What do you think?
Rate this book
The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion
The Culture of Disbelief has been the subject of an enormous amount of media attention from the first moment it was published. Hugely successful in hardcover, the Anchor paperback is sure to find a large audience as the ever-increasing, enduring debate about the relationship of church and state in America continues. In The Culture of Disbelief, Stephen Carter explains how we can preserve the vital separation of church and state while embracing rather than trivializing the faith of millions of citizens or treating religious believers with disdain. What makes Carter's work so intriguing is that he uses liberal means to arrive at what are often considered conservative ends. Explaining how preserving a special role for religious communities can strengthen our democracy, The Culture of Disbelief recovers the long tradition of liberal religious witness (for example, the antislavery, antisegregation, and Vietnam-era antiwar movements). Carter argues that the problem with the 1992 Republican convention was not the fact of open religious advocacy, but the political positions being advocated.
328 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
9 people are currently reading
509 people want to read
About the author
Stephen L. Carter
27 books459 followersStephen L. Carter is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Yale where he has taught since 1982. He has published seven critically acclaimed nonfiction books on topics ranging from affirmative action to religion and politics. His first novel, The Emperor of Ocean Park (2002), was an immediate national best seller. His latest novel is New England White (Knopf, 2007). A recipient of the NAACP Image Award for Outstanding Literature-Fiction, he lives near New Haven, Connecticut."
Also writes under the pen name A.L Shields.
Also writes under the pen name A.L Shields.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
February 1, 2010
Carter is an Episcopalian, who once clerked for Thurgood Marshall. He is also a law professor at Yale. He writes like an attorney. Some of his sentences seem to be several pages long (not really, just seems like it). There were times when I wished he had provided an English translation from his legalize. He specializes in church/state issues.
The basic idea of the book is though the government should not be involved in religion, religious people have a constitutional right and a moral obligation to be involved in the political process—doesn’t matter whether you a fundamentalist evangelical Christian or a Liberal Christian or a member of any other faith. He would say that the First Amendment and the issue of separation of church and state refer to protecting religion from the state, not the state from religion.
The issue of separating church and state is not so simple. There are laws prohibiting landlords from discriminating against people because of their religious beliefs or marital status. Does that mean a landlord would have to rent to someone who was a Satanist and plans to practice his “religion” on the property? Does that mean a landlord must rent to an unmarried couple even though the landlord believes having sex before marriage is a sin? (I always wondered how they would know they were having sex. That is a big assumption).
Does a church have a right to only hire people who share their religious beliefs? Would it matter, if the job was youth counselor versus plumber?
During the days of the draft, we gave an exemption to those whose religious beliefs prohibit them from serving in war. That has not always been the case. Do we then allow pharmacists, who have a religious objection to providing birth control or “morning after pills”, an exemption from selling those products?
Should the government give money to religious schools or hospitals? And if they do, can they mandate that the school or hospital do something against their religious principles (i.e. perform abortions)?
There was an Irish group in New York, who has their annual parade on public streets. A gay group asked to participate. The Irish group said “no”. Do they have a right to exclude a group, if they are using public property? What if the gay group wanted to exclude a group like NAMBLA (North America Man Boy Love Association) from their parade?
The Amish do not want their children to attend school beyond the 8th grade. Do we give them an exemption from laws indicating children should attend school through grade 12?
What about those parents who do not like part of a sex education curriculum? Do they have the right to exempt their children? What about those parents who object to evolution being taught in the schools?
Where does individual rights start and stop versus the rights of others to be true to their religious beliefs? Not an easy answer.
The courts have ruled on some of these issues and some they have not. It is important to truly understand what the courts have said on any particular topic. The U S Supreme Court said a teacher or a student in a public school couldn’t lead students in prayer. The Court did not say children couldn’t pray, in fact they said just the opposite. They can pray, read the Bible, have after school religious clubs. Though conservatives say that God has been banished from the classroom, which is a “metaphysical impossibility”. Organized classroom prayer is not allowed because a public school authority figure can not tell children whether to believe in God or how to worship God.
