Stanford University Press Blog

Review of Bleached Faith Outlines Church & State Debate

Caren Dubnoff, professor of political science at College of the Holy Cross, recently profiled Steven Goldberg’s Bleached Faith: The Tragic Cost When Religion Is Forced into the Public Square (2008) for Law and Politics Book Review.

In his brief volume, Steven Goldberg supports the separation of Church and State by challenging, as Dubnoff puts it, “the argument that because religion has a positive effect on moral values and civic virtue, it merits government support. He also responds to the argument that barring religion from the public square violates the free exercise rights of the religious.”

Dubnoff goes on to explain: “Goldberg builds his argument around three cases: the controversy over the posting of the Ten Commandments; the argument over the introduction of Intelligent Design in school biology classes; and the argument over holiday displays.”

This reviewer’s conclusion is that Bleached Faith is based on very current issues and provides a useful rebuttal to those leaning against the separation of Church and State.

Inside Higher Ed Explores Ignorance and Agnotology

Scott McLemee of Inside Higher Ed recently profiled Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance (2008) edited by Robert Proctor and Londa Schiebinger.

Proctor and Schiebinger's collection of essays looks at the study of ignorance in order to ask, "Why don't we know what we know?" and to show that ignorance can be a result of cultural and political struggles, rather than simply being an absence of knowledge.

McLemee argues that ignorance — and the awareness of one's own ignorance — is the foundation for attaining wisdom, that both knowledge and wisdom are interconnected and are "both socially produced and socially productive."

McLemee says that ignorance, "...serves to foster a wide range of social and cognitive goods," and says that the Agnotology essay by Michael J. Smithson, "Social Theories of Ignorance" addresses those benefits:

"A zone of carefully cultivated ignorance is involved in privacy and politeness, for example. It is also intrinsic to specialization. 'The stereotypical explanation for specialization,' writes Smithson, 'is that it arises when there is too much for any one person to learn anything.” But another way of looking at it is to regard specialization as a means whereby 'the risk of being ignorant about crucial matters is spread by diversifying ignorance.'"

John Diamond Op-ed in USA Today

John Diamond, author of The CIA and the Culture of Failure (forthcoming from Stanford, September 2008), recently published an op-ed in USA Today in which he discusses the Bush administration’s rejection of timetables for the Iraq war. In this fiery piece, Diamond asserts:

“Let's all try to grasp a basic point: We are not going to sneak out of Iraq. The insurgents are not going to wake up one morning and find that U.S. forces have stolen home in the dead of night. The realities of moving large armies dictate that there is no way the U.S. can significantly reduce its troop presence in Iraq without it becoming known well in advance… Let's put timetables back where they belong  —  back on the table, back into the conversation, so that our leaders, our soldiers, our allies, and most of all our people can engage in a sensible discussion about how best to conclude our participation in this painful conflict.”

Diamond speaks with authority on this issue because he has been writing about defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs in Washington since 1989 and is currently researching nuclear security and terrorism. In his newest book, The CIA and the Culture of Failure, he tracks the CIA through a series of crises from the Soviet collapse to the war in Iraq and explains the political pressures that helped lead to the greatest failures in US intelligence history.

 

One Blueprint for Obama

The Wall Street Journal reviewed Erwin Chemerinsky's book, Enhancing Government. John McGinnis writes, "Mr. Chemerinsky sketches a vision of federalism that would empower government at all levels and delight civil plaintiffs and criminal defense lawyers of every description. The great virtue of Mr. Chemerinsky's book is that it serves as a blueprint for the Obama administration and a fair warning to its opponents." The full text of the review can be found here.

McGinnis argues that in making a case for empowering state and local government to deal with social problems, Chemerinsky ignores the distinction between national and local consequences of the legislation.

"When Congress has gone to the trouble of establishing a regulatory apparatus, and its regulators have arrived at a judgment about the safety of a medical device, the court is right to infer that Congress does not want states simply to "opt out" of the judgment if they like."

While it is true that Chemerinsky's proposal puts limits on federal power, it empowers every level of government to deal with social problems, a point that the review fails to mention. In his view, federal power should address national problems like environmental protection and violations of civil rights, while state power can be strengthened in areas such as consumer privacy and employee protection. So the proposal reserves a place for federal action. And, Chemerinsky presumably would agree with federal legislation that seeks to put a ban on hazardous medical devices.

The book passionately argues for a different vision: federalism as empowerment. It lays a challenge to the Court—and to the next president—to approach their decisions with the aim of advancing liberty and enhancing effective governance.