BOSTON GLOBE columnist James Carroll, a self-described practicing Catholic, has issued a call to arms to liberals and the Democratic party. He wants us to have a public discussion and debate about what good religion might be and what bad religion is and has been. To advance the discussion of bad religion, he has published another fine book setting forth his critical views of religion in Western cultural history.

::::::::

Duluth, MN (OpEdNews) March 13, 2011: Regarding religion, we in Western culture today live in interesting times. James Carroll, a self-described practicing Catholic, has done his part to keep our public discussion of religion in Western culture interesting, most notably with his critical views of religion in his books CONSTANTINE'S SWORD: THE CHURCH AND THE JEWS: A HISTORY (2001) and JERUSALEM, JERUSALEM: HOW THE ANCIENT CITY IGNITED OUR MODERN WORLD (2011).

I do not necessarily agree with all of Carroll's critical views, but I certainly agree with his conclusion in his new book that we should discuss and debate what is good religion and what is bad religion. Through the text of his new book and through the text of CONSTANTINE'S SWORD, Carroll has called attention to bad religion. In the conclusion of his new book, he steps back a bit and tries to generalize about what might constitute good religion and bad religion. He is issuing a call to arms to liberals and to the Democratic party.

I agree with Carroll that this is the way that we in the United States today should focus the public debate about religion. Time and again, surveys have shown that more than 80 percent of Americans say that they believe in God. For this reason, religion is not likely to disappear from American culture in the near future.

Let's take stock of where the public discussion of religion in the United States stands today and of how the public discussion of religion has influenced our American political life in recent times. Briefly, the Republican party has benefited enormously from public debate about cultural issues involving religion. By contrast, the Democratic party has not.

In recent decades the Christian right has emerged as a religious coalition that has helped elect conservative Republicans. The Christian right coalition includes a large number of Carroll's fellow Catholics who are concerned about legalized abortion in the first trimester, and a large number of Protestant Evangelicals who are concerned not only about legalized abortion in the first trimester but also about the teaching of evolutionary theory in public secondary education.

Generally speaking, political liberals and secular humanists in academia have supported both legalized abortion in the first trimester and the teaching of evolutionary theory in public secondary education. However, by virtue of being a practicing Catholic, Carroll is not a secular humanist; he is a theistic humanist. But he is a political liberal, as his columns in the BOSTON GLOBE show. Also see Carroll's excellent book HOUSE OF WAR: THE PENTAGON AND THE DISASTROUS RISE OF AMERICAN POWER (2006).

Secular humanists are generally non-religious or anti-religion. For this reason, certain conservative Christians like to rail against secular humanism, or secularism, for short. Oddly enough, the estimable German philosopher Jurgen Habermas has recently urged his fellow secularists not to be too strongly anti-religion. His attitude seems to be to live and let live. However, thus far, his attitude has probably not had much influence in the United States, despite the fact that he has a fair number of followers among American academics.

Even though the Christian right has been active in helping to elect conservative Republicans, push-back has emerged in recent years from the so-called "new atheists" such as Richard Dawkins. In their view, the sooner that religion fades away, the better. They are anti-religion. For this reason, the so-called "new atheists" are made for the media. The media devote far more effort to covering new books by the so-called "new atheists" than they do to covering new books by Habermas or Carroll. But for all the media attention the so-called "new atheists" have received, how many Democrats have they helped elect in the United States? None that I know of.

If secular humanists who are anti-religion wanted to compile a bibliography of books that are critical of religion, they would probably include James Carroll's new book JERUSALEM, JERUSALEM   and his earlier book CONSTANTINE'S SWORD (2001). But Carroll is not a secular humanist. He claims that he is a practicing Catholic, and he has even published a book titled PRACTICING CATHOLIC (2009).

Despite being critical of religion, Carroll is not yet ready to join the ranks of anti-religion secular humanists, even though his critical views of religion could be used to help advance the anti-religion cause. But in the conclusion of his new book, he tells us that we need to learn how to distinguish good religion from bad religion, and he offers some guidelines for doing this kind of sorting out. But within the three monotheistic religions that Carroll discusses, people have been trying to do this kind of thing for centuries. In the Roman Catholic tradition, for example, all of the debates about so-called heresies can be understood as debates about good religion and bad religion.

Let me briefly recapitulate my observations so that I can sharpen the focus of my thought. The Christian right has helped elect Republicans in recent decades. During the same decades the Democratic party has lost elections to Republican candidates because the Democrats could not turn out the voters as effectively as the Republicans could. Now, polls have consistently shown that 80 percent or more Americans say they believe in God. For this reason, the Democratic party would be well advised not to appear to be anti-religion.

The Democratic party would be well advised to take a hint from Carroll and start thinking about good religion and bad religion. Like Carroll, Democrats could be critical of bad religion but without being anti-religion.

Political liberals who are secularists should take a hint from Habermas and temper their anti-religion fervor. Secularists should just hold their noses because they are not likely to see the demise of religion in the United States in the near future.

