The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion [Hardcover]

This is all quite unique for me because I am an non-believer, probably unlike many reviewers here. Even as a non-believer (polite term for atheist) I can see the trivialization of religion in our culture and particularly in the political arena. As we speak, George W. Bush is being dismissed as a 'fundamentalist' because he, like most americans (according to current surveys) opposes gay marriage. Apperently opposing gay marriage ipso facto makes one a fundamentalist which ipso facto marginalizes the whole opinion.

Here's the problem: the three stars I've given this book are for the thesis and the very good research (especially in part 1, where the problem is surveyed). The other two stars that I did NOT give the book were for execution. Each chapter seems to be on a wholly new topic (a seperate essay unto itself) and Carter does little to hold them together. The first section diagnoses the problem, the second section discusses the 1st amendment religion clauses (and as a law scholar, Carter gives a VERY surface level account) and the third section (apperently) works at a solution (which I was still waiting for when I closed the book for the final time). In brief, the research was good and Carter brings up many good points; they are just packaged in a quite random, meandering, book.

The only other problem to speak of is that on the one hand, Carter chastises current politics (liberal politics) for discounting religious faith; on the other he chastises religious faith for often being too dogmatic and zeolous. BUT THAT IS WHAT RELIGIONS DO!

Not all, to be sure, but most any catholic sect, for instance, takes stands, believes sincerely in them, and is convinced that their take is the only right one. Quite simply, most religions firmly beleive that their way is right and others are wrong - that they have access to the 'truth as revealed through god' where the rest are mistaken. To suggest that religion can still be religion while saying, "But I may be completely wrong about divine revelation or commandment," seems to take the religion out of religion. Thus, I (and Stanley Fish has wisely said just this about Carter) think Carter is trying to let faith back into liberalism by telling religion to be more secular. (Be open minded about gay marriage; you might be wrong, after all, Mr. Robertson!). [Read the section on religion in Stanley Fish's "The Trouble With Principle" for these critiques.]

To conclude, the issue is one that needs to be addressed and Dr. Carter has produced a well-researched attempt to highlight what is wrong. Sadley, I did not come away from this book with a feeling that its direction and layout were strong, or that Dr. Carter's solutions were workable.

In Christianity on Trial, Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett provide both a broad overview and a close analysis of various accusations against the Christian church over the centuries. Many of these accusations were valid; others were not. However, undeniably, the Hellenic-Hebraic values of Christianity are inextricably bound up in the fabric of American legal as well as political and social history. It's hard for me to believe but it has been more 40 years since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and his associates began their efforts to achieve full and unqualified human rights for all Americans. Carter is hardly alone when asking "What has been accomplished since then? What remains to be done?" Not all readers will agree with the answers he has formulated, at least thus far, but I think everyone who reads this book will be much better prepared to consider basic issues which transcend legality in pursuit of justice, which transcend consensus in pursuit of fundamental human decency.