Project and content management for Contemporary Authors volumes
WORK TITLE: Secular Faith
WORK NOTES:
PSEUDONYM(S):
BIRTHDATE:
WEBSITE: http://faculty.washington.edu/masmith/
CITY: Seattle
STATE: WA
COUNTRY:
NATIONALITY:
https://www.polisci.washington.edu/people/mark-smith * http://www.washington.edu/news/2015/12/08/culture-wars-christianity-at-heart-of-uw-political-scientist-mark-smiths-book-secular-faith/ * http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/books/ct-prj-secular-faith-mark-smith-20150913-story.html * http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/author/S/M/au5618494.html
RESEARCHER NOTES:
LC control no.:
n 00085260
LCCN Permalink:
https://lccn.loc.gov/n00085260
HEADING:
Smith, Mark A. (Mark Alan), 1970-
000
00912cz a2200253n 450
001
5024041
005
20141211073750.0
008
000201n| azannaabn |n aaa
010
__ |a n 00085260
035
__ |a (OCoLC)oca05146752
040
__ |a DLC |b eng |e rda |c DLC |d ICU
046
__ |f 19700709
100
1_ |a Smith, Mark A. |q (Mark Alan), |d 1970-
370
__ |c United States |2 naf
372
__ |a Political science |2 lcsh
373
__ |a University of Washington |2 naf
374
__ |a College teachers |2 lcsh
375
__ |a male
377
__ |a eng
378
__ |q Mark Alan
670
__ |a Smith, Mark A. American business and political power, c2000: |b CIP t.p. (Mark A. Smith)
670
__ |a Phone call to pub., 02-01-00 |b (Mark Alan Smith; b. 07-09-70)
670
__ |a University of Washington WWW site, Dec. 10, 2014 |b (Mark A. Smith; professor, Department of Political Science; PhD, political science, University of Minnesota)
953
__ |a sf15
PERSONAL
Born July 9, 1970.
EDUCATION:Massachusetts Institute of Technology, bachelor’s degree, 1992; University of Minnesota, Ph.D., 1997.
ADDRESS
CAREER
Educator and writer. University of Washington, Seattle, assistant professor, 1997-2002, associate professor, 2002-10, adjunct professor, 2006–, professor of political science and adjunct professor of comparative religion, 2010–.
AWARDS:Leon Epstein Award, Political Science Association, for American Business and Political Power.
WRITINGS
Contributor of articles to periodicals, including Political Science Quarterly, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Journal of Politics, University of Colorado Law Review, and American Journal of Political Science.
SIDELIGHTS
Mark A. Smith is a University of Washington professor of political science and adjunct professor of comparative religion, teaching courses on political parties, research methods, American political culture, and religion in American politics. He earned a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Minnesota. Smith’s first book, American Business and Political Power: Public Opinion, Elections, and Democracy, won the Leon Epstein Award from the American Political Science Association.
In 2011, Smith published The Right Talk: How Conservatives Transformed the Great Society into the Economic Society, in which he explains why, over the past few decades, America has swung to the political right. Smith analyzed fifty years’ worth of political speeches, campaign ads, party platforms, and intellectual writings to reveal that economic matters have become more central to political campaigns and the public agenda. To address this complex subject, Smith blends political science and political sociology. According to Smith, Republican politicians and conservative intellectuals have chosen to use economic justifications for policies rather than appeals to freedom as a way to gain votes. Republicans have used a rhetorical strategy to emphasize tax cuts and smaller government as a means toward economic prosperity, while deriding Democrats for their fiscal responsibility.
Smith’s 2015 title Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics argues that religious and secular Americans typically converge on similar moral and political stances. Smith begins by discussing Christian teaching and the conservative influence in America. He proclaims that religion is not a conservative influence in American politics, but rather religion is itself shaped by changing political and cultural values. Smith focuses on five historically contentious issues in the American political arena—slavery, divorce, homosexuality, abortion, and women’s rights—and explains how the political views of conservative Christians have evolved along with the general society, albeit at a slower pace. Smith says that while Christian leaders tend to resist change, they eventually acquiesce by reinterpreting the Bible.
In an interview with Peter Kelley on the Washington University Web site, Smith said: “We often fight over how to implement [foundational] principles—for example, whether posting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse violates the First Amendment … —but the principles themselves are widely shared. In many countries, by contrast, politics revolves around disputes over the foundational questions.” According to Ray Olson in Booklist, “Anyone interested in the seemingly endless American ‘culture war’ will be enlightened by Smith’s unbiased, methodical presentation.” In Washington Monthly, Samuel Buntz commented: “While the data Smith collects can certainly prove useful to other scholars, serving as a valuable compendium, I couldn’t surmount the sense that he was short-changing religious people and their ideas throughout his study.”
BIOCRIT
PERIODICALS
Booklist, September 1, 2015, Ray Olson, review of Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics, p. 17.
Chicago Tribune, September 13, 2015, Kevin M. Schultz, review of Secular Faith.
Washington Monthly, November-December, 2016, Samuel Buntz, review of Secular Faith, p. 56.
ONLINE
University of Washington Web site, http://www.washington.edu/ (December 8, 2015), Peter Kelley, author interview; (June 1, 2017), author profile.
Mark A. Smith did his undergraduate work at M.I.T. and earned his Ph.D. at the University of Minnesota in 1997 before joining the faculty at the University of Washington. As Professor of Political Science and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion and Communication, he teaches courses on political parties, research methods, American political culture, and religion in American politics. Smith is the author most recently of Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics. Despite what one might expect from common understandings of a “culture war,” the book argues that religious and secular Americans typically converge on similar moral and political stances. Previously Smith wrote The Right Talk: How Conservatives Transformed the Great Society into the Economic Society. The book examined the role of economic issues and rhetoric in the conservative ascendancy in recent decades. Smith’s first book, American Business and Political Power: Public Opinion, Elections, and Democracy, won the Leon Epstein Award from the Political Organizations and Parties section of the American Political Science Association.
===
Publications, Books
Mark A. Smith. Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics, University of Chicago Press, 2015.
Publications, Book Chapters
Mark A. Smith. “The Mobilization and Influence of Business Interests,” In The Oxford Handbook of American Interest Groups and Political Parties, edited by L. Sandy Maisel and Jeffrey M. Berry. Oxford University Press, 2010.
Research Advised: Graduate Dissertations
Allison Rank. 2014. "Bums, Revolutionaries, or Citizens? A Political History of Youth in Twentieth-Century America." Diss., U of Washington.