He speaks about vouchers for public schools for those parents, who object to what public schools teach their children. I have always been against vouchers. Giving money to a religious school gets tricky. We would give it to a Catholic school, but would we give it to a Satanist school? How is providing a voucher for parents to use to take their children elsewhere different from those who feel they are not getting enough police protection. Should they get a voucher to get their own police service? Then there is also the argument private schools can cream off the top students and leave children with challenges. We would have to pay public schools teachers more money, because they would have the more difficult children. Private schools can mandate parental involvement, public schools can not. We all know more parental involvement the better the child does.
Those of us, who are supportive of the gay community, want schools to teach children to accept gay people as equals in society. Yet, what do we do with those parents, because of their religious belief, who want their children taught otherwise?
He speaks of those people within his own denomination, who do not believe women should be ordained as priests. Their argument is that Jesus picked only men as his disciples. By that logic then only circumcised men could become priests. He says the bottom line on this issue has little do to with women’s rights as much as it should be what is the will of God. I would say that the will of God is to treat both genders equally. The Episcopal Church may now split because of the issue of ordaining gay people not only as priests but also as bishops. Who knows the sexual orientation of Jesus’ disciples?
The author quotes a Jewish scholar “the trouble with America is not that it is a Christian nation, but that too often it is not”. The message of Jesus was one of love and inclusion not one of hatred and exclusion. The author quotes another Jewish person, “I am deeply offended by Christians, who profess ‘love’ of the Jewish people while trying to wipe them off the face of the earth by conversion or other methods”. The same could be said about gay people.
Interesting book. These are all interesting questions. Trying to decide which group will have their rights protected is not always easy.
The basic idea of the book is though the government should not be involved in religion, religious people have a constitutional right and a moral obligation to be involved in the political process—doesn’t matter whether you a fundamentalist evangelical Christian or a Liberal Christian or a member of any other faith. He would say that the First Amendment and the issue of separation of church and state refer to protecting religion from the state, not the state from religion.
The issue of separating church and state is not so simple. There are laws prohibiting landlords from discriminating against people because of their religious beliefs or marital status. Does that mean a landlord would have to rent to someone who was a Satanist and plans to practice his “religion” on the property? Does that mean a landlord must rent to an unmarried couple even though the landlord believes having sex before marriage is a sin? (I always wondered how they would know they were having sex. That is a big assumption).
Does a church have a right to only hire people who share their religious beliefs? Would it matter, if the job was youth counselor versus plumber?
During the days of the draft, we gave an exemption to those whose religious beliefs prohibit them from serving in war. That has not always been the case. Do we then allow pharmacists, who have a religious objection to providing birth control or “morning after pills”, an exemption from selling those products?
Should the government give money to religious schools or hospitals? And if they do, can they mandate that the school or hospital do something against their religious principles (i.e. perform abortions)?
There was an Irish group in New York, who has their annual parade on public streets. A gay group asked to participate. The Irish group said “no”. Do they have a right to exclude a group, if they are using public property? What if the gay group wanted to exclude a group like NAMBLA (North America Man Boy Love Association) from their parade?
The Amish do not want their children to attend school beyond the 8th grade. Do we give them an exemption from laws indicating children should attend school through grade 12?
What about those parents who do not like part of a sex education curriculum? Do they have the right to exempt their children? What about those parents who object to evolution being taught in the schools?
Where does individual rights start and stop versus the rights of others to be true to their religious beliefs? Not an easy answer.
The courts have ruled on some of these issues and some they have not. It is important to truly understand what the courts have said on any particular topic. The U S Supreme Court said a teacher or a student in a public school couldn’t lead students in prayer. The Court did not say children couldn’t pray, in fact they said just the opposite. They can pray, read the Bible, have after school religious clubs. Though conservatives say that God has been banished from the classroom, which is a “metaphysical impossibility”. Organized classroom prayer is not allowed because a public school authority figure can not tell children whether to believe in God or how to worship God.
