Customer Reviews

God's Name in Vain : The Wrongs and Rights of Religion in Politics

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Carter focuses on two issues:

1. To what extent should religion speak about political issues? Carter favors a broad reach for religion; because religion by definition covers every conceivable moral issue, there is no logical reason why political issues should be outside its reach. (And his excellent discussion of the religious element in the abolitionist movement shows that both religious involvement in American politics AND secularist criticism of same are nothing new). However, I wonder whether Carter's book would have been written differently since the rise of radical terrorist Islam.

2. Exactly how partisan should religion be? Carter argues that those who argue in the name of religion should be forever outsiders, lest they become coopted (and thus less radical and less truly religious) by being folded into a political coalition and thus making their allies' views more important than their own spiritual demands. Accordingly, religious leaders should try to avoid endorsing candidates (though Carter opposes legal restrictions on their right to do so). Carter uses an interesting Biblical example of how religious leaders should behave: rather than calling for new rulers in Israel, the prophets called on the existing kings to repent. (Of course, there are exceptions to this rule that Carter does not mention, e.g. Samuel anoiting King David).

I found the latter discussion more interesting than the former. I wish Carter was a bit more attentive to the dangers of overpowerful religion, and that he was a bit stingier with generalities about "American culture." Liberal secularists are part of American culture- but so are conservatives who are happy to hear the latest pronouncements of James Dobson or other religious conservatives.

Carter also devotes some space to legal issues, discussing the paradox of First Amendment religion doctrine: the purpose of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses was in part to protect religion from the state- yet the clauses force the state to decide which religions it protects and accommodates, thus giving the state power over religion! This conundrum, however, has no perfect answer.

This is the first non-fiction I've read by Stephen L. Carter, and im quite impressed with his ability to present his two major arguments and then amplify and thoroughly discuss them. I didn't find this compoletely persuasive, but there is a whole lot to chew on in his treatise. Read this with an open mind and I believe you will find the author one to respect and to listen to, but not to necessarily agree with all the way down the line. Morality is the key word throughout the book, and this is basically a study in morality, not theology, law, or politics.

The author Stephen L. Carter uses both recent and distant historical evidence of religions interaction with politics to illustrate what he believes to be the "Wrongs and Rights of Religion in Politics", as in the name of his book. Carter goes on to show the negative effects to religion if it was to become intricatly involved in politics, as well as the negative effects on society if religion was to shun political interaction.

Carter use compelling arguments that target the ethos of both political and religious groups during various levels of interaction. Carter is highly opinionated in his writing but seems to want to present the facts for the reader to base a decision off of then to try and persuade the reader; Carter just wants the reader to be informed. However, Carter does make his opinion very well known and does use facts to strongly back it up, but he still gives evidence to support the opposing view so that a comparison can be made by the reader.

All-in-all, it was a very enlightening book to read that opened both my eyes and my mind to things in the world around me that I was blind to before.

Stephen Carter is both eloquent and efficient in his writing, managing to make a topic as broad as the separation of church and state fit into one book. It's not a fast read, but it's definitely not a difficult one, either. The organization of the book keeps it from becoming confusing, despite having two different (though related) theses in one book. He also keeps the book interesting, as well: while he continuously refers to the past to justify his argument, he extrapolates enough to keep these events relevant to his argument, thereby keeping his book from becoming a mere retelling of history.

The theses I mentioned earlier are as follows:
1. There is "much right" with the inclusion of religion in politics.
2. If religion is included TOO MUCH in politics, religion will lose its best self.

He separates these theses into different parts of the book. I found that the second thesis was well-supported, explaining that religion must not become involved in partisan politics lest it compromise its values in order to fit the values of a political party. However, his first thesis is supported by a faulty argument.

He makes his bias clear early in the book, stating that he is a devout Christian. However, though he is aware of his bias, he does not seem able to take himself out of it. A huge part of his argument for the first thesis is based upon the Abolition Movement. He uses abolitionist preachers as an example of a time where Christianity was used in politics to bring about a positive movement. Even though this may be true, he fails to address movements in which religion was used as a coercive force. He refutes an argument used to support the separation of church and state, which is that some religious regimes have used their force for coercion, saying that the religious regimes have done no more wrong than secular regimes. The reverse of the same point, though, can be used to refute his own argument: there is no proof that religious regimes have done any more RIGHT that secular regimes. Furthermore, the Abolition Movement could very well have been started by secular motives, not just Christianity.

Overall, it is a very interesting and informative read, but those who do not believe in religion will not be convinced by his argument.

"Two things I don't talk about and that's Politics and Religion." Well, you can run, but you can't hide any longer if you read this book. You are talking about one or the other at any given time, either by your actions or your words. This is a great piece of work by Mr. Carter and is long over due for the American people. Action speaks louder than words is what this book brings to light for your individual and personal deliberation. It's startling, but true you'll admit once you see it as it's never been told before. The author reveals the underlying declaration and ramifications of what is actually being advocated and declared by political affiliates, their congregation, and the unavoidable threat that exist against the First Amendment. His insight pulls the cover off and exposes what many people try to avoid when they recite my opening quote above. He shows that you don't have to talk about your politics or religion because your politics is your religion and visa-versa. This is surely, without a doubt, a great piece of movie material. Which religion will ultimately win? "This is a must read for All America and the world."

In my opinion, our society will not progress without a better understanding of this subject. Carter's book is the best guide that I have found. Carter's religion undoubtedly influences his beliefs, but he diligently seeks the truth. This book is a must read for those who are interested in helping others more than themselves.

