict about religious liberty has been a conflict about equality about what counts as a religion, who counts as a citizen, and how freedom can be safeguarded for all.

“Freedom, equality, community, and limited government are familiar issues in American religious conflicts, But some stakes of religious conflict are more tangible than these four, and some are less tangible, The more tangible stakes have included land, money, taxes, legal protections, political power, and public education, Distributive justice is the ethical principle that should guide decisions about who gets what tangible goods, how they get them, and how they do or dont share them.
But there are also stakes that, while less tangible, are just as vital, As the womens labor anthem expressed it, people need roses as well as bread, If distribution is bread, dignity is roses, Dignity is like wealth: it is something everyone needs, but it has never been distributed evenly, If we bear that in mind, well be more equipped to discern whats going on in battles over religion,
“Because religions are groups within society, religious conflicts are struggles over power,

“each time the Constitution refers to religion, the effect is to put religion and government in separate spheres,
“The Framersthought of religion itself sometimes as wall and other times as foundation, sometimes entirely private and other times as a common ethos,

“Even as religious differences were absented from the secular world, a host of EuroChristian assumptions about morality, citizenship, and civilization were buried in the foundations of the social order.
Compliance with these assumptions would seem voluntary and personal, yet this voluntary, personal faith was precisely what was publicly expected, In effect, it was required,
“religiontalk, while it seems to declare eternal verities, also tells people what to believe and how to act,
“In order to understand American religiontalk, we must look at, rather than through, the judgments we normally pack into the world religion, Here, rather bluntly, I will debunk three of them, each rooted in the history of the word in the modern West: that religion is essentially good, that religions are essentially the same, and that there is a fixed and natural division between the religious and the secular.

“whatever its purposes, religiontalk is legitimation: it involves God or the sacred to authorize particular claims about how the world should be arranged, When we try to make sense of religion as a category, then, we are actually rationalizing, post facto, whatever power arrangements the category of religion now supports.


“American secularism, then, is really a permutation of American foundational religion, For its most devoted followers, secularism does much of what religion does: it provides a worldview, a standpoint from which one looks at everything, But having repudiated is secret twin, secularism eventually became unable to discern the resemblance, This denial is enabled by the fact that secularism, like all universalistic viewpoints, does not see itself as a viewpoint but simply as the truth.
In this book, I subject secularismtalk to the same analysis, and measure it by the same criteria, as religiontalk, All claims will face the same questions, What freedoms were at stake, and how equitably were those freedoms distributed What were the demands of the common good, of human dignity, and of distributive justice What were the appropriate roles of government and civil society in protecting those goods And how were those principles played out in these particular historical circumstances, with these particular parties
“Despite our wellpracticed scripts on the subject, Americans hardly know what were fighting about when we fight about religion.
To make sense of these conflicts, this book asks who was involved in them, what interests were at stake, and why people thought they were right.
Who were these people What did they stand to gain or lose in terms of land, wealth, political influence, legal rights, or social status Did they have different visions of how people should relate to each other along the lines of race, class or gender What kinds of people did they recognize as equals, and to whom did they deny that recognition What were their experiences of dignity or indignity, and how did those experiences inflect this conflict What were their views about the proper scope of freedom, and how did they balance freedom with the common good
“American religiontalk, structured around the metaphors of wall and foundation, obfuscates these underlying issues.
Under the metaphor of wall, religion refers to matters on which we dont expect to agree under the metaphor of foundations, it refers to matters on which we do expect to agree.
Because contradictory implications are baked into the word, religion becomes a perfect vehicle for the expression of opposition,

“If the wall metaphor reduces social questions to matters of law, the foundation metaphor silences social questions under a blanket of majoritarian assumptions.

“secularism in the eyes of its proponents is tolerant, humane, progressive, and naturally congruent with Americanism, And because secularism seems beyond reasonable controversy, its critics are said to be backward, divisive, intolerant, and unAmericans,

“We ask which religion should be our foundation, or whether religion has any place in our foundation, when the real question is not about religion but simply about foundations.
What are, or should be, the norms, commitments, and sensibilities that hold the polity together We ask about the scope of religious liberty, when the real question is about the scope of liberty itself.
Under what circumstances should people be forced to do or not do something What is the boundary between one persons freedom and that of another How can freedom be equally protected for all
“Using religion as a symbol for all that is good and true is a centurieslong habit that is very hard to break.
Using religion to symbolize what is oppressive

and ignorant is not quite as old a habit, but it too is deeply entrenched, In either case, its difficult to remember that, whatever may be the nature of good and evil, religion is simply a word, and it changes meanings depending on when, where, by whom, and for what purposes it is used.
”


If one really hears what Dr, Sands is saying here, it makes a lot of the most contentious and truly “hot” issues of the past century both much clearer and understandable.
I especially appreciated how she pointed out that secularism is effectively a religion for many of us today, although usually not understood that way,
Thanks to her work, I now better understand that it is impossible to keep “religion” out of the public sphere, and that the “wall between church and state” has always been, and will remain, permeable.