He speaks about vouchers for public schools for those parents, who object to what public schools teach their children. I have always been against vouchers. Giving money to a religious school gets tricky. We would give it to a Catholic school, but would we give it to a Satanist school? How is providing a voucher for parents to use to take their children elsewhere different from those who feel they are not getting enough police protection. Should they get a voucher to get their own police service? Then there is also the argument private schools can cream off the top students and leave children with challenges. We would have to pay public schools teachers more money, because they would have the more difficult children. Private schools can mandate parental involvement, public schools can not. We all know more parental involvement the better the child does.
Those of us, who are supportive of the gay community, want schools to teach children to accept gay people as equals in society. Yet, what do we do with those parents, because of their religious belief, who want their children taught otherwise?
He speaks of those people within his own denomination, who do not believe women should be ordained as priests. Their argument is that Jesus picked only men as his disciples. By that logic then only circumcised men could become priests. He says the bottom line on this issue has little do to with women’s rights as much as it should be what is the will of God. I would say that the will of God is to treat both genders equally. The Episcopal Church may now split because of the issue of ordaining gay people not only as priests but also as bishops. Who knows the sexual orientation of Jesus’ disciples?
The author quotes a Jewish scholar “the trouble with America is not that it is a Christian nation, but that too often it is not”. The message of Jesus was one of love and inclusion not one of hatred and exclusion. The author quotes another Jewish person, “I am deeply offended by Christians, who profess ‘love’ of the Jewish people while trying to wipe them off the face of the earth by conversion or other methods”. The same could be said about gay people.
Interesting book. These are all interesting questions. Trying to decide which group will have their rights protected is not always easy.
February 7, 2018
This is a somewhat digressive and anecdotal but nevertheless thought-provoking book on how Americans of various sorts bring religion into public life. One of the things Carter wants to do is get us to think more carefully both on the right and the left about what exactly is meant and what is not mean in our country's refusal to establish any religion. I think this is one of the great strengths of the book. There are applications to be made all around.
"In this sense--as the servant of politics--religion is very much in the public square. It might be supposed that the appeal to the will of God in support of nearly every cause is evidence of the exalted position of religion in our culture. But it is evidence of the opposite. By calling upon the word of God in service of every known cause, our society diminishes the weight and the force of religious belief. Indeed, by readily supposing that the word of God is so malleable that it can (by coincidence)support every cause that one's politics also happen to support, we undermine the idea of faith as a source of moral guidance."
That, my friends, is a good paragraph.
Though I have not read Neuhaus's Naked Public Square, this book often interacts with it. Carter is critical.
"In this sense--as the servant of politics--religion is very much in the public square. It might be supposed that the appeal to the will of God in support of nearly every cause is evidence of the exalted position of religion in our culture. But it is evidence of the opposite. By calling upon the word of God in service of every known cause, our society diminishes the weight and the force of religious belief. Indeed, by readily supposing that the word of God is so malleable that it can (by coincidence)support every cause that one's politics also happen to support, we undermine the idea of faith as a source of moral guidance."
That, my friends, is a good paragraph.
Though I have not read Neuhaus's Naked Public Square, this book often interacts with it. Carter is critical.
June 4, 2008
Very good insights about the way that religion is treated in the public sphere of America currently. Cogent arguments for reevaluating the way in which religious voices are considered and the foundations of religious beliefs treated. The author defends the reasonableness even of religious people with whom he disagrees, but can find how their religious perspective provides a coherent system of reasoning for them. Astute and wise, with sound suggestions for changing the emphasis in public discussions without denigrating the contribution of religious groups.
