revised PETER - 1 Peter~ Your paper flows well Each paragraph was related to the preceding one I think we just get nervous when writing it because we do

1 Peter~ Your paper flows well. Each paragraph was related to the preceding one. I think we just get nervous when writing it because we do not necessarily right the paragraphs in sequence. I put my changes/suggestions in red, most are just technical things versus confusion. One thing that she has put on my papers a lot is, “is this your idea?” so I included more citing but if that hasn’t been a problem for you, forget it. Does the works cited need to be on a separate page?-  stupid me, I just realized that it isn’t on a separate page because of the typing I’ve done here. Overall, good paper, it made perfect sense to me, hopefully HURD feels the same! Hopefully, all my suggestions made sense. Let me know The Bane of Public Religion

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document

2 Peter Luckow POLI_SCI 101-6 RELIGION AND POLITICS Monday, December 5 th , 2005 The world of today is one composed of many different nations. Throughout all of these nations, there are many different political systems, each with varying policies on religion. It is an endless debate to which policy of interaction between church and state is the best for a particular society. In Public Religion: Bane or Blessing for Democracy? , Ronald F. Thiemann calls for greater promotion of religion in the public sphere in the United States. He claims that this public religion would enhance democracy. In reality, conflict among religious practices would be inevitable due to the increase of religiously diverse societies. In a democracy, this would lead to the religious majority taking power. In order to maintain a fair, just democracy, religion must remain a private manner. It is beneficial to explore the differing policies of secularism, such as those found in France and the United States, in order to gain a better understanding of how such policies emerge and lead to various types of secularism. Thiemann’s Flawed Argument In his essay, Thiemann argues that public religion would benefit society in many

3 respects, but the many flaws in his argument deem it invalid. Thiemann states that, “because people of faith share the fundamental values of democratic societies, they … elevate the understanding of democratic values themselves” (Thiemann 2000, p. 87). He uses the examples of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Abraham Lincoln and how they “redefined the very meaning of freedom and equality for American citizens” (Thiemann 2000, p. 87) to show how people have used religion to bring about change and further democracy. It is true that people, such as these two men, have effectively used religion as a means of justifying their ideas. It is also true that during the time that these people lived and brought about change, the majority of their audience shared similar religious beliefs as themselves. Today, the societies that people live in are much more religiously diverse than they were in the time of Lincoln and King, Jr. Using Christian faith would not be nearly as effective today as it was for King, Jr. and Lincoln. Although it would be