There is a growing cultural tension between religious orthodoxy and the prevailing form of progressivism which centers the modern self in such a way that would please the eighteenth-century Romantic Jean-Jacques Rousseau. But Rousseau’s priority of the self led him to embrace a particular view of church and state as well as religious liberty, which, if implemented, would be a new experiment in the American context. What are the implications of this ascendant version of progressivism for religious liberty as it has been understood in the American context, vacillating as it has in the past between strict separation or accommodation? What would the emerging progressivism do with religious liberty given its philosophical commitments to a this-worldly immanent frame and rise of the psychologized self (expressive individualism)? I argue that religious liberty, in its robust paradigmatic American form, cannot survive any of these outcomes without undergoing radical redefinition, and instead a new paradigm of religious liberty, which I call American Laïcité, must replace the older version. With American Laïcité, as Rousseau would have it, though religion is a rather fixed aspect of human nature, only religion that sacralizes the immanent, one centered on self-expression and never practices or teaches any form of exclusivism or inequality can expect to be either accommodated or tolerated within society.
{"title":"Rousseau, American Laicite, and the Future of Religious Liberty in America","authors":"M Troy Gibson","doi":"10.1093/jcs/csae043","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/csae043","url":null,"abstract":"There is a growing cultural tension between religious orthodoxy and the prevailing form of progressivism which centers the modern self in such a way that would please the eighteenth-century Romantic Jean-Jacques Rousseau. But Rousseau’s priority of the self led him to embrace a particular view of church and state as well as religious liberty, which, if implemented, would be a new experiment in the American context. What are the implications of this ascendant version of progressivism for religious liberty as it has been understood in the American context, vacillating as it has in the past between strict separation or accommodation? What would the emerging progressivism do with religious liberty given its philosophical commitments to a this-worldly immanent frame and rise of the psychologized self (expressive individualism)? I argue that religious liberty, in its robust paradigmatic American form, cannot survive any of these outcomes without undergoing radical redefinition, and instead a new paradigm of religious liberty, which I call American Laïcité, must replace the older version. With American Laïcité, as Rousseau would have it, though religion is a rather fixed aspect of human nature, only religion that sacralizes the immanent, one centered on self-expression and never practices or teaches any form of exclusivism or inequality can expect to be either accommodated or tolerated within society.","PeriodicalId":44712,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142207823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 303 Creative, the US Supreme Court examined the conflict between state laws designed to protect gay persons from stigmatic and material harm in the public marketplace and the First Amendment freedoms of business owners who objected to same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch concluded, “When a state public accommodations law and the Constitution collide, there can be no question which must prevail.” In this essay, I use two elements of late philosopher John Rawls’s Political Liberalism (2005)—the “criterion of reciprocity” and “liberty and integrity of the person”—to better understand the broad implications of the court’s ruling. My analysis reveals that the majority opinion in 303 Creative fails to acknowledge the need for achieving a coherent scheme of liberty within a liberal democracy and, in so doing, it undermines, rather than furthers, pluralism. Additionally, the logic of the court’s ruling produces incoherent and inconsistent results—results that simultaneously expand and contract religious freedom and unjustifiably treat sexual-orientation discrimination differently from other types of odious discrimination. However, supplanting the court’s approach with Rawls’s “criterion of reciprocity” provides a coherent and consistent adjudicatory method for balancing religious freedom and the demands of equal citizenship. Furthermore, the argument I offer comports with legal analyses that focus on religious exemptions and third-party harm and the value of equal citizenship in religious liberty debates. Thus, my work supplements existing arguments against religious exemptions to antidiscrimination law and provides another substantive rejoinder to those seeking to scale back civil rights.