December 13, 2025
good points mostly convinced but still skeptical (wri101)
March 29, 2009
S. Carter doesn't hold the same views on his faith that I do. He did explain very well how the law tends to view religion as sometimes a hobby. The law isn't consistent. It was informative, but a little outdated being written in 1992. He did point out several times that Reagan didn't go to church and Bush used the Christian right rather than being a part of it. He said both did very little to help.
December 10, 2016
It took me awhile to get through this, but overall Carter takes his liberal Christian perspective and argues that a person's religious views should not disqualify him from entering the political and social argument. He gives many examples of how a person's religion played a role in their public decisions, and how society, rightly or wrongly, reacted to these decisions. Many important court cases are discussed throughout. A thought provoking book.
December 8, 2008
I read this in college, but I still think about it all the time. It's a non-fiction description of how our culture tends to cow faithful folks into acting differently in public and pretending their beliefs don't matter to them.
Read
December 25, 2023"At the outset, I argue that we should stop the steady drumbeat, especially 'normal' folks, and that we should avoid the assumption all to common in our rhetoric, that religion is more dangerous than other forces in American society...." p. 16
"The language of the Establishment Clause, of course, prohibits the Congress from making any law 'respecting an establishment of religion.' The evident purpose of this first word was to prevent the Congress from interfering with state establishment of religion. Indeed, there is good reason to think
that the principal purpose of the Establishment Clause, and maybe the sole one, was to protect the state religious establishments from disestablishment by the federal government. If the clause is antidisestablishmentarian in design, however it makes little sense to speak of applying the Establishment Clause as a limitation on the power of the states." p. 118
Although I understand and appreciate the general thrust of Carter's arguments I do think that it is appropriate to view religion as a potentially dangerous force quite because it is to potent. Neither do I agree with his definition of religion as absolutely requiring belief in some aspect of the supernatural. Nor do I relinquish the right to very judgmentally disapprove of religions, whether my own or someone else's, who relegate women to positions that are inferior.
"The language of the Establishment Clause, of course, prohibits the Congress from making any law 'respecting an establishment of religion.' The evident purpose of this first word was to prevent the Congress from interfering with state establishment of religion. Indeed, there is good reason to think
that the principal purpose of the Establishment Clause, and maybe the sole one, was to protect the state religious establishments from disestablishment by the federal government. If the clause is antidisestablishmentarian in design, however it makes little sense to speak of applying the Establishment Clause as a limitation on the power of the states." p. 118
Although I understand and appreciate the general thrust of Carter's arguments I do think that it is appropriate to view religion as a potentially dangerous force quite because it is to potent. Neither do I agree with his definition of religion as absolutely requiring belief in some aspect of the supernatural. Nor do I relinquish the right to very judgmentally disapprove of religions, whether my own or someone else's, who relegate women to positions that are inferior.
July 31, 2025
In light of the fact that we are currently witnessing the autocratic takeover of our national government by Christian nationalists and policy wonks steeped in far-right religious conservatism, Carter's 1993 book is a fascinating read. Reflecting the times in which he writes (as one would expect), he argues that liberal democratic institutions often treat religious expression with suspicion, reducing it to a private eccentricity rather than respecting it as a serious moral and intellectual force.
Carter is not advocating theocracy or favoring any one faith tradition. Rather, he calls for a public square where religious voices—liberal and conservative—are treated with seriousness and respect. He challenges both the political right, which often instrumentalizes religion, and the political left, which tends to suppress it in the name of neutrality. His legal analysis is sharp, and his writing—sometimes polemical, often personal—brings moral urgency to the discussion.
Though written more than 30 years ago, Carter's book remains relevant in today’s polarized landscape, especially for those concerned with how pluralism, public reason, and authentic faith interact. It's a vital contribution to debates over religion’s role in a democratic society.
Carter is not advocating theocracy or favoring any one faith tradition. Rather, he calls for a public square where religious voices—liberal and conservative—are treated with seriousness and respect. He challenges both the political right, which often instrumentalizes religion, and the political left, which tends to suppress it in the name of neutrality. His legal analysis is sharp, and his writing—sometimes polemical, often personal—brings moral urgency to the discussion.
