What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends on It – Restoring the Public Square Between Right and Left
In a world torn apart by religious extremism on the one side and a strident secularism on the other, no question is more urgent than how we live with our deepest differences—especially our religious and ideological differences. The Case for Civility is a proposal for restoring civility in America as a way to foster civility around the world. Influential Christian writer and speaker Os Guinness makes a passionate plea to put an end to the polarization of American politics and culture that—rather than creating a public space for real debate—threatens to reverse the very principles our founders set into motion and that have long preserved liberty, diversity, and unity in this country.
Guinness takes on the contemporary threat of the excesses of the Religious Right and the secular Left, arguing that we must find a middle ground between privileging one religion over another and attempting to make all public expression of faith illegal. If we do not do this, Guinness contends, Western civilization as we know it will die. Always provocative and deeply insightful, Guinness puts forth a vision of a new, practical "civil and cosmopolitan public square" that speaks not only to America's immediate concerns but to the long-term interests of the republic and the world.
228 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 22, 2008
31 people are currently reading
404 people want to read
About the author
Os Guinness
87 books351 followersOs Guinness (D.Phil., Oxford) is the author or editor of more than twenty-five books, including The American Hour, Time for Truth and The Case for Civility. A frequent speaker and prominent social critic, he was the founder of the Trinity Forum and has been a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and a guest scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Studies. He lives near Washington, D.C.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
Read
June 15, 2020Guiness argues that America's Founding Fathers understood that religious liberty was foundational. The First Amendment is first, in short, for a reason. Unless diverse citizens with a diversity/plurality of worldviews are free to debate, and to do so with civility, a representative republic will fail. Guinness cites abundant primary sources as he makes the case that civility can triumph, but it will take an intelligent, thoughtful, well-read, clear-headed populace.
October 31, 2014
I am enjoying immensely Os Guinness's fair but devastating critique of fundamentalism and the Religious Right in his 2008 book "The Case for Civility. And Why Our Future Depends on It". Guinness is rightly frustrated seeing how the Religious Right is responsible for the secularist backlash and aggressive anti-Christian rhetoric. He notes:
"The vehemence and viciousness of the attacks on the Christian faith are rising, and the membership of atheist groups (though not the number of atheists) is growing—all as a direct response to the Religious Right. The overall message should be as clear to evangelicals as it is to atheists: “If the Christian Right is what religion means, then more and more educated people do not want to be religious.” (105)
As for evangelicals, who, "are now identified with all the follies of fundamentalism and the extremism of the Religious Right", the choice is clear: "As followers of the One who put aside the power and status that was His by right, and emptied Himself to become a servant, the principle should be the only argument needed, though the pragmatic incentive is plain. It would be bad enough if evangelicals were to pursue power and gain the world at the risk of losing their souls. But it would be stupid beyond belief to pursue power and gain virtually nothing—in other words, to sell their birthright for a mess of political pottage." (106)
"The vehemence and viciousness of the attacks on the Christian faith are rising, and the membership of atheist groups (though not the number of atheists) is growing—all as a direct response to the Religious Right. The overall message should be as clear to evangelicals as it is to atheists: “If the Christian Right is what religion means, then more and more educated people do not want to be religious.” (105)
As for evangelicals, who, "are now identified with all the follies of fundamentalism and the extremism of the Religious Right", the choice is clear: "As followers of the One who put aside the power and status that was His by right, and emptied Himself to become a servant, the principle should be the only argument needed, though the pragmatic incentive is plain. It would be bad enough if evangelicals were to pursue power and gain the world at the risk of losing their souls. But it would be stupid beyond belief to pursue power and gain virtually nothing—in other words, to sell their birthright for a mess of political pottage." (106)
July 6, 2009
An important and timely book for any person, secular or religious, who wants to have a legitimate impact in their world. Guinness wrote this powerful book that places an emphasis on freedom and the implementation of freedom within the civil square. Americans as a whole must regain the essence of a civil cosmopolitan square, where people of all faiths and values can debate and discuss issues. The Founders were correct when they included the First Amendment and guaranteed freedom of religion. This freedom must not lead to a soft theocracy or imposition of ideas on others but instead allows for robust debate. The Case for Civility prescribes that the public square be reclaimed for passionate discussion.
