Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
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 of the Early Republic – University of Pennsylvania Press
Published: Aug 3, 2008
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.