The following essay will deal with religion, law and politics in the USA. Because it is a broad topic, I will concentrate on the discourse about accommodation, or separation of state and church in America, with a focus on Stephen L. Carter – a distinguished law professor at Yale University. My thesis is that although Carter claims to be a separatist, his contradictory and biased arguments in most of his books indicate his accommodationist position. His methods are the dichotomization of church and state; his claim that society victimizes religion (his strange comparison of the Civil Rights movement and the Anti-Abortion movement); his assertion that religious people are oppressed by the majority (which according to him is religious), the Supreme Court, and American politics. Carter further maintains that religion is trivialized and privatized. His biased view on law is visible in the cases he discusses (predominantly separatist cases). His suggestive and popular style, as well as his constant references to God’s will and his opinion that the Bible justifies almost everything, makes his argumentation nearly untouchable. Finally, I will show that Carter clearly holds God above the state and thus, his claim as a separatist cannot be maintained.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Carter’s Definition of Religion, Separatism and Accommodationism
III. Methods of Argumentation and Their Contradictions
a. Dichotomization
b. The Victimization of Religion
c. Oppressors
d. Trivialization and Privatization
IV. Carter and the Supreme Court
a. Special Cases
V. Carter’s manipulation techniques
VI. Religion Prior to the State
VII. Conclusion
Objectives and Core Themes
This essay examines the discourse surrounding the separation of church and state in the United States, specifically analyzing the arguments presented by Yale Law Professor Stephen L. Carter. The primary research question investigates the contradiction between Carter's self-identification as a separatist and the underlying accommodationist positions found in his work, exploring how his rhetorical methods and interpretations of law serve to privilege religious perspectives over secular governance.
- The intersection of religion, law, and politics in American society.
- Critique of Stephen L. Carter’s rhetorical strategies and argumentative techniques.
- Analysis of Supreme Court jurisprudence regarding religious freedom and accommodation.
- The relationship between state authority and religious autonomy.
- The influence of religious conviction on political and legal discourse.
Excerpt from the Book
b. The Victimization of Religion
Another way of justifying accommodation is to declare that in America religion is victimized. Victimization is an important issue for Carter, since one finds it throughout all of his works. He therefore creates the image of the public square, from which religion is almost excluded. The marginalization of religions happens when the American culture tries “[…] to humiliate believers, and, even if indirectly, to discourage religion as a serious activity.” That “[…] the public square can indeed seem a cold, suspicious, and hostile place,” is just another way of saying that “[r]eligion, in short, has no sphere.” It is for that reason that Carter wants religion to “[…] posess a large sphere….” This goal is also the motivation for his writing, which itself creates a very large sphere.
Besides the public square he creates the image of religion as a form of resistance. “It [religion] often resists, in particular, the values of the dominant culture.” Yet, culture is not the only oppressor of religion. The state also puts pressure on religious people, “[…] which should ideally be strong enough to resist [it]….” In order to illustrate what he means by resistance, Carter comes up with examples of various religious and ethnic minorities that were discriminated against throughout American history. However, it does not seem to fit into his portrayal of religious people as the most disadvantaged minority of all minorities because “[…] every other group, if dissatisfied with the way somebody else is treated by the state, has the resort to advocacy and the electoral process to improve the situation of those others.”
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: Presents the central thesis that Stephen L. Carter's work, while claiming to support the separation of church and state, is essentially accommodationist and biased.
II. Carter’s Definition of Religion, Separatism and Accommodationism: Examines Carter's specific definition of religion and how his stance on the separation of church and state remains vague and inherently contradictory.
III. Methods of Argumentation and Their Contradictions: Explores the rhetorical strategies Carter employs, including dichotomization, framing religion as a victim, identifying specific oppressors, and arguing for the role of religion in the public sphere.
IV. Carter and the Supreme Court: Critiques Carter's perspective on the Supreme Court's role in religious freedom cases and how he interprets legal outcomes to suit an accommodationist agenda.
V. Carter’s manipulation techniques: Analyzes the manipulative, suggestive writing style and preacher-like authority Carter uses to advance his religious and political views.
VI. Religion Prior to the State: Argues that Carter ultimately prioritizes religious belief over state allegiance, suggesting a tendency toward a theocratic perspective.
VII. Conclusion: Summarizes the inherent contradictions in Carter’s arguments and calls for a more rational, compromising basis for the coexistence of church and state.
Keywords
Stephen L. Carter, Religion, Law, Politics, Accommodationism, Separatism, Church and State, Supreme Court, Argumentation, Victimization, Public Square, Constitutional Law, Dissent, Religious Freedom, Secular State
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on analyzing the scholarly work of Stephen L. Carter regarding the intersection of religion, law, and politics in the United States, specifically challenging his self-described separatist position.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
The work explores themes such as the alleged victimization of religious groups, the role of the Supreme Court in religious discourse, the definition of the public square, and the tension between religious autonomy and state authority.
What is the primary objective of the author?
The objective is to demonstrate that despite his stated support for the separation of church and state, Carter’s arguments are consistently accommodationist and often contradictory, effectively advocating for a prioritized religious role in governance.
Which methodology is utilized in this analysis?
The paper utilizes a critical analysis of primary source texts, focusing on Carter's major books, his rhetorical techniques, his interpretation of Supreme Court rulings, and a comparison with counter-arguments from other legal scholars.
What topics are covered in the main section of the essay?
The main section covers Carter's definitions, his specific methods of argumentation (such as dichotomization), his critique of judicial institutions, and his tendency to place religious doctrine above secular legal frameworks.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
The work is characterized by terms like accommodationism, separatism, Church and State, legal discourse, rhetorical analysis, and constitutional interpretation.
How does Carter use the concept of the "public square" in his writing?
Carter uses the image of the public square to argue that religion is being marginalized, humiliated, and excluded from the dominant culture, thereby justifying his call for more religious influence in public life.
How does the author evaluate Carter's comparison of the Civil Rights movement and the anti-abortion movement?
The author views this comparison as a problematic manipulation technique designed to frame separatists as equivalent to historical oppressors and to make dissent against his position appear morally unjustifiable.
- Citation du texte
- Paul Vierkant (Auteur), 2005, Of Pharisees and Lawyers or And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. (Luke 16.17) , Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/60882