Though written more than 30 years ago, Carter's book remains relevant in today’s polarized landscape, especially for those concerned with how pluralism, public reason, and authentic faith interact. It's a vital contribution to debates over religion’s role in a democratic society.
February 26, 2019
And there was great mourning throughout the land... because it looked to Chrisanne like Carter had given up writing brilliant non-fiction to write fiction (which may be just as brilliant but not as interesting to her).
In all sincerity, this was just as intriguing as the prior books I had read by Carter, if not more so. It is a treatise on religious freedom that contains information such as--
- The separation of church from state was originally(and should be) intended to protect the church, not the state.
-When should the state upend religious rights? (answer: rarely)
-Why the topic of euthanasia is a tricky one (legally and morally).
-How racism, religion, and freedom intertwine and not always in the best way. And how we do the Civil Rights a disservice by disentangling it from religion...and how that relates to the abortion argument.
-Why prayers should not be said in public schools (He's got a rock solid argument on this one).
-How religion should be present and expressed in the present square (and how it shouldn't).
-Why rethinking the school system set-up might be fairer than our current set-up.
In all sincerity, this was just as intriguing as the prior books I had read by Carter, if not more so. It is a treatise on religious freedom that contains information such as--
- The separation of church from state was originally(and should be) intended to protect the church, not the state.
-When should the state upend religious rights? (answer: rarely)
-Why the topic of euthanasia is a tricky one (legally and morally).
-How racism, religion, and freedom intertwine and not always in the best way. And how we do the Civil Rights a disservice by disentangling it from religion...and how that relates to the abortion argument.
-Why prayers should not be said in public schools (He's got a rock solid argument on this one).
-How religion should be present and expressed in the present square (and how it shouldn't).
-Why rethinking the school system set-up might be fairer than our current set-up.
November 18, 2018
A very evenhanded look at a the church-state separation issue. The basic idea of the book is though the government should not be involved in religion, religious people have a right and even an obligation to be involved in politics. I could not tell during the reading which side - liberal or conservative - that the author was even on (it was my first book by Carter; I admit I was ignorant).
One point of his that stood out (and of course he makes many points) is that the First Amendment and the issue of separation of church and state refer to protecting religion from the state, not the state from religion. It's ironic that after the book was written decades ago, you can see where the above statement no longer has the same effect, or really the same truth - what with today's evangelical influence on politics (and the courts) somewhat belying it. And Carter's overall view that religious causes and influence on government are (as they have been in the past) positive also somewhat rings hollow today.
Regardless, an exceptional look at a subject still germane today.
One point of his that stood out (and of course he makes many points) is that the First Amendment and the issue of separation of church and state refer to protecting religion from the state, not the state from religion. It's ironic that after the book was written decades ago, you can see where the above statement no longer has the same effect, or really the same truth - what with today's evangelical influence on politics (and the courts) somewhat belying it. And Carter's overall view that religious causes and influence on government are (as they have been in the past) positive also somewhat rings hollow today.
Regardless, an exceptional look at a subject still germane today.
September 27, 2018
Much better than what I expected, and also not what I expected at all.
Books on the subject of religious liberty tend to be either hit pieces by guys on the right documenting the relentless march of American society towards secularism, or accounts by leftists of the coming theocratic fascist police state.
This book is neither.
The author is, at least compared to me, a leftist, and once I grasped that, I expected to disagree with his take on things. I was pleasantly surprised by how well he understood people like me even as we disagree with each other. I was pleasantly surprised how multi-faceted and fair his discussion of the subject matter was. He did that thing so rare in political discourse; he considered the other guys position, and afforded him the right to be wrong.
In the end, we agreed on a handful of things, even if we had arrived at those conclusions by different ideological pathways.
Good stuff.