Stephen Carter's message that religion is and should be recognized as an important influence in politics and society today is sound. He also is arguably correct in saying religion in various ways is belittled when it is argued to be an important voice, even when it doesn't agree with what is popular. [though early in the book he points out to how many areas in public life have expressions of religious belief, which seems to imply religion in the public sphere is not as absent as he at times implies] Carter is also correct in my opinion in stating that religion is important in part because it rebels in the attempt to truly bring what it feels is "heaven on earth," which is never likely to occur anytime soon given our imperfect natures. Finally, Carter is correct in my opinion in saying religion is demeaned when it lets political power trump speaking its moral voice.

Nonetheless, some of these statements are not fact, they are beliefs, even if Carter seems to belief they are. He puts forth a personal view of religion that is profound, but is still a personal view, while implying throughout it is the only or clearly best view. For instance, he finds religious compromise to further its ends politically a way for religion to demean itself. Perhaps, but it's a matter of debate is getting some good now is a bad thing. He also denounces religions that use science to back up faith, as well as various current trends in religion as watering down religion. Again, might be the case, but let him clearly say throughout the book is not about "religion in politics" but his view of how religion should be in politics ... i.e. his religion. This appears to be as prejudical as he claims society and the state tends to be vs religion.

And prejudice Carter is, sad to say. For instance, religion and morality is tied together, but religion apparently must include some concept of God and the divine. A moral belief structure formed from reason and nature does not deserve a higher respect as compared to theistic religion. The title of the book itself reflects this biased viewpoint: Carter labels not taking God's name in vain as the Third Commandment without ever noting Catholics would consider it the Second! Finally, since many religions over time unite with the state, he obviously feels certain religions deserve less respect (religion as dissenter is his ideal).

Finally, Carter ignores various troubling issues arising from his analysis, issues that do not necessarily make it false, but deserve more respect than he offers. For instance, he leaves to a brief footnote that tax policy requires all tax exempt organizations not to be politically active. Therefore, why a chapter long argument that political limitations on churches are discriminatory? He barely comments on why we should fund religious schools that we disagree with, a major reason people have a problem with vouchers (not just fear of religious teaching, as he implies). Also, since not funding religions was a concern from the Founding of our nation, it is just wrong to suggest not funding religious schools just became a problem when more Catholics came to threaten the Protestant majority.

One last issue that makes the book seriously flawed for its one-sided nature (without admitting as such) is his discussion on separating religious communities from the state. First of all, separation of church and state is not just in place to benefit relgion; too many liberties were threatened in religion's name to suggest religion is not a problem at times (e.g. certain science, books, abortion, homosexuality, equality of women, contraception, divorce, gambling, etc). Also, separation clearly has potential to harm society, if children and adults insist on not taking part in and being exposed to anything they find immoral. These things will come up in elections, juries, and society at large, even if religious people do not want to address them. And how can they influence such debates without knowledge? And what if they are wrong and never can tell, since they refuse to expose themselves to an alternate belief structure? Is this what a diverse democratic nation supposed to be? I don't quite know, since Professor Carter does not face the arguments head on. This is makes the whole book biased, and therefore seriously flawed in troubling ways.

I wished throughout that Carter would either better justify his view of relgious freedom/role in the country or admit the book was more of a brief in support of one religious point of view. Carter did neither, so though the book retains enough interesting and thought provoking material, it fails as argument overall.

ps Carter is a fan of Justice William Brennan, who is clearly a promoter of the "neutrality" of religion Carter states he opposes, a fact again one would not realize from reading the book. Brennan wrote various accomodation themed opinions, but his basic school funding cases were on the opposite side as Carter. I would think, at least as one of the several footnotes, this fact might be addressed. Sadly, and typical to the style of the book, it was not.

Carter constructs a very well supported and immensely researched guideline of his ideas of the "Wrongs and Rights of Religion in Politics," however, his attempt is a failure due to the fact that he traps himself in a catch-22 situation where his desired outcome is unachievable because his solution is impossible and his proposed course of action is self-defeating and even at times, contradictory.

For instance, Carter proposes that we should all fight for the freedom of all religions yet later in the book agrees that each religion has sharp differences in beliefs (even his own religion christianity). Nevertheless, I'll agree that Carter's initial statements alone are in good intentions yet as you can see are ultimately self-defeating and unfortunately unfeasible. Because who in their right mind would stand and fight for a belief that they themselves disagree with? The idea is absolutely absurd, plain and simple!

One of his self-defeating ideas has to do with his own made up word "measuism" which he calls "the process by which we evaluate the significant of something by assigning it a number." So in that case the whole book is filled with "measuism" since Carter uses an abundance of statistics to prove his...umm lets call them "dreams." (They are nice dreams nevertheless)

And the list goes on. I would recommend this book if you wanted to know more about religion and politics but not if you are easily influenced and are actually persuaded into taking Carter's word on things into some plausible law changing considerations.

I have every book written by Carter. This one is probably the most biased and self-opinionated. I have a hard time digesting his point of view. He advocates sticking to beliefs (quoted Lewis or some other as though they are prophets or supreme beings ??).

I think we all know religion (to some) is paramount. I don't think we can disregard that most wars are fought on the premise of religion neither. Politics change over change because we human do. If he thinks religion needs to have an influence, then religion needs to evolve with time- whether according to him, this is compromise or not, it is still a fact !

I do not recommend this book at all.