As Guinness wrote in his book, we must learn to live peaceably with other people who share opposing views. Regardless if we are either liberal or conservative, "we must be vigilant to see that we ourselves are liberal in our free and generous attitudes toward conservatives, or conservative in maintaining the great traditions of the past civility in our attitudes toward liberals." Americans of every ideology must quit the culture warring and enter back into constructive debate. We have much work to do.
As Guinness wrote in his book, we must learn to live peaceably with other people who share opposing views. Regardless if we are either liberal or conservative, "we must be vigilant to see that we ourselves are liberal in our free and generous attitudes toward conservatives, or conservative in maintaining the great traditions of the past civility in our attitudes toward liberals." Americans of every ideology must quit the culture warring and enter back into constructive debate. We have much work to do.
January 13, 2015
A thought provoking and sound argument for the importance of a restoration of statesmanship and civil discourse in government and in all of public life. This should be required reading for every candidate for public office, whether at the federal, state, or local level. Os provides an "equal opportunity appeal" making the argument that both the "left" and the "right" must end the mindless and arrogant assumptions that their position is 100% accurate with no margin for interpretation or error....that we must understand that we live in a pluralistic society...that while we might expend significant energy in our efforts to convince those who think differently that our position is the right one, we must do so with respect for others.
While I personally tend to be of a rather conservative bent, (particularly relative to faith and values), I could not help but agree with Guiness' assessment that "The Religious Right has become the best argument for its worst opponents, the most powerful factor in its own rejection, and a prime reason for the repudiation of religion in contemporary America."
While I personally tend to be of a rather conservative bent, (particularly relative to faith and values), I could not help but agree with Guiness' assessment that "The Religious Right has become the best argument for its worst opponents, the most powerful factor in its own rejection, and a prime reason for the repudiation of religion in contemporary America."
April 12, 2009
Guinness makes a case for a way forward through all the culture warring. He rightly chastises both the right and the left. And doubly rightly chastises the "Christian right" with some well-deserved, stinging indictments. He pleads for civility in the public square and defends his solution against various minsunderstandings, e.g., that he's espousing relativism. He doesn't offer a fully worked out, highly detailed, nuts and bolts solutiuon; but, as I said, presents a way forward and gives us enough to start with. If "enough's enough" is your motto when it comes to the public square, then this book should prove helpful in picking you up out of the muck that has become of American culture and politics and religious debate.
June 25, 2019
It would be easy to believe that The Case for Civility was written in 2017 and published in 2018, rather than being published in 2008. Os Guinness’s discussions of civility, the public square, the behavior of political figures, and the separation of church and state are as much about the current era as they are about the early 2000s. This is a book that thoughtful people would do well to read now.
The public square is the focus of much of this book. Guinness devotes three chapters to the “sacred public square” where the wall separating church and state has been completely breached, the “naked public square,” where the wall is intact, well fortified, and heavily guarded, and the “cosmopolitan and civil public square.” In the cosmopolitan and civil public square the worldviews and ways of life of all people are respected and allowed to inform our participation in that square.
In arguing for a cosmopolitan public square in particular Guinness does not suggest that we abandon the systems of belief and practice that make us who we are. He acknowledges, in fact, that such abandoning is impossible.
Those words are hard to read. To all we meet we must say, if only in an imagined dialog, that we acknowledge the freedom of conscience that they must be allowed to exercise even as we exercise our own freedom. We must also acknowledge that there are rights and wrongs in all worldviews and ways of life, including our own. Can we learn from others’ worldviews and practices in a way that affirms the freedom to hold worldviews that differ, sometimes radically? Can we move toward a public square that is part of a “world safe for diversity.” According to Guinness, and as the subtitle of the book states, “our future depends on it.”
Os Guinness is a Christian apologist and social critic. He is a direct descendant of Arthur Guinness, the founder of the Dublin brewery. You can read more about him .