If political liberals who are secularists want to read critical views of religion, then they should read Carroll's books, and many of the books he cites. In my estimate the most cogent critical views of religion are being written today by authors who are themselves steeped in religion and religious history, not by the so-called "new atheists."

I have no hard data about how many fat-cat Republicans have held their noses as the Christian right helped elect conservative Republicans in recent decades. Fat-cat Republicans want to advance the causes of lower taxes for the rich and of deregulation. They are not as concerned about cultural issues as the Christian right is, but fat-cat Republicans have welcomed the votes of the Christian right in helping elect Republicans dedicated to lowering taxes on the rich and to deregulation.

But what are the larger causes, if any, that liberals want to help advance? Do liberals want to increase taxes for the super-rich? Do liberals want to grow the federal government and its regulatory powers

The so-called "new atheists" might find it entertaining to be anti-religion. But their anti-religion onslaught just arouses the fervor of the Christian right. Are fat-cat Republicans funding the so-called "new atheists"? Are fat-cat Republicans funding the media coverage of the so-called "new atheists"?

When so-called "new atheists" and secular humanists in academia sound anti-religion, they are firing up the Christian right and thereby helping to advance the causes of fat-cat Republicans.

As an alternative scenario, Carroll urges us to discuss and debate good religion and bad religion, but without sounding anti-religion. Those liberals who are truly anti-religion might need to hold their noses and stand down in the public discussion. With more than 80 percent of Americans saying that they believe in God, the anti-religion cause is not likely to win out in the near future.

Those liberals who are truly anti-religion might want to hold their noses and read Carroll's JERUSALEM, JERUSALEM and CONSTANTINE SWORD.

Next, they might read two accessible books about how the historical Jesus was probably crucified under Pontius Pile in Jerusalem at the times of the Passover festival: John Dominic Crossan's WHO KILLED JESUS: EXPOSING THE ROOTS OF ANTI-SEMITISM IN THE GOSPEL STORY OF THE DEATH OF JESUS (1995) and Paula Fredriksen's JESUS OF NARAZARETH: KING OF THE JEWS (1999). Crossan and Fredriksen disagree about one key consideration: She sees the historical Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher (i.e., proclaiming the coming end-time), whereas Crossan sees the historical Jesus as preaching a non-apocalyptic message (i.e., a message about spirituality, not about the end-time). But they both agree that the crucifixion of the historical Jesus was probably a crowd control measure taken by Pontius Pilate. (Like Carroll, Crossan, who is now retired, is a former Catholic priest. Fredriksen is a former Catholic who converted to Judaism.)

Next, they might want to read a critique of the Christian right by a secularist philosopher: James H. Fetzer's RENDER UNTO DARWIN: PHILOSOPHICAL ASPECTS OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT'S CRUSADE AGAINST SCIENCE (2007). (Disclosure: Fetzer and I were faculty colleagues at the University of Minnesota Duluth before each of us retired.)

Next, they might want to read a critique of the Catholic bishops' views regarding abortion by a Catholic lay philosopher: George Dennis O'Brien's THE CHURCH AND ABORTION: A CATHOLIC DISSENT (2010). (O'Brien, who is now retired, holds a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University.)

Finally, could fat-cat Democrats play a constructive role in helping to advance the public discussion and debate about good religion and bad religion? For example, fat-cat Democrats could sponsor workshops to have Crossan bring Democrats up to speed about the historical Jesus and his crucifixion. Carroll's call to discuss and debate good religion and bad religion should include leaders of the Democratic party.

Authors Website: http://www.d.umn.edu/~tfarrell

Authors Bio:

Thomas James Farrell is professor emeritus of writing studies at the University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD). He started teaching at UMD in Fall 1987, and he retired from UMD at the end of May 2009. He was born in 1944. He holds three degrees from Saint Louis University (SLU): B.A. in English, 1966; M.A.(T) in English 1968; Ph.D.in higher education, 1974. On May 16, 1969, the editors of the SLU student newspaper named him Man of the Year, an honor customarily conferred on an administrator or a faculty member, not on a graduate student -- nor on a woman up to that time. He is the proud author of the book WALTER ONG'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO CULTURAL STUDIES: THE PHENOMENOLOGY OF THE WORD AND I-THOU COMMUNICATION (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2000; 2nd ed. 2009, forthcoming). The first edition won the 2001 Marshall McLuhan Award for Outstanding Book in the Field of Media Ecology conferred by the Media Ecology Association. For further information about his education and his publications, see his UMD homepage: Click here to visit Dr. Farrell's homepage.

On September 10 and 22, 2009, he discussed Walter Ong's work on the blog radio talk show "Ethics Talk" that is hosted by Hope May in philosophy at Central Michigan University. Each hour-long show has been archived and is available for people who missed the live broadcast to listen to. Here are the website addresses for the two archived shows:

Click here to listen the Technologizing of the Word Interview

Click here to listen the Ramus, Method & The Decay of Dialogue Interview