But that doesnt mean that the balancing act she so delicately described will in itself become any easier,
The public sphere means precisely that public! And because we are all both fiercely individualistic in our views as well as tribal in our allegiances and yes, secularists, we are tribal in our own distinctive way, too we are going to inevitably differ and clash.
This is both inevitable and intensely human,
Differences of opinions even strong ones are not to be feared or avoided, for they are inevitable, and in a healthy society they must surface and be confronted.
What makes our differences so fearful these days is how we have lost the arts of listening, understanding, and being able to “put ourselves each others shoes.
”
What we have become instead is a nation of rigid shouters, of selfrighteous stiffs who refuse to practice selfscrutiny into our own motives and state of true knowledge, and of people more inclined to “dis” those with whom we disagree then to see them as truly human beings like ourselves who just happen to differ with us.

However, it is vital to understand that all the platitudes and good intentions in the world will not in themselves some of the thorniest issues, for these are deeply embedded in thought structures to which we cling as essential components of our own identity.

Take, for example, the matter of the “role” or “place” of women, This is not a question that can be waved away simply by saying that people who raise such a question are simply ignorant or antifeminist.
Some, perhaps a great many of them may be just that, but certainly not all, Moreover, it is critical that we understand how some matters not usually part of such discussions actually shape the nature of the perceived problem, For instance, in both the matter of “womens place” and the heated issue of “abortion rights” one of the critical, nondiscussed components is economic, In a nation in which goodpaying jobs with decent supplementary benefits is increasingly a rarity, many women simply have no choice about working outside the home, even if theyd rather not.
For the family unit to survive they must do so, all theories about their “place” notwithstanding,
For many women wrestling with carrying a child their own economic status and the result this would have on having another child is paramount.
They might want to carry a child to term, but because this society has in many ways failed both pregnant women and children, they are left with a to them no win situation.

Well, why not provide greater economic support and better jobs This is an example of how economic and political ideology plays into or subverts “religion.
” Some of the very people both insistent on the stating that “a womans place is in the home raising children” and who are against abortion under any circumstances are the very same people who believe strongly in a “smaller government that does not take from the doers and providers in order to assist the lazy and takers.
”
Whether these are truly religious views, or “simply” economic and/or political ideological positions does not really matter much, although how they are presented and argued does.

I believe that far too many of us have become mentally and emotionally lazy I believe far too many of us no longer give much of a damn about other citizens or even about the longterm good of the majority of our people.
Yes, we have been goaded into these positions by both politicians and alleged “religious leaders” for years, but it is also true that we have willingly succumbed.
We do not see the tunnels we have dug for ourselves, let alone have the intelligence and courage to begin to climb out of them.


We will likely always disagree over whether or not we “need” religion, but we must recognize that we cannot live without possessing values that we hold dear.
Whatever you call them religion or secularism or whatever these function to give us order, frameworks of thinking and behaving, and the civic “glue” without which a functioning society cannot long survive.


The key to all of this is having the will to compromise this does not mean surrendering basic principles, although the current crowd that disavows compromise of any sort frames it this way.
What it does mean is finding the common ground over which we can all walk with minimal friction, After all, we are stuck with each other: we have to find a way to live together in peace and cooperation or face the dissolution and ruin of our nation.
There just isnt any other way!

I believe Professor Sands book is an excellent way to grasp the nuances of living in todays complex world and learning to hear and respect differing points of view, even in matters so important to us as “our religions.
”
What does Jefferson's wall between church and state mean How have people of the majority faith used it and how have those in a minority faith position i.
e. Catholic, Quaker, Mormon used it In the last century, how have secularists applied it
Who wants prayer in school if it is not your denomination's prayer Who wants Scripture read in school if it is not your Scripture being sanctioned
A very interesting and occasionally uncomfortable read that includes evolution vs.
creationism, the battle over abortion and gay rights, pacifism, school prayer, polygamy, and civil rights, How American conflicts about religion have always symbolized our foundational political values
 
When Americans fight about “religion,” we are also fighting about our conflicting identities, interests, and commitments.
Religiontalk has been a ready vehicle for these conflicts because it is built on enduring contradictions within our core political values, The Constitution treats religion as something to be confined behind a wall, but in public communications, the Framers treated religion as the foundation of the American republic.
Ever since, Americans have translated disagreements on many other issues into an endless debate about the role of religion in our public life,
 
Built around a set of compelling narrativesGeorge Washingtons battle with Quaker pacifists the fight of Mormons and Catholics for equality with Protestants Teddy Roosevelts concept of land versus the Lakotas concept the creationevolution controversy and the struggle over sexualitythis book shows how religion, throughout American history, has symbolized, but never resolved, our deepest political questions.
.