The public square is the focus of much of this book. Guinness devotes three chapters to the “sacred public square” where the wall separating church and state has been completely breached, the “naked public square,” where the wall is intact, well fortified, and heavily guarded, and the “cosmopolitan and civil public square.” In the cosmopolitan and civil public square the worldviews and ways of life of all people are respected and allowed to inform our participation in that square.
In arguing for a cosmopolitan public square in particular Guinness does not suggest that we abandon the systems of belief and practice that make us who we are. He acknowledges, in fact, that such abandoning is impossible.
To be blunt, there is no universal human language. There is no reason common to all humans. There is no agreed rational consensus of values. There is no scientific and universally valid philosophy. There is no humanity without borders. There is no Parliament of Man or Federation of the World. There is no all-inclusive form of identity that will embrace everyone without exception. There is no final form of universal civilization toward which history will progress. There is no pure humanity beyond complexity, and no unity below all human diversity. All these ideas are utopian longings that die hard. (p. 147)
Those words are hard to read. To all we meet we must say, if only in an imagined dialog, that we acknowledge the freedom of conscience that they must be allowed to exercise even as we exercise our own freedom. We must also acknowledge that there are rights and wrongs in all worldviews and ways of life, including our own. Can we learn from others’ worldviews and practices in a way that affirms the freedom to hold worldviews that differ, sometimes radically? Can we move toward a public square that is part of a “world safe for diversity.” According to Guinness, and as the subtitle of the book states, “our future depends on it.”
Os Guinness is a Christian apologist and social critic. He is a direct descendant of Arthur Guinness, the founder of the Dublin brewery. You can read more about him .
October 3, 2018
In 1988, the author, Os Guinness, participated in the drafting of the Williamsburg Charter regarding religious freedom. Associating the growing incivility of America’s culture wars with essentially religious differences and believing that America is the nation best situated to recover civility in confronting and tolerating religious differences, Dr. Guinness wrote this book as an expanded version of the Williamsburg Charter that critiques, often harshly, both sides in our culture wars and offers a possible way to end them peacefully without crushing either side. In the perception of Dr. Guinness, the culture wars hinge on the nature of the public square, of which there are three options:
1. The religious public square has a more theocratic nature and is problematic in that our pluralistic society consists of a multitude of religious beliefs as well as secular beliefs. Which set of religious beliefs gets imposed on everyone?
2. The naked public square has no room for any religious motivation behind any decision with impact beyond the privacy of one’s own home. It too is problematic in that the secularists get act on their most fundamental beliefs and value systems in public, but religious people have to leave their most fundamental beliefs and values behind as soon as they leave their own houses, if not before then. As before, a set of beliefs gets imposed on everyone.
3. The civil public square in which everybody gets a say and their most fundamental beliefs and values are tolerated by all. Nobody leaves his values and beliefs at the door. People of all belief systems get to influence policy by voting their values, and that is ok, contrary to some of the rhetoric I often hear.
As Dr. Guinness notes in this book, the two sides in our culture wars are pushing for either the religious public square or the naked public square. He is very critical of the conduct on both sides of the issue and advocates for a civil public square in this book. Given the events in the ten years since he wrote the book, the nation has made its choice, to continue the culture wars in lieu of developing a civil public square. I would love to see Dr. Guinness’ vision work out but expect that only a miracle would achieve it. Too many minds are made up.
1. The religious public square has a more theocratic nature and is problematic in that our pluralistic society consists of a multitude of religious beliefs as well as secular beliefs. Which set of religious beliefs gets imposed on everyone?
2. The naked public square has no room for any religious motivation behind any decision with impact beyond the privacy of one’s own home. It too is problematic in that the secularists get act on their most fundamental beliefs and value systems in public, but religious people have to leave their most fundamental beliefs and values behind as soon as they leave their own houses, if not before then. As before, a set of beliefs gets imposed on everyone.
3. The civil public square in which everybody gets a say and their most fundamental beliefs and values are tolerated by all. Nobody leaves his values and beliefs at the door. People of all belief systems get to influence policy by voting their values, and that is ok, contrary to some of the rhetoric I often hear.
