Buy new:
$27.64$27.64
Arrives:
Tuesday, Oct 24
Ships from: Amazon Sold by: Blackfront Enterprises, LLC
Buy used: $6.88
Other Sellers on Amazon
+ $10.48 shipping
100% positive over last 12 months
+ $10.48 shipping
Order now and we'll deliver when available. We'll e-mail you with an estimated delivery date as soon as we have more information. Your account will only be charged when we ship the item.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
The Dissent of the Governed : A Meditation on Law, Religion, and Loyalty Hardcover – April 12, 1998
| Price | New from | Used from |
- Kindle
$26.26 Read with our Free App - Hardcover
$27.6416 Used from $3.13 4 New from $22.79 - Paperback
$31.0013 Used from $2.49 11 New from $26.73
Purchase options and add-ons
Between loyalty and disobedience; between recognition of the law's authority and realization that the law is not always right: In America, this conflict is historic, with results as glorious as the mass protests of the civil rights movement and as inglorious as the armed violence of the militia movement. In an impassioned defense of dissent, Stephen L. Carter argues for the dialogue that negotiates this conflict and keeps democracy alive. His book portrays an America dying from a refusal to engage in such a dialogue, a polity where everybody speaks, but nobody listens.
The Dissent of the Governed is an eloquent diagnosis of what ails the American body politic--the unwillingness of people in power to hear disagreement unless forced to--and a prescription for a new process of response. Carter examines the divided American political character on dissent, with special reference to religion, identifying it in unexpected places, with an eye toward amending it before it destroys our democracy.
At the heart of this work is a rereading of the Declaration of Independence that puts dissent, not consent, at the center of the question of the legitimacy of democratic government. Carter warns that our liberal constitutional ethos--the tendency to assume that the nation must everywhere be morally the same--pressures citizens to be other than themselves when being themselves would lead to disobedience. This tendency, he argues, is particularly hard on religious citizens, whose notion of community may be quite different from that of the sovereign majority of citizens. His book makes a powerful case for the autonomy of communities--especially but not exclusively religious--into which democratic citizens organize themselves as a condition for dissent, dialogue, and independence. With reference to a number of cases, Carter shows how disobedience is sometimes necessary to the heartbeat of our democracy--and how the distinction between challenging accepted norms and challenging the sovereign itself, a distinction crucial to the Declaration of Independence, must be kept alive if Americans are to progress and prosper as a nation.
- Print length167 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherHarvard University Press
- Publication dateApril 12, 1998
- Dimensions5.8 x 0.8 x 8.55 inches
- ISBN-100674212657
- ISBN-13978-0674212657
Popular titles by this author
Invisible: The Forgotten Story of the Black Woman Lawyer Who Took Down America's Most PowerfulHardcover$11.46 shippingGet it as soon as Wednesday, Oct 25
The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious DevotionPaperback$10.91 shippingOnly 4 left in stock (more on the way).
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Carter takes his title from the line in the Declaration of Independence which declares that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Carter argues, persuasively I believe, that a test of whether or not a government is authentic and just is how it handles the dissent of its citizens. The verdict for the United States is mostly negative. The "liberal project" of the twentieth century, symbolized by the New Deal and the Great Society, and given additional energy by the Civil Rights Movement, assumed that a legitimate role of government is to enforce a common set of values in the nation. The preferred method of enforcement is through societal structures, such as the school and the house of worship. Failing that, the government is justified in using law to enforce that common set of values. Carter argues that the project might have derailed, were it not for the Second Civil War (his name for the Civil Rights Movement), which relied on the courts for legitimation. Thus the judiciary became politicized. I read Dissent immediately after the Supreme Court intervened in the 2000 election, and I was amazed at Carter's prescience. That intervention, impossible to conceive were the judiciary truly independent of politics, could indeed have been predicted by the track record of the courts. The Right is correct: The courts do indeed make law. The courts are indeed political entities, part of what Carter calls the Sovereign, or ruling power in the land. The courts have become dangerous, though, precisely because they DENY the very role which they obviously play in the life of the nation.
