| |
A Q&A with author Joseph P. Viteritti
- Why did you decide to write this book?
I was struck by the number of people I knew who had a real animosity towards religion and the deeply religious. Most of these people consider themselves open-minded and tolerant. They have legitimate concerns about the political agenda of the Religious Right, but they make the mistake of equating all religious people with extremists, and have a difficult time separating disagreement from disdain. What they display is a real form of prejudice that in the end undermines the same democratic values they want to preserve.
- What is the main message to secularists and policy makers?
We need to understand devoutly religious people on their own terms. Aside from the political opportunists, many are just trying to live good lives. We can respect them for it without necessarily abiding by their values and preferences when it comes to making public policy. The abortion issue is a case in point. People can have legitimate differences over it. Opposition to abortion does not necessarily make somebody narrow-minded or careless about the rights of others. Accepting Roe v. Wade is a moral concession for somebody who believes in the rights of the unborn.
- Your book makes the point that participating in a democracy requires compromise. How do you think that your call for compromise will be received by "believers"?
I hope it is received well. Democracy can exact the greatest compromises from those who live their lives according to a strict moral code, and many religious people fall into that category. I think recognizing the cost that democracy imposes on deeply religious people is a first step towards understanding and eventually dialogue.
- Is it possible for lawmakers to acknowledge religion without being ruled by it?
It is not only possible; it is necessary. Government decision-makers must tread cautiously when they use their power to enforce policy that gets between an individual and his or her conscience; but at times it is necessary. For example, it is one thing to require the children of religious people to take a sex education class that violates the precepts of their faith, and quite another to require the teaching of evolution in science. The former involves values about sex, intimacy and human relationships that parents have a right to shape when it comes to their own children; the latter concerns the teaching of a verified theory that is essential to good science. The state is on thin ice when it imposes the former, but acts legitimately with regard to the latter.
- What would your advice be to presidential hopefuls as they approach this thorny area of American politics?
Don't treat religion as a campaign prop. It is much too important for that. Americans are frequently referred to as the most religious people in the Western world because the great majority believe in God and practice some form of faith. But most Americans embrace a certain kind of religion. Generally they do not employ faith to guide the details of their lives, which are largely secular. They do not want to rid religion from the public square, nor do they want to be governed by it.
- Who do you want to read your book?
Anybody who cares about finding the proper role for religion in American public life. Anybody who was displeased with the unsatisfactory answers furnished by the two major political parties in the last presidential election. That is, the great center of the American populace, who rejects political extremes on the left or the right and wants help in figuring out a better way to deal with this all-important question.
Return to Book Description
File created: 8/13/2007 |