As Dr. Guinness notes in this book, the two sides in our culture wars are pushing for either the religious public square or the naked public square. He is very critical of the conduct on both sides of the issue and advocates for a civil public square in this book. Given the events in the ten years since he wrote the book, the nation has made its choice, to continue the culture wars in lieu of developing a civil public square. I would love to see Dr. Guinness’ vision work out but expect that only a miracle would achieve it. Too many minds are made up.
March 7, 2020
This is a very important book on civility which needs to be read and re-read, again and again until the message sinks through. Unlike some reviewers have stated or portray, Guinness does not pick sides; he critiques both the left and the right and their failings as to civility. It is much needed in our day and age. It is imperative that we pay attention to what he is advocating and suggesting in "The Case for Civility." And do not just pick out parts that fit your point of view and let it go at that, for if you do, you will miss the gist of the book. And I might add, what Guinness is striving to accomplish with his writing. Also take to heart the author's point that civility begins with us each individually and what that entails. Finally, I would highly recommend reading and re-reading the "Afterword" (The Williamsburg Charter) and letting it be absorbed into your mind. I have been following and reading Guinness for years and this is one of his best so far. By all means read this book if you have not already and with an open mind to what is being suggested.
June 13, 2019
This book should be required reading. It is interesting to read, as it was published in 2008, and to see how far we have slid downhill in 11 years as to our national discourse is alarming. It does not matter which side of the aisle you reside on, Guinness has a message for you. One that will, softly, hit you right in the gut as you realize how our discourse in America is not changing for the better, nor is it what the founders had in mind. Get this book, read it, and share it with somebody in the hopes that we can all learn something from it. Highly recommended, understanding that some of the references to "current events" are now 11 years old. That only heightens the impact as we can see what has happened since the books publication date.
February 16, 2023
Guinness sets forth a powerful critique of the culture wars and offers a compelling vision for a civil public square. The book is historically informed and culturally aware, enabling its message to rebuke both extremes on the left and right. There is an important call for renewing our appreciation for and understanding of the first amendment. My presupposition going into the book was that it would be about cultivating the virtue of civility. Rather, it is about the political and philosophical vision necessary for a civil society to even exist.
September 12, 2017
Why I chose this book?: There is no civility in our conversations and debates in America anymore
Overall, would i recommend?: For Americans and other Westernized cultures, yes. It is definitely a western book and viewpoint, but so is America. I disagreed with some things Guiness said, like how much the role of worldview plays in a person's life (I think it's more central), but the nice thing is I have this right to disagree and debate civilly.
Overall, would i recommend?: For Americans and other Westernized cultures, yes. It is definitely a western book and viewpoint, but so is America. I disagreed with some things Guiness said, like how much the role of worldview plays in a person's life (I think it's more central), but the nice thing is I have this right to disagree and debate civilly.
July 30, 2019
Such an important book that challenges the polarizing narratives of the time. Holds both the secular leftist and religious right accountable for behavior.
He puts into words so many of the issues I’ve sensed in public discourse, but couldn’t put my finger on. Whether it’s stupid, ugly social media interactions or the biases of the mainstream media, this essay calls everyone out on the gaps in their philosophies and world views.
He puts into words so many of the issues I’ve sensed in public discourse, but couldn’t put my finger on. Whether it’s stupid, ugly social media interactions or the biases of the mainstream media, this essay calls everyone out on the gaps in their philosophies and world views.
January 21, 2016
This is a great look at what's wrong with American society today. We are pretty terrible at having respectful, civil discussions about anything: religion, politics, social, scientific, or environmental issues. For proof of this, please consult social media and the 24-hour news cycle. We generally stink at having meaningful conversations in our society, without becoming cruel in language and expression. We are far too prone to demonize our opponents, treat their arguments recklessly and unfairly, and if necessary bring out the big guns *the lawyers* to litigate our way to victory in the public square. This is all part of what's wrong with America, Guinness argues.
I appreciated also that though Guinness is a Christian, he is quite willing to lay blame at the feet, not only of the new atheists and ultra progressives, but also at the feet of the moral majority and Religious Right. These extremes have set a tone for public debate that is not sustainable in a nation that has such a diverse beliefs present. Okay, so what's the way forward? That's what The Case for Civility is about.