===
Office Address
Curriculum Vita Mark A. Smith
University of Washington
Department of Political Science
Box 353530
Seattle, WA 98195
email: masmith@u.washington.edu
website: http://faculty.washington.edu/masmith/
Professional Employment
Professor, University of Washington, Department of Political Science, 2010-present Adjunct Professor, Comparative Religion Program of the Jackson School of International
Studies, 2012-present
Adjunct Professor, University of Washington, Department of Communication,
2006-present
Associate Professor, University of Washington, Department of Political Science, 2002-2010 Assistant Professor, University of Washington, Department of Political Science, 1997-2002
Education
Ph.D. in political science, 1997. University of Minnesota. Examination Fields: American Politics, Methodology.
S.B. in economics, minor in political science, 1992. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Publications
Books:
Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics. 2015.
University of Chicago Press. Recipient of the 2015 Morris D. Forkosch Book Award from the Council for Secular Humanism.
The Right Talk: How Conservatives Transformed the Great Society into the Economic Society.
2007, hardback; 2009, paperback. Princeton University Press.
American Business and Political Power: Public Opinion, Elections, and Democracy.
2000. University of Chicago Press. Recipient of the 2001 Leon Epstein Award, given
1
annually to recognize the best book in the field of political organizations and parties.
Book Chapters:
“The Mobilization and Influence of Business Interests.” 2010. In L. Sandy Maisel
and Jeffrey M. Berry, eds., Oxford Handbook of American Interest Groups and Political Parties. Oxford University Press, pp. 451-67.
“Economic Insecurity, Party Reputations, and the Republican Ascendance.” 2007.
In Paul Pierson and Theda Skocpol, eds., The Transformation of American Politics: Activist Government and the Rise of Conservatism. Princeton University Press, pp. 135- 59.
Articles:
“Religion, Divorce, and the Missing Culture War in America.” 2010. Political Science Quarterly 125:57-85.
“Intellectuals, Rhetoric, and Context: The Move to Economic Arguments by Conservative Writers.” 2006. Studies in American Political Development 20:1-17.
“Endorsements as Voting Cues: Heuristic and Systematic Processing in Initiative Elections.” 2004. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34:2215-2233. With Mark
Forehand and John Gastil.
“Ballot Initiatives and the Democratic Citizen.” 2002. The Journal of Politics 64:892-903.
“There’s More than One Way to Legislate: An Integration of Representative, Direct, and Deliberative Approaches to Democratic Governance.” 2001. University of Colorado Law Review 72:1005-1028. With John Gastil and Cindy J. Simmons.
“The Contingent Effects of Ballot Initiatives and Candidate Races on Turnout.” 2001. American Journal of Political Science 45:700-706.
“Public Opinion, Elections, and Representation within a Market Economy: Does the Structural Power of Business Undermine Popular Sovereignty?” 1999. American Journal of Political Science 43:842-863.
“The Nature of Party Governance: Connecting Conceptualization and Measurement.” 1997. American Journal of Political Science 41:1042-1056.
Book Reviews:
Elephant's Edge: The Republicans as a Ruling Party, by Andrew J. Taylor. 2008. 2
Perspectives on Politics 6:613-14.
Freedom Reclaimed: Rediscovering the American Vision, by John E. Schwartz. 2006.
Perspectives on Politics 4:369-70.
Budgetary Politics in American Governments, by James J. Gosling; and Managing Public Expenditure in Australia, by John Wanna, Joanne Kelly, and John Forster. 2003. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 5:87-90.
Does Business Learn? Tax Breaks, Uncertainty, and Political Strategies, by Sandra Suarez. 2001. American Political Science Review 95:487.
Editing:
Guest editor for American Politics Review, March 2005 issue on “Direct Democracy and the California Recall.”
Grants and Awards
Distinguished Graduate Award, Department of Political Science, University of Minnesota, 2010. Royalty Research Fund ($23,777), University of Washington, for “The Rise of the Right:
Communication Strategies, Economic Insecurity, and the Power of Ideas,” 2004. Faculty Grant Development ($5000), College of Arts and Sciences at the University of
Washington, 1999.
Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship, Graduate School of the University of Minnesota, 1996-97. Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship, University of Minnesota, 1992-93.
Phi Beta Kappa, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1992.
Invited Talks
“In _____ We Trust: Finding Where Division Ends and Unity Begins.” Veritas Forum, University of Washington, January 26, 2017.
“Secular Faith.” Wisconsin Book Festival, October 24, 2015. Broadcast live on C-SPAN BOOK TV.
“Secular Faith: Why Culture Trumps Religion in American Politics.” University of Minnesota, October 18, 2013.
“How Religious Groups in America Accommodate Political and Cultural Change.” University of Minnesota, May 7, 2010.
“Leaders, Followers, and the Role of Religion in American Politics.” The Ohio State University, May 8, 2009.
3
“Malleable Morality: Religious Perspectives on Slavery, Divorce, Homosexuality, and Abortion in America.” Columbia University, April 20, 2009.
“Malleable Morality: Religious Perspectives on Slavery, Divorce, and Homosexuality in America. University of California, San Diego, January 20, 2009.
“The U.S. Presidential Election: A Transformative Event?” Symposium on the U.S. Presidential Election 2008 in a Global Perspective. November 22, 2008. International Institute of American Studies, Doshisha University, Japan.
“Election ’08: What Really Happened.” November 13, 2008. Provost Distinguished Lecture. University of Washington.
“The Right Talk: How Conservatives Transformed the Great Society into the Economic Society.” American Enterprise Institute, forum on “The Right Books.” March 5, 2008.
“The Right Talk: How Conservatives Transformed the Great Society into the Economic Society.” George Mason University, Center for the Study of Public Choice. February 5, 2008.
“The Right Talk: How Conservatives Transformed the Great Society into the Economic Society.” City University of New York, Graduate Center. October 30, 2007.
“The Right Talk: How Conservatives Transformed the Great Society into the Economic Society.” University of Wisconsin. November 20, 2006.
“Economics, Culture, and the Turn to the Right in American Politics.” Yale University. October 5, 2005.
“The Role of Rhetoric in the Policymaking Process.” Texas A&M University, Conference on Issue Framing. March 5, 2005.
“Reformulating the Rhetorical Grounds for Public Policy: The Changing Content and Effectiveness of Business's Political Arguments.” Workshop on Transformations in American Politics, Harvard University. March 6, 2004.