{"title":"Creative Incoherence: 303 Creative and First Amendment Exemptions to Antidiscrimination Law","authors":"James M DeLise","doi":"10.1093/jcs/csae023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/csae023","url":null,"abstract":"In 303 Creative, the US Supreme Court examined the conflict between state laws designed to protect gay persons from stigmatic and material harm in the public marketplace and the First Amendment freedoms of business owners who objected to same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Writing for the majority, Justice Gorsuch concluded, “When a state public accommodations law and the Constitution collide, there can be no question which must prevail.” In this essay, I use two elements of late philosopher John Rawls’s Political Liberalism (2005)—the “criterion of reciprocity” and “liberty and integrity of the person”—to better understand the broad implications of the court’s ruling. My analysis reveals that the majority opinion in 303 Creative fails to acknowledge the need for achieving a coherent scheme of liberty within a liberal democracy and, in so doing, it undermines, rather than furthers, pluralism. Additionally, the logic of the court’s ruling produces incoherent and inconsistent results—results that simultaneously expand and contract religious freedom and unjustifiably treat sexual-orientation discrimination differently from other types of odious discrimination. However, supplanting the court’s approach with Rawls’s “criterion of reciprocity” provides a coherent and consistent adjudicatory method for balancing religious freedom and the demands of equal citizenship. Furthermore, the argument I offer comports with legal analyses that focus on religious exemptions and third-party harm and the value of equal citizenship in religious liberty debates. Thus, my work supplements existing arguments against religious exemptions to antidiscrimination law and provides another substantive rejoinder to those seeking to scale back civil rights.","PeriodicalId":44712,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE","volume":"100 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140602753","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In recent decades, the religious landscape in the Nordic countries has changed. Transforming from traditional homogeneous Evangelical-Lutheran societies into more religiously and culturally diverse, there have been reforms creating new relationships between the states and the traditional state churches. Taking a comparative approach, this article analyzes how institutional logics guided the church and state reforms in Norway and Sweden. Analyzing governmental documents through the theoretical lens of institutional logics, the article makes a distinction between the logic of state church and the logic of religious equality. The article shows how the former acts as a foundational logic within policymaking even though there has been a movement towards more religious equality in legislation. Though there are differences in how Norway and Sweden facilitate their arrangements for support to faith communities, the ideas informing the arrangements are similar. We point towards an increased discrepancy behind the ideas informing policymaking and the practical implications of those policies.
{"title":"State Church and Religious Equality: A Comparative Study of Competing Logics during the Process of Changing Relations between State and Church in Sweden and Norway","authors":"Helge K Nylenna, Linnea Lundgren","doi":"10.1093/jcs/csad098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/csad098","url":null,"abstract":"In recent decades, the religious landscape in the Nordic countries has changed. Transforming from traditional homogeneous Evangelical-Lutheran societies into more religiously and culturally diverse, there have been reforms creating new relationships between the states and the traditional state churches. Taking a comparative approach, this article analyzes how institutional logics guided the church and state reforms in Norway and Sweden. Analyzing governmental documents through the theoretical lens of institutional logics, the article makes a distinction between the logic of state church and the logic of religious equality. The article shows how the former acts as a foundational logic within policymaking even though there has been a movement towards more religious equality in legislation. Though there are differences in how Norway and Sweden facilitate their arrangements for support to faith communities, the ideas informing the arrangements are similar. We point towards an increased discrepancy behind the ideas informing policymaking and the practical implications of those policies.","PeriodicalId":44712,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140151099","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the passing of same-sex marriage legislation in 2017, religious freedom has become a prominent feature of Australian public debate. Overwhelmingly, such debates are conducted within a human rights framework where principles such as individual autonomy and protection from discrimination are prioritized over the communal and associational elements of religious life. This in turn tends to augment the power of the state vis-à-vis religious communities and institutions. In important respects, the dominance of human rights represents a new manifestation of the kind of “liberal-statism”—a public philosophy of liberal individualism that accepts the primacy of the state in the management of cultural and religious diversity—that has been a central feature of Australian religion–state relations over time. After some historical discussion of Australian church–state practice, this article argues for a reconsideration of a largely overlooked approach deriving from the English pluralists of the early twentieth century, which promoted greater degrees of group autonomy in relation to a rapidly growing state. It is argued that this tradition has greater potential in responding to the religious diversity of our time than does the current human rights approach with its tendency to reinforce an individualistic or privatized conception of religion, diminish associational life, and thereby reinforce state power.