Table of Contents:
Chapter 1: A world safe for diversity- Here Guinness recognizes the reality of a diverse America and the problem of the uncivil and cantankerous tone of so many debates.
Chapter 2: The True Remedy- Here Guinness explores three political settlements in Western society that have beneficially shaped the relationship of religion and public life: one from France during the French Revolution, one from the English Glorious Revolution, and one from the American First Amendment. He argues that the 1st amendment did the best job of it.
Chapter 3: The Broken Settlement- History and contemporary events show how each of these settlements is in danger today.
Chapter 4: Say No to the Sacred Public Square- The goal should not be a society in which religion dominates the public square.
Chapter 5: Say No to the Naked Public Square- The goal should not be a society in which religion must be kept exclusively private, and only secularism is permitted in the public square.
Chapter 6: A Cosmopolitan and Civil Public Square- Guinness lays out his own view of a way forward in the public square that is respectful of religion and irreligion.
Chapter 7: Starting with Ourselves- Where do we start in achieving Guinness's vision of a civil public square?
Afterword: The Williamsburg Charter- This was a document on freedom of religion that Guinness created in celebration of the bicentennial of the First Amendment religious liberty clauses. This was a leading statement on religious liberty in the 20th century.
I really enjoyed this book, and I believe his diagnosis of the problem with American society is correct. It has led me to (try to) be more civil in public disagreements, realizing that there is a very real sense in which our grandkids are depending on us figuring out how to make our points to each other without acting like complete turds.
I appreciated also that though Guinness is a Christian, he is quite willing to lay blame at the feet, not only of the new atheists and ultra progressives, but also at the feet of the moral majority and Religious Right. These extremes have set a tone for public debate that is not sustainable in a nation that has such a diverse beliefs present. Okay, so what's the way forward? That's what The Case for Civility is about.
Table of Contents:
Chapter 1: A world safe for diversity- Here Guinness recognizes the reality of a diverse America and the problem of the uncivil and cantankerous tone of so many debates.
Chapter 2: The True Remedy- Here Guinness explores three political settlements in Western society that have beneficially shaped the relationship of religion and public life: one from France during the French Revolution, one from the English Glorious Revolution, and one from the American First Amendment. He argues that the 1st amendment did the best job of it.
Chapter 3: The Broken Settlement- History and contemporary events show how each of these settlements is in danger today.
Chapter 4: Say No to the Sacred Public Square- The goal should not be a society in which religion dominates the public square.
Chapter 5: Say No to the Naked Public Square- The goal should not be a society in which religion must be kept exclusively private, and only secularism is permitted in the public square.
Chapter 6: A Cosmopolitan and Civil Public Square- Guinness lays out his own view of a way forward in the public square that is respectful of religion and irreligion.
Chapter 7: Starting with Ourselves- Where do we start in achieving Guinness's vision of a civil public square?
Afterword: The Williamsburg Charter- This was a document on freedom of religion that Guinness created in celebration of the bicentennial of the First Amendment religious liberty clauses. This was a leading statement on religious liberty in the 20th century.
I really enjoyed this book, and I believe his diagnosis of the problem with American society is correct. It has led me to (try to) be more civil in public disagreements, realizing that there is a very real sense in which our grandkids are depending on us figuring out how to make our points to each other without acting like complete turds.
June 9, 2008
Taking into account that this book was written by a self-professed Christian / foreigner who has lived in the US for 20 years or so - it was about what I expected. While Guiness brings up the importance of addressing religious differences, I saw no clear, cohesive, comprehensive plan to implement this lofty goal; especially in the public forum. He advocates for the importance of respecting and representing all religions in the "sacred public square" and says that all faiths should be represented, but when that representation of one faith is offensive to another and can cause civil unrest, especially in today's politically correct society in the US, how can this goal be achieved? How can we properly represent all faiths and take into account conflicting values in the public forum? Again, there is no clearly thought out plan other than his insistence that we all just respect everyone's right to hold whatever viewpoints they may have, but realize that just because they hold it, does not mean that it is correct, and that through dialog and discussion, we can persuade individuals from their incorrect assumptions and faulty beliefs. Taking into account that persuading one from the "faulty beliefs" of their faith rarely, if ever works, this text comes off as pretentious and flat out asinine... There's a reason that as a culture we have relegated certain topics to the private sphere...