“Antibusiness and Antigovernment Sentiments in American Politics.” Pennsylvania State University. March 31, 2001.
“The Changing Politics of Ballot Initiatives.” University of Washington Alumni Association. October 25, 2000.
“The Sources of Business Power in the United States.” Simon Fraser University. October 16,
4
2000.
“The Conditions Under Which Business Wins and Loses in Politics.” University of California, Riverside. September 24, 1999.
Ph. D. Thesis
The Paradox of Unity: Business and Democracy in America. August 1997. University of Minnesota.
Fields of Interest
American Politics: Religion and Politics, Public Opinion, Political Communication, Interest Groups, Political Parties, Political Economy, and American Political Development.
Methodology: Research Design, Econometric Analysis.
Courses Taught
Undergraduate: Introduction to American Politics; Religion in American Politics and Society; American Interest Groups; Congress; American Political Culture; Free Will, Nature, and Nurture in Politics and Society; Political Science as a Social Science; The Politics of the White Working Class.
Graduate: Political Research Design and Data Analysis, Public Opinion, Interest Groups and Social Movements, American Politics Core, American Political Culture, Parties and Political Conflict in America; Is America Democratic?
Conference Presentations
Author meets critics panel on Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics, 2016 annual meeting of the Association for the Sociology of Religion, Seattle, Washington.
“How Christian Groups in America Have Accommodated Changing Beliefs about Homosexuality.” Paper presented at the 2011 meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, Washington.
“Why Religious Perspectives on Slavery Follow Rather than Lead Public Opinion.” Paper presented at the 2009 meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.
“Religion, Divorce, and the Missing Culture War in America.” Paper presented at the 2008 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.
“Starve the Democrats: The Long Shadow of Deficit Politics.” Paper presented at the 2006
5
meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
“It’s the Economic Reputation, Stupid: Objective Performance, Subjective Perceptions, and Electoral Outcomes.” Paper presented at the 2005 meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
“The Role of Political Communication in the Policymaking Process.” Paper presented at the 2005 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.
“Reframing the Right: The Republican Party’s Usage of Economic Arguments, 1948-2004” Paper presented at the 2004 meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.
“Advocacy Groups, Think Tanks, and the Economic Programs of Liberals and Conservatives." Paper presented at the 2004 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.
“The Emergence of Intellectual Conservatism and the Transformation of Economic Discourse.” Paper presented at the 2003 meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Massachusetts.
“Politicians, Citizens, and Perceptions of a Rightward Shift in American Public Opinion.” Paper presented at the 2003 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.
“The Rise of Economic Framing in American Politics.” Paper presented at the 2002 meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, Massachusetts.
“From Freedom and Justice to Economic Growth and Prosperity: The Evolution of Conservative Thought in Twentieth Century America.” Paper presented at the 2002 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.
“Ballot Initiatives and the Democratic Citizen.” Paper presented at the 2001 meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Las Vegas, Nevada.
“There’s More than One Way to Legislate: An Integration of Representative, Direct, and Deliberative Approaches to Democratic Governance.” With John Gastil and Cindy J. Simmons. Paper presented at the University of Colorado Law Review Symposium, “New Structures for Democracy,” Boulder, Colorado, February 2001.
“Economic Prosperity and Policy Liberalism in the American Public.” Paper presented at the 2000 meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
“The Unintended Consequences of Ballot Initiatives for Political Efficacy and the Perceived
6
Responsiveness of Government.” Paper presented at the 2000 meeting of the Western Political Science Association, San Jose, California.
“Do Ballot Initiatives Create More Knowledgeable Citizens? An Exploratory Analysis.” Paper presented at the 1999 meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, Georgia.
“Ballot Initiatives, Voter Interest, and Turnout.” Paper presented at the 1999 meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Seattle, Washington.
“Business, Think Tanks, and Public Opinion.” Paper presented at the 1997 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.
“Time Serial Designs and Cross-Sectional Designs: Uncovering the Structural Logic of Pooled Analyses.” Paper presented at the 1995 meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.
Professional Activities
manuscript referee:
American Journal of Political Science, American Political Science Review, American Politics Research, Canadian Journal of Political Science, Comparative Political Studies, Journal of Politics, Political Research Quarterly, Political Science Quarterly, Politics & Policy, Polity, Public Opinion Quarterly, State Politics and Policy Quarterly, University of California Press, Temple University Press, National Science Foundation
editorial board of American Politics Research, 2003-2016
editorial board of State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 2004-2015
executive committee of the Political Organizations and Parties section of the American Political
Science Association, 2003-2005
numerous appearances on television (C-SPAN, Northwest Cable News, FOX News; KING-5, KOMO-4, Q-13, KIRO-7, all of Seattle) and radio (KUOW-94.9, 103.7 the Mountain, KIRO 710 AM, all of Seattle; 860 AM of Portland).