{"title":"Religion, Pluralism, and the Australian State after Same-Sex Marriage","authors":"Ian Tregenza","doi":"10.1093/jcs/csae003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/csae003","url":null,"abstract":"Since the passing of same-sex marriage legislation in 2017, religious freedom has become a prominent feature of Australian public debate. Overwhelmingly, such debates are conducted within a human rights framework where principles such as individual autonomy and protection from discrimination are prioritized over the communal and associational elements of religious life. This in turn tends to augment the power of the state vis-à-vis religious communities and institutions. In important respects, the dominance of human rights represents a new manifestation of the kind of “liberal-statism”—a public philosophy of liberal individualism that accepts the primacy of the state in the management of cultural and religious diversity—that has been a central feature of Australian religion–state relations over time. After some historical discussion of Australian church–state practice, this article argues for a reconsideration of a largely overlooked approach deriving from the English pluralists of the early twentieth century, which promoted greater degrees of group autonomy in relation to a rapidly growing state. It is argued that this tradition has greater potential in responding to the religious diversity of our time than does the current human rights approach with its tendency to reinforce an individualistic or privatized conception of religion, diminish associational life, and thereby reinforce state power.","PeriodicalId":44712,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139953187","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 1936, Baptists from across geographic and racial lines cooperatively began working together to address questions of common social concern—specifically, religious freedom. Ten years later, this cooperative work spurred the formation of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, later known as the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC). Recent scholarship has critiqued conceptions of religious freedom in the United States from a multitude of perspectives. Tisa Wenger has shown the ways in which religious freedom in the first half of the twentieth century functioned as a cover for white Christians to avoid addressing questions of race and segregation. This article further explores this idea through the history of the Baptist Joint Committee. It shows how BJC and its board members were unable to foster significant interracial collaboration in its early years not only because of its singular focus on religious freedom but also because of the denominational and bureaucratic social networks that helped establish this organization. White BJC staff and board members lacked the necessary relationships with and knowledge of Black Baptist denominational leaders and organizations. This article shows that the challenges facing BJC in cultivating an interracial conception of religious freedom were far more than solely intellectual. These challenges were social and bureaucratic.
1936 年，来自不同地域和种族的浸礼会成员开始合作，共同解决共同关心的社会问题，特别是宗教自由问题。十年后，这一合作促使浸礼会公共事务联合委员会（Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs）成立，该委员会后来被称为浸礼会宗教自由联合委员会（Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty，BJC）。近期的学术研究从多个角度对美国宗教自由的概念进行了批判。蒂萨-温格（Tisa Wenger）揭示了 20 世纪上半叶宗教自由如何成为白人基督徒逃避解决种族和种族隔离问题的幌子。本文通过浸礼会联合委员会的历史进一步探讨了这一观点。文章展示了浸礼会联合委员会及其董事会成员如何在其早期无法促进重要的跨种族合作，这不仅是因为其只关注宗教自由，还因为帮助建立该组织的教派和官僚社会网络。浸礼会白人工作人员和董事会成员缺乏与黑人浸礼会教派领袖和组织的必要关系，也不了解他们。这篇文章表明，黑人浸信会在培养跨种族的宗教自由观念时所面临的挑战远不止智力上的。这些挑战是社会和官僚方面的。
{"title":"Race, Religious Freedom, and the Institutional Limitations of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs","authors":"Andrew Gardner","doi":"10.1093/jcs/csae004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/csae004","url":null,"abstract":"In 1936, Baptists from across geographic and racial lines cooperatively began working together to address questions of common social concern—specifically, religious freedom. Ten years later, this cooperative work spurred the formation of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, later known as the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC). Recent scholarship has critiqued conceptions of religious freedom in the United States from a multitude of perspectives. Tisa Wenger has shown the ways in which religious freedom in the first half of the twentieth century functioned as a cover for white Christians to avoid addressing questions of race and segregation. This article further explores this idea through the history of the Baptist Joint Committee. It shows how BJC and its board members were unable to foster significant interracial collaboration in its early years not only because of its singular focus on religious freedom but also because of the denominational and bureaucratic social networks that helped establish this organization. White BJC staff and board members lacked the necessary relationships with and knowledge of Black Baptist denominational leaders and organizations. This article shows that the challenges facing BJC in cultivating an interracial conception of religious freedom were far more than solely intellectual. These challenges were social and bureaucratic.","PeriodicalId":44712,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE","volume":"32 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139953388","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines the reactions of cultural evangelicals in Texas to Jimmy Carter’s pardon of Vietnam War draft evaders. This article seeks to answer two questions: Did cultural evangelicals agree or disagree with Carter’s pardon, and why? This article finds that the vast majority vehemently disagreed with the pardon for a variety of reasons, but one reason loomed above all: These cultural evangelicals thought that the pardon was profoundly disrespectful to veterans of the Vietnam War because, in their minds, it appeared to give draft evaders, whom many cultural evangelicals saw as cowards, moral approval from the White House. To make this argument, this article takes a microhistorical approach and focuses on the cities of Waco and Amarillo, Texas, and uses sources like letters to the editor of local newspapers, news articles, opinion editorials, and, most critically, constituent letters to US members of Congress. Ultimately, this article provides another lens for understanding Carter–evangelicals relations and demonstrates how the understanding of white evangelicalism put forth by Kristin Kobes Du Mez in Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation can be used in a political and religious microhistory.
