Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America, 1492–1830 (review)

Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America, 1492–1830 (review) REVIEWS and so on. They argue that if there are nonreligious alternatives, such as giving students the right to say ``one nation under law'' during the Pledge of Allegiance (instead of God), or allowing, for example, public officials to take secular oaths (instead of religious ones), both sides can find common ground upon which to compromise. The problem with this interpretation is that both sides of the culture war are firmly committed to their positions and most, this reviewer suggests, would be reluctant to compromise, especially since they have deep-rooted convictions about what religious freedom means in this country. Furthermore, the equal liberty position is sure to invite more lawsuits, as it would be difficult to regulate equal time or equal space between religionists and secularists. Be that as it may, though, the authors are to be commended for trying to resolve ``the issues about religion that divide Americans'' (21). Unfortunately, it will be a difficult task to accomplish until there is a major paradigm shift in this country, until Americans understand that both religious and secular principles contributed to the founding of the republic. Ma tthe w L. Har ris is assistant professor of history at Colorado http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of the Early Republic University of Pennsylvania Press

Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America, 1492–1830 (review)

Journal of the Early Republic , Volume 28 (3) – Aug 3, 2008

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-pennsylvania-press/empires-of-the-atlantic-world-britain-and-spain-in-america-1492-1830-0DrPA6RWk0
Publisher
University of Pennsylvania Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Society for Historians of the Early American Republic
ISSN
1553-0620
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

REVIEWS and so on. They argue that if there are nonreligious alternatives, such as giving students the right to say ``one nation under law'' during the Pledge of Allegiance (instead of God), or allowing, for example, public officials to take secular oaths (instead of religious ones), both sides can find common ground upon which to compromise. The problem with this interpretation is that both sides of the culture war are firmly committed to their positions and most, this reviewer suggests, would be reluctant to compromise, especially since they have deep-rooted convictions about what religious freedom means in this country. Furthermore, the equal liberty position is sure to invite more lawsuits, as it would be difficult to regulate equal time or equal space between religionists and secularists. Be that as it may, though, the authors are to be commended for trying to resolve ``the issues about religion that divide Americans'' (21). Unfortunately, it will be a difficult task to accomplish until there is a major paradigm shift in this country, until Americans understand that both religious and secular principles contributed to the founding of the republic. Ma tthe w L. Har ris is assistant professor of history at Colorado

Journal

Journal of the Early RepublicUniversity of Pennsylvania Press

Published: Aug 3, 2008

There are no references for this article.