Administrative Experience
Graduate Program Coordinator, 2012-2015
Associate Chair of Political Science, 2007-2008
Chair of Graduate Admissions and Financial Aid, 2005-2007, 2008-2010
Organizer, speaker series, Center for American Politics and Public Policy, 1998-2003, 2004- Search committees for Director, Jackson School of International Studies, 2010; public law,
political science, (2001) and American politics, political science, (2002, 2008, 2009, 2015, chair)
7
Convocation Coordinator, 2005, 2006, and 2017 last updated 02-25-2017
8
===Related News
Professor Mark Smith wins book award for ‘Secular Faith’ Feb 27, 2017
Congressional Redistricting & Responsiveness to Constituents: Professor Mark Smith Discusses the Case of Representative Reichert on Crosscut Feb 23, 2017
A new form of corruption: Professors Smith & Thorpe address Trumpʼs Nordstrom Tweets on KUOW Feb 13, 2017
Professor Smith on King 5 discussing Pres Obama's Speech Jan 11, 2017
Professor Mark Smith discusses the electoral college on Q13 Fox This Morning Dec 18, 2016
What Now? Faculty Panel Discusses the 2016 Election & Its Aftermath Dec 3, 2016
FIUTS Lecture: Making Sense of the US Election Nov 10, 2016
Family Strain over Trump vs. Clinton: Professor Mark A. Smith cited in Seattle Times Oct 6, 2016
Professors Parker & Smith Discuss the 2016 Election at Seattle Town Hall Sep 29, 2016
Professor Mark Smith discusses gun legislation and the NRA on Q13 Fox This Morning Jun 27, 2016
Understanding the Role of Religion in American Politics Jun 27, 2016
Prof. Mark Smith in UW Today for his new book, Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics Dec 9, 2015
Affiliated Centers: WISER is now WISIR Nov 18, 2015
Prof. Mark Smith and his book Secular Faith featured on C-Span's Book-Notes Oct 27, 2015
Prof. Mark Smith cited in Christian Science Monitor on Religion vs. Science Oct 26, 2015
Prof. Mark Smith on KUOW discusses Bernie Sanders' chances in Washington State Sep 2, 2015
Why Cutting Government Spending is So Hard: Perspectives on National Government Spending Apr 3, 2013
2012 Political Science News Summary Dec 31, 2012
Related Events
In _________ We Trust. Finding Where Division Ends and Where Unity Begins - Jan 26 2017 - 8:00pm to 9:30pm
The 2016 Election: What Now? - Nov 16 2016 - 4:30pm to 6:00pm
Making Sense of the U.S. Elections - Nov 2 2016 - 3:30pm to 5:00pm
Approaches to Religious Violence, Radicalism, and Deradicalization: Perspectives from the US and Indonesia - Oct 18 2016 - 9:30am to 2:00pm
2016 Election: How Did We Get Here? - Sep 27 2016 - 7:30pm
ecember 8, 2015
Culture wars, Christianity at heart of UW political scientist Mark Smith’s book ‘Secular Faith’
Peter Kelley
News and Information
Mark A. Smith's "Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics" was published in September by University of Chicago Press.
Mark A. Smith’s “Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics” was published in September by University of Chicago Press.
Mark A. Smith is a University of Washington professor of political science and adjunct professor of comparative religion. He is the author of “Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics,” published in September by University of Chicago Press. He answered a few questions about his book for UW Today.
What’s the concept behind this book?
My book’s overarching theme is that Americans have much more in common politically than you’d expect from observing how the media covers politics. The media tend to focus on our conflicts and disagreements, which are real, but that means ignoring the areas where we have forged a rough consensus. Americans agree on many of the foundational questions of politics, such as the merits of representative democracy, the protection of basic rights, the separation of church and state, and a capitalist but regulated economy.
Of course, we often fight over how to implement those principles — for example, whether posting the Ten Commandments in a courthouse violates the First Amendment, or whether a particular environmental regulation is desirable — but the principles themselves are widely shared. In many countries, by contrast, politics revolves around disputes over the foundational questions.
Here you view America’s much-hyped “culture wars” over morality and religion through the lens of history. You write that Christians have “openly or tacitly” accepted many modern ideas over the years. “Christians of earlier centuries,” you add, “would be shocked and appalled if they knew about some of the beliefs and practices of Christians today.” What are some examples of these changed beliefs?
Collecting interest on loans would be one example. For much of Western history, Christians held that the Bible and Christian tradition made it immoral for anyone to charge interest, but Christians today do not give the matter much thought one way or the other. The equality of men and women in the political and economic spheres would be another example. Earlier generations of Christians thought it obvious that God, through his written scriptures, wanted men to hold the leadership positions in society. Over the 20th century, however, both Christians and non-Christians in America came to demand that women and men have equal political rights and equal opportunities in the workplace.
More recently, many Christians have begun to accept the morality of homosexuality, and they have challenged the traditional biblical interpretations holding that God condemns all sexual relationships between people of the same sex. This is still a matter of dispute among the diverse groups of Christians in America, but a few decades ago, you would have found virtually no support for accepting homosexuality as moral. Christians also gradually accommodated the practice of divorce — in fact, rates of divorce do not differ much between the Christian and non-Christian parts of the population.
This historical view in mind, you say, “The best predictors of people’s moral beliefs are not their religious convictions or lack thereof, but rather when and where they were born.” Is this because of the changing views described above? Are there not themes in faith and religion that remain constant through the ages, despite waves of cultural change?
Yes, certain themes in Christian history do remain constant, such as the centrality of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus and the importance of the Bible’s teachings. How those themes get applied to moral and political issues, however, is a matter of continual interpretation and reinterpretation. Newer generations see their scriptures and traditions in a different light than did their predecessors.
One of the driving forces behind these processes of historical change is that most Christians — the Amish being an obvious exception — exist within and interact with the larger secular culture. Through schools, neighborhoods, workplaces, and the media, new values and beliefs sweep through the entire population. Christians eventually figure out how to merge their religious commitments with the ideas they have absorbed from the secular culture.
As you note, cultural trends carry along Christians and non-Christians alike. Once we grasp this idea, you say, “(W)e see that the debate over the connection between religion and morality is largely theoretical.” Why is this the case, in your view?
Christian defenders such as Greg Koukl and Dinesh D’Souza often allege that atheism leads to immorality. Meanwhile, atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris claim that Christianity has often caused moral outrages such as witch hunts, Crusades, and the oppression of women.
I argue that this debate is fundamentally miscast, because when we compare the moral beliefs and practices of Christians and atheists today, we find that they overlap greatly. Meanwhile, both groups hold a dramatically different morality than their counterparts in other times and places. Morality is a moving target, and various moral innovations in the West — for example, those emerging out of the Enlightenment — have affected people of differing religious persuasions and those with none at all. The secular culture is far more important than religion as a driver of morality.
How might the views in this book apply to the political circus of 2016, led so far by the polarizing presence of Donald Trump? If Americans agree on many fundamental issues, as you suggest, why such sharp rhetorical and political divides?
Because we fight over our differences. There’s no point in mounting a political campaign to affirm the values and beliefs that we all share. Candidates, activists and interest groups instead highlight the areas where they dissent from current policies and practices, or where they take stands differing from those advanced by other candidates and parties.
Meanwhile, the news media is drawn to conflict because it makes for interesting reading, listening and viewing. Nobody wants to consume a news story that talks about how we all get along.
Finally, what do you feel the reader will take away from this book?
I hope the reader will come to see that a series of agreements over fundamental principles lie beneath our conflicts. Matters that are subject to intense conflict today, like homosexuality, can evolve into a consensus sometime in the future. Thus, we should pay attention not just to matters of current controversy, but also all of the things we’re not fighting over. The latter are just as important as the former.