{"title":"“Disgust” and “Disgrace”: Cultural Evangelicals’ Reaction to Jimmy Carter’s Draft Evader Pardon and Early Memory of the Vietnam War in Texas","authors":"David Nanninga","doi":"10.1093/jcs/csae002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/csae002","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the reactions of cultural evangelicals in Texas to Jimmy Carter’s pardon of Vietnam War draft evaders. This article seeks to answer two questions: Did cultural evangelicals agree or disagree with Carter’s pardon, and why? This article finds that the vast majority vehemently disagreed with the pardon for a variety of reasons, but one reason loomed above all: These cultural evangelicals thought that the pardon was profoundly disrespectful to veterans of the Vietnam War because, in their minds, it appeared to give draft evaders, whom many cultural evangelicals saw as cowards, moral approval from the White House. To make this argument, this article takes a microhistorical approach and focuses on the cities of Waco and Amarillo, Texas, and uses sources like letters to the editor of local newspapers, news articles, opinion editorials, and, most critically, constituent letters to US members of Congress. Ultimately, this article provides another lens for understanding Carter–evangelicals relations and demonstrates how the understanding of white evangelicalism put forth by Kristin Kobes Du Mez in Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation can be used in a political and religious microhistory.","PeriodicalId":44712,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139755766","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyzes texts about Montenegro of the Catholic Irish publicist Patrick Mac Swiney de Mashanaglass, who visited the country in 1899. He published two works about his experience and the information he collected: a travel account and a historical overview. The article discusses the motive for his arrival on the eastern Adriatic coast, the historical, political, and cultural context of this visit, and the factors that influenced the creation of a certain image of Montenegro in his works. Special attention is paid to the issues of the relationship between Montenegro and the Holy See, which Swiney analyzed from various standpoints, and which contributed to the growing interest in Catholic circles in the small Balkan principality. The key events in that sense were the signing and implementation of the Concordat between Montenegro and the Holy See, the first legal act of this type signed between the Vatican and an Orthodox country, and the political-religious problem that emerged around an institute in Rome dedicated to St Jerome.