Books on the subject of religious liberty tend to be either hit pieces by guys on the right documenting the relentless march of American society towards secularism, or accounts by leftists of the coming theocratic fascist police state.
This book is neither.
The author is, at least compared to me, a leftist, and once I grasped that, I expected to disagree with his take on things. I was pleasantly surprised by how well he understood people like me even as we disagree with each other. I was pleasantly surprised how multi-faceted and fair his discussion of the subject matter was. He did that thing so rare in political discourse; he considered the other guys position, and afforded him the right to be wrong.
In the end, we agreed on a handful of things, even if we had arrived at those conclusions by different ideological pathways.
Good stuff.
July 25, 2023
There is much pertinent information about religion in relation to politics, law, and the secular world. The author presents a fair and unbiased approach to the complexities of religion in the public arena of politics and law
Carter presents both sides of the argument along with his own (brief) opinion as to why politics and religion are separated, but also that the religious perspective or voice is nonetheless needed in public arena.
Discussed are: Prayer is public schools, funding for private religious schools, Euthanasia, abortion and the death penalty. Again, Carter presents all sides of the arguments along with his onion or observations.
Carter presents both sides of the argument along with his own (brief) opinion as to why politics and religion are separated, but also that the religious perspective or voice is nonetheless needed in public arena.
Discussed are: Prayer is public schools, funding for private religious schools, Euthanasia, abortion and the death penalty. Again, Carter presents all sides of the arguments along with his onion or observations.
February 22, 2019
Reasoned approach. Published in 1993 and thus dated from many current events and change in the environment that have happened sense. He does make an interesting forecast towards the end that if opponents of political positions continue to put down the opposition due to their religious foundation there will be a forcing of the spectrum towards a demagogue.
Though dates all the principles still apply though difficult to see it practically applied today.
Though dates all the principles still apply though difficult to see it practically applied today.
December 18, 2019
This book was written about 25 years ago by a prominent lawyer. He talks about many controversial issues related to religious freedom and religious values and how American culture devalues religious belief. The book is interesting, but I wonder what the author would say about the same subjects now, as American society is much more pluralistic (religiously and otherwise) than it was at the time he wrote the book.
September 8, 2022
Carter illustrates the impossibility of separating politics from religion, but proposes only mushy compromises as the best way forward. His lack of vigor produces little stimulation or satisfaction.
March 13, 2016
As I am wont to do, I checked the references on a talk I listened to given by Dallin H. Oaks. In 2011, Oaks gave a talk at a CES devotional titled Truth & Tolerance. Among the 17 sources he used, one was Stephen L. Carter's The Culture of Disbelief, which caught my attention. The subject matter has a special interest to me, and I was happy to find a serious work from an academic scholar on such an important topic as religious freedom.
Carter is a practicing Christian, as in he attends Church, sends his children to a religious school, etc., and, therefore, has a much more positive attitude toward religion than many academics. He forthrightly recognizes this disparity among academics and the greater society. He attempts to prove the value of religion as institutions of resistance which play a counter-balance to government and other secular institutions, which argument I found appealing and convincing. He provides a great deal of evidence showing America's attitude toward religion has deteriorated over time and needs a correction in order for the ideals of pluralism to thrive.
Carter brings a perspective which many other academics probably could not. Although he is far too eager to make sure the reader knows he sits comfortably on the Left of the ideological scale when discussing many topics, perhaps to not upset his academic colleagues or alienate himself, Carter does a fine job of providing a reason or possible reasons why people think the way they do. Especially within a religious context this is important because it's difficult for non-religious people to understand why believers act the way they do at times. In addition, Carter does a great job of showing the rationality behind religious belief, even though it appears irrational to non-believers and non-religious people. The difficulty in any society, especially one which has enshrined religious liberty as the first freedom in its constitution, comes with how to balance the several rights citizens have equal claim to. Carter's examination of those competing rights and how to appropriately balance them is persuasive and thought-provoking.
The Culture of Disbelief deals with some of the weightiest matters of our nation and society. From abortion, to euthanasia, to parental rights, the discussion in Carter's book is broad but also narrow. He does a fine job of providing insight into the competing belief systems, and I would readily recommend this book as a source for study when dealing with matters of religious freedom. The aforementioned matters are truly some of the most critical and consequential in society because the philosophies and moralities connected with them extend far beyond those individual topics. Carter has provided an engaging and interesting academic look at some very serious matters in our society, and I'm better off for having read what he had to say.
http://thethousanderclub.blogspot.com/
Carter is a practicing Christian, as in he attends Church, sends his children to a religious school, etc., and, therefore, has a much more positive attitude toward religion than many academics. He forthrightly recognizes this disparity among academics and the greater society. He attempts to prove the value of religion as institutions of resistance which play a counter-balance to government and other secular institutions, which argument I found appealing and convincing. He provides a great deal of evidence showing America's attitude toward religion has deteriorated over time and needs a correction in order for the ideals of pluralism to thrive.
Carter brings a perspective which many other academics probably could not. Although he is far too eager to make sure the reader knows he sits comfortably on the Left of the ideological scale when discussing many topics, perhaps to not upset his academic colleagues or alienate himself, Carter does a fine job of providing a reason or possible reasons why people think the way they do. Especially within a religious context this is important because it's difficult for non-religious people to understand why believers act the way they do at times. In addition, Carter does a great job of showing the rationality behind religious belief, even though it appears irrational to non-believers and non-religious people. The difficulty in any society, especially one which has enshrined religious liberty as the first freedom in its constitution, comes with how to balance the several rights citizens have equal claim to. Carter's examination of those competing rights and how to appropriately balance them is persuasive and thought-provoking.
The Culture of Disbelief deals with some of the weightiest matters of our nation and society. From abortion, to euthanasia, to parental rights, the discussion in Carter's book is broad but also narrow. He does a fine job of providing insight into the competing belief systems, and I would readily recommend this book as a source for study when dealing with matters of religious freedom. The aforementioned matters are truly some of the most critical and consequential in society because the philosophies and moralities connected with them extend far beyond those individual topics. Carter has provided an engaging and interesting academic look at some very serious matters in our society, and I'm better off for having read what he had to say.
http://thethousanderclub.blogspot.com/
January 6, 2014
A thoughtful look at the poo-pooing of religion by secular American society
I found The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religion while reading another book by Stephen L. Carter, one that I did not care for, Jericho's Fall . However, I am glad I read Jericho's Fall because I found this book listed on a page of the author's other works.
Read the discussion boards on popular blogs, newspaper pages and any other site that attracts people from all walks of life and you will find a strong anti-religious bias. In fact, there is a rather insulting review of this book that does much the same on Amazon.com. Carter takes a look at this relatively new fact of American life - the secularization of everything and the expectation that religious people treat "God as a hobby" and the expectation of people not to use their religious beliefs as a framework for their lives. Fear of someone "imposing" one's religion on another rules all.
Carter explores the history of this movement, looks at legal cases that have run roughshod over religion and discusses the irony of the fact that Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement was based on religious arguments against discrimination and highlighted the main strength of autonomous religion in a pluralistic society: it can serve as s counterweight to government (in more common terms, it can "speak truth to power."
Carter is far from advocating theistic government (he is, in my opinion, very liberal politically), he is merely pointing out that religion cannot be a tool of the state - they have different goals...
Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2010/...
I found The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religion while reading another book by Stephen L. Carter, one that I did not care for, Jericho's Fall . However, I am glad I read Jericho's Fall because I found this book listed on a page of the author's other works.
Read the discussion boards on popular blogs, newspaper pages and any other site that attracts people from all walks of life and you will find a strong anti-religious bias. In fact, there is a rather insulting review of this book that does much the same on Amazon.com. Carter takes a look at this relatively new fact of American life - the secularization of everything and the expectation that religious people treat "God as a hobby" and the expectation of people not to use their religious beliefs as a framework for their lives. Fear of someone "imposing" one's religion on another rules all.
Carter explores the history of this movement, looks at legal cases that have run roughshod over religion and discusses the irony of the fact that Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement was based on religious arguments against discrimination and highlighted the main strength of autonomous religion in a pluralistic society: it can serve as s counterweight to government (in more common terms, it can "speak truth to power."
Carter is far from advocating theistic government (he is, in my opinion, very liberal politically), he is merely pointing out that religion cannot be a tool of the state - they have different goals...
Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2010/...
July 21, 2012
Considering this book is a little dated ('93) many of the author's points are still an issue today, like the discussion of school vouchers. After the first 8 chapters, where there is much discussion of the courts, the book decays into more of a philosophical discussion. I don't agree with his stance on everything (WARNING!! Even though he calls himself a Christian (Episcopal), he does not believe in the errancy of Scripture or the Biblical account of creation - this is discussed in a chapter on teaching in school) he is relatively fair in at least offering both sides of an issue. Don't be offended; instead let his writing make you think harder about defending your position and where the courts should fall in the discussion.
May 11, 2009
I am reading this book for my Sociology of Religion class.
It is a good read just to see an interesting perspective on politics and religion. After reading this book, i find that Carter keeps a nice balance between the religious and non-religious. You can tell that Carter is religious, but he does not superimpose it on the reader. I recommend this book to anyone who wants a new perspective.
It is a good read just to see an interesting perspective on politics and religion. After reading this book, i find that Carter keeps a nice balance between the religious and non-religious. You can tell that Carter is religious, but he does not superimpose it on the reader. I recommend this book to anyone who wants a new perspective.
October 26, 2007
A really good understanding and critique of how religion has been abused by our legal system. Although I am a strict separationist and believe deeply in the "wall" -- it expresses to me the heart of the 1st amendment -- I like this book and some of his arguments.
August 19, 2009
I appreciated Carter's somewhat provocative perspective, which challenges the assumptions of both conservatives & liberals. Unfortunately, the message was really pretty simple & got repeated over & over--like most popular nonfiction books, so I got bored after a while.
July 8, 2011
This was a book that changed tv and movies!
When President Clinton was seen carrying this book, many people read Stephen Carter's assessment of how religion was being excluded from media. Suddenly tv shows started including religious characters.
When President Clinton was seen carrying this book, many people read Stephen Carter's assessment of how religion was being excluded from media. Suddenly tv shows started including religious characters.
Read
August 26, 2007to dnt just other person
May 31, 2008
First time I read this in college, I so connected with this. It explains our freedom of religions turned into freedom from religions rather than freedom for religions.
September 4, 2008
Interesting ideas about the role of faith in a democratic society.
Want to read
January 3, 2011Thanks to Ebadur for the referral.
Read
August 6, 2011An important book for both the religious and non-religious, but certainly a must read for Christians.
June 26, 2012
A must read...Period!
January 6, 2018
I used to own this book but ditched it because, while I liked it, I tend to only want to keep books I really REALLY like or that I think I'll need for reference. If i had a larger home I probably would have kept it, but Carter pissed me off because he made a comment about "Creation Science" (this was before anyone coined the term "Intelligent Science"--and they're not the same thing) and said, "it's not good science." I wasn't pissed because he said that. I didn't even have an opinion then (this was in 1993 and not long after the book came off the presses). In fact, I believed in evolution. I was pisssed because he just SAID it, and failed to give any support WHATSOEVER.
But I've come to expect that kind of thing from this kind of writer.
Other than that it's a great book from what I remember and was helpful to me, a relatively new believer at the time.
But I've come to expect that kind of thing from this kind of writer.
Other than that it's a great book from what I remember and was helpful to me, a relatively new believer at the time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews