Skip Navigation


Journal of the American Academy of Religion Advance Access originally published online on October 27, 2008
Journal of the American Academy of Religion 2008 76(4):874-904; doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfn088
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
76/4/874    most recent
lfn088v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cladis, M. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the American Academy of Religion. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Painting Landscapes of Religion in America: Four Models of Religion in Democracy

Mark S. Cladis

Mark S. Cladis, Department of Religious Studies, Brown University, PO Box 1927, 59 George Street, Providence, RI 02912, USA

E-mail: mark_cladis{at}brown.edu


  Abstract

This article explores the role and place of religion in contemporary democratic societies, particularly in American public life. Four models are proposed for thinking about religion in public: (1) Religion over the Public Landscape (in which religion is necessary for the health of public and political life); (2) Religion Banned from the Public Landscape (in which religion is kept mostly out of public and political life); (3) Public Landscape as Religious Space (in which the health of the republic depends on a shared, civil religion); and (4) Public Landscape as Varied Topography (in which religion is not initially treated as a special case, but rather is treated like any other more or less comprehensive view that may offer a voice in public and political debate). I champion this final model and argue that the risk of allowing religion in public and political exchange is not as great as the promise of inviting it in.

I am grateful to Matthew Bagger, John Reeder, and two anonymous JAAR reviewers for astute and helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.