本文分析了 1899 年访问过黑山的爱尔兰天主教宣传家 Patrick Mac Swiney de Mashanaglass 关于黑山的文章。他出版了两部关于其经历和所收集信息的作品：一部旅行记和一部历史概述。文章讨论了他来到亚得里亚海东岸的动机，这次访问的历史、政治和文化背景，以及影响他在作品中塑造黑山特定形象的因素。斯维尼从不同角度分析了黑山与罗马教廷之间的关系问题，这些问题促使天主教界对这个巴尔干小公国的兴趣与日俱增。在这个意义上，关键事件是黑山与罗马教廷之间签署并实施了《协约》，这是梵蒂冈与东正教国家之间签署的第一份此类法律文书，以及围绕在罗马设立的圣杰罗姆纪念机构而出现的政治-宗教问题。
{"title":"Montenegro in the Works of Patrick Mac Swiney de Mashanaglass","authors":"Slavko Burzanović, Olivera Popović","doi":"10.1093/jcs/csae001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/csae001","url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes texts about Montenegro of the Catholic Irish publicist Patrick Mac Swiney de Mashanaglass, who visited the country in 1899. He published two works about his experience and the information he collected: a travel account and a historical overview. The article discusses the motive for his arrival on the eastern Adriatic coast, the historical, political, and cultural context of this visit, and the factors that influenced the creation of a certain image of Montenegro in his works. Special attention is paid to the issues of the relationship between Montenegro and the Holy See, which Swiney analyzed from various standpoints, and which contributed to the growing interest in Catholic circles in the small Balkan principality. The key events in that sense were the signing and implementation of the Concordat between Montenegro and the Holy See, the first legal act of this type signed between the Vatican and an Orthodox country, and the political-religious problem that emerged around an institute in Rome dedicated to St Jerome.","PeriodicalId":44712,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139678793","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Highlighting the transformed landscape of political communities in the twenty-first century, I reexamine the discourse of civil religion (DCR). Widely recognized in religious studies and notably in American history, this concept reveals a subtle yet intricately functional framework of community consciousness within political entities. This article posits that the prevalent interpretation of civil religion, and its application across diverse contexts, falls short of effectively reflecting and utilizing the essence identified by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Robert Bellah—classical and modern architects of civil religion, respectively. Many discussions of DCR often disregard the role of the traditional sense of religion and religiousness. Instead, they fixate on superficial symbols and rituals associated with secular institutional bodies and communities. In this article, I contend that reintegrating the ordinary sense of religion into the discourse is crucial for envisioning and constructing a new community consciousness capable of adeptly responding to the burgeoning demands of our highly multicultural world. Following the conceptual roadmap of civil religion, which seeks transcendent, sacred, and unifying narratives, symbols, and rituals, I introduce a new model termed Interfaith, Cosmopolitan Civil Religion (ICCR). Within this model, ordinary religious agents, through interfaith engagement, assume positive roles in nurturing a broader sense of community and unity.
{"title":"Bringing Back the Old Religiosity: Interfaith Cosmopolitan Civil Religion (ICCR)","authors":"Song Chong Lee","doi":"10.1093/jcs/csad095","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/csad095","url":null,"abstract":"Highlighting the transformed landscape of political communities in the twenty-first century, I reexamine the discourse of civil religion (DCR). Widely recognized in religious studies and notably in American history, this concept reveals a subtle yet intricately functional framework of community consciousness within political entities. This article posits that the prevalent interpretation of civil religion, and its application across diverse contexts, falls short of effectively reflecting and utilizing the essence identified by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Robert Bellah—classical and modern architects of civil religion, respectively. Many discussions of DCR often disregard the role of the traditional sense of religion and religiousness. Instead, they fixate on superficial symbols and rituals associated with secular institutional bodies and communities. In this article, I contend that reintegrating the ordinary sense of religion into the discourse is crucial for envisioning and constructing a new community consciousness capable of adeptly responding to the burgeoning demands of our highly multicultural world. Following the conceptual roadmap of civil religion, which seeks transcendent, sacred, and unifying narratives, symbols, and rituals, I introduce a new model termed Interfaith, Cosmopolitan Civil Religion (ICCR). Within this model, ordinary religious agents, through interfaith engagement, assume positive roles in nurturing a broader sense of community and unity.","PeriodicalId":44712,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE","volume":"55 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139412399","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
One of the turning points in the 1960 presidential campaign was a gathering of 150 Protestant ministers at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington on September 7, 1960, two days after Labor Day. During the closed-door gathering, Protestant leaders, including Norman Vincent Peale, unanimously adopted a statement warning about the dangers to the First Amendment and the separation of church and state should a Roman Catholic be elected president. Drawing on newly available archival sources, this article examines the role of religion in the 1960 campaign, including John F. Kennedy’s long struggle to neutralize the issue and the significance of Paul Blanshard’s 1949 best-seller, American Freedom and Catholic Power. Although Peale was roundly criticized for his role in the Mayflower gathering, the real force behind the meeting was Billy Graham, who did not attend. After assuring Kennedy in a letter dated August 10, 1960, that he, Graham, would not raise the religious issue in the campaign, Graham, at Peale’s behest, convened a group of Protestant ministers at the Montreux Palace Hotel in Switzerland eight days later to discuss how they could deny Kennedy’s election in November. The direct consequence of the Montreux meeting was the Mayflower Hotel gathering. While Peale took the heat for the meeting, Graham continued to play both sides, insisting publicly that he was neutral in the presidential race while working behind the scenes to advance Nixon’s candidacy, a strategy he employed again twenty years later in an attempt to jettison the reelection of a fellow evangelical, Jimmy Carter.