Viewed through that lens, American society is not as divided as it at first appears. Yes, we have intense struggles over particular issues, but remember that the culture war is just a metaphor. In many countries, both historically and today, actual wars have been necessary to resolve the disputes over the basic questions of politics. Despite the overheated rhetoric we hear in the media and on the campaign trail, America is not in danger of disintegrating.
###
For more information about “Secular Faith,” contact Smith at 206-616-3606 or masmith@uw.edu.
Watch a video of Smith discussing his book at the 2015 Wisconsin Book Festival.
The Humanist Hour #186: Mark Smith on Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics
BY THE HUMANIST HOUR • 20 JANUARY 2016
4
Click to download an audio file of this podcast.
In this episode, Kim Ellington welcomes new Humanist Hour co-host Jenn Wilson to the podcast and they both speak with author Dr. Mark Smith about his new book, Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics.
Mark A. Smith provocatively argues that religion is not nearly the unchanging conservative influence in American politics that we have come to think it is. In fact, in the long run, religion is best understood as responding to changing political and cultural values rather than shaping them. Smith makes his case by charting five contentious issues in America’s history: slavery, divorce, homosexuality, abortion, and women’s rights. For each, he shows how the political views of even the most conservative Christians evolved in the same direction as the rest of society—perhaps not as swiftly, but always on the same arc. During periods of cultural transition, Christian leaders do resist prevailing values and behaviors, but those same leaders inevitably acquiesce—often by reinterpreting the Bible—if their positions become no longer tenable. Secular ideas and influences thereby shape the ways Christians read and interpret their scriptures.
Links:
Secular Faith at University of Chicago Press
PRRI Speaks with Mark A. Smith About “Culture Wars,” Same-sex Marriage, and the AVA
Joanna Piacenza, 03.19.2015
Topics: Politics & Elections Religion & Culture
Tags: American Values Atlas Black Protestants Culture Wars immigration reform Mainline Protestants Millennials Pope Francis Same-Sex Marriage white evangelical Protestants
Mark A. Smith is professor of Political Science and an adjunct professor of Comparative Religion and Communication at the University of Washington. His research focuses on economic and religious groups, ideas, and influences in American politics. In his new book, Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics, Dr. Smith argues that religion is not nearly the unchanging conservative influence in American politics that we have come to think it is and is best understood as responding to changing political and cultural values rather than shaping them.
Recently, PRRI spoke with Smith about America’s “culture wars,” the debate on same-sex marriage, and details about his new book.
Mark Smith_SSIn your new book, Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics, you argue that Americans generally have broad consensus about moral issues and that “the culture war does not live up to its name.” How do you define the “culture war” and can you explain more about why you think the prevalence of culture wars is overstated? What kinds of issues would you classify as “culture war” issues? Are there any issues that don’t fit the bill?
Scholars typically define the “culture war” as an enduring political and social conflict based on moral differences and clashing worldviews. In my forthcoming book, I argue that the metaphor of a culture war exaggerates the actual amount of conflict in American politics. Yes, Americans are split over several high-profile issues, but we agree on much else. For example, nobody in America today is pushing to criminalize blasphemy, outlaw alcohol production, or ban commerce on Sundays—and yet those religiously based conflicts were all prominent earlier in American history. Americans who follow the news can easily come to believe that the country is fundamentally divided. News organizations report on the issues with conflict, not consensus. Conflict sells, but consensus is boring and therefore doesn’t get mentioned in the news.
You research social issues that, at one point in American history, were culture wars and are now largely settled within mainstream culture: slavery, divorce, women’s rights, etc. Same-sex marriage is the headline issue this year—how do you see this “culture war” playing out?
The Supreme Court appears likely to rule this year that bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. Americans’ views on the cluster of issues surrounding LGBT rights (including, but not limited to, marriage) are closely tracking what we saw in earlier periods for slavery, divorce, and women’s rights. Namely, we are seeing new beliefs spread throughout the country due to both (a) individuals changing their opinions, and (b) generational replacement.
For example, white evangelical Protestants (66 percent) and black Protestants (54 percent) are more opposed to same-sex marriage than the country at large (38 percent), and yet support in both groups is far higher than it was two decades ago. Generational attitudes will impact this issue moving forward; 2014 data from PRRI’s American Values Atlas found that white evangelical Protestant millennials (age 18-34) back same-sex marriage at the rate of 43 percent, compared to only 18 percent of white evangelical Protestants from the Silent Generation (age 69 and older). If and when the Supreme Court rules that states cannot constitutionally prohibit same-sex marriage, some amount of conflict in the larger culture will probably remain, but the amount of conflict will continue to decrease with each passing year.
What about the issue of immigration and immigration reform? Do you see religious communities being divided by this issue?
Religious communities are somewhat divided on immigration and immigration reform, but far less so than on other “culture war” issues. The Catholic Church has certainly been a strong voice for immigration reform in recent years, and many mainline and evangelical churches have joined the cause, too. Many religious organizations take no formal position at all on immigration, but those who do are mostly supportive of immigration reform. Based on PRRI’s survey and report last month—which found that 73 percent of Americans said that Congress should prioritize passing immigration reform—it makes sense that we would see that support reflected in many religious communities.
PRRI’s 2014 LGBT survey found that regular churchgoers—those who attend at least once or twice a month—particularly those who belong to religious groups that are supportive of same-sex marriage, overestimate opposition for same-sex marriage in their churches by 20 percentage points or more. Does your research and expertise provide us any insight into this phenomenon?
In many areas of social life, reputations lag behind the reality. Christian groups have traditionally opposed homosexuality in general, and same-sex marriage, in particular. Yet in recent decades, many of those groups—especially mainline Protestants—have shifted their positions. People within those groups sometimes don’t fully realize how much both the leadership and their fellow congregants have changed. I suspect that the reputations will catch up to the reality, but it will take more time.
Looking at the American Values Atlas, some of the union’s most “Christian” states—Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas, for example—are also the least supportive of same-sex marriage. But others—like Rhode Island and Minnesota, for example—have a large Christian presence but favor legalizing same-sex marriage. What other cultural elements do you think are at play here?
The most important element is the type of Christianity that is prominent in a given state. As PRRI’s newly released American Values Atlas shows, in Minnesota, Lutheranism and Catholicism are tied (at 25 percent each) for the most prominent religious denomination, and, in Rhode Island, Catholicism is the most popular at 44 percent. The largest Lutheran denomination has become more accepting of homosexuality and, since 2009, has ordained gay and lesbian clergy in committed same-sex relationships. The Catholic Church does not ordain LGBT clergy and has not changed its official positions on the morality of homosexuality, but Pope Francis has certainly taken a softer tone than his predecessors did; and in any case, rank-and-file Catholics have long formed their own opinions on culture-war issues. Meanwhile, most Christians are either white evangelical Protestant or black Protestant in Mississippi (37 and 32 percent, respectively), Alabama (39 and 20 percent, respectively), and Arkansas (39 and 12 percent, respectively). These two groups historically, among both the leadership and the people in the pews, have been less accommodating toward homosexuality. However, support has been growing in all states; it’s just that some states started from a higher base.
Tell us more about your upcoming book.
Much of Secular Faith revolves around the common influences that affect people of differing religions, as well as people holding no religion at all. In a diverse country like the United States where people choose which religious community, if any, to devote their time, money, and commitment, religious leaders cannot compel their followers to adhere to specific doctrines and beliefs. After all, the ordinary members of the groups live in the larger society and absorb its cultural influence through institutions like the media, schools, neighborhoods, and the workplace. As new values emerge in society, leaders often update their groups’ official positions to maintain support among the rank-and-file. Among Protestants and sometimes even among Catholics, these processes of change center around reinterpreting the Bible, and I show how various Christians challenged older interpretations on issues such as slavery, divorce, women’s rights, and homosexuality. In the long run, I claim, Christians take largely the same moral and political stances as atheists and other non-Christians. Such a claim might seem controversial at first, and so I try to document it by analyzing a large amount of historical material, denominational statements, public opinion polls, and other kinds of data.
5/8/17, 12)44 PM
Print Marked Items
What drives social justice?
Samuel Buntz
Washington Monthly.
48.11-12 (November-December 2016): p56. From Book Review Index Plus. COPYRIGHT 2016 Washington Monthly Company http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/
Full Text:
Author Mark Smith says religion lags behind culture. Maybe it is the other way around. Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics
by Mark A. Smith
University of Chicago Press, 288 pp.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
In April 2016, Pope Francis granted priests permission to allow divorced or remarried parishioners to begin receiving communion. Hopeful progressives who thought the pope might recognize gay marriage or allow women to join the priesthood were doubtless disappointed at this comparatively meager gain. But history advances in small steps, prior to the occasional quantum leap. To the anxious religious liberal, Mark A. Smith, professor of political science and adjunct professor of comparative religion at the University of Washington, comes bearing good news--if one is willing to accept the argument underpinning his message. While a religious person could agree with Smith's assertions about the inevitability of progress, she might wince at his claim that religion drags along behind secular culture--like a little brother stiffly bundled into a snowsuit, hurrying to keep up--with no progressive impulse of its own.
about:blank Page 1 of 6
5/8/17, 12)44 PM
Smith's Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics is an optimistic book, arguing that progressive secular culture is destined to erode conservative religious resistance. Smith bases his thesis on a historical examination of five issues-slavery, divorce, homosexuality, abortion, and women's rights. He is more successful in substantiating his argument in certain areas (divorce and homosexuality) than in others (slavery and abortion).
While not convincing in its larger assessment, Secular Faith provides a font of sociological data--its greatest strength. We learn details about changing attitudes toward marriage, divorce, and homosexuality, illustrated through graphs. The book gives broadly useful summaries of how competing schools of Christian thought have interpreted key sections of the Bible: conservatives generally have explained with stark literalism, while liberals have evoked the subtleties of historical context, new approaches to translation, and the overall spirit of the text.
Smith first considers slavery, outlining crucial Bible passages used by southern slaveholders and Christian abolitionists to defend their respective positions. The southerner could cite the fact that slaveholding was permitted throughout the Old and New Testaments, while the abolitionist might appeal to the moral gist of Jesus' teachings, the implications of the Golden Rule.
Smith begins by trying to explain the birth of the abolitionist movement and quickly runs into trouble. He credits the American Revolution with its secular ideals of liberty and equality. "As the struggle for independence exposed the contradiction between republican ideals and the reality of slavery," writes Smith, "Christian groups joined the growing movement for emancipation." There is something to be said for this, given that antislavery sentiment didn't heat up until after independence. However, it's not enough to simply say "Secular culture did it"; you have to prove it. If the revolution explains emancipation, why did Great Britain outlaw slavery in 1833, thirty years before the United States abolished it? The answer seems to be rooted in the English civil war, which unleashed liberal religious ideas that impacted both the colonies and the motherland. David Brion Davis's monumental 1966 Pulitzer Prize-winning study, The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture, provides an excellent case for this perspective--which Smith is either unfamiliar with, or simply ignores.
Hence, slavery seems to be the least successful test case for Smith's thesis--unfortunate, given that this chapter opens the book, setting the tone for what follows. His thesis finds greater success when we turn to gender and sexual politics. For instance, there isn't much of a biblical case for divorce, and nineteenth-century churches widely opposed the practice. Jesus says in the Gospel of Luke, "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Yet as divorce became more acceptable, churches learned to go with the secular flow. The Enlightenment changed the understanding of marriage from a matter of financial and familial advantage to a matter of love--of finding your soul mate.
Smith's thesis holds partly true when considering women's rights. The Bible, unfortunately, provides little ammunition for the cause of women's liberation (beyond the Gospels' basic moral ideas, if you squint at them), yet the churches have grown much more accepting of women's rights as secular culture has surged onward. Even here, however, Smith makes a glancing admission of religious influence, while sidestepping the question of its overall impact. He observes of the early Quaker feminists Sarah Grimke and Lucretia Mott, "Bypassing the need for any centralized authority, Quakers did not even have ministers and instead allowed the Holy Spirit to lead each believer to God's truth. By privileging the 'inward light' over tradition or a church hierarchy, Quakers found it easier than other Christians to read the Bible in a new way."
While recognizing this feature of Quaker belief, Smith still grips onto his central thesis, white knuckled--he will ride this roller-coaster through every successive loop-de-loop without, to his credit, losing his cookies. His admirably tenacious commitment aside, he thinks that a literalist's faith in the Bible's inerrant accuracy is a more concrete form of religiosity than faith in the "inward light." But is it? The notion that one's arguments need to be grounded in scriptural specifics in order to be truly "religious" is, itself, rooted in Fundamentalism. A Quaker might argue that the idea of an "inward light" is more radically religious, given the degree of intimacy it assumes between the believer and the Deity.
Smith's study of gay rights surprisingly demonstrates that mainline Protestant denominations like the United Church of Christ and the United Presbyterian Church helped lead the charge for the repeal of sodomy laws in the 1960s. Albeit, at this time, they still viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder requiring treatment--but so did the American
about:blank Page 2 of 6
5/8/17, 12)44 PM
Psychological Association. Mainline Protestantism is currently shrinking, and might seem watered down to many present-day evangelicals, but we routinely underestimate its vital historical importance to social reform in America. A fiery social conscience lurks behind the soothing accents and wide array of "hot dish" available at your average Minnesotan Lutheran picnic. The fact that so many mainline denominations were ahead of the curve on homosexuality testifies to this fact.
Abortion provides the most unusual case in Smith's book: he confesses that, whereas attitudes have changed toward women's liberation and gay rights, the American populace remains as divided on abortion as on the taste of cilantro. Surprisingly, Smith points out that many historically venerable theologians didn't have a major problem with abortion if it happened before "quickening" (the sensation of the fetus moving in the womb). The movement to criminalize abortion in America was actually led by mid-nineteenth-century doctors, after advances in embryology revealed that quickening didn't represent a major transformation in the process of fetal development. Ironically, Smith says, this apparently secular movement spurred the creation of abortion laws, while many churches remained indifferent.
But, again, one might greet this with some skepticism: how secular were these doctors, really? Perhaps they considered their discoveries about embryology in light of Christian teachings on the soul, concluding that ensoulment happened at a point in pregnancy earlier than quickening? Since Smith doesn't investigate the way ideas spread at a more personal level, we don't know. A touch of Ralph Waldo Emerson's injunction--"There is no history, only biography"--might have shone light here.
Smith's statistics and records of evolving denominational positions mark the tides of history, but they don't let us into the intellectual battleground behind those changes. We understand the terms of these conflicts, but we don't get to learn much about the participants in the battle and their conception of why they were fighting--we don't see Braveheart painted blue and swinging a mace, if you will. The notion that secular ideas are always stronger than religious ideals may appeal to some, yet it seems far from true. While the data Smith collects can certainly prove useful to other scholars, serving as a valuable compendium, I couldn't surmount the sense that he was short-changing religious people and their ideas throughout his study.
Marx once called religion "the heart of a heartless world"--implying that the true engine of social change must always be secular and driven by economics. Yet the history of abolition provided in David Brion Davis's book demolishes this notion, as does the evidence of more recent history: Gandhi used spiritual asceticism as a powerful force in the drive for Indian independence, and, to cite a darker example, the Iranian revolution made a country embrace theocracy and retreat from secularism. Ideas cannot be banished from history, and the agency of the humans who bear those ideas should not be underestimated. After all, as that old antireligious scourge Friedrich Nietzsche once put it, "The greatest ideas are the greatest events."
Samuel Buntz is a freelance writer living in West Hartford, Connecticut. His work has appeared in Pop Matters, Fare Forward, and the Washington Monthly.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Buntz, Samuel. "What drives social justice?" Washington Monthly, Nov.-Dec. 2016, p. 56+. PowerSearch,
go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do? p=GPS&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA470867521&it=r&asid=484b1980e6062c16a46a653bbe6bd573. Accessed 8 May 2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A470867521
about:blank Page 3 of 6
5/8/17, 12)44 PM
Secular Faith: Why Culture Trumps Religion in American Politics
Ray Olson
Booklist.
112.1 (Sept. 1, 2015): p17. From Book Review Index Plus.
COPYRIGHT 2015 American Library Association http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/publishing/booklist_publications/booklist/booklist.cfm
Full Text:
Secular Faith: Why Culture Trumps Religion in American Politics. By Mark A. Smith. Oct. 2015. 288p. Univ. of Chicago, $25 (9780226275062). 261.709.
Smith's title might well be Secularizing Faith. The book discusses how real life affects Christian moral dogmas. In summary historical chapters on slavery, divorce, homosexuality, abortion, and women's rights in the U.S., Smith shows rigid dogmatists yielding ground to liberalization, even after, in the cases of slavery and abortion, digging their heels in with new, restrictive state laws and, with the former, physical warfare. Typically, underlying conflict over these issues are differing interpretations of the Bible and different concepts of moral authority (e.g., Catholics rely on the magisterium as well as scripture, Quakers on the Inward Light rather than scripture or church teaching). More consequentially, personal acquaintance with homosexuals, working women, the divorced, and unwanted pregnancy erodes standpatters' rigidity; sympathy begets social inclusion. Dogma still may be upheld, but the urge to make law according to dogma dwindles. Moreover, every new generation backs further away from dogma. Dynamic culture inevitably weakens religion's influence in politics. Anyone interested in the seemingly endless American "culture war" will be enlightened by Smith's unbiased, methodical presentation.--Ray Olson
Olson, Ray
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Olson, Ray. "Secular Faith: Why Culture Trumps Religion in American Politics." Booklist, 1 Sept. 2015, p. 17.
PowerSearch, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do? p=GPS&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA430716720&it=r&asid=54437dc31726d56c1a9f45d6741463ed. Accessed 8 May 2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A430716720
about:blank Page 4 of 6
5/8/17, 12)44 PM
Conflict and compromise in American religious politics: a review essay
David O'Connell
Political Science Quarterly.
131.4 (Winter 2016): p843. From Book Review Index Plus. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/polq.12532
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
O'Connell, David. "Conflict and compromise in American religious politics: a review essay." Political Science
Quarterly, vol. 131, no. 4, 2016, p. 843+. PowerSearch, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do? p=GPS&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA477339525&it=r&asid=e6f654875500362ec57ec6d68519af53. Accessed 8 May 2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A477339525
about:blank Page 5 of 6
5/8/17, 12)44 PM
Smith, Mark A.: Secular faith: how culture has trumped religion in American politics
L.H. Mamiya
CHOICE: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries. 53.10 (June 2016): p1490. From Book Review Index Plus.
Source Citation (MLA 8th Edition)
Mamiya, L.H. "Smith, Mark A.: Secular faith: how culture has trumped religion in American politics." CHOICE:
Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, June 2016, p. 1490. PowerSearch, go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do? p=GPS&sw=w&u=schlager&v=2.1&id=GALE%7CA454942757&it=r&asid=52e6a313febb024045ac31693fe2dfba. Accessed 8 May 2017.
Gale Document Number: GALE|A454942757
about:blank Page 6 of 6
Review: 'Secular Faith' by Mark A. Smith
Mark A. Smith
Mark A. Smith's "Secular Faith" provides evidence that churches follow secular culture on hot-button issues, and not the other way around. (University of Chicago Press photo)
Kevin M. Schultz
Mark Smith's "Secular Faith" posits that the culture wars are over and that secular culture won.
I used to think I was Superdad, that I could single-handedly direct my children's morals and limit what they were exposed to, including bad words and topics like sex and their parents' occasional grouchiness. By the time my kids were 4, though, I realized just how limited my powers were.
The world encroached. "Dora the Explorer" was seemingly as important as their parents. Their friends gave them new words, like the horrible phrase "what the…?" My sense that I was Superdad took a beating. To my kids, I was little more than one guide among many.
And what could I do? Cut them off from their friends? From all social outlets? For someone who takes parenting lessons from flight attendants (put your mask on first) that's totally unrealistic. Better to give kids tools to navigate the world we live in rather than create a world unto itself. Superdad can only do so much.
All of these self-reckonings came rushing back as I read Mark A. Smith's provocative if slightly academic book, "Secular Faith: How Culture Has Trumped Religion in American Politics." The subtitle is a bit of a stretch. We never really learn why culture trumps religion in American politics. Nevertheless, in what becomes something of a mantra, Smith's point is to show, over and over again, on issue after issue, that religious leaders have changed their tune on almost every subject to accommodate more sweeping changes taking place in broader American society. When it comes to shaping morals, religion seems to have no more power than Superdad.
Paid Post WHAT'S THIS?
How To Open Wine Sans Corkscrew
A Message from The Daily Meal
You wouldn't let a little thing like not having a corkscrew stop you from enjoying that bottle of wine you just bought, right? Watch these videos to see what lengths people will go to to open a bottle of wine in a pinch.
See More
To make his case, Smith delves into the history of several hot-button topics: divorce, homosexuality, abortion and women's rights. What happens with divorce is typical. Taking the broad sweep of American history, Smith shows how divorce was almost universally frowned upon throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. Following unequivocal Bible verses like Luke 16:18 ("Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery"), most Americans wouldn't countenance a divorce.
By the late 19th century, however, an increasing number of Americans began to change their views. Provoked by geographic mobility, financial transformations and changing gender roles, divorce became more commonplace and generally less frowned upon. And by the end of the 20th century a full 50 percent of marriages ended in divorce, and mostly without any social stigma attached to it. American culture had changed.
Jesse Eisenberg on 'Bream Gives Me Hiccups & Other Stories'
Jesse Eisenberg on 'Bream Gives Me Hiccups & Other Stories'
In light of this shift, churches reacted. They began to soften their view on divorce. Beginning in the 1920s, many liberal Protestant churches began to think the New Testament's language on divorce reflected an ideal, not a command. And anyway, shouldn't good Christians try to live up to the ultimate principle behind Jesus' message — to protect the vulnerable? Shouldn't we show compassion to the abused and unhappy? As cultural acceptance of divorce grew, this argument gained traction, eventually winning over evangelical Protestants and even most Catholics. Today, not a single member of any of the churches identified with the Religious Right spends much time trying to outlaw divorce, no matter how much they prioritize "biblical inerrancy." Even James Dobson, founder of the evangelical lobbying group Focus on the Family — which, if one judges a group by its name, would seem to advocate maintaining "traditional families" — is loathe to press the issue. Our culture has baptized divorce as socially acceptable, and the churches have come around, reinterpreting what had been crystal-clear Bible verses in the process.
A similar arc takes place concerning women's rights. Using Adam's dominion over Eve as a metaphor for how women should be treated made good sense when the surrounding culture limited women to certain very specific roles. But as women fought successfully to enhance their possibilities, the church opened up too. Some churches moved quicker than others, but almost all have changed their views considerably.
Ditto homosexuality, although that's perhaps a work in progress. Ditto interracial marriage. Ditto views on religious minorities. Over and over again, most of the leading churches in the United States, Protestant and Catholic, have altered their stance on hot-button issues, and almost always they have followed American culture, not led it.
And lest one think this American story is merely one of increased permissiveness, allowing greater and greater freedom from authority, in many cases American social values have tightened, and the church has eventually come along with it. No self-respecting person today thinks slavery should be legal, for instance. On this issue, American culture became more restrictive throughout the 19th century. And guess what? Churches followed along. No matter what the Bible says about slavery (and it says quite a lot, almost always condoning it), no American church today would uphold the moral righteousness of treating people like chattel.
By the end of the book, Smith has built a persuasive case. The Bible is flexible, especially in how people choose to read it. And most organizations are eager eventually to accommodate cultural mores, especially in a religiously plural land like ours, where churchgoers have ample opportunity to flee for greener pastures. Churches have changed their views in the past and they'll do it again. Just wait.
But it turns out Smith is after something bigger than just thumbing his nose at those who claim to have The Answer. Instead, Smith wants Americans to take a step back from the culture wars. He wants us to realize that, despite apocalyptic pronouncements that Americans are more polarized than ever before, we actually agree on quite a bit. As Smith writes, "few participants in the culture war want to criminalize blasphemy, ban interracial marriage, prosecute adultery as a felony offense, or restrict entry into the professions to men."
And on those issues that divide us today, like abortion or legal marijuana? Smith's advice is to just wait a few years and a new consensus will form. The polarization will thaw. Things have looked intractable in the past, and we've moved on.
That's all true, and indeed Smith arrives a bit late to the game. The left has more or less won nearly every "culture war" issue of the past two decades, save that of abortion. Same-sex marriage is law of the land. Marijuana is increasingly legal. Bad words are hardly taboo. More often than not, conservatives have softened their views as American culture has changed.
One wishes Smith had built a slightly livelier case, and his attempts to reach nonacademics are sometimes groan-worthy ("James Dobson embraces much of the content of the F-word. I refer, of course, to feminism.") But still the writing is serviceable, if not compelling.
But one also wishes Smith had paused longer to wonder what, if it's not Superdad or religion, truly shapes our moral values? Certainly it's some combination of these and more, and untangling that knot would be fascinating. The lessons taught here are instructive and interesting, but they leave the bigger questions unanswered.
Kevin M. Schultz is a professor of history and religion at the University of Illinois at Chicago; his most recent book is "Buckley and Mailer: The Difficult Friendship that Shaped the Sixties."
"Secular Faith"
By Mark A. Smith, University of Chicago, 288 pages, $25