June 5, 2016
If you can get over the fact that Guinness is a European critiquing America's civil issues then you will have much to glean from this book.
As we continue to be a pluralistic society, how will we manage our differences in the public civil square? Guinness offers a solution to that problem and gives a good amount of history about the French Revolution and Hitler's persuasion of the loss of liberty and freedom to offer weight to his claims. He also walks the reader through the positive results of allowing multiple worldviews to coincide and persuade one another rather than coerce. A timely book with the upcoming election's inevitable tension made this a relevant and informative read.
"The art of living with our deepest differences is not a luxury topic for philosophers or futurists, but an urgent matter for everyone concerned with civilized life and human survival."
As we continue to be a pluralistic society, how will we manage our differences in the public civil square? Guinness offers a solution to that problem and gives a good amount of history about the French Revolution and Hitler's persuasion of the loss of liberty and freedom to offer weight to his claims. He also walks the reader through the positive results of allowing multiple worldviews to coincide and persuade one another rather than coerce. A timely book with the upcoming election's inevitable tension made this a relevant and informative read.
"The art of living with our deepest differences is not a luxury topic for philosophers or futurists, but an urgent matter for everyone concerned with civilized life and human survival."
September 9, 2008
An articulate analysis of the current culture wars, historical perspective of America's legacy of religious liberty, and a proposal for creating public space for the kind of meaningful debate and deliberation that undergirds a rich and vibrant democracy. "We are living.. between the lightning and the thunder..." and Os Guinness makes an educated and passionate case for the "cosmopolitan and civil public square" that will not only revitalize America but also serve those around the world seeking a model of democracy for this new century. "The art of living with our deepest differences is not a luxury topic for philosophers or futurists, but an urgent matter for everyone concerned with civilized life and human survival. Civility is a key not only to civil society but to civilization itself."
October 27, 2008
This book was an appeal for Americans to stop shouting at each other about their political disagreements, and instead to use persuasion in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Author Os Guinness, who is from England, criticizes both the left and the right, and his outsider's perspective was beneficial, I thought. He thinks it's important for America to find its way back to its core values and a good kind of tolerance so that we can lead by example and point the way to a more civil international atmosphere as well. Sometimes his writing is a little dense, but those who hang in there with him might very well be persuaded by his reasoned, persuasive argument for a civil public square.
July 7, 2017
The author proposes a vision of civility in the American public square that "could be the key to resolving the culture wars, could be a stunning tribute to the brilliance of the 'great experiment' - a vision founded, primarily, in his Christian belief. He seems to think Christianity is the key because: it is "the worlds most numerous faith" ?? Although he states that we must find a middle ground between the Religious Right and the Secular Left, he goes on to make statements that suggest that he has very little respect for secular values: "We must face the 'fact' that the secularization theory is seriously flawed and damaging." I found his arguments weak, unconvincing and dissapointing.
August 16, 2016
A must read for those that are concerned about the political climate that is being created in today's world and, especially, in the U.S. Published in 2008, this is a call to learn to live with our differences and to put an end to the polarization and create an environment where real debate can take place.
June 18, 2009
A great treatise on the problems with the current level (or lack) of public discourse, with particular emphasis on why both the religious right and the secularist left are making the same basic mistakes.
Read
March 2, 2011An excellent book on why civility is so important in discussing politics and religion, no matter where your particular point of view is coming from.
June 18, 2012
A good read, about the cruciality free exercise of religion in America and how a return to civility in true debate could model a better peace for the whole world.
May 18, 2013
An outsider looked at the USA and why it is important for this country to reinvigorate civility.
October 26, 2016
A remarkable, prophetic volume. Perhaps if it had been better known and read when it was originally published (in 2008), the US wouldn't be in its current electoral predicament.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews