Search results

Some twenty years ago, the American sociologist Robert Wuthnow found in an opinion survey that his subjects consistently expressed extraordinarily conflicting attitudes toward money, proclaiming in one breath that Americans are too materialistic, and then in the next breath unashamedly affirming money's central importance, and wishing they had more of it. At the time, Wuthnow argued that these strikingly contradictory results probably reflected something in the national mood during a time of economic stagnation. But I think we are safe in guessing that his findings are not too different from what a similar survey of Americans would find at almost any time in the recent past. The ambivalences he detected in his survey have about them the ring of truth, the feel of something enduring. Even conspicuous comets of material ambition may be trailed by long tails of moral misgiving; and something like the reverse, conspicuous rectitude veiling grand acquisitive passion, may also be the case. Prosperity generates an "embarrassment of riches," as Simon Schama put it, which is why "the tensions of a capitalism that endeavoured to make itself moral were the same whether in sixteenth-century Venice, seventeenth-century Amsterdam, or eighteenth-century London."

"It is a rather daunting task to address the place of religion in American public life. The question is so rich, so complex, and often so divisive, even contentious. It brings together the two things that American folk wisdom teaches us, from a very early age, that we should not discuss in polite company: religion and politics. And indeed, one widely held, and widely respected, view of the matter is that one should say as little as possible in public about either religion or politics. While there are times when this is good advice, and represents the acme of prudence, it will hardly do for us as a general principle. A form of "civility" that is achieved only by our remaining studiously silent about the things that matter to us most, and are most fundamental to the health of our civil society, is not really civility, but merely an uneasy and impoverished social peace. Nor is this the kind of society that the American Constitutional order envisioned. The first item in our Bill of Rights makes it clear that the Framers placed religion in a very high place—not only as the first and most fundamental of our freedoms, but as a mental and moral and social right whose "free exercise" we also are promised."(.)

Examines George W. Bush's religiosity, contextualizing it within an American tradition of evangelical piety and exploring connections between Bush's evangelism and his domestic and international policy agendas. Liberal attacks on the president's religious convictions stem from resentment that Bush's approach is nearer than theirs to the spirit of the nineteenth-century progressive social reform movement.

Charges that better leadership and speedy reaction from the George W. Bush Administration could have prevented or reduced the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina are questioned. Rather than acknowledge the climatic and geographic reality of New Orleans, it is asserted that the national media, enthusiastic to identify a human culprit for the regional devastation, manipulated the emotions of affected people, resulting in unwarranted anger toward the Bush Administration. Although Bush is criticized for failing to provide appropriate symbolic leadership during the Hurricane Katrina crisis and the Federal Emergency Management Agency's shortcomings are recognized, it is stressed that local and state officials should be held responsible for creating inadequate evacuation plans. Accusations that racial resentment toward African Americans contributed to federal agencies' apparent slow response to crisis conditions are addressed and ultimately discharged. Moreover, it is maintained that local political corruption, unprofessional media reporting, and the perpetuation of the myths of New Orleans may prevent the suitable reconstruction of the New Orleans area. It is concluded that future planning for New Orleans' reconstruction must consider the region's environmental and geographic reality.

Examines the two concepts of secularist thinking that have dominated 20th-century US political culture. Positive & a negative secularism, similar to Berlin's (1958) terms of positive & negative liberty, have had an impact on the institutions & practical politics of the current cultural conflict. Negative secularism, similar to First Amendment reasoning, holds that religion should not be established in the political framework, while positive secularism wishes to triumph over religious faith & to leave religion, at best, without influence in the political realm. Negative secularism implies a theoretic possibility that religionists & nonreligionists could be equal players in political decision making & that citizens have the freedom to participate according to their individual consciences & to associate in moral communities possessing political freedoms. Positive secularism contains the sinister features that fuel crusades, but there is a need to recognize that vibrantly pluralistic religious life offers the greatest potential for respect of the dignity of human life. L. A. Hoffman

Looking back over the century just ended, it is not easy to assess the status and prospects of secularism and the secular ideal in the United States. As is so often the case in American history, when one sets out in search of the simple and obvious, one soon comes face to face with a crowd of paradoxes. The psychologist Erik Erikson once observed that Americans have a talent for sustaining opposites, and he could hardly have been more right. Such Janus-faced doubleness, or multiplicity, is virtually the Americanspecialité de la maison.