With an argument like this, Carter could play into the hands of the most Right of those on the Right, those who advocate not only resistance to the Sovereign but active efforts to overcome that Sovereign. Carter avoids the trap. Instead, he focuses on the power of what he calls "communities of meaning" both to preserve themselves against the power of the Sovereign and to redeem the life of the nation. Carter means religious communities, all the way from the Jewish town of Kiryas Joel to religion-based schools in otherwise secular municipalities. Active dissent to the power of the Sovereign is the responsibility of such communities of meaning because it is the right of parents to provide for the transmission of their values to their children. Such provision includes dissent from a public education system which not only excludes religious expression but is often actively hostile toward that expression. With decisions like that upholding the right of the state to proscribe the use of peyote in religious rituals, the judiciary has made public policy regarding matters that belong in the hands of communities of meaning. In an age when the weight of history moves America toward diversity, the judiciary assumes a unanimity that can never exist, and probably should not exist.
As a Christian pastor in a mainline denomination, Dissent caused me to rethink my attitudes about those institutions that usually call themselves "Christian schools." Having served for nine years in an Indiana town dominated by a conservative denomination, miniscule outside its headquarters town, I had grown weary of the almost "in-your-face" attitude of folks associated with such schools. In a new town, where the Christian school is small and sometimes struggles, I realize that I was experiencing what Christian school supporters feel almost everywhere: Active disdain, and sometimes outright hostility, from the established sovereign. Having returned from a Holy Land trip more convinced than ever of the legitimacy of Christian claims to primacy among the world's religions, I now care whether or not it is "safe" for believers to speak of the things of faith. Naturally, those who believe differently must be protected from a tyranny of either the majority or the minority. Right now, no one is protected, and no one benefits, save the Sovereign. My wife just began teaching part time at our local Christian school. I thought and spoke of Carter's book often as I visited with folks at a recent open house. Read him. Think. Inspiring thought is what Stephen Carter does best, and he thinks about things that need thinking about.
In order for civil disobedience to be justified (assuming, of course, that it needs to be), it must appeal to a morality higher than the law of the state. As a Christian that's not a stretch for me, and the civil rights movement (at least as articulated my MLK) found its justification in transcendent Christian principles. In the state's view, however, there sometimes is no law higher than its own. This book squarely addresses that point of conflict, and I find the author's arguments very persuasive.
One of Carter's best observations is that many progressives who once championed civil disobedience in response the Vietnam War and segregation now seek to suppress and qualify it as it relates to issues like opposition to current abortion laws. This dynamic can be observed anywhere a self-defined group opposes a mandate of the state, regardless of which component is liberal and which is conservative.
The petition of a small but vocal minority is usually considered a nuisance, but the author insists that we must be very careful about how we contend with it if we are to maintain a broad allegiance to our common purpose.
In particular, Carter focuses on prayer in schools as being hindered by government. In regard to religion in schools, Mr. Carter argues that the interests of the state, as interpreted by the Constitution, should not undermine the interests of religious organizations.
Carter discusses school prayer as �a different way of life...that...is denied by an uncaring authority.� This statement shows a disregard for the fact that government must be careful to not favor one religion over another. The First Amendment of the Constitution forbids laws �respecting an establishment of religion� as well as �prohibiting the free exercise thereof.� As the population in the U.S. becomes more diverse, there are many schools where it would be necessary for the leader of a prayer to probe the beliefs of the students.
When referring to religion, Carter mostly refers to groups whose beliefs are derived from the Judea-Christian tradition: Evangelists, Roman Catholics, Christian Coalition, Southern Baptists. There is no mention of religions whose beliefs are based on non-Christian theology. Many people in the U.S. subscribe to a belief system not derived from the Judea-Christian tradition. Carter�s emphasis on Christianity makes many of his arguments flawed, and his failure to mention other faiths indicates a lack of appreciation for the complexity of government involvement with religion.
What is to happen to students who are atheist, agnostic, or of a different faith from the majority? Will they have to sit mute through prayer sessions? Or, will they be asked to leave the room? In either situation, if the students who choose not to worship are in the minority, there exists a high probability of harassment. The intent of the Second Amendment that prohibits state support of religion is to avoid this inevitable result of prayer in schools.
Ironically, in support of his argument for school prayer, Mr. Carter cited one such instance where violence erupted. It involved Bible readings in the Philadelphia school system in 1844. In those Bible readings, according to Mr. Carter, Catholic children were required to use Protestant Bibles. This situation was the catalyst of Protestants rioting and �burning houses and churches and killing a number of people.�
In consideration of the foregoing, I found Mr. Carter�s argument regarding the oppression of religion in the United States to be fallacious and flawed.