1960年总统竞选的转折点之一是1960年9月7日，即劳动节后两天，150名新教牧师在华盛顿五月花酒店聚会。在这次闭门聚会中，包括诺曼-文森特-皮尔（Norman Vincent Peale）在内的新教领袖一致通过了一项声明，警告如果罗马天主教徒当选总统，第一修正案和政教分离将面临危险。本文利用新近获得的档案资料，探讨了宗教在1960年竞选中的作用，包括约翰-肯尼迪（John F. Kennedy）为平息这一问题而进行的长期斗争，以及保罗-布兰沙德（Paul Blanshard）在1949年出版的畅销书《美国自由与天主教力量》（American Freedom and Catholic Power）的意义。虽然皮尔在五月花聚会中的作用受到了严厉批评，但会议背后的真正推手是比利-格雷厄姆（Billy Graham），他并未出席。格雷厄姆在 1960 年 8 月 10 日的信中向肯尼迪保证，他--格雷厄姆--不会在竞选中提出宗教问题，但八天后，在皮尔的授意下，格雷厄姆在瑞士蒙特勒宫酒店召集了一批新教牧师，讨论如何阻止肯尼迪在 11 月当选。蒙特勒会议的直接后果就是五月花酒店集会。在皮尔为这次会议背黑锅的同时，格雷厄姆继续扮演着两面派的角色，一方面公开坚称自己在总统竞选中保持中立，另一方面却在幕后推动尼克松的参选，20 年后，他再次采用这一策略，试图阻止同为福音派的吉米-卡特连任。
{"title":"Strategy and Subterfuge: Billy Graham’s Political Machinations from Montreux to the Mayflower Hotel and Beyond","authors":"Randall Balmer","doi":"10.1093/jcs/csad077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/csad077","url":null,"abstract":"One of the turning points in the 1960 presidential campaign was a gathering of 150 Protestant ministers at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington on September 7, 1960, two days after Labor Day. During the closed-door gathering, Protestant leaders, including Norman Vincent Peale, unanimously adopted a statement warning about the dangers to the First Amendment and the separation of church and state should a Roman Catholic be elected president. Drawing on newly available archival sources, this article examines the role of religion in the 1960 campaign, including John F. Kennedy’s long struggle to neutralize the issue and the significance of Paul Blanshard’s 1949 best-seller, American Freedom and Catholic Power. Although Peale was roundly criticized for his role in the Mayflower gathering, the real force behind the meeting was Billy Graham, who did not attend. After assuring Kennedy in a letter dated August 10, 1960, that he, Graham, would not raise the religious issue in the campaign, Graham, at Peale’s behest, convened a group of Protestant ministers at the Montreux Palace Hotel in Switzerland eight days later to discuss how they could deny Kennedy’s election in November. The direct consequence of the Montreux meeting was the Mayflower Hotel gathering. While Peale took the heat for the meeting, Graham continued to play both sides, insisting publicly that he was neutral in the presidential race while working behind the scenes to advance Nixon’s candidacy, a strategy he employed again twenty years later in an attempt to jettison the reelection of a fellow evangelical, Jimmy Carter.","PeriodicalId":44712,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE","volume":"40 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138572605","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Islam and the Arab Revolutions: The Ulama Between Democracy and Autocracy. By Usaama Al-Azami","authors":"M. Saidin","doi":"10.1093/jcs/csad079","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcs/csad079","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":44712,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CHURCH AND STATE","volume":"7 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138978776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：